I am probably going to get raked over the coals for this one

riddle me this batman...

Published on November 4, 2004 By alison watkins In Politics

Before I post what I am about to post I want to let everyone know that I am a 23 year old straight female....

What is the big deal about marriage when 50% of it ends up in divorce anyways? Some gay couples I know have been together longer than a lot of straight couples.....

Doesn't human companionship conquer all....I mean I'm getting married and I'm very happy to start this road ahead with my man...shouldn't everyone; gay, straight, bi...whatever deserve this too??

Comments (Page 4)

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 06, 2004

DPS,

You are missing the point completely. How many times do you have to miss read people. Calm down and read my writing carefully. I am not against using the term marriage for gay couple. However, I am against government using a term which is not agreed by majority of the people. If a great majority of the people want to call gay marriage is a marraige , good. However, before that happens, government does not and should not have the right to change definition for people. As to why people don't accept gay civil union as marraige, you have to ask them. For the record, I vote against any amendment to be made for defining marraige.

As for your second question of why don't we stop government from using the term marraige and only grant civil union to all couples. Fine, IF that is what most people want. You don't seem to understand the role of government and the role of people. Government do not serve you and your purpose. What you have been saying is "I don't care for the majority of the people, I only want what I want and I don't care if I will create a dictatoral government" No matter how correct you think you are, you have to ask if changing defintion of a word and culture is government's responsibility. My argument is that government does not change defintion, only people do. You were arguing that we should let government do it. The problem is what goes around, comes around. Let's say in 10 years 70% of the American finally accept gay marraige as marraige, should government now have the right to change people's defintion and prevent people using the term marraige for gay.

You see if government has the right to grant the word "marriage" to gay couple, it also has the right to take it away tomorrow. The question you have to ask yourself before replying to me is: does government has that right and responsibility?

DPS

on Nov 06, 2004

"I don't care for the majority of the people, I only want what I want and I don't care if I will create a dictatoral government"

Of course I care and i have never even proposed going against the majority. I am just trying to understand why people are against it.

"Fine, IF that is what most people want. You don't seem to understand the role of government and the role of people. "

I understand that. I was offering an alternative. Not forcing an alternative. I could only do that if I was in control.

I am not forcing alternaritives or calling people bigots for not accepting them. I am trying to offering them and trying to understand the reasoning behind not accepting it.

"You see if government has the right to grant the word "marriage" to gay couple, it also has the right to take it away tomorrow. The question you have to ask yourself before replying to me is: does government has that right and responsibility?"

Well it depends. The government will do whatever it want depending on majority opinion and representation. Though this could all be avoided if the government decided to remove the whole term of marriage from their laws and left the word to it's predominatly religous connotation and exchange it for civil union.

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 06, 2004

Well it depends. The government will do whatever it want depending on majority opinion and representation. Though this could all be avoided if the government decided to remove the whole term of marriage from their laws and left the word to it's predominatly religous connotation and exchange it for civil union.

But that is my point, heterosexual couples want to be called marriage. They don't want to be called civil union.

Here is a off topic issue for you. Blacks were not granted the same right as whites before 1965. The government has the right/responsibility to grant voting right to all people (civil right), so it did. However, government didn't stop people decribing blacks as blacks. The government do not has right to regulate how to call a black person: a black, a negro, or an African American. The word "nigge*" is an exception because it is considered as a fighting word. So in drawing a parallel, government can amend laws to grant gay couple the same rights, but the only way today US governement can forcefully change the word "civil union" to "marraige" is that it finds "civil union" as an offensive words, which will never happens. Only under these special situations, government can regulate language usage.
So in drawing a parallel, government can amend laws to grant gay couple the same rights, but the only way today US governement can forcefully change the word "civil union" to "marraige" is that it finds "civil union" as an offensive words, which will never happens. Only under these special situations, government can regulate language usage.

NJforever

on Nov 06, 2004

Now theres food for thought. Ive always thought gay marriage should be legalized, and heres two points Ive thought of:

1. If you think gays can ruin the sanctity of marriage, ask yourself: How will two people joining together in a union ruin something that is basically joining two people into a union any more than destroying said union?

2. If you think God is against gays or some other religious reason, then why would gays be allowed to exist?

DPS

on Nov 06, 2004

"But that is my point, heterosexual couples want to be called marriage. They don't want to be called civil union. "

They can call themselves married. I am not say regulate the word.They can call themselves married all they want. What I am saying is regulate the use of the word when a government recognizes these unions. They should recognize them all as civil unions(heterosexual or homosexual) rather then part of the population as marriage and part of the pupulation as civil union. Plus it will leave marriage to a postiviely religous connotation and people can use it in any matter they want. The argument for gay marriage will rest, simplicty will be restored, people won't have to worry about govenrment's destruction of their religous term ( since they can just refuse to beleive certain people (gays or other people who according to their religion are not supposed to be considered married) , and everyone will have secured their best interests and beleif in the definition of the term marriage. It might not seem conventional or practical but it seems like it could solve the problem.

"Only under these special situations, government can regulate language usage."

I am not suggest the government change language usage in everyday life between the public but rather in the way it recongizces these unions between consenting partners.

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 06, 2004

The argument for gay marriage will rest, simplicty will be restored, people won't have to worry about govenrment's destruction of their religous term ( since they can just refuse to beleive certain people (gays or other people who according to their religion are not supposed to be considered married) , and everyone will have secured their best interests and beleif in the definition of the term marriage. It might not seem conventional or practical but it seems like it could solve the problem.

Maybe. I am unsure. Looking at how many people are so strongly against gay's civil union to be called marraige. Many states start to pass state amendent. I can only wonder how many people will object the idea to change civil marriage between a man and a woman to civil union. I guess we will not know that for a long time.

Your food for thought sucks. I can play the devil advocate and asnwer both of your questions:
1) the first dosn't seem to make any sense, and I wonder if you have typos somewhere. It makes no sense. I presume you mean, how can one union destory another union If they are similar, they cannot destory each other. Easy, how can a tank destory another tank? How can a company rivals another company? How can a army defeat another army?

2) you said that the existance of gay people prove they are not against god's will. This is the dumbest thing I heard. I only hope you are not a spokeperson for gay. You are like a Michael Moore for Democrat, cause more harm than good. Ok, how come Satan and murders and Hilter and many evil things exist? According to you, rapists must not be against god's will because they exist. Which page of Bible or Koran or Sandscript state "No evil can exist"? If no bad deeds can exit, why do god has to spend most of the time teaching/lecturing us to avoid evil.

Mitch21

on Nov 06, 2004

I am against gay marriage but I am not a homophobe. Though the previous statement has become an oxymoron in the past couple years, it shouldnt be. Why am I against gay marriage? Because:
A) Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman

To classify both together would dilute the tradition of marriage
C) Homosexuals dont need marriage, they need the rights of married couples (civil unions)
D) How fair is it to say that gay people are allowed to marry but noone else is?(not incest, beastiality, etc.) Both use the same exact arguements, who are you to judge the man who is getting married to his dog? After all:

Marriage is a special union between 2 individuals and their God.

Mitch21

on Nov 06, 2004

no one chooses to participate in a lifestyle...it's how they were born

so are you saying all serial killers where born that way, or how about all incest? Or, again, bestiality? You cant make a truth be only for gay couples, that would be unfair.

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 06, 2004

Mich21,

Good points. Everytime I talk to someone who support gay marraige, they have problem with polygomy (marry to more than one person). Why can't people marry to multiple partners? Who are you to judge? I n fact, throughout our human history, marriage was not just defined between a man and a woman. For majority of the human history, a man marrying to multiple women (polygomy) has always been accepted as normal. So there is historical acceptance to polygomy, but not homosexual marraige. Any reason why one would support gay marriage but not polygomy?

