Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to A question I would really like answered
arGee - that is a perspective that I had not fully considered
Now that you have articulated this perspective, I understand more of why the gay community has been insistent in their "marriage or nothing" stance. Gaining societal acceptance is at the core of all of the gay community's agendas, they do not want to have their unions viewed as anything but exactly the same as a traditional marriage. Where I see their point, I tend to agree with you that accomplishing the gain of the marriage rights they are seeking should take precedence over all other considerations.
posted by
gomedome
on February 13, 2007 at 2:17 PM
| link to this | reply
I'm not talking about historically defined concepts, Xeno...
But historically defined words. The word "marriage" already has a well-defined meaning. There is no reason to change this word in order to placate some element within our society. Let's simply ensure that our legal structure enables gay couples to have the same rights as hetero couples.
This isn't about gay bashing – denying rights to some element within society, but simply a game of semantics. The left decided that society didn't sufficiently understand the segregation problem in the old U.S. South, and so it redefined the word "ghetto," from its original meaning defining a separate section of a European city set aside for Jews only, where they were required to live, to a new meaning defining an area of an American city that housed predominantly blacks. The two concepts are dramatically different, but the left thought that if it could build an equivalency in people's minds, it could increase sympathy for its cause.
While I sympathized with its goals, I did not appreciate the method, because now, we can no longer use the word "ghetto" to describe the old European Jewish conclaves without first defining what we mean. As a consequence of the Left's actions, our language is less rich.
In exactly the same way, by redefining the word "marriage" as proposed, society loses. I just think we can solve the problem better simply by granting appropriate rights to gay couples.
(Sorry, my last comment got garbled.)
posted by
arGee
on February 13, 2007 at 1:28 PM
| link to this | reply
I'm not talking about historically defined concepts, Xeno...
But historically defined words. The word "marriage" already has a well-defined meaning. There is no reason to change this word in order to placate some element within our society. Let's simply ensure that our legal structure enables gay couples to have the same rights as hetero couples.
This isn't about gay bashing, denying rights to some element within society, but simply a game of semantics. The left decided that society didn't sufficiently understand the segregation problem in the old U.S. South, and so it redefined the word "ghetto," from its original meaning defining a separate of a European city set aside for Jews only, where they were required to live, to a new meaning defining an area of an American city that housed predominantly blacks. The two concepts are dramatically different, the the left that if it could build an equivalency in people's minds, they could increase sympathy for their cause.
While I sympathized with their goals, I did not appreciate their method, because now, we can no longer use the word "ghetto" to describe the old European Jewish conclaves without first defining what we mean. As a consequence of the Left's actions, our language is less rich.
In exactly the same way, by redefining the word marriage as proposed, society loses. I just think we can solve the problem better simply by granting appropriate rights to gay couples.
posted by
arGee
on February 13, 2007 at 1:22 PM
| link to this | reply
The point some of us are making, Presley...
Is that society can grant the same or equivalent rights to gay couples without using the "M" word, and instead, using another work like: "Civil Union," or something else, just so long as the rights are identical. The discussion surrounds the word "marriage," rather than the concept of a gay relationship.
posted by
arGee
on February 13, 2007 at 1:09 PM
| link to this | reply
M ARRIAGE HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN DEFINED AS UNION BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN
okay -- let's accept that
but i have to ask you a question then ArGee.
are there things "historically defined" with which you disagree?
I am certain that there are.
"historically defined" at one time was the "divine right of kings".
We don't accept that anymore because it was a bankrupt precept.
let's all agree that "historically defined" doesn't make something right.
i wonder -- are there things that have lasted for centuries that you yourself have disagreed with?
wouldn't you consider these things "historically defined"?
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 13, 2007 at 7:47 AM
| link to this | reply
Presley - same sex marriage should be that simple of an issue
But for far too many people it is not. It is admittedly very difficult when looking at this issue from a heterosexual perspective to get past all of the superfluous arguments against. Adoption for example is not a related issue as it is dealt with entirely by the safeguards of adoption agencies. The sexual practices of gays is another unrelated issue while throwing religious beliefs into the mix is just ludicrous. A possible failing point in the democratic system can be when the majority is asked to decide what is right for a minority group. Inherent prejudices, religious beliefs, misinformation and downright stupidity, all serve to cloud an issue that should be a no brainer. Even the gay community itself is not exempt from these shortcomings but the reality remains that a small segment of society is denied rights that the majority has in their pursuit of happiness.
posted by
gomedome
on February 13, 2007 at 7:32 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome
I firmly believe in and support gay marriages. I wonder what many anti-gay individuals or married couples would do if their child or a loved one were to announce that they want to enter into a homosexual marriage. My instincts tell me the anti-bashers would have a change of heart about the topic. I believe they would be likely to support gay-marrige if their child or loved one would reap rewards.
