11 of 11 US states vote against gay marriage

[Dark0ne]

One of those benefits being the name "marriage". Civil unions are always mentioned as a compromise position, something almost as good as marriage. Unless you are going to make all unions between couples regardless of gender "civil unions" then it is not fine.

 

Yes and now the government will provide homosexuals with the prestige of having their relationship named a "civil union". How nice!

 

Except that separate but equal is inherently unequal, and therefore unacceptable. Just the fact that the two things are separate creates inequality between them.

 

Yes, because when you split "4" up into groups of two 2's, they're not equal :rolleyes:

 

When you split a cake precisely in half, they're not equal. etc etc.

 

If the name "marriage" on the government contract does not provide any prestige, why are you so stubbornly insisting on keeping the old definition of marriage?

 

Oh it does, but marriage built it's prestige from the ground up. Why can't homosexual unions do the same? Heck, if everyone's so bent on being equal (which they're quite blatently not, you only have to look at American's thinking they're the next best thing since the aaryan race) then they'll be equal from the beginning. Just as simple ;)

[Peregrine]

Yes and now the government will provide homosexuals with the prestige of having their relationship named a "civil union". How nice!

 

What part of "compromise position" is so hard to understand? The two are not equal when one is called "almost as good as marriage". The prestige of the word "marriage" is denied based on illegal reasons.

 

Yes, because when you split "4" up into groups of two 2's, they're not equal rolleyes.gif

 

When you split a cake precisely in half, they're not equal. etc etc.

 

Try reading US history so you can actually understand the reference. The court case found separate schools based on race to be unconstitutional, because just the fact that the two groups were separated created inequality. It is no different separating marriage based on sexual preference. Just the fact that "civil unions" are separated and given a different name makes them unequal.

 

And since you think that separating into two equal groups is not creating inequality, I assume you will have no problem with the following new law:

 

Since black and white people are clearly different, they will now be given different forms of marriage. "Marriage" shall now only be used for white couples, and all others can have "civil union". The two are of course entirely equal, and it should not be thought of as discrimination to separate them.

 

Do you accept that as a valid law?

Oh it does, but marriage built it's prestige from the ground up. Why can't homosexual unions do the same?

 

Because discrimination is already illegal. We wouldn't be having this debate if people didn't put their own biases above the law.

[Dark0ne]

Try reading US history so you can actually understand the reference. The court case found separate schools based on race to be unconstitutional, because just the fact that the two groups were separated created inequality. It is no different separating marriage based on sexual preference. Just the fact that "civil unions" are separated and given a different name makes them unequal.

 

I don't feel the need to read up on history about a country that doesn't affect me. Neither did the education secretery when I was doing History at school. Thankfully we've never found ourselves in such a pathetic situation.

 

One of the major differences is that children MUST go to school. Homosexuals are not being denied the benefits or the prestige of being within a legally binding, goverment sanctioned civil-union in what I say.

 

What part of "compromise position" is so hard to understand? The two are not equal when one is called "almost as good as marriage". The prestige of the word "marriage" is denied based on illegal reasons.

 

Last time I checked I said it was to be called a "civil-union" not "almost as good as marriage". It's exactly the same as marriage without the word. That's not "almost as good as marriage" that's "as good as marriage".

 

Since black and white people are clearly different, they will now be given different forms of marriage. "Marriage" shall now only be used for white couples, and all others can have "civil union". The two are of course entirely equal, and it should not be thought of as discrimination to separate them.

 

Put it through our parliament and see how far it gets. Put homosexual marriage through our parliament and see how far it gets. There's got to be a reason. The reason is because the underlying priniciple of marriage has, until recently, been a relationship between a male human and a female human. That's what people have been brought up to believe in over thousands of years and now people expect it to crumble in just a few years. Not a belief as in a religious belief, but a general concensus that marriage = male/female bonding.

 

Time's change and now the government finds homosexuals wanting to be legally wed with the government's blessing. Just because time's change doesn't mean the tradition isn't allowed to continue. It doesn't mean that I can tell my government I want to have sex with a 12 year old and if I don't get it I'm being discriminated against. It just means thats how things have always been. Time's change, so why can't new government sanctions be brought in rather than changing the current ones? Because the word marriage is "prestigous"? Rubbish, if the government changed the word "marriage" tomorrow people would still do it irrespective of what it is called, for it's legal benefits and for the stronger glue it provides to relationships. So you say "ok then, if the word doesn't matter then why not allow homosexuals on the band wagon as well" and I say "the word doesn't matter, so go make a new one".

[Peregrine]

I don't feel the need to read up on history about a country that doesn't affect me. Neither did the education secretery when I was doing History at school. Thankfully we've never found ourselves in such a pathetic situation.

 

Then concede that you don't understand the subject that you are replying to, and have no knowledge of the US legal system and what is considered acceptable in it.

One of the major differences is that children MUST go to school. Homosexuals are not being denied the benefits or the prestige of being within a legally binding, goverment sanctioned civil-union in what I say.

 

Wrong. Children can be home-schooled just fine, or can go to private schools. There is no requirement that they participate in the separate-but-equal public system.

