Same-Sex Marriage: Yea or Nay? And Explain!

[Muravyets]

1) It doesn't matter where it first apeard. If it happend only two centuries ago it would still be tradition at this point. Could people please stop making this argument?

As soon as your side stops claiming some kind of authority of antiquity in a fallacious appeal to tradition argument, our side will be able to stop pointing out how false such claims are.

2) I fail to understand why changing the legal name of marriage is viewed as so difficult. You basicaly chang the word they say in court and whats literaly written on the document, and then everyone still calls it marriage anyway. Why is that so hard?

Why is it so necessary, except as a means to allow opponents of equal rights to continue having a tool by which to label and segregate people they want to discriminate against?

[Kobrania]

I know what my minister and Rush Limbaugh told me is true no matter what you say.

I am Rush Limbaugh, son.

Pssssssssst, I don't think he'll believe you.

[Red Blooded Uhmericuh]

I know what my minister and Rush Limbaugh told me is true no matter what you say.

I am Rush Limbaugh, son.

It seems you are actually that fake Conservative Stephen Colbert.

[Omnicracy]

Here's an idea: Stop calling the legal state marriage. Marriage can be thrown to the various religions, and let them marry off the population as they see fit. But it doesn't mean anything legally. Instead, just call what the legal aspect of marriage is something else. Could be civil union, could be whatever. Seems to make a lot more sense, and keeps with separation of church and state to boot.

That arguments been put up alot. No one seems to think rationaly on this issue though...

[Grave_n_idle]

1) Why would only the strait one be called marriages??? That makes no sence!

2) So the point you were making was that the rights don't matter but the terminology does?

3) No, the argument arnt the same. If they were, why would so many posters have said the same argument i did?

4) Why wouldn't it happen? Why is it a half solution? Because you dont get the legal word you want?

1) Because they are, because that battle is ongoing - because you're arguing that that is the bone of contention that we can just circumvent. But it won't finish it - that argument will still remain.

2) No. The rights matter. And, also - it's important that the law function in such a way that achieiving equal rights is NOT a 'compromise', but a recognition.

3) Beats me.

4) People already oppose civil unions. They oppose 'gay marriage' more, but if they dropped the terminology, the whole weight of the argument would fall against civil unions. And yes - I want the word. I won't accept a scenario where there's a 'second best' option. Equality is equality.

[Red Blooded Uhmericuh]

I know what my minister and Rush Limbaugh told me is true no matter what you say.

I am Rush Limbaugh, son.

Pssssssssst, I don't think he'll believe you.

You know I won't, son.

[Muravyets]

I just don't think that it should be a legally recognised term because of the religious connotations.

You keep on saying this, as if it has some truth to it, but it really doesn't you know.

There aren't any at all to anyone?

Okay try this one then. Some may insist that marriage is all about religoin or that it has relgious connotations, these people we normaly call 'wrong'. They may think it, but what they think is not actualy correct.

So because marriage means nothing to you religiously, its wrong if it has a religious meaning for anyone? Thats just as wrong as saying marriage currently has no legal meaning!

No. What's wrong is that, just because marriage has a religious meaning to some people, those some people get to impose their religious beliefs on everybody, by having marriage defined in the law the way it is defined in their religion.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I know what my minister and Rush Limbaugh told me is true no matter what you say.

I am Rush Limbaugh, son.

It seems you are actually that fake Conservative Stephen Colbert.

It's my internet alias.

I'm only revealing it to YOU. Don't tell.

Ok, let's quit the spam now...

[Red Blooded Uhmericuh]

Here's an idea: Stop calling the legal state marriage. Marriage can be thrown to the various religions, and let them marry off the population as they see fit. But it doesn't mean anything legally. Instead, just call what the legal aspect of marriage is something else. Could be civil union, could be whatever. Seems to make a lot more sense, and keeps with separation of church and state to boot.

That arguments been put up alot. No one seems to think rationaly on this issue though...

How about we toss out that pesky separation of church and state thing, I mean we are a Christian nation after all. Its common knowledge all true Americans worship Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

[Omnicracy]

Here's an idea: Stop calling the legal state marriage. Marriage can be thrown to the various religions, and let them marry off the population as they see fit. But it doesn't mean anything legally. Instead, just call what the legal aspect of marriage is something else. Could be civil union, could be whatever. Seems to make a lot more sense, and keeps with separation of church and state to boot.

