• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Same Sex Marriage

roguenuke said:
Because we went out of our way to make sure to never offend anyone, it would be an impossible task. Some people are offended by others just being who they are.
Click to expand...

That is true.

Others are offended by intentionally using a word that could be avoided.

Why not avoid that word?
 
code1211 said:
If your action offends someone and you know with certainty that it does and ceasing the activity diminishes you in no way whatever, then why would you insist on the continuance of that action?

This is a mystery to me.

The wardrobe malfunction was in very bad taste, but it is what it is.

I'm not familiar with the offenses you offer by the examples of Frozen or the Muppets.

We live in a society, like it or not. What you do in private makes no difference to me. Wearing make up? Is that going to offend anyone? Not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Wearing pants normally does not offend anyone. Again, what point is being made?

I happen to find it baseless to deny the rights of any couple based on the genders of the members. I feel that it's unjust. However, offending people who treasure a particular word is not essential to righting that wrong.

Again, why do you feel that offending this group is essential?
Click to expand...

Because their being offended by that action is not reasonable.

For example, if someone is offended by my calling same sex relationships marriage someone is also very likely offended by me not calling them marriages. I'm offended by not calling them marriages. So whose offense should I concern myself with exactly?
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
That is true.

Others are offended by intentionally using a word that could be avoided.

Why not avoid that word?
Click to expand...

And I'm offended by certain people not being allowed to use that word, as many wishing to enter into a same sex marriage would be offended by not using marriage to describe their relationship.

Who has the bigger right to have their offense accommodated?
 
roguenuke said:
Because their flowering offended by that action is not reasonable.

For example, if someone is offended by my calling same sex relationships marriage someone is also very likely offended by me not calling them marriages. I'm offended by not calling them marriages. So whose offense should I concern myself with exactly?
Click to expand...

I suppose you will need to make that call for yourself.

I have found that with a little understanding, there is not the need for this kind of a confrontation.

Apparently, you are at least as concerned with the label of the thing as you are with the reality. I've never been that consumed with labeling and that may be at the root of my not understanding why the word is demanded. To me the issue is the tax advantages and legal considerations implied and secured by the marital arrangement.

I do know that the word "Marriage" carries a religious connotation to many. I thought, apparently wrongly, that the goal of the same sex union advocates was to gain the rights and legal protections afforded to others in the same relationship.

If there is no way to use this word without offending someone, perhaps the word itself needs to be censored entirely. Perhaps partnership or union or something similar should be used to replace it for all.
 
code1211 said:
I suppose you will need to make that call for yourself.

I have found that with a little understanding, there is not the need for this kind of a confrontation.

Apparently, you are at least as concerned with the label of the thing as you are with the reality. I've never been that consumed with labeling and that may be at the root of my not understanding why the word is demanded. To me the issue is the tax advantages and legal considerations implied and secured by the marital arrangement.

I do know that the word "Marriage" carries a religious connotation to many. I thought, apparently wrongly, that the goal of the same sex union advocates was to gain the rights and legal protections afforded to others in the same relationship.

If there is no way to use this word without offending someone, perhaps the word itself needs to be censored entirely. Perhaps partnership or union or something similar should be used to replace it for all.
Click to expand...

You are though if you think it is reasonable to be offended by calling same sex marriage "marriage".

What if Hillary wins the election and Congress passes a law to change the title of "Commander in Chief" to "Commander in Chieftress" for female Presidents because many men are or would be offended referring to a woman as "Chief"? Is that reasonable?
 
roguenuke said:
You are though if you think it is reasonable to be offended by calling same sex marriage "marriage".

What if Hillary wins the election and Congress passes a law to change the title of "Commander in Chief" to "Commander in Chieftress" for female Presidents because many men are or would be offended referring to a woman as "Chief"? Is that reasonable?
Click to expand...

Because men would be less offended by her being called Chieftress? I can't wait to read the threads on that one. :lol:

I think you might have forgotten men being opposed to feminists trying to change words for women in occupations. Then again, you made it very clear you don't care about any of that, so you probably never paid much mind to it anyway.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Because men would be less offended by her being called Chieftress? I can't wait to read the threads on that one. :lol:

I think you might have forgotten men being opposed to feminists trying to change words for women in occupations. Then again, you made it very clear you don't care about any of that, so you probably never paid much mind to it anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that people can be offended by anything, and different people could be offended by anything you do.
 
MinRogerCooper said:
I don't think I would wanna get married at a church with that attitude either. So makes sense.

~Roger T. Cooper~
Click to expand...

You shouldn't post your real name online like this... I assume that it is with your DP name being the same.
 
code1211 said:
I'm not really surprised that you don't know the entymology of the word, but this might enlighten you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger

<snip>
Etymology and history
Main article: Negro
The variants neger and negar, derive from the Spanish and Portuguese word negro (black), and from the now-pejorative French nègre (negro). Etymologically, negro, noir, nègre, and nigger ultimately derive from nigrum, the stem of the Latin niger (black) (pronounced [ˈniɡer] which, in every other grammatical case, grammatical gender, and grammatical number besides nominative masculine singular, is nigr-, the r is trilled).
<snip>

The root has nothing to do with intelligence. It rises from words describing color and has evolved from various languages.

You seem to be saying that the offended have no right to be offended. That's interesting. I don't happen to agree. Unintentional offenses are the most usual sort. Intentional offense can be avoided if one has the slightest amount of self control.

If it does not hurt you to understand that offense is taken, then why persist in offending? It seems to me that this is simply common courtesy.

By the way, who you are, what you are, where you come from or any other defining feature of your self definition makes no difference in whether or not you have offended someone. If they are offended, they are offended.
Click to expand...

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/nigger said:
2.Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a contemptuous term used to refer to a person of any racial or ethnic origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.
Click to expand...

Mine's from Dictionary.com, not editable Wikipedia. As much as that site get knocked around here as a reference, why did you bother with it. I also noted that it was also on Urban Dictionary, but that's not really any better than Wikipedia.

At what point have I said it he the offended have no right to be offended? More accurate is that no one has the right to be not offended.
 
code1211 said:
We live in a society, like it or not. What you do in private makes no difference to me. Wearing make up? Is that going to offend anyone? Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
Click to expand...

Why, yes, wearing make-up has offended many a person, particularly certain types of Christians, whether it is too much on a female or any on a male. We indeed do live in a society and societies shift. Just because someone is on the outgoing side of the shift, doesn't mean they have any more right to stop that shift than those on the income side have to make the change.


Wearing pants normally does not offend anyone. Again, what point is being made?
Click to expand...

It was once very offensive for women to wear pants, and still is today for some. The point remains, societies shift and those on the outgoing side are no more in the right than the other side.


I happen to find it baseless to deny the rights of any couple based on the genders of the members. I feel that it's unjust. However, offending people who treasure a particular word is not essential to righting that wrong.

Again, why do you feel that offending this group is essential?
Click to expand...

You seem to assume that same sex couples do not treasure the word as well. Whether or not such is true that is what your words say. So how are Christians allowed to offend the same sex couples by saying that their marriage isn't a marriage? If you are so big on a given group not being offended, then why should the opposite group be? In the end, it would be very hard not to have a group offended with any given change.
 
MinRogerCooper said:
Why does it seem that people, especially the Church at large, want to make it as though Marriage is all about religion? Marriage in this country is a civil institution that can be given religious connotations, but is overall a legal institution. I personally believe that marriage is a civil right and shouldn't be denied anyone, and when granted it shouldn't be ridiculed and judged by people who are SUPPOSED to love everyone. So I am asking what are you guys' opinions regarding same sex marriage and the Constitutionality of denying/ or granting marriages between people of the same sex.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

My .02

The state should not sanction religious marriage, period. The state has no business in religion, therefore all it needs to do is provide the SAME rights to individuals who wish to be recognized as a partner to someone else and all of the legal and cultural benefits that go with it (inheritance, PoA, insurance ect). If you wish to be "married" in the eyes of your god, then you need to find a church that will marry you. No state should force a church to marry anyone if that marriage is inconsistent with the churches religious doctrine. The state has no obligation to ensure your access to the religion of your choice. On the other hand, any ideas about what is and is not immoral under religious doctrine should not be codified in law for only that reason.
 
csbrown28 said:
My .02
Click to expand...

If you want to write 2¢ and you are on a Mac hold the alt/option key and press the number 4. If you are on a Windows computer (I'm sorry) you press the left ALT key then use the number pad (not the top row keys) and type 0162.
 
MinRogerCooper said:
Why does it seem that people, especially the Church at large, want to make it as though Marriage is all about religion? Marriage in this country is a civil institution that can be given religious connotations, but is overall a legal institution. I personally believe that marriage is a civil right and shouldn't be denied anyone, and when granted it shouldn't be ridiculed and judged by people who are SUPPOSED to love everyone. So I am asking what are you guys' opinions regarding same sex marriage and the Constitutionality of denying/ or granting marriages between people of the same sex.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Well, marriage did originate as a religious institution and a lot of people are still religious (and in religions that espouse bigotry), so that's where they're coming from.

I'm not religious so I don't particularly care what my marriage is called. So I figured the easiest solution would have been to simply have government grant everyone "civil unions," with all the benefits of what it now calls "marriage." Then, if it was important for people to also have a religiously defined "marriage", they can go to their place of worship and get it. If the place of worship discriminates, they can find another religion, etc.

But, SCOTUS ruled, and I'm just as happy with that. Just as long as everyone is treated equally under the law...
 
Mr Person said:
Well, marriage did originate as a religious institution and a lot of people are still religious (and in religions that espouse bigotry), so that's where they're coming from.

I'm not religious so I don't particularly care what my marriage is called. So I figured the easiest solution would have been to simply have government grant everyone "civil unions," with all the benefits of what it now calls "marriage." Then, if it was important for people to also have a religiously defined "marriage", they can go to their place of worship and get it. If the place of worship discriminates, they can find another religion, etc.

But, SCOTUS ruled, and I'm just as happy with that. Just as long as everyone is treated equally under the law...
Click to expand...