 

Last time I checked I said it was to be called a "civil-union" not "almost as good as marriage". It's exactly the same as marriage without the word. That's not "almost as good as marriage" that's "as good as marriage".

 

Take a look at how those words are presented. Even you are saying it, a civil union is a compromise between true marriage and nothing. Almost inevitably when civil unions are proposed, it's said as "we can't let those immoral people corrupt marriage, but we'll give them something almost as good".

Put it through our parliament and see how far it gets. Put homosexual marriage through our parliament and see how far it gets. There's got to be a reason.

 

Of course there's a reason. Our society considers sexual preference a legitimate reason for discrimination and denial of rights, but not race. The two laws would be exactly the same, the only difference is one set of biases hasn't been eliminated yet.

 

Of course 60 years ago in the US, that law would have passed, if it didn't exist already. Does that mean it would have been right, just based on what congress would do with it?

The reason is because the underlying priniciple of marriage has, until recently, been a relationship between a male human and a female human. That's what people have been brought up to believe in over thousands of years and now people expect it to crumble in just a few years. Not a belief as in a religious belief, but a general concensus that marriage = male/female bonding.

 

It has? I wasn't aware that marriage has been a static term across all cultures and time periods. I suppose polygamy never existed, and was never considered marriage?

 

Or if you want to go by the appeal to tradition argument, marriage for love should not be recognized. The only reason one should marry is for family gain, whether it's political, financial, whatever. And it should be arranged by the parents of the people involved, not the couple themselves. Any other reason would not be valid, because it's not the way things have been done except for in very recent history.

 

Time's change and now the government finds homosexuals wanting to be legally wed with the government's blessing. Just because time's change doesn't mean the tradition isn't allowed to continue.

 

Tradition can continue just fine, just not in government. Marry a single woman exactly like tradition demands, that's your right. But you have no right to enforce that tradition on anyone else.

 

It doesn't mean that I can tell my government I want to have sex with a 12 year old and if I don't get it I'm being discriminated against

 

Nice slippery slope fallacy, implying that the two are at all the same. Sex with a 12 year old is illegal because a 12 year old is not legally an adult and can not give consent to sex. This is not the case with marriage, because one has to be 18 and an adult to sign the contract.

Time's change, so why can't new government sanctions be brought in rather than changing the current ones?

 

Why is a new term needed, besides to say "you're different, and aren't as good as the rest of us"?

 

Because the word marriage is "prestigous"? Rubbish, if the government changed the word "marriage" tomorrow people would still do it irrespective of what it is called, for it's legal benefits and for the stronger glue it provides to relationships.

 

Your point? If people would still do what they do anyway, why does it matter how the word marriage is used? If those benefits do not go away if the word changes, why oppose change in the word?

 

So you say "ok then, if the word doesn't matter then why not allow homosexuals on the band wagon as well" and I say "the word doesn't matter, so go make a new one".

 

Because the word does matter, and you agree no matter what you claim here. If you truly do not care about the word, why do you oppose any changes in it? Why does it matter to you at all what the government decides "marriage" means?

 

We all know what the answer is here. You do think the word matters, and you need to protect the traditional definition you care about.

[Zmid]

I totally agree that Christian churches/Muslim mosques/Jewish synagogues/whatever else should be allowed to ban any kind of 'marriage' they desire, but only if that has absolutely no detrimental effect on the legal status of that marriage. As long as two consenting adults can enter into a union that is legally seen as marriage, no matter what their gender, then whether they can do this in the place of worship of any religion is down to that religion, or, more specifically, the people or person in charge of that particular place of worship. Where the tradition and prestige comes from is that 'marriage', in a legal sense, has meant a joining or union between two people for a very long time. Calling it a 'civil union' because it is two men or two women marrying each other is basically saying 'we don't think your relationship is as deep as one between a man and a women. As such, you're not worthy of marriage.' Either that, or it's saying that their relationship is too perverted to be granted 'married' status.

 

Time's change and now the government finds homosexuals wanting to be legally wed with the government's blessing. Just because time's change doesn't mean the tradition isn't allowed to continue.

 

The way I see it, the tradition does continue. It just gets added to, that's all.

 

It doesn't mean that I can tell my government I want to have sex with a 12 year old and if I don't get it I'm being discriminated against.

 

This sounds remarkably like the 'slippery slope' argument I have heard before elsewhere, and, frankly, it's astonished me that anyone even uses it. The whole basis of marriage (in the UK and US, anyway) is one of consent. Two people give their consent to enter into a lifelong relationship (or until they get divorced). A 12 year old, legally speaking, is unable to give their consent. The same standards apply to having sex. If someone does not or cannot give their consent, it's illegal and called rape. Even if you were to disregard that little bit of law, yes, you are being discriminated against by being unable to have sex with your 12 year old, but, if you did, their rights would be violated.

[Akrid]

Ok Dark0ne you seem to think seprate but equal works, well that was the argument to keep schools segregated also, but they didnt turn out equal. So we had to mix them up. Think about a high school diploma vs. a GED thier both the same leagly, but they have diffrent names and that effects a lot. See what I mean?