One Judge vs 7 million votes

[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.