Would it ease this issue if we made a new word for Gay Marriage?
yes
Side Score: 54
|
 |
no; it's the principle
Side Score: 53
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it would ease the issue, because it would appeal those of the religious community that don't want to deny legal rights and responsibilities to gay couples, but can't reconcile gay marriage with their religious beliefs. However the better question is if easing the issue was the point? 8 years ago I would say that the anti gay marriage stance was just going to push domestic partnerships to the forefront. However now that several states have gay marriage, I think it is better to support that effort for all states, even if it doesn't ease the issue. Side: yes
well, if we did that, it should be able to work. the only problem is, gays don't want compromise... they want marriage really fuckin' bad. i say, get rid of marriage as a government institution... make it all civil unions, and the churches can marry w/e the fuck they want... since religions view marriage as something of love, the government should have NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Side: yes
0
points
I think the whole issue with Gay couples is that they want to have their own word that recognizes them as a legal couple that is equally as treasured as the word "marriage". So if we can create a new word, and make it just as sacred and important, the issue should be resolved. Side: yes
1
point
I must oppose your thoughts on this Altarion. That is NOT what we want at all. There's nothing wrong with the word as it is. Whomever has a problem with it should deal with it as best they can. What's next? Another word for homosexual love because it can't possibly be the same as heterosexual love? Side: no; it's the principle
1
point
OK, so based on the following two quotes, gays are different than heterosexuals but their love is the same, right? "From all the studies they've done through the years plus the definitive information that was culled from the brains of dead AIDS patients, it is a fact that there is a center of the brain that is much different than that of the heterosexual, that it can no longer be denied. We're different than you are." "What's next? Another word for homosexual love because it can't possibly be the same as heterosexual love?" Now, marriage has two aspects to it, the physical and the emotional. Since the emotional/love aspect of marriage is the same, we can still use the word love as is. But since the physical aspect of marriage is different (for example, the genders involved) then why not come up with a new word? Where's the harm? I mean, if the idea is to say that marriage is a union between two people (taking out the gender aspect out of it entirely) then why not have unisex bathrooms and get rid of the notion of "men" and "women" and "he" and "she" and "him" and "her"? Lets just all simply be people. Lets blur the line. And lets do the same with animals. No lion and lioness, just simply lion. This would simplify our language greatly. A simpler language would help a lot of kids graduate. Don't worry about dumbing down America. Maybe language doesn't have to be that precise. We all talk about the good old days and they had less words back then than we do now so lets turn the clock back to a simpler time. Side: yes
"Another word for homosexual love because it can't possibly be the same as heterosexual love?" you do understand as you typed it you made them very different and separate in describing them. . . you could have typed "two people in love are in love regardless" or "love is love no matter the couple combination", but you choose to underline the difference yourself. There is a difference. If it is not a man and woman, then not marriage. You want to get married, find member of the opposite sex. . you want to have a union with someone of your own sex. ..then find a different word Side: yes
But love is love, it is an emotional appeal, whereas the word marriage has both an emotional appeal and a physical one. The only reason people would start saying that homosexual love is different than heterosexual love is if we went so far as to take the physical part of marriage away from its definition. And that wouln't even be, at least in my opinion, because they have anything wrong with it, it would more be an act of stubbornness. So creating a new word, giving it the same benefits as that of marriage, and making it soley for homosexuals should let society move on with this issue and focus more on issues that actually benefit the country. (Such as fixing the economy) Side: yes
0
points
I agree 100% and up voted. BTW, for those of you that don't know me, I really don't care if same sex couples call it marriage or not. I just want people to move forward one way or another. Otherwise this is going to be another long drawn out battle like the abotion issue. One way forward is to invent a new word. I was going to suggest smarriage (for same sex marriage) but there has to be a nicer sounding word. Side: yes
yeah smarriage is snot sfunny. in my heart I am prolife. But socially I have to come down on the pro choice side. mostly because how the other side acts. and I will never try to have an extended dialog with anyone on my beliefs on this issue because my point summarily dismissed as ignorant. So I will just vote. Side: yes
1
point
Since.... "From all the studies they've done through the years plus the definitive information that was culled from the brains of dead AIDS patients, it is a fact that there is a center of the brain that is much different than that of the heterosexual, that it can no longer be denied. We're different than you are." then lets use a different word or figure out how to modify the center of the brain so that we can get on with our lives ;) <---- denotes kidding. Side: yes
"Precise figures on the number of homosexuals exterminated in Nazi Death camps have never been established. Estimates range from 10,000 to 15,000. It does not appear that the Nazis ever set it as their goal to completely eradicate all homosexuals. Rather, it seems, the official policy was to either re-educate those homosexuals who were "behaviorally" and only occasionally homosexual and to block those who were "incurable" homosexuals through castration, extreme intimidation, or both." Same website. "The windows of had a centimetre of ice on them. Anyone found with his underclothes on in bed, or his hand under his blanket -- there were checks almost every night -- was taken outside and had serveral bowls of water poured over him before being left standing outside for a good hour. Only a few people survived this treatment. The least result was bronchitis, and it was rare for any gay person taken into the sick-bay to come out alive. We who wore the pink triangle were prioritised for medical experiments, and these generally ended in death. For my part, therefore, I took every care I could not to offend against the regulations. "Our block senior and his aides were 'greens', i.e. criminals. They look it, and behaved like it too. Brutal and merciless towards us 'queers', and concerned only with their own privelege and advantage, they were as much feared by us as the SS. " "Each block marched in formation to the parade-ground and had its permanent position there. The morning parade was not so drawn-out as the much feared evening roll-call, for only the block numbers were counted, which took about an hour, and then the command was given for work detachments to form up. "At every parade, those that had just died had to be present, i.e. they were laid out at the end of each block and counted as well. Only after the parade, and having been tallied by the report officer, were they taken to the mortuary and subsequently burned. "Disabled prisoners also had to be present for parade. Time and again we helped or carried comrades to the parade-ground who had been beaten by the SS only hours before. Or we had to bring along fellow-prisoners who were half-frozen or feverish, so as to have our numbers complete. Any man missing from our block meant many blows and thus many deaths. "We new arrivals were now assigned to our work, which was to keep the area around the block clean. That, at least, was what we were told by the NCO in charge. In reality, the purpose was to break the very last spark of independent spirit that might possibly remain in the new prisoners, by senseless yet heavy labour, and to destroy the little human dignity that we still retained. This work continued til a new batch of pink-triangle prisoners were delivered to our block and we were replaced. Above paragraphs from same web site, testimony of a gay survivor of Himmler's remarks above. Damn funny, this eugenics proposal of yours isn't it, Joe. Side: no; it's the principle
"In the SS, today, we still have about one case of homosexuality a month. In a whole year, about eight to ten cases occur in the entire SS. I have now decided upon the following: in each case, these people will naturally be publicly degraded, expelled, and handed over to the courts. Following completion of the punishment imposed by the court, they will be sent, by my order, to a concentration camp, and they will be shot in the concentration camp, while attempting to escape. I will make that known by order to the unit to which the person so infected belonged. Thereby, I hope finally to have done with persons of this type in the SS, and the increasingly healthy blood which we are cultivating for Germany, will be kept pure." - Himmler's Speech to the SS Group Commanders, February 18, 1937 http://frank.mtsu.edu/~baustin/ Joe, are you truly aware how much you sound like this? Side: no; it's the principle
0
points
I was aware of what happened during WWII. Are you aware of "A modest proposal?" It's satirical. The point that I have made before is that gays are in a bad situation. If they say that they are genetically different, then someone will want to cure them. If they say it is a life style choice, then people would tell them to chose again. The quote was from Kuklapolitan. I would never had made that argument because of the reason given in the previous paragraph. I pointed it out so that we don't go there again. Side: no; it's the principle
0
points
I do think it would. Personally, as a lesbian, I think the government should only give out civil unions- to both straight and gay couples. If marriage is a religious term as so many people are saying it is, how can the government have laws pertaining to it? I think it would take a lot of the heat out of the whole argument if we could focus on the core of it- rights. Then it wouldn't be an argument regarding religion or society but a civil right. Side: yes
1
point
this issue should not be an issue. whatever happened to man's basic rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? what happened to the seperation of church and state? Was there a foot note at the bottom of the constitution stateing that none of the above apply to a person if he is homosexual? No, that is not right. There is not good reason to participate in this witch hunt. Side: yes
I would be A OK with that. It is my only issue. I know what marriage means and it is not about health insurance. I understand this is what society has made it. . .and for many things a bonded union would make gay couples lives easier and fairer. But what is being proposed is changing the meaning of a word that I have been living for over 20 yrs. Side: yes
1
point
You would be OK with that! Well isn't that just the thing I needed to put me over the fence on the issue! I've lived with the same language for over 60 years and you'd be surprised how much has changed and been added to the dictionary every year! Who the hell is looking for your permission straight person? You're different than I am and you always will be. But whether you're different than I, 1+1 will always equal 2 and two people in love who want to tie the knot, want to get MARRIED! Get used to it cause that's the way it's going to be! Side: no; it's the principle
|
2
points
2
points
Can you read Pyg? Then read this! From Merriam Webster: Main Entry: mar·riage Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry Date: 14th century 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 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 Side: no; it's the principle
1
point
Why does it matter where marriage came from? Wouldn't it be easiest to define it as "two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together"? It doesn't matter if the Romans, or the Greeks or the xorplox from outer space came up with the idea. Marriage isn't mandatory, but it should be available to those who want it, regardless of sexual orientation. Side: no; it's the principle
1
point
South Park did it: [gay and straight protesters get a hearing from the Governor of South Park on gay marriage] Governor: I believe that I might have come up with a compromise to this whole problem that will make everyone happy! People in the gay community want the same rights as married couples, but dissenters don't want the word "marriage" corrupted. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else? [everyone listens quietly] Governor: You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but, instead of referring to you as "married", you can be... butt buddies. [long silence] Governor: Instead of being "man and wife", you'll be... butt buddies. You won't be "betrothed", you'll be... [makes quote with his fingers] Governor: ...butt buddies. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom", you'd be... [makes quote with his fingers again] Governor: ...butt buddies. Mr. Slave: We wanna be treated equally! Governor: You are equal. It's just that, instead of getting engaged, you would be... butt buddies. And everyone is happy! Woman: [from the lesbian crowd] Well, what about lesbians? Governor: Well, like anyone cares about fkin' dykes! [the crowd goes into an uproar] Governor: [embarrassed] Oh, God, I was sure that would work. Side: no; it's the principle
1
point
3
points
0
points
That is REDICULOUS! (sp? ;D) All South Park does is take things out of context. You can't post this as a viable argument because no one who seriously wanted to solve this issue once and for all would choose a term so vial and demeaning! I can't even begin to question why you would post this as an argument. No one should take South Park seriously! That is like siting Wikipedia as a source for a research project. The whole point that South Park is about is making fun of things for entertainment. If we chose a handsom/honorable word to use for Gay Marriage then the issue would be solved inevidably. Side: yes
0
points
Actually if you were more perceptive you might have realized that what South Park was doing is called satire. They make something intentionally ridiculous in order to prove a point. In this case they chose to use the term "Butt Buddies" in order to show that, allowing gays to have have rights, but not marriage is essentially demeaning them. I love the show and for the most part they do things because they're funny, but often there is an underlying social critique. Here it's pretty obvious. Side: no; it's the principle
0
points
1
point
I'm actually going to say no to this one, but for a totally different reason. The homosexual community already has civil unions that provide all of the benefits of marriage (at least in most states) and in my opinion this is the way it should be. But, this is all beside the point because the word is exactly what homosexuals want: They want society to accept them and say that what they are doing is just as right as what a heterosexual couple is doing. Personally, I think this is one reason why people should be allowed to vote against it, but that's another issue. This is, however, my interpretation, and I will in no means be offended by a correction if I'm wrong. Side: no; it's the principle
Absolutely! And remember, it worked well in Jim Crow America, and Apartheid South Africa! Why change now? It's a great thing to say to 13% of the men in this country - and 7% of the women - that, hey, you are so disgusting that we don't even recognize you're human, and that's why we call you "marriage" something different. What a great way to keep uppity gays in their place. While we're at, how about separate restrooms and drinking fountains? That was one of the great things about America's past, wasn't it? Separate but "equal"? To all you straight people out there that think I'm going to ruin your life by having equal rights, I'd like to say here and now that I'm very sorry. I didn't realize that this was YOUR air! What an idiot, thinking I too was a human being just like you. So, tell me, just where to do I stand as a gay man? Equal to, slightly above, or very much below your, oh, I don't know, dog? Cattle? Since I'm not human in your eyes, go ahead, tell me the truth. You don't give a damn about my feelings or how much you hurt me anyway, so why not tell the truth about how you really feel? Side: no; it's the principle
