Permalink Reply by MDS on November 2, 2009 at 3:32pm
Unless of course your area (State/County) has the LEGAL definition of "Marriage" as a union between a man and a woman. At that point, the LEGAL meaning of the word is one thing ONLY. To change that definition to include other couplings between people would mean that the legal definition of the word "Marriage" has been changed.
Look, I don't care if a man and woman gets together as a couple, nor a man and man, nor even a woman and woman. But, when you are using words that DO HAVE a definition, then let's keep the specific word "Marriage" to indicate a "Man/Woman" couple. We can instead use another word to define the union of "Man/Man" or "Woman/Woman". That way, by having each of these unions using a specific word, we will know INSTANTLY what sort of coupling you are referring to. Because, believe it or not, when people write (and pass) laws regulating what a specific word means, it's very important that you KNOW the definition of the word before you start to use it.
And if you doubt that, then let's start calling all children "Sisters" regardless of their gender, or all people "Senior Citizens" regardless of their age, and everyone is now "White" instead of their race. Sorry, but words DO have meanings, and those meanings are used to prevent confusion in both conversations and in laws. It's impossible to sit there and say that being "Anti gay-MARRIAGE", makes you a homophobic person. I personally AM "Anti gay-MARRIAGE" because I feel that the terminology should be specific for EACH type of union that a person is involved with. That doesn't mean that I'm anti-gay, or anti-coupling... I am specifically against using the single word "Marriage" for a coupling that isn't "Man/Woman".
Permalink Reply by Kira on November 2, 2009 at 4:09pm
I can respect that stance somewhat,but there aren't any people out there pushing to have themselves called senior citizens! Also I don't think a gay couple and a straight couple are so different that we would need to make up a new word for it. The word marriage has meant many things before it meant a man and a women. It used to not include interracial couples (among other things). What would you have said then, interracial partnership? Changing the definitions is just a part of us growing as a culture.
Permalink Reply by MDS on November 2, 2009 at 4:15pm
I don't care about interracial couples. I'm solely concerned about the genders of the two people involved.
Male/Female = Married/Marriage.
It doesn't matter if one of them is white, the other is black (Or any other racial combo). It doesn't matter if one of them is old and the other is young (as long as they are of the age to legally make the decision to get married). It doesn't matter if one is barely able to lift a finger and the other is barely able to blink. If the male loves the female, and the female loves the male, and they have both expressed a desire to be together as a "couple", then let them get "Married".
And we don't NEED a new word made up. We've already HAD words used by governments to indicate a "Homosexual couple". California has used terms such as "Union" and "Partnership" in their legally passed LAWS that were voted on and passed. If you want to the same legal "benefits" to a couple in a "Union" that "Married" couples share, then go for it. Just remember that a "Union" is used to indicate that someone is involved in a homosexual couple, while the person who is "Married" is part of a more traditional "Male/Female" couple.
Permalink Reply by Kira on November 2, 2009 at 5:47pm
I think you missed my point... I was trying to say that the definition of marriage that you are referring to is not the first definition of marriage. In biblical terms marriage was a man and as many women as he wanted. In medieval time it was all about money and keeping the family name alive. In certain parts of the world that is still true. In the early days of America it was a white man and a white women or a black man and a black women,and now it's simply a man and a women. What would it hurt if it was changed into two consenting adults who love each other. Let's a call spade a spade if you called a gay couple a set of partners it would be the exact same thing as marriage. I suppose it would be a somewhat fair compromise,but it's just seem like a stupid argument to say that they can't have the same titles as a straight couple..Eh but it doesn't matter anyway we're both practically on the same side of this debate anyway.
Permalink Reply by eDDo on November 2, 2009 at 3:35pm
no rational reason? How about homosexuality is NOT normal. Why don't we let people marry animals or inanimate objects? The only thing they are fighting for is a title and adoption. They already have many of the same rights as hetero married folk.
They don't deserve the rights as a normal married couple, because they are not contributing to society the way a man and woman in a family do. Society keeps going because man marries woman, they have sex, and they raise offspring.
I say let them be together. It's their choice not mine. However YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE MARRIED TO BE TOGETHER!
Are you tired of spammers on Spill?
Do you want to play a active positive role in the Spill community?
Well join here and point out the spammers and lets Spam them and kick them off the site!.
Right. I'm bored and nosey. lol So I'd thought I'd start this discussion and see what your plans fae Hogmanay? It's a HUGE deal for us Scots U know?
My plans are I'll be doing a New Year's Eve podcast with my awesome co-host BDiddy for the Weeken…
Although there were a lot of war films in the last 3 decades,
can you guys think of any of them that combines strong characterization solid ensemble acting, pacing, explosion candy, and flow of story?
Two of my favorites are the Dirty Dozen and Vo…
With my boys growing love of race cars and little Hot Wheels cars, I worked on this race automotive bedroom theme decorating idea. This turned out to be one in every of my inexpensive decorating ideas that came together in solely some hours. Create…