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

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Burninator

When I am talking about being equal I am taking about rights.

No you're not. You're talking about sharing the same freaking label.

Originally Posted by Burninator

Denying them the label of marriage that everyone else seems to enjoy is being unequal and is not treating them the same as everyone else.

When a census form comes out and you have to pick a gender, there are two boxes. That does not denote inequality, it denotes the two genders are not interchangeable.
I think same sex marriage is not interchangeable with traditional marriage. That does not denote inequality any more than it does with gender.

You may think I have this belief because I'm a bad person that is just finding an outlet for my homophobia, I don't know, I care less. Just be intellectually honest about it.

Make your point if you have a point to make, but don't run around with a bunch of bull plop semantics about how my label, unlike any other labels society uses (including your distinction) carries this rejection of human rights.

[flip]

Originally Posted by Gozer

No you're not. You're talking about sharing the same freaking label.



When a census form comes out and you have to pick a gender, there are two boxes. That does not denote inequality, it denotes the two genders are not interchangeable.
I think same sex marriage is not interchangeable with traditional marriage. That does not denote inequality any more than it does with gender.

You may think I have this belief because I'm a bad person that is just finding an outlet for my homophobia, I don't know, I care less. Just be intellectually honest about it.

Make your point if you have a point to make, but don't run around with a bunch of bull plop semantics about how my label, unlike any other labels society uses (including your distinction) carries this rejection of human rights.

Please define traditional marriage?

Just between a man and woman? Now a days the definition of traditional marriage has been so watered down by divorce I'm not sure that adding homosexuals to it could damage it's reputation. You can't sully marriage by making it gay, it already has no respect as it is.(that's not a knock against gays, just saying if marriage is in the gutter already, there is nothing to defend.)

Also, we aren't talking about traditional marriage, we are just talking about marriage. The definition has changed. People with such archaic viewpoints such as yours, that marriage belongs to straight people somehow, is just ludicrous. Perhaps according to your personal definition of marriage gay people shouldn't be a part of it, fortunately the wider accepted definition of marriage has become that of a union between two people who love each other who plan to spend the rest of their lives together.

To me traditional marriage includes being able to beat your wife and that she is there to honor her husband. That definition has since evolved. It is evolving once again.

[maverickstruth]

I'm loathe to jump in here, but meh, what the heck.

Gozer, if you're interest is simply that of differentiation by use of language, would the following terminology be alright for you?

"Same-Sex Marriage"
and
"Opposite-Sex Marriage"

Those terms allow differentiation, just like you are aiming for. In fact, those terms are more or less the ones you used in your post -- although instead of "Opposite-Sex Marriage" you chose "Traditional Marriage", a term which is certainly much more debatable than simply calling it "Opposite-Sex Marriage".

Would that suit your need for differentiation? Or do you still object to the word marriage, even though the terms are clearly differentiated (in which case, I don't know how you can argue that your issue is with differentiation)?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by flip

People with such archaic viewpoints such as yours, that marriage belongs to straight people somehow, is just ludicrous. Perhaps according to your personal definition of marriage gay people shouldn't be a part of it, fortunately the wider accepted definition of marriage has now become that of a union between two people who love each other who plan to spend the rest of their lives together.

Fixed - I think that was a typo.

Fair enough. I have many views that are not broadly embraced. I respect that.

However, (a little off the current line of thinking) California first started issuing same-sex marriage licenses by the mayors order. The popular vote was not in favour of it, it had not been passed through the legal channels, and the supreme court unanimously renounced the right of the mayor to make such a decree. "Your" definition is not the universally accepted definition, and I'd appreciate it if that was kept in mind.

[flip]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Fixed - I think that was a typo.

Fair enough. I have many views that are not broadly embraced. I respect that.

However, (a little off the current line of thinking) California first started issuing same-sex marriage licenses by the mayors order. The popular vote was not in favour of it, it had not been passed through the legal channels, and the supreme court unanimously renounced the right of the mayor to make such a decree. "Your" definition is not the universally accepted definition, and I'd appreciate it if that was kept in mind.

That is probably true that my and the courts definitions aren't even the most common ones. and obviously you are entitled to your opinion, so long as it does not extend to being one of those asshats on tv that picket outside of city hall with pickets that say "fags go to hell" or something.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by maverickstruth

Gozer, if you're interest is simply that of differentiation by use of language, would the following terminology be alright for you?

"Same-Sex Marriage"
and
"Opposite-Sex Marriage"

Those terms allow differentiation, just like you are aiming for. In fact, those terms are more or less the ones you used in your post -- although instead of "Opposite-Sex Marriage" you chose "Traditional Marriage", a term which is certainly much more debatable than simply calling it "Opposite-Sex Marriage".

