Same Sex marriage [Archive] - HawaiiThreads.com

Miulang

October 4th, 2004, 07:58 PM

I don't believe they should legalize same sex marriages in the same context
as traditional marriages. But I do believe they should have the right
to form civil unions.

In regards to other things being pushed upon us. I believe some of the things
you mentioned should be legaliazed. But that is O/T.

Heterosexual marriages are only the norm in Western societies (I won't go into polygamy and polyandry that some other cultures practice). So in America, same sex marriages should probably not be legalized (to keep the homophobes from freaking out). I think civil unions, like domestic partnerships (i.e., "living in sin"), have become rather commonplace now. Some domestic partnerships have the same longevity (or longer) as heterosexual couples. With divorces so common now, I think couples in domestic partnerships and civil unions should be granted the same rights to inheritance and health benefits especially, that heterosexual partners enjoy.

Miulang

helen

October 4th, 2004, 08:01 PM

I feel that it shouldn't be legalized (anywhere) because why do we need it? We've been having traditional marriages since humans walked this earth, and why should we start now?

You might not need it but what about those who do? Keep in mind that traditional marriages are not going away or out of style because of same sex unions.

If this gets legalized, what will stop people from "pushing" other rights? Euthanasia, marijuana, abortion? They're just ripping the christian beliefs down to the ground.

Abortion is legal in this country and this was done without pushing same sex unions. Then again not everyone are doing abortions because it is legal.

Glen Miyashiro

October 4th, 2004, 08:25 PM

Hoo boy, Adri, you're gonna hear a lot in this thread.

First: same-sex couples should have the same legal right to marry as mixed-sex couples. Every court in the country that has examined this issue has come to the same conclusion. There is no valid basis in the U.S. Constitution to deny same-sex couples equal protection under the law. One day, Hawaii's same-sex constitutional ban will be examined by the U.S. Supreme Court and overthrown.

If this gets legalized, what will stop people from "pushing" other rights? Euthanasia
You mean, a patient's right to decide when and where and how he wants to die? Yup.

(Recent news: Two weeks ago, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the recently passed law on the Terry Schiavo case violated the separation of powers clause in Florida's constitution by essentially allowing Governor Jeb Bush to overturn a lower court's decision allowing Terri's estranged husband Michael to end her life.)

marijuana,
Yup. It should be legalized, and regulated, and taxed, just like alcohol and tobacco.

abortion?
Last I saw, this was still legal.

They're just ripping the christian beliefs down to the ground.
And who says that Christian beliefs are the ones we should follow? What I have seen of people who profess "Christian" beliefs makes me disgusted with Christianity. Christ was a good man, but too many of his followers are just plain evil.

pzarquon

October 4th, 2004, 08:49 PM

Sorry to bring this topic here, but I want to know what Hawaii people feel about it.What's with the apology? I think we can have a pretty reasonable conversation about any topic. I just hope you're prepared to hear opinions you might not agree with, and I hope we all can make ourselves clear without personal attacks.

We've been having traditional marriages since humans walked this earth, and why should we start now?This is most certainly not universally true. At most it's 5,000 years old (becoming an issue when paternity became a social consideration), and suffice it to say, humans have been roaming around considerably longer than that. I won't deny it's a longstanding Western tradition, but it's not an inherently natural, human practice.

I favor gay marriage, but can understand that progress is a gradual thing, and see the oft-offered compromise of "civil unions" to be a reasonable first step.

Indeed, ideally, I think government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Any and all churches can define what they consider "marriage," and the government's sole interest should be whether or not the parties have meanwhile entered into a legal contract.

As for those who ask, "Why?" I answer, "Why not?" My marriage sure as hell isn't being thretened by a lesbian couple's marriage... and there are lots of other tangible threats to the stable family unit than -- the horror! -- other stable family units. When the first same-sex marriages were performed, here and in Europe, the world didn't end... there was just a small, imperceptible increase in the overall amount of joy and love in the world.

The procreation argument is a non-starter. Go far enough down that road, and you could reasonably argue that emphatically childless couples (or medically so) shouldn't be granted the benefits of marriage, either.

If we can expand the definition of "person" to include slaves, if we can expand the definition of "voter" to include women, we can expand marriage to recognize the earnest and genuine desire of two consenting adults to form a legally and spiritually valid couple.

If this gets legalized, what will stop people from "pushing" other rights? Euthanasia, marijuana, abortion? They're just ripping the christian beliefs down to the ground.Well, by throwing all this into the mix, you've broadened this conversation quite a bit! :) I'll just broadly state that Christian beliefs are not the sole arbiters of what's right and wrong. Lots of reasonable people oppose or favor the rights you mention, regardless of the influence of Christianity.

adrian

October 4th, 2004, 09:29 PM

dang, I'm just getting pulverized here.

I need to start researching my positions next time.

I'm christian, and believe that things should stay traditional. I don't know where people stand on the other issues, but I don't think same sex marriage, abortion, or euthanasia should be legal.

I know that same sex marriage doesn't hurt anyone, but what I'm looking at, is the future. A lot of things happened when something is made legal, and most of it is bad. Abortion should be a last option for a mother, not because she made a stupid mistake of not wearing a condom, or didn't take the morning after pill. The gov't needs to help people in those situations by providing the coverage incase those things do happen. And someone that doesn't have a voice (or the ability to speak) doesn't mean that their spouse or brother can decide what they could do. Everyone has the right to live, and the only way someone can take their life, is by suicide, or some other form of dying. In the wrong hands, euthanasia can manipulated into a legal document, and if a person is ill "beyond repair", they have the right to "ride it out" no matter how painful the suffering is.

(sheesh, you're a few days on school break, and your brain gets fried already.)

pzarquon

October 4th, 2004, 10:09 PM

dang, I'm just getting pulverized here.Just don't take it personally. Depending on who you ask, this board is supposedly over-run with left-wing tree huggers, in which case you were destined to be in the minority. In the other hand, we know from the abortion thread that there are probably people who'd agree with you that same-sex marriage is a bad thing... they just haven't found this thread yet. :)
I know that same sex marriage doesn't hurt anyone, but what I'm looking at, is the future. A lot of things happened when something is made legal, and most of it is bad.I'm really curious about some of the examples you might cite. After all, women's sufferage was legalized, marriage between people of different ethnicities was legalized, freedom for slaves was legalized... I'd say these acts definitely fall into the "good" column.

Abortion has always been around, only now it is safe and regulated and doesn't require a mother to risk her life to find a willing practitioner. Euthanasia has always been around, it only has a formal name today, and is being written into law to protect physicians and loved ones for their acts of mercy.

Anyway, if, generally speaking, you mean "legalize" to mean the expansion of rights or access to something, I don't think you can claim the majority of such decisions to have been bad ones.

mel

October 4th, 2004, 11:50 PM

What's with the apology? I think we can have a pretty reasonable conversation about any topic. I just hope you're prepared to hear opinions you might not agree with, and I hope we all can make ourselves clear without personal attacks.

A word of warning to anyone here with traditional and conservative values.

As someone who was name called and raked over the coals on a supposedly non-political topic, I have learned to stay clear of these volatile political discussions, especially if you don't agree with the liberals who populate this board. They are outspoken and will tear you down at every opportunity they get, whether the political topic is the Presidency, the war, a myriad of social and economic issues, and more.

dang, I'm just getting pulverized here.

Adri, I feel sorry for you for having started this topic. It is like you just lit a match next to a giant oil refinery. It is going to get very volatile here. Try and bail out before it gets too crazy and let the liberals pontificate among themselves.

Stick to the safe topics like movies, lunch, entertainment and computers.

The political frying pan over here is too heated to only one side of most arguments.

pzarquon

October 5th, 2004, 07:17 AM

Aw, Mel, not again! Adri may very well have found himself, so far, in the minority in this topic (fortunately for him, he's in the majority overall), but I think the contrary responses have been thoughtful, and more importantly, Adri seems open to hearing what we have to say.

I'd really wish you'd stop painting everyone on HawaiiThreads.com with a broad brush, not so much as a heavily liberal-leaning group (which we could be), but as a group that can't have a civilized discussion, or one that's open to different opinions.

