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.
If lefties and gay activists wanted to call it "civil unions," I would be on board in a heartbeat, as I think would 99 percent of Americans, even evangelicals. But that's not enough; the left insists that they must have the power to redefine a word. That makes me nervous.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. People are usually for or against a concept or ideology, regardless of sematics. Evangelicals who howl about sin and abominations won't suddenly back down or become compliant because someone wants to call it civil unions.
It's like saying one is vehemently against war, but if they call it something else, they'll be for it. Or if someone is against abortion, relabeling it as " early embryonic termination" would make everything just peachy.
It's simple. Redefinintion of words in the context of politics is a very bad idea. "Marriage" is an English word that has had a pretty clear definition for a long time. Now we've got a political interest group that wants to alter the definition.
The scary thing to me about the newspeak strategem is how effective it is. Consider the term "assault weapon," which was never used by firearms makers, but was coined by gun control advocates. Since it entered the lexicon, Americans have mostly supported banning them in polling, although doubtless few could define what it meant. Likewise with "partial birth abortion" on the right side of the aisle. It was a term never used by abortion providers, but coined by pro-life advocates. And likewise, poll data shows more often than not that Americans support a ban, even though most could not define it.
I am old enough to recall how the Nixon admin was famous for the use of newspeak. When caught in BS, they backtracked by terming said BS as "inoperative." The Obama admin is equally skilled at this game. Blowing billions of taxpayer dollars to line the pockets of cronies is termed "economic stimulus" and the MSM buys it hook, line, & sinker.
If lefties and gay activists wanted to call it "civil unions," I would be on board in a heartbeat, as I think would 99 percent of Americans, even evangelicals. But that's not enough; the left insists that they must have the power to redefine a word. That makes me nervous.
..
I kinda get what you are saying. I don't care if they get married at all, but for some reason the re-definition does bother me.
It's simple. Redefinintion of words in the context of politics is a very bad idea. "Marriage" is an English word that has had a pretty clear definition for a long time. Now we've got a political interest group that wants to alter the definition.
The scary thing to me about the newspeak strategem is how effective it is. Consider the term "assault weapon," which was never used by firearms makers, but was coined by gun control advocates. Since it entered the lexicon, Americans have mostly supported banning them in polling, although doubtless few could define what it meant. Likewise with "partial birth abortion" on the right side of the aisle. It was a term never used by abortion providers, but coined by pro-life advocates. And likewise, poll data shows more often than not that Americans support a ban, even though most could not define it.
I am old enough to recall how the Nixon admin was famous for the use of newspeak. When caught in BS, they backtracked by terming said BS as "inoperative." The Obama admin is equally skilled at this game. Blowing billions of taxpayer dollars to line the pockets of cronies is termed "economic stimulus" and the MSM buys it hook, line, & sinker.
If lefties and gay activists wanted to call it "civil unions," I would be on board in a heartbeat, as I think would 99 percent of Americans, even evangelicals. But that's not enough; the left insists that they must have the power to redefine a word. That makes me nervous.
You're relying on the word's etymological history to make your argument ?Are you saying words can't be redefined over time? :-D what about words like gay (happy)?
The word marriage means whatever we want it to mean. Besides, there is nothing sacred about marriage anymore. Ever heard of mail-order brides? Vegas weddings? Green card marriages? Why would we ascribe some sort of special value to ''marriage'' as a word beyond it's legal meaning? Besides, the cultural value of marriage is whatever you make it to be - this has always been the case. No institution can be legally untouchable if society wishes to continue moving in the right direction.
Why do we keep discussing this topic as if America exists in a vacuum?
Our neighbor to the north has a definition of marriage that is not one man + one woman. Our neighbor to the south has defacto gay marriage, since gay marriages are recognized federally and by all states if performed in a state that allows it.
May of our neighbors to the east also don't have that definition, and it's likely the entire continent except the undeveloped eastern bloc (sensing a pattern here, folks?) will have it in the future.
Marriage no longer means one man + one woman. It also has NEVER SOLELY meant that, as many countries and cultures have different views as to the participants, ages, even sexes... including the original and first inhabitants of this continent.
Exactly, a civil union is the process by which a couple is married in a COURT HOUSE.
What two people have after they are wed civilly is a marriage.
Got it? Good.
WRONG.
A courthouse ceremony is a civil MARRIAGE. You go get a marriage license at the courthouse, not a union license!
You are always free to go to the church to confirm your "HOLY matrimony"... but it's never necessary. Indeed, most end up signing their marriage certificate at the church immediately after a ceremony because you can declare yourself married before God, Jehova, Allah or Shiva and the state won't recognize it until you sign your civil marriage certificate!
A civil union is a distinct and separate alternative. If made available as some "alternative" that both gays (had to) and straights (could) enter into, it would literally mean the fast death of "marriage" as an institution, since many straights would shy away from the marriage word! It would also create a burden on the courts when people decided to dissolve a civil union.
Ummmm, no.
The STATE allows the church to marry people.
Your license is from the State.
When you get a divorce, you don't go to the church; you go to the STATE.
Big fail.
How juvenile is your comment...I didn't mention anything about a church ceremony in my post.
All licenses to marry come from the state.
Civil unions are performed at courthouses.
So big fail on you. n'ya n'ya n'ya - razzberries :P
Marriage ceremonies conducted by the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Civil Marriage are performed at the following offices of the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk:
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.