Why should religion get to hijack what was originally a secular term?

First of all, make it cultural, not religious. There is a big difference between the two. Second, you remove the legal term because some people cannot accept that one word can have both secular and non-secular connotations and the fight is for the right, not some word that only has as much weight as we gove it.

[Iniika]

Here's an idea: Stop calling the legal state marriage. Marriage can be thrown to the various religions, and let them marry off the population as they see fit. But it doesn't mean anything legally. Instead, just call what the legal aspect of marriage is something else. Could be civil union, could be whatever. Seems to make a lot more sense, and keeps with separation of church and state to boot.

Like I said earlier, I'd still call it a marriage, regardless of the whining of the childish masses insisting it's their word only. I'd like to see them try and stop me.

[Dyakovo]

Here's an idea: Stop calling the legal state marriage. Marriage can be thrown to the various religions, and let them marry off the population as they see fit. But it doesn't mean anything legally. Instead, just call what the legal aspect of marriage is something else. Could be civil union, could be whatever. Seems to make a lot more sense, and keeps with separation of church and state to boot.

That arguments been put up alot.

And it keeps getting shot down.

No one seems to think rationaly on this issue though...

Translation: Wah! No-one's just letting me dictate how it should be!

I've already shown that it doesn't matter if the term "civil union" is used instead "marriage" the people opposing the legalization of homosexual marriage also oppose allowing homosexual civil unions if those civil unions give the same rights as marriage. Changing the term will not stop bigots from being bigots.

[Grave_n_idle]

Here's an idea: Stop calling the legal state marriage. Marriage can be thrown to the various religions, and let them marry off the population as they see fit. But it doesn't mean anything legally. Instead, just call what the legal aspect of marriage is something else. Could be civil union, could be whatever. Seems to make a lot more sense, and keeps with separation of church and state to boot.

Why should religion get to hijack what was originally a secular term?

First of all, make it cultural, not religious. There is a big difference between the two. Second, you remove the legal term because some people cannot accept that one word can have both secular and non-secular connotations and the fight is for the right, not some word that only has as much weight as we gove it.

Are you going to make it actually illegal for people to call their contracts marriages?

If you're not - no, you won't do a thing to change the connotations.

[Dyakovo]

Here's an idea: Stop calling the legal state marriage. Marriage can be thrown to the various religions, and let them marry off the population as they see fit. But it doesn't mean anything legally. Instead, just call what the legal aspect of marriage is something else. Could be civil union, could be whatever. Seems to make a lot more sense, and keeps with separation of church and state to boot.

Why should religion get to hijack what was originally a secular term?

First of all, make it cultural, not religious. There is a big difference between the two. Second, you remove the legal term because some people cannot accept that one word can have both secular and non-secular connotations and the fight is for the right, not some word that only has as much weight as we gove it.

Already addressed...

[Tekania]

Here's an idea: Stop calling the legal state marriage. Marriage can be thrown to the various religions, and let them marry off the population as they see fit. But it doesn't mean anything legally. Instead, just call what the legal aspect of marriage is something else. Could be civil union, could be whatever. Seems to make a lot more sense, and keeps with separation of church and state to boot.

I've pointed out multiple times the intellectual dishonesty of this position... Not going to do it again...

[Tekania]

Here's an idea: Stop calling the legal state marriage. Marriage can be thrown to the various religions, and let them marry off the population as they see fit. But it doesn't mean anything legally. Instead, just call what the legal aspect of marriage is something else. Could be civil union, could be whatever. Seems to make a lot more sense, and keeps with separation of church and state to boot.

I've pointed out multiple times the intellectual dishonesty of this position... Not going to do it again...

[Omnicracy]

1) Why would only the strait one be called marriages??? That makes no sence!

2) So the point you were making was that the rights don't matter but the terminology does?

3) No, the argument arnt the same. If they were, why would so many posters have said the same argument i did?

4) Why wouldn't it happen? Why is it a half solution? Because you dont get the legal word you want?

