11 of 11 US states vote against gay marriage

[Abramul]

Because, like many people, he conveniently forgets about this concept of separation of church and state. He demands that his religion be the one to decide what marriage is, and this be the only legal option. Unfortunately, his side has the majority and can ignore the laws if it wants to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Replace 'ignore' with 'make'. (Bold added)

[draighox]

If the union is between people of the same sex, it can't be called marriage.

And why not?

Because it isn't marriage. It's something else completely.

[ThetaOrionis01]

That's not an answer.

 

And it does not address the discrimination aspect of it, either - which is what really matters.

[draighox]

Discrimination? OK. It would be discrimination if homosexuals weren't allowed to do it. Now they can do it, they just can't use the term 'marriage', because it isn't marriage.

[Peregrine]

Separate but equal has already been rejected as discrimination, because just the fact that they are separate makes them inherently unequal. Why should they have to accept a lesser form of marriage?

[draighox]

Separate but equal has already been rejected as discrimination, because just the fact that they are separate makes them inherently unequal.

They ARE different but they can be treated equally.

 

Why should they have to accept a lesser form of marriage?

Discrimination is not forbiding the incorrect usage of term 'marriage', discrimination is stating that the form is lesser.

[Peregrine]

They ARE different but they can be treated equally.

 

Separate schools based on race were treated equally. So by your standard, that would be ok. Just like it would also be ok for the government to redefine marriage to be between two men only, and all the one man, one woman couples can have something with a new name.

Discrimination is not forbiding the incorrect usage of term 'marriage', discrimination is stating that the form is lesser.

 

Why is it incorrect? It is discrimination to define marriage in a way that makes it incorrect for it to be used with anything but one man and one woman.

[Darnoc]

From what I recall, I never wrote any post in this thread. This is, because I am acctually not really interested in this particular subject. But now that I read through it, I think that I should give my oppinion into this discussion.

 

Personally, I do not have anything against homosexual persons. And personally, I think they should be allowed to have a legal union.

 

But I think the acctual problem is not one of morality, but one of definition.

 

The question is not, if gay marriages are moral or not, the question is, if the definiton of the word marriage includes the possibility of a union of two humans of the same gender.

 

If the word marriage in its etymological definition only refers to the union of a male human with a female human, then homosexual marriages are not possible, because the word marriage does not include this possibility.

 

If this is the case, a union between two humans of the same gender must have an different name than marriage, because the word marriage does not refer to this type of union.

 

Of course, in order to clearly define this, we must do some research into the etymological definiton of marriage. If in the course of this research, we come to the conclusion that marriage does not include the union of two humans of the same gender, it should be advised that homosexuals should try to name their kind of union different.

 

After we have cleared this matter, we have still the problem of the Ultra-Conservatists to overcome...

[draighox]

OK, I agree with Darnoc. So here goes:

 

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of A MAN AND A WOMAN for life, as husband and wife;

 

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) :

A contract made in due form of law, by which A FREE MAN AND A FREE WOMAN reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.

 

So that's it.

[ThetaOrionis01]

Using a word to justify discrimination is nothing but an excuse, and a pretty pathetic one at that - the last refuge of homophobic bigots who'll cling to any straw to force their outdated concepts upon others.

 

Words change. Their meanings change. Take the word 'gay' for instance. Language adapts to accommodate changed circumstances. You may note that few of us converse in Latin, Sumerian, Anglo-Saxon etc these days - because language is not set in stone but is flexible and adaptable.

 

If you look at definitions of 'voter' or 'electorate' from the 19th century, you'll probably find the term defined along the lines of 'a man entitled to vote' if you go far enough back. Would you claim that such a definition is still accurate?