Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


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 1 of 243 (319048)
06-08-2006 10:56 AM


Most of the arguing against gay marriages that I’ve typed has been from the position that it will have negative affects on us that could/should be avoided. It comes from a simple thought that if we label gay marriage as marriage then I can ”marry’ my buddy so he can get in on my insurance plan while making it cheaper for me. I mean, he’s out there riding dirtbikes with me uninsured, it’s the least I could do for him, being a good riding buddy and all. I think that if there’s reasons that I would take advantage of gay marriages, then other people must have other reasons too.
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.
I think one of the things I realized is that I want to have a legitimate marriage (like, a Catholic one) someday** and if I’ve already been married, it kinda screws that up. So, if we call gay marriages just marriages, then I can’t take advantage of the benefits without smudging my later legitimate marriage. If we called gay marriages a civil union, or some other name, then I wouldn’t have a problem ”marrying’ (with no big ceremony) my buddy to do him a favor and get him some good cheap healthcare (and make it cheaper for me too). Then, later on we can get divorced and even later I can really get married in a big ceremony and all that.
I don’t want to deny gay people rights but I do want to keep the definition of marriage. I think we should use a different word for gay marriages.
I was thinking about this last night before I went to sleep and now, this morning, I’m having trouble putting it together. I was hoping if I just started typing it out I could make some sense outta myself and if I post it here then you all can help me iron out the wrinkles, or maybe talk type some sense into me.
**maybe I should elaborate here so I don’t get bitched at. I’m not saying that only Catholic marriages are legitimate, I’m saying that someday I would want a marriage in my religion, one that I, personally, consider legitimate.

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by CK, posted 06-08-2006 11:08 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 3 by rgb, posted 06-08-2006 11:26 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-08-2006 11:27 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 06-08-2006 1:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 1:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 8 by Mystery Man, posted 06-08-2006 1:43 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 28 by jar, posted 06-08-2006 4:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 34 by ohnhai, posted 06-09-2006 9:55 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 35 by Ben!, posted 06-09-2006 10:03 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 51 by Phat, posted 06-12-2006 10:56 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 61 by nator, posted 06-12-2006 5:10 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 06-12-2006 8:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 2 of 243 (319051)
06-08-2006 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by New Cat's Eye
06-08-2006 10:56 AM


Garriage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2006 10:56 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 243 (319061)
06-08-2006 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by New Cat's Eye
06-08-2006 10:56 AM


There is one thing you missed. Everytime one of these legislations come up, they always include a section like "and congress shall never recognize any other institution that even remotely resemble what we now know as marriage..."
In other words, these proposed legislations not only once and for all define that marriage is between and man and a woman, it also blocks any possibility of a union between same sex couples. This is one hypocrisy in Bush that for some reason or other people fail to see. During the 2004 election debate, he repeatedly said that he supported same sex "civil union", yet this is the 3rd time he's tried to push through something that will ban all such union.
Support "garriage" or not, you should be able to see through the hypocrisy involved. But then again, some are just too busy hanging on to their hate that they don't mind being used as pawns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2006 10:56 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2006 1:59 PM rgb has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 4 of 243 (319063)
06-08-2006 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by New Cat's Eye
06-08-2006 10:56 AM


Civil Union vs. Marriage
The should be two seperate unions of a couple.
1) The civil union, a legal contract executed at your local courthouse. A religion's minister should not be acting as an agent of the government, and I know at least some ministers agree with such.
2) The religious marriage, a union in God's eyes.
A couple, be they hetrosexual or homosexual, may choose to do one or the other or both. But it would be the civil union that would define the legal status of the couple and how it affects their rights and obligations in society.
Moose

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2006 10:56 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2006 2:01 PM Minnemooseus has replied

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


Message 5 of 243 (319090)
06-08-2006 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by New Cat's Eye
06-08-2006 10:56 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2006 10:56 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2006 1:39 PM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 6 of 243 (319095)
06-08-2006 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by New Cat's Eye
06-08-2006 10:56 AM


It comes from a simple thought that if we label gay marriage as marriage then I can ”marry’ my buddy so he can get in on my insurance plan while making it cheaper for me.
You mean, like you can with your girlfriend? What makes you think that people don't do this now? All you have to do is pop down to city hall. Seriously. Call up a girl you know and go get married, just for a lark. You gotta plop down a couple bucks for the license, and then in a few days, you can have the marriage annuled. You don't even need to tell anybody.
I mean, what might give you pause in the situation you describe above is, if your "buddy" gets greedy, he can contest the annullment. He can force you to have to divorce him. Without a prenup, maybe he takes your sweet dirtbike.
I think one of the things I realized is that I want to have a legitimate marriage (like, a Catholic one) someday** and if I’ve already been married, it kinda screws that up.
You've never noticed that even Catholics have second marriages? Do you know how they get around it? It's called "annullment." It's the legal recognition that, in reality, a marriage never existed.
If we called gay marriages a civil union, or some other name, then I wouldn’t have a problem ”marrying’ (with no big ceremony) my buddy to do him a favor and get him some good cheap healthcare (and make it cheaper for me too). Then, later on we can get divorced and even later I can really get married in a big ceremony and all that.
How about this - you get married to your buddy (with a prenup so he doesn't take your dirtbike in the divorce), you call it a "civil union" or whatever keeps your conscience clear, and then you forget all about it when you meet the future Mrs. Scientist. This way, you don't screw over thousands of gay couples for whom their gay marriage is a real marriage just to salve your dishonest conscience (and let's be realistic, marrying someone just for an insurance benefit is fairly dishonest.)
I don’t want to deny gay people rights but I do want to keep the definition of marriage.
Whose definition? When I got married, I made them take out the language that implied that marriage was only for a man and a woman, because that's not how I define marriage. I'm married to a woman, and we're the ones that define the terms of our marriage, not you. I find it rather arrogant of you to anoint yourself into the position of defining marriage for everybody else.
If you don't want to consider gay people married, that's fine. If you want to marry your buddy and not consider it your first marriage, that's fine. But your dishonest intentions shouldn't be an obstacle to the thousands of gay couples whose desire for committment and intimacy and legal protection constitute an actual, legitimate marriage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2006 10:56 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2006 1:57 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 62 by nator, posted 06-12-2006 5:20 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 243 (319111)
06-08-2006 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by arachnophilia
06-08-2006 1:11 PM


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.
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.
Its from how I look at marriage that one with a guy wouldn't be legitimate (WRT my religion) in the first place so I would have less of a problem with a bogus one. With a girl, if I entered a bogus marriage, it would have an affect on my later, legitimate marriage.
and if it is a real argument, it's a bad one.
This is most likely the case.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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?
Thats fine but can't we just leave the word marriage and its definition alone and accomplish the same thing by adding a new word?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 06-08-2006 1:11 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Heathen, posted 06-08-2006 2:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 06-08-2006 2:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 41 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2006 8:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 47 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-12-2006 10:42 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Mystery Man
Guest


Message 8 of 243 (319114)
06-08-2006 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by New Cat's Eye
06-08-2006 10:56 AM


I think one of the things I realized is that I want to have a legitimate marriage (like, a Catholic one) someday** and if I’ve already been married, it kinda screws that up. So, if we call gay marriages just marriages, then I can’t take advantage of the benefits without smudging my later legitimate marriage. If we called gay marriages a civil union, or some other name, then I wouldn’t have a problem ”marrying’ (with no big ceremony) my buddy to do him a favor and get him some good cheap healthcare (and make it cheaper for me too). Then, later on we can get divorced and even later I can really get married in a big ceremony and all that.
Wait... so wouldn't this be reason to call it marriage? Leaving aside the whole segregation-is-wrong thing*, you've just outlined why calling it marriage would keep you from exploiting the system. So calling it marriage solves the personal problem you have with the idea.
*(One would think this would be the primary concern, but here we are.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2006 10:56 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2006 2:03 PM You have not replied
 Message 16 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-08-2006 2:23 PM You have not replied

     
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 243 (319119)
06-08-2006 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by crashfrog
06-08-2006 1:18 PM


It comes from a simple thought that if we label gay marriage as marriage then I can ”marry’ my buddy so he can get in on my insurance plan while making it cheaper for me.
You mean, like you can with your girlfriend?
Yeah, but I never considered entering a bogus marriage with a girl. I think its because I don't want to belittle a legitimate marriage that I might have in the future. I don't care if its with a guy because it couldn't have been a legitimate marriage in the first place.
He can force you to have to divorce him. Without a prenup, maybe he takes your sweet dirtbike.
Yep, there'd have to be a pre-nup. At least if I kick his ass for taking my dirtbike I won't be looked down upon for hitting a girl.
You've never noticed that even Catholics have second marriages?
I attended a wedding that wasn't at a Catholic church because the groom was divorced and the priest wouldn't marry them. Maybe some other priest would have, but the ligitamacy comes from what I think about my marriage, not what other think.
Do you know how they get around it? It's called "annullment." It's the legal recognition that, in reality, a marriage never existed.
But it did exist. Even if it legally didn't exist, I would know that it did, really.
How about this - you get married to your buddy (with a prenup so he doesn't take your dirtbike in the divorce), you call it a "civil union" or whatever keeps your conscience clear, and then you forget all about it when you meet the future Mrs. Scientist. This way, you don't screw over thousands of gay couples for whom their gay marriage is a real marriage just to salve your dishonest conscience
But couldn't we use use a different word so I don't have to keep my conscience clear and forget all about it. I don't think we'd be screwing over thousands of gay couples by using a different word. The word means something to me, I don't want to change it.
(and let's be realistic, marrying someone just for an insurance benefit is fairly dishonest.)
I'd change that fairly to a very. Thats why I don't like the idea of opening up the possibility of me entering a bogus marriage. I wouldn't do it with a girl, but let me do it with a guy and I will, enter a bogus marriage that is. And yes I'd be being dishonest.
I'm married to a woman, and we're the ones that define the terms of our marriage, not you.
Is there some standard or minimal terms that are required? Can there be any terms for a marriage?
But your dishonest intentions shouldn't be an obstacle to the thousands of gay couples whose desire for committment and intimacy and legal protection constitute an actual, legitimate marriage.
Their desires for marriage create an obstacle for me, if they just used a different word I'd feel better about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 1:18 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Heathen, posted 06-08-2006 2:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 5:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 48 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-12-2006 10:44 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 243 (319121)
06-08-2006 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by rgb
06-08-2006 11:26 AM


But then again, some are just too busy hanging on to their hate that they don't mind being used as pawns.
This line makes me not want to reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by rgb, posted 06-08-2006 11:26 AM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by rgb, posted 06-08-2006 2:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 243 (319123)
06-08-2006 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Minnemooseus
06-08-2006 11:27 AM


Re: Civil Union vs. Marriage
The should be two seperate unions of a couple.
1) The civil union, a legal contract executed at your local courthouse. A religion's minister should not be acting as an agent of the government, and I know at least some ministers agree with such.
2) The religious marriage, a union in God's eyes.
A couple, be they hetrosexual or homosexual, may choose to do one or the other or both. But it would be the civil union that would define the legal status of the couple and how it affects their rights and obligations in society.
So if I got married then I'd have to get a civil union too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-08-2006 11:27 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-09-2006 2:51 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 33 by JavaMan, posted 06-09-2006 7:37 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 243 (319128)
06-08-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Mystery Man
06-08-2006 1:43 PM


I think one of the things I realized is that I want to have a legitimate marriage (like, a Catholic one) someday** and if I’ve already been married, it kinda screws that up. So, if we call gay marriages just marriages, then I can’t take advantage of the benefits without smudging my later legitimate marriage. If we called gay marriages a civil union, or some other name, then I wouldn’t have a problem ”marrying’ (with no big ceremony) my buddy to do him a favor and get him some good cheap healthcare (and make it cheaper for me too). Then, later on we can get divorced and even later I can really get married in a big ceremony and all that.
Wait... so wouldn't this be reason to call it marriage? Leaving aside the whole segregation-is-wrong thing*, you've just outlined why calling it marriage would keep you from exploiting the system. So calling it marriage solves the personal problem you have with the idea.
But what about the people who don't have a personal problem with it? They'd be bucking the system, I think we should try to prevent that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Mystery Man, posted 06-08-2006 1:43 PM Mystery Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-12-2006 10:51 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 13 of 243 (319130)
06-08-2006 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
06-08-2006 1:39 PM


catholic scientist writes:
Its from how I look at marriage that one with a guy wouldn't be legitimate (WRT my religion)
So can you explain why YOUR religion should be able to define MY marriage?
My marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2006 1:39 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 14 of 243 (319135)
06-08-2006 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
06-08-2006 1:57 PM


Catholic scientist writes:
I never considered ...I don't care if its with a guy ... but the ligitamacy comes from what I think about my marriage...Even if it legally didn't exist, I would know that it did...The word means something to me, I don't want to change it...
So.. you want to define thousands of other peoples loving, commited relationships based on your own self distrust? your own misgivings?
Sorry, but that really is the mnost mind bogglingly selfish thing I have ever heard.
you actually, perhaps unwittingly made a good point though..
catholic scientist writes:
but the ligitamacy comes from what I think about my marriage
Doesn't everyone else deserve this luxury?
Edited by Creavolution, : typo
Edited by Creavolution, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2006 1:57 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 243 (319137)
06-08-2006 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by New Cat's Eye
06-08-2006 1:59 PM


Catholic Scientist writes
quote:
This line makes me not want to reply.
While I agree that the words I used were a little harsh, I still maintain that it portrays the truth of the matter. The gay marriage issue comes up during every election time, let it be local or federal. It is nothing more than to draw out the religious right to the voting booths. "Vote for us or them gays are going to take over... Don't pay attention to any other issue, just vote for us or them gays..." The bill has absolutely no chance of getting through. And even if it gets through, it is still a bullshit issue.
The facts that the politicians are using this for political gain and the religious right don't seem to catch on that they're being used by their own representatives justify why I referred to them as pawns.
But seriously, if the gay marriage issue is such a valid and important issue, why not push for the amendment more? Why only bring it up during election months? Why present a bill that has no chance to make it into the constitution? Why not make it more presentable so that it could actually have a chance?
I don't have to support gay rights to see through all the bullshit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2006 1:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2006 3:11 PM rgb has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024