1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

How to Define Same-Sex Marriage

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Remixer, Nov 10, 2013.

  1. GeneticShift

    GeneticShift Show me your everything is okay face.

    I'm still attempting to have an eloquent response to this thread, but for now I'll just leave this here.

    “It’s very dear to me, the issue of gay marriage, or as I like to call it, “marriage.” You know, because I had lunch this afternoon, not gay lunch. And I parked my car. I didn’t gay park it.” – Liz Feldman
     
    • Like Like x 9
  2. Katia

    Katia Very Tilted

    Location:
    Earth
    And may be they just want to call their own marriage simply a marriage. Great! My point is, each person should have the right to call their own marriage what they want.

    Now I better swim outta here because I've butchered the english language and the grammar sharks are about to swallow me whole! ;)
     
  3. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek

    Regardless of the adjective, they are still calling it a marriage. This thread began by suggesting that the word marriage itself should not be used for same-sex marriage.

    I can drive a red car or a fast car, but I am still driving a car.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    The argument, I think, is that LGBT couples aren't doing the same thing married couples are doing, nor are they capable of doing it.

    This, in essence, is an argument against the legitimitiazation of LGBT relationships, especially as far as the family is concerned.

    It's an argument against families built around homosexual parents—assuming, of course, that one function of a marriage is to be parents (though I would say this isn't an essential component, and arguments for and against that is another matter, really).

    Otherwise, what they're doing would be just fine under a marriage, and there would be no problem calling it a marriage.
     
  5. Street Pattern

    Street Pattern Very Tilted

    The gist of the legal case is that allowing "marriage" to opposite-sex couples, while not allowing "marriage" to same-sex couples, is a violation of the principle of equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment).

    Using different words for gay or straight partnerships is not going to pass constitutional muster.

    More radical notions, like getting the government out of the marriage-licensing business, are untenable politically and/or awkward practically. Millions of people have made commitments based on the existing legal structure, and are unlikely to want a new system that throws all that into doubt or disarray.

    (Obviously, I'm speaking only of the U.S. here. Pardon my parochialism, but I know little of other countries' legal systems or marriage laws.)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. curiousbear

    curiousbear Terse & Bizarre


    To Dear Liz
    With all due respect, Well I eat lunch, drink coffee, smoke cigar!
    I don't eat coffee, I don't drink a cigar!
    Also I drive a car, ride a bike, row a boat.
    --- merged: Nov 19, 2013 at 3:57 PM ---

    hmmm that is ok! I dont get many things as well.
    Or it could be just I need to get used to it.
    And yes, many times where we live makes a huge difference - I get it (They arrest women for driving cars is some countries).
    --- merged: Nov 19, 2013 at 4:00 PM ---

    My original post was not at all about religion or legal. It was more about the term or word 'marriage'.
    I saw marriage as a certain type of union for a certain purpose/function.
    There are definitely other types of unions that needs same recognition/benefits of the state.
    --- merged: Nov 19, 2013 at 4:04 PM ---
    You have no idea how nervous each time I make a post in this thread. I have to say my point. But Tfp is treasure that I dont want to mess up with. And on top of that my English and General Knowledge is limited... But I had been beaten up by seniors in college in a good way, it only helped lol
    --- merged: Nov 19, 2013 at 4:11 PM ---
    I think by the time I could participate in the thread a very different context than my OP in PA was set.
    When I say the unions are different, the difference is distinction not discrimination.
    --- merged: Nov 19, 2013 at 4:18 PM ---
    Yes that is how the difference is spelled today. Regardless of this entire thread people involved get creative to express that difference. It is not about law. It is required to make the communication work between people.

    Yes. Exactly. They are all colors. But they are all different. The world is just getting more colorful.

    There are so many things that we cannot share! People who believed that the whole world should pray one god and follow one religion did horrible things. Some do even now.
    I rather believe in co-existence.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 26, 2013
  7. GeneticShift

    GeneticShift Show me your everything is okay face.


    I really don't see where you're going with this, if you would care to enlighten.
     
  8. Xerxes

    Xerxes Bulking.

    He's making the most asinine comparison, essentially, he's saying that gay people are not the same as straight people; much like the consumption of coffee is not described the same way you consume a cigar.

    This thread, geez.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. GeneticShift

    GeneticShift Show me your everything is okay face.


    Yeah, I was seeing if there was some better analogy there that made more sense.

    I guess, to me, it all boils down to who the hell cares. Two consenting adults are committing their lives to each other. It's a big deal, independent of genders of the parties involved. If I have signed paperwork with someone, am sharing duties and responsibilities with someone, am faithful and respectful of someone, why does it matter if it's a man or a woman? How does it change your hypothetical marriage at all?

    And to reiterate what has been said before, have can we put the whole "separate but equal" thing away? It's kk d of ridiculous. It's a word. Marriage. It happens.

    And since I'm a petty pop culture bitch to anyone who states that gay marriage is "ruining the sanctity of marriage", can we reflect on Kim Kardashian's 72 day marriage? Britney Spears's 72 hour marriage? They could learn a thing or two from Neil Patrick Harris.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  10. arkana

    arkana Very Tilted

    Location:
    canada
    Using words and labels to exclude certain groups of people is a classic way of coding bigotry and those of us on this thread who are all for same-sex marriage having been giving this discussion way too much credit. Marriage is marriage, no matter what two genders are involved, and if you are spending your time "just trying to clear up terms" then you are either ignorant of some terrible trends in human history or part of trying to perpetuate another one.

