User Tag List

First 8161718

Results 171 to 180 of 180

  1. #171
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    But the legal inequity is only part of it. There is a traditional meaning of the word “marriage” which extends beyond any religious significance. I know a lot of married people- very few of them would say religion has anything to do with their union. In fact, at least half would be heavily opposed to the insinuation that religion has anything to do with what makes their union a “marriage” but they refer to that union as a marriage nonetheless. And the presumption that they should stop referring to their union as a “marriage” because some religious nuts suddenly can’t handle sharing that word with the rest of the human race is stunning.
    I suppose it all comes down to whether people want the word or the substance. Given a choice, I would take the substance any day. If the law treats same-sex unions the same as opposite sex, then I would consider that fair, whatever label is used. If we want to gain equal treatment in religious settings, that must be argued faith by faith, even church by church. Some have recognized same sex unions for decades; for others it will take decades, if they ever do. Fortunately participation in religious groups is voluntary.

    As for the terminology, we stopped calling black people niggers, people with Down Syndrome mongoloid, and dropped many of the female endings ("authoress", "aviatrix"). Language evolves, and will continue to do so.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  2. #172
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INfJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I suppose it all comes down to whether people want the word or the substance. Given a choice, I would take the substance any day.
    Truth be told, I suspect I wouldn't take huge issue with the label either so long as the law made things equal. But I also don't really feel like I have a right to tell others how much it should bother them. It's just not my place to tell others it shouldn't affect them (since I don't actually know if it would bother me or not, I can only presume). The op asked why there's an argument to call it marriage. The answer is because that's what "romantic partnerships with permanent commitment" are already called. The word has a lot of meaning and strong associations outside the church. If there are people who feel strongly they should be able to use this word, it's their right to fight for it.

    If there really are people who have felt that any 'marriage' outside the church isn't truly a marriage before gay marriage was an issue- that religion and 'marriage' are inexorably linked, and that, say, Atheists aren't really 'married'- then this is news to me. Having never been exposed to this prior to gay marriage being an issue, it just seems to me like something the church is coming up with to make themselves and others feel like the partnership between same sex couples isn't 'real' or equal in some way. [Again- if it were me, I don't think I'd care, I don't think I'd need these other people to believe my relationship is real to believe in it....but I just don't feel like it's my place to say this 'should' be their position.]
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  3. #173
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    Truth be told, I suspect I wouldn't take huge issue with the label either so long as the law made things equal. But I also don't really feel like I have a right to tell others how much it should bother them. It's just not my place to tell others it shouldn't affect them (since I don't actually know if it would bother me or not, I can only presume). The op asked why there's an argument to call it marriage. The answer is because that's what "romantic partnerships with permanent commitment" are already called. The word has a lot of meaning and strong associations outside the church. If there are people who feel strongly they should be able to use this word, it's their right to fight for it.
    I don't claim a right to tell other people what should bother them either. On the flip side, it is hard to have a constructive discussion about fixing a real problem when people get wrapped around the axle about subjective emotional considerations like what's in a name. If they are going to value appearance over substance, they should not then complain when that is all they get.

    The OP asks, "why, then, argue to call it marriage", as if the argument all this time really has been over terminology. As many same-sex couples know from trying to cobble together some legal support for their family relationships, there is much more at stake than this. Really, no one is stopping anyone from calling their relationship anything they want. Whether the term used signifies anything of substance is the issue.

    As for religious recognition of marriage, I grew up in a Catholic family, and was always told that if a Catholic married outside the church, their marriage was not recognized by the church. In other words, in the eyes of the church, the couple would be unmarried and "living in sin". I'm not sure this even accurately depicts church doctrine, but it does illustrate how I grew up with the view that there are two layers to marriage: civil and religious.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  4. #174
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INfJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,677

    Default

    It isn’t about just valuing appearance though. There is a sort of substance in ‘names’- there can be a very substantial consequence to the way we allow the meaning of labels define things for us. I can see where you’re coming from- but dismissing the significance of this isn’t constructive either. It’s true that terms like ‘nigger’ or ‘mongoloid’ fade with time, but that’s not really a good reason to tell someone else they should deal with being labeled that way. If someone has the energy left over- after securing legal equality- to also demand the respect of the ‘label’ they feel they deserve, then I’m of the mind that they may as well go for it.

