The Strictly Same Sex Marriage Thread #2

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by fxashun

It's not only religious people that disagree with calling the same sex union "marriage". I'm pretty much agnostic, but I consider that word "sacred" in a way. And it should not be changed.

I'd have to say the vast majority of those against gay mariage are objecting on religious grounds, but it's not PC to say "My god says you're sinning so you have to stop" so there have to be secular arguments, most of which hold no water when met with common sense. Then there's another majority, those who are homophobic, and that's pretty much the same case. I'm not saying you're either, but what I am saying is that most of these arguments have sprung from irrational sources.

[fxashun]

We don't rely on homosexuality for anything. That's quite a wierd association. We've grown ears on the back of mice, but that doesn't mean we consider it normal. And even so, we have already acknowledged that homosexuality is "different" from "heterosexuality". Why can't their union be labelled differently too?

But homosexuals have also always been around. Nothing has changed among heterosexuals, homosexuals just want their union to be called the same as a heterosexual one.

You are right...And calling the homosexual version whatever you want, will not diminish its importance to those involved.

If it's in the name that matters, you must understand why it's so important for heterosexuals to want thier relationships differenciated from the "abnormal" homosexual one.

[fxashun]

What's irrational about considering homosexuality abnormal? Homosexuality doesn't make sense froma mechanical pont of view. Let alone when you look at our reproductive organs and how they function.
You don't have to be a homophobe to consider homosexuality just a bit different.

[jaaaman]

Originally Posted by fxashun

If it's in the name that matters, you must understand why it's so important for heterosexuals to want thier relationships differenciated from the "abnormal" homosexual one.

True... the homosexual relationship cannot be defined as 'marriage' in any state of that word. 'Marriage' is the cleaving of one man and one woman into one flesh... anything else is an abhorration.

[team_barlo]

Originally Posted by fxashun

It's not only religious people that disagree with calling the same sex union "marriage". I'm pretty much agnostic, but I consider that word "sacred" in a way. And it should not be changed.

You're entitled to that opinion. I see it as more of a "legal" term and think that it should not be used to discriminated against loving couples in a society where it is constitutionally illegal for the government to endorse religion.

What if we instead demanded that all couples married in houses of worship call their unions "holy matrimony" instead of "marriage" so that the word "marriage" can be used in it's true legal sense?

It's really the same thing just from the other point of view.

[tristanrobin]

Originally Posted by jaaaman

True... the homosexual relationship cannot be defined as 'marriage' in any state of that word. 'Marriage' is the cleaving of one man and one woman as one flesh... anything else is an abhorration.

horsefeathers

the word "marriage" and "married" are used in myriad ways...ever read the food descriptions in a good French restaurant?

I live in a state where civil unions are legal. When we had our civil union ceremony, everybody - EVERYBODY - our friends, our family, the justice of the peace (who presided), our minister, the mayor of our city and our city attorney who were present - EVERYBODY - used the words marriage, married, and wedding. Nobody offered their congratulations on our civil unionization - or wished us best of luck in our newly civil unionized life...or gave us a civil union gift. It's a marriage. Period.

To call it anything else is to rate it second rate - it's not equal.

Homosexuals are not the same thing as homosexuals - but they're EQUAL and should be treated as such by the government. Just as a man is not a woman, a black man is not an asian man, a Jew is not a Christian - but they're EQUAL.

There is a difference between something being the SAME and something being EQUAL

[Antithesis]

We don't rely on homosexuality for anything. That's quite a wierd association. We've grown ears on the back of mice, but that doesn't mean we consider it normal. And even so, we have already acknowledged that homosexuality is "different" from "heterosexuality". Why can't their union be labelled differently too?
We don't rely on a lot of abnormal things, but we don't label everything as "normal" or "abnormal" and judged it based on that worth. True, homosexuality is fundamentally different than heterosexuality, but it pretty much stops at the sexual level, which is completely irrelevant anyway. Two men having sex does not diminish from society. This is about two forms of the same condition, attraction between two human beings. Why should it be given a different legal label if it is almost exactly the same thing?

But homosexuals have also always been around. Nothing has changed among heterosexuals, homosexuals just want their union to be called the same as a heterosexual one.
Once again, why not? It won't be a detriment to society.

You are right...And calling the homosexual version whatever you want, will not diminish its importance to those involved.
Glad we agree. Wherever it comes from, marriage is a good thing provided it is done for the right reasons.

If it's in the name that matters, you must understand why it's so important for heterosexuals to want thier relationships differenciated from the "abnormal" homosexual one.
What I meant was that marriage is not marriage unless it is called marriage. Common law marriage exists as a de facto declaration of the sort, but it does not guarantee the same priviledges married couples have. In addition, unless full right to marry is granted, we cannot say that there is truly "equality."

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by fxashun

What's irrational about considering homosexuality abnormal? Homosexuality doesn't make sense froma mechanical pont of view. Let alone when you look at our reproductive organs and how they function.
You don't have to be a homophobe to consider homosexuality just a bit different.

I never said you were homophobic. In my eyes you seem rational enough to see past pointless prejudiced thinking.

As I said before, froma mechanical standpoint there are plenty of things we do to ourselves which does not conform with what was meant for our bodies. Still, aside from a sexual perspective, little is different in homosexual relationships. Families exist, love exists, partnership exists. It's a bond between two people, just like any other marriage.

[tristanrobin]

Originally Posted by fxashun

If it's in the name that matters, you must understand why it's so important for heterosexuals to want thier relationships differenciated from the "abnormal" homosexual one.

Do you feel there are other ways we should "differentiate" citizens? How about race? Religion? Nationality? Income?

Or is it only gay people that you believe should be marginalized?

[tristanrobin]

Originally Posted by fxashun

What's irrational about considering homosexuality abnormal? Homosexuality doesn't make sense froma mechanical pont of view. Let alone when you look at our reproductive organs and how they function.
You don't have to be a homophobe to consider homosexuality just a bit different.

Please explain which of these mechanical acts are performed by gay people that are not performed by straight people.

Or are you one of those people who believe that a man's anus and a woman's anus - or a man's mouth and a woman's mouth - are somehow unique?