1) Because they are, because that battle is ongoing - because you're arguing that that is the bone of contention that we can just circumvent. But it won't finish it - that argument will still remain.

2) No. The rights matter. And, also - it's important that the law function in such a way that achieiving equal rights is NOT a 'compromise', but a recognition.

3) Beats me.

4) People already oppose civil unions. They oppose 'gay marriage' more, but if they dropped the terminology, the whole weight of the argument would fall against civil unions. And yes - I want the word. I won't accept a scenario where there's a 'second best' option. Equality is equality.

1) As I said, that argument would still remain. While they say "its not a marriage", you say "yes it is" and you call it marriage and they don't and our side doesn't care because it doesn't matter in the end because you get to call it marriage.

2) Then how was I makeing your point?

3) Because the arguments aren't the same! Do you see now?

4) No, it wouldn't. Some might, but a fair deal would go onto the civil union side of the argument. With your part of 4, you go against the thing you say in 2. Yes, equality is equality. Thats the argument for the word being used in a legal document not mattering. How do you think that aplies to what you just said?

[Omnicracy]

I just don't think that it should be a legally recognised term because of the religious connotations.

You keep on saying this, as if it has some truth to it, but it really doesn't you know.

There aren't any at all to anyone?

Okay try this one then. Some may insist that marriage is all about religoin or that it has relgious connotations, these people we normaly call 'wrong'. They may think it, but what they think is not actualy correct.

So because marriage means nothing to you religiously, its wrong if it has a religious meaning for anyone? Thats just as wrong as saying marriage currently has no legal meaning!

No. What's wrong is that, just because marriage has a religious meaning to some people, those some people get to impose their religious beliefs on everybody, by having marriage defined in the law the way it is defined in their religion.

I agree. Thats not what they were saying, however.

[Omnicracy]

Here's an idea: Stop calling the legal state marriage. Marriage can be thrown to the various religions, and let them marry off the population as they see fit. But it doesn't mean anything legally. Instead, just call what the legal aspect of marriage is something else. Could be civil union, could be whatever. Seems to make a lot more sense, and keeps with separation of church and state to boot.

That arguments been put up alot.

And it keeps getting shot down.

No one seems to think rationaly on this issue though...

Translation: Wah! No-one's just letting me dictate how it should be!

I've already shown that it doesn't matter if the term "civil union" is used instead "marriage" the people opposing the legalization of homosexual marriage also oppose allowing homosexual civil unions if those civil unions give the same rights as marriage. Changing the term will not stop bigots from being bigots.

But thats just not true! The posts here should have proved that to you by now! Just because all oposition doesn't go away doesn't mean a significant chunk doesn't. All you've shown is it all doesn't.

[Omnicracy]

Here's an idea: Stop calling the legal state marriage. Marriage can be thrown to the various religions, and let them marry off the population as they see fit. But it doesn't mean anything legally. Instead, just call what the legal aspect of marriage is something else. Could be civil union, could be whatever. Seems to make a lot more sense, and keeps with separation of church and state to boot.

Why should religion get to hijack what was originally a secular term?

First of all, make it cultural, not religious. There is a big difference between the two. Second, you remove the legal term because some people cannot accept that one word can have both secular and non-secular connotations and the fight is for the right, not some word that only has as much weight as we gove it.

Are you going to make it actually illegal for people to call their contracts marriages?

If you're not - no, you won't do a thing to change the connotations.

Your right, you don't remove the conotation and I never said you did. When there is no more legal argument, however, it doesn't matter what connotations the word holds. Why would it?

[Phing Phong]

marriage itself is a flawed institution based on dated religious premises.

but as we have not got anything better then gay marriage should be legal based on people's right to do what they want behind closed doors.

and the only region why western culture is opposed to it is based on the beliefs of some Hebrews 2,300 years ago. most other cultures not based in Abrahamic faith have a bit more tolerance.

[Tekania]

4) No, it wouldn't. Some might, but a fair deal would go onto the civil union side of the argument. With your part of 4, you go against the thing you say in 2. Yes, equality is equality. Thats the argument for the word being used in a legal document not mattering. How do you think that aplies to what you just said?

