quote:

Dude,they already have equal rights. The have the same rights we do,no more..No less.

Nellie, no they don't. In fact, we've been discussing why they don't in this thread and others.

quote:

The definition of marriage is pretty irrelevant as it is because most homosexuals aren't so much interested in their unions being known as marriages as they are receiving the legal rights associated with marriage.

yes they want their rights but ALSO, most homosexual couples I know do INDEED feel that a word to distinguish their unions from heterosexual unions is "offensive". Now whether it's called marriage or not is immaterial. As long as both homo and hetero unions are called "the same thing", then there shouldn't be any problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Nellie, no they don't. In fact, we've been discussing why they don't in this thread and others.

They are American citizens,and people. They have the exact same rights the rest of us do.

quote:

Actually, I just told you that I wouldn't do anything cause "your looks are your looks". So in conclusion, you do know what I'd do: nothing.

And,should I trust you? Not sure about that.

___________________
~Nessa

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Interestingly, I looked up "marriage" in several different dictionaries and all of them define it as being specifically between a man and a woman or a husband and wife. It would seem to me that this entire issue is one much like the terrorism issue, with certain people redefining the word to suit their own ends.

marriage was started as a religious thing. all religions define it as between a man and a woman. of course, the dictionary definition follows... and so does the reality of the situation.

same-sex marriage has never been legal ANYWHERE until 1989, in europe.

I find it very suspicious they (the homosexuals) never wanted marriage until recently.. actually, they never became interested until the "marriage penalty" of the american tax system went away.

anyone else notice gay marriage didnt really flame up until the marriage penalty was removed?

It's ALL ABOUT A FU¢KING TAX BREAK.

has nothing to do with love OR commitment.

marriage should simply be abolished. I'm tired of all the married yuppies and thier pathetic limited contributions to society anyways.

quote:

Originally posted by MERiDiAN5i2 I'm tired of all the married yuppies and thier pathetic limited contributions to society anyways.

Heh, I like the cut of your jib.

i wonder how long the average homosexual marriage lasts anyways? is there a survey somewhere? they are mostly all sexual deviates anyways.

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus It seems to me you're slightly missing the point. Allow me to explain. Now, as you well know, definitions are labels that refer to certain things/acts/events etc that we can observe in this world/universe. They are simply shorthand notations to refer to "something". Now the definition of marriage might refer to a union between a man and a woman because we humans/linguists DECIDED that it should be such, probably based, in my opinion, on a heavy dose of religious influence from the past. It is in no way ipso facto. In fact it cannot be ipso facto unless the definition of marriage is somehow OBJECTIVELY written in the fabric of the universe. For that, you'd have to believe what Nellie (who is hot) believes Having said that, anything taken from the dictionary is "objective" until we/linguists DECIDE that there are grounds for ammending it. Gay couples feel that these grouds exist. In fact, they have two demands: 1) That their unions net the same rights as heterosexual unions. 2) That their unions are not discriminated (in any way, whether that be linguistically or otherwise) against on the SOLE basis of sexual preference. Obviously, calling homosexual unions civil unions and giving them all their rights would take care of 1) but would not take care of 2). Gays point out the the SOLE criteria distinguishing their unions from heterosexual ones is based on sexual preference, and they are right. If you are against discrimination of any kind (i.e. based on religion, race, gender, sexual preferece etc), then you have to concede their point. But that includes, amongst other things, the name or label you attribute to their union. Why should we have a DIFFERENT name to distinguish between hetero and homo unions? I see none whatsoever. To further make my point, let's take a hypothetical example. Assume that in a certain land far away populated by people of white skin ONLY, the white linguists decide to label marriage as a union between two white people. Like all definitions, they must be inspired by the actual environment/historical process that exists in this land. Now let's assume that suddenly, people of black skin come to this land and want to get married. The whites decide that since marriage is the union between two whites, they need to invent a new name for black unions. The sole basis for inventing a new word would be based on the colour of their skin. If you were against discrimination of all forms, you would be agaist that particular distinction and would therefore want to ammend the existing definition to include black unions. Finally, to summarize, I present you with the logic: - The act of marriage is not ipso facto between a man and a woman since it is not OBJECTIVELY written in the fabric of the universe. We simply decided that we were going to define it that way (Note that IF indeed it was ipso facto, then you'd have a point). - Definitions (of such things that are not ipso facto) are subject to change if there are grounds for ammending them. - Assumption: You believe that all forms of discrimination should not be tolerated. - Creating a new word that distinguishes between different unions SOLELY on the basis of sexual orientation is discrimination. - Conclusion: You are FOR the ammendement of the existing definition. Note that as a conclusion, you can also wish to create a new word that would englobe BOTH hetero and homo unions (thus not violating the above assumption), but personally, I think that's useless since ammending an existing definition is easier and makes more sense.

Wait a minute, Nellie is hot? DID SHE SEND YOU A PICTURE!!?? TELL ME!!! I NEED TO KNOW YOUR SOURCES!


LoL... but seriously, I'm with Arbiter and MERiDiAN, and I think what they say is really a lot better than any semantic argument I could drum up against you. I don't support gay marriages but under the current political situation I don't really support marriage at all, so it's silly to argue over technicalities.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

but seriously, I'm with Arbiter and MERiDiAN, and I think what they say is really a lot better than any semantic argument I could drum up against you

You're no fun

quote:

Wait a minute, Nellie is hot? DID SHE SEND YOU A PICTURE!!?? TELL ME!!! I NEED TO KNOW YOUR SOURCES!

I am still merely believing this on faith remember YOU, on the other hand, because of your stubborn requirement of physical proof in the form of a pic shall never enjoy the peace of mind (amongst other things) that I possess because of my faith

BWAHHAAAA! Us rednecks in Georgia are going to outlaw Homo Marriages in our constitution!

What a hoot!


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus I am still merely believing this on faith remember YOU, on the other hand, because of your stubborn requirement of physical proof in the form of a pic shall never enjoy the peace of mind (amongst other things) that I possess because of my faith

Check for a PM. Now, you can stop acting like this.

___________________
~Nessa

quote:

Check for a PM. Now, you can stop acting like this.

Acting like what...I'm simply being playful