i totally agree, i think that is exactly how much sense it makes. thank you for formulating and articulating those analogies.
Same Sex Marriage Now Legal Nationwide in USA
- Thread starter SpecialEdition
- Start date
i totally agree, i think that is exactly how much sense it makes. thank you for formulating and articulating those analogies.
This is nice. One thing that's disappointed me though is seeing companies who are taking advantage of this new change to suddenly "show their support" while marketing themselves. Real easy to do that now that others have taken blows for standing up themselves. I suppose I can understand trying to be on the safe side and protect your company image, however.
whatever. I truly hope this is going to bring lots of people lasting happiness.
whatever. I truly hope this is going to bring lots of people lasting happiness.
I can understand how a religion would want to have their own special category for marriage, however my personal view tends toward one like [MENTION=9860]Grayman[/MENTION].
If you want to have benefits for child rearing couples, I can understand that.
I haven't read the specifics of the ruling, I used to be kind of into that, but my guess is that it's the Supreme Court pushing the lines of its mandate (it certainly has, from when it was originally formed after independence). Such self-appropriation of powers would hardly be anything new for government, no matter which branch, and it has been the source of social progression as well as harmful stagnation and backpedaling, ie race laws.
If you want to have benefits for child rearing couples, I can understand that.
I haven't read the specifics of the ruling, I used to be kind of into that, but my guess is that it's the Supreme Court pushing the lines of its mandate (it certainly has, from when it was originally formed after independence). Such self-appropriation of powers would hardly be anything new for government, no matter which branch, and it has been the source of social progression as well as harmful stagnation and backpedaling, ie race laws.
I get what you are saying. I am not a believer that all of society will move into animal love making because of this. However pedophiles, for example, have used these things and these same arguments about being with the person you love saying that because you accept gays you should accept them too. I don't think we should abstain from enabling gay marriage because of this. I just think that setting proper boundaries and being able to verbalize those boundaries is important.
It seem to me anti gay marriage advocators would believe pro gay marriage advocators have no boundaries simply because their boundaries are unrecognizable to them and don't exist in the same place as theirs.
Some people want to sell and smoke crack too. Some people like to eat humans. It doesn't matter because flawed arguments are flawed no matter who uses them.
So much hype over the redefinition of the signification of a word.
"Marriage"
Does it actually change anything?
I don't look at terms, or words, or legal categories as standing above, or apart from what they signify. To me this seems more like the term "marriage" has been stretched to cover more things, rather than the apparent popular view, that something has been granted to gays, that was previously only granted to heterosexual couples. Ie. Does the term "marriage" define lifelong couples, or do lifelong couples define "marriage"?
I think it would have been a greater victory for gay couples, if they could have created a category (legal/social/etc.) for themselves, rather than extending the preexisting category to include their own distinct way of life. After all, the term marriage, from matrimony, means "to make a mother". But, perhaps being unique, or different, or egregious is repellent to most people (most personality types)?
"Marriage"
Does it actually change anything?
I don't look at terms, or words, or legal categories as standing above, or apart from what they signify. To me this seems more like the term "marriage" has been stretched to cover more things, rather than the apparent popular view, that something has been granted to gays, that was previously only granted to heterosexual couples. Ie. Does the term "marriage" define lifelong couples, or do lifelong couples define "marriage"?
I think it would have been a greater victory for gay couples, if they could have created a category (legal/social/etc.) for themselves, rather than extending the preexisting category to include their own distinct way of life. After all, the term marriage, from matrimony, means "to make a mother". But, perhaps being unique, or different, or egregious is repellent to most people (most personality types)?
Last edited: