And I was trying to show how Bush's language if written 50 years ago could have just as easily applied to segregation. "Activist judges" and the rest.
But that is the nonsense bit. 50 years ago we were federally working to end segregation against the rights of states to proclaim it. The argument here was for states rights to do as they wish against federal intervention.
That is why your example came across so convoluted. Likewise, while race is a social construct with no scientific basis, gender is not.
So lets propose a constitutional amendment making it unconstitutional for states to infringe on the civil rights of gay copules. That would be the analogy.
National law should support freedom against oppression when necessary.
What you're supporting is national law that supports oppression against freedom. NOT the same thing as the civil rights movement.
That would be a proper analogy. However he was suggesting the exact opposite with this issue. I've suggested that this issue will become federalized in the end. Others here have suggested that it will not.
What I am supporting is the right for people to keep definitions of words as they have been historically understood. I have stated quite plainly that I fully support homosexual unions. My explanation was quite clear. If blacks and whites do not have the same rights, write laws that say blacks and white get the same rights. Do not begin calling blacks "white" and then complain that you have to argue with people over what their definition of "white" means.
My position is exactly the same as John Kerry, and Howard Dean.
If people complain our language is oppressive. We change the language. We say fire fighter instead of fireman. We don't try to convince people that man = woman. California and Vermont fully recognize homosexual unions. They don't call them marriage, and I don't see any one complaining about them. Massachussett's demands that we define the word as they do, and it becomes a big deal.
if this constitutional ammendment goes into effect, i (married for 19 years) plan to get divorced and have a civil ceromony...i suggest all people who have gay friends and family members forgo marriage from now on for civil unions...i would love to see several million people getting "un-married" and changing to civil unions in support and unity with our homosexual loved ones...plus it will give me a chance for a second wedding bash....i barely remember the first one, except that i was naked and wet, spread eagle on the bed and woke up with a bad hangover for the 5 am flight to barbados...goodtimes, goodtimes
I would like to see the term "marriage" relegated to the church (where it could retain all of its current meanings) and some other term ("civil union," perhaps) used to refer to unions that the state recognizes. The crux of all this is that "marriage" functions both as a religious and a civil ceremony.
if this constitutional ammendment goes into effect, i (married for 19 years) plan to get divorced and have a civil ceromony...i suggest all people who have gay friends and family members forgo marriage from now on for civil unions...i would love to see several million people getting "un-married" and changing to civil unions in support and unity with our homosexual loved ones...plus it will give me a chance for a second wedding bash....i barely remember the first one, except that i was naked and wet, spread eagle on the bed and woke up with a bad hangover for the 5 am flight to barbados...goodtimes, goodtimes
g
Are you complaining that the form for relationship status might begin to look like the section on ethnicity? Welcome to the 21st century.
I personally would be fine with you becoming unmarried and becoming civil unionized. I've stated repeatedly that I feel civil unions are for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. There are plenty of people who don't want the history and baggage of the word marriage associated with their modern relationship. I think there would be plenty of people who would follow your example.
i personally see no problem with having marriage for churchies and civil for non-churchies (as long as both have exactly the same rights and privliages and benefits)...if we see a big movement away from church weddings though i see them getting upset by all this...
of course maybe we don't need more things to divide this country over, we already have plenty
Why not call them people? You show me where "white" or "black" was written in the constitution. You show me any current law where "white" or "black" is in the language.
The language "any person, regardless of race" comes to mind.
How about "any legal union, regardless of sex" written into the constitution?
Then we could compare the two issues.
We're not saying "black is white". We're not saying "gay is straight". Once upon a time blacks were by definition not "people". I'm saying let's call blacks "people" too; let's call a legally binding relationship between two loving people a marriage. You're saying, "Blacks aren't people. Don't change the definition of people."
First of all race is definately in the Constitution. You have heard of the three-fifths section where blacks were property but still used to decide legislative representation. It uses the terms free instead of white.
As for your suggestions, they follow exactly what I believe. We have multiple ethnicities so we start using terms like "regardless of race." That becomes understood to mean black, white, brown, etc. We don't start declaring that white is black or any other such nonsense.
I would be absolutely fine with "any legal union, regardless of sex" which you propose. It could encompass marriage, civil unions, and likely some more relationship forms that are going to need creation soon for all the heterosexual couples who want some legal benefits, but few legal entanglements so they are cohabitating.
I've stated repeatedly that I am fine with all of these. If we want to codify multiple types of legal relationships, that is great. Just don't complain because people don't want to use one word, marriage, to label all those relationships.
The last part of your post is a bit humorous because you show how using a third word, people, stops the argument. Say white and black are defined as people. You then refuse to do this with a legally binding relationship for two people. You recognize that both black and white can mean people. But for someone reason, civil union and marriage cannot mean legally binding relationship. You instead want to force people to change the definition of marriage instead of including marriage in the broader definition of legally recognized relationships.
actually i am all for the language being, "marriage is between a religious man and a religious woman"...civil union for everything else...
i see a future where, when people hear you are married, ask "what cult do you belong to?"
g
funny...you would think that religion would want to be "inclusive" not exclusive
weddings bring lots of money and people to church...gays often like to spend alot and many people like me will stop having weddings at churches...whoever sets up a nice place for doing lots of civil unions just like weddings but without the religion will make lots of bucks...
i wonder what the divorce rate will look like if the gay community asks all of it's married friends and loved ones and family members to get divorced and re"marry" in civil unions??
we could see a huge jump at least for a year or two in the divorce rate...yeah family values will take new meaning
actually i am all for the language being, "marriage is between a religious man and a religious woman"...civil union for everything else...
i see a future where, when people hear you are married, ask "what cult do you belong to?"
g
funny...you would think that religion would want to be "inclusive" not exclusive
weddings bring lots of money and people to church...gays often like to spend alot and many people like me will stop having weddings at churches...whoever sets up a nice place for doing lots of civil unions just like weddings but without the religion will make lots of bucks...
Based off certain trends, people might be asking the same questions about any sort of relationship where you profess lifelong committment.
As for the money issue, I think weddings and their ceremonies are entirely nonsense already with regard to the outragous amount of money most people spend. The most expensive wedding I ever went to probably cost almost 100 grand in today's dollars. Their wedding gift from the father was a very nice condo in an expensive part of Fullerton, California. They were divorcing within a year.
The nicest wedding I went to was done at the house of the bride's mother. They had a nice wooden patio where the ceremony was held, and a whole bunch of picnic tables in the backyard. The benches were arranged into rows for the wedding. Then afterwards we all moved them to the tables for the reception. Everyone brought something to eat and it was much better than any catered affair I have attended.
My own wedding was an elopement to Vegas, where lots of chapels, do any sort of wedding you want and make plenty of money doing it. I had a blast and would recommend it to any one who has the wonderful cast of characters that constitutes my family that they don't care to bring along.
The most religious wedding I have ever attended was from a friend who is completely agnostic. He held the ceremony and reception at a local civic building and the priest went on about God and Jesus for longer than most sermons.
The funniest thing is you talk about this like it is the future gelding, when from what I see, the future is already here. In my family, only the most conservative members are even married. Everyone else just "lives together" even when they buy cars, houses, and have kids together. I haven't attended a wedding in a church for a few years now and I would say that out of all the ceremonies I have attended, about half were in a church.
I didn't show up to a lot of classes in college, and therefore I didn't get a lot of "A's", but I got an overall 97% in logic (the class average was 78 ).
Try again.
Black is a description of some people. Gay is not a description of marriages unless of course you mean they are happy.
So it's all about your feeling of self-superiority, then, isn't it?
News flash: any moron can get married. I did (and it was one of the most moronic things I've done).
If you are going to insult people, at least make a point.
Funny that when you feel like you are drawing your circle of inclusiveness wider than others. You are enlightened. When I draw mine wider than yours, I'm self-superior.
There have been several essays in magazines and on the web arguing that homosexual marriage is just a means of society reexamining the relevancy of marriage for heterosexuals. People are abandoning marriage because the baggage of it (legal entanglements for life, especially for men) doesn't fit our modern views. You've made it clear you tried it, were a moron for doing so, and likely would not do so again.
Yet there maybe someone you care for and wish to have a legal relationship with that is different than say, any stranger off the street. You might even be cohabitating with her but don't want all the baggage of marriage again.
Homosexual marriage won't fix that. It won't stop heterosexuals from abandoning marriage. Some new forms and words associated with those forms are needed.
I've posted articles on here about widowed husbands suing first ex-husbands for their their dead ex-spouses share of the first husband's pension. We have second marriage children pitted against first marriage children. Overturned prenuptual agreements, divorce and custody agreements that are constantly revisisted due to factors that occured well after they were established, etc.
You get divorced. You have a support order levied against you. You get remarried. You and your new wife are now a household and your ex-wife sues for more support claiming your household income has now doubled so she is entitled to more.
The answer, don't get married. But there should be alternatives. Civil union is a better answer because it starts us on the path of having more than one legally sanctioned type of relationship with regard to the government.
If people complain our language is oppressive. We change the language.
But you've also stated that you're against the government making EVERYONE use civil union and taking the religious aspects out of the government. You refuse to consider separating the church from the state in this issue.
And using the term civil union is problematic if it means separate but equal. Separate ultimately doesn't mean equal and that's a problem you won't acknowledge either.
But you've also stated that you're against the government making EVERYONE use civil union and taking the religious aspects out of the government. You refuse to consider separating the church from the state in this issue.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Why would everyone have to use civil union and why would everyone have to suddenly become non-religious? This strikes me as a very odd sort of reasoning. It really appears as if you cannot be content to give someone a new option.
What is so wrong with getting the rights and just letting others alone? You are being a fascist. I'm not trying to be mean, but you can't seem to let people alone until you control the very thoughts that occur within their heads.
Whatever happened to freedom being about giving everyone more choice? Marriage has a lot of history and religious connotation stuck to it. We can simply step around that by allowing civil unions. However of course some people are going to not desire to give up their religious beliefs nor are they ready to move away from the idea of marriage. So you just let them exist side by side. One completely civil. One semi-religious and semi-civil but still there for those folks that happen to have that in their background.
I just don't get this demand that we understand that one size doesn't fit all, and after it is understood a complaining that we don't label all things with the same word, in other words, one size fits all.
I don't understand what the big fuss is about letting homos get married. I don't see how it hurts anyone. Anyone against it is simply a busybody that needs to stop worrying about everyone else and focus on their own sad pathetic lives.
trump, what about churches that want to married homosexuals?? do you want to limit their rights based on their beliefs of god and religion and the bible?
Comments
Originally posted by HOM
And I was trying to show how Bush's language if written 50 years ago could have just as easily applied to segregation. "Activist judges" and the rest.
But that is the nonsense bit. 50 years ago we were federally working to end segregation against the rights of states to proclaim it. The argument here was for states rights to do as they wish against federal intervention.
That is why your example came across so convoluted. Likewise, while race is a social construct with no scientific basis, gender is not.
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
Convoluted analogies are the refuge of the weak-minded.
Simple things for a simple mind is what I am sure you prefer.
Nick
Grab them while they are hot.
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Nick
Place a face of the victims and who's rights are affected and it's not such an abstract idea.
Nick
Originally posted by tonton
So lets propose a constitutional amendment making it unconstitutional for states to infringe on the civil rights of gay copules. That would be the analogy.
National law should support freedom against oppression when necessary.
What you're supporting is national law that supports oppression against freedom. NOT the same thing as the civil rights movement.
That would be a proper analogy. However he was suggesting the exact opposite with this issue. I've suggested that this issue will become federalized in the end. Others here have suggested that it will not.
What I am supporting is the right for people to keep definitions of words as they have been historically understood. I have stated quite plainly that I fully support homosexual unions. My explanation was quite clear. If blacks and whites do not have the same rights, write laws that say blacks and white get the same rights. Do not begin calling blacks "white" and then complain that you have to argue with people over what their definition of "white" means.
My position is exactly the same as John Kerry, and Howard Dean.
If people complain our language is oppressive. We change the language. We say fire fighter instead of fireman. We don't try to convince people that man = woman. California and Vermont fully recognize homosexual unions. They don't call them marriage, and I don't see any one complaining about them. Massachussett's demands that we define the word as they do, and it becomes a big deal.
