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.
That's great to hear. This may sound corny, but I really admire straight guys who are not anti-gay. It tells me that they're confident about their own sexuality and that they're unafraid to speak up for those who are looked down upon by society, even if they may catch some hell for it from some of their buddies.
I live in the sticks of PA. RedNecks abound. LOL. Many have things to say about gays. The irony of it is a good many of them have molested a few farm animals in their day. LOL I grew up on a farm myself but never felt the animals calling for service. I do know a few that did.... When they get a little to vocal I remind them of their youth. Then ask if it really matters what Bob and John do in private? Me personally? I have never had a gay man hit on me, never had a gay man even hint at me. Hmmm Maybe I should feel insulted. I don't look all that bad. LOL
But then I wouldn't be able to learn so many new and interesting multi-syballic words
If I understand you correctly, you are against gay marriage as historically marriage is defined as a legal and religious union between a male and a female. Is that correct?
If that is your argument, I would counter that English is a beautiful, complex, and fluid language. Unlike other languages, English does grow by either inventing new words, taking words from other languages or by assigning new meanings to words. Like site and sight, or see and sea. The word marriage is not set in stone.
As for the word homophobe, perhaps you are right and I was unnecessarily harsh. And for that I will apologize. Nonetheless, by holding onto a value system that supresses other people based on a charcteristic over which these people have no choice then perhaps 'bigoted' might be a better fit. After all, there is no harm nor foul in being gay.....noone is hurt by it. It is people trying to live their lives in a monogamous way.
Yet, keep in mind what is going on here. The demand is that the definition change, yet to what end? Many or most states already have civil union laws, domestic partnership is already properly referred to and more appropriately so. It is an accurate description of the type of union. It serves no purpose to confuse the matter by redefining "marriage" when its context of bloodlines is still relevant today.
I have seen many complaints in various news casts where the only reason the person is upset is because they are not happy with it saying "domestic partnership" and they want it to say "marriage". That is a childish demand to require the definition change.
You are right that the language changes, but this is not always a good thing. Slang often gets thrown into the language and is adopted yet the meanings have no intelligent or proper descriptive relevant purpose. This is an ignorant demand on that part and much like the demand that Ebonics be accepted as a proper form of language within the system. Slang is not proper and should not be easily accepted into formal definitions. Changing the meaning of the word serves no purpose logically or reasonably in this sense.
Ultimately, this issue comes down to the demand for society to conform to a groups forced redefinition and not one of equal rights. As I have said, in some states the laws are equally strong in terms of the legal role, in some they are not and may need to be brought up to the same level. By them keeping their own relevant terms, they serve a proper organizational and relevant purpose within their required legal pursuits.
This is not an issue of "segregation", but simple intelligent classification. Segregation had no intelligent reasoning and was simply a socially driven classification that served no purpose. The definition of marriage and the definition of domestic partnership both serve specific and relevant classifications. To attempt to demand otherwise is as personally and emotionally driven as demanding racial segregation simply because of color.
Yet, keep in mind what is going on here. The demand is that the definition change, yet to what end? Many or most states already have civil union laws, domestic partnership is already properly referred to and more appropriately so. It is an accurate description of the type of union. It serves no purpose to confuse the matter by redefining "marriage" when its context of bloodlines is still relevant today.
I have seen many complaints in various news casts where the only reason the person is upset is because they are not happy with it saying "domestic partnership" and they want it to say "marriage". That is a childish demand to require the definition change.
You are right that the language changes, but this is not always a good thing. Slang often gets thrown into the language and is adopted yet the meanings have no intelligent or proper descriptive relevant purpose. This is an ignorant demand on that part and much like the demand that Ebonics be accepted as a proper form of language within the system. Slang is not proper and should not be easily accepted into formal definitions. Changing the meaning of the word serves no purpose logically or reasonably in this sense.
Ultimately, this issue comes down to the demand for society to conform to a groups forced redefinition and not one of equal rights. As I have said, in some states the laws are equally strong in terms of the legal role, in some they are not and may need to be brought up to the same level. By them keeping their own relevant terms, they serve a proper organizational and relevant purpose within their required legal pursuits.
This is not an issue of "segregation", but simple intelligent classification. Segregation had no intelligent reasoning and was simply a socially driven classification that served no purpose. The definition of marriage and the definition of domestic partnership both serve specific and relevant classifications. To attempt to demand otherwise is as personally and emotionally driven as demanding racial segregation simply because of color.
Domestic partnership sounds much too cold to describe anything like a marriage. Civil Union is slightly better in its descriptive. Marriage just has a warmer tone to it. But I do understand where you are coming from. Perhaps we should emulate France where two ceremonies must be held, the first a civil one, the second a religous one (if needed).
