California legalizes gay marr... ZOMG!!!! MY EYES!!!!! IT BURNS!!!

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

But again I say, "marriage" is a heterosexual term.

This may be true in certain times and places, but it has never been universally true. Gay marriage was permitted in ancient Greece. Polygamy is permitted in many places.

[J pold]

I just have to point out this complete contradiction within the same post, it’s stunning

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Did you even read my post? I'm not breaching anyone's rights. This is a debate about the fundamental definition of marriage which in my opinion is a heterosexual union. Like I said in my previous post, the homosexual community needs to come up with their own term. Think Coke and Pepsi, essentially the exact same product, but you cannot work for both at the same time.

Using the term "marriage" to describe a union is a heterosexual term.

If they're gay, then it would be the same word as I have been alluding to. Its not meant to be derogatory.

Its not different in any way, shape, or form except for the title of the institution (ie, not marriage, but something else).

Marriage is a heterosexual term.

No problem, and they will be treated completely equal in their union that is not titled as a "marriage."

But again I say, "marriage" is a heterosexual term. I know plenty of very gay people that feel the same too


For the last time, I am not suggesting homosexuals be treated differently.

Here is the thing you fail to grasp making them use there own term for marriage is treating them differently, it only separates them from the rest of society. When in most cases all they want to do is fit in with everyone else and not have and to labeled different because of who they choose to love

Marriage is not a heterosexual term it not a homosexual term either, it’s an expression of love and union, everyone should have the right to it

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by Gozer

The N word.

You've argued over its definition?? Did you tell some rapper not to use it because it was derogatory?

"Hey Tupac, that is a Caucasian word that we use to degrade you. It's traditional definition is one of exclusion. By using it to refer to yourself and your friends you're changing the definition to be inclusive, to refer to your community. That is wrong"

Originally Posted by Gozer

I don't see calling homosexual unions "marriage" a right. Rights are bestowed upon individuals, not communities.

Sooo... the right to be married can be bestowed upon two gay individuals... but if they whole community wants to it's not ok?? I don't really understand what you're trying to say with this, sorry.

Originally Posted by Gozer

You have the right to marry, not marry, and/or enter into any other union you please.

There is no "any other union". You're trying to create one for a group that is different from you. YOU are adding the AND/OR where there is no need for one.

[flip]

Originally Posted by J pold

I just have to point out this complete contradiction within the same post, it’s stunning

Here is the thing you fail to grasp making them use there own term for marriage is treating them differently, it only separates them from the rest of society. When in most cases all they want to do is fit in with everyone else and not have and to labeled different because of who they choose to love

Marriage is not a heterosexual term it not a homosexual term either, it’s on expression of love and union, everyone should have the right to it

Agreed. Just because heterosexual's were the first one's to use the term marriage does not mean they are entitled to it for the rest of time.

the English language is always evolving and the definition of words can change or evolve, just as the term marriage is now doing.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by troutman

This may be true in certain times and places, but it has never been universally true. Gay marriage was permitted in ancient Greece. Polygamy is permitted in many places.

Quoted since people seem to miss this point in the debate.

I mean isn't this debate mainly just religious people trying to keep gay culture, gay people and now this massive threat of gay marriage at bay?

We know that traditionally a great number of religious leaders even in the modern day US have suggested capital punishment for gays.

If people could open up to the fact marriage is a word, a word that has evolved and has had many different meanings to many different peoples and cultures.

That this debate is not about the term marriage, but the fact religious people by their beliefs think gays shouldn't be gay, and that its wrong to be gay and it angers their god.

Its like the debate over the word is the 'nice' way to fight against Gays gaining any further rights or more importantly acceptance into the mainstream culture. Since a great deal of the religious crowd are fearful of gay people, their culture, and influence on society.

It doesn't take much imagination to see parallels to other groups singled out for various reasons throughout history, this debate just hides its true obvious reasons behind semantics.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Frankster

Marriage is not religious. It is something allowed by the state.

I do not agree with that.

That is not to say I disagree with what you said, you stated fact.

I think marriage should be disregarded by the state and be a function of religion. Following that logic, perhaps I should support same sex marriages by the state and oppose them religiously...hmmmmm *off to reflect*

[LChoy]

a quick aside, I find it quite neat that a hockey forum based out of Calgary, has this many people commenting in favour of gay marriage. From an outside perspective and based on stereotype, I figured it would be almost 50/50 or more against it based on the medium and from Alberta. bravo CP

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by J pold

I just have to point out this complete contradiction within the same post, it’s stunning

For the last time, I am not suggesting homosexuals be treated differently.

I even edited this to quote myself, to point out that you obviously didn't actually read my post but instead looked for the first snippet of a chance of rebuttle. And while it wasnt bad (I do agree with some, and I'll get to that in a minute,) I must add the quotes that you forgot to:

If they're gay, then it would be the same word as I have been alluding to. Its not meant to be derogatory.

Its not different in any way, shape, or form except for the title of the institution (ie, not marriage, but something else).

No problem, and they will be treated completely equal in their union that is not titled as a "marriage."

Originally Posted by Jpold

Here is the thing you fail to grasp making them use there own term for marriage is treating them differently, it only separates them from the rest of society. When in most cases all they want to do is fit in with everyone else and not have and to labeled different because of who they choose to love

If black people wanted to be called white people, there is no way it would fly. If we all decided that the colors were wrong and blue was suddenly green, it doesn't work. Again I say, there has to be at some point a label to distinguish one from another, and boundaries to detail said.

Again I say, its not meant to be derogatory.

Marriage is not a heterosexual term it not a homosexual term either, it’s on expression of love and union, everyone should have the right to it.

As much as I don't agree, I really respect this last passage a lot. I wish my own shortcomings didn't blind me as much as they do sometimes.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

If it's all about the "traditional" meaning of the word "marriage", I guess us women should go back to becoming our husband's property and only being chosen for marriage because some guy wanted my large dowry and I should get back into the kitchen and make him some dinner. Because that was the original definition of marriage, was it not? But that changed, so why can't it change to include the marriage between two people of the same sex?

Wisdom finally prevails!!! I can't wait to let the Mrs. know!

The government should not be in the business of ratifying marriages, whether they are same sex or not. To the government, the only concerns should be how to tax one person, a couple, and a family, and how to provide benefits to them. Governments should recognize civil unions only.

If a couple choses to further recognize their partnership under the guidelines of a religious institution, and they meet the requirements of that institution, then call it a marriage, call it a chili-dog, call it whatever you must. Being married should change nothing in the government's eyes. This isn't meant to stop the fighting about gay marriages, but it does give everyone an outlet to exercise their beliefs. All you need to do is find the religious institution (or start one) that matches your belief.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Homosexuals want equal rights as heterosexuals. And that is a two way street.

Exactly. They want the same right you do. Just like you want the same rights they do. That's equality. Everyone has the same rights.

They have an equal right to marriage as I have an equal right to upholding the traditional definition of marriage.

You are looking to deny a right to someone else. You both have the right to free speech. You both have the right to marry. If you say - "I have the right to prevent your free speech" - then you aren't talking about equal rights anymore. Ditto for the right to marry.

Nobody is taking advantage of homosexuals.

Really? After an entire thread about how they shouldn't be allowed to use the word "marriage" to describe their marriages.

While I agree things change over time, others do not. Maybe Christmas becomes international gift giving day, the tooth fairy deemed a pedophile, and we have our New Years in Feb just so we don't piss off the Chinese? What the eff is this passage about?

First - relax. We're just talking here. No need to get angry.

The passage was addressing the argument that homosexuals shouldn't use the word "marriage" because traditionally they haven't been allowed to. Just like traditionally white people could own black slaves, and traditionally it was ok for 9 year olds to get jobs. My point is that society changes with time and in this case "traditional values" don't hold much water when applied to modern day problems.

I'm not breaching anyone's rights. This is a debate about the fundamental definition of marriage which in my opinion is a heterosexual union. Like I said in my previous post, the homosexual community needs to come up with their own term.

By saying gays need to come up with their own term, you are saying they don't have the right to use the word "marriage". My argument is that gays have just as much right as heterosexuals to use it - we live in a society where people are treated equally. If you told someone they couldn't play for the Flames because they were gay, or that they couldn't sit in the front of the bus before they were gay, it would be discrimination. Why is the ability to use the word marriage any different?

If there was a cadre of people saying "Albertans can't use the word "marriage" to describe their uinions", wouldn't you feel discriminated against?

I believe that homosexuals, the homosexual community, trans-gendered people, and almost anything else most especially deserve equal rights, in Canada, in 2008.

I completely agree.

Using the term "marriage" to describe a union is a heterosexual term.

Says you. I think it describes anyone who wants to enter a union with their partner. If you are going to start pointing out groups and saying they can't use it (be they White, black, short, Oiler fans, or gay) then you are discriminating.

What would happen if the next rally call was we couldn't call them gay? At some point there has to be labels and boundaries!

What would happen if the next rally call was that we couldn't call black people the N word?