This would make sense.... except, it contradicts the present facts of the case... If there is so much less contention over "Civil Union" than Same-Sex marriage.... how come MOST states which have banned Same Sex Marriage, have ALSO banned any other legal system which attempts to mimic the rights conveyed by marriage (aka "Civil Unions").... Hell, they even proactively banned the remote concept of a same-sex union equivalent to marriage WHAT-EVER-IT-IS-CALLED...

The simple FACT is, those who propose that the wording should be shifted to "Civil Union" and that that will somehow magically fix things and make it easier, seem to have ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING CONNECTION TO REALITY.... MOST who oppose the idea of Same-Sex-Marriage do so under one singular idea.... To absolutely and forthwith deny on any grounds legal legitimacy to same-sex couples... They don't give a damn what lamo-libertarians make up a word to call it, or equal rights... It's purely about oppression for the sake of oppression...

[Omnicracy]

1) It doesn't matter where it first apeard. If it happend only two centuries ago it would still be tradition at this point. Could people please stop making this argument?

As soon as your side stops claiming some kind of authority of antiquity in a fallacious appeal to tradition argument, our side will be able to stop pointing out how false such claims are.

2) I fail to understand why changing the legal name of marriage is viewed as so difficult. You basicaly chang the word they say in court and whats literaly written on the document, and then everyone still calls it marriage anyway. Why is that so hard?

Why is it so necessary, except as a means to allow opponents of equal rights to continue having a tool by which to label and segregate people they want to discriminate against?

I tried postin on this earlier, but it didnt work, so I'll do it now.

1) That is not what my side does. My side says it has a religious defenition and legal defenition and trying to say that, currently, that is not true in any way is both wrong and pointless.

2) Its nessisary to bring in the middle of the debate. It is not a tool to alow segregation. How is it if its all the same?

[Omnicracy]

4) No, it wouldn't. Some might, but a fair deal would go onto the civil union side of the argument. With your part of 4, you go against the thing you say in 2. Yes, equality is equality. Thats the argument for the word being used in a legal document not mattering. How do you think that aplies to what you just said?

This would make sense.... except, it contradicts the present facts of the case... If there is so much less contention over "Civil Union" than Same-Sex marriage.... how come MOST states which have banned Same Sex Marriage, have ALSO banned any other legal system which attempts to mimic the rights conveyed by marriage (aka "Civil Unions").... Hell, they even proactively banned the remote concept of a same-sex union equivalent to marriage WHAT-EVER-IT-IS-CALLED...

The simple FACT is, those who propose that the wording should be shifted to "Civil Union" and that that will somehow magically fix things and make it easier, seem to have ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING CONNECTION TO REALITY.... MOST who oppose the idea of Same-Sex-Marriage do so under one singular idea.... To absolutely and forthwith deny on any grounds legal legitimacy to same-sex couples... They don't give a damn what lamo-libertarians make up a word to call it, or equal rights... It's purely about oppression for the sake of oppression...

But in other states where same-sex marriage failed, civil unions succeeded. Also, some people for gay marriage oppose civil unions because they are unnessisary or unconstitutional or some similar reason. I honestly believ if you removed legal defenition of marriage and replaced it with civil union, it would change things. Can you show me one instance where that has failed?

[Grave_n_idle]

Here's an idea: Stop calling the legal state marriage. Marriage can be thrown to the various religions, and let them marry off the population as they see fit. But it doesn't mean anything legally. Instead, just call what the legal aspect of marriage is something else. Could be civil union, could be whatever. Seems to make a lot more sense, and keeps with separation of church and state to boot.

Why should religion get to hijack what was originally a secular term?

First of all, make it cultural, not religious. There is a big difference between the two. Second, you remove the legal term because some people cannot accept that one word can have both secular and non-secular connotations and the fight is for the right, not some word that only has as much weight as we gove it.

Are you going to make it actually illegal for people to call their contracts marriages?

If you're not - no, you won't do a thing to change the connotations.

Your right, you don't remove the conotation and I never said you did. When there is no more legal argument, however, it doesn't matter what connotations the word holds. Why would it?

What you keep saying, is that the connotation doesn't matter.

But, you're wrong.

Why emancipate the slaves? Why not leave them as slaves, call them slaves, but give them all the same rights as free men?

Why do you think?