Tell me reasons why if voting majority keeps overturning gay marriage laws you thinks

Re: Tell me reasons why if voting majority keeps overturning gay marriage laws you th

Then it becomes an argument of purely semantics and shouldn't matter either way. In other words it shouldn't matter to opponents what others call their union. More-over the opposition does not own the copy right to the word marriage.

Because seperate but equal isn't equal. This is the same kind of rationalisation used to support Apartheid and seggregation.

That it shouldn't affect them what other people call their union. Christians don't own the copy right to the word marriage any more than another religion or those without a religion.
Besides there are several Christian denominations that are completely acceptive of and ever preform same-sex marriages.

Forgive my ignorance but I don't see how transgendered straight people are affected by this unless there are laws that prevent transgender people from being recognised as the gender they are.
In the UK this is an issue. Atm transgender people cannot remain married if they change their gender during their marriage. Luckily with new legislation this will be amended.

 

Re: Tell me reasons why if voting majority keeps overturning gay marriage laws you th

It's rather simple, really. LGBT people are fighting for acceptance and equality. We want our relationships to be viewed just as valid and equal as the relationships between straight people. Unfortunately, many straight people view us as inferior and don't want to accept us as equals.

By accepting a separate but equal situation it simply validates their assertions that our relationships are somehow less valid than theirs, and therefore we deserve to be treated with less respect, less dignity, and less value. In effect, they are saying by entering into a relationship with someone we love, we are at best a pale imitation of a "real" relationship - we're playing at "acting like straights."

Those who oppose us do so for numerous reasons. Some out of ignorance, some out of fear, and many out of pure bigotry. Those at the top - those behind the anti-gay movement - know what is really at stake. It has nothing to do with the "sanctity of marriage." That's bullshit. If they cared so much about marriage they'd show concerns over the extremely high divorce rate among their own congregations.

No, they don't want to accept us as equals. They want to oppress us and force us to remain in the closet. They know that if we win the right to marry, that it will be a fatal blow to them, because over time people will eventually realize that we really are no different and they will come to accept us as equals. In effect, we overcome the ignorance and fear, leaving behind only the bigots who hate us.

However, these bigots would then be in the minority. By standing up and shouting us down, they would be condemned because people will see them for what they are.

This is why it is a culture war. We're fighting to change the culture, and each victory we achieve pushes us toward that ultimate goal. They're fighting to stop us.

How does this impact someone who is transgendered (straight or gay)? Simple. Do you believe that they are any more accepting of me than you? Do you think they'd recognize your true gender and validate any relationship you enter into? You know the answer to those questions.

They are people who are twisted by bigotry and hate.

Ultimately, there will be a day in this country where a little boy can fall in love with another boy, hold his hand at school, and no one will bat an eye. His parents would be proud, love him for who he is, and he won't know shame or fear for being gay.

That's what the bigots fear. That's the nightmare that keeps them awake at night. To that, I say sweet dreams. No matter how hard they fight whatever victories that they win are temporary, delaying only what is inevitable.

Yes, fighting for marriage is about all the rights associated with it - extremely important rights. We need those. But it is also about much more than that, it's about what I've outlined. That's why it is of such importance.

 

Re: Tell me reasons why if voting majority keeps overturning gay marriage laws you th

I think you are asking specifically about the use of the word "marriage," as opposed to some other term to mean the same thing.

Religious people argue that marriage is a religious institution. This argument is false. The word marriage may be used by some religions to refer to the kind of marriage that they recognize, but, in English generally, the word is used to refer to the whole broad category of relationships, not only those officiated by any religion. Atheists can get married. Whether you think polygamy is acceptable or not, and whether or not they are recognized by any given church or government, polygamous marriages are marriages. Marriages between two members of the same sex are likewise marriages. In anthropology, they study different types of marriage that have existed in different cultures throughout history all over the world. The word marriage is used to refer to all of these different kinds of relationships.

The debate about marriage equality is not really about whether gay people will be able to get married. Gay people already get married, and already have the right to get married in a church by a pastor, if they belong to a church that recognizes same-sex marriages. The debate is only about whether the government will recognize the existing marriages.

I don't think the burden is on us to show why we should be able to use the word marriage. I think the burden is on them to show why we should invent a completely new term to mean what the term "marriage" already means. What does doing so accomplish?

The fact is, it accomplishes nothing except to codify the idea that marriage between same-sex people is not the same as between opposite sex people. Their whole argument is that the term "marriage" refers to a sacred relationship. The implication is that the relationship between same-sex partners is not sacred. I personally find that argument profoundly offensive. I have serious difficulty with believing that anyone who thinks that could be a friend to me. If you don't think my love is as sacred as other people's, you have failed to respect my humanity.

It is possible to be Christian without believing this. There are entire denominations that recognize and celebrate same-sex marriages (and note that these religious marriages are not recognized at present by the government, while marriages between straight atheists are recognized). Christians who believe our love is sacred and valid and equal are our allies.

Unfortunately, this is not the mainstream belief in Christianity. Most Christian institutions, and most Christian leaders, deny the sacredness of our love. While it is difficult to ascertain with any certainty, it certainly seems like the majority of people who belong to such institutions and follow such leaders also deny the sacredness of our love.

To deny the sacredness of my love is offensive. To say that my love is profane, and worthy of divine punishment, is really egregiously offensive. And the Christians who hold these beliefs are in the habit of saying that anyone who doesn't is not a "real" Christian.

Everyone is allowed to hold whatever religious beliefs they will. But we are allowed to say when we think their beliefs are offensive. And the mainstream Christian beliefs on this matter are offensive.

 

Re: Tell me reasons why if voting majority keeps overturning gay marriage laws you th

Civil Rights of a minority should never be left to the majority. Basic rule of history.

 

Re: Tell me reasons why if voting majority keeps overturning gay marriage laws you th

Shakespeare was right. If a rose were instead named shitturdonastick, it'd still smell the same. But that's not the same as having two flowers both smelling identical, one called a rose, and the other called shitturdonastick. The quote is over wether the name of something changes what it is, not whether two names for something have different meanings.

No two words have the exact same meaning. Very few have the exact same definition and even then their connotations, alternate definitions, situational uses, and occurance rates color each differently. Anyone who has ever learned another language and tried to speak to a native speaker will have encountered using some word that translates literally correctly but takes on a whole different meaning to the native speaker because of cultural and linguistic differences based on connotation and context.

If you were to have marriage (opposite sex) and civil unions (same sex), and other than those two terms, there was no distinction between the two, they would not be equal simply cause they don't use the same word.

Another way the difference is evident is in the categorization of the two terms. Having seperate terms would be perfectly fine if there were a parent category that both terms fell under. Like calling them opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage. Both are under the marriage category. You can say you have a marriage or be more specific if you want. But in having names like marriage and civil unions instead, there is no umbrella term to encompass both or at best, marriage becomes that term clearly showing civil unions to be an inferior branch.

 

Re: Tell me reasons why if voting majority keeps overturning gay marriage laws you th

I would like to respond, but I can't understand anything you wrote..