Walle I agree with you that it's not your definition, as a word it's owned by everyone who makes use of it. That said, what prevents all of us from just changing what we use that word for, to include the lifelong joining of two gay people via a ceremony?
Walle.... You are an apologist of the worst type. You constantly ignore every point made and twist the words of others to suit your agenda. I suggest you leave the intelligent discussion to the grown ups and come back when YOU have some intellectual honesty. edit: Now now, there's no need for that. Whether or not you agree with Walle's position, civility is free, and is also expected - spec
Even within Western culture, “definitions of marriage have careened from one extreme to another and everywhere in between" (as Even Gerstmann stated). Western culture has rejected same-sex unions since the thirteenth century, but before the name marriage was happily applied to them. Now respecting tradition is all fine, but should we stick with marital laws that essentially have not changed since Henry IVth? The nature and contract of marriage has changed a lot over time, to the benefit of both genders. Both parties now have to consent. Both have to be adults. Only since the last century, couples can now divorce if they are miserable together, women don't have to obey and submit to their husband's sexual demands and husbands can't legally beat their wives anymore, and there is commonality of goods. Current definitions of marriage include: "a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws". So although you may embrace and defend (not just use) a definition that is shared by many people, it certainly is not shared by all (and since when was the majority opinion more valid simply because it was a majority opinion? Since when was a belief more valid just because it has been held for a long time?). Nor is it immutable: the meaning of words and the concepts they describe change over time (e.g. knave, whore, gay). So why couldn't this one? Oh, I remember: because you rather like the idea of marriage being between a man and a woman. It fits your philosophy and worldview. And you don't like it when other people don't conform to your worldview, right? Why don't you stop dodging the question: how does a gay couple getting married threaten your marriage or way of life?
Just happened on this piece, worth reading http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/03/gay-weddings-and-religious-liberty
[/quote]edit: Now now, there's no need for that. Whether or not you agree with Walle's position, civility is free, and is also expected - spec[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, I don't see what I wrote as uncivil in any way, shape or form. Do you take exception to the word apologist? Or is it the throwing back of the intellectual honesty comment? I have read every passive aggressive word of Walle's comments on this subject, and have not agreed with one of them. There comes a time when one has to fight fire with fire...to be all biblical for a minute. The only thing I have got from every one of his comments is "I'm right, you are wrong, you won't sway me so LA LA LA LA LA " Hence the intellectual honesty comment. If it's the apologist accusation that you are taking exception to, why would you? It's not an insult in an apologists eyes, to be called an apologist, indeed there are whole schools dedicated to the practice. That's where straw man arguments like Walle's come from.
I'm sorry Walle, but you are making an assumption about what marriage meant to people from the past. These people may very well have allowed same sex couples and marriage, but the unchecked, state (religous or whatever) endorsed brutality that was common place in those times did not permit these people to stand up and be heard. As there are examples that demonstrate that cultures permissed same sex ceremonies in the past, it is surely indicative that the definition you seek to reinforce, upon others, is the result of persecution and not an immutable paradigm of life.
@sonicgroove Why don't you tell us how you really feel, don't hold back let all that passive aggressiveness out, as for the baseless accusations you made those were more an attack on my person than an attack on my arguments. I do not wish to diminish your contributions to this thread though, I recognize you as being a valued member of this community. Later, I have work that can't wait. --Ninja Edit— I find it interesting that you would paint me as a religious person just because I adhere to the definition of marriage, as union between a man and a woman.
You know what the problem with gay marriage is? The first time I said that I support gay couples' right to get married, and the next day I was married to a man. Oh wait... that never happened. I take it back, there's no problem with gay marriage.
My definition of marriage is a religious or purely ritual affair. It originates in tribal alliances and religious rituals. You do it for religion, because you love your spouse and you vow to love them before your god, or you're a tribesman and you marry off your child to the child of another tribe to bond alliances. I never believed in marriage and I still really don't. I plan to marry my long term partner because I love her and it is what she wants for us to be a 'real family', not because I believe in the sanctity of marriage. However, in this current time where marriage is seen to not be completely necessary; I keep seeing it as a show or dance to show people "we love each other and feel we need to be married to prove it". My opinion only, don't crucify me if you disagree. I don't believe in any kind of religion and marriage is something to cement you to your "god" as a way to show 'him' that you are a good christian/muslim/whatever you are. As homosexuality stands? I don't think it really matters if they get married or not. I certainly don't see the harm. I can see that they love each other but do they need to be married to show it? But at the same time, does a man and a woman need to be married? We live in a society build upon christian and religious laws and outdated rituals, marriage being one of them. Bigotry against homosexuals is wrong as it's ever been, it sickens me that parents don't want it taught in schools. I don't believe in marriage as a whole, it accomplishes nothing extra to your lives, you still love each other whether you get married or not, right?
This is exactly what I'm advocating for. Everyone , straight or gay, gets a legal civil union and if you want to call it a marriage then fine. The idea is not "separate but equal", but rather "separation of church and state". Different separation. Under this system all civil unions will be equal under the eyes of the law and people can call it whatever they want. It achieves full equality while sidestepping the semantic argument. We're getting close to that now in Washington state. The licenses here still say "Marriage", but the signature blocks now say "Person 1" and "Person 2" rather than "Bride" and "Groom". @Walle: Of course people aren't equal. Equality is a legal fiction, but one that works and so we abide by it. People aren't equal, but as a society we've decided that it works very to treat them as if they were. By giving everyone the same opportunities, even if many people aren't interested in those opportunities, the ones that are and are capable should be able to take advantage of them. This is just like our previous discussion about women serving in the military. You're correct that most women would not choose this career path, but the ones that do should have an equal opportunity to serve and excel in these fields. Other legal fictions that we abide by are things like corporate personhood, attorney-client and doctor-patient privilege, and even joint filing of taxes. Even childhood is a bit of legal fiction since saying someone who can own and drive a car isn't competent to make decisions affecting their own body is a bit of a stretch.
You don't need to agree with anyone, you just need to be polite. There shouldn't be any fighting "fire with fire" on here because no-one should be flaming, insulting, being rude to, or being rude in any other way. If you feel concern about another member's posts then report them, or PM a mod, rather than having a go at the person. If you genuinely weren't attempting to have a go, well then I'd suggest just be more careful with how you use words. If you wish to discuss this further feel free to PM me.
And when you return, please explain: how does a gay couple getting married threaten your marriage or way of life?
I know we're debating here, and I've got no business butting in here, but have you done your partner the favour of being honest about how you feel on this? If not, better get it out in the open now than her find out her idealised marriage is really just pretend, however many years down the line. I see you put 'real family' in inverted commas, from which I think you're inferring you recognise there's no such thing. You also refer to the 'show or dance' aspect, implying if you were to marry you would be having to bite your tongue during the whole planning and execution of the occasion. It might be what she wants, but she's not going to get it while you feel like that. A marriage with no integrity behind one half of it is not what she wants, is it? And Walle wouldn't like it either, another nail in the coffin of his 'institution'. I ain't judging, but it does bug me the way guys 'give in' to their partners when their partners have still got their head in the 'princess... happy ever after' BS of marriage, or just think it's the 'done thing'. For what it's worth, I've been steady with my partner for 13 years, one kid and another on the way. That's right, Walle - *******s! Can you believe it? I've always told her I won't get married because I think it's a pointless submission of your individuality to the other person, to the society that will enforce the legality behind it, and because I've got no interest in doing the 'done thing'. I've got no interest in social cohesion. Walle's insistence that it's just how our culture is is toss in my eyes. The individuals that a society/culture comprises of determine the society/culture, or at least have the opportunity to, not the other way around, unless you're in a herd of sheep. To take your beliefs from your culture rather than your own individual empirical experiences and thoughts is intellectually retarded, lacking in any demonstration of independent determination. Taking my post from the Ukraine thread: I always wonder about the need/want/motive to marry. Why do two people need to marry? What are the motives of the proposer and the accepter? Something tells me the very first incidence of marriage in human history was not because the two people just wanted to be together forevs, and that it wasn't entirely voluntary for one or both halves of the union. Put two people on an island alone - are they going to get married? Notions of 'love' and romance have just been weaved in as a marketing strategy to promote social stability. At some point in human history someone invented the concept, and it most likely wasn't because they were one half of a couple that shared mutual love, respect and rights. More likely it was someone who wanted to shape their society (or at the very least, their relationship with the other person) in a manner that favoured their own interests, exerting some sort of control. Not healthy footsteps to be following... Because of the way I feel about marriage, it gets me wondering what Nexxo's reasons were for marrying, given his intellectual roundedness. Care to share, Nexxo? And don't no-one go pulling the 'romance' card on me, there's no room for that **** in a debate
I'm very lucky, my partner and I share exactly the same viewpoint on marriage. To those who deem it important for religious, social or personal reasons it's great and all, but we're just not that bothered.
As a (fundamentalist?) Atheist, with no pretensions of romanticism (gruff Yorkshireman), it sometimes surprises me to think that I just agreed to get married to my partner of 7 yrs. I see marriage as a commitment to each other to stay faithful to each other, and for the obvious tax/social benefits. The ring should act as a kind of barrier against casual approaches from third parties, and make either one of us think twice if said third party is rather attractive. Obviously it's not foolproof, but it adds an extra layer of security to a relationship. It has nothing to do with tradition, religion or subservience/identity removal. I do have to say though, that Porkins' Wingman's post is just about the most thoughtful, inciteful post I have ever read on a public forum anywhere. It has made me think....which is no mean feat in itself. I hope you don't mind, but I want to steal a line from it for a signature.
You keep asking the wrong question, had the question been the other way around it would have made more sense. How does marriage, the union between a man and a woman, threaten the homosexual's way of life?
It affects their way of life only if they are denied equal privilege and protection under the law based on their sexual orientation. Treating people equally under the law is the key here, regardless of who they are marrying. If you say that a heterosexual couple can be married but a homosexual one cannot then the homosexual couple are not being treated equally and that's a problem.
Porkins she knows I'm not particularly agreeable about the concept of marriage, and we've discussed it before. Yes I'd have to bite my tongue about a few things, but she knows and accepts that planning a wedding would mostly be for her. I know it seems wrong to do it even though I don't believe in it, but I love her so I'm going to do it to make her happy. In return she promised to make me happy... If you know what I mean.
Sorry, but that is not the crux of your argument. Let me remind you: Again: how does a gay couple marrying threaten, twist or redefine your marriage, or impose itself onto it?
