Quote:
Originally posted by matthew330
To keep it simple: A traditional marriage (i.e- nuclear family) is a religious institution with social benefits, and as such the government has a vested interest in encouraging. Race, differeng faiths, etc. plado not affect this stability.
|
I hate to rain on your parade, but your traditional marriage is a result of
your traditions. You can't pretend that all marriages fit your definition of traditional and you can't pretend to know what's best for individuals or society in general based on your traditions. Besides, what makes your traditions so much more useful than anyone else's so that you feel the need to force all others to conform to your definition of what marriage should be.
Quote:
|
It boils down to - I believe that a one Mom and one dad is in general the healthiest environment for a child to grow up in.
|
Well, if you
believe it to be true, than by all means, let's pass a constitutional amendment based on one man's common sense observation. Until you can provide some kind of proof as to the unquestioned superiority of the nuclear family in terms of child rearing, don't use that as a basis for your argument. Besides, we aren't talking about which kinds of relationships are more conducive to raising children here.
Quote:
|
Now before you point to 50% of all marriages ending in divorce etc etc, I think the reason for this is because marriage means next to nothing to people anymore. Marriage is "just a word" and a vow is "just a sentence." You've fallen in love in the last three days? - run to Vegas. You're arguing over who's gonna do the dishes? - fuck your neighbors wife and leave your current one. I don't think the divorce rate is a good rationalization for writing the insitution off.
|
I agree with this, but gay marriage isn't your problem here, since marriage as an institution has been crumbling since long before a gay couple ever got married.
Quote:
Originally posted by gondath
[B]Well, I suppose the dictionary has the final say on what a word means, but you can invent any definition you want. I find it amusing that you think when a state disobeys federal law, that equals civil disobedience. I would say I have the right to define personal definitions. I have no more justification in the naming of something than you, but you seem determined to define the word for everyone. All I can do is examine what a word means in the context of how it is used and the given history of the word. Marriage in the dictionary is defined as a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. I see no need to extend that definition to anyone else for any reason.
|
Let's check the dictionary, shall we.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...iage&x=13&y=24
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2)
the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>
italics added by me.
It's like i've been trying to say. Words are living things whose definitions change to suit whomever is using them. You don't own words and you aren't the sole definer of that which our culture may deem relevant.
Quote:
|
Civil union means much the same but any gender, and it already exists. The laws of marriage currently define what it is and how it is used. I see no reason to change that.
|
I missed the report where civil unions were already in functional existence in america.
Quote:
|
I take more issue with people getting married in a church than anything else and other inattention to separation of church and state, being an atheist.
|
So you take issue with people exercising what should be their religious freedoms as protected in the constitution? That's really swell of you, especially in light of the lack of any evidence that gay marriage will have any, ANY negative effect on the quality of life of society in general. Good for you, as long as you get to keep your definition of the word marriage.
Quote:
|
Yet I don't go out and cause a big stir to get every legal document and the Pledge of Allegiance to remove the mention of God. The big debate over gay marriage is more rabble rousing by a minority special interest group for no apparent cause.
|
If you can't see an apparent cause than i think we should stop talking. Clearly you're playing games for the sake of argument. Unless you think the civil rights movement was just rabble rousing by a minority special interest group for no apparent cause too. In which case you need to take your cold, unfeeling robot self back to the 25th century.