I also firmly believe that society's biggest hangups associated with the issue are one's inability to leave sexual preferences/sexual relationships and religion out of the formula. 
If we left religion and what happens in the bedroom out of the conversation completely we are left with human rights. THAT should be the focus. THAT is what should be debated. THAT is what should be pushed for.
I work with a man who has been in a monogomous homosexual relationship for the past 9 years. He and his partner adopted a little boy two years ago. They are loving and commited to one another and to THEIR CHILD. Why shouldn't they have the same rights as me in terms of insurance benefits, healthcare for the FAMILY UNIT, tax breaks, and all the goodies heterosexuals experience? They deserve it as much as I do. Plain and simple.
posted by
Presley
on February 13, 2007 at 6:45 AM
| link to this | reply
SoloWriter - cold in Canada? - - - since when?
You know that you are are true Canadian when you are waiting for the temperature to rise to minus 10 so that you can go ice fishing. I wish I were kidding.
posted by
gomedome
on February 12, 2007 at 9:47 PM
| link to this | reply
arGee - I agree that we are almost on the same wave length
Where my contention falters is in the area of the legal ramifications, I am not an expert on my country's civil law. What Bill C-38 did was amend the definition of marriage to include same sex partners. I am however glad that they did it that way, as it has been explained to me; the costs associated with amending this definition was by far the simplest and least expensive means to achieve this end.
posted by
gomedome
on February 12, 2007 at 9:45 PM
| link to this | reply
I understand your points, Gome...
But it still seems to me that in both Canada and the US (as well as most everywhere else), marriage has always implied a contractual union between a man and a woman. As I understand it, you guys have redefined what the word marriage means. I don't have a problem with that in principle, but I cannot help but believe that this redefining has offended a lot of people – unnecessarily. I still am more comfortable with defining a new union contract that, perhaps, includes the traditional marriage contract as a sub-set, but that is otherwise all-inclusive.
The bottom-line idea is to ensure that any couple (or multiple for that matter) has equal access to whatever is needed, just as "married" couples now have.
(I suspect we are on nearly the same wavelength here.)
posted by
arGee
on February 12, 2007 at 3:36 PM
| link to this | reply
Per usual, Xeno...
You miss the point. I have absolutely no problem with structuring a contractual arrangement that is identical with, and linked to, a marriage contract. But since "marriage" has historically always referred to a union between a man and woman, it seems that we can solve the problem very simply by creating another union that is for ANY arrangement, AND that has ALL the elements of a marriage contract.
This completely covers the issue you raised (which I did discuss in my original comment to Gome).
posted by
arGee
on February 12, 2007 at 3:23 PM
| link to this | reply
arGee -- it's rights that's at stake
think about it.
homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. this hasn't been really understood until the present when dna and hormone analysis, and observation of other animals were available to demonstrate such.
homosexuals want steady, long-term relationships. as it stands, if anything happens to one partner, unlike man/woman legal marriage, the other partner has no legal rights -- such as a legally married partner has. this is in the legal system.
as far as church unions are concerned, a church can bless the union if it wants to, but it is not civilly legal or binding.
a simple marriage amendment would avoid pages and pages of laws that would attempt to give the same rights, but would probably fall short.
i think it is obvious, arGee, that you haven't walked in their shoes, nor in shoes anywhere similar. once you have difficulties with the legal system, then maybe you can understand.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 12, 2007 at 8:28 AM
| link to this | reply
We'll be changing banks again. Currently, our's is right there with Death Valley.
And it's cold in Canada.
posted by
Jenasis
on February 11, 2007 at 7:50 PM
| link to this | reply
arGee - I don't know if I buy that position completely.
How the legal system of a country or jurisdiction is set up plays an important role in how legally binding civil unions are defined. In the case of my country, it was done on the national level utilizing language within our "Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms" as both the catalyst to bring the motion forward and as a means of defining the bill. Doing it this way simply became the shortest distance between two points in our legal system.