0
points
They already have chg...and I've felt it all my life! But now comes the time to separate the wheat from the chaff. For years we were the chaff and I feel a change a comin' that THEY aren't going to like. We're going to get all the rights we deserve and the world will go on, just as it has for centuries. Side: no; it's the principle
Read the debated description. Those rights are given to legal couples. Homosexuals are now considered like partners or something, but the government won't consider them couples which is why they aren't given the benefits of married couples. If we make this new word, it will have every resembelence that marriage is given and homosexuals will now be considered couples. The only difference is that we don't have to go and change the dictionary and everyone should be able to compromise on this. We are moving into the new age of EVERYTHING. We have a black president in the US for G-d's sake! So if anyone is complaining about this being taught in elementary schools they should go bury themselves in a hole. This is the BEST compromise anyone has proposed. Homosexuals should take what they can get and press further later down the road. Side: yes
Look, my own view is that I would much rather focus on getting housing and employment discrimination protection first. This isn't high on my personal goal, I can assure you. I'm not partnered, nor do I ever plan on being so. I love being single and not having to put up with anyone else in my life. BUT ... my best friend got married in California in October, and a lot of my friends and acquaintances DO want to get married and would if they could. My own stance is what a friend wisely told me after coming out: they can deny our love all they want, but it doesn't change that love one bit. The problem is that they keep saying it's just the word "marriage" and that they of course favor civil unions. Except once the amendment is passed, they disavow unions, too, along with ANY pro-gay legislation. Look at the Mormon church. When the protesters came to their gates, they said they were all pro-gay rights, just not marriage. So a Utah state legislator took them up on it and said they should support pro-gay rights he intended to introduce right then and there. Silence. They lie. They don't intend to ever give us anything. If Prop 8 were held today, it wouldn't pass. We've made that much progress in this short a period of time. It's an education question. The more we educate them, the more average people realize we are just human, the same as them. We don't have to appease the right. They are dying as a movement anyway. Why bother with them. Side: no; it's the principle
0
points
1
point
That is an absolutely ridiculous idea. "Let's not scare the religious conservatives by saying the words 'gay' and 'marriage' in the same sentence!" A marriage is a marriage is the legal union between two people. Calling it anything else is absurd and offensive. Side: no; it's the principle
Would it be easier, yes, but would it actually solve of the problem and not be a violation of the constitution and prior precedents... Hell No! Brown vs Board of Education showed most assuredly that separate is most definitely not equal. As soon as you come up with another word, oh, like civil union, you have automatically made their "union" inferior to heterosexual monogamous "marriages" and have relegated their relationships to a social underclass creating discrimination. For the same commitment they should be granted the same rights, anything less than that is discrimination. I have written much more on my BLog: Side: no; it's the principle
1
point
I believe that the word has nothing to do with it. Some people propose a 'civil union'. Well. So and so's girlfriend did not ask her to 'civil union' me. And besides. If a gay couple respects 'marriage' as a union between a man and a woman, why can a straight couple not recognize 'marriage' between a man and a man or a woman and a woman? Side: no; it's the principle
But "marriage" is defined as a man and a woman being bound in holy matrimony. So why go all out trying to change the definition when you can settle both sides peacefully and just make a new word that heterosexual couples cannot use? And then expand that word to become as sacred as the term "marriage"! That is like was closer to a middle ground in which both sides should be satisfied and we can drop the subject once and for all. It is just like when blacks were getting married they would jump over a broom together during the slave times and were considered "married". White supremists tried to say that they could not use the word marriage because it applied to only white folk, however this was overturned by the Supreme Court with the notion that "marriage" is a holy union between any man and any woman. And that it had no connotation to race or color. They couldn't change the definition back then, and I highly doubt we will succeed in changing the definition today. Side: yes
You're not making any sense at all. First you argue for a separate word, then you argue that the Supreme Court ruled that marriage applied to any man and a woman. Which indicates that marriage can, and has been expanded in the past and thus it is logical that it would be expanded again. By the way, could you cite the case that you reference? I couldn't find it. Side: no; it's the principle
|
