11 of 11 US states vote against gay marriage

[Abramul]

A more contemporary source...Google:

 

mar·riage (măr'ĭj) pronunciation

n.

 

  1.

        1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

        2. The state of being married; wedlock.

        3. A common-law marriage.

        4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

2. The marriage vow or contract. [Obs.] --Chaucer.

        [1913 Webster]

 

    3. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.

        [1913 Webster]

 

              The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king

              which made a marriage for his son.    --Matt. xxii.

                                                    2.

        [1913 Webster]

 

    4. Any intimate or close union.

        [1913 Webster]

 

Draighox, you would be wise to include the entirety of your source, even if it doesn't uphold your opinion.

[Peregrine]

Unfortunately for you, the dictionary definition means absolutely nothing. Marriage is a legal contract between two people. It is a service offered by the government that gives benefits to those who participate. The government is not allowed to discriminate just because a dictionary says it should. A dictionary has no value as a law, and its use in this case is completely irrelevant.

[Dark0ne]

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and a pretty pathetic one at that - the last refuge of homophobic bigots who'll cling to any straw to force their outdated concepts upon others.

 

So basically calling black people "black" is discrimination? Abso-bloody-lutely it is, it's discrimination in that it defines that the person is black and inherintly different to "white" people. This is not offense discrimination, this is factual discrimination. A black person IS different to a white person. You can't escape it. I don't care if you paint yourself white like Michael Jackson, you're still a black person.

 

Similarly a gay relationship IS DIFFERENT to a straight relationship. Straight relationships can become marriages but there's no word for gay relationships and so they're grabbing for a word that already exists despite the fact the word does NOT define their word. It's not an insult to them, it's not a slap in the face. It's FACT. Similarly, if we found a race of humans on another planet that were green, would they try and call themselves white even though they aren't? No frackin' way would they, we'd make them a new word .. "green people" more than likely.

 

Gay relationships ARE different to straight ones and should be recognised as such -- if people can't accept it's different then they should go get a reality check.

 

We've already done this about 3 times now. Basically what you'll say now is "so, because its different they don't get the same rights? THAT'S discrimination" then I'll say "They can have all the legal rights but not call it marriage" then you'll say "but that's discrimination" then I'll rephrase what I've already said, you'll rephrase...so on and so forth.

[Peregrine]

So basically calling black people "black" is discrimination? Abso-bloody-lutely it is, it's discrimination in that it defines that the person is black and inherintly different to "white" people. This is not offense discrimination, this is factual discrimination. A black person IS different to a white person. You can't escape it. I don't care if you paint yourself white like Michael Jackson, you're still a black person.

 

That's not discrimination because all you're doing is stating the true fact. It would be discrimination if you treated them differently because of that difference. The correct analogy would be forcing all black people to call their marriages something else, because marriage is only between white people.

 

Similarly a gay relationship IS DIFFERENT to a straight relationship. Straight relationships can become marriages but there's no word for gay relationships and so they're grabbing for a word that already exists despite the fact the word does NOT define their word. It's not an insult to them, it's not a slap in the face. It's FACT.

 

Just what difference is there, besides the genders of the people involved? If you were attempting to claim that marriage between black people is a different kind of relationship, you would be called a racist (and for good reason). Why should sexual preference be treated any differently than skin color?

 

Gay relationships ARE different to straight ones and should be recognised as such -- if people can't accept it's different then they should go get a reality check.

 

How? Instead of making vague claims, please explain just how those relationships are different.

 

We've already done this about 3 times now. Basically what you'll say now is "so, because its different they don't get the same rights? THAT'S discrimination" then I'll say "They can have all the legal rights but not call it marriage" then you'll say "but that's discrimination" then I'll rephrase what I've already said, you'll rephrase...so on and so forth.

 

We've done this three times because you insist on ignoring the precedent of "separate but equal is not equal". The courts have already decided this one, it's only because of people like you putting your personal opinions above the law that marriage hasn't been changed already.

 

And it is clear discrimination. Every time the concept of "civil unions" is mentioned, it's always in the context of being a lesser/partial form of marriage. This is not equal to marriage, because having a marriage contract (and not a civil union contract) grants prestige beyond just the terms of that contract.

[Darnoc]

What is discrimination? Discrimination is the creation of a difference. We do this all the time, in order to classify and bring order into chaos.

 

Discrimination in itself is not something wrong, but a necessity. It is the way it is used which makes discrimation wrong. Or rather, it makes this particular use of discrimination wrong and the persons using this particular use of discrimination, but not discrimination itself.

 

To give you an example:

 

If I say that one particular kind of furniture is called "table" and another one "cupboard", I am making a discrimination. If I call one kind of animal "dog" and another one "cat", I am making a discrimination. If I call a particular action "swimming" and another "diving", I make a discrimination. Ect. Ect. Ect.

 

Now, there are certain groups of persons which use discriminations as an excuse to take away human rights from certain other humans. This is wrong, not discrimination in itself.

 

So it is wrong to take away the human rights of homosexual people, only because they are homosexual.

 

But is not wrong to discriminate between an union of a male and a female and between an union of two persons of the same gender. This is simply defining and discriminating. And, as shown above, this is not something wrong, but a necessity.

 

The statement "discriminating between an union of a male and a female and an union of two people of the same gender is wrong" is as stupid as the statement "discriminating between cats and dogs is wrong".

 

We are talking about two different things. So why should it be wrong to give those two different things different names? This is only defining and discriminating, not taking away someone's human rights.

