Gay Marriage

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Same is true though of using the term "black". There are a wide variety of skin tones in the world. Is someone of African ancestry to be called "black" even if their skin is not black? Is someone who identifies with a European ancestry "white" even if their skin is darker than someone who identifies as "black"? Do we call a Hispanic "black"?

My point is neither way of describing things works 100% of the time because these categories are fluid. But we need ways to describe things. African-American acknowledges that we're referring to someone's ancestry, not simply the color of their skin. I think a lot of people have found it an improvement to shift the focus in that way. The fact that there are still issues with it only shows that trying to describe "race" is an impossible thing.

I see what you're saying, but, African American almost always implies that they mean black for those who use it as opposed to actually referring to someone's ancestry. Almost like they are afraid to just say 'black'. I'll buy into the 'African-American' title when people start using it and are not referring to ones skin color.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Marriage = no.

Civil union/domestic partnership w/ all legal rights granted to married couples = yes.

Then what's the difference?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I see what you're saying, but, African American almost always implies that they mean black for those who use it as opposed to actually referring to someone's ancestry. Almost like they are afraid to just say 'black'. I'll buy into the 'African-American' title when people start using it and are not referring to ones skin color.

I don't think that's true. dark-skinnned Caribbean people who are not of African descent don't use the term African-American. Dark-skinned people of New Zealander origin don't use the term. But people who are African-American but have fairly light skin do use the term.

I agree that people often misuse it. They might call someone African-American without any idea what their real ancestry is. Hell, I've seen morons in my classes call people in Africa African-American. But I'm not interested in Language for Dummies. I'm interested in whether a term is more accurate, less discriminatory and more meaningful. In some senses using the term "black" makes sense since it's what people are actually responding to, someone's skin color. But using a more accurate and meaningful term might help to remind those people that trying to lump people together because of pigmentation doesn't make sense, and in fact has been and is hugely damaging. I think this is the meaning of PC, in essence, is that by using better terms we can remind ourselves to think in a better way.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

To clarify my opinion, religious instutitions should not have definitions of "marriage" forced upon them. Religious institutions should have the right to deny recognizing or granting a marriage to individuals who do not follow their principles.

That being said, the government does not have the same right. The government should allow same-sex couples to enjoy the same tax benefits and other which heterosexual couples enjoy.

Isn't that the case as it stands today? A church isn't forced to hold a ceremony for anyone.

[larrymcg421]

I'm totally opposed to disconnecting government from marriage. That hurts not just gay people, but also straight people who want to be married, but don't want to go through the church. Like it or not, marriage is not just a religious institution, but a secular social institution. The term has importance for more than just religious people.

I'm also opposed to a separate status for gay and straight couples. Legal marriage for gay couples doesn't infringe on anyone's religious rights. You can still go to church, listen to your pastor attack gay marriage, read your bible, etc. There is no tangible way it harms religion. The Catholic Church already has a different definition of marriage than the government, as they don't allow divorced people to get married. The government allowing divorced people to get married hasn't resulted in the Catholic church being forced to do anything different.

How about we just keep the same system, allow same sex couples to get legally married, not force churches to do anything different, and everyone against gay marriage can go about their business because it won't change their lives one bit, as has been in the case in every state where same sex marriage has been legalized?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Yeah, I really wish someone would just split the knot by instituting only legal unions by the government, and leave the word marriage in the public market place. Leaves no one anything to complain about as far as I can see.

Except a lot of those that don't want to grant marriage rights would also be against granting equal civil union rights.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

To clarify my opinion, religious instutitions should not have definitions of "marriage" forced upon them. Religious institutions should have the right to deny recognizing or granting a marriage to individuals who do not follow their principles.

But you don't need to create a different term for this to happen. In every state where gay marriage is legal, religious institutions have not had to recognize any marriage they disagree with. As I pointed out in my earlier post, the Catholic church already has a different definition of marriage than the government, and it hasn't forced them to do anything different.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Except a lot of those that don't want to grant marriage rights would also be against granting equal civil union rights.

