posted
I'm sorry, I should have said "Titles are irrelevant TO ME." Obviously that doesn't apply to everyone. I'm far more interested in the actual state of things than what they're called.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It doesn't really bother me if people want gay marriages to be called a "union" or something else instead as long as it retains the same rights and privileges, even though as an English major I could never say that a word is just a word and has no bearings on the conception of something. On the other hand, when you have a law limiting who could be part of a "marriage", either you admit that the basis is religious dogma or you'd be legislating and enforcing the definition of a WORD. Does the government have the right to say you can't call a dog a cat? Would that be encroaching on free speech? Hey, I know. Gay couples could just use "union" on official papers and say "marriage" everywhere else. That'll piss people off.
posted
If the amendment were to pass, that's exactly what they would do, I've no doubt.
As for whether the fundies would claim their definition is right, it categorically is not. The term "marriage" doesn't even have to refer to a union of persons, far less that of any particular combination of genders.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Just for the sake of discussion, could someone list the rights and privileges that a marriage entails under US law? Since not all of us are familiar with US law in this area.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: I'm sorry, I should have said "Titles are irrelevant TO ME." Obviously that doesn't apply to everyone. I'm far more interested in the actual state of things than what they're called.
So you'd be okay with someone calling your marriage a "union"? Of course not: it would demean your relationship by limiting it in any way. Marriage is more than one group's definition: it's cultural union as much as a legal one. Gay's want the same romance and ceremony that straight people are entitled to.
Besides, limiting a group's rights in any way is obviously not what America is all about. America is about everyone's right to Life, Liberty and the presuit of Happiness.
Take that away from one group of people and you lessen us all.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
1. a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. b. The state of being married; wedlock. c. A common-law marriage. d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. 2. A wedding. 3. A close union: �the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics� (Lloyd Rose). 4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
quote:Besides, limiting a group's rights in any way is obviously not what America is all about. America is about everyone's right to Life, Liberty and the presuit of Happiness.
*LOL*
Granted, that's what America is SUPPOSED to be about, but at the moment, it seems to be the exact opposite - at least that's how it looks to foreigners like myself - thanks to GWB...
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Not to mention the fact that the US Declaration of Independance was purely a propaganda exercise (one of the most successful in history, at that).
Bush's proposal of this amendment seems to me to be an attempt to rally the right wing of his supporters and of the US population to him, rather than a serious policy. Despite the high profile of the religious far-right in the US. does anyone actually think that this amendment would be ratified?
Personally, I have no opposition to civil unions for homosexuals. I view the love part of a relationship to be just as important as the procreation part. Also this may encourage a certain degree of social stability, as well as helping to dismiss the promiscuous homosexual stereotype.
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
It's all very cunning really. Bush says he's going to do this, but it's all to get Kerry. If Kerry comes out (!) against this, then Bush can say to Middle America that Kerry is a Liberal, and an UnGodly one to boot. If Kerry supports it, then he's shown as weak, and it's one more point against him, up there with his voting record in the Senate. In the end it won't really matter if it gets ratified or not, so long as Bush is still in the White House next year.
posted
So you'd be okay with someone calling your marriage a "union"? Of course not: it would demean your relationship by limiting it in any way.
You don't know me as well as you seem to think. I'd be fine with people calling my hypothetical marriage anything they pleased. It is what it is. If they call it something inaccurate or incomplete, well, too bad for them.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I can see your way of thinking Omega. Personally, if I were in a relationship that constituted what I felt was a "marriage" then I could care less what others called it, especially if the same legal rights were given to my spouse and me as to those that are officially married.
However, I think the issue here is that if we as a society say that marriage is only between a man and a woman, are we basically trying to say that same sex couples can't have the same sort of bond that exists between a man and a woman?
I would like someone who is particularly against gay marriage to explain to me why. I'm curious.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: So you'd be okay with someone calling your marriage a "union"? Of course not: it would demean your relationship by limiting it in any way.
You don't know me as well as you seem to think. I'd be fine with people calling my hypothetical marriage anything they pleased. It is what it is. If they call it something inaccurate or incomplete, well, too bad for them.
hmmm....mabye it's a just personal bias: I think of goons in cheap suits with broken noses whenever I hear the word "union".
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
However, I think the issue here is that if we as a society say that marriage is only between a man and a woman, are we basically trying to say that same sex couples can't have the same sort of bond that exists between a man and a woman?
I would like someone who is particularly against gay marriage to explain to me why. I'm curious.
Okay.
If you're going for legal consistancy and no relgious implications whatsoever, then you have to ask what a marriage is from a strictly secular legal perspective. At the moment you seem to get some tax benefits, and I THINK you can't be forced to testify against your spouse. Your spouse automatically inherits your property if you die and have no will, I think. You can't marry multiple people, either. (Which, upon reflection, is an imposition of Christian morality on Mormons, but...) Anything else? Well, shoot, at that point why bother with government recognition at all? People living together, people married... with the ease of obtaining a divorce, from a legal perspective what's the difference? Shoot, some people only get married for the tax breaks, and that cheapens it even more.
That's my legal perspective.
Religiously, I believe life was intended to be lived a certain way, and that that way of life was revealed in many different ways, most perfectly in the life of Christ. That way of life excludes any sexual activity outside of marriage. Marriage is intended to be permanant and between a man and a woman, because only in that situation can one fully appreciate the gift of companionship, which sex psychologically helps build. Sex otherwise loses much of its intended meaning and can be quite damaging, and is thus at best squandering a precious gift, and at worst harmful to both parties.
Now to put myself in the shoes of the strong objectors for a moment. If the government legally recognizes a relationship of some kind, that can be perceived as saying that relationship is good, or at least not objectionable. Christians would disagree, obviously, in the case of gay marriage. Thus my proposal of eliminating legal aspects entirely. Which would, naturally, have its own massive drawbacks.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
