Kerry Concedes

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Regarding the whole "seeking education and waiting to get married" thing, I did that and will likely - from all appearances thus far - have a long and happy marriage. However, this was not the first time I lived with a woman, I had a prior girlfriend for years. In yesteryear, it would have been my "starter marriage." Yet, it falls off the radar when considering polls like this. And, Cerek, how dare you take my joke about King Henry as anything serious at all. You know I make no sense sometimes. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

My humblest apologies, Timber. Your humor was just too sophisticated for my poor, uneducated, red-neck brain.

Hell, it's a wonder I could even read the damn thing. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Cerek: Errrm...it was actually Djinn Raffo that equated divorce rates with moral values. Grojlach and his article correctly correlated divorce rates with family values (or an apparant lack thereof).

Maybe I should have said Family Values and not Moral Values. At any rate what I was aiming at was the fact that those against gay marriage who cite the sanctity of marriage as their defense are fighting the wrong fight. Divorce rates are a greater threat to the tradition of marriage than gays being married and to solve it I propose a Constitutional Amendment banning divorce. Of course this relies on the fact that those who oppose gay marriage really do oppose it based on their belief in Family values and not something else, such as prejudice, because if they really do hold Family values in such a high regard surely they would support an Amendment banning divorce.

[John D Harris]

Before anybody gets to excited about the blue states being anything one way or the other, take a look at the county by county map. The major cities and surrounding counties are blue the rest of the state is red, in most cases of the Blue States. Blues may call Reds whatever they want to, spue forth the names, insults, just remember us reds for the large part don't have problems calling name, we aren't the one that say it is not nice to call names. We're professional name callers

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Maybe I should have said Family Values and not Moral Values. At any rate what I was aiming at was the fact that those against gay marriage who cite the sanctity of marriage as their defense are fighting the wrong fight. Divorce rates are a greater threat to the tradition of marriage than gays being married and to solve it I propose a Constitutional Amendment banning divorce. Of course this relies on the fact that those who oppose gay marriage really do oppose it based on their belief in Family values and not something else, such as prejudice, because if they really do hold Family values in such a high regard surely they would support an Amendment banning divorce.

Well get a US citizen to start the process, I'll support the amendment.

But wait! according to an earlier post your logic is faulty, you just interjected a differant varrible into the arguement, much the same as Cerek did with marring two or more people. And we all know we can't do that(interjecting something differant).

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Maybe I should have said Family Values and not Moral Values. At any rate what I was aiming at was the fact that those against gay marriage who cite the sanctity of marriage as their defense are fighting the wrong fight. Divorce rates are a greater threat to the tradition of marriage than gays being married and to solve it I propose a Constitutional Amendment banning divorce. Of course this relies on the fact that those who oppose gay marriage really do oppose it based on their belief in Family values and not something else, such as prejudice, because if they really do hold Family values in such a high regard surely they would support an Amendment banning divorce.

I have no problem admitting I oppose gay marriages based on my religious beliefs - or religious prejudice, if you prefer.

I also agree that we do not need a Constitutional Amendment to preserve the sanctity of the definition of the term "marriage". I would have no problems allowing gays to enter civil unions that would grant them the same rights granted to spouses in a heterosexual marriage.

And - finally - I agree that the whole argument over the term "marriage" is rather silly to begin with and that BOTH sides are equally guilty. Once all is said and done, the definition or quality of MY marriage won't be reduced in any way by a gay couple being able to say they are married also. By the same token, if equal rights are truly ALL that the gays are interested in, then the term "civil union" should be perfectly acceptable - so long as it grants the same rights and privileges as a "marriage" does.

As Timber has correctly pointed out, this is a TO-MAY-TO / TO-MAH-TO issue and it is rather silly that BOTH sides put SO MUCH importance on the term "marriage" - but that is they way it is and the term IS obviously that important to both sides. I am guilty of this myself. While I have no problem with gays having "civil unions", I admit that part of me prefers that the term "marriage" be reserved to mean "one woman and one man". But the world won't end, the church won't crumble and my marriage will be just as sanctified as it ever was if the definition of the term is expanded.

[ 11-09-2004, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Cerek ]

[Djinn Raffo]

Well done Cerek.

[John D Harris]

Cerek , there is a reason so much is put on "marriage", words mean things, words are the way we as humans communicate with each other. It's not a Ta-may-to, To-mah-to thing (a pronounciation problem). It's marriage, civil union thing ( a definition problem) two simular BUT differant things trying to be made into one thing.

[ 11-09-2004, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Cerek]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Cerek , there is a reason so much is put on "marriage", words mean things, words are the way we as humans communicate with each other. It's not a Ta-may-to, To-mah-to thing (a pronounciation problem). It's marriage, civil union thing ( a definition problem) two simular BUT differant things trying to be made into one thing.