The part I don't completely buy is the "if it ain't broke . . . " analogy. Aside from a very strong argument that the modern day institution of marriage is in fact "broke" with historically high dissolution rates, as a society; we are quite willing to go to absurd lengths to protect and accommodate those who play fast and loose with the legal protections of the institution itself. . . . but only if they are man and woman. I can agree that a newly defined type of civil union may be the most practical answer for another country or culture but not on the grounds that marriage is the preserve of heterosexuals.
posted by
gomedome
on February 11, 2007 at 5:58 PM
| link to this | reply
If it ain't broke, Gome...
Don't fix it! There is nothing wrong with marriage as it has traditionally been defined – man and woman. It seems to me that all society need do is establish a civil union/contract that supplies anyone who wishes with all the accouterments of a "marriage," except the name itself. There simply is no need to redefine a concept to accept unions between folks other than man and woman.
posted by
arGee
on February 11, 2007 at 4:21 PM
| link to this | reply
A-and-B - I'm not completely following what you mean in your comment
But if you are saying that the institution of marriage has many instances of where it is not taken seriously by both partners, I have to agree. If you are saying that many children are raised in less than ideal situations due to these shortcomings I must agree as well. Where I open the door in this post by implying how heterosexuals treat their marriages is related to extending marriage rights to same sex couples, it actually is not related to any great degree. Nor is child rearing related, as same sex couples would have to enter the realm of adoption which is an entirely different issue. Would you care to clarify your comment further?
posted by
gomedome
on February 11, 2007 at 2:38 PM
| link to this | reply
We have seen how heterogeneous couples do not fare well in sometimes. There are 'absent' Moms and Dads who shirk responsibilities. It becomes like a single sex parent family.
posted by
A-and-B
on February 11, 2007 at 2:20 PM
| link to this | reply
cantey_1975 - I agree 100% - to further protect religious freedoms in my
country, same sex marriage has exclusions and conditions.
No religious organization can be forced to perform any marriage that falls outside of their religious beliefs. The legislation itself stayed entirely within the civil realm.
posted by
gomedome
on February 11, 2007 at 2:04 PM
| link to this | reply
Chilitree - thank you and thanx for stopping by.
posted by
gomedome
on February 11, 2007 at 2:00 PM
| link to this | reply
Talion - it surprises me how many times that part of the argument comes up
I mean the part of the actual sex acts, or as you say: ".......images of who is sticking what in where." I simply refuse to allow my heterosexual mind to produce these images, I find them as repellent as the next straight person but would never consider utilizing tenuous arguments drawn from images such as this as an argument to deny people their inherent rights as legal citizens. People attempting to do so ultimately underline how weak their argument is if they must pander to the inherent prejudices found within every individual's sexual preferences. I have yet to hear a good argument based on anything that explains how someone else, in my case strangers because I don't know of any gay couples that are married, can possible affect my marriage.
posted by
gomedome
on February 11, 2007 at 1:59 PM
| link to this | reply
I think the notion of
"same sex marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage" is nothing more than political posturing combined with visceral religious reactions. In reality, traditional marriages can always be healthy and successful no matter who is marrying who elsewhere outside of a single traditional marriage. Because a single marriage is world (to the participants) unto itself, and nothing can penetrate that world unless allowed.
posted by
calmcantey75
on February 11, 2007 at 1:45 PM
| link to this | reply
Thought provoking and excellent post.
posted by
Chilitree
on February 11, 2007 at 1:38 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome
I too would like an answer to that question. My marriage isn't dependent on the opinions of outsiders. I don't need the approval of the nameless, faceless masses or a definition of how my relationship is supposed to be. Long ago I came to the conclusion that the only way a gay marriage could threaten mine is if a couple pulled some kind of Bonnie and Clyde thing and killed one of us. Of course, that would be another situation all together totally unrelated to sexual preferences. In society's eyes, marriage legitimizes a relationship. Too many don't want to see homosexual relationships as legitimate. Too many people are hung up on the "sex" part of homosexuality, images of who is sticking what in where. I can't speak for everyone, but there's a hell of a lot more to my marriage than the physical expression of our love. I can only assume the same is true for gays too. No one stood in the way of my relationship with my wife. Why should I stand in the way of someone else's?
posted by
Talion
on February 11, 2007 at 1:36 PM
| link to this | reply