HURRAY!

Kamineko · Subject: Re: HURRAY! Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:51 am

Dicky Galoot wrote:

If you mean to say that my views in my opening are childish, you should just say so...I mean, it kinda is. That I think marriage should be kept to a personal symbolic level isn't a very realistic view. There has to be some way to keep track of who gets the $100,000 dollars when a public safety officer dies on the job.

When a public safety officer dies on the job? Now you've lost me.

Marriage should be kept to a personal and symbolic level... but it isn't.

Quote:

I just wonder who would still object if it were called a "legal union" or something even more non-descript for everyone as opposed to "marriage". When you sign a marriage license, are you saying you are emotionally devoting yourself to another person, or are you saying you are legally binding yourself to another person?

So you think that homosexuals only deserve something nondescript? I mean, we tried this already. Most homosexuals will not be happy to be relegated to something like that. And people who are against gay marriage won't be fooled. You can't just relabel things and expect people to actually think they're different.

Quote:

Are we trying to establish legal equality for all people, or are we trying to define what the word "marriage" means legally? Whether it's call a legal union or marriage, the people who object to this aren't going to recognize it on principle, but will have to legally.

Both. By defining marriage as a man and a woman, you reinforce the theory of homosexuality being a deviancy, making it easier to keep any kind of legal union. Even in the case of legal union, would you really be content with someone saying "Ok, you can be married, but you can never EVER call it married because you love someone we're not ok with.

Quote:

I don't really want to argue whether this is similar to other civil rights issues of the past. Getting money in the event your partner dies of black lung from working in the coal mines isn't exactly the same as being beaten because of the color of your skin and having no legal recourse, or not being able to vote in your government. But they are in principle.

Yes, we've come a long way in civil rights from the 60's, and we've come a LONG way from there.

Similarly we've come a long way from when beating up gay guys wasn't even considered a hate crime.

But, as with civil rights, there is not equality yet. So it's silly to say "Things aren't as bad as *name* so you should give up and be content with less than the way you deserve to be treated as a human being."

The fight is long, and tiring, and wearying, but that doesn't mean you should just give up hallfway.

Quote:

The principle that all people should be treated equally is a very good principle, one I believe in,but I think in this case our principles are getting in the way of a better solution: Stop associating the legal aspect with the ceremonial aspect.

but they go hand in hand. the legal aspect without the ceremony is unfullfilling as the ceremony without the legal aspect. The point is that if there is a church out there who is willing to marry homosexuals, they should be allowed to marry at that church. Am I saying churches should be forced to marry homosexuals? No, any more than they're forced to marry anyone (any priest can refuse to marry two people for any reason) I'm just saying the option should not be BANNED.

I think in a situation like this accepting a compromise is accepting yourself as a second class.

Quote:

That this is actually banned does make me more concerned; I had thought it was just defined as "between a man and woman" and not an outright ban.

50 state rundown of homosexual marriage laws

See, the change of definition is inherently a ban.

Quote:

Also, my comment about knowing and liking the gay priest was a rebuttal to Pinky's statement that a gay couple who love eachother can't have a marriage ceremony within a religious establishment. It wasn't a, "hey, I know sum queeeers, so I'hm rite!" maneuver. It wasn't necessary to the point I was making to qualify that I liked him, but he stands out as one of the more interesting (read: engaging and fun to learn from) teachers I've had, and deserved the qualification regardless.

Not sure how it's a rebuttal. I never said homosexuals couldn't be priests, I said priests couldn't marry homosexuals. If your priest married homosexuals without repercussion (legally) then that would be a rebuttal.

_________________

Quote:

The world is a mess and I just need to... rule it.