The Future of the Republican Party

Remove all ads!

I guess that is what I'm not understanding. See in my religion it is called a marriage. If the government said it wasn't a marriage and deemed it something else, I don't believe that would bother me as to me I would know I was married under God and the rituals of a faith that goes back thousands of years.

I agree with Gnarff. I don't see how the "entire struggle" isn't an attack against religion over the use of of word. If tradition was that "restrooms" were only usable by men and "bathrooms" were only useable by women, would we have the same issue?

To reverse what DR said, it is a shame that too few proponents of gay marriage are willing to see how many people they are upsetting for the use of a word.

 

I think Splunge and DR adequately addressed your previous quesiton, so I'll just start with your latest statements.

You belong to a religious denomination that allows gay marriage? How open-minded of you Snook. Then again, you also live in Massachusettes, which is one of the few states where gays can marry. Most people don't have the benefit of geography on their side though. Most people live in a place where they cannot receive either a religious or civil marriage, so they cannot take comfort in that. I think Connecticuit is the only other state that has gay marriage (and a few others like New Jersey have civil unions).

Evidently, if such a distinction was listed in the bible, we would have the same issue, if indeed this is all about religion. Not to beat a dead horse, but I don't see how or why it is perceived as an attack against religion. We're talking about two people who fall in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together. It seems fundamentally the same regardless of the genders of the poeple involved. If we call such a union between a man and a woman a marriage, then I don't see why we cannot apply the same to two men or two women.

Now, if the proponents of gay marriage wanted to receive a religious wedding ceremony, I'd be completely on your side Snook. I do believe in separatation of church and state, and I feel that any church can decide who can and cannot get married according to the doctrines of their faith. However, of the gay people I know (granted, it's not a lot - six people who I am friends with are gay) none of them are arguing for a church wedding - they just want to be able to go down to the courthouse.

Context - civil versus religious. But you can turn almost any phrase around. Here's a sample of two phrases that were written by opponents of gay marriage in this thread. Notice who they can just as easily be reversed and used in support of gay marriage:

 

For the same reason we can't call a man a woman and a woman a man (excluding snarky comments). What next will the "gay lobby" force the government to figure out a way for a gay man to become pregnant?

A duck is a duck, no matter how badly it wants to be a swan. It isn't the swan's fault that the duck is a duck, is it?

The fact that they are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together is beautiful and I wish them all the happiness in the world, but it doesn't change that the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman and the voters tend to agree with that as to the best of my knowledge every single "defense of marriage" law/amendment has passed. You wouldn't know that reading this board.

 

You see for me, that comparison doesn't work because, unless you want to count hermaphrodites, the term man and woman are mutually exclusive - you cannot be both at the same time. I think marriage is gender-neutral - defining it as between a man and a woman as opposed to two consenting adults is an arbitrary distinction.

And the same goes for the rest of your comparisons - you cannot be a man and a woman, you cannot be a duck and a swan, you cannot get pregnant as a man* - and so interchanging the terms would be inappropriate. There is no physical reason why two men or two women cannot be married.

Jeez - we're both speaking English, but it's like we're speaking in different languages.

* There was a news story a while back about a "man" who got pregnant. The "man" was in the process of getting a sex change. At the time he got pregnant, he had already changed his name to a male name, and was living as a man. However, he still had all the female reproductive parts, which is why he was able to be artificially inseminated.

 

OK, wait a minute. You're saying that, if the government said you couldn't call the union between you and your wife a marriage, that wouldn't bother you? Then what the heck is so sacred about the word? And if you don't mind giving up the right to call yours a marriage, why do you object to gays wanting to use the word?

And since you keep bringing religion into it, I still don't understand why you don't object to the word "marriage" being applied to the union of a man and a woman in a non-religious context. I know, you say it's because marriage is only between a man and a woman, but then you add the religious angle, and that just messes up your whole arguement.

 

Because I wouldn't care what the government thought or told me. In my mind I'd be married and all that really matters is how I feel, not how someone else does and especially not what the government thinks.

As to marriage being used in a non-religious context, at least it is still being used correctly. It isn't like the word is being used to describe a faucet in a non-religious way.

 

OK, I think I see where you’re coming from. I think you’re saying that, regardless of what other people think, in your mind you’re married, and if you don’t care what your union is actually called, then why should homosexuals be so hung up on it? Fair enough, I suppose, but the fact is that they do care. And again, if that is your attitude, then I don’t get why you think the word “marriage” is so sacred.

Well, now we’re back to what is meant by “correctly”. Merriam-Webster OnLine defines it as being either opposite-sex or same-sex.

So you must be using a religious definition. But (and correct me if I’m wrong) a religious marriage has numerous religious overtones, including the recognition of a god. So if there is no such recognition, why is it a marriage? The only answer I can come up with is that it’s not, at least under the religious definition of the word. And yet you still think it’s OK to call it a marriage, so you must be accepting the non-religious definition. But that definition includes same-sex marriages. So which definition of marriage are you using that allows it to be non-religious but not same-sex?

It seems to me that we’ve been through all this several times before.

 

Then why did you get a marriage license? Why is her last name now your last name on her driver's license? Why aren't you filing your taxes separately? Is it not important that she be able to visit you in the hospital? Are you saying you don't want your estate to pass to your wife should something happen to you? Don't be silly, of course you care what the government thinks. Government recognition is part of what legitimizes your union.

These kinds of comparisons only work if you think of people as their gender first and as human beings second. Which brings me to my next point...

Ya know, a while ago I asked Gnarff which would be better: a fully committed, loving couple, who spent their lives honoring their marriage vows, owned a home, started a family, never cheated, etc. but happened to be gay, or, a drunken-Vegas married couple who constantly cheated on one another, had nothing in common and were generally rotten people, but were straight. He said, and I quote, "at least the straight couple is making a clumsy attempt to do the right thing."

For all the accusations from you, Gnarff and others that we're the ones redefining marriage, or defining it down, it seems the only aspect that is of import to you guys is the "man and woman" part. My parents have a wonderful marriage and I've never thought the secret to that success was because they are merely of opposite gender. They love each other, love their kids, share interests, support each other, are currently growing old together, and have been each other's rock through some incredibly dodgy times. That, to most people, is what a marriage is. That is what straight people enjoy, and all gay couples are asking for is to be included in this wonderful convention of our society that they have been denied for so long. They aren't trying to destroy anything you hold dear, or take a thing away from you - obviously, it is equally dear to them or they wouldn't be fighting so hard for it. They're merely asking for a freedom you enjoy and most Americans take for granted, and after that, to be left alone to enjoy their lives. Why is that so horrible?

 

Again, look at my previous post. They have no arguments except that they do not approve of homosexuals and do not want them to share a right and a word that everyone else take for granted. They don't even do a very good job of hiding that sentiment.

This entire thread is also a shining example of what the Republican party has been about for as long as I have followed American politics. Take a wedge issue where they can rely on the support on all the ignorant and/or bigoted and/or reactionary people out there and make it into the main issue so people won't spend time thinking about the bigger issues that really make a difference

 

Well, I'm happy to see everyone would rather continue arguing than actually talk about a possible solution.

Gnarff, let me ask you specifically, how would you feel about my proposal, essentially the reverse of what some gays are fighting for now? All marriages currently on the books, and any new ones to ever be performed again, would legally be called 'civil unions', with all the rights and privelidges pertaining thereunto. Whatever private ceremony individuals wanted to perform, and whatever they wanted to call it in private, public, or any non-legal setting is fair, be it 'marriage', 'bonding', 'covenant', 'union', or 'tri-force duck'. Gays can have all the same rights as heterosexuals, even under the exact same law, but they don't get the legal term 'marriage', because that legal term gets retired altogether. Would you object to anything about that?

 

That's quite a draconian solution NOG. Rather than extend the term to other groups you'd prefer to do away with it altogether? While it sounds fine in principle (in that all people get the same rights), I think the problem I would have is I doubt the term "marriage" would go out of the vernacular. People would still refer to themselves as "married" and not "civil unionized" or some other term.

The other issue I have is it seems that we already have two terms for this thing. Marriage is the legal contract, whereas the sacrament (at least as far as Catholics are concerned) is matrimony. So for me, I already think there is some distinction in the two words.

 

Gnarff, I'm not advocating the complete removal of the term from all contexts, but only from the legal context. If people want to say they're married, or their marriage is on the rocks, or whatever, that's fine with me. Personally, I'd still say I'm married, as I consider myself married regardless of what the law says. I don't expect it to leave the vernacular, nor do I intend it to. Seriously, how frequently do people refer to things by their legal names? Is it really, in court, called a 'speeding ticket'?

As for terminology, the whole problem is that the government co-opted the term marriage from religion and religion never really let go. Matrimony is about as legitimate a term as 'Thou shalt not' in today's language, while 'civil union' is already not only a real, modern term, but a legal one to boot. Let the law keep the term it came up with and let religion keep (though the law will say nothing on the issue) the term it claims as it's own.

 

Because the state will, eventually, force itself on religion. When the Church teaches one definition of Marriage, but the state funded schools teach another, who wins? The State.

It's not the gays getting married that the threat, it's the state's changing the definition that's the real danger. What two concenting adults do in private is not our concern. When Society as a whole goes from tolerating their behaviour to embracing it, how long before Religion is forced to follow suit?

It's the definition of Marriage that is the concern. When the state changes it, they will, at some point, push for compliance from all corners of society. And the First Ammendment will not be able to stop an activist judge from ruling with a gay couple when a Religious authority refuses to solemnize their union.

Pretty much, but as NOG points out, Christianity draws it's roots from the Abrahamic religions. The Christians are the ones defending it here because they are the largest such group in America.

From a Judeo Christian point of view, this is supported when God married Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:23-24).

The divine decree was issued from the beginning of the world, if not before. God does not change. And His edict to go forth, be fruitful and multiply has not changed either.

But how many gay couples just live together and not give a damn what society thinks? The ones that are up in arms and insisting that it should be marriage are spitefully attacking a subculture that will NEVER truly embrace them. They want to drag what their critics consider sacred down to their level. It is an act of intolerance against religious organizations and their faithful.

I've looked at it that way, and conclude that if it was about rights, then it would be resolved a lot quicker and easier. No, it's an act of hatred against a group that believes that their chosen lifestyle is a grave sin.

Actually, there is a distinction made. Heterosexual marriage is ordained of God, while homosexual relations are listed among the worst of sins.

Their rights as a couple are being held up because the activists insist on picking a fight instead of solving the problem.

By the time it gets to that point, it will be too late. The law will be in place and other laws will compel religions into solemnizing the union.

There's a difference between tolerance and accomodation. Tolerance for gay couples means that we're not criminalizing the act of gay sex, and that we won't allow them to be harrassed or assaulted for their choice. There is a considerable degree of accomodation that can be granted without changing the definition of marriage. I urge the activists to explore these options before coming out and trying to force your values on the rest of us and to demand that the state override the church on this matter.

And as long as activists want to pick a fight, that fact will be lost in the conflict. It's no skin off my nose if the activists don't think of this and abandon their pride...

Because regardless of the authority, the covenent is still the same.

On what authority do they presume to make this change? By simply writing that, they are trying to change the moral fibre of the world.

But these things can be extended to gays without changing the definition of marriage.

But wasn't raising you and your siblings one of the things that brought them closer together? That said, the sacrifices are almost the same for a gay couple, and the legal benefits should be extended, but because Marriage came from God, and they are not trying to live according to His will, they cannot be married.

 

This perfectly sums up why it's pointless to debate anything with you in good faith. "Down to their level," and you balk when I say it's about hatred. "Spitefully attacking," and you balk when I call you tonedeaf. "It is an act of intolerance against religious organizations" and you balk when I call you on hyperbole. If you aren't missing the point or not listening, you're basing your arguments on a false premise, causing no end of frustration for just about everyone. You are absolutely ridiculous, and I'm not wasting my time on you anymore.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here (and I admit I might be), but doesn't "His way of doing things" with respect to marriage include some sort of an acknowledgement of and commitment to God? And if that's the case, I'll ask this question yet again - why is it OK for a non-religious heterosexual civil union to be called a marriage, when that union doesn't acknowledge a god?

 

Gnarff, all of your answers can basically be summed up as being, "If we legalize gay marriage, then they will eventually compel the various religions to perform gay marriages." Seeing as how gay marriages are legal in Canada, I would like to know how many Mormon pastors, Catholic priests, Protestant ministers, Jewish rabbis, and Muslim imams have, under government pressure, performed gay marriages. Seeing as how gay marriage has been legal in Canada for over 3 years now, certainly there must have been at least one "activist judge" who has compelled at least one of these religions to do so.

That's your whole problem - you assume this is definitely going to happen despite the fact that it never has happened yet. And it's not happened in the half dozen or so European nations that have legalized gay marriage either. This is just one example of the many false premises on which you base your arguements. I would like to think if that was your arguement, that you could cite at least one example of this happening somewhere in the world - but you can't.

 

The crux of the problem is the unwillingness to accept this:

The circular litany of but marriage per definition means 'A' is just a way to try to address the matter without being able or rather willing to spell it out clearly, no?

Sometimes one word has several different meanings. It isn't something language does not allow - indeed - quite to the contrary. Humour lives of words that have several different meanings. So wording is hardly the point here, isn't it? Gnarff's quoting of Genesis 2:23-24 only underlines that impression.

The point, very clearly, is that religious conservatives don't want gays to 'marry', period, for moral and religious reasons, and they use the wording issue as an excuse. Gnarff in this thankfully is much more straightforward than most of his co-belligerents.

 

No, it's not a false premise. Every right that straight couple enjoy under law can be extended to gay couples without changing the definition of marraige.

Judging by actions of some activists, their motives are crystal clear. Look at the behaviour of protesters in California. Look at the outright bigotry specifically targetted at the Mormon faith. Some groups want to take away their protected status. One radical group is demanding the church dissolve completely or be destroyed! That's bigotry.

There's a case in Saskatchewan, where a Marriage commissioner refused to preform a marriage for a Gay couple, even pointing the couple to another commisioner that would perform the union, but no, they insisted on bringing him up on charges--despite promises to the contrary when the politicians pushed that law into place. That's an act of bigotry against someone that stood up for his religious belief.

The bottom line is that these activists are trying not just to change a law, but society as a whole--by forcing their beliefs on others that find them offensive. Thank God the people of California, Arizona and Florida stood up for what was right and defended Marriage.

The covenents of marriage are the same, regardless of the authority. Even though the couple may not believe in God, and the ceremony does not acknowledge Him, the obligations are the exact same as if they were married by a rabbi, minister, priest, or even in a Mormon temple. They are accountable to God for their actions towards their spouse.

There is a precident for this. The State has the ability to trump the Churches therein if there is a dispute between the two, regardless of the First Ammendment. It happened with Polygamy, and it's only a matter of time before activists push their beliefs on Religious organizatins too.

The first steps towards that are before the court now. There is a Marriage commissioner that refused a Gay marriage because of his religious beliefs. The Canadian Human Rights commission is telling him that freedom of religion doesn't apply to him. Today, it's a civil authority, tomorrow it's a religious authority, possibly the church they represent!

Because we believe that marriage is sacred, and that homosexuality is an abomination, it is offensive to link the two. For gay rights activists to insist on this is an act of bigotry against the religious faithful.

 

So the answer to the bold part is in a word: Yes.

And further, for a religious conservative that is non-negotiable, because it is opposition out of principle.

 

I might be misunderstanding what you mean, but I don't see how that answers my question, which again is "why is it OK for a non-religious heterosexual civil union to be called a marriage, when that union doesn't acknowledge a god?".