Same-sex Marriage.

[saitenyo]

I don't know what the motive would be, people are very complex. Rest assured a lot of people are narcissistic too. Besides, nobody said all gay couples are attacking christianity.

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?

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.

Look, at the end of the day, either party in the debate is going to be trodden on and their feelings on the matter disregarded in the end. Gay marriage stays denied in x amount of countries, the gay couples of those countries get shafted. Gay marriage is approved in x amount of countries, the conservative-minded or whatever get their concerns on the matter shafted. Hey ho, equal rights for everyone amirite.

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.

Wow, massive generalisation there lol. Why on earth would I think that?

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?

I pose a question to you now. I don't control the law on marriage, so do you think going on march as you've done in this thread and getting all up in my face is going to change a 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. :/