Same Sex Marriage

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why do you need the state to legitamize the word when what the state does has nothing to do with most people's definition of marriage.

It's already legitimized. The term marriage is ingrained in our culture. It is not solely a religious term anymore. If you are for less government involvement than it is easier to allow everyone to use the term "marriage" than change the term for some or everyone.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Burninator

It's already legitimized. The term marriage is ingrained in our culture. It is not solely a religious term anymore. If you are for less government involvement than it is easier to allow everyone to use the term "marriage" than change the term for some or everyone.

But the term marriage we use is not the term the state uses. The state only presents legal entitlements and consequences. What the state lincense does is not marriage (Religeous or secular).

Marriage is a word that has some common general definitions in society but is uniquely defined by each person hence all of the conflict about it. Therefore since there is no agreed upon definition between all the groups in the democracy and the state has no benefit from using the word why should the state bother.

As well you are not changing the word marriage for anyone. Anyone can call themselves married. You are changing the name of a form and freeing everyone from the states definition.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by GGG

Anyone can call themselves married.

They can?

If they can, then why do we even have this thread?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

They can?

If they can, then why do we even have this thread?

That is my point. If the government didn't define the term marriage then anyone could call themselves married and we wouldn't have to have this thread.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by GGG

That is my point. If the government didn't define the term marriage then anyone could call themselves married and we wouldn't have to have this thread.

But aren't you "excluding" or "ignoring" a lot of other groups, parts of the debate, etc?

[driveway]

The delicious twisted irony of the whole situation is that, to generalize, people who oppose SSM consider themselves 'traditionalists' who believe very strongly in things like family values and the integrity of the institution of marriage, but then, a group of people who have been opposed, insulted, belittled, discriminated against and in a number of cases killed by these people of such strong values turn around and say "oh wait, despite being bigoted A-holes, this marriage thing of yours is a really, really good idea" these same bigoted A-holes freak right out.

Homosexuals want to buy into this deeply conservative principle, and conservatives are telling them no.

It's like rain on your wedding day.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

But aren't you "excluding" or "ignoring" a lot of other groups, parts of the debate, etc?

I'm not sure I follow. Who gets excluded if the state no longer marry's people.

The Religeous can still have their Marriage cermonies
Secular people can still have their Marriage Ceramonies
Gays and Lesbians (Secular or Religious) can have Marriage Ceramonies

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by GGG

I'm not sure I follow. Who gets excluded if the state no longer marry's people.

The Religeous can still have their Marriage cermonies
Secular people can still have their Marriage Ceramonies
Gays and Lesbians (Secular or Religious) can have Marriage Ceramonies

Marriage is about much more than just the wedding ceremony.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Marriage is about much more than just the wedding ceremony.

I realize that but you didn't answer my question to the poster of who gets excluded if the state stops defining marriage and just provides economic parterships or some other word for the states actual function.

The point is that once the government is out of the way anyone who believes that they have a marriage can consider themselves married. Why do we need the state to tell us that?

[driveway]

The issue is that the state needs some way to define a partnership which has legal ramifications - which is what 'marriage' is - and in every way that matters the word 'marriage' would be used to describe this partnership.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

My 7 wives and I...

wise acre

[GGG]

Originally Posted by driveway

The issue is that the state needs some way to define a partnership which has legal ramifications - which is what 'marriage' is - and in every way that matters the word 'marriage' would be used to describe this partnership.

But Marriage implies so many different things to so many different people that the state should use a different term. "Civil Union" would work fine and would separate it from the hot button word that marriage is.

You only need to look to the US to see why it is neccessary for the State to get out of the marriage buisness. You have referendums for constitutional definitions of the word designed to permanently descriminate against people. If these governments had just said we are not marrying anyone anymore they could have ended the debate and not disenfranchised people.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by GGG

But Marriage implies so many different things to so many different people that the state should use a different term. "Civil Union" would work fine and would separate it from the hot button word that marriage is.

So who then could use the term marriage?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So who then could use the term marriage?

Who can use the word Hippopotumus? It amounts to the same question

Anyone could use the term marriage because it would have no legal definition. The same as any other word in the english language it would have an ever evolving definition based on how people in society use it and a slightly different meaning for each individual.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So who then could use the term marriage?

Whoever wants to.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I disagree. You don't have the same rights if you are given a different title. I think an excellent way to look at this debate is to replace "gay" with some of sort previously oppressed minority, like "black".

Example:

I've also read alot lately of people voting YES automatically labelled as racists (by the losing side). This is not necessarily true. You can be for black rights and letting them have civil union but not "marriage".

I think the comparison of blacks and gays is fair because it has been shown that it is not as simple as being gay "is a choice" as some people state. In fact the science very much points in the other direction.

I think I agree with you (still pondering it).
But I think if you polled black people they would not think the fight is the same.

You would surely get the argument of "I can't change the colour of my skin but I could change my sexual preference, you know the expression a girl turning a guy gay or a guy turning a girl lesbian."

Sure those are fun jokes but I think alot of people need more education on this matter.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

Who can use the word Hippopotumus? It amounts to the same question

Anyone could use the term marriage because it would have no legal definition. The same as any other word in the english language it would have an ever evolving definition based on how people in society use it and a slightly different meaning for each individual.

Good points, here and in your previous posts.

I think the fundamental problem is the government being involved in the first place, and people being able to use the power THEY have, through the government to keep certain privileges or rights from other people they don't agree with.

Which is why the government shouldn't be involved.

[MarchHare]

Anyone could use the term marriage because it would have no legal definition.

Ok, so let's suppose the government stops issuing marriage licenses to anyone and only recognizes civil unions. What's the definition of a civil union? Could, for example, two college roommates enter a civil union for the economic benefits? Is there still an expectation that civil unions are intended to be lifelong bonds?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Ok, so let's suppose the government stops issuing marriage licenses to anyone and only recognizes civil unions. What's the definition of a civil union? Could, for example, two college roommates enter a civil union for the economic benefits? Is there still an expectation that civil unions are intended to be lifelong bonds?

Whatever you want it to be.

Civil union for economic benefits, civil union for this, that and the other thing.

[Ronald Pagan]

Circular arguments for the win.