People having a religion is fine. People imposing their religious beliefs on my rights as a citizen is not fine. I was born in America. I have lived all my life in America. I pay my taxes. I vote (for what it counts in Florida). I deserve the same rights as any other American. What makes you any better than me?

There is a huge difference between questioning your being hung upon the definition of marriage, and telling a group of people they are not allowed to have one with the ones they love because both partners happen to be of the same gender. As Myndaen has said several times, it just stinks of 'separate but equal'.

That said, I'm fine with Civil Unions and Marriage both existing. And I believe both should be fully open to members of all sexual orientations, period. That is to say, if Nocht and I want to have a Civil Union, we could - or if we wanted to get married, we could do that, too. Just as any heterosexual couple could make that decision.

The difference falls down to a simple linquistics, but it is simply proof of how powerful a word is - when you tell a group of people they are not ALLOWED something based on a trait that is either genetic or developed early in their childhood (and for all intents and purposes isn't changing), it has a hugely destructive effect upon a person's morale. At the end of the day, they're just words - if marriage is 're-defined' from 'a union of a man and a woman' into 'a marriage between two people, used as an expression of their love for one another', well.

I guess I just pity heterosexuals, who seek to ensure that marriage remains a word defined by the gender of the two people in it, versus the emotions and feelings mutually shared by those parties.

But like I said. Marriages should be anulled by the state, all of them, and everyone forced to seek a civil union.


THAT said, I just remembered - for all of you Floridians (I know you're out there!) vote NO on Amendment 2, which seeks to not only define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but also to define marriage as the ONLY acceptable union recognized by the state - that is to say, it will nullify all civil unions within the state, for heterosexuals, homosexuals, what have you. It is also an egregious and disgusting attempt to remove hundreds of elderly widows from receiving their spouse's social security and pension. It also forces hospitals to deny access to an ailing or dieing partner - even for heterosexual, unmarried couples. Including those engaged.

So. Go out, Vote No on 2.

Most definitely not all... which I'm sure you know, but still. Many people (including Daganev) have been saying things that imply the divide is entirely based on orientation, and it's not.

Very late response, but, still needed.

To think I'm disconnected from fervent Christian faith is foolish. I've been shoved down stairs and gotten into fist fights because certain Christian-people thought that they'd "Liberate the Heathen". If you really need to know the details, I can go into them, but I'd rather not have to.

Identifying was poor word choice and you know it. I may not agree with a suicide bomber, but I certainly can understand why they did what they did. And maybe other people could, too, if they left the safety of their bubbles and interacted with other people, and interact with people who have interacted with other people.

The word "marriage" may have power, but at the end of the day, that's all it is: a word. It is used to describe something. That's what words do. Meanings change. They can change, they will change, and sometimes, it's even a necessity for them to do so.

Let those who don't want "marriage" to be a "legal union between two people" to keep living in their own reality, so that everyone else can go back to living in their own realities. Forcing your reality on another's != cool, good, kind, caring. If it doesn't effect you(general), then you shouldn't worry about it and just let it go through.

Marriage is used to proclaim that a strong bond of trust and love that already exists, does. In the far far far FAR olden days, it was used to signify trading. (Two bulls and 10 chickens for your fine heffer, good sir!)

Take what you want from this post, but I suggest reading it through if you actually intend to respond to it.

Two things.

1. If the topic at hand was anything regarding "timetable" or "time horizon" you would see me saying that its silly semantics.

2. You are completely convoluted my point about government and definitions of words. The Bush administration is not passing laws in regards to "timetable" which makes it mean something other than what it meant previously.

3. Imagine if there was push to now define "citizen" to mean anybody in the entire globe. (for purposes of the war on terrorism) So now, the U.S. government applies to all it's "citizens" which will now apply to non Americans. You get the benefit of an attorney, but now you also have to pay taxes to the U.S. This isn't a power I want the government to have.

But you do want the government to have the power to enforce religiosity?

WTF????

Why must you people be so fing pig headed as to turn anything I say on its head, and to not listen to what the I'm actually saying????

What part of "A homosexual man is allowed to marry a homosexual woman" don't you understand? How is this in any way a restriction on your rights?

