|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: I still want a different word for 'gay marriage' | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
As I write this, the message this is a reply to has been attributed to "unregistered". Glitches like this have been showing up because of changes made in the dBoard version 2.0 upgrade. Admin/Percy has been alerted to this, and I presume a fix will be done.
Please, no futher comments about "unregistered". Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Its not that I don't consider a fake marriage with a girl to be bogus. The gender doesn't make it more or less bogus of a marriage. I was saying that I never considered entering a bogus marriage with a girl and now that we're talking about gays getting married, I started considering a bogus marriage. And I wouldn't consider entering one with a girl although I would consider entering one with a guy. maybe that just makes you gay? look, the fact that you would consider it a possibility means that you do not value gay marriage as highly -- something that was obvious from the start. if anything, it is an argument FOR calling it a marriage so people would take it more seriously. but if you think that potential abuse is a problem that justifies barring the practice, then it requires that you bar regular marriage too. just because YOU wouldn't consider doesn't mean that other people don't. i'm sure you're well aware of the practice of green-card marriages?
No, I don't. I'm not worried about the gay people doing it just for the benefits, I'm worried about the straight people posing as gays getting married so they can get the benefits. (heh, maybe if they had to make-out when they sign the paper work it would be enough of a deterant, j/k.) haha. remember, jesus kissed a guy too!
No, I realise that, its not wierd. I think when marrage was intended to be heterosexual. We can let gay people do it too lets just call it something else instead of redefining marriage, which has an affect on my outlook on marriage. how, exactly? what effects will it actually have?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
but if you think that potential abuse is a problem that justifies barring the practice, then it requires that you bar regular marriage too. No it doesn't require regular marriage to be barred. Bogus marriages aren't much of, if any of, a problem (mostly immigration problems). I'm saying that we'll have more bogus marriages and more problems if gay marriages are just lumped into marriages. Schraf was asking for data or somehting to back up this claim but I'm just saying this as an opinion. Its just something I think will happen so I don't support gay marriage, but becuase I lack any evidence, I refrain from actively opposing it. The opinion comes form my views on who I would bogus marry and why.
how, exactly? what effects will it actually have? I see marriage as commiting myself to someone before god and before the state. Commitment before the state is going to become meaningless to me, except for the legal ramification, and a part of marriage is removed. Calling gay marriage "marriage" cheapens or belittles my outlook on marriage and I don't want that to happen to it either. Even just changing the first letter to G and calling it Garriage makes it better. They have their own thing and I have mine (or we have ours). I don't want the current "marriage" to be changed to include something that isn't marriage in my opinion. I do think they should have the rights, though. crap, gotta do some work, i have more to type but I'm out of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
No it doesn't require regular marriage to be barred. Bogus marriages aren't much of, if any of, a problem (mostly immigration problems). I'm saying that we'll have more bogus marriages and more problems if gay marriages are just lumped into marriages. well, this is just an irrational argument. it's a "what if" scenario. legally, we cannot make laws that prohibit whole classes of people from doing something, lest a small class of people abuse it.
I see marriage as commiting myself to someone before god and before the state. that's great. what about athiests? are they committed before god, too? legally, a marriage is something recognized by the state only. that "before god" part can come with church -- but you don't have to get married in a church, do you? nor do churches have to marry anybody they do not wish to.
Even just changing the first letter to G and calling it Garriage makes it better. They have their own thing and I have mine (or we have ours). I don't want the current "marriage" to be changed to include something that isn't marriage in my opinion. I do think they should have the rights, though. how about we call "gay marriage." that way straight people are less inclined to do it for fraudulent purposes because it's both marriage, and they'd be called gay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I don't have to support gay rights to see through all the bullshit.
Neither do I. You made some good points but I'm not very interested in discussing the political problems. It is annoying how everything changes around election time, though. Allow me to point out to you that I don't consider myself a part of the religious right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rgb Inactive Member |
CS writes
quote:I know. Unlike other people here (ahem), I make sure to know people's views before I nose in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
well, this is just an irrational argument. it's a "what if" scenario. Well, thats one of my reasons for not supporting gay marriages. I can accept that some people don't consider it rational.
legally, we cannot make laws that prohibit whole classes of people from doing something, lest a small class of people abuse it. But are we legally required to include them as long as we don't prohibit them? I mean, passing a law that prohibits gay marriage is different than doing nothing and leaving them out of it, right? I think we should have a new type of marriage for gay people and then incorporate that into the laws.
I see marriage as commiting myself to someone before god and before the state. that's great. what about athiests? are they committed before god, too?
Nope. When I get married, I see the ceremony before god and the paperwork at the courthouse as one big thing. Not two seperate things. The atheists can leave the whole god part out and just do the legal thing. But to seperate them for me would be like getting married twice, once for god and once for the state.
legally, a marriage is something recognized by the state only. that "before god" part can come with church -- but you don't have to get married in a church, do you? nor do churches have to marry anybody they do not wish to. No, you don't have to get maried in a church. But if you do get married in a church you do have to go down to the courthouse too. I think its part of the whole ceremony.
how about we call "gay marriage." that way straight people are less inclined to do it for fraudulent purposes because it's both marriage, and they'd be called gay.