Marriage did not originate as a religious thing. Marriages have been around long before any established religion we have today, and in many places did not involve religion at all. Even within Christian majority countries, marriage still was a social thing until the church gained a lot of government power. Then the church made it a religious thing.
 
roguenuke said:
You are though if you think it is reasonable to be offended by calling same sex marriage "marriage".

What if Hillary wins the election and Congress passes a law to change the title of "Commander in Chief" to "Commander in Chieftress" for female Presidents because many men are or would be offended referring to a woman as "Chief"? Is that reasonable?
Click to expand...

Again, labels mean very little to me. As I get older, I find the labels of most things connect to the content as strongly as most Led Zeppelin song titles connect to that content. Carlin did a couple very funny bits on oxymorons and poorly applied definitions. Rightly so.

I can see the change in title you mention as being promoted by Debbie Blabbermouth Shultz more strongly than by the members of the Congress. That really doesn't matter though. Whatever title Hillary has, she will sit by idly for 13 hours while Americans are being butchered by savages and then lie about her lack of action.

The word that is not right in that title seems to be "Commander" rather than "Chief". However, that aside...

The members of the community that is offended by "marriage" on either side of the issue is probably about the same size. Again, if this word cannot be said aloud without offending someone, then banning this word seems justified.
 
The problem with using "civil unions" is that its very much like the "separate but equal" used in the south.

Civil union and marriage are not legally the same. And that's because the settled case law that extends to marriage is much much greater. Marriage trumps all. The case law concerning civil unions is not established. And that means that folks with a civil union are more in danger of legal challenges than a "married couple".
 
maquiscat said:
Mine's from Dictionary.com, not editable Wikipedia. As much as that site get knocked around here as a reference, why did you bother with it. I also noted that it was also on Urban Dictionary, but that's not really any better than Wikipedia.

At what point have I said it he the offended have no right to be offended? More accurate is that no one has the right to be not offended.
Click to expand...

What a word means today and where the word comes from are two very different things. The origins of the word are very benign.

Meaning and etymology are very different things.
 
maquiscat said:
Why, yes, wearing make-up has offended many a person, particularly certain types of Christians, whether it is too much on a female or any on a male. We indeed do live in a society and societies shift. Just because someone is on the outgoing side of the shift, doesn't mean they have any more right to stop that shift than those on the income side have to make the change.




It was once very offensive for women to wear pants, and still is today for some. The point remains, societies shift and those on the outgoing side are no more in the right than the other side.




You seem to assume that same sex couples do not treasure the word as well. Whether or not such is true that is what your words say. So how are Christians allowed to offend the same sex couples by saying that their marriage isn't a marriage? If you are so big on a given group not being offended, then why should the opposite group be? In the end, it would be very hard not to have a group offended with any given change.
Click to expand...

With another poster, I offered the idea that since this word cannot be said aloud without offending someone, then perhaps this word needs to be banned entirely and no longer be referenced to apply to any relationship of any description.
 
I'm not gay and I'm already married. So why should I care if two guys or gals want to get married? Their marriage has ZERO to do with me or mine. Now, if your question was what do I think about them forcing people to cater, photograph, or otherwise sanction their wedding, then I'm dead against.

Get married, be happy, but don't try to force people to like it.
 
You know.. I get a kick out of people that argue that gay marriage "hurts marriage", and that it " changes definitions of marriage".... etc.

... if you see two gay people getting married and it makes you question your heterosexual marriage?

I have news for you.. you are probably gay. :lamo
 
code1211 said:
With another poster, I offered the idea that since this word cannot be said aloud without offending someone, then perhaps this word needs to be banned entirely and no longer be referenced to apply to any relationship of any description.
Click to expand...

There is no reason to ban words just because they offend people. Those offended can get over it.
 
jaeger19 said:
The problem with using "civil unions" is that its very much like the "separate but equal" used in the south.

Civil union and marriage are not legally the same. And that's because the settled case law that extends to marriage is much much greater. Marriage trumps all. The case law concerning civil unions is not established. And that means that folks with a civil union are more in danger of legal challenges than a "married couple".
Click to expand...
I wouldn't mind separate but equal.....if there was something literally equal. But it hasn't happened yet.
 
maquiscat said:
I wouldn't mind separate but equal.....if there was something literally equal. But it hasn't happened yet.
Click to expand...

Nope it is a silly waste of time.
If you make civil unions have the exact same meaning as marriage in the eyes of the law then people who are civil unioned and their friends/family will just say that they are married. Eventually it will become the defacto term, may take a generation or two but why spend $$$ making an identical parallel system just so that some bigots will be mollified?
 
maquiscat said:
I wouldn't mind separate but equal.....if there was something literally equal. But it hasn't happened yet.
Click to expand...
What would the point of even making a separate distinction between civil unions and marriages if they are literally equal?
 
TheGoverness said:
What would the point of even making a separate distinction between civil unions and marriages if they are literally equal?
Click to expand...

So that the anti-SSM people who have lost the war can claim victory in a meaningless battle of words. There is no other reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom