Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

That is a side effect, we are also married to one another, have made vows to one another, declared our love for one another before the people that matter in our lives, do you understand why that was important to us, why it would be equally so for a same sex couple who love as we do? Why should they be denied that, excluded that ability to marry?

Presently, homosexuals aren't prohibited from doing any of that. At all. They're denied the legal standing of it.

So give them the right to marry, called 'marriage' under law. Done. If a church or denomination feels that it does not want to marry gays in it's version of marriage, I support their right to make that choice.

 cincydooley wrote:

Why change the word? AGAIN, it does not belong to those claiming ownership of it, why should the rest of the world surrender the rights to use a word, to hold a concept because a vocal minority claim sole dominion? You want a special word to differentiate yourselves from everyone else, go get one.

No one would be surrendering any of those rights. It would actually be removing the word from having any legal bearing. That's it.

Why bother, keep the word, it's the correct, wide auspice term for the ceremony. Again, give gays the right to fully marry in the eyes of the law and in the use of the word. If an individual church or denomination of a religion... see above answer.

 cincydooley wrote:

Give everyone, regardless of gender, the right to marry, using the damned word just as it is now and stop kowtowing to a vocal minority's daft seeking to claim ownership of a common usage word. Stop needlessly hanking to a group that is still, regardless of their complaining, entitled to have their own version of marriage in their own churches, just not entitled to claim the entire word and it's concept by default.

Everyone is equally permitted to use the word right now, if, by your definition, the "important" parts of being married are, "hav[ing] made vows to one another, declared our love for one another before the people that matter in our lives."

I'm arguing that the "important" part of the word is the legal protection and rights the contract of marriage provides.

I'm arguing that the whole package being altered, on the demands of a minority, is a prejudicial and discriminatory way of legislating against another minority, we give the gays the same rights as everyone else and we all use the word marriage, because that's the word we all use, if a group has a problem with that, it is free to devise a new word or combination of specific words to identify why it's marriages are special and need to not be associated with the gays marriages or anyone elses.

 cincydooley wrote:

You say you're a libertarian, right? So that means you'd be about privitization, right?
Privitize the word "marriage" since thats where all the arguments seem to stem from. Remove any legal basis from it. Call them all civil union contracts and allow people to use marriage however they see fit, since, from your arguments, it's the " vows made to one another, [and] declar[ing] our love for one another before the people that matter in our lives" thats really the important part.
Right

As a True Libertarian, I believe in the necessity of a government of a nation, but wish it to remain small, so, for example, I think it should stick to the necessities of providing a basic healthcare, education, military, legislature and ensuring a basic standard of living for it's citizens. It certainly has no place enforcing the will of a religious minority, for example.

Again, given another 20 years, this conversation will be a matter of historical footnote as I've spoken with young folks from across the political spectrum and they have a much better understanding and tolerance of sexuality and the rights of homosexuals to equality.

All this too shall pass, and in the direction I believe to be the fair one.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Why bother, keep the word, it's the correct, wide auspice term for the ceremony. Again, give gays the right to fully marry in the eyes of the law and in the use of the word. If an individual church or denomination of a religion... see above answer.

What about people that don't care about the ceremony at all, nor have any desire to be associated with the 'institution of marriage' as a title?

I'm arguing that the whole package being altered, on the demands of a minority, is a prejudicial and discriminatory way of legislating against another minority, we give the gays the same rights as everyone else and we all use the word marriage, because that's the word we all use, if a group has a problem with that, it is free to devise a new word or combination of specific words to identify why it's marriages are special and need to not be associated with the gays marriages or anyone elses.

Again, we don't all use it. Plenty of people refer to their spouse as their partner. Many people gain legal status through civil unions without a single associate of marriage or ceremony. If you're arguing that the "whole package [be] altered" why not completely alter it to remove any of that association with marriage?

As a True Libertarian, I believe in the necessity of a government of a nation, but wish it to remain small, so, for example, I think it should stick to the necessities of providing a basic healthcare, education, military, legislature and ensuring a basic standard of living for it's citizens. It certainly has no place enforcing the will of a religious minority, for example.

