Posted on 12/04/2003 9:53:48 AM PST by ArGee
Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional (in that state) to deny marriage to homosexual partners there is a lot of noise about how politicians are reacting. Most of the nine dwarves have declared that they oppose homosexual "marriage" but support "civil unions" that look exactly the same on paper. (President Bush has stated that he supports a maintaining our traditional understanding of marriage without giving us any specifics.)
Does anybody remember the duck test? Civil unions are marriage. This is a semantic shell game. Now, don't get me wrong. I understand Democrats and their semantic shell games. They're caught because most Americans don't support homosexual marriage. But many, if not most, Americans support some kind of civil unions.
If I understand this, Americans are against homosexual marriage, but they are in favor of homosexuals being married in everything but name. Therefore the politicians have to follow the people they want to lead, and come out against homosexual marriage.
Can any FReeper help me understand what's in that name? What is it with marriage that makes it impossible to call a relationship involving sex, shared property, joint custody of children, inheritance rights, and shared benefits marriage?
You're right - it's the same thing. It's just that the words make people feel better. Sort of like when pro-aborts use the term 'fetus' to make them feel better about baby killing.
I'm supposing that in the early years when villages were small and distant, and marriages were arranged, or at least planned when there were only few boys and girls of proximate age available to be joined at any particular time, the purpose was to keep the tribe going. Religion was the set of civil laws (separate from the physical laws) that kept rule and order in place for fear of a higher punishment. Marriage was a way of designating that a woman was "off limits" to others if an ordered society was to exist and sustain.
Today's concept of homosexual marriage arose (again in my opinion) from workplace discrimination and harrassment laws. The argument at the time was that heterosexual couples could freely discuss their weekend activities, such as when taking children to sports events and parties, while gay workers were not similarly free to discuss their activites (perhaps they were even still "in the closet" at the time). Heterosexual couples could discuss going out with their wives/husbands, have family pictures on their desks, etc., while gay couples did not feel similarly free to express their own social arrangements. In fact, heterosexual displays of their familial arrangements were (and are still) so much the norm that they don't even feel that what they do is an overt expression of their sexuality, even though their sexuality is implied by their displays of family. Gays were simply asking for the same ability to express their familial arrangements as commonly, and as taken for granted, as heterosexuals do.
The idea that what they have is "marriage" is an attempt to equivalize their relationship with heterosexuals, when history is against that concept. Perhaps the answer is to decouple religious marriage from civil unions and require that all couples appear before a judge to obtain a civil union regardless of religious marital status, in other words, no longer make legal a church marriage. People of religious faith would still have their church/synagogue weddings, but would also have to separately seek a civil union in order to obtain legal status.
-PJ
What in the world has that got to do with the issue at hand?
-PJ
It is. It also discriminates against the guy who wants to call his dog his 'life partner.'
But marriage is a thousands-year-old institution with ancient layers of meaning--it is folly to think that you can, on a whim, force a wholesale change in it without paying a serious price.
Think of changing the metric system, or even trying to get rid of the worthless penny. And these infants think they can presto-changeo, what's in a piece of paper, no bid deal...
Based on this, I would think Americans would be for chucking the state's involvement entirely (as someone else just suggested above your post). But I don't hear them saying that. Maybe that is what I'm missing.
I do believe the only reason that the civil institution exists is because of the religious institution. But I also believe there is a civil reason to maintain it. Therefore I would argue against civil unions and marriage for homosexuals.
I guess I would agree with you if that's what I heard the candidates and polls saying. And maybe they are but I just missed it.
Oh, and I agree with you 100% on the heterosexuals destroying marriage long before the homosexuals asked for the "right."
Shalom.
But why didn't that misinformation cause them to embrace homosexual marriage?
Shalom.
It sounds like you're suggesting the conclusion that I had rejected out-of-hand.
Are you saying that the American public (remember, the Dims are only following the polls) are intentionally deluding themselves in the hopes the problem will go away?
It makes more sense to me for them (the public) to say "big deal, let the fags marry."
Shalom.
Children of course are the next generation of the society, without them the society fails (see shakers). It is the duty of any society to provide itself the best next generation (yet another reason why palestinians will never amount to much, they sacrifice their future)
Only a union of a man married to a woman is the best environment for raising children.
A 'homosexual' union cannot produce children and is a harmful environment for children. Therefore it should never be encouraged or even allowed
A union of a man and a woman who are sterile would still serve as an excellent enviornment for children if they choose to adopt. This makes them worthy of subsidy.
Argee, The only reason for someone to support 'civil unions but not 'homosexual marriage' is that they are lying to themselves. They are 'homosexual' enablers but don't want to admit it.
We've gotten so wussy about offending people and treating others nicely that we are afraid to stand up and say "I don't care who you want to sleep with, It's not a marriage unless its a man and a woman" so we try to mollify our bruised sense of political correctness by supporting 'civil unions'
Neither do I. But I think if we call it "civil union" because we want to preserve the meaning of "marriage" even though it is the same thing for different people, we will have done precisely what you want to avoid.
People will probably simply cease to use the term "marriage" and they will all become "civil unions."
Shalom.
You may have a point, although I think G-d ordained marriage or man would have never put up with it. But homosexuals have already won the ability to talk openly about their relationships. They have won to the point where the majority support civil unions - even the majority of Christians.
Have you heard that the debate over the Defence of Marriage ammendment is about wheter to include or exclude a clause banning civil unions? And that's among the religious.
Once again, this doesn't explain our attachment to the word "marriage." It walks, talks, and quacks like a duck. I understand the church being against homosexual marriage. But I don't understand the church being in favor of homosexual civil unions. Can they really be saying 'the Bible is against homosexual marriage, but not against state sanctioned civil unions?' I can't make it add up.
Shalom.
You do know, don't you, that the abolition of marriage is the homosexual activists' real target.
But you recognize the "m" thing and the "c u" thing are the same thing, and so do I. I am missing why the "m" word needs to be banished rather than re-defined.
Shalom.
I agree. That is why I am against civil unions.
What I am trying to understand is why doing exactly what you say we should not do, but giving it another name, will avoid that price.
They have a sexual relationship. They have children. They are a family. They have common property. They have joint bank accounts. They are benificiaries on each others' life insurance properties. One gets benefits from the employer of the other. Each is a member of the others' extended family and they both visit together at holidays.
Aren't they married?
Shalom.
You could have me there. But I was really trying to understand polls that say most Americans, even most Christians, support civil unions but not marriage for homosexuals.
Are Americans really just plain stupid to not see they are the same thing?
I reject that notion.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.