Karen has almost singlehandedly defended Bush in the "Bush v. Kerry" threads, and yet the conversation has remained civil, sometimes positively playful. Meanwhile, the abortion thread found a relatively even split between pro-choice and pro-life participants. Even the infamous Wal-Mart threads had, in their prime, a good mix of "I love Wal-Mart!" and "I hate Wal-Mart." If you recall, I joined you in the "I love Wal-Mart!" camp. :)

That first Wal-Mart thread is just about the only one I can think of where things boiled over... but then again, it got to the point where it was being whipped into a froth on purpose, in the hopes of breaking the "longest thread ever" record. :P

Once again, I think, it comes down to having conviction in your beliefs, and an appreciation for debate. Karen and may be in opposite camps, but I'm glad she's around to share her views. And when you were willing to stand up as a die-hard Republican (rather than holding back and dismissing us all on the political front), I was glad you were there, too.

Even if we know we won't change any minds, a colorful and diverse conversation is good for all our minds in general.

But, I suppose, I agree with you on one point: If facing differences of opinion, and the occasional flare-up, make you uncomfortable, you can steer clear of political and moral debates (though that would include interjecting just to say "You're all a bunch of liberals so you won't listen to what I have to say anyway!"). I've given up on Wal-Mart myself - there's lots of other stuff to talk about.

In general, though, if you stick only to food and movies, I think you'll be missing out on some of the best conversation we've got!

Laakea

October 5th, 2004, 10:09 AM

To each his own.

Glen Miyashiro

October 5th, 2004, 10:26 AM

As someone who was name called and raked over the coals on a supposedly non-political topic, I have learned to stay clear of these volatile political discussions, especially if you don't agree with the liberals who populate this board. They are outspoken and will tear you down at every opportunity they get, whether the political topic is the Presidency, the war, a myriad of social and economic issues, and more.
Yes, mel, I'm outspoken. But I don't tear you down, I tear your arguments down. I trust you understand the difference. I respect your right to hold whatever opinion you wish, just as I expect you to respect my right to tell you that your opinion doesn't make sense and is wrong. If I ever start deriding you instead of your opinions, please tell me so and I will stop.

Adri, I feel sorry for you for having started this topic. It is like you just lit a match next to a giant oil refinery. It is going to get very volatile here. Try and bail out before it gets too crazy and let the liberals pontificate among themselves.
"Crazy". "Pontificate". Ha. This reminds me of the attitude behind the "Your Ideal Liberal World" (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=2203) thread that you started a while ago. We're not raving loonies, mel, just strong-minded. And by the way, I thought that "pontificate" was something done by the pontiff (i.e. the Pope), not us godless heathens. :p

The political frying pan over here is too heated to only one side of most arguments.
Which is, to me, a refreshing change from the mainstream "conservative" media that I endure every day of my life.

Miulang

October 5th, 2004, 10:34 AM

The beauty of this country is we can, for the most part, express whatever opinion we want.

Thoughtful (and maybe even sometines heated) discussion is really required for people to exercise their minds. Remember that the brain is a muscle too and if not exercised regularly, it will atrophy like an unused limb.

Thank god there is dissention! I cannot imagine a society where everyone thought alike and never caused people to pause to consider alternatives. To Mel, Adrian and Karen, even though right now it might feel as though the majority of others here are against you, I for one am glad you have a different opinion than the mainstream. Continue to speak your mind so the rest of us can hear what another opinion is.

For the rest of us: we shouldn't immediately discount what people of different views have to say, either. Some of what they have to say is very valid. We may not always agree, but we should encourage strong discussions. If we don't have passionate people who believe in what they're saying, then why have threads about politics or anything controversial? As Mel says, why not just stick with "safe" topics like entertainment?

Thank you to all who have expressed your opinions. It's made me exercise my brain more.

Miulang

adrian

October 5th, 2004, 03:51 PM

I think I'll let this topic die.

When I started this topic at other sites, there was a few people who saw my side, and liked it, but alas, the majority was against me.

I guess I can learn from this, and not bring anything like this to a local board (and I should have deleted this topic before anyone saw it).

