gay marriages (merged)

[michael]

and, more succinctly:

who the fuck cares if the meaning of the word gets changed? language evolves, you know.

 

[The Word]

-- It's not about a word, it's about the MEANINGFUL institution of marriage. There's not much precedent for an institution of meaningful gay union. Why not create one? Given the state of marriage in this country, gay unions might even be seen as "superior." Why not let marriage stay marriage.
-- Sure, the institution is ailing, but so is society in general. Hmmmm.
-- Gays DO have the right to marry, as long as it's someone of the opposite sex. So I don't have any rights that they don't have - i.e. I can't marry a man.
-- I used to not buy the slippery slope argument, but now I kinda do:

That is, if we make the institution of marriage less specific, let's say "any two people who love each other" or "ANY union according to ANY religion" does that mean I can marry my mother? She's single! And why CAN'T I marry two or three people? It's a part of my "religion." And the government has to recognize all religions right? So now we have to "revise" something that's "just a word" again. And again and again. Or at least the legal system will get choked with people trying, or performing "unauthorized" polygamous marriages because they're the mayor of some city. Which brings me to:

-- Anarchy and complete disrespect for rule of law. The MAYOR of SanfuckingFranciso (read: huge city) and mayors of other cities nationwide are performing illegal bogus "marriages." I think this forcing of the issue clearly illustrates some of the REAL thinking behind "normalizing" the word/institution marriage.

 

[michael]

-- It's not about a word, it's about the MEANINGFUL institution of marriage. There's not much precedent for an institution of meaningful gay union.

there is, of course. several examples and links have been posted in this thread. ignoring something doesn't cause it to cease existing.

 

[Mellow*D]

i see, now it's not enough that it started out that way, now you want it to have remained that way, and further qualify it by adding 'western world' into the equation. sorry, don't have time to play move the goalposts anymore, but i will add this:

the premise of the statement i was arguing against stated that (paraphrased) "it shouldn't change because it has always been that way, forever." well, it wasn't always that way; it changed and evolved into something it wasn't originally. who is to say that it should not change again? a bunch of religious yahoos who want to project their morals onto society at large?

the argument "but marraige has always meant this and we shouldn't change it" is also patently false, as has been shown over and over; plus think about this - why is changing the meaning of a word so offensive to some?

whether or not any particular person wants it, ideas and constructs evolve. deal with it - you can't change it. you may as well not waste your energy fighting it, because it's going to happen anyway.

lol thankyou Big Brother!

 

[alasdairm]

-- Gays DO have the right to marry, as long as it's someone of the opposite sex. So I don't have any rights that they don't have - i.e. I can't marry a man.

this is nonsense and i suspect we both know it.

gay people don't have the right to marry the person they love.

alasdair

 

[Pasilda Nacera]

Are we allowed to marry two gay cats?

 

[michael]

That is, if we make the institution of marriage less specific, let's say "any two people who love each other" or "ANY union according to ANY religion" does that mean I can marry my mother? She's single! And why CAN'T I marry two or three people? It's a part of my "religion." And the government has to recognize all religions right? So now we have to "revise" something that's "just a word" again. And again and again. Or at least the legal system will get choked with people trying, or performing "unauthorized" polygamous marriages because they're the mayor of some city.

one last post before i got to bed:

i see we are back to the ol' if we allow x we must allow y arguement. see page 1 of this thread. also, what makes you think unauthorized polygamous marraiges don't have a long tradition in this country?

 

[dr seuss]

unauthorised polygamous marriages? what, as opposed to the authorised polygamour marriages in the bible, right?

for fuck's sakes. you're on the wrong side of history here, people - in 20 years time, i want you to sit back and savour the feeling. the feeling that comes when you realise that all your passionate intolerance has come to nothing, because the world has moved on without you

 

[michael]

well, he said it, but they aren't exactly uncommon in some mormon communities.

 

[Average Whiteboy]

[B
-- Anarchy and complete disrespect for rule of law. The MAYOR of SanfuckingFranciso (read: huge city) and mayors of other cities nationwide are performing illegal bogus "marriages." I think this forcing of the issue clearly illustrates some of the REAL thinking behind "normalizing" the word/institution marriage. [/B]

'Cause it's California, fool! We do what the fuck we want!!!

 

[dr seuss]

michael - sorrry, the comment was directed at him, not you

 

[michael]

ah, no problemo.

 

[Morrison's Lament]

This thread has teh ghey....

Seriously, though, what do you guys think about that mayor in NY state that got arrested for performing gay marriages?

---- G.

 

[michael]

i think they should throw the book at him

(the book of love, that is)




yeah yeah it's a bad joke

 

[Symmetrical Daze]

I am 100% hetero and 0% homo but I say, why not let the gay people get married? Its a violation of freedom and discrimination to keep them from enjoying marriage and the tax/insurance benefits.

 

[The Word]

-- I saw nothing on page 1 to refute the "if we allow x we must allow y" argument. I HAVE seen a lot of impassioned statements with no logic or evidence behind them. I've seen even more statements founded on anecdotal evidence (my cousin is gay and married and it's SO great!) or less. (tell me how it would hurt YOU, there is no harm, etc.) Well, it wouldn't hurt me. But it's my OPINION - and that of the majority of the country - that it quite possibly hurts the future of the institution of marriage as we currently know it.