If they're gay, then it would be the same word as I have been alluding to. Its not meant to be derogatory. Its not different in any way, shape, or form except for the title of the institution (ie, not marriage, but something else).

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here.

Marriage is a heterosexual term.

Why? Because you say so? Sorry, but you don't get to treat people differently just because you feel like it, and then claim you aren't discriminating against them.

Besides, is pretty clearly isn't a heterosexual term at this point. And California, just agreed with me.

In Canada we don't profile by race or sexual orientation. We also don't blurr the lines of common sense to appease minorities, although we tend to fail miserably in this regard.

That is exactly what you are doing - you want to prevent a group of people from using a term precisely because they are different.

No problem, and they will be treated completely equal in their union that is not titled as a "marriage."

I have yet to hear a reason that holds any water why every couple in Canada shouldn't be afforded the right to describe their union as equal to every other. Marriage is what it is, and marriage is what it should be called.

I agree, which is why in Canada we allow legally recognized bonds between two persons of the same gender. It gives them all the rights and privileges of traditionally defined heterosexual marriage.

Which is why it should be called "marriage". If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

For the last time, I am not suggesting homosexuals be treated differently.

Yes you are. You don't think they should be allowed to use the word "marriage" to describe their unions. That is treating them differently than everybody else.

And before anyone acuses me of any kind of bigotry, I lived for a year in the gay nexus of Canada (Jarvis and Gerard St. in Toronto)...

But again I say, "marriage" is a heterosexual term. I know plenty of very gay people that feel the same too.

I'll go back to my original post. If one doesn't support the idea of gay marriage, it means one doesn't support equal rights. That means one wants to discriminate against a group of people (i.e. they shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else - the right to use the word "marriage" for example). If one discriminates, that makes one a bigot.

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by Thor

If people could open up to the fact marriage is a word, a word that has evolved and has had many different meanings to many different peoples and cultures.

That this debate is not about the term marriage, but the fact religious people by their beliefs think gays shouldn't be gay, and that its wrong to be gay and it angers their god.

Its like the debate over the word is the 'nice' way to fight against Gays gaining any further rights or more importantly acceptance into the mainstream culture. Since a great deal of the religious crowd are fearful of gay people, their culture, and influence on society.

It doesn't take much imagination to see parallels to other groups singled out for various reasons throughout history, this debate just hides its true obvious reasons behind semantics.

THANK YOU.

This is what I was trying to say, only more eloquent and not as confrontational as I put it.

There is just no way that this "fight" is really over the use of a word.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by troutman

This may be true in certain times and places, but it has never been universally true. Gay marriage was permitted in ancient Greece. Polygamy is permitted in many places.

But we don't allow Polygamy and this isn't ancient Greece. This could actually be an argument going the other way could it not? Seeing as how forward thinking and modern the gay movement is.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

You've argued over its definition?? Did you tell some rapper not to use it because it was derogatory?

"Hey Tupac, that is a Caucasian word that we use to degrade you. It's traditional definition is one of exclusion. By using it to refer to yourself and your friends you're changing the definition to be inclusive, to refer to your community. That is wrong"

Something like that. I'm not going to get into it here.

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

Sooo... the right to be married can be bestowed upon two gay individuals... but if they whole community wants to it's not ok?? I don't really understand what you're trying to say with this, sorry.

Holy strawman batman!

An individual has the right to marry. I define marriage as hetrosexual.

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

There is no "any other union". You're trying to create one for a group that is different from you. YOU are adding the AND/OR where there is no need for one.

That is an opinion you have every right to hold. It is increasing in popularity and I will be in the minority soon (if not already). However, I will effort to permit neither the swing in acceptance ahead of me nor the hate-mongering behind me to change my mind.

[flip]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I do not agree with that.

That is not to say I disagree with what you said, you stated fact.

I think marriage should be disregarded by the state and be a function of religion. Following that logic, perhaps I should support same sex marriages by the state and oppose them religiously...hmmmmm *off to reflect*

Just to clear up your statement/confusion, technically religious marriage has nothing to do with the state.

If the RC church decided tomorrow it wanted to start marrying people it could. But that doesn't mean that they could go down to city hall and get a marriage license.

You can get married at anytime to anyone, anywhere by a Church but that is not the discussion here.

We are talking about the legally accepted union here as is recognized by the government, that and religious marriage are two totally different things.

Religious marriage is much different that legal marriage. If gay marriage is legal the state must give two homosexuals their marriage license, but the RC Church, or any other church for that matter, does not have to marry them in their church. One is a legal term the other is a symbolic term we are discussing the former.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Which is why it should be called "marriage". If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

Well, Geese and Penguins aren't ducks....

