TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Why banning of homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 4 [5]

quote:

Awww, she's actually cute... I guess we can put up with her then

Thank you.( I think?)

quote:

I have seen the face of God!

lol no you haven't.
Cause, if you did,you wouldn't be around to talk about it.

quote:

Actually, I have to work hard to get it NOT to stay like a fro. That's just how it stays on its own... all I have to do is "fluff it up" in the morning, lol

lol sounds like my older sisters hair,she has curly hair, and it she doesn't gel it.. :: POOF ::

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Thanks Nellie Alright, my job here is done, I'm going to sleeeeep

lol..you're welcome.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Thank you.( I think?)

Yes, it was a compliment.

quote:

lol no you haven't. Cause, if you did,you wouldn't be around to talk about it.

And yet here I am... how did this happen!?

quote:

lol sounds like my older sisters hair,she has curly hair, and it she doesn't gel it.. :: POOF ::

Yep, that's the one, except make it excessively curly (or rather wavy), to the extent where you can actually comb it 10 times in the other direction and it will still stay in the same place.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut And yet here I am... how did this happen!?

::shrugs::

quote:

Yep, that's the one, except make it excessively curly (or rather wavy), to the extent where you can actually comb it 10 times in the other direction and it will still stay in the same place.

That must not be fun!

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut God appeared to me in a dream and told me to expect pictures in this thread... has he forsaken me? Why would God lie?

God told Pat Robertson that GWB will win in a landslide, so I guess we'll find out if God is a liar or not.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 and Fox..eh, it doesn't lie.

LMAO.

When I used to watch Fox (for fun) during the war, every five minutes they'd proclaim that WMDs or mobile weapons labs had been found. Usually it turned out to be an ice cream truck, or some other such absurdity.


When the Pakistanis had a "high value target" cornered that was suspected to be Bin Laden's right hand man, Faux claimed that he was, and I quote, "captured." Obviously that was a lie.

You can watch that channel for an hour and easily count two or three lies or misleading statements. Although the other cable "news" channels are also horrible, none of them intentionally mislead their viewers to the degree that Fox does.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Oh come on now arctic, we've been over this before, and that's how we came to the compromise of civil unions!

Ah, but I've actually (gasp!) changed my mind since then.

quote:

There is simply no way to have an appropriate "screening" process for infertile couples, or heterosexual couples who just don't want children (besides, they might change their minds).

Agreed. Therefore, denying gays marriage would see a bit illogical to me. Gays might be naturally infertile if you like, but they aren't 'practically' infertile, they still have kids by other means. Since the last gay marriage thread I've re-examined my position on this, and basically concluded that gays shouldn't be excluded from this, as thanks to modern technology, they too are fertile.

quote:

If a gay man wants to marry a lesbian woman, they'll still get all the benefits - they're no "screening" process for gays here either. It's just silly to grant marriage to situations which are totally guaranteed not to produce offspring.

Then again, what if the gay man and the lesbian were to adopt a nice little boy from an orphanage in Africa? However remote the chances, they could still end up with children in the end.

quote:

Homosexuals aren't being denied anything because of genetics. They can still get married already - to a woman!

Which of course completely ignores the fact that they aren't attracted to women (or men if they happen to be lesbians). Would you agree with the following:

1) Heterosexuality has a genetic and/or biological component, and by the time someone has reached the legal age of consent, is not a choice.
2) Homosexuality has a genetic and/or biological component, and by the time someone has reached the legal age of consent, is not a choice.

If we can agree there, then it would seem to me that by definition, the state denying marriage licences to homosexual couples is discriminatory. Besides, if the tables were somehow turned in the future, and the state was only issuing marriage licences to gays, couldn't the same argument be turned around and used on you? "Heterosexual males can get married - to a man!"

quote:

In fact, as above, a gay man could easily get married to a lesbian woman. A same-sex marriage is the same element of "choice" as polygamy. Surely these people can't *help* their attractions to 5 separate women any more than the man can *help* his attraction to the other man he wants to marry?

Just as an infertile heterosexual could marry another infertile heterosexual when there is no element of love involved whatsoever - they don't even have to live together. The marriage system can just as easily be defrauded today as it could be if gays were to be allowed to marry. Again, I think we're heading down road where we both declare our dislike for the state getting involved in marriages, although this time we wont compromise on civil unions.

