One Judge vs 7 million votes

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by razark

So, your opposition to gay marriage is the use of the word "marriage"?

The fact that language is an ever evolving thing kind of makes that a less than strong argument. The meanings of words one hundred, two hundred or five hundred years ago are not the meanings we use now. Words from 20 years ago don't always mean the same thing they did then. Words 20 years from now will mean different things.

If the result of civil unions is the same as marriage, why not just call it marriage?

*More Sighing*

No, my opposition is to the fact that gays can't do without the term "marriage". I frankly don't give a damn. But, some people do.

I'll turn your argument right back on you - if language is so irrelevent, than why not just use a different term?

You know what's ridiculous about this: most places in the US would probably allow Civil Unions. Use your own logic to extend the natural evolution of things: Now gays have a foot in the door. Maybe we'll all evolve to just call it marriage. Maybe we won't.

In either case, you're getting the legal rights, which is the most important part of it. And probably in a generation or two, you'd get the term as well. Who knows?

But instead, we have the minority attempting to IMPOSE upon the majority. All or nothing is their stance. It seems that the majority is in favor of nothing.

Compromise leads to progress. All or nothing leads to people entrenching themselves into their beliefs even further.

...and when you're the minority who wants something, it's idiotic to turn down the compromise that gives it to you because you can't stand the conditions, which you argue is meaningless, but the fact that you can't stand that condition shows it's not.

So maybe the term does mean something afterall, which renders your argument moot.

In any case, people have to start somewhere.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

But instead, we have the minority attempting to IMPOSE upon the majority.

I feel like we're going in cricles here. What imposition is it upon heterosexual married couples to let gays marry their chosen partner? As Steve said, it neither picks our pocket nor breaks our leg.

...and when you're the minority who wants something, it's idiotic to turn down the compromise that gives it to you because you can't stand the conditions, which you argue is meaningless, but the fact that you can't stand that condition shows it's not.

I'd say imposing conditions or differentiations (namely calling them "civil unions" instead of "marriages") upon a class of citizen based solely upon some trait or characteristic (in this case homosexuality) is insulting and discriminatory and implies inferiority. There's no compromise to be had - they just want the right to marry someone they're romantically attached to and have it be called a marriage - the same as any heterosexual couple.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I feel like we're going in cricles here. What imposition is it upon heterosexual married couples to let gays marry their chosen partner? As Steve said, it neither picks our pocket nor breaks our leg.

No, it just puts a big sharp pin in the balloon of imagined superiority over those people by treating them the same as us even though they're not "normal," i.e., different from us in ways that might make us uncomfortable and threaten all our longstanding and beloved stereotypes about sex, gender, love, and human interaction.

In other words, they'll be allowed to eat broccoli, which will make our preference for Spam seem like the random result of factors which nobody really understands instead of clear and inarguable evidence of our higher moral natures.

[razark]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

In other words, they'll be allowed to eat broccoli...

But do we have to let them call it "eating" broccoli? Can't we make them call it "ingesting" or "consuming" instead? "Eating" is our word.

[Aramike]

The fact that we won't let them eat broccoli, which would contribute to their health and happiness, is beside the point since we would never want to eat broccoli ourselves - yuck! - and have forbidden it to everyone else regardless of whether they want it or not.

You must be intentionally avoiding the point.

Fine - let them eat broccoli. Just call it broccoli.

No, it just puts a big sharp pin in the balloon of imagined superiority over those people by treating them the same as us even though they're not "normal," i.e., different from us in ways that might make us uncomfortable and threaten all our longstanding and beloved stereotypes about sex, gender, love, and human interaction.

In other words, they'll be allowed to eat broccoli, which will make our preference for Spam seem like the random result of factors which nobody really understands instead of clear and inarguable evidence of our higher moral natures.

That's a very self-superior, grandoise view of your opinion being the enlightened one, while dismissing the concerns of others merely antiquated discomforts.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by Aramike

You must be intentionally avoiding the point.

Fine - let them eat broccoli. Just call it broccoli.

I did call it broccoli.

Broccoli = same-sex spouse.

Spam = opposite-sex spouse.

You seem to think that the right to marry a person of the opposite sex should be considered something of equal value to everyone, and therefore as long as everyone has that right, it's all good.

But it's not something of equal value to everyone.

Something of equal value would be the freedom to marry the person of your choice, period. If the freedom to marry the person of your choice is a "special" right, then it's a special right that everyone would have, not just gays and lesbians. It's not giving "different" marriage rights to anyone, it's not taking away "marriage" rights from anyone. It's just expanding the existing right to include the people who are currently excluded from it.

Honestly I can't understand why anyone has a problem doing that when it takes nothing away from them. If it does, I'd like a clear and concise explanation of exactly what straight people are losing by it, other than the "right" to feel like they're somehow entitled above and beyond their fellow citizens.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by razark

But do we have to let them call it "eating" broccoli? Can't we make them call it "ingesting" or "consuming" instead? "Eating" is our word.

I don't think we should make a big deal of trying to preserve any one traditional definition of the word, you know? Especially considering the fact that our notions of what "eating" consists of have already undergone so many permutations throughout the history of human gastric preferences.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I feel like we're going in cricles here. What imposition is it upon heterosexual married couples to let gays marry their chosen partner? As Steve said, it neither picks our pocket nor breaks our leg.

I'd say imposing conditions or differentiations (namely calling them "civil unions" instead of "marriages") upon a class of citizen based solely upon some trait or characteristic (in this case homosexuality) is insulting and discriminatory and implies inferiority. There's no compromise to be had - they just want the right to marry someone they're romantically attached to and have it be called a marriage - the same as any heterosexual couple.

In discussion, it's already referred to as "gay marriage", not just marriage. We don't use the terms "bride" and "groom", but partner.

Different labels are already being applied. We may as well use ones that are not an affront to those who wish their traditional labels to remain meaningful of their customs.

That's like saying we should make, say, Ramadan a national holiday. During that time we should all eat, drink, and be merry. We should just call it Ramadan but defile its meaning in every way, shape, and form ... hey, it's just a word we're using for a period of time, right?

I know that's a stretch of an analogy, but I'm sure you can understand how those who hold Ramadan sacred would find that as an affront to their sensibilities. Well, I can understand why the majority of Californians (some of the most liberal people in the US) find the term marriage referring to a gay couple as an affront to their sensibilities.

So why not compromise?

[razark]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I'll turn your argument right back on you - if language is so irrelevent, than why not just use a different term?

It is what it is. What's the harm in calling it what it is?

See my post. Call it whatever you want. But you seem to be hanging onto the word "marriage" for some reason. I'm just wondering why. It's not like the meaning or concept has been constant throughout history. Why cling to the word?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by razark

It is what it is. What's the harm in calling it what it is?

See my post. Call it whatever you want. But you seem to be hanging onto the word "marriage" for some reason. I'm just wondering why. It's not like the meaning or concept has been constant throughout history. Why cling to the word?

Because it MEANS a union between a man and a woman to a great deal many people. Ultimately that's what defines any word.

And so long as it means SOMETHING to those people, we should respect that rather than casually dismiss them as Frau does.

However, at the same time we can allow the same rights to be shared by all without prejudice.

You prove that it is not those for Prop 8 who are unreasonable and unwilling to compromise - it is yourself. You try to proclaim a word as practically meaningless, but you cannot do without that word. That makes no sense, and only serves to prove that the word DOES have a meaning, just not one you agree with.

By the way, there is no "harm" in calling it marriage. Neither is there a harm is NOT calling it marriage. Your argument defaults itself, and adds up to nothing more than "why not?"

Well, some people have a "why not". Fine - you don't agree with them. But if you want them to respect something THEY don't agree with, perhaps you can extend them the same courtesy (although, judging by your uncompromising approach, I suspect courtesy doesn't come easy to you).

[razark]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Because it MEANS a union between a man and a woman to a great deal many people. Ultimately that's what defines any word.

And so long as it means SOMETHING to those people, we should respect that rather than casually dismiss them as Frau does.

And the fact that it means something else to other people means nothing?

Originally Posted by Aramike

However, at the same time we can allow the same rights to be shared by all without prejudice.

Except the prejudice that comes with using a different word for the same situation, based only on some quality of the people involved.

Originally Posted by Aramike

You prove that it is not those for Prop 8 who are unreasonable and unwilling to compromise - it is yourself. You try to proclaim a word as practically meaningless, but you cannot do without that word. That makes no sense, and only serves to prove that the word DOES have a meaning, just not one you agree with.

I cannot do without that word, because it is the word used to describe a particular situation. That of two consenting adults joined into one life together.

Originally Posted by Aramike

By the way, there is no "harm" in calling it marriage. Neither is there a harm is NOT calling it marriage. Your argument defaults itself, and adds up to nothing more than "why not?"

"Marriage" comes out of the mouth quicker than "civil union". "Wife" is easier than "civil union partner". "Wedding" is a easier to say than "civil union ceremony". These words already exist in our language, and are quite sufficient to carry the meaning.

Originally Posted by Aramike

Well, some people have a "why not". Fine - you don't agree with them. But if you want them to respect something THEY don't agree with, perhaps you can extend them the same courtesy (although, judging by your uncompromising approach, I suspect courtesy doesn't come easy to you).

I don't care if they respect it or not. I just want them to extend the same rights to others. A lot of things happen or exist in the world that I don't respect, but that doesn't mean I get to rename them or deny their right to existence.