- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jars of Clay frontman earns ire for position on gay marriage
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:30 pm to Pettifogger
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:30 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
So redefining the term "marriage" is thy only way to believe in equal rights for gays?
The term "marriage" has been "redefined" - as you call it - virtually since its inception. Unless you propose going back to a system where marriages are arranged by parents or legal guardians and mixing of neither race nor religion is allowed - I'd suggest you abandon the appeal to "traditional" marriage. Heck some cultures even require you go through a third party "match maker" but I wouldn't want you to blow your mind apart by the idea that marriage is actually defined differently by different people.
I know a couple with an "open" marriage. They even bring their lovers home to spend time with the family. That's completely legal - and bears no resemblance to "traditional marriage".
quote:
This is the crux of this small debate. Whether or not you care about legal rights or whether you care about forced societal equivocation between heterosexuality and homosexuality.
It has nothing to do with "societal equivocation" as you call it - you're free to hate gays all you'd like to. No one is going to stop you from feeling disgusted every time you see two committed gay men walking down the streets holding hands - your own guilt driven revulsion is your business. This is solely a question of equal protection under the law.
This post was edited on 7/14/14 at 3:33 pm
2
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:42 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The term "marriage" has been "redefined" - as you call it - virtually since its inception. Unless you propose going back to a system where marriages are arranged by parents or legal guardians and mixing of neither race nor religion is allowed - I'd suggest you abandon the appeal to "traditional" marriage. Heck some cultures even require you go through a third party "match maker" but I wouldn't want you to blow your mind apart by the idea that marriage is actually defined differently by different people.
I know a couple with an "open" marriage. They even bring their lovers home to spend time with the family. That's completely legal - and bears no resemblance to "traditional marriage".
This is interesting, but irrelevant. Marriage has had a legal definition for quite some time. There is now a movement to change that definition to something that has been, at best, a fringe definition of marriage. Now we're seeking to change the definition, because simply granting the term's equal in rights and privileges wouldn't be sufficient?
And why is that? The legal recognition would be identical. Government treatment would be identical. It would be a semantical difference.
Ah, the answer is that the semantic difference is alleged to reduce the value of same sex unions in society at large. There is no tangible difference, but there is a difference in terms of social acceptance. Hence, we can't just grant the rights, we have to change the existing marriage (applicable previously only to heterosexual couples) definition.
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:43 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The term "marriage" has been "redefined" - as you call it - virtually since its inception.
It's always been a dude and a chick. That hasn't changed. Citing a singular instance of a guy marrying a horse doesn't negate the reality of the historical definition of marriage.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News