Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Mantus · 09-17-2004, 09:16 PM

An argument against semantics.

Scenario 1:

- A gay man tells you he got married.
- A straight man tells you he got married.

Is there any difference in the circumstances of each couple? Both have shared vows of commitment, both couples love each other, both will now be viewed as a family. The gay couple holds the same value and concept of marriage as the straight couple. The only difference between the two couples is superficial; both share the essence and meaning of marriage equally.

Scenario 2:

- A man tells you he got married.

Here confusion can occur. He could be married to a man or a woman. And this is where some of you people will be tempted to jump in saying that “marriage” should never be confused for anything other then a union between a man and a woman.

Yet there are other misunderstandings that can occur about the identity of his spouse. The race and age of the spouse is in question. Yet we determined that the factors are not an issue, the exterior shell of a person does not affect their value as a spouse. So the same logic would apply to a gay couple. The fact that the wife may be a man, does not affect his quality as a partner any more then woman’s race would effect her quality as a wife. His role in a relationship is equal to that of spouse in a heterosexual relationship.

So when we are told that some one got married, our impression of the couple should not be effected any more by the couple’s sexual orientation then by the color of their skin. Marriage is marriage.

An argument against tradition.

There have been many traditions in marriage. Couples of different tribes, races and classes have been denied marriage. Women who are infertile, men who are disabled, and people who are mentally handicapped have been denied the right to marry. These traditions were all dispelled for the benefit of brining people together.

A tradition should not be held on to if it is damaging to society. Slavery was a tradition that dated back to the beginning of civilization, yet we put a stop to its practice.

Not giving same-sex couples the right to marry damages the institution of marriage and our society. Marriage is about brining together two people who wish to share a common vow of life long commitment. We decided that race, class, health and age of an individual do not affect their ability to keep that commitment and neither does their sex. Therefore this tradition keeps people who love each other from solidifying their commitment to each other, it keeps them at a disadvantage from the rest of society. Any such tradition does not belong in our society.

09-17-2004, 09:16 PM	#44 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	An argument against semantics. Scenario 1: - A gay man tells you he got married. - A straight man tells you he got married. Is there any difference in the circumstances of each couple? Both have shared vows of commitment, both couples love each other, both will now be viewed as a family. The gay couple holds the same value and concept of marriage as the straight couple. The only difference between the two couples is superficial; both share the essence and meaning of marriage equally. Scenario 2: - A man tells you he got married. Here confusion can occur. He could be married to a man or a woman. And this is where some of you people will be tempted to jump in saying that “marriage” should never be confused for anything other then a union between a man and a woman. Yet there are other misunderstandings that can occur about the identity of his spouse. The race and age of the spouse is in question. Yet we determined that the factors are not an issue, the exterior shell of a person does not affect their value as a spouse. So the same logic would apply to a gay couple. The fact that the wife may be a man, does not affect his quality as a partner any more then woman’s race would effect her quality as a wife. His role in a relationship is equal to that of spouse in a heterosexual relationship. So when we are told that some one got married, our impression of the couple should not be effected any more by the couple’s sexual orientation then by the color of their skin. Marriage is marriage. An argument against tradition. There have been many traditions in marriage. Couples of different tribes, races and classes have been denied marriage. Women who are infertile, men who are disabled, and people who are mentally handicapped have been denied the right to marry. These traditions were all dispelled for the benefit of brining people together. A tradition should not be held on to if it is damaging to society. Slavery was a tradition that dated back to the beginning of civilization, yet we put a stop to its practice. Not giving same-sex couples the right to marry damages the institution of marriage and our society. Marriage is about brining together two people who wish to share a common vow of life long commitment. We decided that race, class, health and age of an individual do not affect their ability to keep that commitment and neither does their sex. Therefore this tradition keeps people who love each other from solidifying their commitment to each other, it keeps them at a disadvantage from the rest of society. Any such tradition does not belong in our society.