I would not embrace that. Two men joined in a happy and monogamous union should be celebrated and embraced, but it is not a marriage according to my (antiquated) views.

Why is the pro-gay marriage so quick to point out that marriage is already a mockery, historically scarred, and has lost its sanctity - and then demand that they want in on it? Why not define your own covenant and hold it to a higher standard?

Originally Posted by maverickstruth

...in [this] case, I don't know how you can argue that your issue is with differentiation?

I don't really understand what you mean.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by flip

...being one of those asshats on tv that picket outside of city hall with pickets that say "fags go to hell" or something.

I'll be chuckin' knuckles with you.

EDIT: As in ALONGSIDE you - I'll gladly join you punching those asshats. Not sure if that's how it came out.

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Why not define your own covenant ...?

That's what I just suggested -- that a gay couple be able to define their own union as "Same-Sex-Marriage", thereby adopting a new terminology which is only for same-sex unions. They would define it, and you could look it up in the dictionary, and it would be there under the "S"'s. A brand new term, just for these unions.

Put it another way. From what I understand, you're saying that you would be fine if they called their union "Waka-ma-zoo", because that would be a term that they adopted for their union. But what I'm asking you is -- could they call it "Waka-marriage-azoo"?

If you say they could call it "Waka-ma-zoo" but not "Waka-marriage-azoo" then I'd argue that your problem is not with differentiation, because there clearly is a difference between the words "marriage" and "waka-marriage-azoo". Very different words. Heck, take out the dashes, and they look almost nothing alike.

If you say they could call it "Waka-marriage-azoo" then why not "Same-Sex-Marriage"? It's still a term which is used solely for same sex unions, and which distinguishes it from any other form of marriage.

Does that make more sense?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Why is the pro-gay marriage so quick to point out that marriage is already a mockery, historically scarred, and has lost its sanctity - and then demand that they want in on it? Why not define your own covenant and hold it to a higher standard?

I've been wondering this the whole thread myself.

I think the reply will be "well if its so scared and useless, why would you care if we were in on it or not?"

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by maverickstruth

Does that make more sense?

I understand your question now.

It's not what I had in mind, but I'd be fine with it.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I understand your question now.

It's not what I had in mind, but I'd be fine with it.

And with that, I think this thread just reached a compromise!

[corporatejay]

People also seem to forget that "equality" doesn't necessarily mean treating everyone the same, but the Courts have maintained that it also means equal results, so sometimes that means treating people differently so that the outcome is the same.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

And with that, I think this thread just reached a compromise!

I doubt it.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I doubt it.

Well at least its ending better than every other gay marriage thread theres been.

[Azure]

I think lots of the old gay marriage threads got closed.

Too many bigots posting in it.

[frege64]

Hi all. Long time lurker, first time poster, and this thread is what impelled me out of the closet, so to speak.

I'm a gay man and have been married to my partner since August 2003. We did it in Ontario because at the time it was only legal there. It's been legal everywhere in Canada for 3 years now and we've been to same-sex weddings in Calgary and Toronto since our own.

Those of you debating same-sex marriage--even those in favour of it--seem to have forgotten that this is no longer a matter of theory or other what-ifs. It does not matter if you oppose it- there are straight posters on here whom I don't ever want to see married or to bear children but my opinion shouldn't matter a bit to them.

We're married. No debate on a web forum will change this.

But as to California- I saw a post a few pages ago about how Oilers would hilariously request trades to CA teams- okay, homophobia is indeed hilarious and accusing Oilers of being gay is just the epitome of wit, but shouldn't the joke be on anybody who doesn't even realise that same sex marriage has been legal here for years? It's as if everybody has forgotten this.

Second on Cali- don't be surprised if this whole thing is underdone by a referendum. I would not start partying yet.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by frege64

We're married. No debate on a web forum will change this.

We can't change the outcome of Flames games either, doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss how we see it.

[Gozer]

Also, welcome!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by frege64

We're married. No debate on a web forum will change this.

There are a lot of things on here that we can't 'change'...but still discuss.

I wasn't aware that anyone was even trying to 'change' this.

Frankly, it sounds like you just want people who 'oppose' it to shutup. If thats the case, you might want to check your attitude at the door.

I disagree with lots of people here....doesn't mean I don't want to still read what they have to say.

[DuffMan]

Myself and my wife were married by the late great Ed Whalen's wife Naomi. She is a JP, we did it at the Glenmore Inn, in a little atrium. Took about 15 minutes. No religion involved whatsoever as neither one of us are religious.
I'm just wondering if we should call it something different than marriage, if in fact marriage, is a religious term, under the eyes of God or whatever, thing.
Personally I'd have no problem calling it a civil union, if the religious feel that the tm rights to the term marriage.

and if gay people think getting married will make them happy, go for it.