Now on to one of the sub questions. Is it natural? Well, someone mentioned that it wasn't natural only for humans. Now, why this discrimination? If the Gods of various religions keep throwing and creating people who are homosexual, either a) They're bad factory operators or b) Something is fishy with whatever anti-gay talk religious conservatives swear is sacred.
keyword is CHRISTIAN so not surprised. in the end no christian can explain why though.
It is just nasty I couldn't believe that some countries allow it
i think that blood and scars are nasty. but im mature enough to face the fact that people who have scars may walk the streets without putting a bag on their head.
i would really be uncomfortable with a naked guy
same as me. id be uncomfortable in any place with any naked people. what does that have to do with anything? or do you think they get naked in the middle of the streets?
beside som obviously i'm against it.
good for you. being against something that people cant control. its just as kind as parents who will throw their child out of home because they are underweight.
There's a difference, but it's superficial. I see no harm in having a different term for something that is different.
Then I suppose we should have a different names for when a black couple get married, or Asian couple, or when two people of different racial backgrounds get married. The difference is superficial and there is no harm, but we wouldn't want someone getting confused that your married to a Caucasian when your actually married to a Asian.
Then I suppose we should have a different names for when a black couple get married, or Asian couple, or when two people of different racial backgrounds get married.
I don't think it's quite the same concept. The fundamental similarity is male/female as opposed to male/male or female/female.
The difference is superficial and there is no harm, but we wouldn't want someone getting confused that your married to a Caucasian when your actually married to a Asian.
I see where you're coming from, but again, I don't think it's the same thing.
Also let me point out, I don't think that this is a necessary thing. I'm just saying that, for clarity's sake, it would make sense. There were a lot of other things my dad brought up that I completely don't agree with, such as homosexual couples wouldn't be as likely to stay together, that religion is an important part of marriage, etc.
I don't think it's quite the same concept. The fundamental similarity is male/female as opposed to male/male or female/female.
Culturally and historically this isn't the case. Domestic male partnerships existed again in China during the Zhou Dynasty, male and female arrangements exist in China during the Ming Dynasty, Same-sex marriages occurred during the Roman Empire, Europe has history of arrangements similar to those found in China, just to name a few.
I see where you're coming from, but again, I don't think it's the same thing.
How isn't it the same thing? Just because the different factor is gender instead of race or culture? Going back to your example of different colored circles, we still would call all of them circles even if we tacked on modifiers to further describe them. We don't need another name for "circle" just because it's "blue" instead of "green".
I see where you're coming from, but again, I don't think it's the same thing.
Yeah, it is a little different. Bug I still don't think the government should come up with a different name for it. If they do that it seems like they're saying that gay marriage is different and so it should be treated differently. In fact I really wouldn't be surprised if they did treat it different after legalizing it. Which, is a big problem. I'm sure society will come up with a name for it eventually.
How isn't it the same thing? Just because the different factor is gender instead of race or culture? Going back to your example of different colored circles, we still would call all of them circles even if we tacked on modifiers to further describe them. We don't need another name for "circle" just because it's "blue" instead of "green".
We have two different words for siblings, brother and sister. We don't have a different word to describe every ethnicity of siblings. We use "married" to describe a married person, but then we have "husband" and "wife" to describe what the person is in the marriage. Do we ever describe race when we're talking about a relationship? It seems we usually define gender.
More examples
Parents: Father or Mother
Children: Son or Daughter
And then if we were to describe a married couple, we would use X and Y. X being a word to describe a heterosexual marriage, and Y being a word to describe a homosexual one.
Yeah, it is a little different. Bug I still don't think the government should come up with a different name for it. If they do that it seems like they're saying that gay marriage is different and so it should be treated differently. In fact I really wouldn't be surprised if they did treat it different after legalizing it. Which, is a big problem. I'm sure society will come up with a name for it eventually.
Its basically Jim Crow Laws. Separate but equal. It worked out real well the first time.
Culturally and historically this isn't the case. Domestic male partnerships existed again in China during the Zhou Dynasty, male and female arrangements exist in China during the Ming Dynasty, Same-sex marriages occurred during the Roman Empire, Europe has history of arrangements similar to those found in China, just to name a few.
Yes, I'm aware that homosexuality has been accepted before in past cultures. I don't see what this has to do with having a separate term for something which is a different thing.
How isn't it the same thing? Just because the different factor is gender instead of race or culture?
I suppose I would have to say it's not the same because of this: we make distinctions between gender in society which play large roles, we have separate showers and bathrooms, defining clothes for genders, as well as the typical "family unit" which is a male/female parent figures. Since we do define these genders and their roles, it would make sense to me that we would also come up with a term for homosexual marriage, because that's what we do.
We don't need another name for "circle" just because it's "blue" instead of "green".
But that's the point. We DO further define circles based on their size or color, because we name things. Just because something has a different name doesn't make it anything less or more, it is just different. Names aren't wrong.
If they do that it seems like they're saying that gay marriage is different and so it should be treated differently
I think the issue is this. What I'm saying is that it would make sense that a new term be made. You're saying that a new term shouldn't be made for fear of prejudice and inequality in the eyes of the government/people. I don't think a new term is necessary, but I do think having one would make sense.
In fact I really wouldn't be surprised if they did treat it different after legalizing it.
Perhaps, but there WILL be a separate term for it eventually, that's just how humans are. Whether it's "homosexual marriage" or some derogatory insult, there's a name for everything.
I am all for gay marrige but marrige is a religious term. that being said ppl who are not religious still get married, beacuse we have made it into somthing it isnt. it is technically a civil union and there fore is some what different than the original use of the word marriage so saying that its relious now a days is incorrect, furthermore i would like to point out to kasic that if they do start using it as a slur maybe it will turn into a word that the gays embrace like the american revolution with the word yankie.
I am all for gay marrige but marrige is a religious term.
Precisely. And because of that we need to either make it apply to all LEGALLY recognized unions, or remove it from usage in a legal context. If 'marriage' is recognized by the courts and other government agencies, and its status is one that nets benefits for those who are married, then it must be used across the board or abandoned altogether. Otherwise we are practicing religious discrimination under the guise of legal applications.
I am all for gay marrige but marrige is a religious term. that being said ppl who are not religious still get married, beacuse we have made it into somthing it isnt. it is technically a civil union and there fore is some what different than the original use of the word marriage so saying that its relious now a days is incorrect,
instead of reading my comment you should read that one. you just translated my mind to english
We have two different words for siblings, brother and sister. We don't have a different word to describe every ethnicity of siblings. We use "married" to describe a married person, but then we have "husband" and "wife" to describe what the person is in the marriage. Do we ever describe race when we're talking about a relationship? It seems we usually define gender.
We define those in a marriage, but both husband and wife are still called married regardless of gender.
Yes, I'm aware that homosexuality has been accepted before in past cultures. I don't see what this has to do with having a separate term for something which is a different thing.
You said the fundamental similarity was male/female, I was pointing out how this wasn't always the case. The fundamental similarity is that it was an agreement between people creating a kinship.
I suppose I would have to say it's not the same because of this: we make distinctions between gender in society which play large roles, we have separate showers and bathrooms, defining clothes for genders, as well as the typical "family unit" which is a male/female parent figures. Since we do define these genders and their roles, it would make sense to me that we would also come up with a term for homosexual marriage, because that's what we do.
I already pointed this out with masters post. We aren't defining by gender, unless your proposing different names for female/female male/male marriages as well.
But that's the point. We DO further define circles based on their size or color, because we name things. Just because something has a different name doesn't make it anything less or more, it is just different. Names aren't wrong.
We already do further define marriage by adding a modifier by calling it a "gay" or "same-sex" marriage, but what we don't do is find another word for marriage itself. Like in your circle example you asking that we find another word for circle just because it's of a difference size or color.
I think the issue is this. What I'm saying is that it would make sense that a new term be made. You're saying that a new term shouldn't be made for fear of prejudice and inequality in the eyes of the government/people. I don't think a new term is necessary, but I do think having one would make sense.
If it's not necessary and can and likely will generate inequality how does it make sense again?
it is technically a civil union and there fore is some what different than the original use of the word marriage
The word marriage has been constantly being redefined through out history.
Precisely. And because of that we need to either make it apply to all LEGALLY recognized unions, or remove it from usage in a legal context. If 'marriage' is recognized by the courts and other government agencies, and its status is one that nets benefits for those who are married, then it must be used across the board or abandoned altogether. Otherwise we are practicing religious discrimination under the guise of legal applications.
Far as I'm concerned so long as marriage is being granted legal benefits the religious aspect doesn't get to lay sole claim to the institute. Not to mention we can already have marriages without involving a church or religion at all.
We define those in a marriage, but both husband and wife are still called married regardless of gender.
Which does bring up another point. What are two homosexual partners known as?
You said the fundamental similarity was male/female, I was pointing out how this wasn't always the case.
Right, it's not the case when it's not male/female.
The fundamental similarity is that it was an agreement between people creating a kinship.
Here's how I'm thinking of it right now.
Heterosexual marriage <- Marriage -> Homosexual marriage
They are both types of marriage, with different names to denote whether one is married to another gender or the same gender. That's the only difference.
We aren't defining by gender, unless your proposing different names for female/female male/male marriages as well.
Well, mostly what I'm proposing is this: defining terms between homosexual and heterosexual marriage. It would look something like, "I'm -blank- to -partners name-." Since "married" would be the overall term, I think it would be a good idea to have separate terms for them. Currently, you say, "I'm married to -partners name-" but when homosexual marriage is eventually accepted, it would be nice to know whether their partner is a different gender or not, to avoid awkward situations.
but what we don't do is find another word for marriage itself
And what I'm saying is that it would be helpful to do so, for both homosexual and heterosexual marriage.
Like in your circle example you asking that we find another word for circle just because it's of a difference size or color.
We add modifiers to it though. A -large- circle, a -green- circle. It's still a circle, but we're being more clear because there's more than one type of circle.
If it's not necessary
It's not necessary to do a lot of things, but beneficial. Brushing your teeth, washing your car, wearing shoes, checking the weather forecast, etc. It would just make things more clear.
likely will generate inequality
Only because of the current views on homosexual marriage. Eventually it will be just as accepted as inter-racial marriages.
how does it make sense again?
It makes sense to be clear, but it may not be practical or a good idea to implement in today's society.
We define those in a marriage, but both husband and wife are still called married regardless of gender.
Yes, and there can be a broader term to describe both a marriage between a man and a women, and a marriage between the same gender, and then a more specific term to describe each of those specifically.
