no, thats just not true - if it is a different union then it isn't equal.
the choice if you actually want equality is to allow gay marriage, or to remove marriage completely (obviously it could still be a religious ceremony but not state endorsed) and have everyone have civil ceremonies
It will be equal in all ways, all rights ...
a different word in place of marriage, a new term, a new definition, a new amendment,
a new century with all equal rights equal unions.
Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.... the word created thousands of years
ago with the intended purpose.
Perhaps hundreds of years from now the word marriage will not exist except in historical books,
all unions will be gay with a term now created to bring equality to all.
you can't actually think that by giving something different you are giving equality...
why does marriage have to be between a man and a woman, because something has been it should always be? the world would never progress if we lived by that
I don't mean to offend anyone, a lot of what I say should be taken with a grain of salt... that said for most of you I'm a stranger on a computer on the other side of the world, don't give me that sort of power!
no, thats just not true - if it is a different union then it isn't equal.
the choice if you actually want equality is to allow gay marriage, or to remove marriage completely (obviously it could still be a religious ceremony but not state endorsed) and have everyone have civil ceremonies
It will be equal in all ways, all rights ...
a different word in place of marriage, a new term, a new definition, a new amendment,
a new century with all equal rights equal unions.
Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.... the word created thousands of years
ago with the intended purpose.
Perhaps hundreds of years from now the word marriage will not exist except in historical books,
all unions will be gay with a term now created to bring equality to all.
But why? Why are you so attached to a word? People and definitions evolve. We didn't change the word "vote" for women or black people when they got that right.
Me? I think you should read my posts...
the preservers of marriage are, I understand their stance. They showed how they felt
about the word, the union yesterday. I understand the hinderance this is causing to equal rights.
I have said repeatedly I'd like to see a resolution and in my lifetime
and preferably that of my dearest friend. I would like to see her and her partner
have the same rights as JB and I have shared a lifetime.
Really just a word :? well then lets find that awesome new term for the next century
for gay unions and get on with equal rights for all.
And leave marriage to the tradition the history the union is was intended for.
understanding and defending their stance... whether you believe it or not.
I've said I'll be fine if they change the name for everyone but that isn't the suggestion I was reading.
and that's far less likely than allowing gay marriage. so some people are bigotted and in denial about their bigotry, what's new... things change, word definitions change, the world changes hopefully to remove discrimination.
interested to see where intersex individuals would stand if we had two different institutions, or transgenders?
change is necessary - it's evolution baby
I don't mean to offend anyone, a lot of what I say should be taken with a grain of salt... that said for most of you I'm a stranger on a computer on the other side of the world, don't give me that sort of power!
Me? I think you should read my posts...
the preservers of marriage are, I understand their stance. They showed how they felt
about the word, the union yesterday. I understand the hinderance this is causing to equal rights.
I have said repeatedly I'd like to see a resolution and in my lifetime
and preferably that of my dearest friend. I would like to see her and her partner
have the same rights as JB and I have shared a lifetime.
Really just a word :? well then lets find that awesome new term for the next century
for gay unions and get on with equal rights for all.
And leave marriage to the tradition the history the union is was intended for.
cop out. you act as if you are speaking on behalf of this new group called the "preservers", but then go on to say that marriage was intended for a man and a woman for thousands of years throughout history.
if you are speaking for the preservers, what is your stance, and why?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
no, thats just not true - if it is a different union then it isn't equal.
the choice if you actually want equality is to allow gay marriage, or to remove marriage completely (obviously it could still be a religious ceremony but not state endorsed) and have everyone have civil ceremonies
It will be equal in all ways, all rights ...
a different word in place of marriage, a new term, a new definition, a new amendment,
a new century with all equal rights equal unions.
Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.... the word created thousands of years
ago with the intended purpose.
Perhaps hundreds of years from now the word marriage will not exist except in historical books,
all unions will be gay with a term now created to bring equality to all.
you can't actually think that by giving something different you are giving equality...
why does marriage have to be between a man and a woman, because something has been it should always be? the world would never progress if we lived by that
It is nothing different. And yes there are those preserving the tradition the definition
of marriage and yes they feel it should stay the same.
Please try to see long past the time you leave this world
get the big picture.
There will be many more gay people in the future more gay unions than heterosexual marriages
it matters not the name of the union now or then what matters is rights.
Today there are people without rights because marriage is being preserved and it will
be preserved as a union between a man and a woman for some time to come,
yesterday showed us that.
I would like to see equal rights now, a new term for gay union and an amendment.
It is change now is what I am seeking a resolution and progress that can actually
take place now.
understanding and defending their stance... whether you believe it or not.
I've said I'll be fine if they change the name for everyone but that isn't the suggestion I was reading.
and that's far less likely than allowing gay marriage. so some people are bigotted and in denial about their bigotry, what's new... things change, word definitions change, the world changes hopefully to remove discrimination.
interested to see where intersex individuals would stand if we had two different institutions, or transgenders?
change is necessary - it's evolution baby
what is evolution is where the gay population is moving us yes
I don't see it as defending but as trying to find a solution now.
I feel most marriage preservers are not the least bit bigoted but are protecting the union
of marriage that has been in place thousands of years.
They are not against equal rights, nor gay unions, nor gay people.
I will say this. No one has the right to VOTE on the civil rights of another human being. Sorry. These votes are ludicrous at best. I don't give a shit what the majority of voters in NC or California or any other state have to say with their votes when it comes to the inalienable human rights we are ALL deserving of.
And honestly, I don't want a civil union. I don't want a lofty new word. I want marriage. Period. It's what everyone else has and I want EQUAL rights. This whole "call marriage something else and let the gays have that" just smacks of "I would rather get rid of it completely than let you have it."
PORTLAND - 18 JUL 98 // TAMPA - 12 AUG 00 // PORTLAND - 02 NOV 00 // SEATTLE - 05 NOV 00 // SEATTLE - 09 DEC 02 BERN, SWITZERLAND - 13 SEP 06 // PORTLAND - 26 SEP 09 // CHICAGO - 19 JUL 13 // PORTLAND - 29 NOV 13 CHICAGO - 20 AUG 16 // CHICAGO - 22 AUG 16 // PHOENIX - 09 MAY 22 // CHICAGO - 05 SEP 23 // CHICAGO - 07 SEP 23
Let's preserve all of our words and their history then.
Let's go back to calling people colored, or the N word. I mean they do have a place in our history yeah?
There is a tradition there am I wrong? Albeit a deeply fucked up tradition and history.
Ah to hell with it, let's just put them back in chains and out in the fields. There's some history and tradition.
Woman can't vote anymore either, in fact, all the women that have opinions on this topic should just keep quiet ya little darlings. Just stay in the kitchen and make sure your husbands dinner is ready when he gets home from a hard days work and wants to watch some slaves fight to the death in a coliseum. I mean, that's some deep tradition and history.
Let's just go backwards, cause this whole evolution of the human spirit and all this equality for all is just too hard right?
Jeesh.
200 years ago is calling, and they want their traditional words back.
Its called progress people. Think about it.
That we are having this debate in this day and age sickens me to death.
Peace, Love.
"To question your government is not unpatriotic --
to not question your government is unpatriotic."
-- Sen. Chuck Hagel
So you are saying we should get rid of the word marriage? Or that the people opposed to letting gays marry should let go of their issues? I am confused...
PORTLAND - 18 JUL 98 // TAMPA - 12 AUG 00 // PORTLAND - 02 NOV 00 // SEATTLE - 05 NOV 00 // SEATTLE - 09 DEC 02 BERN, SWITZERLAND - 13 SEP 06 // PORTLAND - 26 SEP 09 // CHICAGO - 19 JUL 13 // PORTLAND - 29 NOV 13 CHICAGO - 20 AUG 16 // CHICAGO - 22 AUG 16 // PHOENIX - 09 MAY 22 // CHICAGO - 05 SEP 23 // CHICAGO - 07 SEP 23
So you are saying we should get rid of the word marriage? Or that the people opposed to letting gays marry should let go of their issues? I am confused...
either/or.... if we have no marriage for anyone we have equality as well, but of course it would be easier if they let go of their issues and bigotry ... and it is bigotry, although I will acknowledge that they probably don't view themselves as homophobes
I don't mean to offend anyone, a lot of what I say should be taken with a grain of salt... that said for most of you I'm a stranger on a computer on the other side of the world, don't give me that sort of power!
I understand, but I still feel like this whole "call marriage something else and get the government out of marriage entirely" thing still seems like "It's easier to just get rid of it completely than let you have it."