Glen Miyashiro

October 5th, 2004, 04:33 PM

What, you only want to hear from people who agree with you? Where's the fun in that? :p

Seriously, if you want to discuss a topic, then you should be prepared to hear and discuss all sides. Covering your ears and walking away when you hear something you don't like doesn't make it go away, nor is it going to improve anyone's understanding.

Or to put it another way, if you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen.

adrian

October 5th, 2004, 06:33 PM

What, you only want to hear from people who agree with you? Where's the fun in that? :p

I want to hear from other people that agrees with me, and how they tick.

And I was ready for the onslaught of arguments against me, but not this bad. I thought that they'd be some people that are for the same things as me, but you guys just slather on arguments and I don't know where to start to defend myself.

Konaguy

October 5th, 2004, 07:50 PM

As someone who was name called and raked over the coals on a supposedly non-political topic.

Was this a indirect jab at me in regards to what I wrote in the Wal-Mart
thread ? sorry about going O/T but curious minds want to know.

Just for the record, I am neither conservative or liberal. Both the left
and the right drive me bananas.

pzarquon

October 5th, 2004, 08:14 PM

I thought that they'd be some people that are for the same things as me, but you guys just slather on arguments and I don't know where to start to defend myself.Just so long as you understand that it wasn't meant personally -- you introduced a completely valid and worthwhile issue for discussion, and we weighted in on it. I'm sure you know, by the interactions elsewhere on this site, that we can disagree and remain civil.

As for "where to start to defend [yourself]," I'd say you got a decent start. You said you opposed it, and explained why. Those of us who favor same-sex marriage offered counterpoints to those justifications. I'd say you can still flex your greymatter to see if you'd take issue with what was said - for example, my assertion about marriage not being inherently natural - or you can search deeper for another reason why same-sex marriage feels wrong to you.

If you need someplace to start, you can always Google for the phrase "case against same sex marriage (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22case+against+same-sex+marriage%22)." Admittedly, some of the results will be for pages setting out to dispel the case against same-sex marriage, but I think you'll find more than a few writers supporting your contention, and perhaps they'll give you seeds of thought that you can use to grow your argument.

helen

October 5th, 2004, 09:24 PM

I feel that it shouldn't be legalized (anywhere) because why do we need it? We've been having traditional marriages since humans walked this earth, and why should we start now?

If this gets legalized, what will stop people from "pushing" other rights? Euthanasia, marijuana, abortion? They're just ripping the christian beliefs down to the ground.

I think part of the problem is that you are trying to lump "same sex marriage" as the same group as "Euthanasia", "marijuana" and "abortion". While their might be overlap not all for "same sex marriage" care for the other three.

If you want to talk about the other three, I would suggest making three seperate topics and gauge each topic seperately.

Like I said before I don't think traditional marriage is going out of style or be illegal once same sex marriage is more acceptable, let's face it if the various government bodies are trying to write laws to ban same sex marriage then wouldn't it mean it is legal now?

adrian

October 5th, 2004, 10:06 PM

If you want to talk about the other three, I would suggest making three seperate topics and gauge each topic seperately.

I think I know the result of that.

dick

October 9th, 2004, 03:37 AM

It's amazing the gratification one can get writing things, then deleting them before posting. Topics such as these only fuel fires and solve mostly nothing. Those who believe strongly in their ideas won't listen rationally to others' comments. This thread is a case in point. It serves to merely fire up people. Sadly, as most know what I do for a living, I can't comment on this topic specifically.

mel

October 9th, 2004, 06:34 AM

Anyone who starts topics like this is just lighting a match in an oil refinery. The best way to stop this kind of stuff from perpetuating itself is to ignore the topic if you are from an opposing viewpoint and let the pundits who all agree with each other on the topic to have a mutual lovefest until they get bored.

Miulang

October 9th, 2004, 07:47 AM

The reason why this country is in the sorry state it's in right now is because people like Dick believe that "discussions" like the one on this thread don't solve anything but provoke ire.

Well, if people don't ask questions and a spirited debate is not allowed to happen, how will the people who haven't yet formulated their own opinions supposed to hear from both sides of an issue? By saying things like no one can sway other people to change their mind about an emotionally charged issue is to assume that everyone already has an opinion.