-- Tell ME why YOU are so sure it won't hurt anyone or anything? The reality is that gays DONT CARE about any one else's closely-held belief in an institution. The DO CARE about getting their way regardless of any future social consequences. (Progress!) Because conservatives can't say for sure what negative future consequences might occur, gays see this as proof that none can. Sloppy irresponsible nonsense.

-- michael; if there ARE meaningful institutions of polygamy or gay union, EVEN BETTER. That essence of that point is, "what harm comes from having separate traditions?" That is, what meaning is lost for gays? In fact, might not additional meaning be GAINED?

-- Of course words change. Most who are opposed to "gay marriage" feel that "man and woman" is one of the CRITICAL components to marriage; if you remove that, you no longer have the same thing.

-- also for michael's big long bold post. Let's be absolutely clear that gays are the distinct minority. A lot of this pro-gay marriage rhetoric tries to make it sound like the majority is gay and there's only a few evil conservatives trying to "stand in the way of change and progress." Let's get real for a second. Again, the VAST majority of this country (majority rule, remember?) opposes gay marriage. How is the statement "marriage has always had 'between man and woman' in the meaning" PATENTLY false??? Just because a few people (a group or minority, read: gays) chose to think of marriage differently at some point in history, DOES NOT MEAN that the real underlying meaning ever changed.

-- alasdair: of course it's nonsense, but according to the current definition of marriage gays DO have the right to "marry." Love isn't the only requirement for marriage.

-- Pasilda has a good point. If we must recognize all religions and all their definitions of marriage, why CAN'T I create a sacred cat religion and marry gay cats? It's my equal RIGHT as an American, dammit! The government has no fucking business who I marry! But it better acknowledge that it's valid "marriage" and give me tax breaks!

-- dr seuss: again, "the world moving on without you" implies that only a small minority of the country opposes gay marriage and the majority is "valiantly moving forward into the future." Oh wait, except it's the exact opposite.

 

[StuffedTiger]

What they want is to destroy the portion of the meaning of the word "marriage" that is "exclusively between man and woman." Simply because marriage started with religion and that is it's tradition, I personally am opposed to this destruction of meaning. And that's ALL I'm opposed to

Well I already see marraige as a union of two people and see no reason to change that meaning.

 

[dr seuss]

-- also for michael's big long bold post. Let's be absolutely clear that blacks are the distinct minority. A lot of this pro-black rhetoric tries to make it sound like the majority is black and there's only a few evil conservatives trying to "stand in the way of change and progress." Let's get real for a second. Again, the VAST majority of this country (majority rule, remember?) opposes rescinding slavery. How is the statement "slavery has always had 'between man and master' in the meaning" PATENTLY false??? Just because a few people (a group or minority, read: black slaves) chose to think of slavery differently at some point in history, DOES NOT MEAN that the real underlying meaning ever changed.

how do you like them apples?

mob rule isn't always best, my son.

dr seuss: again, "the world moving on without you" implies that only a small minority of the country opposes gay marriage and the majority is "valiantly moving forward into the future." Oh wait, except it's the exact opposite.

there are two crucial points here.

1) is it REALLY the exact opposite? ask yourself - how many people supported gay marriage in 1910? and in 1930? and in 1960? and 1979? and today?

i think you'll find that people's attitudes are gradually liberalising. if you don't believe me, remember that being homosexual was illegal in most states not so long ago. do really think that your precious 'majority' (which after all, isn't so vast) will last long?

and i'm guessing that THE MOMENT the figures go over to 50.001% of the population in favour of gay marriage, you'll be posting here supporting gay marriage because the powerful majority have spoken, right?

3) i said 'the world' is moving on without you. the world! you know, there are other countries on this globe of ours - other countries that have led the way, and will continue to lead the way, on social policy.

 

[Wacky]

I am 100% hetero and 0% homo but I say, why not let the gay people get married? Its a violation of freedom and discrimination to keep them from enjoying marriage and the tax/insurance benefits.

I could NOT have said it better myself .I totally agree :D .


Also,I sadly think it is another case of picking on minorities eg's: In Australia picking on the unemployed,boat people,aboriginals,etc,etc......Which sadly seems popular with some people in this day and age.Which I think is sad .

 

[SmC]

its not jsut conservitive republicans that i see having a problem with it. i have many friends that are liberal democrats and parts ofmy family too, and they have a problem with it. i am a conservative republican, well maybe not too conservative. i think the blame cant be put on either conservatives or liberals. personally i think it has to do with interaction with gay ppl and culture and if you accept it or not.

I think the one thing we can blame though is religion and its hypocritical beliefs.
Whatever happened to equal oppotunities and freedom of choice/speech in america?Correct me if im wrong but in the bible doesn't it say that God loves everybody?Well if he loved everybody wouldn't that make God Gay?And if he loved everybody wouldn't he allow Gays to get married?Just shows how fucked up religion is.Oh btw i ain't gay myself but im all for gay marriage rights.