First of all, I am not gay, but I am not against homosexuality. I am concerned about the success and tactics of the movement. What is the biggest reason people want same sex marriage? I would say that it is so homosexuals who are also religious can get married in the church, and be able to have it recognized "by god." But I see this as partial insanity because the bible contradicts this idea, and many Christians will not recognize it as valid.
So are gays wanting to change the religious/political construct of marriage, and get churches to accept this? To me, this is a losing battle because it clearly does state in the bible that homosexuality is wrong. I do not agree with this stance, but it seems to be written into the moral code of Christians, and several other religions that recognize marriage. I think it would be more effective if gays were to focus on marriage rights than it is to focus on what it is "called." If they started a movement that did not involve the word marriage at all, it could be more effective. People clearly don't like the term "civil union." It does sound cold, like going and getting paperwork drawn up or something that dry. I am not against "gay marriage," because I am not religious, nor do I think it is wrong. But what I am saying is I think this is a losing battle (legally) because it involves trying to change religion's deep-seated moral constructs. There has to be a better way to increase the rights of homosexuals, and prioritize one step at a time-from a political strategist's perspective. I'm very curious about what you think!
i know for sure they dont want same sex marriage so that they can get married in a church, when they can just get married at their homes or somewhere else. all they want is to be able to marry, thats all. if 2 people love each other, sex shouldnt matter at all, and people these days are too ignorant or blind or religious to see this. btw not all religious people oppose same sex marriage neither.
I get the point being made, social movements get blurred by the width of the desires of those participating in the movement. But the end result is what? a blurry undefined "well we want..."
I totally understand the need to have the same rights, that is an absolute no brainer, but is which "word" used really all that important? why battle over the word "marriage"? Legally its protected under the 14th Amendment, it just takes somebody to argue it in front of the Supreme court so it will include everyone like its supposed to, now that's easier said than done. But if it's "rights" one is after, that's the path that should be taken. Once government recognizes it on the federal level under the 14th Amendment, then the debate is over. All that's left is getting religious people to stop being religious, again easier said than done. Forcing one group of people to accept another is wrong, not that people shouldn't accept others, but the "forcing" them is wrong.
If religious leaders want to keep marriage "holy", then hell let'em. Come up with a new word that means exactly the same thing, same rights, same ceremony, same everything and move on, both groups are happy. When the whining continues on "well we want to call it marriage too!!", then you lose me, as then the debate becomes just about the word itself, not the ceremony, not the rights. When people feel they have a "right" to a word, I facepalm as if the word itself is so important, its not.
The point isn't "let'em have ownership of the word", its just a word.. Showing the religious that its silly to have ownership over a word is the point. If a new word is created, I'd wager they'll go after that word as well, showing it's not the word but the behavior that they're wanting to stop. So that comment is to make a point, what is the debate really about? the actual word itself or the rights and actions that follow it? Both sides are playing a game..
If you can't get around a word, make a new one and move on.. I can't believe rigths are being hung up on a single word..
The argument in "redefining" a word is equal to creating a new word, in legislation using both words/two words is quite easy.. example would be "Under State Law both marriage and (insert new word) carry equal rights to the perspective partners regardless of gender.", yep easy as you please, AND any law that gives rights to one but not the other, becomes unconstitutional as it violates the 14th Amendment remember that guy. If we can have 1400 page laws passed, using two separate terms isn't going to change much word wise. So you're back to square one on why a new word wouldn't work.
The hard part is coming up with a word that flows like marriage, that's more cosmetic. All so one can say "will you (insert word here)" and has the same feeling.. What I find odd is the need to say the word marriage or marry to infer the same feelings or idea. I simply asked my wife to spend the rest of her life with me, no need to say "marry". why are people so hung up on that one word? would anyone actually pass on being together using another term instead of marriage? if so then their hung up on a single word, not what it means..
I just want to understand the dire need to use the word marriage, why is that word so important? isn't the act, the concept, the relationship more important than the word used to describe it? I'd be more than happy to use whatever new term is created as an alternate use for marriage.
I think you're still missing my point.
If the end result is to acquire "rights" legally, equal in every aspect, then why get hung up on the term used? If I wanted more funding for education on the university level and was told the term "funding" didn't include what I wanted. And I could get more money for universities for education if I used a different term, cool as long as I get the money and the cause of improving education is served. Don't care what my opposition calls it, I'm more focused on the ending result, not the silly argument of what "term" is used..
My kids get mad when they suffer the consequences of their actions, they call it "dad's being mean" when it's not. I'm teaching them consequences, they can either focus on "me being mean" or they can "learn from their mistakes".. They have to prioritize which is more important. This applies to this debate, which is a bigger priority "the rights" or "the term used"?
At some point in time, giving up on the term in favor of "rights" will find it'll solve both problems. The argument somebody "can't use a word" is fallacious, the common use is not necessarily the legal use. If another term is used legally, who to say the term marriage can't be used in common? This is why I think people are hung up on a single word.
The weight of a word, is created by those who use it. If millions of gays, bisexual, transgender and straight people use a word, the weight is carried by them. We have new words created all the time. I for one created a word because I don't care for the word atheist, as it to me is a negative term created by theists, nor do I like having the word theist in it. I spent months mulling over a new term and came up with Hulist. If I'm the only one who ever uses it, fine, if millions use it fine too, I don't really care either way.. Religious people can call me an atheist all they want, don't really care, that is their term for what I am, but it's not mine.
I've been a little annoyed that the gays/lesbians will not accept the "domestic partnership" compromise, as long as it gives them all of the same rights and privileges as married people. It was invented in the spirit of trying to make everyone happy, but no, they insist that they want marriage not domestic partnership, EVEN IF THEY ARE IDENTICAL IN MEANING.
It seems they just want to have a fight even if there's nothing really to fight about.
Because getting along with people different from oneself is an important part of good citizenship. I don't understand why it has to be a zero-sum gain situation.
Do they have the right to try to turn it into a zero-sum gain situation. Sure. But what's the point?
That isn't 'getting' along; it's allowing people to tell LGBT persons what they can or cannot do without providing a fair reason -- a reason which laws should uphold. It's pandering to irrationality. You may see this as a one-off issue, but it really isn't. It has become a war for social control.
What aren't they "allowed to do" when they have domestic partnership? They are required by law to be treated the same way as a husband or wife would. They get the same tax status. They can refer to themselves as "married" (for domestic partnership is a form of marriage). What exactly can't they do?
It is wrong to tell Chick-fil-A they can't open restaurants because some people dislike the fact that the company leadership is homophobic. It is equally wrong to tell people they can't use a word on the basis of 'I don't like it'.
It is wrong to tell Chick-Fil-A they can't open restaurants because some people dislike the fact that the company leadership is homophobic. It is equally wrong to tell proponents of marriage that what they value (marriage is heterosexual) is something they have to give up.
It's all in how you phrase it.
This isn't a zero-sum game. There is no reciprocal loss for same-sex marriage opponents if same-sex marriages are legalized. In that scenario, LGBT people gain a right, and opponents of marriage equality simply don't get tell other people what to do. Sorry, but that's not zero-sum.
Of course it's zero-sum. LGBT's get a form of marriage, which the proponents of heterosexual marriage will feel is a loss.
What aren't they "allowed to do" when they have domestic partnership?
Be legally married.
They are legally domestic partners, a kind of marriage.
It is equally wrong to tell proponents of marriage that what they value (marriage is heterosexual) is something they have to give up.
It's not all in how you phrase it. No anti-same-sex marriage person has to change their opinion, and no religious institution has to perform same-sex marriages. The only thing that changes is that the law legally recognizes a civil definition of marriage that includes same-sex marriages. With only a handful of exceptions, the only people directly affected by such a change is those desiring same-sex marriages.
You've just restated my contention that a domestic partnership IS a marriage but you haven't stated clearly what the problem is. Of course "only people directly affected by such a change is those desiring same-sex marriages." Why? Because it was designed to give them marriage, which it does.
They are legally domestic partners, a kind of marriage.
Actually, it's a term that serves the purpose of enshrining rights without being a marriage. To say that it is a type of marriage is to fundamentally misunderstand the term.
Well, but there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two in terms of rights. Both are defined legally the same way.
Here is how Dictionary.com defines "marriage" and how it is used. Reading it, I'm mystified as to what your point is:
a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
I don't see the point you are trying to make in there.
While I'm not a huge fan of comparing the gay rights struggle to the black rights struggle, do you understand why having a whites only water fountain and a separate negros water fountain is an issue, even if they are identical fountains?
I do see THAT distinction. The black person lacked the right to use half the fountains in town (presumably whites were free to use a black fountain in a pinch). In this case, the rights are the same for gays and straights. Rights don't seem to be at stake here.
So, if someone doesn't see things your way, they must be yanking your chain? I'm serious.
That comment was not meant to apply to any other discussions.