I applaud Adrian for even positing the questions. If you read one of his responses above, he states that he just wanted to hear what other people of like minds had to say about the issue of same sex marriage. I believe this will be the first election he can participate in as a voter, and damn it! At least he's trying to figure out what he really believes in. Us old fogeys should be encouraging, rather than discouraging, the young people of this country to ask us the tough questions, and rather than poohpoohing this whole thing, at least try to present as much factual information so the young people of this country don't get discouraged at their first forays into political activism.

To me, it really doesn't matter whose side you're on...just be informed enough to decide for yourself who in your own mind fits your notion of a perfect leader (regardless of the political party or the race). Ask questions to gain clarity in your own mind. Don't be intimidated by louder voices. In this country, every voice should be heard and should count equally, regardless of ethnicity, religion or socioeconomic place in life.

Miulang

Miulang

October 9th, 2004, 08:08 AM

Sadly, as most know what I do for a living, I can't comment on this topic specifically.
Are you hiding behind the fact that you work parttime for a local newspaper as a way to weasel out of posting how you as Dick Q. Public feel? Are you going around specifically focusing on this topic in your assignments? As long as you don't represent your comments as being specifically attributable to your employer, how can what you say be a conflict of interest, if that's what your concern is? Just curious.

Miulang

lavagal

October 25th, 2006, 10:47 AM

The New Jersey Supreme Court passed its ruling regarding same-sex marriage (http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/news/10151332/detail.html?treets=hon&tml=hon_natlbreak&ts=T&tmi=hon_natlbreak_1_02330610252006)today. Where Massachusetts has a law stating that no one from out of state can marry there, NJ has no such law. Has Hawaii lost out on this particular marriage industry? NJ rocks.

joshuatree

October 25th, 2006, 11:26 AM

What is the main sticking point for most about same-sex marriage? Is it the benefits bestowed on a married couple? I thought most states already offer the same benefits to same-sex couples already? Is it the usage of the term "marriage" for same-sex couples? If that's the case, I consider myself in that boat. Can they choose another terminology for same-sex marriage? I'm not hard core traditionalist but I've always held the perception of marriage meaning union of a man and a woman. Doesn't mean I hold that concept higher or lower than a union of two same sexes. But it's just an image I like to cling on to. So are same-sex couples offended by that? :confused:

tikiyaki

October 25th, 2006, 11:38 AM

dang, I'm just getting pulverized here.

I know that same sex marriage doesn't hurt anyone, but what I'm looking at, is the future. A lot of things happened when something is made legal, and most of it is bad. Abortion should be a last option for a mother, not because she made a stupid mistake of not wearing a condom, or didn't take the morning after pill.

What about a pregnant woman who has been raped ? If abortion is illegal, is a woman who didn't want to get pregnant in the first place be forced to have a child by someone who forced sex on her, and got her pregnant?

Bard

October 25th, 2006, 11:56 AM

The very best argument I've heard about same sex marriage would seem to be poignant to both those who oppose it and those who favor it: why is the government in the business of specifying what a religious institution can/must do with its own ceremonies? Forget that, give everyone civil unions at the government/tax/inheritance level, and let churches (or any other religious institution) decide who they want to marry.

I simply can't see why people are so afraid of same sex marriage, and I have had many gay/lesbian friends get their hearts broken on the subject, especially here in Oregon where we had some of the first same sex marriages in the country (even if they got overturned later... double bummer for those people). These things about "oh everybuddy and their dogs is gonna get married now" just ring like straw men to me.

Hope

October 25th, 2006, 01:08 PM

Bard

October 25th, 2006, 01:21 PM

It was to be made between a man and a woman. To force "same sex" marriage upon the sanctity of religion is sending a dagger into the heart of religious beliefs. Period.

I'm totally with you, Hope, as I said above in my post. The government has no business telling religions how to define things like marriage. This is a great example of why people like the ACLU are fighting so hard to maintain the separation of church and state. It works both ways!

If there was no wishy-washy waving of hands combination of marriage (as a religious institution) and civil unions (as a government institution), we could grant everyone civil unions and let the religions decide marriage for themselves.

'Course I don't think anyone is implying that the government will force every church to marry anyone who asks for it (that is already not the case) but I could see why people would feel threatened about that.

joshuatree

October 25th, 2006, 02:00 PM

It was to be made between a man and a woman. To force "same sex" marriage upon the sanctity of religion is sending a dagger into the heart of religious beliefs. Period.

I agree here too. Though I would take it even a step further and say "marriage" is a concept not just of religion but of many customs and traditions. If all this hoopla is over forcing a same-sex union to be called "marriage", I advocate same-sex couples to merely choose a new word to describe their unions. I believe same-sex unions should be entitled to all the legal rights of a marriage but just call it something else. I would not see calling it a different word any more or less than the word "marriage".

Adri

October 25th, 2006, 02:11 PM

Since "marriage" was originally a religious ceremony and sacred in nature, I do not believe that "same sex marriage" should be legal. It's an oxymoron, in its very essence.

It was to be made between a man and a woman. To force "same sex" marriage upon the sanctity of religion is sending a dagger into the heart of religious beliefs. Period.

/snip

Pahhh-leeeze! It boils down to RESPECT for one's religious beliefs, and that's the bottom line.

None of the proposals for same sex marriage "force" any religion or church to perform same sex marriage ceremonies but there *are* churches that do want to (and some actually do perform, even without force of law) same sex marriage ceremonies. What about them and respect for their beliefs?

You may argue that marriage was originally a religious ceremony but there are equal grounds (and legal grounds) to argue that marriage was originally a contract between people. Thus, in the "old days" a person breaking a marriage engagement could be held liable for breach of promise and a person interfering in a marriage could be held liable for that interference.

Per Wikipedia: "Marriage remained a strictly civil institution until about the mid 5th century AD. Around that time Augustine and others theosophised about marriage and the Christian Church started taking an interest in co-opting it. Christians began to have their marriages conducted by ministers in Christian gatherings. Having always regarded it, in practical terms as a relationship between a man and a woman, in the 12th century that the Church (the Catholic Church ), as well as other Orthodoxies, formally defined marriage as a sacrament."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

and as others have mentioned, Western ideas of marriage have traditionally been one man and one woman in a religious ceremony but far older civilizations have included other arrangements including polygamy.

Leo Lakio

October 25th, 2006, 02:19 PM

If all this hoopla is over forcing a same-sex union to be called "marriage", I advocate same-sex couples to merely choose a new word to describe their unions. I believe same-sex unions should be entitled to all the legal rights of a marriage but just call it something else. I would not see calling it a different word any more or less than the word "marriage".But if it's just the same as a marriage, why not call it a marriage? "Separate but equal" was a concept deflated by the Civil Rights battles of the 1960s; let's not bring it back.

joshuatree

October 25th, 2006, 02:28 PM

But if it's just the same as a marriage, why not call it a marriage? "Separate but equal" was a concept deflated by the Civil Rights battles of the 1960s; let's not bring it back.

Because in this case, there is one difference. One's a union between a man and a woman. The other is between two of the same sex. The Civil Rights issue was about race and color. This is about a union between the opposite sex or between two of the same sex. You're gonna tell me there's no difference between a man and a woman? :D

timkona

October 25th, 2006, 02:46 PM

The answer to this one is so easy, homo's would never even think of it.

ALL THEY NEED IS A NEW WORD.

Marriage, Matrimony, Marital, et al to describe man/woman.

Glingblat, Glingamony, Glingital et al to describe a man/man.

Some other set of word for woman/woman.

I'm being silly with these silly words, but my point is that most people are stuck on the word, not the concept. If Queers invent a different word, the controversy melts away magically.

I've often heard that fags are very creative people. So why not use that creativity to come up with a new, nice sounding, word to describe the love and commitment they have to each other.

For the record, I grew up in the SF Bay Area, and have no problem with same-sex civil unions. But you can't use the word marriage. Get a new word. Too easy. Problem would be solved much quicker.

Leo Lakio

October 25th, 2006, 02:52 PM

Because in this case, there is one difference. One's a union between a man and a woman. The other is between two of the same sex. The Civil Rights issue was about race and color. This is about a union between the opposite sex or between two of the same sex. You're gonna tell me there's no difference between a man and a woman? :DDepends...you're gonna tell me there's no difference between skin colors? That was the argument years ago, remember - fortunately, we've moved beyond considering that to be an obstacle. We need to do the same with gender.

