Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

Originally posted by krossfyter
so what have we learned here so far in this discussion? has any progress been made?

Oh - forget the thread.

Marriage Equality is happening - - - and some still don't get it.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by beezzer

Hope that cleared things up.

Peace.

beez

Nope. Opinions are opinions.

Equal Rights is Equal Rights.

You're welcome to your opinion.

Originally posted by Annee

If you come up with anything new - - - I might have something to say.

But - I'm not going to continue rehashing what's already been clearly stated.

Fair enough. if you can't explain yourself, if you can't state what the "more" is that they require beyond the civil recognition they claim to want,, it's not my job to drag it out of you. Have a nice evening, then!

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by beezzer

Hope that cleared things up.

Peace.

beez

Nope. Opinions are opinions.

Equal Rights is Equal Rights.

You're welcome to your opinion.

Yes! I personally experienced the Civil Rights movement and forced busing.

My opinion on Equality is based in reality.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I'm of the human tribe and I am referring to the time when the Shawnee weren't organized enough to call themselves Shawnees. A time when lonewolf hunters were tribes unto themselves and would take a woman by force, and then abandon them. That was curtailed by female wiles.

edit on 27-7-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)

So you have no tribe, but you presume to tell me how tribal people live?

No, I presume to tell you, in a tongue and cheek sort of way, what anthropologist contend happened at the beginning stages of the neo-paleolithic history of mankind, my tribe.

"Mankind" is not a tribe, it's a species.

But yeah, if women invented marriage as a way to snag a mate, it's been a dismal failure on some of us. Instead of alienating men by withholding sex - which generally makes most guys wander even worse - they should try baiting them in with cookies! Then when they spring the sex trap closed, it's a done deal!

Originally posted by beezzer
If a man and a man or a woman and a woman want to own a chevy and call it a mercedes, then they are free to do so. I have no problem with whatever they want to call their chevy.

Calling it a mercedes does not make it a mercedes. But if they choose to call it that, then fine. If the state recognises that their calling it a mercedes makes it a mercedes, then fine.

But it's still a chevy.

It does not affect my mercedes, nor does it lessen the value of my mercedes, because side-by-side, you can obviously see the difference between my mercedes and their chevy (that they call a mercedes).

Hope that cleared things up.

Peace.

beez

It's posts like this that make me wish there was a "spangle with stars" option!

As a followup note, if both the mercedes and the chevy get them where they want to go, what's the problem? I don't really care what they call it - heck, they can even swap emblems to try to disguise the fact that the chevy isn't a mercedes, it's not going to change whats under the hood either way you go!

reply to post by nenothtu


Yep, cookies. You know the saying, a way to a man's heart, and all.

Women made men feel strong and good about themselves. Good sex, good food and good positive reinforcement along with some guilt trips kept the guys around and in line. In time they bonded and formed the nuclear family.

We weren't just created full grown humans, alone in a garden and then given a spouse by some god guy, after a long deep sleep. Intimate relationships and the complexity of culture was developed over time, not by magic, overnight.

Originally posted by nenothtu

As a followup note, if both the mercedes and the chevy get them where they want to go, what's the problem? I don't really care what they call it - heck, they can even swap emblems to try to disguise the fact that the chevy isn't a mercedes, it's not going to change whats under the hood either way you go!

edit on 2012/7/27 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

Excellent point! What people call their car should never effect how you drive your car.

Originally posted by nenothtu



They evidently care for a great deal more, if State Sanctioned Civil Unions will not suffice. It's that "more" that has folks worried. No one seems to know what the "more" is, but since Civil Unions providing the tax break is not enough, there has to be a "more" there some where.

Because words matter. As long as some people are labeled as having civil unions, and others as marriages, there is a perceived differnce. Along with this perception comes seperation. Can't you just see people saying things like, "Sure, the might be in a civil union, but its not like they're married."

It would be like if the government said gay people can never be citizens. They can have all of the exact same rights as a citizen, but we will call them "dedicated residents" or something like that. Its a slap in the face in order to differentiate this group.

Your own adversion to allowing it to be called a marriage proves that to at least you there is a difference. These people are fighting to end these differences in a legal setting.

If your argument is that its because the term marriage has always signified a religous union, your wrong. As was shown on this thread, the concept of marriage was originally more of a business contract.

If your offended at people taking the term from you, have you not been equally offensive by changing the meaning of the term from what these people had originally intended?

reply to post by beezzer


I'm not seeing the Mercedes/Chevy links here?

Are you saying that a loving relationship with a man and woman is a Mercedes, foreign, more expensive, gives one more status, and then a gay relationship is an American institution. like Chevrolet?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by beezzer

 

I'm not seeing the Mercedes/Chevy links here?

Are you saying that a loving relationship with a man and woman is a Mercedes, foreign, more expensive, gives one more status, and then a gay relationship is an American institution. like Chevrolet?

No.

Let me try again.

If a man and a man or a woman and a woman want to call their ham and cheese sandwich a pastrami on rye, then they are free to do so.