As for the polygamy issue, I don't actually see why polygamy should be outlawed - if people are into that, then good for them. Personally I couldn't stand being in a polygamous relationship, as I value exclusivity (as most people do), but if someone likes that then who am I to get in their way.

That being said, there is still a major distinction to be made between polygamy and homosexuality. Polygamy isn't a type of sexual orientation, it's simply the state of being married to multiple people. I see your point when it comes to polygamous chaps being no more able to choose who they love than homosexuals. However, polygamous people can choose not to be polygamous so to speak. they're perfectly able to fall in love with one person, whereas homosexuals are apparently biologically (and possibly genetically) 'forced' to be gay. They have to love people of the same sex, whereas polygamous people can love one or more people.

quote:

Reason for civil union is to give them the "rights" they seek without having to redefine marriage itself (because the logical conclusion of such an event would be for it to also include incest and polygamy).

Logically, yes, but in practice, no. Let me explain - a lot of gay rights activists seem to run with the argument that because homosexuality is not a choice, denying them marriage isn't fair. Only then do they add the 'it doesn't hurt anyone' or 'it's beneficial to society to help gay families' reasoning on to their case. Whenever I discuss this issue in real life, the number one reason people seem to have for supporting gay marriage is because it isn't a choice. When incest or polygamy is brought up, they immediately roll out the �Hah! They are choices!� argument, and for them, that's that. There's also the fact that (in part) due to homosexuality not being a choice, they invariably end up with reasonably large gay rights organizations and pressure groups. Due to incest and polygamy not begin inherent sexual orientations, they basically don't seem to have the numbers to organize lobbyists or campaigns that can effectively change public (and political) opinion to further their cause.

I also believe that simply calling them civil unions is foolhardy, because once civil unions become widespread, people will begin to view them as normal and the stigma attached to them will simply disappear. People will view them in the same way that they view marriage. Asking someone 'are you married' or 'how's the marriage been so far?' is much easier than 'are you civil union'd?'
As acceptance grows � they'll end up being called marriages. I think that this might actually happened within a few decades of civil unions being legalized (if they are indeed legalized as opposed to homosexual marriages being allowed), but no doubt others will disagree. Either way, I view homosexual marriage as inevitable. Calling them civil unions is just a way of delaying the inevitable.

That aside, calling them civil unions when in practice they're exactly the same as marriage, to me at least � seems a bit silly.

quote:

If marriage, to you is solely about commitment to one you love, then civil unions as a compromise should be a no-brainer; insisting on the marriage "title" is solely to make a public statement.

*whips out benefits list - http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm*

We both know that marriage isn't exclusively about committing to the person you love. There's also the tax breaks, the benefits you gain and so on. Insisting on the marriage title to me is necessary, as without it, it signifies the government discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, something that (in Australia at lease) was recently made illegal. Besides � in practice they are marriages, so why not call them that?

quote:

Stop replying to the fundies, we already know they have nothing useful to say.

But it's so much fun.

Your point about the dictionary definitions is an interesting one, although I'm more inclined to go along with what Epicurus said � sorry.

That out of the way, Epicurus did a far better job of articulating his position than I did. Revert to his post if mine contains any flaws or errors. To stray even further off topic - welcome to the forums Epicurus, it's always god to have people that agree with me about.

quote:

I also believe that simply calling them civil unions is foolhardy, because once civil unions become widespread, people will begin to view them as normal and the stigma attached to them will simply disappear. People will view them in the same way that they view marriage. Asking someone 'are you married' or 'how's the marriage been so far?' is much easier than 'are you civil union'd?' As acceptance grows � they'll end up being called marriages. I think that this might actually happened within a few decades of civil unions being legalized (if they are indeed legalized as opposed to homosexual marriages being allowed), but no doubt others will disagree. Either way, I view homosexual marriage as inevitable. Calling them civil unions is just a way of delaying the inevitable. That aside, calling them civil unions when in practice they're exactly the same as marriage, to me at least � seems a bit silly.

