KO on Prop 8
POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Friday, November 14, 2008 13:30
VIEWED: 7790
PAGE 9 of 10
This is, if I interpret correctly, exactly what pro-gay-marriage people want and opponents reject because the word "marriage" is involved.. or am I wrong?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think you're right. Anti-gay marriage peeps don't want gays using the term "marriage" bc they feel it belongs to them.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You've crossed the line Wulf. Slurs on ethnicity or national origin is just...gross. That is too much insane hatred.
So, how about next time you think of opening your stupid Pollock mouth.... Don't.
I have no love for Rue, but she does not deserve racial/ethnic name-calling.
--------------------------
Dr. Horrible Karaoke
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think you're right. Anti-gay marriage peeps don't want gays using the term "marriage" bc they feel it belongs to them.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
Yeah. I would really love to see a more thorough discussion about this particular aspect of the problem.
Dear People who who think the term "marriage" is a solely religious one,
why do you think this? Are you willing to discuss this logically? Or is it entirely an emotional investment you aren't willing to compromise on, and if so, how do you justify this?
Honestly curious and not looking for a flamewar,
AR
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, Wulf didn't have the courage after all...
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
we can wait for a couple more decades for enough bigots to die off from old age so that the people who are "liberal" on this are in the majority (after all, society progresses one funeral at a time).
LINE OF THE DAY!! "Society progresses one funeral at a time."
I love that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think you're right. Anti-gay marriage peeps don't want gays using the term "marriage" bc they feel it belongs to them.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
Yeah. I would really love to see a more thorough discussion about this particular aspect of the problem.
Dear People who who think the term "marriage" is a solely religious one,
why do you think this? Are you willing to discuss this logically? Or is it entirely an emotional investment you aren't willing to compromise on, and if so, how do you justify this?
fwiw (and I suspect very little), m-webster does not use the word "religion," in it's definition of marry or marriage. Religion does not own that word.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I hope this wasn't directed at me (amongst others), but it probably was. "Marriage" may not be defined in terms of religion, but it certainly has a religious connotation, at least where I come from. That's why I don't like the word. But fine, it's just a word and its connotation is subjective, if non-religious married people want to keep it then fair enough. However, if you recall, most people (religious or not) who argue against gay marriage argue against it because of what the word "marriage" means to them, and that gay marriage doesn't fit into their personal definition of marriage, so the entire discussion of the word is pretty subjective in the first place, regardless of what the dictionary says.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Dear People who who think the term "marriage" is a solely religious one,
why do you think this? Are you willing to discuss this logically? Or is it entirely an emotional investment you aren't willing to compromise on, and if so, how do you justify this?
To the real discussion at hand, I still think the state should only allow civil unions (call them common-law marriages, then, or whatever) between any two consenting people not too closely related and old enough, just clearly distinguish the line between church and state on this issue, because in a lot of people's mind it's quite muddled, which is something the bigots are taking advantage of. Although keeping the word marriage for both cases won't help in making that distinction ...
Doing it this way wouldn't be pandering to the religious bigots, it would be pulling the rug out from under them and making their arguments obsolete.
------------------------------
What sane person could live in this world and not be crazy?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Banning gays from getting married IS treating them special - in a negative way.
No more than banning marriage between very close relatives, or polygamy. Say what you want, but merely asking that marriage be defined as 1 man + 1 woman is not, by any stretch of the imagination hateful , mean or discriminatory.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
I hope this wasn't directed at me (amongst others), but it probably was.
It wasn't aimed specifically at you!
I'd really like to hear from anyone who holds that opinion.Quote:
However, if you recall, most people (religious or not) who argue against gay marriage argue against it because of what the word "marriage" means to them, and that gay marriage doesn't fit into their personal definition of marriage, so the entire discussion of the word is pretty subjective in the first place, regardless of what the dictionary says.
So you don't think that asking them why they think their idea of marriage is the only one is a worthy pursuit?
I suspect the issue is greater than just gay marriage but encompasses also the concept of how much influence religion should have on civil matters.
Your solution is a practical one but it still constitutes a concession toward people who wrongfully claim a term that should belong to all. It's a question of pragmatism vs. the principle of the thing.
To use a really overdrawn analogy, if someone comes over and occupies your home, do you just move out? Sure, they are out of your hair, but your home is lost. And they'll feel completely justified in having occupied it in the first place. Is that a good solution?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME