Defend Marriage Between a Man and a Woman!

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm pretty sure Kathryn is saying, give everyone equal/the same marriage rights (we already have in place now),
but slap a few different letters and syllables on there,
so that people can continue to make (the word) 'marriage' mean whatever they personally want it to.
People will defend their favorite progressions of sounds and letters (spelled and spoken words) to the death.

Words are very powerful to the human psyche.
Many people cannot distinguish between their symbols for things,
and the things themselves.
Words, are symbols for things.
To the human mind, the idea of 'keeping the word'
can quite easily equate 'keeping the thing'.

I get that, but I am pointing out that history shows that creating a separate word creates inequality. Even if it on paper appears the same, discrimination will hinge on that different word.

Eliminate the ability for the bigots to pick on anything official. We cannot educate the hate out of them. So remove the ability to differentiate, from their grasp. that is the only solution.

the only way you get a dog to stop peeing against the couch is to lock him away from the couch when you go out. You can't talk him out of it with Reason.

 

[beenie]

** Staff Advisory **

Please keep comments from getting personal and stay on topic.​

 

[blackout]

Take the word 'marriage' out of the legal system,
give it to the people,
and it will soon become clear
that no one world view 'owns' the word.

People will continue to 'marry' on their own terms,
in light of whatever (non legal) traditions and ideas
appeal to them,
but without the confusion of the conflation
of civil/governmental legalities
and people's own personal ideas and beliefs.

It's gunna be a lot harder
for anyone to say "you're not married" or
"you can't 'get' married"
in a land where all civil unions are of legal equality,
and the words 'marriage' and 'married'
can be claimed/owned/'worn' by anyone.

I think the overinflated/aggrandized nature of the word
will soon come clear.
It will quickly become clear that the word belongs to everyone and anyone.
Further attempts to 'own it' will really come off as silly and ungrounded.
People will still argue 'sin' in light of their religion,
but what else is new.
They will still be able to claim that homosexuality is a sin,
but they will have no psudo religious legal word to rant on about.

People whose 'gods' don't approve of/recognize your marriage today,
won't approve of or recognize it tomorrow. and so what.


In government,
what is SACRED is actualized legal equality of rights.

I really do think it's best for everyone in the end, to just sift the rest out.


At least that's what I'm thinking this morning.

 

[Kathryn]

I get that, but I am pointing out that history shows that creating a separate word creates inequality. Even if it on paper appears the same, discrimination will hinge on that different word.

Eliminate the ability for the bigots to pick on anything official. We cannot educate the hate out of them. So remove the ability to differentiate, from their grasp. that is the only solution.

the only way you get a dog to stop peeing against the couch is to lock him away from the couch when you go out. You can't talk him out of it with Reason.

I don't think you get it. I'm not talking about creating two separate words. I'm saying that the government should stay completely out of defining ANYONE'S marriage - and instead classify all as civil unions whose rights are clearly defined regardless of sexual orientation, gender, etc.

 

[waitasec]

I don't think you get it. I'm not talking about creating two separate words. I'm saying that the government should stay completely out of defining ANYONE'S marriage - and instead classify all as civil unions whose rights are clearly defined regardless of sexual orientation, gender, etc.

yes the pasta has been over salted..so it's time to throw it away and start all over

 

[Kathryn]

yes the pasta has been over salted..so it's time to throw it away and start all over

I agree with that.

Did you know that the Puritans also believed that the government had no right to define marriage?

I just think that's interesting.

 

[waitasec]

I agree with that.

Did you know that the Puritans also believed that the government had no right to define marriage?

I just think that's interesting.

that i did not know...
i guess to keep something pure is to not define it.

 

[Kathryn]

that i did not know...
i guess to keep something pure is to not define it.

No, they believed that marriage was a sacrament between humans and God. They did not believe that the government should have the right to define the religious beliefs or doctrines of it's citizens. Remember, they had just escaped religious prosecution, perpetrated through the governments of the countries they had left.

Though I do not agree with some of the Puritans' religious doctrines, I think they were spot on when it came to this particular application of their beliefs.

 

[waitasec]

No, they believed that marriage was a sacrament between humans and God.

i see what you mean, but i was trying to go all philosophical on you

as in what i quoted here, to me keeping marriage pure is to accept...
marriage as a sacrament between humans...not between humans and a particular god or between man and woman

 

[tumbleweed41]

I see no problem with the official government recognition of marriage. Considering the national and state laws in place, it would cost more to redefine all marriages as civil unions than to allow same sex couples to officially use the term marriage.

Equality does not mean changing marriage to civil unions for all couples regardless of sexual orientation. It is allowing same-sex couples to have officially recognized marriages just as heterosexual couples have had since American officially became a country.

 

[blackout]

All other things being equal,
people will still fight over words.

 

[Road Warrior]

I see no problem with the official government recognition of marriage. Considering the national and state laws in place, it would cost more to redefine all marriages as civil unions than to allow same sex couples to officially use the term marriage.

Equality does not mean changing marriage to civil unions for all couples regardless of sexual orientation. It is allowing same-sex couples to have officially recognized marriages just as heterosexual couples have had since American officially became a country.

Agreed it's the results that count, not the words. On the subject of legally defining "marriage" and "civil union", it seems a simple matter for legislation to state something like "for purposes of law, 'marriage' and 'civil union' are identical in meaning. All religions are free to continue to define each term as they wish, but legally, the terms mean the same thing".

 

[Revoltingest]

True, since I am one and have been since 1974. OTOH, I don't see the Democrats, Libertarians or any other political party passing laws to deny a segment of our population the same rights shared by others.

But not all Republicans oppose such laws, & not all Dems favor such laws, especially among black Dems.
A partisan take on it makes the issue needlessly contentious.

 

[Road Warrior]

But not all Republicans oppose such laws, & not all Dems favor such laws, especially among black Dems.
A partisan take on it makes the issue needlessly contentious.

It is always true that humans vary across a bell curve of opinion. Nonetheless, it is the GOP which is carrying the torch in this matter far ahead of other political parties.

Are you going to honestly tell me it is part of the Democratic or Libertarian platform to ban gay marriage or pass legislation that marriage is solely between a man and a woman? To deny legal rights between gay couples that straight couples share every day?

 

[nnmartin]

Natural Law is what we should all be striving for in these kinds of issue.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Natural Law is what we should all be striving for in these kinds of issue.

Is

 

[nnmartin]

yes, but one cannot dispute the fact that man + woman = baby.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

yes, but one cannot dispute the fact that man + woman = baby.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with marriage or adoption.

 

[nnmartin]

sure it does - marriage is a celebration of Nature.

The coming together of it's two major forces, in order to create new life.

Primitive man understood this, so the marriage concept was devised.

 

[nnmartin]

A woman has a biological need to attract a man.

Marriage enables her to keep that man.

However, a man does not have a biological need to attract a man, nor a woman to attract a woman.

Thus marriage is not necessary for them.

Love is not a real thing, it is only a passing fancy, therefore not a valid enough reason on it's own to get married.

However the potential of having a child, according to Nature's Holy Law, allows for marriage between man and woman.

Those with no intention or ability to have a child together naturally have no need to marry and thus the facility should be canceled for them.