    I'm out of here.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  11. GeneticShift

    GeneticShift Show me your everything is okay face.

    <3

    Thank you for eloquently reading my mind.
     
  12. snowy

    snowy so kawaii Staff Member

    Hear, hear.
     
  13. Xerxes

    Xerxes Bulking.

    Man, I really hate intentional dimness.

    "I just don't understand ..."
    "I just don't get ... "

    There is NOTHING to get. People are people are people can be gay. When they both love each other but the tax burden of individual 1040's prove to be too strenuous on one party they decide to form a union that will be recognized by society as legal and binding. Marriage is important because it serves the purpose of introducing one who is not related by birth into your family.

    Married couples enjoy

    a) Shared Insurance
    b) Property inheritance
    c) riding in ambulances
    d) visitation rights i.e. Prison, Hospital etc etc etc
    e) taxation benefits
    .... etc etc etc

    So why can't gay people marry? Oh, you want to call it "civil unions" and not "marriage" because "marriage is OUR word".

    First off, let's all start with the stupid bible quote. That Leviticus quote, by the way, specifically says men, as in males, women at the time were not even considered when law's were being written except as property, like cattle. When that stupid law was written, it was mainly due to the "ick" factor of two men shagging bothering the dude who wrote it. Much like @curiousbear's sentiments on the matter. No, it was not for any other reason. No one with such a depraved mind could possibly have written such a stupid law for a more complex reason than that. Yes, I know "man" nowadays stands in for "human" in the bible quite a lot. No, I refuse to believe that "man" originally was meant to stand in for "human" in the bible. The bible is not complex.

    Secondly, marriages have existed before christianity, before the current prevalent religions. So why is it religious people want to redefine a word from the dictionary? Because anything less would be a sign of giving in. A sign of accepting that a part of the bible is wrong. A sign of change. That makes you uncomfortable. Why does that make you uncomfortable? Because sex. Sex makes you uncomfortable. ick factor. If you think homosexuality is unnatural or even an "abomination" then you are merely an immature idiot or closeted. Or both. We cannot accept parts of the bible and displace others.

    So there we have it. Homosexuality is very natural. Dolphins do it. Chimpanzee's do it. Penguins do it. Humans do it.

    Everyone should get married as they please. Everyone should be able to marry whatever can consent to it. I, for one, look forward to my waifu when they finally perfect the SPINNING VAGITRON 3000.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Street Pattern

    Street Pattern Very Tilted

    One side doesn't want same-sex unions to have ANY kind of recognition, and have written that prohibition into the constitutions of many U.S. states. Those provisions will be (are being) struck down, not in part, but completely.

    I don't see any legal or political path to a resolution that maintains the term "marriage" for opposite-sex couples only.

    Here in the U.S., activists and issue partisans have every incentive to take hard-line positions, and very little to engage in negotiation and compromise. The goal is not compromise, but the validation and enforcement of rights claimed by one group or another.

    When the issue is the rights of same-sex couples to equal protection of the laws, versus legal prohibitions motivated by "animus" (Supreme Court's word) against homosexuals, it's not hard to see who wins.

    And I don't see how, in the wake of such decisions, anyone is going to drop the term "marriage" for same-sex couples, in favor of some other word, as in, "no, no, you guys aren't married, you're partnered."
     
  15. curiousbear

    curiousbear Terse & Bizarre

    Perhaps it is too much credit...
    I don't want to waste a bunch of people's time on this further.
     
  16. curiousbear

    curiousbear Terse & Bizarre

    I did read your post - Thanks

    And your statement that "everyone should be able to marry whatever that can consent to it" is very profound. Thanks.
     
  17. curiousbear

    curiousbear Terse & Bizarre

    No where. Sorry I fail.
     
  18. snowy

    snowy so kawaii Staff Member

    Something relevant to the discussion here. We can't change who we are in this respect, and therefore the attitude of "separate but equal" is wrong.

     
    • Like Like x 5
  19. MSD

    MSD Very Tilted

    Location:
    CT
    I have to caution against bringing this up in response to anything but the claim that sexual orientation is unnatural or that it is a choice. There is no morality in evolution, it is simply a consequence of genetics. That something evolved doesn't make it right; if the only goal is to pass down your own genes, rape and infanticide are effective ways to tip the odds in your favor. I certainly hope that nobody here thinks that makes those acts defensible.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Xerxes

    Xerxes Bulking.

    Hey, you're right. Rape and infanticide is also widely practiced by other animals. Specifically killing cubs or younglings in order to force the female to procreate. This is true.

    But right this minute, I just can't come up with a good reason why that isn't a fair comparison. I can say homosexuality amongst humans doesn't really hurt anyone, but from the outrage it garners, I'm willing to concede that many a suicide and societal undue pressure has been stressed among our gay peers. In fact, Penn & Teller reported that the only and most damaging side effect of being raised by gay parents is other people's parents and children. Perhaps maybe I can say something like, "well, as humans we should be able to recognize that homosexuals being together doesn't physically hurt anyone" but that would be a logical step that the illogical cannot arrive at.

    I am deeply saddened by this discussion as it is a no brainer for me. We should be able to define marriage without the gender/numbers aspect of it. I like the phrase Charlatan taught me, "binary thinking". As humans, we should recognize in this time and age there are more than just two choices to everything.
     
    • Like Like x 1