This is kinda a segway to the stuff I was typing in the other thread about how I don't like the idea of just including the gay marriages in with marriage in the laws and statutes. I was saying that gay marriages weren't considered when some of the laws were written, much like race wasn't, and even though it worked for race to just include it, its my opinion that gay won't work as well. This opinion comes from the stuff I was typing in the OP about how I might react to a simple inclusion of gay into marriage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Unlike other people here (ahem)... <.< >.> who?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 821 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
Okay, I have a solution for you, since YOU are the one having so much of a problem with gay marriage, why don't you just put on a blind fold so you don't have to see it and stick you fingers in your ears so you don't have to hear about it. That way the rest of us can just refer to gay marriage as marriage and you won't be offended by it or be tempted to have a fake gay marriage to help out your biker buddy who doesn't have insurance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
But are we legally required to include them as long as we don't prohibit them? I mean, passing a law that prohibits gay marriage is different than doing nothing and leaving them out of it, right? the church can feel free to leave them out, and even SAY that it's not a marriage. but they want marriages -- REAL marriages -- with all the rights and benefits of any other kind of marriage. is the federal gov't required to include them in a definition of marriage? no. but your reason is not a good reason for them to override states' rulings and outlaw it altogether.
that's great. what about athiests? are they committed before god, too? Nope. When I get married, I see the ceremony before god and the paperwork at the courthouse as one big thing. Not two seperate things. The atheists can leave the whole god part out and just do the legal thing. But to seperate them for me would be like getting married twice, once for god and once for the state. what mean is, are athiests married? they don't do the "before god" bit, even if they are married in a church, because they don't believe in god. yet the state calls it marriage -- even if they just do the courthouse bit. leave gays out of the church if you'd like. but there's no reason to entagle the state in a religious objection.
This is kinda a segway to the stuff I was typing in the other thread about how I don't like the idea of just including the gay marriages in with marriage in the laws and statutes. I was saying that gay marriages weren't considered when some of the laws were written, much like race wasn't, and even though it worked for race to just include it, its my opinion that gay won't work as well. This opinion comes from the stuff I was typing in the OP about how I might react to a simple inclusion of gay into marriage. i do not think your reasoning is correct. however, what i said was call it "gay marriage." the whole phrase, gay included. you don't wanna be called gay? don't marry someone of the same gender. Edited by arachnophilia, : wrong word
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Because I think other people will take advantage of it too and WRT healthcare, when enough people buck the system it will have a negetive impact on my healthcare, even if I am blind and deaf to gay marriage.
OTOH, being totally ignorant of gay marriages would probably solve the problem I have with the actual marrying part of it, unless something changes that affects what normally would happen in my getting married (at the courthouse perhaps).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
the church can feel free to leave them out, and even SAY that it's not a marriage. but they want marriages -- REAL marriages -- with all the rights and benefits of any other kind of marriage. Yeah, I understand that, no arguments there.
is the federal gov't required to include them in a definition of marriage? no. So you shouldn't equate the lack of inclusion with prohibition, which I think you did earlier, IIRC.
but your reason is not a good reason for them to override states' rulings and outlaw it altogether. Right, which is why you won't see me out there fighting against gay marriages. But I do think it is reason enough to continue to not support gay marriage.
but there's no reason to entagle the state in a religious objection. Agreed. Don't prohibit their 'marriages' because of religious objection, but do the religious a favor and come up with a new word to describe their union.
however, what i said was call it "gay marriage." the whole phrase, gay included. But there is still the issue of the ambiguity of the word marriage in the laws and statutes. Anywhere the word marrige is written should include 'gay marriage' as well? I said that gay wasn't considered when some of the laws and statutes were written so maybe that should be considered before all the gay marriages are just lumped in there. If a whole new word was created, it could be added into the laws and statues as neccessary. Might be a bad idea, i dunno, but I think lumping gay in there is a bad idea. I think it will open the laws up for exploitation much like the healthcare issue I have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
There were several suggestions made in the other thread. I suggested "bunny boppin". All that is needed is a law saying that in any contract, statute or legislation, wherever the word marriage is found the term "bunny bopping" may be substituted with full equivalence.
Other possible terms could be
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
There is more to it than the name though.
substituted with full equivalence I don't think thats a good idea for reasons I've typed here and there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
So you shouldn't equate the lack of inclusion with prohibition, which I think you did earlier, IIRC. i don't believe i was. the issue under debate in congress is prohibition. if you are simply for non-inclusion, that means your and your group (i'll assume) the catholics do not have to include gays in THEIR definition of marriage, or allow them to be married in THEIR churches. do we have to include gays in the STATE'S definition of marriage? well, the federal government, to my knowledge, does not have an explicit definition of marriage --- that's what the amendment is. but gays WANT to be included, and i see no real reason to exclude them. you can exclude them from your group, but legalized discrimination on the federal level is wrong.
Agreed. Don't prohibit their 'marriages' because of religious objection, but do the religious a favor and come up with a new word to describe their union. it's not the federal government's job to do the religous any favors. if they don't like it, well, too bad. because they do not have the right to restrict the rights of others just to make themslves more comfortable with what other people can and cannot do.
But there is still the issue of the ambiguity of the word marriage in the laws and statutes. Anywhere the word marrige is written should include 'gay marriage' as well? I said that gay wasn't considered when some of the laws and statutes were written so maybe that should be considered before all the gay marriages are just lumped in there. If a whole new word was created, it could be added into the laws and statues as neccessary. Might be a bad idea, i dunno, but I think lumping gay in there is a bad idea. I think it will open the laws up for exploitation much like the healthcare issue I have. maybe the word "marriage" has already lost its meaning, and it's the religious people that aren't taking it seriously. afterall, you would marry your buddy if you could, just to get him healthcare. that's not gays making a mockery of marriage, that's YOU making a mockery of marriage.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024