    The meaning of ‘marriage’ is just too established in the secular pockets of society for the non-secular pockets to suddenly demand exclusive rights to it. Taking into consideration the meaning of “marriage” as it was generally taught to me as a child- if (as a child) I were to overhear that my friends’ parents were “married” but mine were not (because they don’t qualify for “marriage”)….there’s no way around the fact that it would have planted the seed of doubt in my head that my parents’ union was somehow worth less. At the very least, with enough critical thought (and not everyone employs this much critical thought, so I’m not even sure this would be the usual outcome) it would take me a while to come to the conclusion that the label isn’t fair and that their relationship is just as valuable. …If ‘civil union’ already packed the same punch that “marriage” does, then this all would be a moot point. But it doesn’t. “Marriage” already has a pretty concrete and traditional meaning in the secular circles of society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    The OP asks, "why, then, argue to call it marriage", as if the argument all this time really has been over terminology. As many same-sex couples know from trying to cobble together some legal support for their family relationships, there is much more at stake than this. Really, no one is stopping anyone from calling their relationship anything they want. Whether the term used signifies anything of substance is the issue.
    I was coming from the understanding that it’s already understood that legal inequity should be in place- and that the op was asking “So why don’t they just take that and leave the term ‘marriage’ out of it?” I absolutely agree the legal aspect should be the priority. I’m only trying to explain why (as I understand it, from tangents certain friends of mine have gone on) it’s a problem to expect them not to use the word ‘marriage’ to label their union. It’s not the biggest problem- the legal equity definitely takes precedence- but it is still a problem and it seemed like the op wanted to know what the resistance is about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    As for religious recognition of marriage, I grew up in a Catholic family, and was always told that if a Catholic married outside the church, their marriage was not recognized by the church. In other words, in the eyes of the church, the couple would be unmarried and "living in sin". I'm not sure this even accurately depicts church doctrine, but it does illustrate how I grew up with the view that there are two layers to marriage: civil and religious.
    This is new to me. I had some religious friends growing up and even attended Sunday School with them occasionally, but never caught a whiff of this. (And this is the thing I’d thought might be interesting for a poll or different thread, to find out how standard this is across Christianity.) It sorta begs the question (to me) though- if this is already going on, then why would it be such a big deal to continue doing this with same sex marriage as well?
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  5. #175
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    It isn’t about just valuing appearance though. There is a sort of substance in ‘names’- there can be a very substantial consequence to the way we allow the meaning of labels define things for us. I can see where you’re coming from- but dismissing the significance of this isn’t constructive either. It’s true that terms like ‘nigger’ or ‘mongoloid’ fade with time, but that’s not really a good reason to tell someone else they should deal with being labeled that way. If someone has the energy left over- after securing legal equality- to also demand the respect of the ‘label’ they feel they deserve, then I’m of the mind that they may as well go for it.
    The highlighted makes my point: we don't have to allow the labels to define things for us. First, legal equality is far from secure; second, not everyone agrees, even here on TypoC that it should be; and third, nothing is stopping gays from calling their relationship a marriage. The best way to make that term common usage is . . . to use it.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  6. #176
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INfJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,677

    Default

    [First, @Coriolis, if the nit picking here is getting annoying- then just ignore this. I'm splitting hairs for sport at this point because of a nagging "but.."]

    I know that legality is far from secure and that there are several members here who believe it shouldn't be- but it seems to me that whether there should be legal equality or not wasn't part of the original question here. The question was "Why then argue to call it marriage?"

    And I think there's a limit to which we- as individuals- can come up with our own definitions behind labels or words. To a certain extent, as children and adults, we come up with our own understanding of the meaning passed on to us by others- but the amount of that understanding which is passed on from an outer source isn't exactly insignificant. These passed on meanings influence us a great deal. If it were so easy to see past the flaws in the meanings that are passed on to us, we'd all be Heideggerian beams of light by now.
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  7. #177
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    [First, @Coriolis, if the nit picking here is getting annoying- then just ignore this. I'm splitting hairs for sport at this point because of a nagging "but.."]

    I know that legality is far from secure and that there are several members here who believe it shouldn't be- but it seems to me that whether there should be legal equality or not wasn't part of the original question here. The question was "Why then argue to call it marriage?"

    And I think there's a limit to which we- as individuals- can come up with our own definitions behind labels or words. To a certain extent, as children and adults, we come up with our own understanding of the meaning passed on to us by others- but the amount of that understanding which is passed on from an outer source isn't exactly insignificant. These passed on meanings influence us a great deal. If it were so easy to see past the flaws in the meanings that are passed on to us, we'd all be Heideggerian beams of light by now.
    Aren't we???

    Yes, that was the question as stated. I suspect there is more behind it, but rather than trust my guess, like you I took the question at face value. My response is strongly colored by my knowledge that legal equality has not been achieved. Thus I see worrying about terminology as misplaced effort. Once legal equality is achieved, to me it would be window dressing.

    Your comments are not nitpicking, but rather illustrate how it all comes down to what one's priorities and values are. If the name we use for something is that important to someone else, I cannot tell them to feel differently. I just hope it won't distract them from meaningful changes in substance. Yes, we all inherit terminology from our family and our society, but part of growing up is understanding the real meaning behind these terms. The best way to change what we call something is to change what it is. The next best way is simply to start using the new term. We cannot legislate these things, only demonstrate them by example. They will not change overnight.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  8. #178
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    Nope. Sorry. Marriage is religious, and true freedom demands everyone recognize that.
    I wonder if Santorum would abolish atheist marriages if he ever became king of the United States.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  9. #179
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I wonder if Santorum would abolish atheist marriages if he ever became king of the United States.
    No, but he might insist they be called bilateral domestic contracts.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  10. #180
    The Unwieldy Clawed One Falcarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    COOL
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    Dino None
    Posts
    2,563

    Default

    Ironically one of the main groups against same-sex marriage opposed to only having civil partnerships, when it was legalised in England and Wales, were actually the gay community.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thalassa View Post
    Oh our 3rd person reference to ourselves denotes nothing more than we realize we are epic characters on the forum.

    Narcissism, plain and simple.

Similar Threads

  1. [INFJ] INFJ - Question about your inner monolouge
    By Shinzon in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 03-13-2009, 12:40 AM
  2. 3 questions about MBTI
    By alcea rosea in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-10-2007, 08:49 AM
  3. Quick question about a concert venue...
    By Cindyrella in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-22-2007, 01:30 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO