|
Author
|
Topic: I still want a different word for 'gay marriage'
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
People have said that bogus marriages are an option for heteros already so this shouldn’t be a problem. The reason I don’t see it that way is that I didn’t consider a bogus marriage with a girl and only considered a bogus marriage in the light of the gay marriage talk. And I only considered a bogus marriage with a guy and not a girl. why? what's the objective difference, besides the gender it's with? either it's a bogus marriage because it's for the benefits -- or this is not a real argument. you can't say that we shouldn't allow gays to marry, lest the abuse the benefits if it's the "gay" part that matters, not the benefits. and if it is a real argument, it's a bad one.
I don’t want to deny gay people rights yes, you do. that's what the bit about bogus marriages is about. you don't want them to have the benefits, because they might just do it for the benefits.
If we called gay marriages a civil union, or some other name, then I wouldn’t have a problem ”marrying’ (with no big ceremony) i know this seems weird, but lots of people get married in courthouses all the time, with no big ceremony. and they're still called "marriage." i think gay people would be ok with getting married in courthouses -- being recognized by the state -- but not in a church. churches can have their own rules, and marry whomever they like. but they can't tell the state what to do. let me add a story, though, for very recent personal experience. my mother hangs out with people about 20 years older than her on average, because she's part of a local quilting guild. one of her friends recently became very ill: we think she might have had a stroke. my mother, her closest friend, literally picked her up, got her dressed, and took her to the icu. she's and old lady, but she's always been coherent. now, she's incoherent, can't return home or take care of herself. yesterday they discharged her from the hospital. we don't know where. we don't know because they can't tell us. now, suppose for a second that instead of just friends, my mom and her friend were lovers. pretend they'd been living together for 30 years or more. imagine, living a large portion of your adult life, commited to a person, to lose them when a hospital discharges them to the old folk's home, and not being able to find out where they are because you're not family. this is not a hypothetical situation, this really happens. gay people who wish to be married should have the same rights as straight people who wish to be married. because they're not single people -- and who are any of us to tell them that they can't be a family, if they want to be? Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Its not that I don't consider a fake marriage with a girl to be bogus. The gender doesn't make it more or less bogus of a marriage. I was saying that I never considered entering a bogus marriage with a girl and now that we're talking about gays getting married, I started considering a bogus marriage. And I wouldn't consider entering one with a girl although I would consider entering one with a guy. maybe that just makes you gay? look, the fact that you would consider it a possibility means that you do not value gay marriage as highly -- something that was obvious from the start. if anything, it is an argument FOR calling it a marriage so people would take it more seriously. but if you think that potential abuse is a problem that justifies barring the practice, then it requires that you bar regular marriage too. just because YOU wouldn't consider doesn't mean that other people don't. i'm sure you're well aware of the practice of green-card marriages?
No, I don't. I'm not worried about the gay people doing it just for the benefits, I'm worried about the straight people posing as gays getting married so they can get the benefits. (heh, maybe if they had to make-out when they sign the paper work it would be enough of a deterant, j/k.) haha. remember, jesus kissed a guy too!
No, I realise that, its not wierd. I think when marrage was intended to be heterosexual. We can let gay people do it too lets just call it something else instead of redefining marriage, which has an affect on my outlook on marriage. how, exactly? what effects will it actually have?
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
No it doesn't require regular marriage to be barred. Bogus marriages aren't much of, if any of, a problem (mostly immigration problems). I'm saying that we'll have more bogus marriages and more problems if gay marriages are just lumped into marriages. well, this is just an irrational argument. it's a "what if" scenario. legally, we cannot make laws that prohibit whole classes of people from doing something, lest a small class of people abuse it.
I see marriage as commiting myself to someone before god and before the state. that's great. what about athiests? are they committed before god, too? legally, a marriage is something recognized by the state only. that "before god" part can come with church -- but you don't have to get married in a church, do you? nor do churches have to marry anybody they do not wish to.
Even just changing the first letter to G and calling it Garriage makes it better. They have their own thing and I have mine (or we have ours). I don't want the current "marriage" to be changed to include something that isn't marriage in my opinion. I do think they should have the rights, though. how about we call "gay marriage." that way straight people are less inclined to do it for fraudulent purposes because it's both marriage, and they'd be called gay.
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
But are we legally required to include them as long as we don't prohibit them? I mean, passing a law that prohibits gay marriage is different than doing nothing and leaving them out of it, right? the church can feel free to leave them out, and even SAY that it's not a marriage. but they want marriages -- REAL marriages -- with all the rights and benefits of any other kind of marriage. is the federal gov't required to include them in a definition of marriage? no. but your reason is not a good reason for them to override states' rulings and outlaw it altogether.
that's great. what about athiests? are they committed before god, too? Nope. When I get married, I see the ceremony before god and the paperwork at the courthouse as one big thing. Not two seperate things. The atheists can leave the whole god part out and just do the legal thing. But to seperate them for me would be like getting married twice, once for god and once for the state. what mean is, are athiests married? they don't do the "before god" bit, even if they are married in a church, because they don't believe in god. yet the state calls it marriage -- even if they just do the courthouse bit. leave gays out of the church if you'd like. but there's no reason to entagle the state in a religious objection.
This is kinda a segway to the stuff I was typing in the other thread about how I don't like the idea of just including the gay marriages in with marriage in the laws and statutes. I was saying that gay marriages weren't considered when some of the laws were written, much like race wasn't, and even though it worked for race to just include it, its my opinion that gay won't work as well. This opinion comes from the stuff I was typing in the OP about how I might react to a simple inclusion of gay into marriage. i do not think your reasoning is correct. however, what i said was call it "gay marriage." the whole phrase, gay included. you don't wanna be called gay? don't marry someone of the same gender. Edited by arachnophilia, : wrong word
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
So you shouldn't equate the lack of inclusion with prohibition, which I think you did earlier, IIRC. i don't believe i was. the issue under debate in congress is prohibition. if you are simply for non-inclusion, that means your and your group (i'll assume) the catholics do not have to include gays in THEIR definition of marriage, or allow them to be married in THEIR churches. do we have to include gays in the STATE'S definition of marriage? well, the federal government, to my knowledge, does not have an explicit definition of marriage --- that's what the amendment is. but gays WANT to be included, and i see no real reason to exclude them. you can exclude them from your group, but legalized discrimination on the federal level is wrong.
Agreed. Don't prohibit their 'marriages' because of religious objection, but do the religious a favor and come up with a new word to describe their union. it's not the federal government's job to do the religous any favors. if they don't like it, well, too bad. because they do not have the right to restrict the rights of others just to make themslves more comfortable with what other people can and cannot do.
But there is still the issue of the ambiguity of the word marriage in the laws and statutes. Anywhere the word marrige is written should include 'gay marriage' as well? I said that gay wasn't considered when some of the laws and statutes were written so maybe that should be considered before all the gay marriages are just lumped in there. If a whole new word was created, it could be added into the laws and statues as neccessary. Might be a bad idea, i dunno, but I think lumping gay in there is a bad idea. I think it will open the laws up for exploitation much like the healthcare issue I have. maybe the word "marriage" has already lost its meaning, and it's the religious people that aren't taking it seriously. afterall, you would marry your buddy if you could, just to get him healthcare. that's not gays making a mockery of marriage, that's YOU making a mockery of marriage.
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
Message 36 of 243 (319531)
06-09-2006 11:54 AM
|
|
|
reply from the previous thread
Catholic Scientist writes: arachnophilia writes: if you find the idea of being married to someone of the same gender icky, the solution is simple. don't marry someone of the same gender. but we can't look over at our neighbors and say "i think what you're doing is disgusting" and try to get it outlawed. not when no objective harm is being done to anyone, on any reasonable standard, and people are just living their own lives.
emhasis added What if some people think that objective harm on a reasonable standard will be done? At what point do their wishes become considered? a harm on a reasonable standard is not an objective harm, to a person. their wishes become considered when enough people agree that a behaviour is so abhorent that any practice of it will objectively harm another person. for instance, child pornography is outlawed not because we find it disgusting. it is illegal because it victimizes and traumatizes children -- which is the part that causes our disgust.
When does something become harmful enough to be outlawed? when it violates the rights of others in the majority of cases, not minor abuses.
When does something become harmful enough to have amendments proposed? we very rarely propose amendments for such a reason. i can think of only two such cases: slavery, and prohibition. and prohibition was repealed, for good reason. amendments are normally proposed to protect the people from abuses of government, not to protect the people from themselves. i think we can all agree that slavery objectively harmed the rights of others, not JUST the reasonable standards of one group.
Won't every amendment proposed have people bitching about it? debating it? yes. but few amendments have ever been proposed to explicitly limit the rights of others. and the only that got through was prohibition.
Most of the answers to these questions are opinions. i don't believe i posted anything above that was a personal opinion. just the legitimate legal reasoning.
WRT gay marriage, we don't really know what the results of it will be. Some people think it will be bad, some don't. i have yet to see a specific claim of WHAT the results will be. faith says that society will fall apart, but neglects to explain how, and what exactly will happen.
It looks like enough people oppose it to propose an amendment. Do enough oppose it to outlaw it? I doubt it. i hope not. it would be a said that democracy really does become the tyranny of the majority. we must protect the rights of everyone, including the minorities. i think you'll find a good portion of the other amendments are written with that goal in mind, not enforcing majority opinion.
ABE: I'm thinking the replies will all be "What harm?" I don't think that needs to be specified for these questions to be examined. yes, it does. claims of potential harm are being thrown about, but most of us cannot figure out what harm you and others are talking about, and how exactly it affects you, or anyone else besides the two people being married. if there is no harm being done -- or it's just going to hurt your feelings -- that's not enough. the potential harm being done is important, otherwise it should not be a point against. and how much of a potential is also important. if it's a few minor abuses you're worried about, it's not a good argument.
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 38 of 243 (319614)
06-09-2006 5:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by crashfrog
06-09-2006 5:16 PM
|
|
...so let's outlaw divorce. sounds like as good a plan as any.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 06-09-2006 5:16 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 06-09-2006 5:33 PM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 42 of 243 (319745)
06-09-2006 9:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
06-09-2006 5:33 PM
|
|
i say slay the divorcés
Seems like marriage is just fine the way it is. That's been my experience, anyway. What problem does your solution solve? well, it seems to me that this whole divorce thing is making a mockery of marriage. people don't take it as seriously when they know they can get out of it -- and so they're more inclined to marry people just to cheat the system and get benefits. besides which, it's un-biblical. as jesus said:
quote:
Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
and as we all know, the bible prescribes the following punishment for adultery:
quote:
Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
so not only should we outlaw divorce, we should punish re-marriage with the death penalty. anything less poses a grave danger to the fabric of our society, and our god-given values. Edited by arachnophilia, : (i hope people understand the serious point behind the sarcasm here)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 06-09-2006 5:33 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 06-09-2006 9:44 PM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 44 of 243 (319754)
06-09-2006 9:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 43 by Coragyps
06-09-2006 9:44 PM
|
|
Re: i say slay the divorcés
If we're gonna have Sanctity of Marriage(TM), we gotta start doing sumthin about those adulterers. exactly. i say death. anyone got any good throwin' stones?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 06-09-2006 9:44 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 45 by ramoss, posted 06-11-2006 11:21 PM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 46 of 243 (320674)
06-11-2006 11:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by ramoss
06-11-2006 11:21 PM
|
|
Re: i say slay the divorcés
THe Church of England was founded on Divorce. ok, kill them too. (heretics)
And that those gay marriages will ruin the sancity of Britany Spears first marriage. i'm sure we can find something to stone them for, too.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by ramoss, posted 06-11-2006 11:21 PM | | ramoss has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
some of us are friends with the opposite sex. hey arach. want a navy federal account? we just have to throw down a few bucks on a contract and have it annulled after you set up the account. cheaper than most banks. i wish i could give you health insurance, but i lose that in september. but maybe we could get food stamps. did you just propose to me?
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
what if i said no?
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 119 of 243 (322081)
06-16-2006 12:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 118 by RAZD
06-15-2006 11:36 PM
|
|
Re: the easy solution.
it gets so byzantine when the real solution is simple: everyone covered, they walk in they get care. Cut out all the middlemen trying to snake a profit from peoples misfortune and bad health. a little bit of socialism never hurt anybody. (a lot of socialism, on the other hand...)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 118 by RAZD, posted 06-15-2006 11:36 PM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: reply from the previous thread
But how can we know how and what exactly will happen? tell me, do you ever leave the house? how can you, when you cannot know what exactly will happen?
I think its gonna mess up healthcare (assuming it can get worse) because we'll be more prone to fake marriages for getting a friend on your healthcare plan. again, you can do this with marriage as it stands now, and it's a relatively small phenominon. in this case, we'd be restricting a whole class of people for an equally small representation of scammers -- it's an acceptable risk. besides. who cares? they'd be married. how about this, if you want to marry your buddy to scam health care, one of you has to wear a wedding dress. any gay people have a problem with this idea?
{as a side note, i'm all for socialized medicine, like they have in canada. it would completely remove this concern of yours, and would clean up and clean out the system. really, i think it's the only humane thing to do.} quote:
their wishes become considered when enough people agree that a behaviour is so abhorent that any practice of it will objectively harm another person.
Hence the amendment. There just isn't enough people that agree with it so I guess we'll just go ahead and have gay marriages. there are neither enough people that agree there is harm at all, nor is there any reason to believe it would objectively harm anyone at all. you need both parts. as i said, we don't outlaw personal preference.
|
™ Version 4.2