PORTLAND - 18 JUL 98 // TAMPA - 12 AUG 00 // PORTLAND - 02 NOV 00 // SEATTLE - 05 NOV 00 // SEATTLE - 09 DEC 02 BERN, SWITZERLAND - 13 SEP 06 // PORTLAND - 26 SEP 09 // CHICAGO - 19 JUL 13 // PORTLAND - 29 NOV 13 CHICAGO - 20 AUG 16 // CHICAGO - 22 AUG 16 // PHOENIX - 09 MAY 22 // CHICAGO - 05 SEP 23 // CHICAGO - 07 SEP 23
So you are saying we should get rid of the word marriage? Or that the people opposed to letting gays marry should let go of their issues? I am confused...
If this is directed at me, I'm saying that we've read over and over the definition of marriage is a union between man and woman. I'm saying the "preservers" need to get over it. We've changed the definitions of words over time before, but this one is so sacred to them and I don't get it. Sorry. Tradition? Please. History?
It just seems like these "preservers" are preventing progress, yet claim to want equality.
A new word for a "union between gays" ? It just feels all kinds of backwards to me.
Peace, Love.
"To question your government is not unpatriotic --
to not question your government is unpatriotic."
-- Sen. Chuck Hagel
So you are saying we should get rid of the word marriage? Or that the people opposed to letting gays marry should let go of their issues? I am confused...
If this is directed at me, I'm saying that we've read over and over the definition of marriage is a union between man and woman. I'm saying the "preservers" need to get over it. We've changed the definitions of words over time before, but this one is so sacred to them and I don't get it. Sorry. Tradition? Please. History?
It just seems like these "preservers" are preventing progress, yet claim to want equality.
A new word for a "union between gays" ? It just feels all kinds of backwards to me.
People also need to get over a 2,000 year old book of fiction written by men.
So you are saying we should get rid of the word marriage? Or that the people opposed to letting gays marry should let go of their issues? I am confused...
If this is directed at me, I'm saying that we've read over and over the definition of marriage is a union between man and woman. I'm saying the "preservers" need to get over it. We've changed the definitions of words over time before, but this one is so sacred to them and I don't get it. Sorry. Tradition? Please. History?
It just seems like these "preservers" are preventing progress, yet claim to want equality.
A new word for a "union between gays" ? It just feels all kinds of backwards to me.
People also need to get over a 2,000 year old book of fiction written by men.
Well yeah but baby steps.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
So you are saying we should get rid of the word marriage? Or that the people opposed to letting gays marry should let go of their issues? I am confused...
If this is directed at me, I'm saying that we've read over and over the definition of marriage is a union between man and woman. I'm saying the "preservers" need to get over it. We've changed the definitions of words over time before, but this one is so sacred to them and I don't get it. Sorry. Tradition? Please. History?
It just seems like these "preservers" are preventing progress, yet claim to want equality.
A new word for a "union between gays" ? It just feels all kinds of backwards to me.
People also need to get over a 2,000 year old book of fiction written by men.
You just laugh off others beliefs if they don't align with yours? There's millions of people all over this world that have never cracked open a Christian bible. Others like myself have read it, studied it and seen 100's of things in it that are completely ridiculous and false.
And yes I've been here long enough to know the answer.
Post edited by ComeToTX on
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
I'm constantly amazed that some of the things written here are on a PJ board.
Some of you must be hearing different things in the songs. Or you just hate everything they are about, stand for and sing about.
I used to think that maybe people just didn't care what the songs were ABOUT, but just liked the songs. But then I thought "I'm not a paying member of a fanclub of a band I only sorta like".
I don't really get it either.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'm constantly amazed that some of the things written here are on a PJ board.
Some of you must be hearing different things in the songs. Or you just hate everything they are about, stand for and sing about.
I used to think that maybe people just didn't care what the songs were ABOUT, but just liked the songs. But then I thought "I'm not a paying member of a fanclub of a band I only sorta like".
I don't really get it either.
We're not here for that long; surely, not long enough to live a life of hate and ignorance. What's 80 or so years with respect to a few hundred million?
Come to send, not condescend
Transcendental consequence
Is to transcend where we are
Who are we? Who we are
Trampled moss on your souls
Changes all you're a part
Seen it all, not at all
Can't defend fucked up man
Take me a for a ride before we leave...
Circumstance, clapping hands
Driving winds, happenstance
Off the track, in the mud
That's the moss in the aforementioned verse
Just a little time, before we leave...
Stop light, plays its part
So I would say you've got a part
What's your part? Who you are
You are who, who you are
:fp: here we go again,same ol' debate same ol' out-come we all know where each other stand and we know we can't change each others minds so there is no reason to call each other names...am I right ?
"give me an AHMEN ! brothers and sisters" and lets go back to trashing politicans and such insted of each other....come on now ..let's play nice.
and if it ever is you want it called something else because why again...?
You presume I want this ...
I am speaking of the preservers of marriage those who voted loud and clear yesterday,
I understand their position and see the hinderance that is happening
continuing down this path.
My stance is I would like to see gays have equal rights today and by all means not less rights
for people as the vote brought yesterday.
By making a new gay union term to take into all the future years to come
leaving marriage as it was created and intended, a union of a man and woman,
equal rights will not be lost but gained and perhaps even very soon....
not decades.
That would be good for all unions and the country.
then why dont you tell us exactly what it is you do want pandora instead of talking in ever diminishing circles. where is it you stand on the terminology? youve basically been saying lets allow the gays to marry(cause youre down with that) but lets not actually call it marriage(because thousands of years of tradition dictate that term is the property of man/woman marriage) lets give it a fantastically awesome name... any name but not marriage because thats the preserve of the straights. thats what im getting from your posts. and im not the only one so either youre being deliberately vague or the majority of us here have mistaken what it is youve been saying. please clarify this for me so i at least can move on in understanding.
the english language is the mose fluid language in history. it absorbs words from everywhere... it sometimes morphs their meaning into something else whilst still managing to retain the original definition. it even eliminates words.. and none of this has caused the downfall of civilisation as we know it... EVER. so why such a stranglehold on the definition of marriage? isnt it about time we modernise the word and drag all the preservers into the present?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,945
Not only does the language need to be brought into the 21st century, as Catefrances has pointed out, but we need to bring our heads and hearts into the 21st century- or even the 20th century because I'm pretty sure this issue was already moving ahead at the end of the period of time. And we need to stop playing games with semantics- we all know what marriage is. Why call it "a union" or "bonding" or "tranquil domestic partnering of two human being of undetermined sexual orientation"?
Horseshit- it's marriage.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
60% of the voters didn't realize the amendment wasn't just about gay marriage but any relationship that wasn't a legal, official man/woman marriage.
also, the only places i saw advertising about this before the vote were church signs
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
the english language is the mose fluid language in history. it absorbs words from everywhere... it sometimes morphs their meaning into something else whilst still managing to retain the original definition. it even eliminates words.. and none of this has caused the downfall of civilisation as we know it... EVER. so why such a stranglehold on the definition of marriage? isnt it about time we modernise the word and drag all the preservers into the present?
'Gay' being a prime example! In the other thread, I mention the etymology of 'marriage'. It's a 'recent' word that had a much more 'open' meaning than what we would like to think now. Oh.. and the word 'marriage' is not mentioned in the bible.
I'm surprised on how some can be so focussed on a term that has evolved over the ages to our current meaning and an 'institution' that has also evolved (and regressed as well). Same sex marriage (or rather unions as the word marriage did not exist) was recognized in the same manner as a union between man and woman in ancient times. Then christianity became more influential and 'marriage' became some frame for procreation.
I am also surprised that some say they accept, even embrace, same sex marriage but don't want to call it that. Is this really 'embracing' and fully accepting? Is there more to this?
Well, but no, you're not. And you know it. So drop that crap.
You're speaking of a bunch of prejudiced people who claimed ownership of both the word and concept of marriage with no historical facts to back that up. They claim to be "preservers of marriage" when they're really just a bunch of hateful assholes who get a kick out of putting themselves atop a mountain of their own creation.
They're not "preserving" anything. Marriage has been used for many things, including giving your daughter as breeding stock to old men in exchange for money or goats.
If they really wanted to "preserve" marriage they would be more interested in making divorce illegal, closing down the wedding chapels where drunk vacationers stagger in to get married in Vegas. They would have lost their minds over the "marriage as publicity stunt" by Kim Kardashian and most of all, they would be carrying burning torches through the streets upon finding out that Maggie Gallagher, the leader of NOM, is in one of those "money for green card" marriages with a man from India that she's only met a few times (and although her Wikipedia page tries to suggest they have a child together, she had that kid out of wedlock before she met her "husband").
So nobody is "preserving marriage," they're just doing their best to stay legally better than the gays. Because they're assholes. And no other reason.
By the way... tell your "preserver of marriage" friends that gay marriages have a MUCH lower divorce rate. Much. That always blows their tops. And I love seeing those people burst into fits of tears. Warms my heart.
Comments
you can't actually think that by giving something different you are giving equality...
why does marriage have to be between a man and a woman, because something has been it should always be? the world would never progress if we lived by that
the preservers of marriage are, I understand their stance. They showed how they felt
about the word, the union yesterday. I understand the hinderance this is causing to equal rights.
I have said repeatedly I'd like to see a resolution and in my lifetime
and preferably that of my dearest friend. I would like to see her and her partner
have the same rights as JB and I have shared a lifetime.
Really just a word :? well then lets find that awesome new term for the next century
for gay unions and get on with equal rights for all.
And leave marriage to the tradition the history the union is was intended for.
I've said I'll be fine if they change the name for everyone but that isn't the suggestion I was reading.
and that's far less likely than allowing gay marriage. so some people are bigotted and in denial about their bigotry, what's new... things change, word definitions change, the world changes hopefully to remove discrimination.
interested to see where intersex individuals would stand if we had two different institutions, or transgenders?
change is necessary - it's evolution baby
cop out. you act as if you are speaking on behalf of this new group called the "preservers", but then go on to say that marriage was intended for a man and a woman for thousands of years throughout history.
if you are speaking for the preservers, what is your stance, and why?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
of marriage and yes they feel it should stay the same.
Please try to see long past the time you leave this world
get the big picture.
There will be many more gay people in the future more gay unions than heterosexual marriages
it matters not the name of the union now or then what matters is rights.
Today there are people without rights because marriage is being preserved and it will
be preserved as a union between a man and a woman for some time to come,
yesterday showed us that.
I would like to see equal rights now, a new term for gay union and an amendment.
It is change now is what I am seeking a resolution and progress that can actually
take place now. what is evolution is where the gay population is moving us yes
I don't see it as defending but as trying to find a solution now.
I feel most marriage preservers are not the least bit bigoted but are protecting the union
of marriage that has been in place thousands of years.
They are not against equal rights, nor gay unions, nor gay people.
And honestly, I don't want a civil union. I don't want a lofty new word. I want marriage. Period. It's what everyone else has and I want EQUAL rights. This whole "call marriage something else and let the gays have that" just smacks of "I would rather get rid of it completely than let you have it."
BERN, SWITZERLAND - 13 SEP 06 // PORTLAND - 26 SEP 09 // CHICAGO - 19 JUL 13 // PORTLAND - 29 NOV 13
CHICAGO - 20 AUG 16 // CHICAGO - 22 AUG 16 // PHOENIX - 09 MAY 22 // CHICAGO - 05 SEP 23 // CHICAGO - 07 SEP 23
Let's go back to calling people colored, or the N word. I mean they do have a place in our history yeah?
There is a tradition there am I wrong? Albeit a deeply fucked up tradition and history.
Ah to hell with it, let's just put them back in chains and out in the fields. There's some history and tradition.
Woman can't vote anymore either, in fact, all the women that have opinions on this topic should just keep quiet ya little darlings. Just stay in the kitchen and make sure your husbands dinner is ready when he gets home from a hard days work and wants to watch some slaves fight to the death in a coliseum. I mean, that's some deep tradition and history.
Let's just go backwards, cause this whole evolution of the human spirit and all this equality for all is just too hard right?
Jeesh.
200 years ago is calling, and they want their traditional words back.
Its called progress people. Think about it.
That we are having this debate in this day and age sickens me to death.
"To question your government is not unpatriotic --
to not question your government is unpatriotic."
-- Sen. Chuck Hagel
agreed.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
+2
BERN, SWITZERLAND - 13 SEP 06 // PORTLAND - 26 SEP 09 // CHICAGO - 19 JUL 13 // PORTLAND - 29 NOV 13
CHICAGO - 20 AUG 16 // CHICAGO - 22 AUG 16 // PHOENIX - 09 MAY 22 // CHICAGO - 05 SEP 23 // CHICAGO - 07 SEP 23
BERN, SWITZERLAND - 13 SEP 06 // PORTLAND - 26 SEP 09 // CHICAGO - 19 JUL 13 // PORTLAND - 29 NOV 13
CHICAGO - 20 AUG 16 // CHICAGO - 22 AUG 16 // PHOENIX - 09 MAY 22 // CHICAGO - 05 SEP 23 // CHICAGO - 07 SEP 23
If this is directed at me, I'm saying that we've read over and over the definition of marriage is a union between man and woman. I'm saying the "preservers" need to get over it. We've changed the definitions of words over time before, but this one is so sacred to them and I don't get it. Sorry. Tradition? Please. History?
It just seems like these "preservers" are preventing progress, yet claim to want equality.
A new word for a "union between gays" ? It just feels all kinds of backwards to me.
"To question your government is not unpatriotic --
to not question your government is unpatriotic."
-- Sen. Chuck Hagel
People also need to get over a 2,000 year old book of fiction written by men.
BERN, SWITZERLAND - 13 SEP 06 // PORTLAND - 26 SEP 09 // CHICAGO - 19 JUL 13 // PORTLAND - 29 NOV 13
CHICAGO - 20 AUG 16 // CHICAGO - 22 AUG 16 // PHOENIX - 09 MAY 22 // CHICAGO - 05 SEP 23 // CHICAGO - 07 SEP 23
Well yeah but baby steps.
Godfather.
And yes I've been here long enough to know the answer.
:nono:
oh, dude. :fp:
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces......and science
Maybe this is more appropriate: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Some of you must be hearing different things in the songs. Or you just hate everything they are about, stand for and sing about.
I used to think that maybe people just didn't care what the songs were ABOUT, but just liked the songs. But then I thought "I'm not a paying member of a fanclub of a band I only sorta like".
I don't really get it either.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
We're not here for that long; surely, not long enough to live a life of hate and ignorance. What's 80 or so years with respect to a few hundred million?
Come to send, not condescend
Transcendental consequence
Is to transcend where we are
Who are we? Who we are
Trampled moss on your souls
Changes all you're a part
Seen it all, not at all
Can't defend fucked up man
Take me a for a ride before we leave...
Circumstance, clapping hands
Driving winds, happenstance
Off the track, in the mud
That's the moss in the aforementioned verse
Just a little time, before we leave...
Stop light, plays its part
So I would say you've got a part
What's your part? Who you are
You are who, who you are
and then you go on to say:
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
then why dont you tell us exactly what it is you do want pandora instead of talking in ever diminishing circles. where is it you stand on the terminology? youve basically been saying lets allow the gays to marry(cause youre down with that) but lets not actually call it marriage(because thousands of years of tradition dictate that term is the property of man/woman marriage) lets give it a fantastically awesome name... any name but not marriage because thats the preserve of the straights. thats what im getting from your posts. and im not the only one so either youre being deliberately vague or the majority of us here have mistaken what it is youve been saying. please clarify this for me so i at least can move on in understanding.
the english language is the mose fluid language in history. it absorbs words from everywhere... it sometimes morphs their meaning into something else whilst still managing to retain the original definition. it even eliminates words.. and none of this has caused the downfall of civilisation as we know it... EVER. so why such a stranglehold on the definition of marriage? isnt it about time we modernise the word and drag all the preservers into the present?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Horseshit- it's marriage.
also, the only places i saw advertising about this before the vote were church signs
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
'Gay' being a prime example!
I'm surprised on how some can be so focussed on a term that has evolved over the ages to our current meaning and an 'institution' that has also evolved (and regressed as well). Same sex marriage (or rather unions as the word marriage did not exist) was recognized in the same manner as a union between man and woman in ancient times. Then christianity became more influential and 'marriage' became some frame for procreation.
I am also surprised that some say they accept, even embrace, same sex marriage but don't want to call it that. Is this really 'embracing' and fully accepting? Is there more to this?
Well, but no, you're not. And you know it. So drop that crap.
You're speaking of a bunch of prejudiced people who claimed ownership of both the word and concept of marriage with no historical facts to back that up. They claim to be "preservers of marriage" when they're really just a bunch of hateful assholes who get a kick out of putting themselves atop a mountain of their own creation.
They're not "preserving" anything. Marriage has been used for many things, including giving your daughter as breeding stock to old men in exchange for money or goats.
If they really wanted to "preserve" marriage they would be more interested in making divorce illegal, closing down the wedding chapels where drunk vacationers stagger in to get married in Vegas. They would have lost their minds over the "marriage as publicity stunt" by Kim Kardashian and most of all, they would be carrying burning torches through the streets upon finding out that Maggie Gallagher, the leader of NOM, is in one of those "money for green card" marriages with a man from India that she's only met a few times (and although her Wikipedia page tries to suggest they have a child together, she had that kid out of wedlock before she met her "husband").
So nobody is "preserving marriage," they're just doing their best to stay legally better than the gays. Because they're assholes. And no other reason.
By the way... tell your "preserver of marriage" friends that gay marriages have a MUCH lower divorce rate. Much. That always blows their tops. And I love seeing those people burst into fits of tears. Warms my heart.
This is a forum for non-pj related discussion.
You didn't know that? I'm amazed.
That's why I'm here. To help.
Otherwise it's a circle jerk vacuum of thought.
Woot