Marriage and the State

I won't answer yours unless you answer mine.

Why shouldn't they?

 

My point is that effective communication is best accomplished when all parties have a clear understanding of the words used. Adding new words with precise meanings is a form of change which increases our ability to communicate both clearly and concisely.

 

"Gay marriage" is pretty precise.

 

Only by redefinition of the word 'gay'. The excessive use of slang often results in misunderstanding, by some or even all. Years ago, when living in the U.S. it amused me to listen to a politician give a speech, which afterwards the news anchor would begin with the words "What he really said was...", which often presented an entirely different version of what listeners heard.

gay:
1. Merry; airy; jovial; sportive; frolicksome. It denotes more life and animation than cheerful.

Belinda smiled, and all the world was gay.

2. Fine; showy; as a gay dress.

3. Inflamed or merry with liquor; intoxicated; a vulgar use of the word in America.

 

Homosexual marriage.

Any OTHER problems? Or can we go ahead and put homosexual marriage on the books?

This issue is NOT because republicans (the party who's president coined the word "misunderestimated") are all pedantic.

 

An oxymoron?

In my opinion it's a social issue, and not a political issue.

 

Shaping meanings is a political warrior's way to spin an issue:

Is the US relationship with Cuba an embargo or a blocade?

 

Nah....tis about the public affirmation of a legitimate lifestyle choice.

Perhaps a nail in the coffin of a stigmatization of gay people.

....................................................................................
P.S. Love the U-Tube Video of Slash & Perla on advocacy of marriage.

 

That it is, and it would appear that a large portion of the population are willing to condone it as a choice left to the individuals, but are unwilling to call it a marriage. The most outspoken against using the term marriage are likely comprised of the more religious, and although I am a staunch atheist, I tend to support their view on word usage, but that's all.

As far as the State is concerned a marriage is simply a form of enforceable contract between a man and a woman. The ceremony itself can be performed by a clergyman or a government official. I would propose that the term marriage remain property of the church(s) and clergy, and all other forms of ceremony be termed civil unions, which would not impose changes upon religious beliefs, and allow both homosexuals and heterosexuals a non-religious choice to achieve the same result and that being a civil union, with the State accepting either form of union contractually identical.

Any religious persons care to weigh in on that thought?

Are homosexuals really stigmatized now, and might they be as much or even more stigmatized by those who are most extreme in their moralistic view of homosexuality if their unions were to be given the same status as a marriage between a man and a woman? What might happen when the Muslim population becomes a majority in the U.S., and Sharia law is implemented?

On Cuba, call it what ever you like, it's of no importance to me. Maybe some Cuban immigrants might have a view on that.

 

You have a heated conversation on which term exactly to use when speaking about what is generally referred to as "Same Sex Marriage" and then this?

So it's only homosexuals that you have an issue with?

Hypocrite.

 

The thread topic is "Marriage and the State" and when you try to move off topic I'm a hypocrite for trying to remain on topic? What's your next move, to go through the dictionary word by word? I'm not living in the U.S. currently, and not keeping up with whatever relation the U.S. has going with Cuba at the moment, so that would require some looking into before even deciding if wither term is relevant at the moment. But then again, that's something for another thread topic.

So grow up and don't act like a fool, I've not once said I have an issue with homosexuals, and all we've been talking about is the proper use of the word marriage, which many if not most of society considers to be the union of a man and a woman.

 

If you hang on to the definition of a word so much you are either close-minded because you cannot see anything beyond the definition of a dictionary, or you are using the same dictionary because you have an issue with homosexuals.

The conversation goes like this:

I: What's your opinion on same sex marriage?
You: There is no such thing.
I: What do you mean? A lot of homosexual couples have just gotten married.
You: That's not marriage.
I: Why not?
You: Because marriage is term that defines the union between a man and a woman.
I: So this is a religious issue for you?
You: No, it's just semantics. I do understand what you mean but the use of the word is improper.
I: Hypocrite.

 

It would appear that you are the one who is getting overheated.
As I said earlier, the term marriage as translated to languages around the world is universally recognized as the union of a man and a woman. While you wish to add a qualifier, homosexual or same sex, to the word marriage, it no longer remains universally recognized and it would appear that the attempt to redefine is aimed more at the religious community than the political. And it is a fact that the Muslims will not accept or condone it at all.

