Same-sex Marriage.

[shadowland]

But you said you agreed with Simba that gay couples must be wanting a marriage ceremony simply to attack Christianity. You didn't specify that only certain gay couples must want this and explain why you think they do. You just agreed with that broad generalization.

Also if you don't know what the motive would be, why assume that's what they're trying to do at all? Simply out of prejudice or lack of understanding? What causes you to believe this is what they're doing?


The issue here seems to be that the same word is used for both a Christian religious ceremony, and a secular joining in western society. This isn't something people are trying to change for the future, this is something that has already happened. The word already refers to two different things. It is already used to refer to the broad joining of couples rather than only a joining within a specific religion. So essentially what you're asking is that we change it retroactively, and remove its broad application, and allow it to only be used to refer to Christian marriages.

I think Revo was implying that language evolves naturally as cultures change. Change is not always an active decision. Evolution occurs in language and culture as a side effect of the progression of time just as it does in biology. And usually when people try to make active decisions to change a word because they've decided they don't like the natural progression of language, it doesn't stick.

Remember "freedom fries?" When a bunch of people decided they didn't wish a snack in America to be called something French, even though that term was not intended as any attack on American patriotism, but simply a term that came into usage via natural language evolution many years ago. It's pretty similar to what you are demanding we do now with the term "marriage." And guess what? No one calls them freedom fries. It didn't stick. There was already a naturally-evolved word for them and people were already used to that word. And I bet the same thing would happen if somehow Christians succeeded at revoking the usage of the word "marriage" for non-Christian unions. Non-Christians have already been calling their unions "marriages" for enough time that this would likely never catch on.


Except legalizing gay marriage isn't restricting anyone's rights or freedoms. Whereas keeping it illegal is. That's the difference. I fail to see how legalizing gay marriage actually affects any Christian anywhere. The most it can affect them is they can choose to let someone else's personal business bother them. And that's not a legal issue, nor an issue of rights or freedoms. Gay marriage does not prevent them from having their own religious ceremonies in any way. It simply means they have to tolerate couples they don't agree with using the same word they do. It doesn't affect their freedoms in any way and I think it's extremely stubborn and petty to be so bent out of shape about the simple use of a word. It reeks of entitlement.

Christians like that need to get used to the fact that they alone are not running this country. This is supposed to be a country where people of all beliefs are free to practice those beliefs and not have their freedoms restricted by another religion. Christians have gotten used to the comfy feeling of being the majority in this country, and having a lot of policies influenced by their religion. And now that that's changing, I'm not surprised some of them are upset. But sorry, they're not getting any sympathy from me. Complaining that you no longer get your special unique privileges to control the practices of others by your religious beliefs and that you actually have to tolerate others finally getting the same respect and fair treatment is not a valid legal complaint in this country. It, in fact, goes against our constitution.


Because if you don't think that, you're actually being hypocritical and your argument makes no sense. If you're insisting that your only opposition to gay marriage is that marriage is a word that should refer specifically to Christian-sanctioned unions, then logically you should oppose other non-Christian unions that use the term "marriage" as well, right? The fact that you don't totally nullifies your argument and suggests to me this is simply prejudice against gay couples, specifically, more than anything else. If that is not the case, then please explain why you're contradicting yourself here by feeling it's okay for atheists to get married, but not gay couples, if you believe marriage is only a Christian thing?


Anyone who votes influences the law on marriage, so yes, I do think speaking my mind is going to help because every person whose mind I can change is one less person keeping these changes from happening.

I am not "going on march" or "getting all up in your face," I am sharing my opinion and asking you to actually defend and logically support your arguments. Which is what anyone should be prepared to do if they want their opinions listened to and respected publicly. I am also attempting to explain to you how others may see marriage as it doesn't seem like you really understand what it means to people who aren't religious, and honestly it was somewhat offensive to suggest that the only reason someone who is not having a religious marriage should even care about marriage is if they want to attack Christianity. As someone who strongly defends the right all people have to practice their own beliefs, to suggest that my wanting a symbolic union of my love for my significant other is really just an underhanded attempt to attack someone else's beliefs is honestly kind of insulting. :/

Sweet jesus, can you not wall-o-text? Urgh.

"Which is what anyone should be prepared to do if they want their opinions listened to and respected publicly."

Idc if they're not respected.

" Anyone who votes influences the law on marriage, so yes, I do think speaking my mind is going to help because every person whose mind I can change is one less person keeping these changes from happening."

You're not going to change someone's mind when their mind is already made up.


"
I think Revo was implying that language evolves naturally as cultures change. Change is not always an active decision. Evolution occurs in language and culture as a side effect of the progression of time just as it does in biology. And usually when people try to make active decisions to change a word because they've decided they don't like the natural progression of language, it doesn't stick. "

I didn't mention the change of words, stop jumping to conclusions.


"It doesn't affect their freedoms in any way and I think it's extremely stubborn and petty to be so bent out of shape about the simple use of a word. It reeks of entitlement. "

And feeling that a specific group/ethnicity/whatever is entitled to marriage doesn't reek of entitlement?


"
Also if you don't know what the motive would be, why assume that's what they're trying to do at all? Simply out of prejudice or lack of understanding? What causes you to believe this is what they're doing?"

You can feel something is afoot without knowing the motive behind it. And what the f*ck reason would I have to be prejudiced on the issue, I'm bi myself. I'm just not a slave to this issue because I think too many supporters of it are whining instead of making the best of what is currently to be had. Jeez, if you love enough why be desperate for marriage? love is love, its simple. Also I'm offended you assume that my beliefs are led by some illogical prejudice. there are two sides to every coin.


Ok, here I said "Change is a decision, it's not something out of the control of people, so using that as an argument is kinda silly because you're implying that things must change. And last time I checked, marriage wasn't just a word. We have verbs adjective nouns etc to describe what a word applies to."


The issue here seems to be that the same word is used for both a Christian religious ceremony, and a secular joining in western society. This isn't something people are trying to change for the future, this is something that has already happened. The word already refers to two different things. It is already used to refer to the broad joining of couples rather than only a joining within a specific religion. So essentially what you're asking is that we change it retroactively, and remove its broad application, and allow it to only be used to refer to Christian marriages.

I think Revo was implying that language evolves naturally as cultures change. Change is not always an active decision. Evolution occurs in language and culture as a side effect of the progression of time just as it does in biology. And usually when people try to make active decisions to change a word because they've decided they don't like the natural progression of language, it doesn't stick.

Remember "freedom fries?" When a bunch of people decided they didn't wish a snack in America to be called something French, even though that term was not intended as any attack on American patriotism, but simply a term that came into usage via natural language evolution many years ago. It's pretty similar to what you are demanding we do now with the term "marriage." And guess what? No one calls them freedom fries. It didn't stick. There was already a naturally-evolved word for them and people were already used to that word. And I bet the same thing would happen if somehow Christians succeeded at revoking the usage of the word "marriage" for non-Christian unions. Non-Christians have already been calling their unions "marriages" for enough time that this would likely never catch on.

You didnt really answer that one and im kinda confused, and it was very very long.

I'm not even bothering now, urgh

[saitenyo]

Sweet jesus, can you not wall-o-text? Urgh.

Pardon? I spaced out my answers with paragraphs to make them readable, and this reply of yours is almost as long as mine so I'm not sure what your problem is? I was trying to explain things clearly and in detail to avoid confusion. I really think it's unnecessary to resort to making this discussion personal by complaining about how I write my replies.

"Which is what anyone should be prepared to do if they want their opinions listened to and respected publicly."

Idc if they're not respected.

Fair enough. But may I ask what the point of sharing your opinion is if you don't care what anyone thinks of it? You asked why it was necessary for me to share mine, so let me pose that same question to you now.

" Anyone who votes influences the law on marriage, so yes, I do think speaking my mind is going to help because every person whose mind I can change is one less person keeping these changes from happening."

You're not going to change someone's mind when their mind is already made up.

That's a very depressing and defeatist attitude. If everyone thought like this, we'd never see any progress. If this were true, women would still be considered the property of men, slavery would still be legal, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. History and my own personal experience in these sorts of discussions provide countless examples of just how incorrect this claim of yours is. There are plenty of reasons people may hold certain prejudices that may be difficult to change, but that doesn't mean it's impossible, and it's certainly no reason not to try. I have personally seen plenty of people's minds changed in discussions like these, especially since these sorts of opinions are often the product of ignorance and lack of understanding. So I'm going to keep on trying.

I didn't mention the change of words, stop jumping to conclusions.

You said you agreed with Simba's argument that wanting a ceremonial marriage is an attack on Christianity. Did you actually read the argument that you were agreeing with? He was making the "why can't they call it something else?" argument. If you're agreeing with him, then what you're agreeing with is the notion that "marriage" is a term that should be reserved for Christian unions. You also said: "Change is a decision, it's not something out of the control of people, so using that as an argument is kinda silly because you're implying that things must change. And last time I checked, marriage wasn't just a word. We have verbs adjective nouns etc to describe what a word applies to."
It sounded to me like you're speaking in defense of marriage as a Christian-specific term. Did I misunderstand?

And feeling that a specific group/ethnicity/whatever is entitled to marriage doesn't reek of entitlement?

No. I am referring to the scenario of an already privileged group feeling that they deserve to retain their special privileges where others do not deserve the same treatment. Feeling that a specific group that is current barred from having the same rights and privileges as others deserves the same fair treatment is not even remotely the same thing. I am not saying gay couples deserve special treatment, I am saying that they deserve the same freedoms as any other couple, which they do not currently have.

You can feel something is afoot without knowing the motive behind it. And what the f*ck reason would I have to be prejudiced on the issue, I'm bi myself. I'm just not a slave to this issue because I think too many supporters of it are whining instead of making the best of what is currently to be had. Jeez, if you love enough why be desperate for marriage? love is love, its simple. Also I'm offended you assume that my beliefs are led by some illogical prejudice. there are two sides to every coin.

Well my apologies then. I sure never would have guessed you were bi considering how adamantly you're fighting against a cause which affects people of your orientation and the fact that you were defending someone who was claiming gay marriage is an attack on Christianity. :/ It may not be important to you but it is actually important to others, and just because it's not something that you care about does not mean you should go around trivializing the feelings of those that do and agreeing with such absurd concepts as separate but equal.

It is still extremely narrowminded of you to assume that everyone must think exactly as you do. Marriage means different things to different people. I've grown up in a culture where marriage is romanticized and treated as a symbolic act of lifelong monogamy. It doesn't matter to me whether or not it has any real bearing on my love for my significant other, I still want it. It's symbolically important to me. It means something to me from a cultural perspective. Whether or not someone wants a marriage is a personal choice and frankly, it's none of your business why someone might want one since it does not affect you. So you don't care about marriage, good for you. But you could at least show a little sensitivity and respect to people who do and acknowledge that they should be allowed to make their own personal choices about what is important in their own lives.

You didnt really answer that one and im kinda confused, and it was very very long.

Ok, in simple terms: Making up another word specifically for gay marriages is silly and unconstitutional because 1-It probably won't catch on because people are already used to using the word "marriage" to refer to legal unions between couples. And 2-Religion has no right to dictate government policy, and so far I have not heard any argument other than religious ones for why gay couples should not be allowed to call their union a "marriage."

It sounds to me like much of this has been a misunderstanding, because you claimed to agree with an argument you apparently don't actually support. If it has been a misunderstanding, I apologize. I genuinely have no idea what your opinion on this is at this point, as I approached this from the understanding that you were agreeing with Simba's "gay marriage is an attack on Christianity" argument. Perhaps now would be a good time to clarify why you said you agreed with him?

[Azerane]

Jeez, if you love enough why be desperate for marriage? love is love, its simple.

I do understand what you're saying in that regard in terms of 'why do I need a piece of paper to prove my love for someone' but to me it's not about that at all. For me, I want to marry the person that I love so much, as a way to show them how much that I care, and how much I truly want to be with them for the rest of my life and share my future with them. It's becoming a family with them (not necessarily with kids in mind), having the two of you. I'm not desperate for marriage, but I certainly want to be married, it just fits.

[saitenyo]

I do understand what you're saying in that regard in terms of 'why do I need a piece of paper to prove my love for someone' but to me it's not about that at all. For me, I want to marry the person that I love so much, as a way to show them how much that I care, and how much I truly want to be with them for the rest of my life and share my future with them. It's becoming a family with them (not necessarily with kids in mind), having the two of you. I'm not desperate for marriage, but I certainly want to be married, it just fits.

^This yes. Very much so.