 

The more we discriminate, classify and define, the easier things get. If we have more definitions, our communication is getting easier. It is a necessity to define and to discriminate. Or else we could stop trying to communicate right now.

[Dark0ne]

"separate but equal is not equal"

 

Instead of making vague claims, please explain just how this works. In who's eyes is it not equal? Yours? Well bloody rar-rar, I say good chap!

 

The courts have already decided this one, it's only because of people like you putting your personal opinions above the law that marriage hasn't been changed already.

 

Thank god for people with personal opinions. What the hell would the world be like if people didn't have personal opinions on things so blatently controversial as this subject? Thankfully I don't come from a country that has a centuries old constitution which is followed like a religious fanatic -- a bit like your whining about Christian's following a 2000 year old book to be honest.

[ThetaOrionis01]

Discrimination is also defined hereas

as

prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment

 

If you have to argue semantics in order to justify inequality before the law, then you are really clutching at straws.

 

 

What your explanation leaves out, Darnoc, is that such a specialisation of language as you advocate is only required for specialised areas of expertise, and that where it is used inappropriately, it can be used to confuse, obscure and obfuscate rather than facilitate communication.

 

Furthermore, the more you inappropriately emphasize the differences, the more you create artificial barriers between people. Of course you can create new words for every possible permutation - you can have a separate word for a black Nobel-prize-winning scientist, and another for a white Nobel-prize-winning scientist. After all, it's not their work that's important, but the colour of their skin. You can of course create terms to distinguish between a male victim of political persecution and a female one - because it's the gender that's obviously the important feature here. And of course you can have one word for homosexual marriages, and one for heterosexual ones - after all, what matters isn't that two people have a deep and loving relationship, but that one of them is the 'wrong' gender.

 

The kind of 'discrimination' you advocate, Darnoc, is divisive, in that it places emphasis not on the important factors people have in common, but on the differences. And of course, throughout human history people have never seized upon those differences to persecute others...

[Peregrine]

Instead of making vague claims, please explain just how this works. In who's eyes is it not equal? Yours? Well bloody rar-rar, I say good chap!

 

Is it really that hard to understand? Most of the time people talk about civil unions or whatever other marriage-with-a-different-name, it's said in the context of "we don't want them to have marriage, but we'll let them have something almost as good". Civil unions are always presented as a compromise option, and so are not equal.

 

Like it or not, having the word "marriage" on that legal contract gives the couple a higher status than if they just signed a plain contract with those same agreements. It is unacceptable to deny that status to couples based only on their sexual preference when it is the government giving the recognition.

 

If you think a "civil union" is equal to marriage, here's a nice challenge for you. Go address a crowd of black couples, and tell them that because of their clear differences in skin color, they will not be allowed to use the term "marriage" for their relationships. But don't worry, civil unions are just as good.

 

If you somehow survived your little speech, you would be labeled a racist, and for good reason. It's the same principle here, you are no better than the racists. The only difference is your form of prejudice is considered socially acceptable right now.

 

Thank god for people with personal opinions. What the hell would the world be like if people didn't have personal opinions on things so blatently controversial as this subject? Thankfully I don't come from a country that has a centuries old constitution which is followed like a religious fanatic -- a bit like your whining about Christian's following a 2000 year old book to be honest.

 

The constitution and the principles I'm quoting exist for good reason, to protect the rights of the minority from abuses by the majority. And yes, you are allowed to have an opinion. But putting your opinion above the law, and supporting laws that clearly defy what the government is allowed to do, is unacceptable.

[Dark0ne]

Thankfully in this country law is made by what the majority of people (or politicians representing the people) believe to be right in their opinion. They'll hear two sides and vote accordingly. Their opinions may change through hearing either side of the argument, yet at the end of the day it's the person's opinion that makes the law.

 

HAHAHA you say. But does it really happen (people voting for what they believe to be right)? Probably not.

 

If you have to argue semantics in order to justify inequality before the law, then you are really clutching at straws.

 

Thats exactly what the court does in a case. They'll review what the law says (which will say that people can get married) and then they'll get a definition of the word marriage and decide based off this information. America has the whole imaginary freedom thing going on however with a constitution that over-rules anything, as logical as it may be, and thankfully there's a nice difference between the UK and America.

[Peregrine]

I noticed that you've completely avoided the inequality issue in my last post, a question you wanted an answer to. Is that your conession that you're just as bad as the racists about discriminating against people you don't like?

 

Thankfully in this country law is made by what the majority of people (or politicians representing the people) believe to be right in their opinion. They'll hear two sides and vote accordingly. Their opinions may change through hearing either side of the argument, yet at the end of the day it's the person's opinion that makes the law.

 

So as long as a law has the majority vote, it is correct? If the majority and their politicians voted to ban interracial marriage, would you still consider this acceptable?

 

Thats exactly what the court does in a case. They'll review what the law says (which will say that people can get married) and then they'll get a definition of the word marriage and decide based off this information.

 

Last time I checked, dictionaries are not laws, and there is no justification for basing a law on what a dictionary has to say. Especially with something with as many different meanings from different cultures and beliefs as marriage.

America has the whole imaginary freedom thing going on however with a constitution that over-rules anything, as logical as it may be, and thankfully there's a nice difference between the UK and America.

 

You would prefer no protection of your basic rights, and everything left to the direct will of the people? You would rather live in a country where the majority could vote execute all forum admins and you would have no way to appeal that decision?