So while you wish to call me a hypocrite, all I can say is that you are a fool. If you are intent upon living with another of the same sex, that is fine. You have avenues where you can receive the same privileges as do a man and a woman who marry, and I would recognize it as a union, but not a marriage. Politically speaking, as I pointed out earlier it is nothing more than a contract, and calling it a marriage does not make it more socially acceptable or binding.

 

I like this proposal a little better than what it seemed you were saying (that it should be marriage for straight people, union for gay); but the fact is, marriage has been happening since before the church was involved. The early Christian church didn't even recognize marriages.

I would not like to get married, as an atheist, and have it called a union. It's demeaning, when marriage is the popular, historic term.

 

Very calm here, thank you.

If I call it marriage, everybody will understand what I mean. Giving it another name will not change it's nature. You understand what I mean, you just choose to disagree for ridiculous reasons.

Accepting or not accepting it is a completely different matter. I can try to understand a person who has a different point of view on a particular subject. What I don't understand is nit-picking over irrelevant terminology.

Also: Muslims (or Mormons, for that matter) can "marry" more than one woman. Now would that be called a "proper" marriage?

I do not wish to call you a hypocrite. I did call you one. Semantics?

Ok, I get it. You don't want to call it one name but another, even if you understand what is meant when the name you don't want it to be called is pronounced. Just for the heck of it. Just to make a useless point.

Whatever.

 

Post Whore Individual is a post whore.

 

For most of those replying to you, the argument isnt primarily about homosexual rights, they may not know any or have really anything to do with homosexuals in real life, or may find that threatening themselves. But are asking themselves why one group is trying to tell another what to do. That freedom stuff usually trumps everything else.

Are homosexuals stigmatized now? Where they ever really? Oscar Wilde, Alexander the Great, even Caesar apparently had his special man servants. Sexism and Racism will always trump homophobia, always has.

Its all about perception, as a straight teenage male you hear the phrase "Gay is anti family" you dont really pay attention and just assume, oh cos gays dont make babies thats what they mean. Whereas you get to 30 see all these girls pining / desperate for a baby, then it becomes, well thats mean, even if the gays have a boyfriend they still should be helping out the girls in some way - and you think that way even though you dont go anywhere near them - only see them prancing around on pride parade floats and thats all they are doing.

When reality is because we are less threatening to them, when they are younger anyway, we end up surrounded by more estrogen, more female friends than you, know more single mums fucked over and dumped by the hubby, helping out here and there. Compared to your average married male whos wife is too territorial to let him near other females, spare time spent down the bar with the guys watching the footy

Then we all get past 30, you've been married for a while your wife and daughters throw puppy dog eyes a you, geez gay guys are mean, they should be helping out the chics, supporting them some how. Even every wife will assume the husband needs to be constantly trained, babysat for his own good. Then half the time same wife or daughter will sneak around with the gay BFF, coffee and shopping bitch about the husband / dad / boyfriend

So as for Marriage should be between a man and a woman. Where does that resistance actually come from? You'll notice the distinct lack of female replies in this thread, cos standard tactic is to just let you go on your merry way and they'll sort it out later. Why would resistance come from them? They are all supposed to be about love and soulmates. Maybe they just need those spare non sexually threatening guys to stay the way they are.

Personally, especially vocally, chics annoy the fuck out of me, all that talk about emotions and crocodile tears, menstrual cycles synching, chics are soooo gay, laugh and giggle if you dont want to hug them.......and yet somehow manage to end up surrounded by more estrogen than you lot, because we arent you.

Anyway thats the truth, you might think you are in charge, but they really are, and are just about always half a dozen steps ahead of you. Who really is in charge?

Same thing really. Sharia law is all about the protection of women, its the misuse of Sharia law where it comes undone. The hijab, full face veil, might look a bit scary, but otherwise covering up no different to the western woman that dresses more conservatively to be taken seriously.

View of the muslim world tainted by the terrorists, on the outside it may look like women are oppressed, but at the same time a guy so much as touches the hand of someones wife and he gets his hands cut off or something else. Or you hear a story about some girl getting stoned to death for adultery, savage, brutal, looks like women are oppressed, even though its just as likley to be about the other womens attitude "Keep that slut away from my husband". Who really is in charge?

 

Sexist bitch. Nothing but pussy envy, most likely.

:icon_bs:

 

Tell ya what I do envy, the lack of hair, as a guy it starts coming out everywhere when you get older, except the top of you head

You are probably right

 

Is this still going on?

The statement was just made; If I call it marriage, everybody will understand what I mean.

Quite simply, I will understand it as the union of a man and a woman. Is that what you meant?