Yes you are. You don't think they should be allowed to use the word "marriage" to describe their unions. That is treating them differently than everybody else.

Not treating. Identifying. Huge difference.

When I see a gay man, I see a man. When I see a gay "marriage", I see something else.

I'll go back to my original post. If one doesn't support the idea of gay marriage, it means one doesn't support equal rights. That means one wants to discriminate against a group of people (i.e. they shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else - the right to use the word "marriage" for example). If one discriminates, that makes one a bigot.

What if I said I want the right to use the N-word?

Actually, you're a very good debater. Enjoying this thoroughly. Hope theres no personal offense here.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

But we don't allow Polygamy and this isn't ancient Greece. This could actually be an argument going the other way could it not? Seeing as how forward thinking and modern the gay movement is.

So your argument is that not only is the term Marriage only a religious term, but that its the definition of only your religion or the dominant religion of North America?

There are religions that define Marriage as Polygamy, even today. Yes we have Marriage in a few countries and states now that state Marriage is between man/woman, woman/woman, man/man.

Isn't the point you and others against Gay Marriage that its against your specific beliefs? and if so, then do you not support minority rights?

See there are people who do not share you views, not just Gays but many others who don't share your beliefs. We've already covered the word Marriage is not 'owned' by Religion or their creation/invention.

Its a term that describes the union of 2 people.

Which you want only to mean a union that supports your religious beliefs, and not for anyone else even if they don't share your views or beliefs.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

But we don't allow Polygamy and this isn't ancient Greece. This could actually be an argument going the other way could it not? Seeing as how forward thinking and modern the gay movement is.

Really, why do you care? What possible effect could some gay people calling their relationship a "marriage" have on you? How does it negatively affect you if they use this word?

It sure as hell doesn't affect me. It doesn't do anything to me. They changed the law a few years ago now and nothing changed. Nothing at all. What changed for you?

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Gozer

However, I will effort to permit neither the swing in acceptance ahead of me nor the hate-mongering behind me to change my mind.

Well at least you are keeping an open mind!

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

But your "equal right" by definition requires inequality. Their's doesn't. The gay community wants something the straight community has. People like you don't want them to have it. You WANT inequality. They WANT equality.

I see it as encroachment, bordering on vengefulness against the community that has ostracized them for eons. I would argue a primary motivator the homosexual community is making a huge deal about this is about sticking to the "straight man". I am not defending their plight, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Are any of those realistic outcomes? Are you sincerely actually worried about any of that? If not - who cares.

Well, we did ban Christmas plays for festival season celebrations in schools.

But why? Why do you care? It's just a frickin word. It has NO impact on you. Fart - make up your own new word for straight marriage and you can have that one. Win-win.

If the heterosexual community came up with a new word for marriage, especially after the homosexual community put up such a stink over being able to use it, I would gladly and readily adopt it. Hell, I might even anyway...

Does there? Why? Can't we just try to continually improve?

Of course we can, but we need some sense of identification and boundary. Not everything in life can be ambiguous.

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Something like that. I'm not going to get into it here.

Fair enough, though I must admit my curiosity is getting the better of me!

The N-word is another example of a word evolving as society changed. While it can still be hurtful in certain circumstances, it can now be an inclusive word to mean a community of friends.

Do you see how this mystery word for "gay marriage" that you are proposing is basically just another form of the N-word (as it was used it the past)? It excludes. It lumps a group together for no reason other than to define them as different.

Originally Posted by Gozer

Holy strawman batman!

An individual has the right to marry. I define marriage as hetrosexual.

The "strawman" was me trying to understand what you were saying.

I don't see calling homosexual unions "marriage" a right. Rights are bestowed upon individuals, not communities.

What does this mean? If rights are bestowed upon individuals, why not gay individuals? I don't understand how the fact that there are a group of individuals (a community) asking for the right makes it any different than an individual?

Originally Posted by Gozer

That is an opinion you have every right to hold. It is increasing in popularity and I will be in the minority soon (if not already). However, I will effort to permit neither the swing in acceptance ahead of me nor the hate-mongering behind me to change my mind.

I'd say you are in the minority already, and as someone else pointed out the fact that a Albertan-male dominated message board is against you doesn't bode well for your "side".

I respect that your values are so firmly rooted, but you don't have to yield to either the "swing in acceptance" or the "hate-mongering behind you" to change your mind. All you have do is learn to love every man and woman on this planet as you love yourself. And that is not a religious message at all.