It's actually quite significant, because it reinforces the separation of church and state. Marriage is, and in the foreseeable future will be, a religious institution in the minds of many, if not a majority, of the population. According to the principle of separation of church and state, religious marriage and legal marriage need to be two completely separate things. And, as a general rule, if two things are completely different and unrelated, they should probably not be called the same thing.

You�re right that most people will still simply call the people �married.� But that�s really beside the point. You could call them �civil union�d,� �hitched,� �fuselaged,� or just be honest and call them �imprisoned.� But that really doesn�t matter. What�s important is that, from a legal standpoint, there is a strict line of demarcation between marriage as a religious institution and civil unions as a legal and social institution. Using a different word in formal legal practice facilitates this goal and reaffirms the lack of a connection between the two institutions.

Arctic, I'm going to keep this very simple.

Your entire argument, and the entire argument of the gay community, really relies upon the notion that homosexuals can't "choose who they love/are attracted to" so to speak.

That's fine. Whether I choose to accept it as biological or not is not the issue. That's why homosexuality isn't outlawed. It's not considered rape. It's not considered sodomy. There's no law against the practice in terms of love or sexuality.

Marriage isn't, wasn't, and never will be about love. That is a subjective, ideal definition that holds no meaning or value in the modern world except to push a personal agenda. Simply because you are in love with someone does not give you the right to government benefits derived from a union with them. Marriage originated as a religious term and we can either continue to see it as that, or we can alternatively define those benefits as family benefits - NOT "love" benefits. They are there to encourage family and, whether or not a gay couple can adopt or not is not relevant to the issue either; they have no chance of producing offspring, therefore they have no chance of getting the benefits. Adoption is not a form of fertility - someone else had to produce that child. Neither is insemination - some man had to give them the sperm. If a relationship depends on a 3rd-party in order to produce offspring then it is not, in and of itself, a sustainable family.

People cloud the issue with their own personal emotions and the "human" element but don't seem to comprehend that it simply isn't an emotional issue. Marriage is between a man and woman ipso facto, by definition, and where that definition was derived from is immaterial. We don't see gay couples complaining that they should have the right to coitus too. The word usage is specific to two members of opposite sexes - it really doesn't matter where it came from or why.

But nevertheless, the government caved in anyway and gave them what they wanted despite that argument - they said okay, you can HAVE all the benefits you're asking for, you just have to come up with your own new word for it, because "marriage" happens to be taken already. And yet somehow that wasn't enough, they rejected this, it had to be "equated" with marriage despite the fact that it was completely outside the realm of marriage's objective definition.

It's tiring to live in a world where words now mean whatever someone else wants them to mean, instead of what they really mean. Postmodernism was the worst philosophy ever to come to light and if I could go back in time to kill its founders, I would. It's nothing more than a semantic game - someone else is awarded a privilege and you want it too, so instead of doing the same things they did in order to be awarded that privilege, you redefine the language used to determine who is awarded that privilege so that the language includes you too. If they refuse, discrimination is afoot, and that is a very very bad thing (since when?).

If you can't find a solution, just redefine the problem so that it's already solved, right?

To summarize, and I stand by my convictions on this one: your entire argument on this subject is based around a subjective personal interpretation of marriage that is entirely divorced (no pun intended) from its objective definition. It is thus patently incorrect on a physical level and is simply an appeal to emotion, which is a fairly good explanation for why it is such a popular belief among women. There is no logic to the position you state - or rather, there is, but it's built on a foundation of subjective emotions that no rational mind would willingly accept over an objective definition.

I still believe that the entire marital system is flawed at its core and should be totally disposed of and replaced with civil unions period, with the union being a contract between anyone and anyone, even mother and son for all I care. But that needs to be done from the ground up, not by misapplying the constitution in order to force odd amendments to existing law. If the government doesn't want to trash everything religious in origin and start over again from scratch, then homosexuals are going to have to settle for civil unions for now because marriage is a very specific narrow term that happens to exclude a man and a man or a woman and a woman. It's not going to mean something else simply because we want it to. It means what it means, period.

I'm sure that many disagree, but to me, all these activists pushing for gay marriages are like spoiled children nagging their parents to buy a new toy. I think the government needs to be the stern parent, put its foot down, and say enough is enough, stop your whining and go to your room!

