| « Children Listen UP! The president is speaking... | Obama is a comedian... right? » |
A different way to look at Gay Marriage. What is really being debated?
The gay marriage debate has been going on for years. I find it interesting that both sides of the argument are discussing two completely unassociated points.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112513826
Supporters of gay marriage:
"It's really about civil rights, about having the same things that every other loving couple has," Ryan says. "I have full confidence that the people of Maine will do the right thing and honor our commitments and honor civil rights for all Mainers."
Those against gay marriage:
"It isn't about anything other than the definition of marriage, what it's going to mean to us and how it's going to be defined in society," says Marc Mutty, the executive chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine.
I find it interesting that one argument is that of "rights", while the other argument is simply over the definition of the word. Of course these are just two examples, but they seem to encompass the heart of the debate.
Consider, what if there were a movement just to redefine a word. Let's take murder for example. Just ponder for a moment, what would happen if one state adopted a law in which murder was redefined. What if murder no longer explicitly involved death. What if the scope of the word murder were expanded to include slander, and even embarrassment -- character assassination if you will. The legal ramifications would be unimaginable. There would be people jailed on murder charges without any "traditional" murder having taken place. Of course redefining the word murder would never happen; that would be absurd. How then is redefining marriage any less absurd?
From what I have seen the "real" reason behind the gay marriage movement has nothing to do with rights. It seems to have more to do with benefits. There are certain advantages to marriage which gays are not privy to. The gay marriage movement is an attempt to "jump ahead". If the word marriage is redefined, gays will automatically assume all of the benefits of opposite sex married couples overnight. If those behind the gay marriage movement were more honest about their concerns, perhaps things would go differently.
There is no movement to keep gays from having benefits. There is no movement to keep those couples who are of the opposite sex, and are not married from having benefits. If the argument from the gay marriage supporters were indeed a rights issue, and not a benefits issue, could single people also claim civil rights violations?
The problem for those in support of gay marriage is simple. The majority of people are not in support of gay marriage.
Those in support of gay marriage are not just "pissing in the wind". They are pissing at a tornado, spawned by an approaching hurricane.
Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.
9 comments
I have killed a few people back in my day. Not once did I get called a murderer. But it sure feels good to be called "killer." If gays want to get married, I don't see how that affects any of us. I am indifferent on this issue, which is a rarity for my opinionated ass. In a way, both for and against arguments seem baseless. The only way this thing will go away is through a Constitutional Amendment: either clearly state that marriage is between a man and a woman or declare state laws banning gay marriages unconstitutional. By the way, while we're at it, why not change the tax code so I can claim my dog as a dependent? After all, I do pay for all her food and vet bills. 
Hey, the new Science Czar believes that animals should be represented in court. In that case perhaps you could claim your dog as an dependent! 
I love ya man, but your murder analogy is an epic strawman. ;)Regardless, I think gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, nor is it something for the feds to stick their dicks in so to speak-It is a states' issue, and fortunately has largely been treated as such thus far.
The murder analogy was designed to show the absurdity of redefining the word marriage. Yes I think it should be a states rights issue as well. The only problem there is with health insurance portability from state to state. That is, if we ever have legislation passed that allows for insurance portability. 
Hmm, looks like the word already has multiple meanings:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage.
Hollie:Merriam Webster denotes the "current" definition. The traditional definition does not include same sex marriage. That is the point. The law in most states does not recognize it either, for the same reason. Even in the "updated" Webster definition, there is emphasis needed to point out "same-sex" marriage, because the word marriage was not used to describe a joining of two people of the same sex.
There is also the difference in literal definition and legal definition. Literal definitions are subject to change over time. Take "fagot" for example, it once meant a bundle of steel, or wood. Now it is a derogatory term for a male homosexual. The legal definition of marriage was not so explicit, because it was "understood" to mean the marriage of a man and a woman. That is why so many states have, in recent years, passed same sex marriage bans, or explicitly defined the word marriage in legal terms.
That would be faggot: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faggot (which says it seems to have come from the word fagot anyway). So how about the gays just call it mariage, or maridge, LOL! Holle:# Main Entry: 1fag·ot
# Variant(s): or fag·got \ˈfa-gət\
Faggot is a variant of the word fagot. Click on the "1 fagot (noun)". The difference in spelling is only to show implied meaning.
Even if they gays did adopt the word Maridge, or even Mawidge, they would still lack any of the legal support which they are seeking.
Here's the scenario everyone rolls their eyes at (like they did 20 years ago at the suggestion that one day gays would want to be "married"): A MAN MARRIED HIS DOG.Why not? Why should someone else's definition of "marriage" be forced on him? Why does marriage need to be between two humans? Are you pre-judiced against other species? Does the ability to pro-create need to be present? Why does "consent" need to be a factor? The dog seems to love the man, as is evidenced by how it humps his leg. What gives? Stop shoving your standards down others' throats!
If marriage is to be between "two humans," how do you define "human?" This is critical. Because if you define it any other way other than genetically/DNA-based, you inevitably, like Hitler, exclude someone on sociological, psychological, phyiscal, meta-physical, intellectual, etc ... grounds. And once you concede that the only proper definition of "human" is DNA-based, then it must be acknowledged that abortion, therefore, murders millions of innocent humans every year in the U.S.--something the current regime is never going to admit. Therefore, we must leave off the "human" factor.
The entire "gay 'marriage'" thing is nothing more than a publicity stunt to destroy a morally-driven institution that excludes them. (I find it odd that the gays have no problem excluding straight, Christian people from their night clubs.)
The gays do not want to be married any more than they want to be paying taxes--even to Obama! They only want to prove a point: that any form of social institution that excludes ANY group is (morally?) "wrong." So I guess, to be consistent with their logic, we should start emptying the rapists from prison.
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