Yes, John, words DO have meaning. However, "marriage" and "civil union" are not "two similar - BUT different things - trying to be made into one. Rather, "civil union" is a term that was created because we conservatives couldn't stand the thought of two gay people being called "married". What about the couple that lives together for x-number of years but never "officially" get married. According to NC law (and I'm sure several others), after a certain number of years together, their partnership is considered a "common law marriage" and they actually gain the privileges and rights of married couples - even though they never signed a legal document. In the eyes of the state, they are still "married" after being together for a set number of years. Yet many of these couples would not appreciate being considered "married" themselves. I know more than one example where a man and woman have lived together for well over 10 years, but they balk at the suggestion that they are now "married".

So if you really want to get technical about marriage and it's definition - then it should be "defined" as two people that have entered a legal union and it should include the signing of an official document. But the law makes exceptions to this rule. That's because the state believes that two people that have lived together for 7 years have invested equally in the things they own...so each is entitled to half of the stuff if they decide to split up.

Terms and definitions DO change over the years. "Gay" used to mean "happy" or "joyful", but you won't hear anybody using it that way anymore (even though that definition still exists).

I conceded that part of me wants to keep marriage defined as "one woman and one man". But if you step back and look at it objectively, the whole fuss over the term marriage seems rather silly from both sides.

Now I still submit that if you change the definition of marriage ONCE (to allow it to mean a union between two PEOPLE, regardless of gender), then you HAVE set a legal precedent for that definition to be challenged and possibly changed AGAIN to mean a union between two OR MORE people). Despite objections posted previously about this second definition change trying to "cloud the issue", it IS a logical extension of the what can happen if we DO decide to begin changing the definition of marriage...and this is the only "legal" reason I can think of to NOT change the meaning of the term "marriage".

Of course, the same could probably be said about "civil union". There is the possibility that IT'S definition could be challenged by those who want to have group marriages.

And for those who claim I am just trying to confuse the issue, I humbly disagree. I am NOT making the expected comparisons of homosexuality to bestiality or pedaphilia. That is because there ARE OTHER laws on the books to protect against THOSE acts of sexual immorality - and most center on the fact that it cannot be said that both "partners" are "willing" in those situations. But the concept of "marriage" being expanded to include "group marriages" falls under the Law of Unintended Consequences, IMHO. If the government DOES allow the definition of marriage to be changed once, then the door has been opened for future challenges to be made to change it even more.

That is the ONLY "good" reason I can think of to create a seperate term for gay unions. And - as I said before - as long as a "civil union" does grant the same rights and privileges as "marriage", then there is no reason for it NOT to be acceptable to gays...if "equal rights" is truly what they seek.

Yet the Gay Rights Movement keeps insisting that their unions be called "marriage" - and THAT is part of what MagiK and others are talking about when they say that the gay movement is being "shoved in our face"...because much of their agenda IS an attempt to FORCE others to accept their lifestyle. And that simply won't happen. Gays need to realize that their lifestyle and sexual orientation is NOT going to be "accepted" by a large portion of Americans...and they can't MAKE people agree with it. But as long as they DO gain the same rights and privileges, then whether their actions are "acceptable" to others are not shouldn't make any difference.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Cerek: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: Cerek , there is a reason so much is put on "marriage", words mean things, words are the way we as humans communicate with each other. It's not a Ta-may-to, To-mah-to thing (a pronounciation problem). It's marriage, civil union thing ( a definition problem) two simular BUT differant things trying to be made into one thing.

Yes, John, words DO have meaning. However, "marriage" and "civil union" are not "two similar - BUT different things - trying to be made into one. Rather, "civil union" is a term that was created because we conservatives couldn't stand the thought of two gay people being called "married". What about the couple that lives together for x-number of years but never "officially" get married. According to NC law (and I'm sure several others), after a certain number of years together, their partnership is considered a "common law marriage" and they actually gain the privileges and rights of married couples - even though they never signed a legal document. In the eyes of the state, they are still "married" after being together for a set number of years. Yet many of these couples would not appreciate being considered "married" themselves. I know more than one example where a man and woman have lived together for well over 10 years, but they balk at the suggestion that they are now "married".
[/QUOTE]Cerek, your explaination testifies against your position, it matters not if a man and a woman sign a piece of paper or not, in some soceities they jump over a broomstick, are broomstick jumpers any less married then non broomstick jumpers? NO! In the example you gave for the explaination you still used a man and a woman. Marriage is a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife, the two shall become one flesh, that is marriage. How soceity decides the two become one flesh is irrelavant, standing before family and friends with a preacher saying pretty words carries no more wieght then jumping over a broomstick, or breaking glasses. Weither somebody likes being called married or not, matters not, to if they are married or not, any more then liking to be called falling matters to somebody that steps off a cliff. They are falling weither they like being called that or not. Certain things/actions are set into motion, by other actions, liking being called one thing or another matters not once the actions are set into motion. Calling a cat a dog doesn't make the cat a dog, it makes the caller uniformed.