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.
What is all your problems. First of all being gay is not a disease. Second it is not a choice. Third who cares if you call it marriage or civil union it is almost the same thing. People discriminate against us because they don't understand it. That is fine, there ignorance will not change me and it is a shame that people have to act uncivilized.
My exact point. Why is this such a big deal? Why must there be a huge push to redefine the word, to force the definition to change when all of this could be easily handled by strengthening civil union contracts?
That was EXACTLY what I was trying to say. If they would have gone strictly the legal route in making sure that they could gain the same legal responsibilities and rights defined within that contract, then why bother making it a stupid movement about a word redefinition?
I will fight the definition change because I think its petty and stupid to push to change it when there are much easier ways to do it. I will vote against homosexual marriage at every single turn if they continue the idiocy.
Yet....
If they go after changing contract law and legal responsiblity between two people to afford them those rights, I will have no issue at all, and not fight it one single bit.
Thats the issue. I refuse to let irrational mob behavior drive society.
Oh please, spare me the Franz Boaz and Margret Mead attempt to "educate" me on the matter. The majority of those "societies" did not term the concept of "marriage" under those conditions. They merely "accepted" it even though it defied the concept of its origin and reasoning.
What you are doing is ignoring the conception of what the word was originally developed for and you are actually attempting to place those cultures "redefinition" that makes no sense in the core development and historical meaning of the word to claim they are correct. That, is "ethnocentric" itself.
The fact of the matter is that it was created and defined as a means to denote the bloodlines joining between two so that the records could properly show the lineage of that line.
Your information has no bearing on the issue.
Of course it has no bearing.
Your conception of marriage is based in dogma and when dogma enters the discussion, rationality flies out the window. I don't waste rhetoric on dogma.
"Facts do not cease to exist simply because they are ignored."--Aldous Huxley.
I, a gay man, do not really care if they make gay marriage legal or not. As long as there are civil unions. Really what do I care. I have friends who live with their partner and their neighbors don't feel threatened. Gays are not trying to take over the world or "convert" others. Either you are gay or your not and nothing is going to change it. So why the fuss? If you discriminate against gays or any other group I actually feel sorry for you because it is obvious that you have no common sense. Okay, maybe if you discriminate against Al Quida that would be ok with me. Get a grip people, really who cares who is gay, straight, bi (I really don't think anyone is bi, but if they want to beleive that it's ok too) black, red, yellow, white, purple, orange or blue. Honestly can't we all just get along. If you are that petty I would actually rather you discriminate against me because I really would not want to socialize with you anyway.
Your conception of marriage is based in dogma and when dogma enters the discussion, rationality flies out the window. I don't waste rhetoric on dogma.
"Facts do not cease to exist simply because they are ignored."--Aldous Huxley.
Funny, relativistic thinking is the one that has the problems with existing by its own definition. It is also the chosen rhetoric of the unfounded and illogical.
I laid out the facts to you, explained it through history and definition, yet you proclaim "your" truth by citing occurrences that do not change the facts, but rather attempt to explain away the deviation from them.
"Its true for you, but not for me" is nothing more than an emotional offense that requires no founding, no proof, no reason, no understanding, no logic. It exists simply because a mouth is opened and spews it forth. Its fallacy is that by its simple existence, it is therefore valid. It is no wonder it is so often used by those with "no leg to stand on".
Really... what would happen if homosexuals were allowed to marry? If you oppose it, why?
There's nothing wrong with gay marriage (or civil unions) or gay people for that matter. I strongly believe that homosexuals should have the same rights as heteros. To deny two consenting adults financial benefits because they are gay is beyond ignorant. I will always believe that it is a major flaw in humanity to discriminate against people based upon who they love - I guess our society has not evolved yet...
First, define marriage for me. Not your interpetation of it, but its actually definition.
Second, define the purpose of marriage historically.
Third, explain to me how that is illogical in how it concerns an abnormal coupling that is not compatible in nature or with the context to which marriage is referred.
See, thats the problem here. You don't care about anything other than what you "want". You are not concerned about logic, nor any process to which it can be defined. You want, and thats all that matter. That is subjective position, not a logically valid one.
All you did with your response is to tell me I am wrong and then tell me you don't care. /golfclap
When someone disagrees with you, you either say they're putting words in your mouth or not thinking about the issue logically. That makes debate virtually impossible.
I have little or no stake in this, as I'm not especially interested in marrying anyone. There's no point in assuming anyone else you're debating with is, either.
If you think the historical implications are that significant, there's probably quite a bit you're overlooking. I can't say that I think much of arranged marriages, but evidently that did and still do take place. It seems like many aspects of marriage have changed over time. I'm not sure why, exactly, you think it's unreasonable to change the definition again. History is to be learned from--I won't argue with that (though many, many people fail to learn from it) but I really don't understand why that means that the historical definition of marriage must be upheld.
History is to be learned from--I won't argue with that (though many, many people fail to learn from it) but I really don't understand why that means that the historical definition of marriage must be upheld.
I'll have a go at that, if I may. The whole historical idea of marriage, the concept of the bond between a man and a woman, is based on the metaphorical joining of opposites to create a union. Nothing in life is more difficult than the giving up of one's ego and self-image in the interest of, and in loving deference to, one's opposite and a member of the other sex -- with all of the concomitant delights, frustration, mysteries, and knowledges which are the potential result of such a union.
Two men or two women bonding as legal partners experience something like the same union, at least to the degree that another person is involved, and that the legal issues are similar. But to compare their union to that of a mature man and woman -- a "marriage" of opposite souls, undertaken in loving approach to understanding of the differing roles, needs, and transcendant value of the two sexes, needful of each other as they are to achieve completeness -- is to revise the basic concept of the term as our culture and our civilization knows and depends upon it, as the source of hope, of confident progeny conceived in love, and as the element which bonds us as men and women to our revered past, our complex present, and our perilous future.
That isn't really a valid arguement anymore than "Think of the Children" is a logical statement of policy. Emotion and feelings should not come into play here.
Logically 2 gay people getting married does not affect you in any way other than to make you feel some emotion about it.
It is common, when one cannot respond in substance, to complain instead over form. But since the matter has come up, a straw man occurs when an argument is made, and a response is offered that refers to an argument that was not made. Your argument, and here it is again in your own words...
More importantly, it is a notation of blood lines. That is what it is for. It is to identify the blood lineage. Since homosexuals can not produce a bloodline between them, it is not marriage.
...is that the increasingly archaic concept of furthering bloodlines is the central, even the only, criterion upon which the institution of marriage is established. This argument -- that is, the very one expressed above -- is hopelessly flawed. In the first case, there are millions of perfectly well-married couples who, willingly or unwillingly, have not and will not ever have furthered any bloodline at all. In the second case, there are millions of perfectly well-loved children who are furthering a bloodline that does not involve any marriage at all or does not involve the bloodline suggested by a marriage (see paternal discrepancy). It is evident then that the matter of furthering a bloodline is neither necessary nor sufficient to define a marriage. Additionally, the standard is not one that can (in the usual case) be applied at the time a marriage is sought. It is an ex poste judgement that you wish to apply. A typical use of ex poste judgments arises in performance audits, wherein a continuation or a termination of a specified status is declared based upon historical review. On this basis and given the pre-eminence you wish to assign to furthering bloodlines, it is only logical to infer that you would endorse a revocation of marital status for having persistently failed to meet the single qualifying standard associated with that status.
BUT it's NOT marriage...SRY, marriage is between woman and a man.
Civil union with ALL rights, YES.
Should they be allowed to adopt children? NO WAY.
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.