Heh, it's kinda tireing to reiterate the same old argument again and again, so I'll just say that I wholeheartedly agree with Diginut's last post.

Wow, now that I look at Nessa, I'd never say she's a fundie... If I just saw her walking by down the street I'd say she's a normal, maybe even liberal sort of person. Looks can be decieving, I guess...

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ LMAO. When I used to watch Fox (for fun) during the war, every five minutes they'd proclaim that WMDs or mobile weapons labs had been found. Usually it turned out to be an ice cream truck, or some other such absurdity.

They didn't proclaim they found WMD's and mobile weapon labs were found.
They did say there was a chemical lab (if you will) was found,because there was one found. But, you are exagerating.

quote:

When the Pakistanis had a "high value target" cornered that was suspected to be Bin Laden's right hand man, Faux claimed that he was, and I quote, "captured." Obviously that was a lie.

And howcome I don't recall this happening?

quote:

You can watch that channel for an hour and easily count two or three lies or misleading statements. Although the other cable "news" channels are also horrible, none of them intentionally mislead their viewers to the degree that Fox does.

Fox doesn't "mislead" or "lie".
Want to talk about lies? ha, Go read the New York times..or hey how about the USA today? They just got caught for lying aswell.

quote:

Wow, now that I look at Nessa, I'd never say she's a fundie... If I just saw her walking by down the street I'd say she's a normal, maybe even liberal sort of person. Looks can be decieving, I guess...

lol not liberal. Just not religious, I'm not up tight.
(I know that my music has a lot of influence on the way I dress, but why should it be such a shocker that I look that way?)

Re: Why banning of homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed

quote:

Originally posted by Kamikaze Badger From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Banning homosexual marriage would be a contridiction to Article 16 part 1, as you see. Therefor, President Bush, as President of the United States, which is a member of the United Nations, has no rights to ban marriage of homosexuals, as Article 16 part 1 rules that men and women of full age have the right to marry. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be found at http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

The names says it all! And give or take, the declaration declares free rights to anyone to do as they please. No where does it say gay marriages are not allowed. Bush is not to be elected next year! As for bush recollecting john kerry on taxes for gas, he had the idea first am I right?

Aaron, you might want to check Merriam-Webster again....

Main Entry: mar�riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union

Main Entry: common-law marriage
Function: noun
1 : a marriage recognized in some jurisdictions and based on the parties' agreement to consider themselves married and sometimes also on their cohabitation




Arctic- I'm so glad you changed your point of view, considering towards the end of that last thread, I was mainly arguing with you


I've already noted the difference between Civil Unions and Marriages and the reasons why a homosexual individual would prefer the latter, whether or not some of you choose to recognize my post, is completely up to you.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 And howcome I don't recall this happening?

Actually, I remember that some other news station reported that the "high value target" was captured, but I can't recall which one.

quote:

Fox doesn't "mislead" or "lie". Want to talk about lies? ha, Go read the New York times..or hey how about the USA today? They just got caught for lying aswell.

Heh, every news source misleads or lies at one moment or another. It's usually difficult or impossible to get the real picture from watching one news outlet only.

quote:

lol not liberal. Just not religious, I'm not up tight. (I know that my music has a lot of influence on the way I dress, but why should it be such a shocker that I look that way?)

Well I was kinda expecting you'll be looking more like this:

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Actually, I remember that some other news station reported that the "high value target" was captured, but I can't recall which one.

Well,I'm almost 100% it wasn't fox. Because, I don't remeber hearing anything about that.

quote:

Heh, every news source misleads or lies at one moment or another. It's usually difficult or impossible to get the real picture from watching one news outlet only.

Fox isn't my only news source.

quote:

Well I was kinda expecting you'll be looking more like this:

Ah..lol well, She's pretty. But,I don't know..lol I have a think for bright colors ( thus my red hair.) Something eye catching. ::shrugs:: Just how my family is.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Fox isn't my only news source.

