Trouble in paradise

"Marry" is a verb, as in "Joe and Jill married yesterday". -of their own free wills. To say they "got married" is to say something was done to them, and they acquiesced.
-paraphrased from Ambrose Bierce, "Write It Right"
As far as gays go, they can marry (bond, weld together, ...whatever) without our approval, or that of church and/or state. I think that what they want is legal rights, so why not let 'em have them? The founder and head of the FBI had a "partner" for decades, to whom he left all his $ and property when he died. When the partner died, he was buried next to him. Were they really gay, or just good friends? I don't know or care. They had all the legal rights of a married couple, so why shouldn't any other "partnership"? Much ado about nothing...
 
To marry is to inseparably join two dissimilar items.
Click to expand...

Like joining a blond girl named Sue from Jersey with a brunette named Jill from Idaho.

See, playing semantics doesn't help justify denying people rights. Mind your own business and worry about your own marriage. Maybe you won't be causing people you care about pain then.
 
"inseparably join"??

Have ye checked the divorce rates? Marriage is very important- it's got to last until the ink is dry on the divorce papers.

As my GF says, "I think, therefore, I'm single".
 
It's root form doesn't talk about uniting objects, or that it's permanent or even that the things have to be dissimilar. We've gone through this before.

Marier - French
Maritus - Latin
v. to marry. - to be provided with a spouse. Point finale.

The more modern versions of the definition allow 'things' to be married, but they don't have to be dissimilar, nor permanent. You can 'marry' two ends of a rope, you can be 'married to your job'
 
spike said:
Like joining a blond girl named Sue from Jersey with a brunette named Jill from Idaho.

See, playing semantics doesn't help justify denying people rights. Mind your own business and worry about your own marriage. Maybe you won't be causing people you care about pain then.
Click to expand...

How about Gerald Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzgerald?
 
JTP said:
"Marry" is a verb, as in "Joe and Jill married yesterday". -of their own free wills. To say they "got married" is to say something was done to them, and they acquiesced.
-paraphrased from Ambrose Bierce, "Write It Right"
As far as gays go, they can marry (bond, weld together, ...whatever) without our approval, or that of church and/or state. I think that what they want is legal rights, so why not let 'em have them? The founder and head of the FBI had a "partner" for decades, to whom he left all his $ and property when he died. When the partner died, he was buried next to him. Were they really gay, or just good friends? I don't know or care. They had all the legal rights of a married couple, so why shouldn't any other "partnership"? Much ado about nothing...
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I don't see how having the same legal rights as an opposite-sex couple is "asking for more". As long as they don't expect any sort of preferential treatment (*cough*Affirmative Action*cough* - the most blatantly unconstitutional program in decades), I don't have a problem with Joe marrying Steve and getting all the same legal benefits and responsibilities as if he had married Susan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top