Nick
single
married
divorce
widowed
civil union?
if this constitutional ammendment goes into effect, i (married for 19 years) plan to get divorced and have a civil ceromony...i suggest all people who have gay friends and family members forgo marriage from now on for civil unions...i would love to see several million people getting "un-married" and changing to civil unions in support and unity with our homosexual loved ones...plus it will give me a chance for a second wedding bash....i barely remember the first one, except that i was naked and wet, spread eagle on the bed and woke up with a bad hangover for the 5 am flight to barbados...goodtimes, goodtimes
g
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by thegelding
what will people fill out on forms:
single
married
divorce
widowed
civil union?
if this constitutional ammendment goes into effect, i (married for 19 years) plan to get divorced and have a civil ceromony...i suggest all people who have gay friends and family members forgo marriage from now on for civil unions...i would love to see several million people getting "un-married" and changing to civil unions in support and unity with our homosexual loved ones...plus it will give me a chance for a second wedding bash....i barely remember the first one, except that i was naked and wet, spread eagle on the bed and woke up with a bad hangover for the 5 am flight to barbados...goodtimes, goodtimes
g
Are you complaining that the form for relationship status might begin to look like the section on ethnicity? Welcome to the 21st century.
I personally would be fine with you becoming unmarried and becoming civil unionized. I've stated repeatedly that I feel civil unions are for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. There are plenty of people who don't want the history and baggage of the word marriage associated with their modern relationship. I think there would be plenty of people who would follow your example.
Nick
i personally see no problem with having marriage for churchies and civil for non-churchies (as long as both have exactly the same rights and privliages and benefits)...if we see a big movement away from church weddings though i see them getting upset by all this...
of course maybe we don't need more things to divide this country over, we already have plenty
g
Originally posted by tonton
Why not call them people? You show me where "white" or "black" was written in the constitution. You show me any current law where "white" or "black" is in the language.
The language "any person, regardless of race" comes to mind.
How about "any legal union, regardless of sex" written into the constitution?
Then we could compare the two issues.
We're not saying "black is white". We're not saying "gay is straight". Once upon a time blacks were by definition not "people". I'm saying let's call blacks "people" too; let's call a legally binding relationship between two loving people a marriage. You're saying, "Blacks aren't people. Don't change the definition of people."
First of all race is definately in the Constitution. You have heard of the three-fifths section where blacks were property but still used to decide legislative representation. It uses the terms free instead of white.
As for your suggestions, they follow exactly what I believe. We have multiple ethnicities so we start using terms like "regardless of race." That becomes understood to mean black, white, brown, etc. We don't start declaring that white is black or any other such nonsense.
I would be absolutely fine with "any legal union, regardless of sex" which you propose. It could encompass marriage, civil unions, and likely some more relationship forms that are going to need creation soon for all the heterosexual couples who want some legal benefits, but few legal entanglements so they are cohabitating.
I've stated repeatedly that I am fine with all of these. If we want to codify multiple types of legal relationships, that is great. Just don't complain because people don't want to use one word, marriage, to label all those relationships.
The last part of your post is a bit humorous because you show how using a third word, people, stops the argument. Say white and black are defined as people. You then refuse to do this with a legally binding relationship for two people. You recognize that both black and white can mean people. But for someone reason, civil union and marriage cannot mean legally binding relationship. You instead want to force people to change the definition of marriage instead of including marriage in the broader definition of legally recognized relationships.
Why use an antique to describe the future?
Nick
i see a future where, when people hear you are married, ask "what cult do you belong to?"
g
funny...you would think that religion would want to be "inclusive" not exclusive
weddings bring lots of money and people to church...gays often like to spend alot and many people like me will stop having weddings at churches...whoever sets up a nice place for doing lots of civil unions just like weddings but without the religion will make lots of bucks...
i wonder what the divorce rate will look like if the gay community asks all of it's married friends and loved ones and family members to get divorced and re"marry" in civil unions??
we could see a huge jump at least for a year or two in the divorce rate...yeah family values will take new meaning
Originally posted by thegelding
actually i am all for the language being, "marriage is between a religious man and a religious woman"...civil union for everything else...
i see a future where, when people hear you are married, ask "what cult do you belong to?"
g
funny...you would think that religion would want to be "inclusive" not exclusive
weddings bring lots of money and people to church...gays often like to spend alot and many people like me will stop having weddings at churches...whoever sets up a nice place for doing lots of civil unions just like weddings but without the religion will make lots of bucks...
Based off certain trends, people might be asking the same questions about any sort of relationship where you profess lifelong committment.
As for the money issue, I think weddings and their ceremonies are entirely nonsense already with regard to the outragous amount of money most people spend. The most expensive wedding I ever went to probably cost almost 100 grand in today's dollars. Their wedding gift from the father was a very nice condo in an expensive part of Fullerton, California. They were divorcing within a year.
The nicest wedding I went to was done at the house of the bride's mother. They had a nice wooden patio where the ceremony was held, and a whole bunch of picnic tables in the backyard. The benches were arranged into rows for the wedding. Then afterwards we all moved them to the tables for the reception. Everyone brought something to eat and it was much better than any catered affair I have attended.
My own wedding was an elopement to Vegas, where lots of chapels, do any sort of wedding you want and make plenty of money doing it. I had a blast and would recommend it to any one who has the wonderful cast of characters that constitutes my family that they don't care to bring along.
The most religious wedding I have ever attended was from a friend who is completely agnostic. He held the ceremony and reception at a local civic building and the priest went on about God and Jesus for longer than most sermons.
The funniest thing is you talk about this like it is the future gelding, when from what I see, the future is already here. In my family, only the most conservative members are even married. Everyone else just "lives together" even when they buy cars, houses, and have kids together. I haven't attended a wedding in a church for a few years now and I would say that out of all the ceremonies I have attended, about half were in a church.
Is your experience different?
Nick
Originally posted by tonton
You're not getting it, Nick.
black is to people as gay is to marriage
Simple analogies.
I didn't show up to a lot of classes in college, and therefore I didn't get a lot of "A's", but I got an overall 97% in logic (the class average was 78 ).
Try again.
Black is a description of some people. Gay is not a description of marriages unless of course you mean they are happy.
Nick
Originally posted by tonton
So it's all about your feeling of self-superiority, then, isn't it?
News flash: any moron can get married. I did (and it was one of the most moronic things I've done).
If you are going to insult people, at least make a point.
Funny that when you feel like you are drawing your circle of inclusiveness wider than others. You are enlightened. When I draw mine wider than yours, I'm self-superior.
There have been several essays in magazines and on the web arguing that homosexual marriage is just a means of society reexamining the relevancy of marriage for heterosexuals. People are abandoning marriage because the baggage of it (legal entanglements for life, especially for men) doesn't fit our modern views. You've made it clear you tried it, were a moron for doing so, and likely would not do so again.
Yet there maybe someone you care for and wish to have a legal relationship with that is different than say, any stranger off the street. You might even be cohabitating with her but don't want all the baggage of marriage again.
Homosexual marriage won't fix that. It won't stop heterosexuals from abandoning marriage. Some new forms and words associated with those forms are needed.
I've posted articles on here about widowed husbands suing first ex-husbands for their their dead ex-spouses share of the first husband's pension. We have second marriage children pitted against first marriage children. Overturned prenuptual agreements, divorce and custody agreements that are constantly revisisted due to factors that occured well after they were established, etc.
You get divorced. You have a support order levied against you. You get remarried. You and your new wife are now a household and your ex-wife sues for more support claiming your household income has now doubled so she is entitled to more.
The answer, don't get married. But there should be alternatives. Civil union is a better answer because it starts us on the path of having more than one legally sanctioned type of relationship with regard to the government.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
If people complain our language is oppressive. We change the language.
But you've also stated that you're against the government making EVERYONE use civil union and taking the religious aspects out of the government. You refuse to consider separating the church from the state in this issue.
And using the term civil union is problematic if it means separate but equal. Separate ultimately doesn't mean equal and that's a problem you won't acknowledge either.
Originally posted by bunge
But you've also stated that you're against the government making EVERYONE use civil union and taking the religious aspects out of the government. You refuse to consider separating the church from the state in this issue.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Why would everyone have to use civil union and why would everyone have to suddenly become non-religious? This strikes me as a very odd sort of reasoning. It really appears as if you cannot be content to give someone a new option.
What is so wrong with getting the rights and just letting others alone? You are being a fascist. I'm not trying to be mean, but you can't seem to let people alone until you control the very thoughts that occur within their heads.
Whatever happened to freedom being about giving everyone more choice? Marriage has a lot of history and religious connotation stuck to it. We can simply step around that by allowing civil unions. However of course some people are going to not desire to give up their religious beliefs nor are they ready to move away from the idea of marriage. So you just let them exist side by side. One completely civil. One semi-religious and semi-civil but still there for those folks that happen to have that in their background.
I just don't get this demand that we understand that one size doesn't fit all, and after it is understood a complaining that we don't label all things with the same word, in other words, one size fits all.
Nick
g