I was going to avoid this topic since I know it cannot be rationally discussed here, but I'm dumb enough to think maybe it can, so I'll expound on my previous statements a little.
If a civil union grants the exact same rights and benefits of marriage, then why must the definition of marriage be changed? We don't do that for other things and never have. The most glaring similar example is civil rights for the slaves. Black people didn't want to be called white, they simply wanted equal treatment (which is "supposedly" what the gay community wants here). Yet the gay and lesbian world is demanding that the term "marriage" be changed to suit them? That is exactly why this is an issue, as I said, the majority have no problems with approving civil unions and giving those civil unions the same treatment as marriages, but there is zero need to flip the term marriage upside down.
Apples and oranges are both fruit, but they are called by their respective names. Marriage and civil unions are both relationships, same as the fruit, but being different entities, they should have their own respective names.
Yeah, and how come only straight couples can make babies? Nature's nothing but a bigoted homophobe.
As to this comment, if anyone wants to "read into" what it says instead of what it actually says, then go with this:
"Mother nature is a bigot because gay and lesbian couples should be able to make babies and it's all her fault that they can't!"
Notice again how the word "marriage" never even comes into play.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
But Mad, the definition of marriage isn't being changed. It's "the holy union of two people that love each other". Or, if you're a cynic which seems to be the popular schtick nowadays, "two people merging into one taxable entity and also tentatively promising never to have sex with anyone else".
Last edited by Neato Torpedo on Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
Rocinante2: you know Rocinante2: its easy to dismiss the orioles as a bad team ofanrex: go on Rocinante2: i'm done Rocinante2: lmao
The definition of marriage has changed drastically over the years. In fact, the current definition that most people cite in opposition to gay marriage is less than 100 years old in the West and isn't even really accurate for much of the world. Language is dynamic, just about every word in the dictionary has changed in some way. "Marriage" isn't exempt from that, and shouldn't be.
Neato Torpedo wrote:But Mad, the definition of marriage isn't being changed. It's "the holy union of two people that love each other". Or, if you're a cynic which seems to be the popular schtick nowadays, "two people merging into one taxable entity and also tentatively promising never to have sex with anyone else".
Careful using the word "holy" in your argument. I won't say what God does or doesn't say on the matter, my stand has never been based on that, but there are a ton of people out there who will jump all over you if you think God supports gay relationships.
And the definition of marriage has always been specifically written as a man and a woman, not "two people".
knapplc wrote:Gosh Madison, I don't know - maybe because this thread is about gay MARRIAGE? Wow. What a leap.
Ok, so if I say President Obama's rights are being trampled because England has a Queen, so Obama's title really should be "King Obama", I'm saying Obama and the Queen of England should be married?
Makes about the same amount of sense as the leap a few others made.
Art Vandelay wrote:The definition of marriage has changed drastically over the years. In fact, the current definition that most people cite in opposition to gay marriage is less than 100 years old in the West and isn't even really accurate for much of the world. Language is dynamic, just about every word in the dictionary has changed in some way. "Marriage" isn't exempt from that, and shouldn't be.
Cool, so the next time we find a new fruit, insect, animal, virus, bacteria, or anything else, we'll just lump them in with existing things where they don't fit.
Brilliant!
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
knapplc wrote:Gosh Madison, I don't know - maybe because this thread is about gay MARRIAGE? Wow. What a leap.
Ok, so if I say President Obama's rights are being trampled because England has a Queen, so Obama's title really should be "King Obama", I'm saying Obama and the Queen of England should be married?
Makes about the same amount of sense as the leap a few others made.
You're right - you are unable to discuss this rationally. This has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing here. Nothing.
Let's try this again - in our Declaration of Independence we stated, "All men are created equal." Do you believe this? If not, why not?
Why can't gay men get married? How does this harm America? Simple question.
Art Vandelay wrote:The definition of marriage has changed drastically over the years. In fact, the current definition that most people cite in opposition to gay marriage is less than 100 years old in the West and isn't even really accurate for much of the world. Language is dynamic, just about every word in the dictionary has changed in some way. "Marriage" isn't exempt from that, and shouldn't be.
Agreed 1000%. Marriage is highly disposable these days, 50% end in divorce. Some people still look at it like it was 50-60 years ago - hopefully that generation will die off soon
Cafe bets 2010: W/j24jags - Oakland A's more wins then NYM W/mweir145 - Oakland A's more wins then TOR (hat-trick?)
Madison wrote:Cool, so the next time we find a new fruit, insect, animal, virus, bacteria, or anything else, we'll just lump them in with existing things where they don't fit.
Brilliant!
No, we lump them in with existing things where they do fit. If we find a new species of snail, it's still a snail. If we come up with a new form of marriage (well, not new, justly newly accepted), it's still marriage.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Madison » Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:47 am 