LOL Politcal Forum goes COR

Okay - sorry for bumping this, I know it's a little old, but I did want to get back to Diginut on this.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter It's actually quite significant, because it reinforces the separation of church and state. Marriage is, and in the foreseeable future will be, a religious institution in the minds of many, if not a majority, of the population. According to the principle of separation of church and state, religious marriage and legal marriage need to be two completely separate things. And, as a general rule, if two things are completely different and unrelated, they should probably not be called the same thing. You�re right that most people will still simply call the people �married.� But that�s really beside the point. You could call them �civil union�d,� �hitched,� �fuselaged,� or just be honest and call them �imprisoned.� But that really doesn�t matter. What�s important is that, from a legal standpoint, there is a strict line of demarcation between marriage as a religious institution and civil unions as a legal and social institution. Using a different word in formal legal practice facilitates this goal and reaffirms the lack of a connection between the two institutions.

Good point, I'm perfectly happy to concede on this one. In reality though (taking the Us as an example � considering the formidable influence and power that the religious right wields) , what chance do you think there is of getting the word marriage completely dropped and replaced with 'civil union' or something similar? As an atheist, separation of church and state is something that I view as fundamentally important � and as such, the religious implications and the word marriage carries around are needless to say, somewhat disturbing to me. As long as homosexual and heterosexual marriages are called the same thing, I have no axe to grind. Ideally, it would be great if the word marriage was dropped completely, but sadly, it's probably an unrealistic goal.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Arctic, I'm going to keep this very simple.

Sounds good to me.

quote:

Your entire argument, and the entire argument of the gay community, really relies upon the notion that homosexuals can't "choose who they love/are attracted to" so to speak.

Not necessarily. Even if homosexuality wasn't genetically and/or biologically determined and so forth, I'd still see no problem with legalizing homosexual marriages, just as I have no problem With polygamy and it's ilk.

quote:

That's fine. Whether I choose to accept it as biological or not is not the issue. That's why homosexuality isn't outlawed. It's not considered rape. It's not considered sodomy. There's no law against the practice in terms of love or sexuality.

Actually, I think you're wrong there. A fair few middle eastern nations still have strong anti-gay laws on the books, and from memory a few US states still have sodomy laws in place (I'm not entirely sure if these laws are still on the books however � any Americans about, feel free to correct me). Then there's the US military policy with regards to homosexuality which is effectively a law against it in terms of love and sexuality, as it basically stops homosexuals from 'practising', so to speak. There's also the US government's backing of the boy scouts who officially discriminate against gays, and atheists for that matter.

quote:

Marriage isn't, wasn't, and never will be about love. That is a subjective, ideal definition that holds no meaning or value in the modern world except to push a personal agenda.

Really? When someone proposes, what exactly do you think is going through their head? (hint � it probably isn't �OH MY GOD, I'm going to get the best tax breaks ever from this, this is so cool!�)

It's my understanding that the majority of couples do indeed get married because they love each other. Whether it's rational or not, many people (religious and non-religious alike) seem to view marriage as something that legitimises their relationship, it takes it to the next level, to coin a phrase. Getting married somehow makes their life complete. I'd go as far as saying that some people don't give a second thought to the accompanying financial & legal benefits, although many no doubt do. I don't think that stating that marriage is about love is overly idealistic or utopian. I argue that it is because that's why most people appear to get married � because they love each other. If you don't think that most (or many, either will do) people tie the knot because of love, then why do they do it? I've never spoken to anyone who got married solely for anything else other than love. Ask an engaged couple why (primarily) they are getting hitched. I'd be very surprised if love isn't the number one thing that comes out.

That being said, I could be completely off the mark here. Luckily, I don't view the love argument as being an integral part of my case � discrimination is discrimination, regardless of whether love is the primary driving force behind marriage.

quote:

Simply because you are in love with someone does not give you the right to government benefits derived from a union with them. Marriage originated as a religious term and we can either continue to see it as that, or we can alternatively define those benefits as family benefits - NOT "love" benefits.

On the first point agreed. Of course, that applies to both straight and gay couples alike. I think this is the part were we both agree that the marriage system is fucked up, and that it should either be overhauled � or the state should just withdraw from it completely. Unfortunately, I can't envisage that happening, and that's one of the main reasons (if not the main reason) that I now support gay marriage.

quote:

They are there to encourage family and, whether or not a gay couple can adopt or not is not relevant to the issue either; they have no chance of producing offspring, therefore they have no chance of getting the benefits.

As I mentioned in the last thread � if the government wants to stay in the marriage business, then perhaps they could somehow just give benefits to couples with children. Again, the chances of this happening in next century are a million to one. You appear to be advocating a point of view that if children aren't conceived the 'natural' way, then the household they live in somehow isn't a proper family, deserving of benefits. If this is the case, why? If not, then can you clarify where you're coming from here? Why does it matter whether they can naturally produce offspring? If they use a surrogate mother or father, or adopt, then they still have children to raise and look after. How is the origin of their kids of any relevance?

quote:

Adoption is not a form of fertility - someone else had to produce that child. Neither is insemination - some man had to give them the sperm. If a relationship depends on a 3rd-party in order to produce offspring then it is not, in and of itself, a sustainable family.

Taking a lesbian couple as an example - yes, they'll have used another (possibly anonymous) person to fertilize their eggs. However, it's also highly likely that the third person involved will have absolutely no contact with the child(ren). Thus, the lesbian couple will be bringing up the baby. They still have the same responsibilities that any other couple does � their child simply has a biological parent that they don't know & contributes nothing to their upbringing. In my mind, this makes the actual functioning parents deserving of the same benefits as any other couple. I honestly don't see why the way the child was conceived should have any bearing on whether the legal guardians receive benefits.

You seem to be working off the concept of an ideal marriage where only 'fertile' couples are allowed the benefits assigned to marriage (of course ruling out older couples, infertile couples, couples who don't want children � and so on and so forth). Whilst I might not necessarily disagree with the idea, I still don't see why gay couples and straight couples who need assistance to conceive (sperm donations, IVF etc.) should be denied marriage benefits? Why is the notion of a sustainable family relevant here?

The above arguments also depend on the notion that family and offspring are the primary purpose of marriage, which I disagree with. At present, love, commitment and so on are major components of marriage, whether we like it or not.

quote:

People cloud the issue with their own personal emotions and the "human" element but don't seem to comprehend that it simply isn't an emotional issue. Marriage is between a man and woman ipso facto, by definition, and where that definition was derived from is immaterial. We don't see gay couples complaining that they should have the right to coitus too. The word usage is specific to two members of opposite sexes - it really doesn't matter where it came from or why.

That's the thing though - marriage itself is an emotional issue. That's why people get married in the first place, emotion.

Disregarding the above and running on the premise that marriage is indeed currently, by definition, between a man and a woman, I still think that the point fails. We (humans) defined marriage. Marriage is a man made institution, and is therefore subject to change. It isn't some objective object that isn't up for debate. You can't point to marriage like you can point to a planet. In my mind, that makes the definition argument a bit weak. Why shouldn't we alter the definition? The only reason marriage is defined as between a man and a woman is because as it is currently in place, it was originally a religious institution. As it stands, marriage, the religious institution, and civil marriages, the state institution, have become disturbingly intertwined. The man and a woman point originated from a religion that is objectively false, and due to Christianity being the dominant religion in the western world, marriage as we know it today seems to have grown out of Christianity, accounting for the fact that gays have traditionally been denied the 'right' to marry. I view gays being denied marriage as it is currently in place as wilful and unashamed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Unrealistic and utopian ideas for the reformation of civil marriages aside � if we throw out the concept of equal rights under the law with regards to homosexual marriage, then we have a legitimate (i.e. - non fallacious) slippery slope situation on our hands.

Now, after saying that, I'm sorry to inform you that marriage is apparently also defined by Merriam-Webster and other 'dictionary companies' (or whatever the correct term is) as being between either a man or a woman or two members of the same sex. Whether you think it's a good thing to be messing with definitions or not, it's already happened. You also seem to claim that the word usage is specific to a man and a woman. Assuming, perhaps incorrectly of course, that you are referring to general usage, then I beg to differ. Speaking from personal experience, people currently refer to same-sex unions as marriages.

All this disagreement over a simple word. Does is really matter if we call it marriage, is it actually going to affect anyone in an adverse way?

quote:

But nevertheless, the government caved in anyway and gave them what they wanted despite that argument - they said okay, you can HAVE all the benefits you're asking for, you just have to come up with your own new word for it, because "marriage" happens to be taken already. And yet somehow that wasn't enough, they rejected this, it had to be "equated" with marriage despite the fact that it was completely outside the realm of marriage's objective definition.

Your government perhaps, we still haven't got that far here. I still see a problem with not calling it marriage � a convincing case could be made that it qualifies as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Separate but equal, which invariably tends to piss people off. For me, the word they use isn't the main issue, as gays still can't get civil unions here, but I can see why others might get up in arms about it.

quote:

It's tiring to live in a world where words now mean whatever someone else wants them to mean, instead of what they really mean. Postmodernism was the worst philosophy ever to come to light and if I could go back in time to kill its founders, I would. It's nothing more than a semantic game - someone else is awarded a privilege and you want it too, so instead of doing the same things they did in order to be awarded that privilege, you redefine the language used to determine who is awarded that privilege so that the language includes you too. If they refuse, discrimination is afoot, and that is a very very bad thing (since when?).

Not knowing anything about post-modernism, I wont presume to comment on whether it's merits. My position has always been that words should bee open for definition (to an extent), unless they're objectively/physically written into the universe in some shape or form. For instance, within the English language, renaming or redefining planet would be somewhat idiotic. The word marriage, however, should be open to reinterpretation, as if society and it's social institutions change and progress, then so should should their definitions. Of course, I've never really examined the issue at depth, so I'll make an attempt to read up on post modernism in the near future. Any other terms or philosophies that are also relevant and/or worth reading up on?

quote:

If you can't find a solution, just redefine the problem so that it's already solved, right?

Hmm. The way I see it, in this case at least - 'the problem' is always going to be redefined, as the nature of society & social institutions is to change and progress.

quote:

To summarize, and I stand by my convictions on this one: your entire argument on this subject is based around a subjective personal interpretation of marriage that is entirely divorced (no pun intended) from its objective definition. It is thus patently incorrect on a physical level and is simply an appeal to emotion, which is a fairly good explanation for why it is such a popular belief among women. There is no logic to the position you state - or rather, there is, but it's built on a foundation of subjective emotions that no rational mind would willingly accept over an objective definition.

This is how I see it. Not calling civil unions (presuming that civil unions are restricted to gays) marriages is, whether anyone likes it or not, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It's also against all known notions of equality under the law. The 'separate but equal' idea doesn't stand up in my opinion. Your position would ultimately fail if we simply replaced the word marriage with a new word. Let's suppose that we started calling civil marriages barriages (sheesh � I hope that isn't a word already ). That would sufficiently take care of your concerns over dictionary definitions, and the worries over state sanctioned discrimination. To me, the whole 'but the dictionary definition used to say that it was exclusively between a man a woman!' argument has no logic in it. Oddly enough, I see your position to be irrational, as the dictionary definition appears to have changed.

*Shrugs*. Where do we go from here?

As you know, I agree with you when you say that the current marriage system, well, completely fucked, and needs to be replaced. The points on the definition of the marriage have already been harped over earlier in this post, so going over the same points and arguments isn't going to help anything.

quote:

I'm sure that many disagree, but to me, all these activists pushing for gay marriages are like spoiled children nagging their parents to buy a new toy. I think the government needs to be the stern parent, put its foot down, and say enough is enough, stop your whining and go to your room!

Haha, interesting analogy.

Well arctic, we seem to agree that the system is screwed up and needs an overhaul. Where we differ is on the suggestion of what to do with it. I think we should keep it the way it is and stop it from getting even more screwed up - you think since it's already screwed up, we might as well go the extra mile with it.

Again I'm hearing this love stuff, but you're looking at it from an emotional point of view, not an institutional point of view. I didn't say that people don't get married because they're in love - of course they do - but the association of marriage with love is mostly a relic from religious times and an artifact of trashy romantic ideology.

Civil marriages, which again SHOULD be separate from religious marriages but are not, have nothing whatsoever to do with love from an institutional point of view. You don't have to be in love to marry, and as is often the case, some people are not (the term "gold digger" comes to mind). And besides, since love is a highly subjective and personal idea, it doesn't lead us very far in coming up with a concrete marital system.

Realistically, the CIVIL marriage system was always very closely tied in with the "nuclear" family - mom, dad, and 2.2 kids. That may not be how you view it now, but since you are so insistent on considering the origins of the words we use, it's important to note this fact. Civil systems considered this type of family the norm, it was considered to be "healthy" and - in essence - the backbone of civilized society, and if you examine specifically how the marital system works, you can see that it is highly tailored to this nuclear family (for example, income tax law and the system of dependants).

But now the nuclear family is dead. It is no longer seen as the norm and is definitely not considered the backbone of society (which is something I've always viewed as a failure of society because it was a very good family model). Removing my personal opinion of the nuclear family though, the origins and purposes of civil marriage should not be so easily discounted. It was only after the failure of the nuclear family that divorce rates started to grow exponentially, mainly because the term marriage was tossed around like a baseball, and people began to see it as a kind of temporary expression of love rather than a permanent commitment.

I'm getting a little off topic here but the point is, marriage as an institution has nothing to do with love or sex. While it may be true that love and attraction are often the factors leading up to marriage, this isn't something that's taken into account at all from a government/civil/policy standpoint. We're looking at this issue from the wrong side of the window - what matters here is not the individual's reasons for wanting to get married but the societal reasons for having such an institution in the first place. All arrows point to marriage being a failed institution and needing to be scrapped or redone, but NOT simply "amended" to include whoever wants in on it. That is in fact going in the exact opposite direction we want to go with marriage, making present day society increasingly dependent on this failed institution.

Marrige may seem like a highly personal thing to individuals, and perhaps it is, but there is a critical flaw in structuring an entire public institution around personal desire - it's absolutely useless to society as a whole. Whereas other institutions like welfare and health care have general benefits to society as a whole, marriage in the "love" sense that you are talking about has no societal benefit whatsoever, it benefits only the "individual" at government expense.

Again, I'll stress that the same conditions apply to heterosexual marriages as well ever since the nuclear family failed - but adding homosexual marriages to the mix is like putting a bandaid on someone's knee when they've got a major head wound. It's pointless, it accomplishes nothing for society as a whole and just wastes resources.

So we can either kill marriage (not likely to happen), or just let it bleed to death (which may very well happen). Trying to fix it up so more people are happy with it is the exact opposite of what we want as a society.

There's no morals involved in this whatsoever. It's just common sense. And it disturbs me that civil unions were rejected, because civil unions were not limited to the gay community and could easily have been used as a stepping stone to create a new, useful, sustainable marital system for everyone.

As for your claim about some countries/states banning homosexual behaviour period - fine, they shouldn't ban that, but lifting those bans has no relevance to the issue at hand. We're talking about the USA's ban on gay marriages, not some backward middle-eastern Theocracy's wacky laws.

Hey, Alabama is fixing to put a referendum on their ballot this fall like us here in Georgia to outlaw gay marriage! What another hoot!

quote:

Panel: Outlaw gay marriage Committee approves bill's 1-man, 1-woman definition By Bob Johnson Associated Press Writer MONTGOMERY � A House committee Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman and outlaw same-sex marriages. The bill passed the House Constitution and Elections Committee without dissent, but committee members broke into a partisan fight over whether to hold the referendum on the amendment during the Nov. 2 presidential election. The committee passed the amendment, sponsored by Rep. Yusuf Salaam, D-Selma, on a 12-0 vote, with two abstentions. The state already has a law defining marriage, but the measure approved by the committee would etch that definition into the constitution. The amendment now goes to the full House. "I believe this is good for Alabama and good for America," said Salaam, the only Muslim member of the Legislature. The bill was proposed by Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Tuscaloosa, after a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling mandated that the Legislature in that state approve a system for marriages between gay couples. Salaam's amendment is similar to a measure proposed by Rep. Gerald Allen to ban gay marriages. His bill would have also prohibited courts from changing the definition of marriage. That language was not included in Salaam's amendment. "I believe marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman and is the bedrock of our society," Allen said. While committee members were in agreement on the definition of marriage, they were far apart when it came to setting a date for a referendum to decide the issue. The bill sets the referendum for the date of party primary elections in 2006, but Republicans moved to change that date to Nov. 2, the date of this year's presidential election.

[[[smoke]]]

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.