It might also be resignation. The blow was struck, the country took a step closer to Sodom. They knew that they didn’t have the votes or the voice to stop it, so they’d never have enough to repeal it.
If a man and a woman kiss, it’s called “kissing.” If a man and a man kiss, it’s called “kissing.”
If a woman and a man date, it’s called “dating.” If a woman and a woman date, it’s called “dating.”
If a man and a woman hug, it’s called “hugging.” If a man and a man hug, it’s called “hugging.”
If a woman and a man go into business together it’s called “going into business together.” If a woman and a woman go into business together, it’s called “going into business together.”
If a man and a woman kayak, it’s called “kayaking.” If a man and a man kayak, it’s called “kayaking.”
If a woman and a man fall in love, it’s called “falling in love.” If a woman and a woman fall in love, it’s called “falling in love.”
If a man and a woman eat dinner, it’s called “eating.” If a man and a man eat dinner, it’s called “eating.”
If a woman gives birth to a boy child, it’s called “giving birth.” If a woman gives birth to a girl child, it’s called “giving birth.”
If a man and a woman get married, it’s called “getting married.” If a man and a man get married, it’s called “anything but marriage you fucking perverts.”
The justice of a cause or point of view does not say anything about the motivations of those who oppose it.
That would not explain people actually changing their minds and deciding that something, once thought a “bad” is now either a “good” or “indifferent”.
I disagree. If my changes were to occur, then I would now assume that people who said that they were married were religious, in some form. I have no problem of people of the same sex declaring themselves married, if their religion allows it. It also tells me that such people are not catholic.
Hopefully, my first response in this post makes my point more clear. If not, let me elaborate: couples (regardless of sex) who proclaim they are married, will now, if my changes were to happen, be known as “married” under some religious ceremony. A civil union is a marriage, if you will, recognized by the stated. I suppose then, we would have to create a new term, “civilly unionized,” to denote process of the actual act.
And what I’ve been telling you is that it doesn’t have to. It doesn’t matter why someone favours inequality for queer people, the result is the same either way: they favour inequality for queer people, which is homophobic and indefensible.
I’ve noticed in myself and others switching to apathy mode after losing something. It’s sour grapes, they shift their attentions to something else since they’ve already lost this battle.
Well, to be more accurate, they were a civil contract really only recognized between two parties (or their families), which they conducted and coordinated their actions amongst themselves. Then, they were recognized by third parties, like a church or a religion. Then, by the state.
You’re right, I would have no problem with you marrying a man and calling it a marriage, if your religion recognized it. If there was no religious ceremony, it would be a civil union. If no such union was recorded, then I would have problems with both you calling it a marriage and trying to claim rights afforded under civil/state law reserved for people in civil unions.
I’m utterly secular and don’t want to give up my marriage term.
A concept which makes my skin crawl. I haven’t the rabid anti-religion streak DT does, but I will be very happy if religion never returns to the prominence it once enjoyed. Religion should be private, shared only among friends and family, and the idea that you should be able to tell anything about me and my religion (or lack thereof) from anything other than me saying “I am X” is something I’m very much against. Religion shouldn’t play a part in day to day society or within polite company.
Not to mention that the word marriage will continue to hold its very strong connotations. People will feel pressure to be part of a church to take advantage of being married rather than geck “civilly unionized”.
Sorry, if marriage actually did originate with religion (which it didn’t, religion just usurped it), then it’s become a secular institution just as much as Christmas (which also, coincidentally, was merely usurped by Christianity and didn’t originate with it). It’s doubtful it’s ever going back.
You quoted, but did not respond to, this:
Well, I believe that ideas and thoughts are best expressed and understood, not only between people, but between generations, if there is a uniformity in terms and commonality in language. IOW, too fucking bad. 
I suppose that this makes me bigoted. :dubious:
I may be getting a little lost here so apologies in advance…
A number of you seem to be saying that “marriage” is an act reserved for religions. Anything else is something equal-but-different. If that is the case, and given the fact that some religions do perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples and more. How can the Californian SC define in it’s ruling that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman?
