Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I still want a different word for 'gay marriage'
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 243 (321958)
06-15-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by kjsimons
06-15-2006 3:09 PM


Right they don't mention 'civil union', because it's redundant.
No it isn't. All marriages are civil unions but not all civil unions are marriages. Yeah?
The marriage license from your source says groom and bride (man and woman) and there was no mention of civil union.
Would it be clearer to you if we used the word 'state' or 'government' recognised in place of the word 'civil' perhaps?
No, it pretty much just dodges the issue that this arrose from upthread, which I have now forgotten and will have to re-read.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by kjsimons, posted 06-15-2006 3:09 PM kjsimons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by kjsimons, posted 06-15-2006 4:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 107 of 243 (321961)
06-15-2006 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by New Cat's Eye
06-15-2006 4:07 PM


All marriages are civil unions ...
Only if you get a marriage license and have the proper people sign it will the state recognise your marriage/union. You can just have a religious ceremony and in the eyes of your religion and god(s) you will be married, just don't expect the state to grant you any of the rights bestowed to government sanctioned marriages. It unfortunate that the state didn't use a different word for the civil part of marriage, because then we wouldn't need a different word for it to appease those who aren't comfortable sharing the word marriage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 4:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 4:44 PM kjsimons has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 243 (321968)
06-15-2006 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by kjsimons
06-15-2006 4:17 PM


All marriages are civil unions ...
Only if you get a marriage license and have the proper people sign it will the state recognise your marriage/union.
OMG this is so annoying. I'm sick of all the miscommunications (partly my fault I guess).
I was talking about state recognized marriages. They are all, by definition, civil unions. But, are all civil unions also considered 'marriages' by the state?
It unfortunate that the state didn't use a different word for the civil part of marriage
Yes and then there are all the statutes that refer to 'marriage' in them that were written, presumably, with the initial definition of marriage in mind. I think that some of them will get screwed up or missused if gay marriages are lumped in with 'marriage'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by kjsimons, posted 06-15-2006 4:17 PM kjsimons has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 109 of 243 (321972)
06-15-2006 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by New Cat's Eye
06-15-2006 4:01 PM


quote:
Well you are not accidentally failing to include them.. you are doing so because you want to... it is your will that they 'not be included'.
Thats very bold of you to tell me what my will is (and a violation of forum guidline #10).

You have stated throughout this thread that you do not want homosexuals to be included in marriage.. I am simply re stating the position you have made clear here
CS writes:
I just don't think they should be included in marriages
CS writes:
I have reasons for not wanting to include them
It seems to me that you want to "not include" homosexuals in your definition of marriage... as a result of this they will be excluded. seems very obvious to me.
CS writes:
Or like Phat's example, if I invite persons A, B and D to dinner, it is not the same as saying person C cannot come to dinner.
So if person C turned up would you let him in? or would you 'exclude' him?
Purposefully wanting that someone not be included is exactly the same as wanting that they be excluded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 4:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 7:27 PM Heathen has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 110 of 243 (321982)
06-15-2006 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by New Cat's Eye
06-15-2006 9:27 AM


quote:
I just don't think we should lump gay marriages in with marriages beause they weren't originnaly intended in the definition and I think throwing them in there opens it up for problems.
You know, I've asked you to support with evidence your claims that "something bad will happen", but you just don't want to. See, I did it on this very page, in message 63.
Here it is again.
quote:
Schraf was asking for data or somehting to back up this claim but I'm just saying this as an opinion. Its just something I think will happen so I don't support gay marriage, but becuase I lack any evidence, I refrain from actively opposing it. The opinion comes form my views on who I would bogus marry and why.
Well, if your "opinion" isn't based upon any sort of information, data, or knowledge, then perhaps you shouldn't hold it?
Call me crazy, but since when are "opinions pulled out of my ass" considered good reasons to think or do anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 9:27 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 7:22 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 111 of 243 (321984)
06-15-2006 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by New Cat's Eye
06-15-2006 10:06 AM


Re: reply from the previous thread
quote:
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.
WHY do you think this?
Based upon what data?
Or is this based upon your own dishonest proclivities and nothing else? After all, anybody could (and some do) marry people of the opposite gender solely to get the benefits. Your own personal quirk that you wouldn't marry a woman but you would marry a man does not in any way constitute evidence in support of your claim.
If you cannot support it, stop using the argument.
(You have ignored many not-so-subtle attempts to point this out to you, yet you keep making the baseless claim over and over again. Please don't make me get a moderator.)
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 10:06 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 112 of 243 (321989)
06-15-2006 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by New Cat's Eye
06-15-2006 10:06 AM


Re: reply from the previous thread
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.
The rather idiotic presumption behind this argument is that healthcare is some kind of nonrenewable resource so, if more people are taking - and there's no evidence that this would be the case - there's less for everybody.
Honestly? In a nation where health care services are the leading growth industry, I don't see any indication that a few more people getting health care hurts anything.
Also, something else to keep in mind: having people on elective healthcare early in life or early in the course of an illness means cheaper treatment. Honestly? If your fake gay marriage gets your buddy on healthcare 20-30 years earlier than he would have had otherwise, odds are pretty good that they're going to find and treat illnesses a lot earlier, and therefore a lot cheaper. We all wind up paying less, not more, because you've scammed your buddy into the healthcare system.
Which, when you think about it, is a pretty good argument for universal public healthcare.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 10:06 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 113 of 243 (321995)
06-15-2006 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Ben!
06-09-2006 8:08 PM


quote:
In a society where failed marriages outnumber the successful ones, I'm not feelin' a lot of the "massive amount of societal pressure" that you're talking about.
Actually, I just learned that that oft-repeated statistic "half of all marriages end in divorce" is quite misleading.
It turns out that over 70% of all first marriages do not end in divorce.
There is a small percentage of people who get married and divorced a bunch of times who are creating the misleading statistic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Ben!, posted 06-09-2006 8:08 PM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Ben!, posted 06-19-2006 4:40 AM nator has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 243 (322027)
06-15-2006 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by nator
06-15-2006 5:18 PM


You know, I've asked you to support with evidence your claims that "something bad will happen", but you just don't want to.
Exactly. Request denied.
I don't have to support that claim to continue to not support gay marriages.
I'm not trying to prevent gay people from getting married. I'm just not trying to get them marriage, either.
There's a difference between me not supporting it and trying to prevent it.
Not supporting it does not make me a hateful bigot.
Trying to prevent it.....that's a different story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by nator, posted 06-15-2006 5:18 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by nator, posted 06-15-2006 8:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 243 (322030)
06-15-2006 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Heathen
06-15-2006 4:58 PM


I'm sure a lot of people could post a bunch of one-liners from various posts to make me look I'm saying something that I'm not.
Your post does not accurately reflect my position on this subject.
I am simply re stating the position you have made clear here
You're being dishonest and putting words in my mouth positions in my thread

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Heathen, posted 06-15-2006 4:58 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Heathen, posted 06-15-2006 8:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 116 of 243 (322043)
06-15-2006 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by New Cat's Eye
06-15-2006 7:22 PM


quote:
I don't have to support that claim to continue to not support gay marriages.
No, but you do have to support the claim if you keep wanting to use the claim as a reason to deny gays the right to marry.
Let me be clear.
If you are not going to reasonably and rationally support your claim that "something bad will happen" to healthcare if gays are allowed to marry, then stop using that as part of your argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 7:22 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 117 of 243 (322045)
06-15-2006 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by New Cat's Eye
06-15-2006 7:27 PM


I'm sorry what part of your posts have I missed...
so have I got it wrong? you DO want homesexuals included in your definition of marriage?
If I've picked it up wrong I'm genuinely sorry... but it certainly looks like you do not want Homosexuals included in marriage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 7:27 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 118 of 243 (322076)
06-15-2006 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by New Cat's Eye
06-15-2006 1:00 PM


Re: the easy solution.
I like that more than including gay in marriage.
I still think healthcare will be negetively affected though.
The problem of health care is that it should not depend on how you are connected to some way of getting a provider -- relations to to people to work to some company that provides plans to associate people to providers of care ... 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.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 1:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by arachnophilia, posted 06-16-2006 12:13 AM RAZD has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 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 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 120 of 243 (322234)
06-16-2006 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by New Cat's Eye
06-15-2006 10:06 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 10:06 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024