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 same sex “marriage” is so wanted and desired by worldwide society we would have it by now. Where is it? Where is the OWS equivalent of people protesting in the streets rioting for homosexual marriage? It isn’t there is it? Nope. Not there.
If laws against a husband raping his wife were "so wanted and desired by worldwide society", how come it wasn't until the 1990's that all states in the US made it illegal?
It's not hate speech. I'm using that to illustrate that words do make a difference, though. Hate speech is a prime example of how words mean more than just "a label for a concept" but the same thing happens with all words, even ones that aren't hateful. Take, for example:
gun
firearm
cop
police officer
The latter two aren't negative, per se, but they do hold a connotation distinct from the first two. "Civil union" and "marriage", even if they define the same thing, just like "gun" and "firearm" already do, will always carry those separate connotations and serve to mean something different socially in the minds of speakers.
By insisting on a different word, you are insisting that same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage be treated differently.
What’s not hate speech? The word n*gger? I beg to differ. The word marriage? I agree. Which is why your analogy doesn’t work.
The examples you gave gun/firearm, cop/police officer are equally irrelevant. I, in no way, see any of these these terms as offensive/different. Not sure what point you’re trying to make here. What am I missing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer
You are stuck in this traditional marriage rut. Tradition is no longer a reason for denying gays marriage. Tradition used to deny blacks the rights of marriage without consent of their master. Tradition was that only a man could contract a marriage. Tradition was that a man could beat his wife. There are many traditions that we no longer follow. But you want to stick to your antiquated religious view that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Are you aware that polygamy was once as common as your so called traditional marriage. You are using your religion to force a federal law forbidding gays from marrying equally. I also do not understand why a person of color follows a white religions rules. It was the white religion that encouraged their followers to enslave your people in the past. Africans were not and for the most part, are not Christian. American Indians are not Christian. There are many people that are not christians, but you want everyone to follow the laws of Christianity as if it is the endall. We are a secular nation with rules in place called separation of church and state. You seem to think that Christianity rules the US, well if it did, you would still be enslaved and need your masters permission to only marry one of your color. The reason The USA has so many freedoms is because we prevent the churches from controlling the government. If you do not like or believe in gay marriage, that is on you, but to prevent others from attaining the same status is selfish and narrow minded, besides being unequal You are a woman and black, one would think you would know about suppression. How easily do some forget how bad it used to be before men had the right to own his wife or beat her. Why must gays and lesbians fight for what is fair. Why must we suffer the persecution of the church because of its religious views. Those views have no justification in creating government laws affecting all of its citizens. If the church wants to control its parrish, go for it, but to control all religions not related to christians is self centered. There is not any proof of god or of the validity of the bible, it has no standing in the courts and should not be used to enforce or create laws affecting everyone.
Folks on this thread have told me to keep my religious beliefs out of this debate. I’ve respected their wish. Why are you trying to interject Christianity into this? Do you believe Christianity is the only religion that is against homosexuality? I’m not really sure why Christianity catches all the “homophobic” flak.
In all the examples you give of traditional marriages, what remains constant? In your own examples? Will you be honest enough to say? I’ve asked this multiple times, but no one will at least admit the constant.
I won’t entertain the rest of your Christianity rant. Perhaps start a new thread in the Religion forum if you’d like to honestly discuss this. I somehow doubt you’re genuinely interested in my answer and will probably brush off any explanations you receive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky
Insisting same-sex partners get called "civil unions" while opposite-sex partnerships get called "marriages" is like telling gay people "you can have a car, any car, but it has to be painted red. Red and only red." Why? "Oh, that's not up to you. The people who aren't restricted to red cars get to decide for you."
Why do straight people get to decide what my marriage means to me? Do you not see how that might be just a tad bit patronizing?
Nope, not even close. Saying red and red only, imposing a restriction on rights. I’ve advocated throughout this thread that this should be changed. Seriously…are you all purposely ignoring this?
News flash: Not only straight people are against gay marriage. I know some gay folks who are against it too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky
Marriage was redefined when white people and black people were allowed to marry one another. It was redefined when certain countries allowed their men to marry any number of women, for any amount of time, including temporary marriages so they could claim being married to their prostitute. It was redefined when people went to Las Vegas to get trashed and married. It was redefined when celebrities got married for 15 hours and then got divorced again. It was redefined when men were finally not able to force sex upon their own wives (in some states). But straight people haven't seemed to mind all those changes.
Oh, but two loving women or men getting married is really that threatening? file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/LHall/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtmlclip1/02/clip_image001.gif (broken link)
Yes, but in the examples that you yourself give, what remains constant? No matter how you stretch it, none of these redefine the core principles of marriage. Will you be honest enough to admit what the core foundation/similarity is in all of the examples you give?