What they call it, is what's important here.

So if they choose to call their sandwich one thing, when it is (in reality) another, who cares?

It doesn't affect MY sandwich. It doesn't diminish my sandwich. My sandwich is a singular entity. My sandwich does not rely on any other sandwich to define it.

My sandwich is a pastrami on rye.
(I'm hungry, hence the food analogy)
It is a great sandwich.

Now if two men have a sandwich, it is different. But if they want to call it a pastrami on rye, then by golly, let 'em.

See?

reply to post by beezzer


So you're perpetuating the separate but equal mentality?

reply to post by beezzer


Damn you Beezer, now I'm hungry too.

So to sum up what your saying:

'
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by beezzer

 

So you're perpetuating the separate but equal mentality?

Not at all.

Two males are not the same as a man and a woman. Two women are not the same as a man and a woman.

But if they wish to call their union a marriage, I don't care.

It does not diminish my marriage.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by beezzer

 

Damn you Beezer, now I'm hungry too.

So to sum up what your saying:

'
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;

Beautifully put.



(I'm actually planning on a pastrami sandwich for lunch!)

Well me and my wife are atheists but we got married anyway. We just wanted a party and the symbolism of trading rings is a nice one as well.
Its wrong to link marriage to religion. And i don't care if gays/lesbians get married. Good for them.

reply to post by billy197300


Amen man, I could see people exploiting that law. I remember how much more the married guys took home. So you and your buddy get married, when the time comes get divorced. ....away you go. Ripe for the pickings

reply to post by Annee

A marriage is the Union of a man and a woman.. It is what it is. Look around, all around..all over the world.
So all that is being asked of those who support this issue is to choose a different name. Name it Steve, or Sarah, I don't care what ya call it. Its kinda like that mosque they wanted to build in NY, and the whole country was like....mmmmm maybe not there,so close to were the twin towers were.
Now the anti gay marriage crowd is asking you mmmmmm maybe you could name it something else, something not so close to our hearts........and they get a big middle finger as a response

Originally posted by Grambler

Because words matter. As long as some people are labeled as having civil unions, and others as marriages, there is a perceived differnce.

So call ALL of the State sanctioned partnerships Civil Unions - which all of them in fact are - and the problem is solved. After all, it's not like any of them are marriages, hetero or not.

Along with this perception comes seperation. Can't you just see people saying things like, "Sure, the might be in a civil union, but its not like they're married."

Yeah, I can see that. That's how I view all the papered magistrate "marriages" now. It's not like they're married or anything like that - they just did it to get state permission to shake down the Tax Department.. I won't date married women, but one who is in a Civil Union - she's fair game. After all, her fella didn't think enough of her to marry her!

It would be like if the government said gay people can never be citizens. They can have all of the exact same rights as a citizen, but we will call them "dedicated residents" or something like that. Its a slap in the face in order to differentiate this group.

I don't care what the government calls it. Euphemisms don't change the contents at all. It seems they may be placing far too much stress on external imprimatur, and not enough on their internal relationship. People really let other folks opinions dictate how they see themselves like that? That's not something I can understand. You can call me a "water buffalo" if you like, but it's not going to affect my perception of myself for what I really am.

Your own adversion to allowing it to be called a marriage proves that to at least you there is a difference. These people are fighting to end these differences in a legal setting.

You perhaps misunderstand me - I'm not opposed to calling it "marriage" because the participants may be gay - I don't care who pokes who with what. I apply that same distinction to heterosexual couples who seek State sanction for their interpersonal relationships. they aren't "married" as far as I'm concerned, either.

If your argument is that its because the term marriage has always signified a religous union, your wrong. As was shown on this thread, the concept of marriage was originally more of a business contract.

Probably so. The term is English, and you know how those Brits are about their contractual stuff. I think they invented "barristers" too.

If your offended at people taking the term from you, have you not been equally offensive by changing the meaning of the term from what these people had originally intended?

They're not taking the term from me. I'm offended that they are trying to make a business arrangement - by your own definition - into something more than what it is. I think people should call things by what they are, but if they don't want to, I can't imagine going to fisticuffs over it. They can call a can of sardines caviar for all I care - I know the difference between the two, and the label won't change the contents at all, no matter how much the participants would like it to. It hasn't for heterosexual couples, and it won't for homosexual couples, either.

Originally posted by billy197300
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

I think it has more to do with all the legal benifits that come from being married not necessarily religious belief. I don't really KNOW but I am sure any gay person would not want to be part of a religion that condems gay people, seems like common sense. Personally speaking, from a non religious view of this, I don't see why all couples shouldn't have the same legal rights as anyone. Just seems fair to me.

I don't want the same legal status (not "rights" - rights are something different, independent of legislation) as Civilly United couples. There's too much intrusive baggage that rides in the same coach as that legal status. I'm not inviting the State into my bedroom to determine what's good for me. They can go ahead and keep their tax shekels, and just leave me alone to pursue happiness.