n/m
Melchior, perhaps you’d like to read (or start, sigh) another thread on this subject. You’re saying nothing that hasn’t been said a thousand times before.
I do not play golf. I pass for a WASP. (Being an atheist doesn’t show).
If a country club near me had a sign that said “No Blacks or Jews” I would have a strong opinion on that, even though I have no interest in joining a country club and would be eligible to join that one.
First, yes we can. Aliens aren’t going to swoop down and stop us if we decide to redefine a word.
And second marriage has already changed far more. It wasn’t so long ago that marriage was really just a contract where a male master assumed ownership of his female slave. Now it’s legally an equal partnership. That’s a far larger change than just expanding the institution to include more people.
Dude, just do a “Find all posts by this poster” search on this guy and I think you’ll figure out pretty quickly that there’s no point engaging him.
This. As others have said, it’s about justice and freedom, things America and Americans are supposed to be about. If you really think about it, and look at how the rights, laws and privileges that heterosexuals take for granted but that are denied to a certain segment of society simply because of their sexual orientation it doesn’t take much to realize how unfair that is.
OK.
Perhaps you should make up your mind. Do you choose to see marriage as “protection” for wives and children? Or do you wish to view wives and children as property? I can do what I wish with my property. If I choose to take an axe and destroy it, there is no law to prevent me from doing so. Do I have the same right to destroy my wife and children?
So, you would have no problem with a new law that prohibited a woman from getting married without the consent of her father?
Indeed. One should be aware of the many changes and permutations that marriage has undergone in multiple cultures (or even our culture) over the centuries.
There, there. I would not call your argument a fraud, pere se, just ill considered and not based on sufficient facts.
~A poetic formulation of the ideas of Martin Niemöller, a German pastor who at first supported Hitler, but ended up opposing him and being sent to Dachau.
Ten years ago, I didn’t know any gay people. I knew gay people existed, of course, but no one I knew personally was out. I didn’t have anything against homosexuality, but I also had no opinions on gay issues. I just didn’t see any need to think through or take any positions.
Within the space of 5 years, two cousins came out. I also changed departments at work, to a team that was almost entirely gay. People assumed because I’d joined them that I was gay too – that’s how gay they were then.
After it became personal, my opinions on gay issues came in a flash. My team’s great and my cousins have always had my love and support. I can’t imagine having anything against them or denying them anything I might have.
My point is you may think gay issues are distant and abstract, but that can change quickly. I am glad that I never hesitated in being open and supportive and non-judgmental about their lives. Why should you care? Because you never know who’s going to come out next.
People should support civil rights in general, even when they are not personally a member of the group which is benefiting from a specific case. Because all individual civil rights help foster a general atmosphere of civil rights. A society that sees the importance of civil rights for gays and black people and women is also going to see the importance of civil rights for straight white men.
You’re wrong. Judges aren’t overturning the law. They’re enforcing the law. The Constitution says all citizens are entitled to equal protection. That law was enacted by popular vote and as part of the Constitution, it is superior to any other law. So when judges see some other law contradicting the Constitution, which is the highest law, they enforce the Constitution.
This is a weak argument. You obviously have no problem with marriage existing and are able to place limits on it. So why do you think the rest of us can’t do the same thing? You can support opposite-sex marriages without feeling the need to support same-sex marriages. We can support opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages without feeling the need to support polygamous marriages.
We change the meaning of words all the time. Shakespeare made up a bunch of words. To quote Chuck Berry when he used the word “gay” in a poem - “I remember when that word meant what it meant.” Preserving the dictionary from one more change is kind of a weak excuse to withhold rights from people.
What about the Mormons? Their definition of marriage included polygamy. Does that mean they were wrong to change the definition of marriage when they renounced polygamy in 1890? Should they have maintained their traditional definition of marriage?
I’m not sure why some of the posters here are “too good” to merit a newbie with a response, but I’m sure I’ll figure it out.
This is an antiquated definition you’re using (based on modern cultural understanding of the term). What has ever stopped people from changing the definition of a word based on modern cultural concepts and usage, or other reasons for that matter?
They recently had to change the definition of the word “literal” to include the usage of emphasizing a point. Prior to that, the definition was that it referred ONLY to something being literally true. I understand this has much smaller consequences than changing the definition of “marriage,” but the point is there.
I’ve never in my life thought that, as part of a marriage, women and children were the literal property of the husband. That’s just ridiculous…
Are you suggesting there be a new term for the union of gay couples?
So a notebook and a tablet have to be exclusively made of paper and clay, respectively, and only used to write down things?
But more seriously, civil “marriage” is a figure of the Law that is defined in a particular title/article/section of your particular jurisdiction’s Civil or Family Code. Such title/article/section article may be amended by the ordinary legislative process (be it popular or representative), contingent on the amendment not conflicting with the Constitution.
Turtles, you’re starting from a good point, understanding that, as a heterosexual, the legality of SSM does not affect your life in the slightest.
Therefore, you can construct your opinion on the effect SSM will have on others.
Gay people, given the right to marry, will have significant benefits, they will be able to enjoy all of the legal rights afforded to married couples, and be able to partake in an institution that is generally positive for the participants.
The only other people affected are those heterosexuals who operate under the delusion that gay marriage will impact their lives. You know this is false, so you can dismiss this effect.
Therefore, supporting SSM provides positive benefits to some, with no negative effects to anyone else. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Note, SSM does not automatically confer discrimination status to homosexuals, so that poor baker who has to write Adam & Steve on a cake is not affected by SSM, but a different legal construct.
In addition to Niemöller, I like to whip out John Donne:
Societies that have a long history of practicing same-sex marriages would disagree that that’s not “marriage.”
And yes, what words mean can indeed change. That’s how language works.
Do I even need to get started on de Saussure’s structuralism?
You have a remarkable ability to ignore logic. It has nothing to do with ‘equal protection’. The entire gay marriage movement rests on a straw man argument. Either there can be limitations imposed on marriage, or not. How are those to be determined? *All limitations on marriage that exist in law have no support other than custom. *If you want to get rid of one part of the ‘system of customs’ (opposite sex) that is an arbitrary move. Why should *any *part of the ‘system of customs’ retain any force if people can arbitrarily redefine marriage as no longer being between a man and a woman? Everything falls away. You cannot ‘pick and choose’. What if I want to marry my sister? My dog? My television set? You say that is absurd? How so? It is no more absurd than marrying someone of the same sex.
Language does change, but not by court order. Duh.