Yeah, but the only leg they have to stand on right now (and I think it's a phantom leg myself) is that the word marriage has a more than legal meaning, but a cultural and religious one. So take away the word marriage and they now have nothing to argue about. I don't believe for a nanosecond people will stop arguing, but it's a compromise that I think removes any possible grounds for a legal argument on the issue. There's no argument against gay marriage that's not religious, so remove any language that has any possible religious connotation and we're done here.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I see what you're saying, but, African American almost always implies that they mean black for those who use it as opposed to actually referring to someone's ancestry. Almost like they are afraid to just say 'black'. I'll buy into the 'African-American' title when people start using it and are not referring to ones skin color.

I had alot of residents who really hated the AA title for themselves at a school with a large number of black students. They were African international students and people just assumed that the term African-American applied to them and constantly called them that. To my mind, after seeing the issues the AA term involves, black is simply much better.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But you don't need to create a different term for this to happen. In every state where gay marriage is legal, religious institutions have not had to recognize any marriage they disagree with. As I pointed out in my earlier post, the Catholic church already has a different definition of marriage than the government, and it hasn't forced them to do anything different.

No, you shouldn't need to. But the opponents are clearly convinced that they'll be "Forced" to perform gay marriages, that there will be civil suits that will follow these legal actions. A clearly secular civil union available for all Americans would remove this worry, theoretically, and just makes more logical sense.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm totally opposed to disconnecting government from marriage. That hurts not just gay people, but also straight people who want to be married, but don't want to go through the church. Like it or not, marriage is not just a religious institution, but a secular social institution. The term has importance for more than just religious people.

I'm also opposed to a separate status for gay and straight couples. Legal marriage for gay couples doesn't infringe on anyone's religious rights. You can still go to church, listen to your pastor attack gay marriage, read your bible, etc. There is no tangible way it harms religion. The Catholic Church already has a different definition of marriage than the government, as they don't allow divorced people to get married. The government allowing divorced people to get married hasn't resulted in the Catholic church being forced to do anything different.

How about we just keep the same system, allow same sex couples to get legally married, not force churches to do anything different, and everyone against gay marriage can go about their business because it won't change their lives one bit, as has been in the case in every state where same sex marriage has been legalized?

Makes complete sense to me. That's why it will never happen.

EDIT - I shouldn't say never because it will one day.

[DanGarion]

Then religious institutions can find their own name for it instead of marriage. Why make everyone else have to change?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I don't think that's true. dark-skinnned Caribbean people who are not of African descent don't use the term African-American. Dark-skinned people of New Zealander origin don't use the term. But people who are African-American but have fairly light skin do use the term.

I agree that people often misuse it. They might call someone African-American without any idea what their real ancestry is. Hell, I've seen morons in my classes call people in Africa African-American. But I'm not interested in Language for Dummies. I'm interested in whether a term is more accurate, less discriminatory and more meaningful. In some senses using the term "black" makes sense since it's what people are actually responding to, someone's skin color. But using a more accurate and meaningful term might help to remind those people that trying to lump people together because of pigmentation doesn't make sense, and in fact has been and is hugely damaging. I think this is the meaning of PC, in essence, is that by using better terms we can remind ourselves to think in a better way.

Hehe! I don't disagree with you 100%. I think we (the generic 'we') put too much weight into what someone looks like to begin with and a need to group them together. I just don't like it when people who use the term African American who think that it's a ubiquitous term for black people here in the US. I hate the hyphenated labels. Which are worse in my opinion, because it makes an even bigger assumption that that person is from that part of the world.

My best friend since we were 13 is black, he says, "Don't call me African American, I'm American, period. My ancestors might be from Africa, but, I'm not". The way he explains it, makes the most sense to me. So that's what I tend to go with.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Then religious institutions can find their own name for it instead of marriage. Why make everyone else have to change?

Right. That word comes from religion. So we tell them to change?

You know, I have this fancy little OfficeMax calculator on my desk here. It is very useful. I have decided to call it "God".

Hey, churchies, go change your deity's name to something else, so we don't get confused all right?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Right. That word comes from religion. So we tell them to change?

You know, I have this fancy little OfficeMax calculator on my desk here. It is very useful. I have decided to call it "God".

Hey, churchies, go change your deity's name to something else, so we don't get confused all right?

Show me the proof that the word marriage comes from religion, because I've researched this before and was never able to determine that.

And honestly bible quotes don't work since the bible language has changed MANY times throughout time.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Autumn

No, you shouldn't need to. But the opponents are clearly convinced that they'll be "Forced" to perform gay marriages, that there will be civil suits that will follow these legal actions. A clearly secular civil union available for all Americans would remove this worry, theoretically, and just makes more logical sense.

But it's a compromise that gay citizens do not want. They're not just after the benefits. They want to get married, not civilly unioned.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

And honestly bible quotes don't work since the bible language has changed MANY times throughout time.

Not to mention, marriage predates the Bible.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Not to mention, marriage predates the Bible.

DING DING DING, we have a winner.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Right. That word comes from religion. So we tell them to change?

If there was any truth to that statement, you may have a point .

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Right. That word comes from religion. So we tell them to change?

You know, I have this fancy little OfficeMax calculator on my desk here. It is very useful. I have decided to call it "God".

Hey, churchies, go change your deity's name to something else, so we don't get confused all right?

Worth pointing out again that giving legal status to gay marriage would not force any religion to change one damn thing.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Show me the proof that the word marriage comes from religion, because I've researched this before and was never able to determine that.

And honestly bible quotes don't work since the bible language has changed MANY times throughout time.

So you're for billions of people to change a term they have used for thousands of years, because we can't definitively trace whether its origin is secular or religious, all for the benefit of a small subset of the population (1% or so is gay, IIRC)?

Unreasonable much?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Worth pointing out again that giving legal status to gay marriage would not force any religion to change one damn thing.

Worth pointing out that I have never said otherwise.

[molson]

The bible doesn't even say anything about gay marriage. And neither homosexuality or gay marriage is incompatible in any way with Christianity. Not all Christians, not even a majority anymore, go to church and "listen to their pastor attack gay marriage." Religion is always an evolving thing and people are certainly free to support or oppose whatever they want within that, but when they do choose this battle, it does promote and encourage misunderstandings and ignorant prejudice against Christianity and religion in general.

The Christian case for gay marriage - Los Angeles Times

[finketr]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Worth pointing out again that giving legal status to gay marriage would not force any religion to change one damn thing.

Is this really true? I mean look at our dict..president and his mandate that churches pay for contraception and birth control in direct violation of their consciences.

Can an employer choose not to extended benefits to a Civil-union couple?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by finketr

Is this really true? I mean look at our dict..president and his mandate that churches pay for contraception and birth control in direct violation of their consciences.

Churches are exempt. Not sure where you are hearing that they must, but that is simply not the case.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But it's a compromise that gay citizens do not want. They're not just after the benefits. They want to get married, not civilly unioned.

They can call it what they want. Just as religion doesn't have to change a thing, neither do homosexual couples have to accept being called "unioned". They can still be married and call themselves married.

It is merely a separate term for legal purposes that allows the Christian fundamentalists to not feel that what they feel is a sacred religious ceremony is being usurped for a purpose that doesn't fit their beliefs.

Keep in mind, again, I only support this as a compromise to their beliefs while supporting full marriage rights for gays. I am not religious in the least bit, and I don't think of marriage as any different from any rational perspective when it is done between heterosexual couples in a religious setting and homosexual couples in a secular setting.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But it's a compromise that gay citizens do not want. They're not just after the benefits. They want to get married, not civilly unioned.