Love sees no color - love sees no sex - love sees no handicaps - love sees no restrictions. But the laws do - and they should, when it comes to protection of someone who could be oppressed. Hence I would not suggest that someone be permitted to marry a five-year-old child (just in case anyone was about to bring that into play.) But there is nothing that needs to be "protected" from homosexual marriage.

For those who see this as a "typically liberal" perspective - I thought a basic tenet of conservatism was to get government out of the bedrooms and private lives of citizens.

Tim - again, you lose my point. If you accept that the legal status is exactly the same, why do you need a different word? Why does it need to be moved into a different box? No one has answered (to my satisfaction) why there isn't room in the word "marriage" for homosexual relationships? Frankly, the most convincing arguments I've heard (and they were stated earlier) is that "marriage" should be considered a religious union/ceremony, while "unions" are civil. So therefore, if you don't have your man+woman relationship sanctioned by any church, you don't get to call it a "marriage." If it's just a matter of different words for the same legal status, that shouldn't be a problem now, should it? (And if it is, do gay couples have to describe themselves as "civilly unionized"?)

To put it even more simply: what is so sacred about the actual word "marriage" that you fear allowing homosexuals to use it to describe their relationships?

Bard

October 25th, 2006, 03:52 PM

I'm being silly with these silly words, but my point is that most people are stuck on the word, not the concept. If Queers invent a different word, the controversy melts away magically.

Am I talkin' to myself here or what? :)

Call them all "civil unions" and be done with it. Let the churches call it whatever they want.

joshuatree

October 25th, 2006, 04:01 PM

Depends...you're gonna tell me there's no difference between skin colors? That was the argument years ago, remember - fortunately, we've moved beyond considering that to be an obstacle. We need to do the same with gender.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no difference between skin colors other than than the colors themselves. But between a man and a woman....do I really need to be graphic? There's the psychological and physiological differences. If there was absolutely no difference, we be called androgynous.

Love sees no color - love sees no sex - love sees no handicaps - love sees no restrictions. But the laws do - and they should, when it comes to protection of someone who could be oppressed. Hence I would not suggest that someone be permitted to marry a five-year-old child (just in case anyone was about to bring that into play.) But there is nothing that needs to be "protected" from homosexual marriage.

The love sees no sex I'm not buying. I'm not saying it's any better or worse but I'm just never gonna fall in love with someone of the same sex. It isn't me. And that's the distinction that the word "marriage" should make. Notice I'm all for giving same-sex couples all the same rights and privileges and protection of a heterosexual couple, so what oppression can there be? I would like to turn the question around and ask, why such insistance on calling a same-sex union "marriage"? What's wrong with choosing another word?

Tim - again, you lose my point. If you accept that the legal status is exactly the same, why do you need a different word? Why does it need to be moved into a different box? No one has answered (to my satisfaction) why there isn't room in the word "marriage" for homosexual relationships? Frankly, the most convincing arguments I've heard (and they were stated earlier) is that "marriage" should be considered a religious union/ceremony, while "unions" are civil. So therefore, if you don't have your man+woman relationship sanctioned by any church, you don't get to call it a "marriage." If it's just a matter of different words for the same legal status, that shouldn't be a problem now, should it?

Well, what's really the difference between Coke or Pepsi? They're both colas, so shouldn't they just be called the same name? Yet, there are subtle differences right?

As for the church argument, that's assuming everyone who believes in marriage is Christian and follows the Church. There are people who don't fit that description but still defines marriage as between man and woman due to their customs, traditions, and beliefs too.

Pua'i Mana'o

October 25th, 2006, 04:15 PM

Why legalize gay marriage? It isn't about legalizing love or sex. It is so that the two within that marriage can recieve the same 1000+ legal benefits that any other married couple can. And since the word "married" is used in state laws, federal laws, tax codes, estate law, etc, then it would be cheaper for the country to be intellectually honest about this uh, civil union and call it "marriage".

If you don't want gay marriage, don't enter into one. And legalizing gay marriage isn't going to affect my hetero marriage at all.