But, I am not gay and maybe to the gay community the word 'marriage' is not that big of a deal. Certainly the rights accorded to married couples are and insuring that civil unions are on equal footing with marriage might be their first priority.
Civil Unions do not give you all the same rights as a marriage though. Not in the U.S. anyway.
Nomander they actually redefined marriage with Prop 8 to restrict it to only between a man and a woman. So the opposite is true.
In the UK they avoided the problem by making civil unions almost identical to marriage in terms of rights, taxes etc. So this stopped the religious getting riled up over what amounts to semantics and also managed to grand gay couples the rights they should have.
Domestic partnership sounds much too cold to describe anything like a marriage. Civil Union is slightly better in its descriptive. Marriage just has a warmer tone to it.
Good points, but of course it's an emotional response that Nomander said there is no value in...
Quote:
But I do understand where you are coming from.
I too read it, and I really don't. At all. To me it seems to be holding steadfast, and arbitrarily so, to a particular (though widespread and historical) definition of something, and for no special reason, as doing so doesn't appear to be beneficial. I don't understand the logical reason to hold onto it. From the perspective of one who is interested in social justice, it makes quite a bit of sense to change it. Equality cannot be achieved if these unions are different in name. Obviously, equality cannot be achieved by that alone, either, but it is a necessary component. For those who are either exclusively heterosexual and/or have no interest in committing to someone else in a legal sense, this probably becomes a symbolic gesture intended for others. I don't understand why that is presented in a negative light. That is an emotional response, of course, but as far as I can tell, so much of what we do comes down to that. So much of what we do is to reach out to someone else who is suffering, to whatever extent, and is not always considered logical, nor is it truly logical. But we feel that as human beings, we should do it. If that's a weak argument, I think it is still stronger than one that involves citing historical definitions and saying that changing them serves no concrete purpose. It would harm nothing, and it would help many people. I think that's what matters most.
Quote:
Perhaps we should emulate France where two ceremonies must be held, the first a civil one, the second a religous one (if needed).
If we got to that point in the discourse, I might want to join those who feel that the government should not be involved at all. I would consider that viewpoint, if nothing else. At the moment, that looks very unlikely, though.
Quote:
But, I am not gay and maybe to the gay community the word 'marriage' is not that big of a deal.
With all the protesting, it seems that it is.
Quote:
Certainly the rights accorded to married couples are and insuring that civil unions are on equal footing with marriage might be their first priority.
True. Clearly, it would be easier to pursue civil unions with equal privileges and benefits and be met with less opposition, but I think it's the idea that no one should have to settle for a compromise that drives them to fight for marriage itself.
Domestic partnership sounds much too cold to describe anything like a marriage. Civil Union is slightly better in its descriptive. Marriage just has a warmer tone to it. But I do understand where you are coming from. Perhaps we should emulate France where two ceremonies must be held, the first a civil one, the second a religous one (if needed).
But, I am not gay and maybe to the gay community the word 'marriage' is not that big of a deal. Certainly the rights accorded to married couples are and insuring that civil unions are on equal footing with marriage might be their first priority.
Again you are operating from an emotional position. Any legal contract is cold, it isn't meant to be based on emotion, but on a logical assessment of the legal duties and responsibilities of the two parties. I don't look at my marriage certificate and get warm fuzzy feelings based on its wording, to me it was merely a document for the state to recognize the legal aspects of it.
If people want to think warm and fuzzy, have a ceremony of their choosing, have the place that handles the event carve into wood whatever they like to give off that warm and fuzzy feeling. We are talking about legal documents and the definitional aspect to their nature. The license isn't anything special. I don't get warm and fuzzy on other legal documents, I am not sure why so many people think they should with this.
Besides, if it is merely the paper that people thinks defines their union, then they have bigger problems in the future.
Again you are operating from an emotional position. Any legal contract is cold, it isn't meant to be based on emotion, but on a logical assessment of the legal duties and responsibilities of the two parties. I don't look at my marriage certificate and get warm fuzzy feelings based on its wording, to me it was merely a document for the state to recognize the legal aspects of it.
If people want to think warm and fuzzy, have a ceremony of their choosing, have the place that handles the event carve into wood whatever they like to give off that warm and fuzzy feeling. We are talking about legal documents and the definitional aspect to their nature. The license isn't anything special. I don't get warm and fuzzy on other legal documents, I am not sure why so many people think they should with this.
Besides, if it is merely the paper that people thinks defines their union, then they have bigger problems in the future.
Which points to the real agenda of wanting to take something from traditionalists, out of spite because they don't feel accepted, and have been wronged in their minds.
The real gay movement behind marriage has nothing to do with rights. They already have the rights. They can enter into contract, give medical rights, receivership, inheritance. It's really about staining traditional family values.
freedom
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.
