User Tag List

First 123412 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 180

  1. #11
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    This question is as good as the reverse. If they are identical, why do you need heterosexual ones called marriage and homosexual ones not called marriage? There must be some reason you want that word for heterosexual relations alone.

    I can't see any reason for the difference except to symbolically say that heterosexual partnerships are somehow more special or sacred than homosexual ones. If there were really nothing to the name, I don't anyone would give a shit about the definition.
    The only thing marriage says is that the partnership is religious.

    And to answer your prior question there is a reason I want to limit the use of marriage to hetero couples. The Episcopal church of which I consider myself an adherent recently in 2012 gave it's consent to the blessing of Same-Sex Unions. To quote the article
    “There are a lot of similarities,” she said in an interview. “The couple give their consent to being joined in lifelong commitment, they exchange vows. There’s the possibility of exchanging rings, or, for couples who have been together for some time and already have rings, to have their rings blessed. There is a blessing over the couple.

    “But we’re clear at this point that this is not a marriage,” she said, “because the Episcopal Church is not in agreement in its understanding of marriage.”
    I want the Church to be able to define institutions it created in the first place because I believe in the Freedom of Religion as outlined in the 1st Amendment to our Constitution.

    The Church and it's adherents, should be allowed to come the the understanding of what Marriage means to them now, and how that might be changing, on their own without being forced (by the very people that have the strongest disregard for them) to up and change their belief system.

    But hey it's just the first Amendment and one of the reasons this country exists, what harm could be done.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I am surprised that folks are desperate to adopt the nomenclature of an institution that excludes, or has excluded them in the past.
    I am surprised that folk want to share in such an institution at all. It is a wretched affair, a symbol of oppression and bondage, a vestige of darker ages and, frankly, pointless, save for the legal benefits it provides.

    The difference in designation is only as meaningful as we allow it to be. I also expect that people would say they are 'married' regardless of the legal term the state has put on their relationship. The angry reactionary down the road can tell them they are 'only civil-united' for as long as he feels the need: it will not stick. Soon, everybody will be 'married' and happily divorced shorly after.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    This isn't about equality as much as it's about acceptance.
    Acceptance is about equality, honey.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The only thing marriage says is that the partnership is religious.
    Well, that is a fucking stupid reason. There already are millions of marriages (all over the world, by the way) that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

  3. #13
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Acceptance is about equality, honey.
    But, equality isn't necessarily about acceptance.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  4. #14
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    I am surprised that folk want to share in such an institution at all. It is a wretched affair, a symbol of oppression and bondage, a vestige of darker ages and, frankly, pointless, save for the legal benefits it provides.

    The difference in designation is only as meaningful as we allow it to be. I also expect that people would say they are 'married' regardless of the legal term the state has put on their relationship. The angry reactionary down the road can tell them they are 'only civil-united' for as long as he feels the need: it will not stick. Soon, everybody will be 'married' and happily divorced shorly after.


    Acceptance is about equality, honey.
    Thank you for being logically consistent.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    But, equality isn't necessarily about acceptance.
    True. Also, Socrates was a human, but not all humans are Socrates.

  6. #16
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    I am surprised that folk want to share in such an institution at all. It is a wretched affair, a symbol of oppression and bondage, a vestige of darker ages and, frankly, pointless, save for the legal benefits it provides.
    Are you some sort of secret undercover homophobe? Because I've heard it's only homophobes who push forward the idea that homosexuals are trying to destroy marriage.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  7. #17
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    In a way I agree with Disco's premise, although maybe not for the same reasons he asks the question. If I were gay and wanted civil benefits with my husband Hugh Jackman, I wouldn't give two shits about what it was called as long as, under the law, I am equally protected.

    It would seem easier to change a law than it does to change a culture. Sure I want acceptance within society, in culture, etc, but I don't think that's necessarily the job of law.



  8. #18
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Are you some sort of secret undercover homophobe? Because I've heard it's only homophobes who push forward the idea that homosexuals are trying to destroy marriage?
    I am not trying to destroy marriage. Those who seriously want a part of it deserve all that comes with it. But ask the married, ask @Jennifer if marriage is such a wonderful idea.

    Is it possible marriage is only kept alive by money from the lobby of marital lawyers and power-hungry priests?

  9. #19
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Disco, I'm also an Episcopalian, and this is not a cut and dried matter in the church. That quote, "the church is not in agreement on its understanding of marriage," does not mean that the Episcopal church does not support gay marriage- it means that the church is very much divided over the issue. Many Episcopal leaders and churchgoers want the division (or don't want any recognition of same sex unions at all), and many others want marriage for all. And it's not the people who "have the strongest disregard" for the church that are driving this change- it's our gay bishop, gay priests, straight bishops and priests who support gay rights, thousands of gay Episcopalians, and maybe millions of straight Episcopalians who support gay rights. In my church there are couples who have been together and raised children together for many years, in every meaningful way equal to straight families. They have no disdain for the church; they are lifelong churchgoers who love it as much as you and I do. And they want their relationships to be on the same standing as those of opposite sex couples in the church. I honestly can't see why they shouldn't have that.

  10. #20
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Disco, I'm also an Episcopalian, and this is not a cut and dried matter in the church. That quote, "the church is not in agreement on its understanding of marriage," does not mean that the Episcopal church does not support gay marriage- it means that the church is very much divided over the issue. Many Episcopal leaders and churchgoers want the division (or don't want any recognition of same sex unions at all), and many others want marriage for all. And it's not the people who "have the strongest disregard" for the church that are driving this change- it's our gay bishop, gay priests, straight bishops and priests who support gay rights, thousands of gay Episcopalians, and maybe millions of straight Episcopalians who support gay rights. In my church there are couples who have been together and raised children together for many years, in every meaningful way equal to straight families. They have no disdain for the church; they are lifelong churchgoers who love it as much as you and I do. And they want their relationships to be on the same standing as those of opposite sex couples in the church. I honestly can't see why they shouldn't have that.
    I am arguing for the right to be divided on the issue, and to come to an agreement in our own time. We have gay priests down here as well.

    I also understand that not all those pushing SSM are non religious, but putting your anecdote aside for a moment, most of them are. I actually support SSM, but there are reasonable people who disagree. They don't frequently get talking head guest shots on CNN, but they're out there Rod Dreher being a good example.

    I would support a non marriage equivalent of marriage before I'll support SSM, but I prefer SSM to non equivalent civil unions.

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