Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

Ikari said:

That's pretty dumb. Why is it terrible for same sex couples to be married? What possible basis do you have to want to make a law against their usage of a word if you're willing to functionally grant them the exercise of their right to contract?

Click to expand...

Because the definition of the word is not defined by a gay couple's relationship. What's dumb is thinking marriage is the same, as it's obviously not. You don't seem to think words are power - they are, and they matter.

Define a gay couples act of commitment differently, give all the rights and privileges. That is the right thing to do.

Ockham said:

Because the definition of the word is not defined by a gay couple's relationship. What's dumb is thinking marriage is the same, as it's obviously not. You don't seem to think words are power - they are, and they matter.

Define a gay couples act of commitment differently, give all the rights and privileges. That is the right thing to do.

Click to expand...

You think words haven't changed meaning over time? Why is a gay couple's relationship different than a heterosexual's relationship? Aren't they based on love, compatibility, and commitment regardless of sexual orientation? Why do you insist on treating same sex couples as second class. The marriage license is a government contract, yet you would prevent same sex couples from exercising their right to contract over stupid rhetoric.

Meanings of words change over time, especially as societies evolve and advance past archaic, restrictive, and stupid structures once imposed. Marriage license, that's it. Government contract and we have the right to contract.

Ikari said:

You think words haven't changed meaning over time?

Click to expand...

I never claimed they don't change.

Ikari said:

Why is a gay couple's relationship different than a heterosexual's relationship? Aren't they based on love, compatibility, and commitment regardless of sexual orientation?

Click to expand...

Because a marriage is between a man and a woman, and a civil union or (___insert terminology here___) is between a man/man or woman/woman.

Ikari said:

Why do you insist on treating same sex couples as second class.

Click to expand...

I've actually done the direct opposite, I've said they deserve all of the benefits of a heterosexual married couple, without the term "marriage".

Ikari said:

The marriage license is a government contract, yet you would prevent same sex couples from exercising their right to contract over stupid rhetoric.

Click to expand...

I would prevent a same sex couple from having a contract that states it's a "marriage", absolutely.

Now, any other ludicrous accusations you'd like to levy? Lesse... I'm dumb, I'm treating gay couples as second class citizens (ie. oppressing), I'm preventing gays from exercising their right - which, marriage is not a right by the way... anything else? Is "honkey" coming next or maybe "bigot"??:roll:

Get over the word, pick a better one. Marriage is taken.

Ikari said:

Meanings of words change over time, especially as societies evolve and advance past archaic, restrictive, and stupid structures once imposed. Marriage license, that's it. Government contract and we have the right to contract.

Click to expand...

Since it's a government contract, government gets to define the words used in that contract and were I part of the government, the word would not change. Words may change over time, but now is not the time.

My original question is not whether Gay couples should be allowed to marry, but whether Hetero Same sex couples should be allowed to be married as well. ---If gender is no longer a requirement for marriage, then a persons sexual orientation, should certainly not be a deciding issue. . If it is legal for gay Men to marry, then it should be just as legal for Hetero Men to Marry as well. and of course, this applies to Females.

Skateguy said:

I brought this up on another thread the other night. It just kind of rolled out in response to a "Gays getting married" thread.--but the more I think about,the more it seems like a legitimate question. I ask why would two people of the same sex, have to be homosexual to get married? --Because once married, they would then be able enjoy the benefits that go along with being married. Such as tax Breaks, special insurance rates, and so on. If Two Homo Men can get Married legally, then why couldn't two straight Men get married also? (Not that I would want to, but just sayin) Just seems to be more discrimination against Straight Guys to me. Male is Male, and Female is Female, regardless of sexual orientation.-So my question is, if made legal, should two people of the same sex be allowed to marry, whether they are Homosexuals or not? ---this could be interesting

Click to expand...

No--some people should receive preferential treatment, and gays clearly do not qualify

Ockham said:

Yes on the prior, no on the latter. What you call you and your wife's relationship is not the governments issue. What the government recognizes and defines as "marriage" certainly is. If gay couples want to call their ceremony a "marriage", yes I would pass a law against that.

Click to expand...

So you are in favor of violating their first amendment rights, then, by preventing them form calling their ceremmony and relationship whatever they want to call it.

Also why is it that what I call my relationship with my wife is none of the government's business, but if my wife was another dude it suddenly does become teh governemnt's business what I call our relationship?

Ockham said:

Yes on the prior, no on the latter. What you call you and your wife's relationship is not the governments issue. What the government recognizes and defines as "marriage" certainly is. If gay couples want to call their ceremony a "marriage", yes I would pass a law against that.

If they want to call it anything else, I would not have a problem with it.

Bear in mind, that a "civil union" for a gay couple would have all the rights and privileges of a "marriage" of a straight couple, just not use the word "marriage".

Click to expand...

any "marriage" outside a church is nothing more than a civil union anyway. why the issue with semantics?

Tucker Case said:

So you are in favor of violating their first amendment rights, then, by preventing them form calling their ceremmony and relationship whatever they want to call it.

Click to expand...

Yup, to hell with the constitution, some people are more equal than others

Tucker Case said:

Also why is it that what I call my relationship with my wife is none of the government's business, but if my wife was another dude it suddenly does become teh governemnt's business what I call our relationship?

Click to expand...

Well because you're not gay, and so you're more equal than others, thus affording you the 1st amendment :2wave:

Tucker Case said:

So you are in favor of violating their first amendment rights, then, by preventing them form calling their ceremmony and relationship whatever they want to call it.

Click to expand...

Language definition is not covered under the 1st amendment. Even suggesting that requires a stretch of imagination and little to no knowledge of the Constitution. But I'll play along --- If it were covered under the 1st Amendment, yes, I'd be in favor of violating their rights.

Tucker Case said:

Also why is it that what I call my relationship with my wife is none of the government's business, but if my wife was another dude it suddenly does become teh governemnt's business what I call our relationship?

Click to expand...

Because they enter into a contract with the government. You didn't have to marry your wife and you simply could have lived together. Once you enter in with the government, that contract uses words which are defined. What you call your relationship is irrelevant to the government.

Jerry said:

Well because you're not gay, and so you're more equal than others, thus affording you the 1st amendment :2wave:

Click to expand...

Ah, but I'm an idiot which makes me less equal than others again.

Ockham said:

I never claimed they don't change.

Click to expand...

Yes you do, by stating that marriage can't change. You've said it's "taken". I said the meaning has changed.

Ockham said:

Because a marriage is between a man and a woman, and a civil union or (___insert terminology here___) is between a man/man or woman/woman.

Click to expand...

Definitions change. Marriage is the union between two people regardless of sexual orientation as the right to contract shall not be infringed upon.

Ockham said:

I've actually done the direct opposite, I've said they deserve all of the benefits of a heterosexual married couple, without the term "marriage".

Click to expand...

No, in fact you haven't. It's some messed up, skewed view to make believe that you're treating people equal. Words change, institutions change, meanings change. Marriage is evolving to include more than just heterosexual couples. There's nothing wrong with that. Dark ages thinking is no longer required, we need to understand the mobile dynamics of society and the needs of the people. There is no legitimate reason to bar same sex couples from being married. None what so ever. It's either a religious or bigot argument which says they can't. Adhering to archaic architecture is not how humans do things.

Ockham said:

I would prevent a same sex couple from having a contract that states it's a "marriage", absolutely.

Click to expand...

Thus you would engage in tyranny against the minority. You would actively prevent one's right to exercise contract because of some bigotry or outdated notion of "marriage". Evolve or die.

Ockham said:

Now, any other ludicrous accusations you'd like to levy? Lesse... I'm dumb, I'm treating gay couples as second class citizens (ie. oppressing), I'm preventing gays from exercising their right - which, marriage is not a right by the way... anything else? Is "honkey" coming next or maybe "bigot"??:roll:

Click to expand...

it's not ludicrous as you've demonstrated it true

Ockham said:

Get over the word, pick a better one. Marriage is taken.

Click to expand...

Get over the word. Marriage is changing to become more encompassing. Get over it.

Ockham said:

Since it's a government contract, government gets to define the words used in that contract and were I part of the government, the word would not change. Words may change over time, but now is not the time.

Click to expand...

Rather fascist eh? Government does not get to define the words, the People define it within the rights and liberties of all. Words change, now is the time and the place to accept the concept of marriage has expanded to include more people.

Ockham said:

What the government recognizes and defines as "marriage" certainly is.

Click to expand...

The government changing what words used by the government mean, especially in regards to what it refers to, isn't very unusual.

Why can the word marriage for the government not be changed? Why SHOULD it not be changed?

Ockham said:

Because a marriage is between a man and a woman, and a civil union or (___insert terminology here___) is between a man/man or woman/woman.

Click to expand...

Why? What is the reason to have two different names for two actions that result in the exact same benefits under the government.

Why?

Give a reason.

Why can words, both in government and not in government, can change meaning...but this one can't.

GIVE A REASON

Ockham said:

What the government recognizes and defines as "marriage" certainly is.

Click to expand...

The government changing what words used by the government mean, especially in regards to what it refers to, isn't very unusual.

Why can the word marriage for the government not be changed? Why SHOULD it not be changed?

Ockham said:

Because a marriage is between a man and a woman, and a civil union or (___insert terminology here___) is between a man/man or woman/woman.

Click to expand...

Why? What is the reason to have two different names for two actions that result in the exact same benefits under the government.

Why?

Give a reason.

Why can words, both in government and not in government, can change meaning...but this one can't.

Give us a reason other than "its just not time for it to change". That's not a reason, that's a statement. A reason would be saying WHY its not time for it to change.

Ockham said:

I never claimed they don't change.

Click to expand...

Yes you do, by stating that marriage can't change. You've said it's "taken". I said the meaning has changed.

Ockham said:

Because a marriage is between a man and a woman, and a civil union or (___insert terminology here___) is between a man/man or woman/woman.

Click to expand...

Definitions change. Marriage is the union between two people regardless of sexual orientation as the right to contract shall not be infringed upon.

Ockham said:

I've actually done the direct opposite, I've said they deserve all of the benefits of a heterosexual married couple, without the term "marriage".

Click to expand...

No, in fact you haven't. It's some messed up, skewed view to make believe that you're treating people equal. Words change, institutions change, meanings change. Marriage is evolving to include more than just heterosexual couples. There's nothing wrong with that. Dark ages thinking is no longer required, we need to understand the mobile dynamics of society and the needs of the people. There is no legitimate reason to bar same sex couples from being married. None what so ever. It's either a religious or bigot argument which says they can't. Adhering to archaic architecture is not how humans do things.

Ockham said:

I would prevent a same sex couple from having a contract that states it's a "marriage", absolutely.

Click to expand...

Thus you would engage in tyranny against the minority. You would actively prevent one's right to exercise contract because of some bigotry or outdated notion of "marriage". Evolve or die.

Ockham said:

Now, any other ludicrous accusations you'd like to levy? Lesse... I'm dumb, I'm treating gay couples as second class citizens (ie. oppressing), I'm preventing gays from exercising their right - which, marriage is not a right by the way... anything else? Is "honkey" coming next or maybe "bigot"??:roll:

Click to expand...

it's not ludicrous as you've demonstrated it true

Ockham said:

Get over the word, pick a better one. Marriage is taken.

Click to expand...

Get over the word. Marriage is changing to become more encompassing. Get over it.

Ockham said:

Since it's a government contract, government gets to define the words used in that contract and were I part of the government, the word would not change. Words may change over time, but now is not the time.

Click to expand...

Rather fascist eh? I find it funny how many "conservatives" turn to government sponsored fascism as soon as things don't go their way. It's a good way to get shot. Government does not get to define the words, the People define it within the rights and liberties of all. In fact, that is a charge of the government. They cannot define things in a way which infringes upon the rights and liberties of the minority. And keeping the archaic meaning of the word does just that; it infringes upon the innate and inalienable rights of the individual. ANd that's not proper government, it is forbidden from doing that. Words change, now is the time and the place to accept the concept of marriage has expanded to include more people.

Ikari said:

Yes you do, by stating that marriage can't change. You've said it's "taken". I said the meaning has changed.

Click to expand...

Nice logical fallacy - so if one word cannot change, then no words can change - especially as quickly as you want them to. So you've gone from ad hominem to now logical fallacy.

Ikari said:

Definitions change. Marriage is the union between two people regardless of sexual orientation as the right to contract shall not be infringed upon.

Click to expand...

Apparently you and a minority of people think so. Government does not and nor do I.

Ikari said:

Adhering to archaic architecture is not how humans do things.

Click to expand...

In fact, traditions are EXACTLY how humans do things. If what you say was true, traditions would not exist, and people would drop things as quickly as they adopt new things. That doesn't happen in real life.

Ikari said:

Thus you would engage in tyranny against the minority. You would actively prevent one's right to exercise contract because of some bigotry or outdated notion of "marriage". Evolve or die.

Click to expand...

Wow, pulling out the "tyranny" now? LOL

Tell you what, just pass a law then to abolish marriage for everyone. Sure, that'll work.

Ignorance like the opinion you have is a joke. Pick a new word.

Ikari said:

Rather fascist eh? Government does not get to define the words, the People define it within the rights and liberties of all. In fact, that is a charge of the government. They cannot define things in a way which infringes upon the rights and liberties of the minority. And keeping the archaic meaning of the word does just that; it infringes upon the innate and inalienable rights of the individual. ANd that's not proper government, it is forbidden from doing that. Words change, now is the time and the place to accept the concept of marriage has expanded to include more people.

Click to expand...

Sure fascist works - Like I care what you call me. Look, it's not going to change. Just because you don't find value in traditions, history and society doesn't mean everyone else has to jump on the "what's new" bandwagon... marriage is between a man and woman. Obama says so, I say so, most local governments say so as do the states. You want something new, go call it whatever you want, officially it stays as is. And if evolving requires me to be what you think it should be, I'd much rather be dead and miss the abortion that is your viewpoint.

Tucker Case said:

Ah, but I'm an idiot which makes me less equal than others again.

Click to expand...

In fact, mental disability is a protected class, so yo are actually more equal than I.

Now if you were a mentally disabled gay, then we might be equal, but in different ways.

You would turn to your gay lover and call him your husband, but we who know how to live your life better than you would turn to each other and say "look at the silly idiot, calling another man his spouse, he's so cute".

Zyphlin said:

Why? What is the reason to have two different names for two actions that result in the exact same benefits under the government.

Click to expand...

Good point, we should eliminate Domestic Partnership and be don with this issue.

Jerry said:

Good point, we should eliminate Domestic Partnership and be don with this issue.

Click to expand...

Sure, eliminate domestic partnership and allow two consenting adults to be married and you can be done with it.

great point jerry!

Zyphlin said:

Sure, eliminate domestic partnership and allow two consenting adults to be married and you can be done with it.

great point jerry!

Click to expand...

Daydreaming is fun isn't it?

Jerry said:

In fact, mental disability is a protected class, so yo are actually more equal than I.

Click to expand...

If you really believed this, it would be easy to make yourself so privileged. Multiple self-inflicted concussions should do it.

Before you wail about someone else having it better than you do, ask if you'd switch places with them. If you can honestly say you would, you might have a point.

liblady said:

What statements? (notice the capital?)

Click to expand...

Just to be sure, you know that i was talking about CT's post, right?


Example:

there are not many straight guys who would trust other straight guys with decisions that could profoundly affect their lives.

Click to expand...

By the way, this is patently untrue in any case. Policemen, firemen, soldiers, shipmates and a host of other men most of whome are "straight," make frequent life altering choices for each other.

Also, father, sons and brothers frequently make medical decisions for disabled male relatives.

Zyphlin said:

Sure, eliminate domestic partnership and allow two consenting adults to be married and you can be done with it.

great point jerry!

Click to expand...

Oh, wait, we forgot about polygamists...1st. Amendment and all....damn I guess gays are just as bigoted as the rest of us :doh

Rassales said:

If you really believed this, it would be easy to make yourself so privileged. Multiple self-inflicted concussions should do it.

Before you wail about someone else having it better than you do, ask if you'd switch places with them. If you can honestly say you would, you might have a point.

Click to expand...

Are you asking me out?

Seems most people support "Equality" across the board. but then others seem to advocate being a little "more equal" when it comes to one group or an other.---It kind of reminds me of proponents of Head start type programs. My question was always, "ahead of who, My Sons?"

Jerry said:

Are you asking me out?

Click to expand...

Why would you think that? I don't date masochists. Or silly people who don't understand their own privileges. My wife would object.