NJforever

on Nov 06, 2004

I wasn't saying mine was food for thought, the post before mine. I'll give you point 2, but you misinterpreted point 1. I meant, how could gays ruin the sanctity of marriage anymore than divorce does. I guess I din't explain that well enough.

DPS

on Nov 06, 2004

"D) How fair is it to say that gay people are allowed to marry but noone else is?(not incest, beastiality, etc.) Both use the same exact arguements, who are you to judge the man who is getting married to his dog? After all:
Marriage is a special union between 2 individuals and their God."

A dog can not consent or show feelings. No animal has shown the ability to comprehend the union and therefore it isn't between the individual and a partner but a partner and an object. Incest is possible to be considered a marriage. It consists of 2 individuals and their God.

But whoever said you had to recognize this as marriage? Whoever said I had to recognize someone and their spouse (in a heterosexual relationship) as married???What if I don't beleive Mr. A and Mrs. A are truly married because Mrs. A is using him and doesn't love him and if she doesn't I don't beleive they are truly married. Do I have to recognize their marriage?

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 06, 2004

A dog can not consent or show feelings. No animal has shown the ability to comprehend the union and therefore it isn't between the individual and a partner but a partner and an object. Incest is possible to be considered a marriage. It consists of 2 individuals and their God.

But whoever said you had to recognize this as marriage? Whoever said I had to recognize someone and their spouse (in a heterosexual relationship) as married???What if I don't beleive Mr. A and Mrs. A are truly married because Mrs. A is using him and doesn't love him and if she doesn't I don't beleive they are truly married. Do I have to recognize their marriage?

A dog does have feeling. If animals have no ability to comprehend union, then there would never be something like a "lion pack" or a "wolf pack". So why marry has to be between two individuals and not three or four or five? People used to marry multiple wives, it isn't like it wasn't accepted. In fact, most of our history is polygamy not monogamy.

DPS

on Nov 06, 2004

"So why eos it has to be between two individuals and not three or four or five? People used to marry multiple wives, it isn't like it wasn't accepted. "

Who said I wouldn't recognize them? Who said I had to or shouldn't? As an idividual there will be some who will do so and some who won't?

Anyway it wouldn't be in the government's best interests because the system would be easily abused so that many wives would mean more benefits.

On the basis marriage has an extremely person to person definition and the government trying to legislate the definition as a whole for all is where the problem arrises. A word that is so religous, personal and spiritual in it's roots being replaced by another term in laws and other legal matters might be in the best interests of society and people and their beleifs.

". If animal has no ability to comprehend union, then there would never be something like a "lion pack" or a "wolf pack". "

It's communism not love. They stick together to keep each other alive. Then again it's been impossible for an animal to communicate human ideas in a way we can understand

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 06, 2004

". If animal has no ability to comprehend union, then there would never be something like a "lion pack" or a "wolf pack". "

It's communism not love. They stick together to keep each other alive. Then again it's been impossible for an animal to communicate human ideas in a way we can understand

Oh my god. You think there is no love between aniamls?!? You are so wrong. Throughout history, human has evolved to the point which we can comprehence deep reasoing and logic. That is the only evolution we have seperate human and the rest of aniaml. Love is an emotion. Animal has strong emotion. You see that between a dog and her puppies. If anything our logic and deep thinking is what prevent human from falling in love. You mentioned that some people marry for money or using the other person. If you think too much on a relationship then it is not love, it is a business transcation. Frankly, there is more love between animals than humans.

DPS

on Nov 06, 2004

"You think there is no love between aniamls?!'

There is. Just not in a "lion pack" or "wolf pack " nessecarily. It could be very well and emotionless coopartation in the fight for survival. But emotion between man and animal sounds pretty much impossible to me. This is because there are 2 different thinking patterns and emotional feelings without a bridge to translate one into the other.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!