I still want a different word for 'gay marriage'

quote:

---

You see, I don't really care to deny gay people rights nor if they get rights.

---

You don't care if people have equal rights?Is it OK if I don't care if you have, say, the right to freely practice your religion?

Could you clarify your position on what makes a position "liberal" or not? 1) Can you explain how it is "liberal" to propose a law or policy that "fails to consider potential negative consequences"?Do you really believe that conservatives have never "failed to consider potential negative consequences", or do not do so just as much or more than liberals?

---

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

I love ya' schraf, but in all honesty I don't think he meant it that way. I saw that myself but passed on commenting because I'm honestly trying to resolve the issue rather than inflame it further. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, and unless and until he says something else insensitive and/or dismissive I would ask that everyone else on my side try to do the same.

---

W.W.E.D.?

Okay, we crossed posts here, and in this case I think you're making a valid point. I don't think the conservatives have considered a single potential negative consequence of anything they've done since 1994.

---

W.W.E.D.?

Nope. Of course, if someone said, "Gays gimme the jibblies, therefore we should outlaw homosexuality," it might be a different story.I believe pretty firmly in Dan Savage's view of sexual freedom... folks have the right to do what they want, and everyone else has the right to turn their nose up at it. Not legally. (Perhaps in some states, but in most places, try ordering a beer for your teenage kid at a restaurant.) The goverment gives Christianity a pass on certain laws? Well, now you've crossed over into the realm of whacked out science fiction.Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

Oh, I'm sorry? I didn't realize you were prevented from leaving the country.Seriously, you're free to abandon this society at any time for one more to your liking. Might I suggest Saudi Arabia?

I understand what you are saying and agree. I'm not meaning to give you a hard time or anything as I think we share an extremely similar position. I just raised the point because in another thread someone who said they didn't support laws against homosexuality but felt weirded out by it, was called a homophobe. I think one person came to his defense. As far as I understand the laws on this, it is not legal to purchase liquor for kids. But one can allow one's own children to drink alcohol (purchased for one's own use)... within limits of safety. That's even true at restaurants. On a purely geek level, would that count as science fantasy instead of science fiction? Or maybe it doesn't count as fantasy until you have a unicorn.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

i guess anything you disagree with is 'liberal' now?
why is it that people feel the need to use liberal as a smear word now?

Many conservatives want to elect Judges who they believe will interpret the Laws in strict absolute frameworks.Liberalism, to them, involves reinterpreting the mmeaning of some of our sacred cow-isms. "Legislating from the bench" they call it.I am a moderate...while I feel that society needs to change, I dont feel it appropriate to dislodge the underpinnings of what we were built upon.In other words, I don't want The Ten Suggestions to replace The Ten Commandments anytime soon.I feel uncomfortable with redefining marriage. It is based on current human cultural attitudes to do so...rather than on traditional definitions.There simply is no need for two same sex people to get married, aside from economic and legal benefits. Based on those reasons, I suppose that changing the laws wouldnt hurt anyone....but I'd have to study both sides of the issues.

Hello Phat: I'm not trying to get accusatory here, but can you describe any of these "Legislating from the bench" reinterpretations? Because, by and large, it has been my experience that when this phrase is hauled out it usually by Conservatives who simply do not agree with the ruling of a Judge, even when that Judge is clearly upholding the friggen Constitution. And I don't want The Ten Commandments forced upon me. Let me ask you this. Was there a "definition" of marriage already on the books (prior to "gay marriage" becoming such a hot topic), dictating that a marriage is between one man and one women? Honestly, I don't know, but somehow I doubt it, otherwise all these homophobic Republicans would not suddenly feel the need to define it as such. So it would seem that the "redefining" is being done by the Conservatives in response to Gays wanting to receive the same rights and benefits afforded to the rest of the population. It was only then that some sort of "definition" seemed necessary. And a very narrow and discriminatory definition at that. What? What do you mean by "there simply is no reason"? What are the reason(s) behind a heterosexual couples "need" to get married? What can't gays have the same reason(s)? And by implying that they do it only for economic and legal benefits is pretty insulting, to say the least. At the same time, however, those two reasons are mighty important.

That's the claim. But it makes little sense.What's the original "strict absolute framework" for the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms? Clearly the original intent had to do with 18th century muskets. Or a case could be made that the original intent included all arms, including the right of private ownership of an H-bomb. Neither makes sense in the modern world.The "liberal" view concentrates on the "militia" part, and sees the important part of the 2nd amendment as the right of citizens to organize in rebellion against a tyrannical government. Surely the liberal position makes more sense here. I don't think anybody is suggesting that.The conservative position seems to be that the ten commandments is, or should be, part of our body of law. Yet there is nothing conservative about such revisionist history. The more sensible view - and presumably I am one of those commie pinko liberals for suggesting it - is that the ten commandments is part of our cultural traditions, and it should be left to the culture rather than the government. I'm not for redefining marriage either. Marriage, too, is a cultural tradition. It should be left to the culture, and it can evolve with culture. There might be a point to redefining who is eligible for various benefits. But there is no point to legislate a definition of marriage. Leave it to the culture. The attempt of the "conservative" right to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage is wrong. It does great harm to the constitution, and to our cultural heritage.The right wing ideologists have stolen the word "conservative", and repeatedly misuse it. They have also misappropriated the term "liberal", and misuse that, too.

Except, of course, when it comes to the fourth amendment.Or the first.Or... y'know. The sixth.That leaves seventy percent of the original ten, though! A C- isn't bad!Wait... no, I forgot the seventh amendment. And, um... the the eighth. Shit.But you can be damn sure that any activist judges trying to quarter a soldier in a time of peace will be given a stern dressing down by the conservatives of this fine nation!

How about because they want to declare their love and devotion to one another, you know, in the exact same way that we "normal" people do. Can you give me one logical reason why they shouldn't be able to do so?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

What is normal? I think its pretty clear that many people do not define homosexual activity as normal, and do not view what they want to do as exactly the same.Can you think of other groups that might want to declare their love and devotion in the same way that "normal" people do, but you (or most people) would not want to give them such ability? There are no logical reasons to proscribe any basically consensual activity. Yet it happens all the time. I think you are going to have to aim at a larger target first. Must laws be based on logical foundations? If so, what are they?If this is not resolved for everyone, there is no real need for any particular group to defende their choice on such grounds.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

What is normal, eh? A very difficult question to answer in the abstract. I suppose in the context of the present discussion, it would mean heterosexual, as opposed to homosexual. At least, that is what I take it to mean when people talk about normal in this context. I put it in quotes in an effort to show that I don't think there is necessarily anything normal about heterosexuality or abnormal about homosexuality.In one sense, normal means conforming to the actions of the majority. This is what dictionary.com says: In the context of gay marriage, the sense that I get is that most people who use the word give it some kind of implicit negative connotation. Homosexuals aren't "normal," they aren't like the rest of us. I put quotes around the word to try to show that I don't accept the idea that homosexuality is abnormal in any significant sense.Certainly what homosexuals want to do is not exactly the same in every way, or they wouldn't be homosexuals, would they? However, I have never spoken to a homosexual who wanted to get married who gave a reason any different from the various reasons I chose to get married. Are there some homosexuals who want to marry for different reasons? Are there some who want to marry in an effort to change society, to try to make homosexuality more acceptable? It's a big world out there, I'd be quite surprised if there weren't some people who wanted to get married for that reason. But I believe that the vast majority who want to marry want to do so for reasons no different from those of most heterosexuals. Possibly. So what? I see. So if there is one law out there that cannot be supported on a logical basis, we shouldn't ask that any laws be based on logic. Sorry, that doesn't follow for me. By that logic, why not reinstate miscegenation laws?To me, it's no answer to the request for a logical basis for making a particular distinction to say there are other laws that are equally illogical. I asked for a logical reason to make a distinction between gay marriage and straight marriage because this is a thread about gay marriage. If you would like to start separate threads for any other type of marriage, I'd happily discuss whether there is a logical basis, or any other basis, for such distinctions in those threads. In the alternative, if you'd like to start a thread about the need for a logical basis for any law that proscribes consensual activity, I'd address those issues in that thread.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin