Gay Marriage

[Danoff]

This is something I have a problem with, why do we need government to decide how a bank might conduct it's business? Perhaps people need to become a bit more educated and also stand up for themselves.

Well, in the end the government buys the loan anyway amirite? So it makes sense that they'd be involved in the selection process. Yes, it's lazy, it's also cheaper to use the government classification than it is for the bank to pay their lawyers to look over a custom contract.

That is not true anymore is it?

It is. All kinds of factors go into deciding whether a couple can adopt. These include income, credit, family stability (marriage), etc. If you can't marry, who is really adopting?

I have no doubt that if you have enough money you can demonstrate to the adoption agency that you're in good shape, but a heterosexual married couple has all of the advantages in consideration for adoption over a homosexual unmarried couple. Gay people would probably up their chances and decrease their wait time by going to a third world country that most US couples aren't willing to adopt from due to child medical problems and unstable governments.

Choose your mate more closely.

Give me a friggin break. This is your answer? Don't get divorced? Not gonna happen. In the meantime gay "divorces" are HORRIFIC. I happen to have been courtside for a "marriage" (not recognized by the state) dissolving after 8 years. They co-owned a house. It is nasty, costly, and completely open for one party to get screwed, all because the super-convenient legal structure of marriage was not open to them.

There are documents you can have drawn up to get past that part, seriously a straw man there.

Yes but it's very difficult and these documents are open to being challenged (picked apart) in court due to the fact that they're going to be far far less regular and widely recognized than marriage.

it does seem that libertarian is not an appropriate label for you(maybe you don't claim that)

Trust me, libertarian is the closest label for me. My position is actually that the government should not be involved in marriage - it should be a private contract that everyone (heterosexual and homosexual alike) should subscribe to and highly standardized. But given that he government is involved in marriage, the US government is violating one of the basic tenants of the constitution by not offering marriage to gay couples - equal protection under the law.

Marriage as a government institution is not necessary (not exactly an abomination, just unnecessary), but unequal application of that unnecessary institution is absolutely 100% out of the question.

Edit:

To be clear, drawing up private contracts that achieve everything that is involved with government marriage would be drastically served by putting 100% of the population into that situation rather than 5% of the population. With enough people, standardized court-tested documents would eventually be found and used widely. They could be quickly recognized by police, medical personnel, courts, etc. But only if tons and tons of people had to use them.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

... Assuming that calling it a "Civil Union" will help win over some amount of lawmakers and voters, what injustices could come from using the unequal word?

Actually the civil union option was adopted in France, it is called PACS.
Result:
2001: 3323 same sex contracts out of 19 632
2010: a bit more then 9000 same sex contracts out of 205 596
An other source speaks of 15 % of same sex users of the PACS.

So mixed sex couples seem to prefer PACS to marriage, most mentioned reasons is that the breaking of the PACS is easier then a divorce, but according to lawyers that is only in the case of agreement.

One of the reasons of the civil union option in France seems to have been to keep adoption and artificial insemination out of the reach of same sex couples, so keep a difference with marriage.

 

[arora]

It's not "more rights", but extending the same rights to more people, law abiding ones, at that.

My point was not that gays should not have the same rights, pretty sure I mentioned that in an earlier post.

Give me a friggin break. This is your answer? Don't get divorced? Not gonna happen. In the meantime gay "divorces" are HORRIFIC. I happen to have been courtside for a "marriage" (not recognized by the state) dissolving after 8 years. They co-owned a house. It is nasty, costly, and completely open for one party to get screwed, all because the super-convenient legal structure of marriage was not open to them.

My answer is certainly not 'don't get divorced'. I have to admit I've not been the best mate throughout the years, but at least my splits have been civil and maybe even fair.

I'm too lazy to properly reply to the rest of your post, most of which I agree to some extent.

 

[XoravaX]

Marriage derives from the Latin "maritare" meaning "to supply a husband or wife". It's entirely appropriate to use "marriage" when referring to any gender.

You dare to question the ultimate English authority, the Oxford English Dictionary?
1. Legally recognized personal union entered into by a man and a woman usually with the intention of living together and having sexual relations--.

If we started using the words' original meanings, there'd be serious communication problems. All terms that have changed their exact meaning over time would suddenly be different.

Having a different name for "gay marriage" wouldn't cause inequality, as law doesn't look at one's sexual orientation, everyone has the same rights as default, as I pointed out above in that bad joke of mine. It might be morally unequal, but not by law.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Legal and moral equality don't always go hand in hand. In this case, there's no reason for them not to.

 

[FoolKiller]

You dare to question the ultimate English authority, the Oxford English Dictionary?
1. Legally recognized personal union entered into by a man and a woman usually with the intention of living together and having sexual relations--.

If we started using the words' original meanings, there'd be serious communication problems. All terms that have changed their exact meaning over time would suddenly be different.

So, the definition can change then? I guess that means the definition of marriage in the Oxford English Dictionary can be changed to include homosexual relationships.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Sounds like a pretty gradual change to me.

 

[Famine]

So, the definition can change then? I guess that means the definition of marriage in the Oxford English Dictionary can be changed to include homosexual relationships.

I love how that post went from "THIS IS THE DEFINITION!" through "we can't use the original because of communication issues" to "language can change".

 

[arora]

I can't decipher what XoravaX's point is tbh

Mostly religious types will keep with his definition I suppose. I few observations about that; I've never seen a biblical marriage mention government recognition(it's simply a man and woman witnessed together by god), there are several references to alliances though, which suggests to me that marriage had a greater importance then the simple romance.

 

[Dotini]

A handful of US states recognize the LGBT marriage. Currently the media is playing up Chick-fil-A record sales and impending protests as some kind of social proxy in lieu of legal clarification. The franchise isn't everywhere and certainly not everyone wants to eat deep-fried food. Do you think the courts - or the people - will ultimately resolve this issue?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[BubbleBelly542]

I have a question. Many religous people don't support gay marriage. Why not? Is it because they know there will be sexual intercourse, and that is only intended for procreation? What is it? I'm very confused. What is the big problem?

 

[arora]

A handful of US states recognize the LGBT marriage. Currently the media is playing up Chick-fil-A record sales and impending protests as some kind of social proxy in lieu of legal clarification. The franchise isn't everywhere and certainly not everyone wants to eat deep-fried food. Do you think the courts - or the people - will ultimately resolve this issue?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Something not helpful at all but that I found funny on the net in response to anyone posting about chick fil a

I have a question. Many religous people don't support gay marriage. Why not? Is it because they know there will be sexual intercourse, and that is only intended for procreation? What is it? I'm very confused. What is the big problem?

It's insulting to them because they have the corner on marriage, same as morality. Also they believe it will degrade society.

 

[lbsf1]

I have a question. Many religous people don't support gay marriage. Why not? Is it because they know there will be sexual intercourse, and that is only intended for procreation? What is it? I'm very confused. What is the big problem?

Their arguments are mostly about procreation yes, they also have others however if you support gay marriage then most of them will seem very stupid.

 

[Zenith]

Thanks for the info, Vince!

What did the President of Chic-fil-A do besides voice his opinion? Does he donate large amounts of money to Anti-Gay causes or something? I really don't see why the LGBTQIAWTFBBQ is so up in arms. Some dude doesn't agree with them, so what? Aren't they the ones supposed to be preaching acceptance?

Why would the courts get involved? It's a simple boycott.

 

[FoolKiller]

I have a question. Many religous people don't support gay marriage. Why not? Is it because they know there will be sexual intercourse, and that is only intended for procreation? What is it? I'm very confused. What is the big problem?

Because the Bible says a man shall not lay with a man as with a woman because it is an abomination. In the US at least a large number of people feel this is a Christian nation and so having the government recognize gay marriage would be an acceptance of an abominable, sinful lifestyle, and they believe that a nation turning away from God's will will lead to God's wrath on the country. This is not the only issue they treat in this way, as they also feel gambling and alcohol should be banned in their towns or states. There are still places in Kentucky that do not allow alcoholic beverage sales of any form.

The issue I find with their line of thinking is that somehow Christians, who by definition believe Jesus is the human embodiment of God's spirit, seem to forget that the entire point of the crucifixion was to create a new covenant that ended the wrathful punishment of sin on Earth and granted forgiveness for simply asking for it in earnest. The US will not become the next Sodom, no matter how much depravity goes on.

My other issue is that Christians clearly have decided to pick and choose the parts of The Bible they want to follow. In the same book where homosexuality is referred to as an abomination it also instructs you to not eat shellfish and other foods very common in Western diets. It also instructs you to avoid women during their menstrual period (so many jokes) and if you do come into contact with them you are to follow a strict cleaning ritual. And of course, any Christian who wishes to treat a homosexual as some form of outcast has clearly forgotten all of Jesus' teachings and examples. I mean, part of the reason he was crucified was because he did reject some of those ancient rules. He hung out with the sick and sinners. He healed people of ailments that were supposed to be a punishment for sin. He broke down conventions and welcomed all into the temple and the presence of God.

The kind of Christians who speak hatefully of homosexuals but go and preach to death row inmates, to save their souls, clearly have some issues.

I have witnessed unwed, pregnant teens, impregnated by another teen church goer, thrown showers and given offers of help by church members. But then her 20-something cousin admits to being gay and he is quietly asked to not even attend family holiday dinners. Then when that same gay man came back to church and was not welcomed by his own family my, then, 85-year-old grandmother invited him to sit with us.

Even the pastor couldn't bring himself to try disagreeing with the oldest member of the church, who authored the church history, whose father-in-law was a founding member and donated the land the building now sits on, and whose husband literally put the steeple on the church. My entire life I never understood the people I grew up around. Even at a time when I was young and regurgitated what I was told to believe none of it ever made sense.

Ultimately, I am not sure they know why, other than church leaders tell them to.

What did the President of Chic-fil-A do besides voice his opinion? Does he donate large amounts of money to Anti-Gay causes or something? I really don't see why the LGBTQIAWTFBBQ is so up in arms. Some dude doesn't agree with them, so what? Aren't they the ones supposed to be preaching acceptance?

The company as a whole is an openly Christian company. They donate money to many Christian causes, some of which do likely fight against gay marriage. The stores are even closed on Sundays.

To me the thing is that the people saying they will boycott them after this are acting shocked. It leads me to believe they barely ate there before, else they would have run into the closed on Sunday thing and become fully aware of their religious stance before now.

Why would the courts get involved? It's a simple boycott.

City officials have threatened to deny permits, and even actually denied one in Chicago, over his statements. They apparently believe the 1st and 14th amendments only apply when people they agree with are discriminated against.

 

[arora]

Thanks for the info, Vince!

What did the President of Chic-fil-A do besides voice his opinion? Does he donate large amounts of money to Anti-Gay causes or something? I really don't see why the LGBTQIAWTFBBQ is so up in arms. Some dude doesn't agree with them, so what? Aren't they the ones supposed to be preaching acceptance?

Why would the courts get involved? It's a simple boycott.

Boycott would be fine, don't like the place? Don't eat there, simple right? Unfortunately that is not the way it works these days, think of the strong arm tactics of Jessie Jackson and such.

PC at it's finest booo

 

[Pako]

By definition, "gay marriage" is contradictory.

The thread topic is so 1990's. How about we change to the topic to "same sex civil unions" so we can quite arguing about "gay marriage"?

 

[Famine]

By definition, "gay marriage" is contradictory.

Marriage derives from the Latin "maritare" meaning "to supply a husband or wife". It's entirely appropriate to use "marriage" when referring to any gender.

It's a lot more offensive to those who love the term in one specific context to refer to a blend of spices, musical styles or literary forms as "a marriage of"...

The thread topic is so 1990's. How about we change to the topic to "same sex civil unions" so we can quite arguing about "gay marriage"?

Quite. We should ban marriage as a term and just call all such events "civil unions".

 

[XoravaX]

I can't decipher what XoravaX's point is tbh

It was just that the term "marriage" is used exclusively of a union that's between a man and a woman. Therefore the whole term of a "homosexual marriage" is absurd with the word's current definition.

Famine told, that it would be appropriate to call gay "marriage" just "marriage", evidenced by the exact meaning of the Latin word maritare, to which I replied with the definition as in Oxford English Dictionary, which makes his point pretty invalid (that its definition would be just a union of two people).
As a side note to Famine, the Latin word derives from proto-Indo-European word meaning "boy", "girl", or both of them (as evidenced by use of its derivatives in other Indo-European languages). Using the Latin definition isn't any more correct than any other archaic definition.

You can't avoid the fact that calling it just "marriage" would cause a cultural clash if, eg. in Middle East, by saying that you're married and then bringing another man with you.

I have a question. Many religous people don't support gay marriage. Why not? Is it because they know there will be sexual intercourse, and that is only intended for procreation? What is it? I'm very confused. What is the big problem?

Probably because they think it's against the will of God...
The ones who've written the rules (in Bible, Qu'ran etc.) wanted to make their peoples stronger, and non-procreative sex doesn't fit in with the principle of a larger and stronger community that should survive the test of time. That's probably the background reason for most religions not allowing birth control either.


But why I don't support it?

Because it's not marriage. Feel free to implement it with another name.
Also I'm a bit sceptical with the ability to adopt children, as eg. I wouldn't necessarily want to live in such a family should my parents have decided to give me away. However, gay couples need legal rights (divorce, heritage etc.) too, so the principle of a gay "marriage" is fine as it is.
Just that it's not "marriage".

Quite. We should ban marriage as a term and just call all such events "civil unions".

What should be done with Church/Muslim/Jewish marriages? Would religious marriage still be called "marriage" and civil marriage as "civil union"? As such "civil union" would grant all the legal rights and then it would be up to the religious communities to call it marriage.

 

[Famine]

It was just that the term "marriage" is used exclusively as between a man and a woman.

Which it shouldn't be.

Therefore the whole term of a homosexual "marriage" is absurd with the word's current definition.

Key word underlined.

Famine told, that it would be appropriate to call gay "marriage" just "marriage", evidenced by the exact meaning of the Latin word maritare, to which I replied with the definition as in Oxford English Dictionary, which makes his point pretty invalid (that its definition would be just a union of two people).

You've got a few issues here.

First, I didn't say that was why it was appropriate - it's appropriate because anything else promotes discrimination and inequality. I said that objecting to it based on a mutated definition of the word is inappropriate. Secondly it doesn't specify a number of people either.

The big problem here though is ignoring where words come from. If you want to abuse language by ignoring its roots, you miss out on a lot of the reasons we have certain words. In this case the word's roots imply nothing of gender.

As a side note to Famine, the Latin word derives from proto-Indo-European word meaning "boy", "girl", or both of them (as evidenced by use of its derivatives in other Indo-European languages). Using the Latin definition therefore isn't any more correct than any other archaic definition.

Actually it's either of them, rather than both. The Latin word means "to supply a husband or a wife" (husband being "boy", wife being "girl").

You can't avoid the fact that calling it just "marriage" would cause a cultural clash if, eg. in Middle East, by saying that you're married and then bringing another man with you.

Oh no! Not cultural clashes! Quick, we must change all languages to one universal one at once, to prevent Americans from having to buy fags and Spanish people from driving Pajeros!

Since when was this a reason to abuse a group of people by discriminating against them?

What should be done with Church/Muslim/Jewish marriages? Would religious marriage still be called "marriage" and civil marriage as "civil union"? As such "civil union" would grant all the legal rights and then it would be up to the religious communities to call it marriage.

I'm sure if we told religious groups they had to have a different name for the same event, they'd almost explode with rage and scream "discrimination!" from the rooftops.

 

[arora]

I'm sure if we told religious groups they had to have a different name for the same event, they'd almost explode with rage and scream "discrimination!" from the rooftops.

If marriage was left a spiritual ritual and/or an agreement between family as it used to be, no one would care. There is only one legitimate reason people press this issue and it has very little to do with marriage imo, there is a secondary reason as well, that has to do with stirring the pot.

 

[XoravaX]

Key word underlined.

Actually I meant to say "with the word's definition in English". In Medieval English and Modern English alike - it's a long-stood definition.

First, I didn't say that was why it was appropriate - it's appropriate because anything else promotes discrimination and inequality. I said that objecting to it based on a mutated definition of the word is inappropriate. Secondly it doesn't specify a number of people either.

The big problem here though is ignoring where words come from. If you want to abuse language by ignoring its roots, you miss out on a lot of the reasons we have certain words. In this case the word's roots imply nothing of gender.

Latin maritare, Ancient Greek meîrax meaning both a boy OR a girl (yeah, a same word for either one), Lithuanian (probably closest existing language to the proto-Indo-European) martì meaning bride, all of them are derivatives of a same Indo-European word. Now which one got the definition correct? If everything, the base word means a girl or a bride as that is the most common meaning of its derivatives (eg. in Welsh too).

If you want to base the words on their roots, what about returning the meaning of "marriage" to 'girl'?
You see, there's no mind in trying to keep all the roots of the words forever. Furthermost "roots" of the meanings of Modern English words should be cut at around Old English, Medieval French (as Latin words mostly came through French) or late Ancient Greek, otherwise the original definition differs too much.

Actually it's either of them, rather than both.

Please, do yourself a favour and try writing all this in German, or whatever your best foreign language is, with only your knowledge of the language and you'll understand why non-native English speakers sometimes make errors like this.

Oh no! Not cultural clashes!

At least the whole Western World vs. Middle East struggle isn't caused by a cultural clash.

Since when was this a reason to abuse a group of people by discriminating against them?

By law, everyone has already the same rights.

I'm sure if we told religious groups they had to have a different name for the same event, they'd almost explode with rage and scream "discrimination!" from the rooftops.

But the solution of calling civil marriage and "gay marriage" as "civil union" is good, isn't it? That completely ignores the definition of "marriage"(although we could see what are the roots of "union", it might not be suitable either ).

 

[Omnis]

Marriage derives from the Latin "maritare" meaning "to supply a husband or wife". It's entirely appropriate to use "marriage" when referring to any gender.

So call it Maritatum.

You keep your fags and have that marriage, we'll keep our cigarettes and our marriage. This is America!

 

[ShobThaBob]

What should be done with Church/Muslim/Jewish marriages? Would religious marriage still be called "marriage" and civil marriage as "civil union"? As such "civil union" would grant all the legal rights and then it would be up to the religious communities to call it marriage.

None of that has anything to do with legal marriages. Churches are well within their legal rights to grant spiritual marriages to whomever or whatever they want. If you can find a church that will allow you to marry a goat, by all means go for it. It still doesn't make beasiality legal or grant you any special legal rights.

 

[Pako]

Quite. We should ban marriage as a term and just call all such events "civil unions".

I mentioned nothing of banning anything, but if same sex unions need to exist for monetary benefits, give it to them. This can be done without taking away anything that married hold as their own.

 

[XoravaX]

None of that has anything to do with legal marriages. Churches are well within their legal rights to grant spiritual marriages to whomever or whatever they want. If you can find a church that will allow you to marry a goat, by all means go for it. It still doesn't make beasiality legal or grant you any special legal rights.

In my country christian marriage (Protestant/Orthodox only) grants legal rights as well (by that those churches' marriages are classified as legal marriages). It is also put in the records, that is it just a civil marriage or a church one. That's because our Lutheran (Protestant) and Orthodox churches are partially state-funded and officially recognised as "state beliefs" while other religions are "minority beliefs".
That's a problem in many countries which put some religion over others, as their actions are often seen similar to the state officials' actions. Several other European countries have a similar system to ours, for example.
So EU-wide, it has.

 

[arora]

That's because

Ok

Just messin, but, there are no legalities until the marriage license is signed and witnessed in front of some sort of government official right?

 

[Dennisch]

I like it how Christians see gays as a different kind of human species.

When watching porn, and 2 girls go at it, do you guys turn off the film?

 

[Famine]

If marriage was left a spiritual ritual and/or an agreement between family as it used to be, no one would care. There is only one legitimate reason people press this issue and it has very little to do with marriage imo, there is a secondary reason as well, that has to do with stirring the pot.

Really?

I'd have thought "Well, you can get married but you can't call it that because you're gay" was pretty much open and shut discrimination.

Actually I meant to say "with the word's definition in English". In Medieval English and Modern English alike - it's a long-stood definition.

Yet all meanings must be based on earlier forms - just as all knowledge is based on earlier knowledge. We forget the earlier knowledge at our peril - it means forgetting the value of the present knowledge.

Latin maritare, Ancient Greek meîrax meaning BOTH a boy or a girl (yeah, a same word for either one), Lithuanian (probably closest existing language to the proto-Indo-European) martì meaning bride, all of them are derivatives of a same Indo-European word. Now which one got the definition correct? If everything, the base word means a girl or a bride as that is the most common meaning of its derivatives.

If you want to base the words on their roots, what about returning the meaning of "marriage" to 'girl'?
You see, there's no mind in trying to keep all the roots of the words forever. Furthermost "roots" of the meanings of Modern English words should be cut at around Old English, Medieval French (as Latin words mostly came through French) or late Ancient Greek, otherwise the original definition differs too much.

So now you can get married but not call it that because you're gay... except ladygays - it's okay for them?

"Maritare" means "to supply a husband or wife". It doesn't specify to whom, nor what amount. It could be a wife to a woman, a husband to a man or many of either to either.


I'm still curious why those who object to the word to be used to join people of the same gender into a contract don't object to it being used to join together descriptive nouns to make a third, like a blend of spices, musical styles or literary forms. Isn't that more insulting to the institution of holy matrimony?!11one!

Please, do yourself a favour and try writing all this in German, or whatever your best foreign language is, with only your knowledge of the language and you'll understand why non-native English speakers sometimes make errors like this.

Uhh... the discussion is (now, apparently) about an English word.

By law, everyone has already the same rights.

I'll just requote the first thing I said in this post.

"Well, you can get married but you can't call it that because you're gay."

I'd like you to imagine the situation was something else.

"Well, you can get a degree but you can't call it that because you're black."

You tell me why the first one isn't discrimination but the second one is. Or perhaps neither are?

But the solution of calling civil marriage and "gay marriage" as "civil union" is good, isn't it? That completely ignores the definition of "marriage"(although we could see what are the roots of "union", it might not be suitable either ).

It'd solve a lot of problems, certainly.

Though I imagine some who are already married (like me), some about to get married or those people already fiercely protective about the word "marriage" and who say things like "NOT Adam and STEVE!" a lot would have a massive tantrum about it.

Rather why I said it, really.

 

[arora]

Really?

I'd have thought "Well, you can get married but you can't call it that because you're gay" was pretty much open and shut discrimination

It is, but I'm sure there are churches that will marry gay couples around. You know the point I'm making, the argument is whether the gov recognizes it right? Which there is no need for, I hate to keep saying that.