The Word said:-- 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.
michael said: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.
The Word said:-- 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.
The Word said: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.
The Word said:[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]
The Word said:
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
-- 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.
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.
Symmetrical Daze said: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.
mean green 95 said: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.