I got this email today....(about gay rights)

[chcr]

You bring up the "church" definition of marriage, and I keep pointing out that I don't think that's the only accepted (or acceptable) definition. I bring up my personal case (and I don't understand why that bothers you so much) to personalize the difference in our views. Whether I believe marriage to be a right or priviledge is not cogent to this discussion. I completely understand the point you're making, Gato, I simply disagree in the strongest terms. And I'm still not limber enough to get my head anywhere near my butt (although admittedly it's not something I try frequently ).

 

[Gato_Solo]

You bring up the "church" definition of marriage, and I keep pointing out that I don't think that's the only accepted (or acceptable) definition. I bring up my personal case (and I don't understand why that bothers you so much) to personalize the difference in our views. Whether I believe marriage to be a right or priviledge is not cogent to this discussion. I completely understand the point you're making, Gato, I simply disagree in the strongest terms. And I'm still not limber enough to get my head anywhere near my butt (although admittedly it's not something I try frequently ).

The church definition of marriage was the only definition for at least 800 years. AFAIK, it hasn't changed. I'm sure that some dictionaries have allowed for a change to take place, but I haven't seen it yet. Perhaps your dictionary is from the future? Perhaps you're letting personal definitions drive your argument...(not very logical, eh?) T'is your right to disagree, though, no matter how much I believe that you are off base here.

 

[Gonz]

I'm adding this as a service from your friends at OTC. It is not intended nor should it be construed to be the only possible definition of marriage. No warranty, express or implied, is offered.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

 

[Gato_Solo]

So a same-sex marriage is not exactly a marriage, according to that definition. I'll highlight it for those who want to argue the point further...

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

Now...bring it on, and carefully note the word like

 

[chcr]

The church definition of marriage was the only definition for at least 800 years. AFAIK, it hasn't changed.

Accepted usage changes all the time. 800 years ago you couldn't divorce and certainly weren't allowed to re-marry. People still did. The real question is is this a good enough reason to deny same sex marriages. I say it's not. You have a different opinion, which is fine, but I'm going to continue to think that I'm right and you're wrong.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Accepted usage changes all the time. 800 years ago you couldn't divorce and certainly weren't allowed to re-marry. People still did. The real question is is this a good enough reason to deny same sex marriages. I say it's not. You have a different opinion, which is fine, but I'm going to continue to think that I'm right and you're wrong.

My 'job' isn't to make you think you're wrong. It's to make you think of alternatives.

1. When offered a suitable substitute for marriage, with the same rights and responsibilities, the gay community said 'no'. One question...why?

 

[Gonz]

*holds tongue*

where is that goddamed duct tape?????

 

[chcr]

1. When offered a suitable substitute for marriage, with the same rights and responsibilities, the gay community said 'no'. One question...why?

Semantics. Stupid reason, I agree. The part I don't understand is why anyone cares what they call it. If you accept thei lifestyle as a viable alternative lifestyle, you should let them call it marriage. If you don't, then say so. This is my opinion. You do make me think about my position, BTW. What you say reinforces it as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Semantics. Stupid reason, I agree. The part I don't understand is why anyone cares what they call it. If you accept thei lifestyle as a viable alternative lifestyle, you should let them call it marriage. If you don't, then say so. This is my opinion. You do make me think about my position, BTW. What you say reinforces it as far as I'm concerned.

My personal opinion on all this is this...Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman before God, in a church, and under the rules of the church. If a church will do same-sex marriages, then that is up to the church, whether I agree with it or not, as long as that church follows the guidelines set forth in their dogma. JP weddings, or unions by a judge, while nice and 'legal', by themselves are only a civil union. The rights and responsibilities are the same, but it's not a 'true' marriage. I'm absolutely sure that there will be disagreement on this, but it's my opinion.

 

[Gonz]

Semantics. Stupid reason, I agree. The part I don't understand is why anyone cares what they call it. If you accept thei lifestyle as a viable alternative lifestyle, you should let them call it marriage. If you don't, then say so. This is my opinion. You do make me think about my position, BTW. What you say reinforces it as far as I'm concerned.

If it ain't broke don't fix it?

 

[chcr]

If it ain't broke don't fix it?

But clearly someone thinks it is broke??

 

[Gonz]

Someone always thinks something is broke when it isn't. I too am a JP marriage. I'd have no compunction to them re-naming it to cilvil union which is clearly what it is. I cal it marriage for convenience.

Marriage is a ceremony meant to unite men & women to help stabilize society. Give the children of said ceremony legal standing. Strengthen the community. At this point in history homosexual "marriage" will do more damage than good.

 

[chcr]

My personal opinion on all this is this...Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman before God, in a church, and under the rules of the church. If a church will do same-sex marriages, then that is up to the church, whether I agree with it or not, as long as that church follows the guidelines set forth in their dogma. JP weddings, or unions by a judge, while nice and 'legal', by themselves are only a civil union. The rights and responsibilities are the same, but it's not a 'true' marriage. I'm absolutely sure that there will be disagreement on this, but it's my opinion.

Actually, I for one don't disagree. That's exactly what I'm talking about. These are your beliefs and you are entitled to have them. I, however, am entitled to call my "civil union" a marriage, while a gay couple is not (it's probably worthwhile to note that I don't care one way or another if mine is called a marriage or a civil union). This is the part I have a problem with. Again, this is simply my opinion, and it is unlikely that anything said here will have any effect on it.

 

[chcr]

Someone always thinks something is broke when it isn't. I too am a JP marriage. I'd have no compunction to them re-naming it to cilvil union which is clearly what it is. I cal it marriage for convenience.

Someone always thinks somethings broke and you think it isn't. Your opinion about it does not necessarily constitute absolute right or wrong.


As I mentioned before, I don't care if mine is called a marriage either but I promise my wife does. Clearly some members of the gay community feel like she does rather than like we do. Myself, I just want consistency.

 

[Gonz]

Someone always thinks somethings broke and you think it isn't. Your opinion about it does not necessarily constitute absolute right or wrong.

When I am the one writing the sentence I don't give a crap if others think I'm wrong. I putting forth MY opinion. They can put forth theirs.

 

[chcr]

When I am the one writing the sentence I don't give a crap if others think I'm wrong. I putting forth MY opinion. They can put forth theirs.

I was just being a smarty-pants.

 

[Gonz]

Well then, I should gave said ugh-huh, does too

 

[MrBishop]

I love toons!

 

[Thulsa Doom]

You know, twenty years from now any gay person who wants to be married will be able to and most people won't remember what the shouting was all about (or even that there was any shouting).

And thank god for that. Itll be nice when the last bastion of open discrimination is snuffed out and people are agast that our own government even tried to railroad through a constitutional amendment to discriminate against certain people.

Again, my biggest question is what is the BFD?

It seems to stem to one of two points of view from what Ive observed. Either "Because god says not to!" or "Because its just sick!" or a combination of the two.

Question: which church is the one that gets to decide what a marriage is?

 

[Gato_Solo]

Question: which church is the one that gets to decide what a marriage is?

Whichever church you happen to belong to...or whichever church you decide to get married in. Your question is not very enlightened, as there are churches that perform gay marriages...and I'll call those true marriages.