No it makes your solution stupid. Your solution will involve taking something away. SSM involves giving something.
Well, they’re kinda hoist on their own retard, there. Legally, its tough enough, but in terms of semantics, its even worse. The revision is in the “present tense”, if you will, marriage is between a man and a woman, not marriage “will be”. Now, they’ve got a situation where marriages that can’t be are. Its kinda like saying same-sex marriage is impossible, except for when its already happened.
Exactly right.
Never said that. Not once. I don’t believe that the two struggles are remotely similar, but that’s another fight.
I agree with the idea that seperate but equal is a bad deal, but for the love of pete, we have to start somewhere. If civil unions are all that the majorty of people are comfortable with now, TAKE IT and continue the fight.
I think it’s ok because even small steps are still steps. Sure, it’s a big, giant grandiose wish to make everyone exactly the same as everyone else. Problem is, it’s gonna take a lot longer than this lifetime to make that happen.
I have a problem with people who, as elucidator mentioned, grab someone by the lapels and screams in their face. That tack never works. It does however create enemies where once a possible friend once was.
I have no problem with gay marriages being called marriages. Lots of people do though, and they’re powerful enough to stop it from happening, so you take what you can and move on.
Let’s be clear. I’m ambivalent on the subject on the whole. No dog in the fight and all that, but I recognize bad strategy when I see it, and this, is bad strategy.
Because that’s what’s available now, today. Tomorrow is another matter. The anti ssm crowd is saying exactly that, they dont want gays married in mainstream society. No matter the reason, they have not been convinced that ‘marriage’ is what should happen. OK, take civil unions today, and keep working.
:rolleyes: Oy. Because the birthday offers no special protection under the law. This does. It’s going to require a little patience.
I would, but then I don’t object.
Well I have read/scanned most of the thread and just wanted to chime in (because I know without my viewpoint this is all pointless :).
Der Thrihs is right. There is no way getting around the fact that saying “I have nothing aginst gays and lesbians, but…” without showing bigotry. It doens’t make you a raving bigot, but a bigot nonetheless. I would suspect we all have some bigotry in us. For example in my world Bears fans should not be allowed to procreate. Just sayin’…
He may or may not be a bigot himself, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t right. And tomndeb was wrong from banning the use of the word in the context DT was using it. Bigotry is defined by an attitude and DT was using it to label people because of their attitudes. It would be like banning calling Steeler fans, ‘Steeler Nation’. Now folks can and obviously are debating whether the label fits, but it is perfectly appropriate to be able to use the word ‘bigot’ if in your mind that fits. The right response is not to ban the word, but to engage DT, like we get to do in this thread.
Do you make no in-person contact with anyone at all? The way you dress, eat, speak, word choice, etc. all convey some information about yourself. In my scenario, saying that you are married, and nothing more, only tells me that you had a religious ceremony. If all religions recognized SSM, then I only know that you had a religious ceremony. I wouldn’t even know what sexual orientation you preferred. Hell, I wouldn’t even know you went through a civil union (because you secretly don’t want your “civil union partner” to have any benefits from your will) [<-- insert any crazy answer here]. Btw, I share your views on religion, but I would extend it to community(ies) as well.
Well, change does happen. But, now as the trend appears to be people moving away from the church anyway, do you really think that people will go back to church and become more religious. I have relatives who are now getting married who do not want a mass with their marriage ceremony. Don’t you think that these same people will remain religious only when Easter and Christmas roll along?
Ok, I agree that it’s become secularized. Then, I argue even more vehemently that the state should not ratify it.
It does. I am 100% sure, as I am of few other things, that I am not a bigot. So thanks for your your concern! Whew, huh??? 
No, but then lucky for me I never said anything like this.
I honestly don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about. It’s quite the fulminating screed, but it doesn’t bear any relationship to anything I’ve said, much less believe, so I can’t get too worked up about it.
I’ll work on that extinction as a personal favor, though! Just give me another 55 years and I’ll be right out of your hair. In the mean time, if my presence on the earth in anyway bothers you, you’ll just have to suck it up.