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.
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.
Life just isn't fair? I'm sure you'll feel the same way when your rights are taken away, or when people don't give you basic respect based on something you can't even change about yourself.
White people defined marriage for a long time in the U.S., even in areas that were populated mostly by black slaves. Majority has nothing to do with numbers. It has to do with who has the power.
Basically what your post is saying is that you condone having an oppressor and letting them call the shots. Because...well, you know, life just isn't fair. Good to know.
To those who argue against same-sex marriage on religious grounds, how do you feel about removing all the legal rights, protections and benefits of a religious marriage?
After all, what do those 1400 legal and financial rights, protections and benefits have to do with religion?
Why do you bother getting a state marriage licence at all?
Why not just have the religious marriage ceremony in a church?
I was going to move on from this topic (it's going nowhere fast), but I will answer your questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimchimpsky
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.
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.
Sorry, but these examples don't make sense at all. What is the big deal in being called "buddy, sir, John, Mr. ____, chief"? Who, in their right mind, would be offended by being called of of these things? We've agreed that civil union is not hate speech, so I'm really puzzled why this term is so offensive to gays.
Perhaps you and I are coming at this from different angles. The way I'm approaching it:
Marriage-bond between man and woman.
Civil union-bond between same-sex couples. Afforded same rights as married couples.
How is that offensive? Again, is the goal equal rights or just hurt feelings over not being able to "get married"?
I'm not insisting that gays call their partners anything (and I've said this in this thread). They can call each other whatever they want.
Wait, where did I inject Christianity?
This comment was for another poster. Please reread my post.
What does remain constant? Rome and Greece had same-sex partnerships.
So instead of answering my question, you deflect? Nice.
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.
This comment was for another poster. Please reread my post.
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?
Sorry, but no. How about this. Same mode of transportation (you get the same use of the car, etc), but one is called a car and the other a "vehicle". Do you get the analogy now?
Like me for example. But if straight people get their partnerships sanctioned, so too should gay people. Ideally I am against marriage for anyone.
Fine, then let's agree on that. Keep the govt out of "marriage" and leave it in the religious arena. Folks wanting to form a union, outside of religious intent, can form civil unions....whether straight or gay. Full rights for all.
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?
Where are all of the examples of same-sex marriages throughout history? Where are the artifacts, scholarly articles, etc? Seriously, I've asked for this and no one has yet to provide the info. I really would be genuinely interested in reading this. If someone can prove that same-sex marriage was a common occurrence, then perhaps that will be another thing for me to consider.
I'm not concerned about the sanctity of marriage. I just oppose redefining it. Whether the marriage lasts 1 hour or 100 years, the core foundation does not change.
To those who argue against same-sex marriage on religious grounds, how do you feel about removing all the legal rights, protections and benefits of a religious marriage?
After all, what do those 1400 legal and financial rights, protections and benefits have to do with religion?
Why do you bother getting a state marriage licence at all?
Why not just have the religious marriage ceremony in a church?
Why is your argument about removing rights? My entire argument has been that gays, in their civil unions, should have the same rights as married couples. I say give everyone the same rights.
Seriously...if you're allowed all of the rights of married couples, by way of civil unions, why is that an insult?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocLot
My entire argument has been that gays, in their civil unions, should have the same rights as married couples. I say give everyone the same rights.
Everybody should have the same rights. However traditionally, marriage in this country has been for white, heterosexual Christian couples - I mean come on, we were founded as a white Christian nation. Therefore, I think within the law the word "marriage" should only be used for white, Christian heterosexual couples.
Don't get me wrong - other couples should have the same rights, we'll just call their relationship something different in the law. Civil Union works well for gay couples. For black couples I was thinking Civil Cohabitations. For non-Christians I was thinking Civil Shackingups, and for interracial or inter-faith couples I was thinking Civil Mixings.
Again though, it's really just about the rights, so don't be insulted if your contractual relationship is called something different under the law.
Hey ChocLat, I'm not concerned about the mixing of races, I just oppose giving non-whites the same rights as Caucasians. How does that make you feel? After all, white supremacy is a long-established tradition passed down by our forefathers which should be respected.
Are you saying you think that homosexuality shouldn't be "allowed"?
Or just same-sex marriage?
Basically it sounds to me as if he thinks his religion should make all the rules, everywhere, about everything in life. Which is fine for those who follow and believe in his religion exactly as he does, but he wants that control to cover everyone, whether they follow his religion or not. I get the same feeling from another poster here - "whether you follow or agree with my religion or not, the rules covering marriage should always be according to how MY religion sees it."
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.
And the same goes for denial of hospital visitation or getting evicted from one's home - those responsible will search for a legal reason to do so without, if they are extremely careful, ever once mentioning the real reason. Because, in most states, that "real reason" is no longer legal. Eventually, denying a marriage license for what are essentially religious reasons will also no longer be legal, nation wide.
And the same goes for denial of hospital visitation or getting evicted from one's home - those responsible will search for a legal reason to do so without, if they are extremely careful, ever once mentioning the real reason. Because, in most states, that "real reason" is no longer legal. Eventually, denying a marriage license for what are essentially religious reasons will also no longer be legal, nation wide.
Exactly. They can't stop the progress of enlightenment, only look foolish in retrospect when attempting to stand in its way.
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.
And the whole point of rights being delineated in our Constitution is that there are some things about life that "the majority" should not "call the shots." Yes, society should set some limits for marriage - age requirements, number of spouses allowed (one), that both spouses be human, that both be capable of making the decision - but that they be different genders is not one of them.
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.
