Things may be a little tense at the Gingrich Thanksgiving dinner

[Lux Interior]

Yes, swampy, you are totally correct. It's all about semantics.

Absolutely nobody is trying to prevent gays from having legally recognized unions.

So let's keep pretending that this is a non-existent problem and that marriage has been all about one man and one woman joined together in total equality for 2000 years (i.e. "traditional")

[Greg the dogsitter]

swampy wrote: Straights push back because they don't want their relationships redefined.

You're confusing redefinition with changing circumstances. Expanding/changing the idea of marriage does nothing to affect existing relationships.

Words are redefined. Particular relationships change. Redefining a word does not imply changing a particular relationship.

Some straights seem to be darned concerned with labels.

If I referred to gay people as "straight," would that change you in some way?

[MacMagus]

I'd prefer that all state-sanctioned unions be "civil unions."

Let's leave the definition of "marriage" to religious groups.

[lafinfil]

MacMagus wrote:
I'd prefer that all state-sanctioned unions be "civil unions."

Let's leave the definition of "marriage" to religious groups.

This is certainly the most logical solution

Retroactively make all marriages civil unions with a defined criteria (shared property, medical visitation etc ...)
Since they are already recorded as marriages let them maintain a dual status.

Set a date and from then forward make the joining of all first and foremost a civil union
and if a couple wishes, they can have that union consecrated by the church of their choice.
The folks that argue that marriage is a sacred union shold be willing to take that to heart.
The joining of two parties to make a life together is first and foremost a legal contract
which is why the government is even involved to begin with.

If a church does not wish to validate a same sex union then they do not have to - period.
If a couple wants to have the sacred blessing of the church then they can seek out and join
such a church that agrees with their particular view.

This is the type of solution that in theory should satisfy everyone but likely won't

[$tevie]

Since marriage has been used to define both church and civil unions for so long (which is why I am so suspicious about the sudden need to "protect" the word marriage, come on folks who do you think you are fooling???) I believe the word is in public domain so to speak, much like "aspirin" became. It's too late to try to switch it back to mean church only. Use "Holy Matrimony" If it means so much to you to have your marriage feel "more special" than a gay marriage. What insanity.

[MacGurl]

swampy wrote:

I don't understand the need of the Homosexuals to have their unions designated "marriages" under current law.

I'm thinking that for some people, that unless you are gay yourself that you might never be able to empathize with how they feel, to walk a mile in their shoes so to speak. Myself, I can fully feel for them and their situation, how much they just want to have the right to be married to the person they love, just like us straight people. They want the same things "we" do, because they are just like us, but for who they love. I know that if I was wanting to be married to the person of my choice (man or woman), and some outside party was telling me I couldn't because of their belief system (not mine), that it would make me terribly unhappy.

The definition of marriage has already been defined by the courts as one MAN-one WOMAN. It's up to gays to get their own legal definition.

Words are redefined and stretched all of the time. Language is not a static thing - it's fluid and changes with the times. To you marriage might mean man/woman, but it doesn't to all people. There is no ownership of any one word, by any one person or group (unless it's some trademarked doohicky or some such).
Marriage is a legal union in this country - not strictly a religious one, so it is fully within a state's rights to make laws that allow gay marriage.

I think where the gay rights movement meets resistance is in trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Their relationships don't meet the "norm" so they want to change the definition of the norm. Straights push back because they don't want their relationships redefined.

They might not meet the norm for some people, but for a gay person it's completely normal. Setting them aside like they are some sort of outsider seems terribly mean spirited and unloving - what ever happened to live and let live? They aren't inflicting anything on you, or asking any of us to redefine our relationships. What they want it to redefine how the world looks at their relationships. They aren't really hurting you, are they?

I mean this in all sincerity, really I do. I feel BAD for gay people who just want to be allowed to marry the person they love, just like "the rest of us."

Kathy

[Dennis S]

"I don't understand the need of the Homosexuals to have their unions designated 'marriages' under current law."

Do you even begin to comprehend what a screwed up thing that is to say?

[Dennis S]

MacGurl wrote:
[quote=swampy]

I don't understand the need of the Homosexuals to have their unions designated "marriages" under current law.

I'm thinking that for some people, that unless you are gay yourself that you might never be able to empathize with how they feel, to walk a mile in their shoes so to speak. Myself, I can fully feel for them and their situation, how much they just want to have the right to be married to the person they love, just like us straight people. They want the same things "we" do, because they are just like us, but for who they love. I know that if I was wanting to be married to the person of my choice (man or woman), and some outside party was telling me I couldn't because of their belief system (not mine), that it would make me terribly unhappy.

The definition of marriage has already been defined by the courts as one MAN-one WOMAN. It's up to gays to get their own legal definition.

Words are redefined and stretched all of the time. Language is not a static thing - it's fluid and changes with the times. To you marriage might mean man/woman, but it doesn't to all people. There is no ownership of any one word, by any one person or group (unless it's some trademarked doohicky or some such).
Marriage is a legal union in this country - not strictly a religious one, so it is fully within a state's rights to make laws that allow gay marriage.

I think where the gay rights movement meets resistance is in trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Their relationships don't meet the "norm" so they want to change the definition of the norm. Straights push back because they don't want their relationships redefined.

They might not meet the norm for some people, but for a gay person it's completely normal. Setting them aside like they are some sort of outsider seems terribly mean spirited and unloving - what ever happened to live and let live? They aren't inflicting anything on you, or asking any of us to redefine our relationships. What they want it to redefine how the world looks at their relationships. They aren't really hurting you, are they?

I mean this in all sincerity, really I do. I feel BAD for gay people who just want to be allowed to marry the person they love, just like "the rest of us."

Kathy
You're wasting your breath, Kathy. You are trying to reason with a bigoted homophobe who has no reasoning ability and no compassion. She's got hers and that's all that matters.

[swampy]

There ya go with the name calling again.. bigoted homophobe.

I'm just saying the LAW says one Man-one Woman. Work to get the law changed if you don't like it. Or go get your own law.

It's not my fault that the people of California don't want to either change the current law or accept a new one. The same is true in all other states that voted down gay marriage.

I think part of the problem is CA was that the gay movement tried to ride their issue on the coat tails of the black civil rights movement and the people didn't buy in. Blacks and Latinos overwhelmingly voted the gay marriage deal down. It wasn't just the religious, or right wingers that voted against it. How come the gay protesters aren't down in the barrio or East LA protesting, but just protest at churches and in front of opponent's homes and businesses?

[Doc]

> Blacks and Latinos overwhelmingly voted the gay marriage deal down.

That was an interesting lie that caught on in the popular press.

In fact, when you break it down by demographics, older voters pushed prop-8 through with little difference among different racial groups.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/p...myths.html