Shall we redefine what a "veteran" is? or a "citizen", or maybe we should call the condition of two or more college roomates living together for 4 years a "marriage" as well?? Why the hell not? Whats the good reason for not redefining any of these terms for people who want these benefits, but don't fit into the current definition??

The hypocrtical and inconsistant logic, that says that two people of the same sex living together is called a marriage really gets to me. Because NONE of you who support same sex marriage would ever support the idea of two siblings being married, or college roomates being "married" or allowing someone who got married to a Dolphin to have rights as a married person. Nor would any of you be willing to expand the definition of "veteran" to someone who's family member was in a war, or to a person who works for the police department, or to increase the definition of "citizen" to anyone who ever steps foot into your country for any reason.

You aren't open to these new definitions, nor are you fighting for them (despite that fact that many people across the globe want these definitions changed)

Uh. We could try, but we don't have the military to back it up. That wouldn't be redefining a word, that would be annexation of the entire globe. It also wouldn't do much, since many of the foreign nationals don't have the money to pay taxes (hence the whole "we'll pay your family" thing being a large draw).

Further, yes, it is silly semantics. However, one is a-okay to use for policy decisions (which can be used to craft the laws they wish), and one isn't. The word "timetable" was derided as being unpatriotic (seriously, what is unpatriotic about the word 'timetable'?). Those who used it were accused of not supporting our troops, of wanting to 'cut and run,' etc. All that gotten from "timetable". Is that not a redefinition? Was that not used to argue against passing a law? And yet, slap a new word on it (horizon) and suddenly it's all fine and dandy again.

Again, I don't really see why it's okay to redefine a word in order to make sure your preferred version of the law is put in place, but it's completely unacceptable for anyone else.

Actually, if you flip back a few pages, I've already said that I think all of the things you said I don't support are good ideas, at least as regards marriage. The college roommate one I would actually actively campaign for if it ever came up. There's nothing unique about sex characteristics that require one set of each for long-term private joint ventures to be possible.

Well, atleast I know you arn't just twisting my arguments, you are twisting other people's arguments as well.

The meaning of the word "timetable" did not change, nor were people saying that "timetable" now had a new definition, or that the word itsef was unpatriotic.

What they said, was that the desire to have a timetable, (i.e., a set plan with set dates and deadlines) was code for "retreat". i.e. these people felt that by using the word timetable, you wanted to abandon the war, and our efforts for the sake of being scared. (because everybody knew, that if you told Al Qaeda on which date you plan on leaving the country, then they would just wait until that date in hiding, and stock up on supplies. Even the Iraqi government knew this, and said so to congress) And so they talked about a "time horizon" which would be vague, because of the problems of accountability, of having a completely open ended war. The word "timetable" became code, and ussage of that word was a sign of which side of the debate you fell on. (sort of like using the words anti-abortion, or pro-life.. it tells you which side of the argument the person who uses the word stands on.)

How is "I'm not allowed to get the same rights with the person I love as I could if I had simply been born a different gender" not a restriction on your rights? It's not like we get to choose what gender we're born.

Now, on to your block of weird logic... who has been arguing it's about "people who live together"? Haven't we been arguing that it's about people who want to spend the rest of their lives together? You know, the exact same thing people marry for, traditionally. Also, with your redefinition at the end there, I'm a veteran. So is everyone in the world. We all have ancestors who've been involved in some war or another. My grandfather was a veteran of WW2, my grandmother served on 3 different army bases, I have ancestors who served in the Civil War, etc.

So, let me ask you this: Do you really think I should be accorded the benefits of being a veteran? If so... well, it's not like extra benefits will hurt! Though, by my own definition, I
still would not be, nor would I see myself as such.

I apologize then.

Last time the conversation came up, and I made those suggestions, everyone said I was insane, and obfuscating the issue on purpose, and using "scare tactics" and "slippery slope" arguments.

(read Estarra's comment, about slippery slope arguments about bestiality etc)

Hi, redefinition. You didn't argue against my point, you just supported it.

First to your last point: No, I don't agree you should be considered a veteran. However, I also don't agree that the term "marriage" should apply to a union which does not consist of a Husband and a Wife.

Now to your main point:

In current law, marriage is not dependent on people wanting to live the rest of their lives together. There are plenty of marriages which exist purely for citizenship status etc. And except in maybe a few states, there really isn't any reason we should give the government the power to look so deeply into our lives to know if our "marriage" is legit or not. Marriage is about the privileges and responsibilities that the government (or your culture)gives the people bound by those agreements. You can spend the rest of your life with someone, without those contractual agreements, or state sponsored benefits.

Also, the gender you are born as is not relevant to the question of marriage. Only the gender, species and the family of the person you choose to be married to matters. Your own gender and family are not relevant.

Sorry, you do know what code is right?

There have been no efforts, nor would any such effort succeed, to make the use of the word "timetable" a form of treason. If there was a redefinition of the term, then there would be grounds to make such an effort.

I officially absolve you of bigotry. You're just ignorant.

The benefits tied to marriage are very deep-reaching. It covers everything from taxation, inheritance, property ownership, legal privileges, adoption, insurance, employment and civil service rights, and a cartload of other things that would be trivial taken by themselves, but add up to a lot.

So, yes, you have the right to live under the same roof as anyone that you choose. However, those benefits matter tons, and if you expect rights even vaguely approximating those of married couples, you need a folder full of legal documents.

Why on earth should the pairing of sex characteristics matter that much?

----

On to the second point: if government shouldn't have the right to make sure that marriages are being performed for their intended purpose (assuming there is an intended purpose), why should the government have a say in who can enter into the contract at all?

Oh, so now marriage isn't religious at all? It's completely sponsored by the state, it's entirely for the state benefits, and that whole wedding ceremony thing is completely pointless. Holy Matrimony does not exist. Yes, that's "current law," but that's not even your own definition of marriage! You yourself have added religious tones onto it.

Further, your gender does, indeed, matter. Let's say Susan wants to marry Cathy, and vice versa. Now, what you're saying is that Susan's gender doesn't matter, it's all based on Cathy... from Susan's perspective. But from Cathy's, the gender fault lies on Susan. Sure, if you only look at it from one side you can try to claim that, but there are two people involved. Two viewpoints. And simply because one of them was born with the wrong chromosome, they're not allowed to get the same benefits as they should had one little cell just had a slight difference in makeup.

To your next post: Maybe you missed a lot of the news shows, etc. that were, indeed, pushing the use of "timetable" as treason. That is, in fact, how the whole "code" thing came to be-- politicians seized upon the ability to attach a lot of meaning onto that one word in an attempt to shoot down the entire idea behind the plan (by the way, I personally don't feel like the timetable would have helped at that point, and didn't support it-- but that doesn't mean I didn't pay attention to what was being done to discredit the idea). That is, in fact, a common thing to be done in the political arena-- you take a word, you add (or change) the meaning of it, and feed it to the masses hoping that it gains traction. If it does, you undermine your opponent's standpoint and reinforce your own.

I just don't get why you seem to think it's okay for every other word but this one.

briefly to your first point: All those things are covered in the brief comment I made earlier. One has to question why we have laws of inheretance, and all those other benefits given to "families". What is the purpose of them? The reason we have them is because of our ideas of what marriage is, not the other way around. So it is not really accurate to be saying that we have to give rights of marriage, because of we have rights of inheretance. Why do inheretance rights exist? (to keep wealth within families, because of ideas of nobility and kingdoms and other antiquated ideas)

As far as I understand it, the only current legitimate argument for the government being involved with marriages today, is an incentive to people who -ACCIDENTLY- have children.

Instead of having the father run off from the family, or having the woman abandon the child to the state, (causing the state to raise the child, or be responsible for its death), we have a cultural and financial benefited system to encourage those people who -ACCIDENTLY- have children to get married, and take care of that child together.

Any other reason for the government to be invovoled in marriages (i.e., keeping track of families, land ownership, cultural divides, ensuring children are raised by two parents, etc) are all now deemed antiquated or just immoral.

I heartily disagree. Inheritance laws (and most laws that are impacted by marriage's legal status) matter because people are interdependent. Excluding gays from marriage takes an axe to their ability to live codependently.

No, there are a host of other reasons. There are laws regulating who can access your medical information, who can visit you in the hospital when, who can make life-decisions for you when you're in a coma, etc. Property management is also not "immoral"-- the whole "inheritance" thing is a huge deal and is often contested in court (more laws). The "accidentally having children" part seems like a very small bit of the whole.