Of course you will never see any reasons let alone an argument from those who want marriage to remain unchanged to your full and complete satisfaction. You don’t want to hear it. Period. You don’t like or want to envisage any opinion different from your own. Either we are to agree 100% with everything you demand or we’re homophobic bigots. Again, in you’re personal estimation. On the other hand I haven’t seen such weak and ineffectual reasons or arguments for society to redefine itself just to satisfy 3%. Not one substantial or compelling reason yet other than the angry emotional demanding which comes across like the spoiled child who can’t and won’t get its way. It boils down to “we want it” and you become enraged with those who disagree.
You want to change the world, to change the way humanity perceives the homosexual and reacts to homosexuality. The legitimacy and validation of homosexual “marriage” in society’s eyes will never be achieved until society everywhere sees the same sex couple as genuinely married instead of a couple of perverted freaks trying to pretend that they are a normal heterosexual married couple.
You can’t always get want you want. Nobody ever does and life isn’t fair. Until you realize and accept that the best you will likely ever get is a compromise, than the lot of the homosexual will continue to be one of unhappiness, disappointment, isolation, and despair.
Go ahead and reject or attack this reply just like you’ve done with all the others who do not want marriage changed. You ask for reasons and explanations and even when they have been provided on numerous occasions you don’t want to hear it and proceed to mock, ridicule and insult. We will continue to be in disagreement on this matter and my position remains unchanged.
I don't think you're homophobic, and I don't think that everyone who is against same-sex marriage is homophobic. I also have come across arguments that I thought were much more powerful, from people I disagreed with vehemently. They're just by and large not in this thread.
I am against same-sex marriage and I am gay. I'm against marriage as a legal institution, period. But as long as heterosexual unions are sanctioned, then homosexual ones should be too. Ideally, though, I believe we should all be seen as individuals in the eyes of the state, and marriage, in all its permutations, should be left to religious and cultural institutions.
Thanks for making all those assumptions about me...but try again.
For one thing, marriage is not the only right gays are fighting for. How about the right to visit their spouse/partner in the hospital? Or didn't you know how easy it currently is for the partner's parents or other family member to take over and not let them in? How about the right to keep a good paying (or any) job when your boss learns you're gay or lesbian or transgendered? How about the right not to be kicked out of your rented home if the landlord discovers you're gay, lesbian or transgendered. And the whole point is that all of those are civil rights enjoyed by the rest of us. For most of us, the only reason any hospital could keep us away from our loved ones is to prevent transference of infections; unless our personal conduct in some way damages our employer's reputation, the only reason for firing is not being able to do the job; and the only legal reason for eviction is either not paying the rent or not taking proper care of the property. And those are only a few of the ways in which the GLBT community is discriminated against every day! Perhaps you can come to realize that not all civil rights are based on release from slavery.
And getting legal rights is only half the battle, as any African American or other racial minority in this country already knows. Many gay employees have to work 10x harder not to mess up in any way because they fear that their employer will find any reason to fire them. The legal reason may be "she was no longer fit for the job" or "she was clocking in late" when the real reason is "she's gay". Most employers know better than to put discriminatory reasons on the books and will come up with any old excuse to fire someone they discriminate against. So even in the states where LGBTQ people have legal protections, that does not mean they are completely immune to job discrimination. The firings are just couched in other reasons.
For that matter, what difference would it make in anyone's life or marriage if the gay couple next door were operating a callboy service for Barney Frank?
The point is not that every behavior, to be considered offensive, need be personally harmful to everyone at all times -- only that it violate social norms which have been established to create a civil society with collective interests which include monogamy, progeny, and moral and biological rectitude.
Your perspective would seem not to exclude any behavior not taking place in anyone's physical presence. Surely that is not your intention....
Whose social norms? Straight people? Again, why do straight people get to dictate how my life runs? I am dying to know.
Marriage symbolizes a union between a man and a woman. Despite the many restrictions from the past (IR, wife as property, polygamous marriage), the core value has remained the same: to bond a man and a woman in holy matrimony. I disagree with redefining the very foundation of marriage to include same-sex couples. That’s my stance…you can either agree or disagree, but just because you disagree doesn’t make my position disappear.
According to who?
Oh. Straight people.
Remind me again why straight people get to define my marriage? Thanks.
Whose social norms? Straight people? Again, why do straight people get to dictate how my life runs? I am dying to know.
