Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't get it how changing the definition can somehow destroy straight couples lives and their rights. you still get to keep those rights but the only difference is others would have the same rights too.
No one is saying that that will happen. Or at least, I'm not. I simply have a problem with wholesale arbitrary alterations of meaning. For example: what if we called killing civilians "collateral damage." Or if murdering people were "liquidating" them. Or actors were called "artists"?
Words have power. The consequences of changing linguisitc symbols need to be examined carefully before we rush into a dark room.
because two people is as far as it has to go so that it is extended to everyone...thats the point... Everyone has the right to love.. and they can marry ONE under the law and enjoy the benefits.. and love many and whatever else they want to do or whoever they want to attach to it.. is their own damn business... but they aren't being kept out of the institution of marriage...
rights are to make sure that they include everyone... if you believe that gay people choose it.. then what your saying makes sense... but I know as well as most professional doctors and psychologist..that it just isn't the case....People of two different races get married all the time.. and we didn't create a special "interacial marriage" label under the law... they just say.. we're married... 70 years ago.. that was unheard of...
No, that's NOT the point. The people who want to marry small groups will be deprived under your definition.
Str8 people are never going to understand because they're not gay. So they can say all they want that your orientation is a choice or whatever. Orientation is not a choice, what you do with it is, however.
I've learned to just leave ignorant people like this alone and leave them to their ignorance.
If you can't think of good reasons why it shouldn't be limited to two people, maybe we SHOULD expand the definition. Who cares, really? What's in it for you?
Oh, I can think of plenty of reasons (see my posts below). I am taking gay marriage advocates' arguments a logical conclusion: if "opposite-sex-only" marriages are an arbitrary construct, isn't "couples-only" equally arbitrary? Or is there a cultural and sociological rationale to defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman?
I think you should extend it to long term relationships with animals as well. So if Neal Horsley (Horse..ly?) or other repressed right wingers decide they want to make their mule liasons more than just a 1 night stand they have that option.
No one is saying that that will happen. Or at least, I'm not. I simply have a problem with wholesale arbitrary alterations of meaning. For example: what if we called killing civilians "collateral damage." Or if murdering people were "liquidating" them. Or actors were called "artists"?
Words have power. The consequences of changing linguisitc symbols need to be examined carefully before we rush into a dark room.
Remember what happened to the word "gay"?
From your own admission, you simply have a paranoia problem from usage of words that will somehow result down a slippery slope of whatever you are disapproving of. Still, how does this slippery slope of questionable marriages of OTHERS destroy/affect your own marriage?
From your own admission, you simply have a paranoia problem from usage of words that will somehow result down a slippery slope of whatever you are disapproving of. Still, how does this slippery slope of questionable marriages of OTHERS destroy/affect your own marriage?
Hey, buddy. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get me.
Seriously, though: just as I do not feel personally threatened by people who mistakenly want to call the union of any two entities a "marriage", neither do I find it persuasive that just because gay folks dislike the comtemporary definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, that definition should be expanded.
Hey, buddy. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get me.
Seriously, though: just as I do not feel personally threatened by people who mistakenly want to call the union of any two entities a "marriage", neither do I find it persuasive that just because gay folks dislike the comtemporary definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, that definition should be expanded.
Okay?
Hey buddy, its not just dislike, its dislike and inequality.
Regardless, the point was, even if you think it is just gays disliking it, but if you can't say how it will destroy your own marriage, it just isn't a good enough reason to stop others from marrying.
Since they do not fit the definition, it is merely dislike. And it's petulant.
I added a line already in anticipation of your line.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