Again, given another 20 years, this conversation will be a matter of historical footnote as I've spoken with young folks from across the political spectrum and they have a much better understanding and tolerance of sexuality and the rights of homosexuals to equality.

All this too shall pass, and in the direction I believe to be the fair one.

As a "true libertarian," you should be fine with the privitization of marriage ceremonies and the disassociation with the term marriage from anything legally binding, since what a marriage is, as you've already established, is a very personal thing.

I'm comparatively young (30). I have plenty of understanding and tolerance of sexuality. I sang in an a capella group in college with gay men that attended my wedding, and continue to be friends with gay people. So please, don't condescend to me and pretend you know where my tolerances and acceptance lie.

They should be allowed the same protection under the law as ANYONE else. A marriage, legally, is a contract entered in by two consenting adults that affords them some protections under said law. All that ceremony bs that we do, and that you seem to think defines "marriage," has no legal bearing. Separate them. Make civil unions the norm.

I mean, if you're actually concerned, like I am, with granting people equal protection under the law...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

So give them the right to marry, called 'marriage' under law. Done. If a church or denomination feels that it does not want to marry gays in it's version of marriage, I support their right to make that choice.

I'll pull a Killkrazy here:

So give them the right to engage in a civil union, called a civil union under law. Done. If a church or denomination or cult or coven or druid circle feels that it does not want to Perform Marriage Ceremonies completely free of how it affects the couples legal protection, I support their right to make that choice.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, I'm trying to figure out what you actually care about. I care about people getting equal protection under the law. You seem more concerned with some vendetta against religion and their "claiming" of the word marriage.

The word marriage is just as important to Gay couples as the legal rights, because if they could only have civil unions and not marriages than the same people that are against same sex marriages can still marginalize same sex couples because a civil union is not a real marriage. Gay couples want to have equal rights across the board and that also includes giving them the right to say they are married and not bonded in a civil union

Words matter, and is why a Civil Union doesn't have the same resonance or connotation as Married.

Getting married is a serious, publicly made commitment letting the community know you are a devoted couple.

Having a Civil Union is like getting the title to your car.

You aren't going to get goverments at multiple levels and thousands of jurisdictions, not to mention all the private sector contracts that use the term, to all abandon the term marraige. It's not practical, and simply will not happen.

Suggesting that we seperate out religious marriage from legal union isn't necessarily a terrible idea, but it's way to late.

From where I stand, it's a small and shrinking minority that seems to defined marriage as to preclude same sex couples. Why should everybody else change? Plenty of religous groups adopt their own terms for marriages they bless. Catholics call it the sacrament of matrimony, and plenty of christians have more restrictive clasues and terms on what they call marriage.

Marriage has religious significance, but it has always had profound cultural significance outsdie of religion.

 kronk wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I call bs.
There's nothing ilegal about declaring you're married, having a ceremony and dancing the babushka. Depending on the partner(s) it may not be recognized are far as contractual rights.

But you can still say you're married.

What is desired is all the contractual legal rights. Fine by me but don't fart and call it roses.

I do declare that Frazz and Ouze are married!

I don't think Bulldog men and Daschund men ever really work out together, but I do like smoked meats and Tex-Mex. I'll try to make it work.

 Ahtman wrote:
Words matter, and is why a Civil Union doesn't have the same resonance or connotation as Married.

Getting married is a serious, publicly made commitment letting the community know you are a devoted couple.

Having a Civil Union is like getting the title to your car.

Hey what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas!

Alpha 1 wrote:
The word marriage is just as important to Gay couples as the legal rights, because if they could only have civil unions and not marriages than the same people that are against same sex marriages can still marginalize same sex couples because a civil union is not a real marriage. Gay couples want to have equal rights across the board and that also includes giving them the right to say they are married and not bonded in a civil union

So what is a "real" marriage?

As I've said before: Abolish the legal status of all marriages and, again legally, make them all civil unions in the eyes of the law. Your civil union grants to you your legal protection and obligations.

Then allow the marriage part of it happen on a private level, as it already does in the instance of most marriage ceremonies.

Literally no one loses in this situation. No one.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Words matter, and is why a Civil Union doesn't have the same resonance or connotation as Married.

Getting married is a serious, publicly made commitment letting the community know you are a devoted couple.

Having a Civil Union is like getting the title to your car.

Hey what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas!

I don't think Bulldog men and Daschund men ever really work out together, but I do like smoked meats and Tex-Mex. I'll try to make it work.

Rodney the wiener dog is whispering in my ear that he will volunteer to see if smoked sausage and queso is as good as it he thinks it is.

 Polonius wrote:
You aren't going to get goverments at multiple levels and thousands of jurisdictions, not to mention all the private sector contracts that use the term, to all abandon the term marraige. It's not practical, and simply will not happen.

I mean, this may be a stretch, but it couldn't be that different from how we changed all the verbiage post segretation in the 60s, could it?

Make it easier. Over time remove the word "marriage" from all documents. Power Point is not that hard to over come. Neither is Word...Form Filler...

 cincydooley wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Why bother, keep the word, it's the correct, wide auspice term for the ceremony. Again, give gays the right to fully marry in the eyes of the law and in the use of the word. If an individual church or denomination of a religion... see above answer.

What about people that don't care about the ceremony at all, nor have any desire to be associated with the 'institution of marriage' as a title?

What about them? Let them have what they want as well, nothing about the call for inclusion precludes those who wish exclusion. Let them have their ceremony as well.

 cincydooley wrote:

I'm arguing that the whole package being altered, on the demands of a minority, is a prejudicial and discriminatory way of legislating against another minority, we give the gays the same rights as everyone else and we all use the word marriage, because that's the word we all use, if a group has a problem with that, it is free to devise a new word or combination of specific words to identify why it's marriages are special and need to not be associated with the gays marriages or anyone elses.

Again, we don't all use it. Plenty of people refer to their spouse as their partner. Many people gain legal status through civil unions without a single associate of marriage or ceremony. If you're arguing that the "whole package [be] altered" why not completely alter it to remove any of that association with marriage?

Because that is the established word, why on earth would all the rest of the population stop using a word, in both common parlance and legal reference, on the demands of religious group who erroneously claims ownership? Again that is discriminatory and exclusive and the group demanding it don't have that right or claim to the word. Marriage is a term used in conversation and in legal text, in either it's not the sole property of Christians. It is shared and what we are talking about is including a further group in that sharing. There shouldn't be an issue with that.

 cincydooley wrote:

As a True Libertarian, I believe in the necessity of a government of a nation, but wish it to remain small, so, for example, I think it should stick to the necessities of providing a basic healthcare, education, military, legislature and ensuring a basic standard of living for it's citizens. It certainly has no place enforcing the will of a religious minority, for example.

Again, given another 20 years, this conversation will be a matter of historical footnote as I've spoken with young folks from across the political spectrum and they have a much better understanding and tolerance of sexuality and the rights of homosexuals to equality.

All this too shall pass, and in the direction I believe to be the fair one.

As a "true libertarian," you should be fine with the privitization of marriage ceremonies and the disassociation with the term marriage from anything legally binding, since what a marriage is, as you've already established, is a very personal thing.

I'm comparatively young (30). I have plenty of understanding and tolerance of sexuality. I sang in an a capella group in college with gay men that attended my wedding, and continue to be friends with gay people. So please, don't condescend to me and pretend you know where my tolerances and acceptance lie.

They should be allowed the same protection under the law as ANYONE else. A marriage, legally, is a contract entered in by two consenting adults that affords them some protections under said law. All that ceremony bs that we do, and that you seem to think defines "marriage," has no legal bearing. Separate them. Make civil unions the norm.

I mean, if you're actually concerned, like I am, with granting people equal protection under the law...

Now who's being condescending and assumptive eh? Being young doesn't grant or deny the ability to be understanding or tolerant by the way. And you do need to go and read up on libertarianism... And do tell me about the reaction of your gay friends to being told that whilst they can come to your wedding, you are against them enjoying the same thing, but totally A-OK with them having a 'civil ceremony'... I'm sure they are pleased by your benevolence on the subject...

 cincydooley wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

So give them the right to marry, called 'marriage' under law. Done. If a church or denomination feels that it does not want to marry gays in it's version of marriage, I support their right to make that choice.

I'll pull a Killkrazy here:
So give them the right to engage in a civil union, called a civil union under law. Done. If a church or denomination or cult or coven or druid circle feels that it does not want to Perform Marriage Ceremonies completely free of how it affects the couples legal protection, I support their right to make that choice.
I mean, I'm trying to figure out what you actually care about. I care about people getting equal protection under the law. You seem more concerned with some vendetta against religion and their "claiming" of the word marriage.

No, it's marriage. The word is significant, as I've stated above, and no religion claims it or exclusivity over it and it will be expanded to include same sex marriages across the nation, eventually. It's the difference between inclusive and exclusive, do you not get that? You can exclude yourself, but you don't get to exclude others. If these groups wish to identify how they are different and special (exclude themselves) then they must remove themselves from the use of the same word, Marriage, and replace it with something more specific, as, previously stated, they don't own the word. IF they can't share, then they need to get a new word, because they can't stop others using this one.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

Alpha 1 wrote:
The word marriage is just as important to Gay couples as the legal rights, because if they could only have civil unions and not marriages than the same people that are against same sex marriages can still marginalize same sex couples because a civil union is not a real marriage. Gay couples want to have equal rights across the board and that also includes giving them the right to say they are married and not bonded in a civil union

So what is a "real" marriage?

As I've said before: Abolish the legal status of all marriages and, again legally, make them all civil unions in the eyes of the law. Your civil union grants to you your legal protection and obligations.

Then allow the marriage part of it happen on a private level, as it already does in the instance of most marriage ceremonies.

Literally no one loses in this situation. No one.

Noone loses if gays get to marry either, just some folks think they will. They are quite wrong.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


Now who's being condescending and assumptive eh? Being young doesn't grant or deny the ability to be understanding or tolerant by the way. And you do need to go and read up on libertarianism... And do tell me about the reaction of your gay friends to being told that whilst they can come to your wedding, you are against them enjoying the same thing, but totally A-OK with them having a 'civil ceremony'... I'm sure they are pleased by your benevolence on the subject...

This is a ridiculous statement that ignores nearly everything I've said.

I want them to have equal rights. I don't care what it's called. For them, or me. If my marriage license said "civil partnership contract" on the top I'd feel no differently about my wife, and I'd still be free to say we were married. As would anyone else under the solution I've proposed. Multiple times.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

No, it's marriage. The word is significant, as I've stated above, and no religion claims it or exclusivity over it and it will be expanded to include same sex marriages across the nation, eventually. It's the difference between inclusive and exclusive, do you not get that? You can exclude yourself, but you don't get to exclude others. If these groups wish to identify how they are different and special (exclude themselves) then they must remove themselves from the use of the same word, Marriage, and replace it with something more specific, as, previously stated, they don't own the word. IF they can't share, then they need to get a new word, because they can't stop others using this one.

And the solution I've proposed doesn't lessen the "significance" of that word. At all.

Exclude everyone. That's what I'm saying. Legally.

Then leave it up to every tom, dick, jane, and harriet what they call their partnership.

I'm really not sure how many more times I can continue to restate this point.

Let the people decide comes election. I can give two rat farts about same sex marriage as long as they do not get an advantage over traditional marriage.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Noone loses if gays get to marry either, just some folks think they will. They are quite wrong.

Oh, so because you say those people are wrong means they are? Gotcha.

Sigh.

It's about not pandering to those who want to exclude homosexuals from equal rights. If we change the definitions in law, and change the language, we have pandered to bigots. I'm not cool with pandering to bigots so I say go big or go home- gay marriage, not equal civil union. I used to think differently, but I'm sick of listening to the piss weak arguments from the homophobe side.

 Da Boss wrote:
It's about not pandering to those who want to exclude homosexuals from equal rights. If we change the definitions in law, and change the language, we have pandered to bigots. I'm not cool with pandering to bigots so I say go big or go home- gay marriage, not equal civil union. I used to think differently, but I'm sick of listening to the piss weak arguments from the homophobe side.

And if we get rid of "marriage" in all legal language?

"Marriage" word is going down the road to meet the word "Illegal" as being a No-No-

 cincydooley wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
It's about not pandering to those who want to exclude homosexuals from equal rights. If we change the definitions in law, and change the language, we have pandered to bigots. I'm not cool with pandering to bigots so I say go big or go home- gay marriage, not equal civil union. I used to think differently, but I'm sick of listening to the piss weak arguments from the homophobe side.

And if we get rid of "marriage" in all legal language?

There is not a single reason to get rid of of "marriage" in all legal language other than catering to people who don't want others to get "married".

Removal of the "word" Marriage though from all official government documents will be cheaper in the long run. Can rename it "Life Term Partner Contract's" for the state to collect the fee's for a marriage license. In turn those who also want a "Marriage" can do so in their own church and get a non-official documentation of of Marriage.

Edit

After acquiring a "Life Term Partner Contract" from the state. The traditional marriage peeps

Of course the cheapest option is to not reprint millions of papers, books, licenses, etc etc etc and to not cater to people who don't want people to get married.

Follow the example in the military. The word "He" is generic. Meaning both "he/she" or "him/her" till updates goes into effect. There is a clause covering it in all manuals. Since most/majority of forms are copier generated then all is needed is to make changes in master "form" and update the forms. Believe majority of documentation is Form Filer related. That's military though

If we make a change, it will have been because certain groups are too homophobic to accept gay marriage. I'm not okay with that. It's pandering to the homophobes so their feathers don't get ruffled. We very easily COULD do that, and I used to not care and think, hey, if it's equal under the law, who cares. But then, thinking about it some more, I realised that is vindicating the views of those who see homosexual love as inferior to heterosexual, and is just a "soft" kind of discrimination. So now I'm a lot more unyielding in my view.
(I say we because a very similar debate is going on at home in Ireland at the moment. We've got our own religious lobby groups here, extreme catholics for the most part).

Equal if you look at it as both sides losing the beat stick of a word of "marriage" Neither sides win. Trick is those who make the laws and can change the laws can they change. Or is it to ingrained in them for that. Simple solution with little effort to spend on the admin side. Its changing the individuals in office who were put there by the people.

The homophobes want to keep the word to themselves. I want to beat the homophobes, I want them to be defeated, I want them to lose, because I find them detestable.

Your arguments are meritorious, but I am arguing here from a perspective of someone fed up with the weasel arguments and attempts to disguise bigotry. I want them to lose, and I want them to know they lost, at this point.

So yeah. I'm not okay with a "both sides lose" scenario, because in my view, the intolerant bigots are wrong, and they're the ones who should lose.

Da Boss....hard to argue with you nowing you living in Dusseldorf...like the porn capital of Germany

I have seen a lot of arguments that are close to this "Well just call it civil unions and that will make people happy". The problem is Marriage does not equal civil union, and the reason is money. Married peoples are allowed rights that those who are common law/civil union, do not. There have been many cases where widowed homosexuals were denied befits they would have had if they had been a straight couple. So unless make it legal that Marriage = Civil Union, you will have problems.

They have the erotic fair here once a year, but man, I can never find all this porn you're talking about! Nice place to live though- I like it!

If you like, pretend I still live in Dublin- the porn (and everything else) capital of Ireland.

 Jihadin wrote:
Equal if you look at it as both sides losing the beat stick of a word of "marriage" Neither sides win. Trick is those who make the laws and can change the laws can they change. Or is it to ingrained in them for that. Simple solution with little effort to spend on the admin side. Its changing the individuals in office who were put there by the people.

There is no reason for either side to lose the word marriage, we just let the gays enjoy equality to use it. Inclusion, not exclusion. We can easily include, but taking the steps to exclude everyone equally, why? We are all already able to marry, Christian, Jew, Black, White, Atheist, Mormon etc, but you really think everyone should give that up because some think we should deny the right to one group?

No. If they want to exclude, then they should exclude themselves and form something exclusive they can claim ownership of, they do not have ownership of marriage and they cannot stop the inclusion of gays, only hold it up with increasingly desperate and unpleasant stalling.

The whole "civil union" thing would be the same solution as somebody saying "I don't think black people should get to use our fancy water fountains. Here is the solution: let's get rid of all water fountains! I'd rather go without myself before I let them drink from mine!" Same lack of something for everyone!