Dying to know, I doubt it. You want something to attack and argue. Maybe it just might have something to do with 97% of the world being straight and as unfair as it might sound, the majority calls the shots. Life just isn’t fair is it? Nah, that can’t have anything to do with it.
Remind me again why straight people get to define my marriage? Thanks.
Gay people make this observation as well. See one of my prior posts.
The bottom line: You're gay, I'm not. You're against all marriage; I"m against same-sex marriage. You believe gays should have equal rights; I agree. You state that you haven't seen a great response from those who oppose gay marriage. That's your opinion. I have not seen an adequate response to my questions in this thread either. It's all running on emotions and, in some instances, insults.
There will be no meeting on the minds of this issue. I will not change my position and I doubt you will change yours.
You want to change the world, to change the way humanity perceives the homosexual and reacts to homosexuality. The legitimacy and validation of homosexual “marriage” in society’s eyes will never be achieved until society everywhere sees the same sex couple as genuinely married instead of a couple of perverted freaks trying to pretend that they are a normal heterosexual married couple.
That's a load of crap. There are still plenty of people in American society who do not validate interracial marriages between a man and a woman (like my own). If you wait for all of the people (all of the time) to validate your civil rights, you'll be waiting long after death to be vindicated.
What’s not hate speech? The word n*gger? I beg to differ. The word marriage? I agree. Which is why your analogy doesn’t work.
No. I am agreeing with you in that the term "civil union" is not hate speech. I agree with you and understand why the word "n*gg*r" is. Hate speech is an extreme of the same phenomenon used with marriage/civil union. I understand that hate speech is an extreme example. I was using an extreme to illustrate the same phenomenon in hopes that you would see with more clarity what I'm trying to point out.
Quote:
The examples you gave gun/firearm, cop/police officer are equally irrelevant. I, in no way, see any of these these terms as offensive/different. Not sure what point you’re trying to make here. What am I missing?
You're missing the point. My point is that words change meaning. The name someone is called by denotes how they are seen in the eyes of others. The name something is called by denotes how it is seen in the eyes of others, including marriage and civil union. If you call someone
buddy
sir
John
Mr. ____
chief
smart@ss
those all mean different things, even if you are referring to the same person. The connotations are different. Some names are respectful, some are disdainful, some are neutral, some are playful.
Marriage/civil union have different connotations. You are taking advantage of those connotations in order to define same-sex partnerships as different from opposite-sex ones, when in fact the bond can be and often is just as strong and meaningful as the bonds created by opposite-sex individuals. By insisting that gay people cannot call their partnership by the same name as straight individuals, you are taking something away from the meaning, and therefore giving them less. That's why "civil union" is less than "marriage". It's not as respected as marriage.
Quote:
Folks on this thread have told me to keep my religious beliefs out of this debate. I’ve respected their wish. Why are you trying to interject Christianity into this? Do you believe Christianity is the only religion that is against homosexuality? I’m not really sure why Christianity catches all the “homophobic” flak.
Wait, where did I inject Christianity?
Quote:
In all the examples you give of traditional marriages, what remains constant? In your own examples? Will you be honest enough to say? I’ve asked this multiple times, but no one will at least admit the constant.
What does remain constant? Rome and Greece had same-sex partnerships.
Quote:
I won’t entertain the rest of your Christianity rant. Perhaps start a new thread in the Religion forum if you’d like to honestly discuss this. I somehow doubt you’re genuinely interested in my answer and will probably brush off any explanations you receive.
I'm confused. I honestly don't know where I even talked about Christianity. Where are you getting Christianity from this? I'm not even Christian.
Quote:
Nope, not even close. Saying red and red only, imposing a restriction on rights. I’ve advocated throughout this thread that this should be changed. Seriously…are you all purposely ignoring this?
No. I realize you are advocating for the same rights. But same rights, same car. Restriction on the name, restriction on the color. Do you get the analogy now?
Quote:
News flash: Not only straight people are against gay marriage. I know some gay folks who are against it too.
Like me for example. But if straight people get their partnerships sanctioned, so too should gay people. Ideally I am against marriage for anyone.
Quote:
Yes, but in the examples that you yourself give, what remains constant? No matter how you stretch it, none of these redefine the core principles of marriage. Will you be honest enough to admit what the core foundation/similarity is in all of the examples you give?
It's true, I listed all male-female examples, but same-sex marriages have occurred throughout history. Also, I don't understand why people are more threatened by redefining it as between any two consenting adults, compared with all the other definitions it's taken on. Really? 15 hour marriages are less of a threat to the sanctity and definition of marriage than two lifelong partners of the same sex? Are you willing to admit that hypocrisy coming from many straight people?
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.
