|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: I still want a different word for 'gay marriage' | |||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 821 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
quote: 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 marriagesCS 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:
So if person C turned up would you let him in? or would you 'exclude' him? 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. Purposefully wanting that someone not be included is exactly the same as wanting that they be excluded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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...)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024