Gay couples do not want a civil union while everyone else gets a marriage. But if everyone gets a civil union, and marriages are left to your own choice, then I think most of them would back that. The fact is it shouldn't be different for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Either they all get marriages or all get civil unions. That seems to me the crux of the argument. If calling my marriage a civil union makes things easier, I say we do it.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

So you're for billions of people to change a term they have used for thousands of years, because we can't definitively trace whether its origin is secular or religious, all for the benefit of a small subset of the population (1% or so is gay, IIRC)?

Unreasonable much?

Did I say to change it for gay people? My wife and I were not married in a church. Thus if you changed it for those that didn't get married in a church I would be forced to changed my married stats to civil union. Why should I have to change my status because a church has adopted the word marriage?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

The bible doesn't even say anything about gay marriage. And neither homosexuality or gay marriage is incompatible in any way with Christianity. Not all Christians, not even a majority anymore, go to church and "listen to their pastor attack gay marriage." Religion is always an evolving thing and people are certainly free to support or oppose whatever they want within that, but when they do choose this battle, it does promote and encourage misunderstandings and ignorant prejudice against Christianity and religion in general.

The Christian case for gay marriage - Los Angeles Times

I never said all or even a majority of them do that. As a Christian myself, I'm well aware of how homosexuality and gay marriage are not imcompatible with Christianity. The point of that sentence was for the Christians opposing marriage on the basis that marriage is a sin would not have their religious beliefs affected in any way.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Gay couples do not want a civil union while everyone else gets a marriage. But if everyone gets a civil union, and marriages are left to your own choice, then I think most of them would back that. The fact is it shouldn't be different for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Either they all get marriages or all get civil unions. That seems to me the crux of the argument. If calling my marriage a civil union makes things easier, I say we do it.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by finketr

Can an employer choose not to extended benefits to a Civil-union couple?

Yes. If a couple gets a civil union in New Jersey, and then moves to another state for employment (or any reason), that state does not have to recognize their civil union. If the state marries them, they do. That's why civil unions do not have the same rights as marriages right now. There is no federal protection of civil unions across state borders. (Edit: Unless it's changed recently. I haven't been keeping up with politics much lately.)

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Did I say to change it for gay people? My wife and I were not married in a church. Thus if you changed it for those that didn't get married in a church I would be forced to changed my married stats to civil union. Why should I have to change my status because a church has adopted the word marriage?

So your big fight here is because you don't want to sign legal docs that replace "Marital Status" with "Union Status"?

Do you really think this changes anything for your marriage? Or anyone's? It's a legal term.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by finketr

Is this really true? I mean look at our dict..president and his mandate that churches pay for contraception and birth control in direct violation of their consciences.

Can an employer choose not to extended benefits to a Civil-union couple?

You mean the one that requires employers to provide basic healthcare rights?

Catholic Groups Fight Contraceptive Rule, But Many Already Offer Coverage : Shots - Health News : NPR

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

So your big fight here is because you don't want to sign legal docs that replace "Marital Status" with "Union Status"?

Do you really think this changes anything for your marriage? Or anyone's? It's a legal term.

Then why give the word to the church? We can keep going around in the circle all day. The churches don't own the word. A marriage is a marriage is a marriage and if the church wants to use the term that is perfectly within their right. But just because they choose to use the term doesn't mean it should be denied to anyone else.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Then why give the word to the church? We can keep going around in the circle all day. The churches don't own the word. A marriage is a marriage is a marriage and if the church wants to use the term that is perfectly within their right. But just because they choose to use the term doesn't mean it should be denied to anyone else.

Governments control the legal process, and we're talking about a legal status.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Governments control the legal process, and we're talking about a legal status.

I realize that. It's already in place that marriage is a legal status. Why change that just because churches won't recognize certain ones? Two people sign a legal document that says they are married that's that. The church can do whatever they want, but they shouldn't be stepping on mine or anyone else's rights or legal status.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

I realize that. It's already in place that marriage is a legal status. Why change that just because churches won't recognize certain ones? Two people sign a legal document that says they are married that's that. The church can do whatever they want, but they shouldn't be stepping on mine or anyone else's rights or legal status.

You don't care about anyone else's beliefs as long as you don't have to change a thing, right? Changing the legal term to civil union does nothing at all to you, but you're still against it.

It's just a legal term. I'm struggling to understand why it's such a big deal to you, when it changes nothing for you, but doing this change respects the beliefs of fundamental Christians while opening the door for them to support gay marriage as a legal institution.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

You don't care about anyone else's beliefs as long as you don't have to change a thing, right? Changing the legal term to civil union does nothing at all to you, but you're still against it.

It's just a legal term. I'm struggling to understand why it's such a big deal to you, when it changes nothing for you, but doing this change respects the beliefs of those people while opening the door for them to support gay marriage as a legal institution.

No, its on you. Religion does not own the right to the word marriage, and it is folly to pretend so. If people are offended by two people choosing to get married , the onus is on them to get over it. No church needs to marry two gay people - but the idea that the church retains some sort of veto right over the definition of the word marriage and its legal ramifications is silly.

[RedKingGold]

Are we really throwing up our hands about a "word"? Who cares what the relationship is called so long as same sex and opposite sex couples are provided the same rights and opportunities by the government.

The First Amendment also provides religious entities rights too and those rights need to be respected along with the rights of gay men and women.

[tarcone]

I doubt Missouri will have gay marriage any time soon. We have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

If we allow gay marriage, why shouldnt we allow polygamy? What about their rights? Why is that against the law? If a dude can stomach having multiple wives, more power to him. He is a better man than me.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

No, its on you. Religion does not own the right to the word marriage, and it is folly to pretend so. If people are offended by two people choosing to get married , the onus is on them to get over it. No church needs to marry two gay people - but the idea that the church retains some sort of veto right over the definition of the word marriage and its legal ramifications is silly.

What's on me? I support gay marriage.

I am just pointing out that there is a large portion of the population that has a religious belief that the term marriage is sacred, and that to use it as a legal term to define a union they believe is a sin goes against their belief. As such, they will not support equal rights for gays when this term is used to define a homosexual union.

It's likely that it will be much more difficult to acquire nation-wide rights for gays without compromising a little here, as the Christian fundamentalist segment of the population holds significant sway over this country's laws.

If a little change in the code from "marriage" to "civil union" is made, and the end result is that equal rights are given to both hetero and homosexual unions, religious or not, everywhere in the US, is that not a worthy compromise to make?

[Raiders Army]

You wouldn't like my answer why I said yes.

[GreenMonster]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Why should I care what 2 people who love each other do wit htheir lives? I have no more right to tell them how they can live their lives then they do to tell me.

I have a gay cousin and her and her partner are 2 of the most well adjusted people I know. They have 2 great kids and are just as much a loving family as any other I know.

I have already moved on past this issue, to polygamy. Why should I care if 3 or 4 people who love each other do with there lives. I am still looking for people that are willing to marry there pets.

[molson]

Originally Posted by tarcone

If we allow gay marriage, why shouldnt we allow polygamy? What about their rights? Why is that against the law? If a dude can stomach having multiple wives, more power to him. He is a better man than me.

I bet at some level its easier to have 5 wives than 1. Because they'd be competitive and they'd work out their frustrations and aggression with each other instead of you.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

I bet at some level its easier to have 5 wives than 1. Because they'd be competitive and they'd work out their frustrations and aggression with each other instead of you.

It's all fun and games until all 5 of their cycles are in sync. Then it's a living hell...

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

It's all fun and games until all 5 of their cycles are in sync. Then it's a living hell...

Five separate houses. That way, they don't get in sync.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Five separate houses. That way, they don't get in sync.

I like the way you think.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I like the way you think.

He's just been watching Sister Wives...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by tarcone

If a dude can stomach having multiple wives

How about multiple sets of in-laws and extended families? The latter alone should cause any polygamist to be locked up until he regains his sanity.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

He's just been watching Sister Wives...

I'm not sure what that is, but, from the title...sounds very West Virginian.