By veganshawn
You are uniformed about the history of gay marriage and it is a common mistake to think it is a "new" issue, there have been documented cases in some native American tribes, ancient Greece, Egypt, part of Africa and Asia etc.. do a google search and read up on history.
No, it is you who are uniformed as to my knowledge of the subject.
Of course there are always exceptions to the rule, or norm, but you are speaking of anomalies within the norm (or that which isn't 'in general').
Where as, I was speaking 'in general'.
But hey, if you want to discuss those different cultures you mentioned above as having had same gender marriages that were common place and excepted, lets do it. It is easy to point out the differences.
Otherwise, all you have is anomalies.
By veganshawn
All children should be taught there is nothing wrong with gay people!
No, schools should not be involved in teaching any such thing. Individuals should decide for themselves how they feel about it.
By veganshawn
And a lot of people in this country once tolerated racism and sexism, didn't make it right for them nor does it make it right now.
It didn't make it wrong either. The only thing that makes it wrong now is interpretation of/and law.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
By Orius
So you acknowledge that the meaning of marriage has changed over time, from one where the women was contractually the man's property (and thus she received his last name), to one, post-suffrage, where the woman has the right to self-determination and the ability to even keep her last name if she so chooses. If what marriage means can change in that sense, then it can change in others as well.
The contract involves two of the opposite gender. That 'meaning' really hasn't changed.
By Orius
The marriage contract has nothing to do with love. It is about legal recognition of the state. You don't need the state to officiate whether or not you love someone, but you *do* want the joint benefits of being married. If it were just about love, then the state wouldn't be involved at all.
I fully agree, yet the impetus to enter into said contract is, 'in general', love.
Which is why those seeking a new 'right' be created frequently sight this in their arguments. When in reality they are seeking this new 'right' because of the benefits associated with marriage.
By Orius
I don't need a parental government telling me which marriages are and aren't "real". The same people who argue for smaller government are the same people who, ironically, want the government to step in and limit the definition of legal marriage contracts. It's one giant hypocrisy.
I don't need some people to come along and try to change the definition of marriage to suite their own purposes.
What I see as hypocrisy is those who know that marriage was created for, and acknowledged by the government for, those of the opposite gender, but then try to make it apply to those of the same gender.
By Orius
The only thing being usurped here is freedom of self-determination, and equal representation.
Not true.
By Orius
A same-sex couple getting married has zero affect on the lives of others.
Not true.
By Orius
It has nothing to do with school policy, as that is a separate issue altogether. Gays already walk the streets in big cities together, holding hands. If the argument is that children will be affected, then they are already being affected.
I haven't made that argument.
By Orius
You can't stop social change and expansion of civil rights. The nature of social evolution will prevent this from being suppressed forever. I give it 10 years, 15 tops, until it is accepted nation wide.
I suppose that by 'nation wide', you mean government acknowledged. If so, then I think it will take longer than that.
If by 'nation wide', you mean accepted by the whole populous... no, there will always be people how view it as wrong.
In general I agree, yet social change and expansion of civil rights are stopped all the time. The ones that do get passed just make it easier for future legislation to be passed.
It should be clear that I am against the term 'marriage' being usurped by same gender couples. Marriage was never meant to accommodate them and should remain the sole term used for opposite gender couples.
Let me elaborate on my personal view.
I have no problem with homosexual or transgender people.
I have no problem with the creation of a contract of partnership being entered into by same gender couples so that they may receive the same benefits as those who engage in marriage. Just don't call it 'marriage' because it clearly is not. It is a partnership that is different from 'marriage'.
I am also against any benefits given to those who are married, which means that I am also against any benefits given for those who decide to have children. These practices are truly unfair and should be done away with.