<p>Yeah, but unfortunately, that's totally irrelevant, since I've been arguing that the present definition needs to be changed.</p>
<p>Bertrand Russell's maxim: "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd."</p>
<p>It seems to me that Russell would have been intellectually honest enough to say that if marriage is absurd it should be eliminated or relegated to the dustbin of history, rather than stretching the definition of the word/concept into meaninglessness and thereby make it functionally irrelevant (good slavery?). </p>
<p>If a defined practice of a defined concept is wrong, such as slavery, eliminate it and call it what it is, evil. Marriage, by definition (it is a given in the concept), is a union of a man and a woman who have pledged devotion and fidelity we all know that without having to examine the concept that it intends to specify. Many people who hold your view are honest enough to say they think marriage has no inherent value (as you do) and therefore oppose it in its entirety. Many famous feminists have so argued, as have many gay/lesbian rights activists. They were, in my opinion, intellectually honest, but wrong.</p>
<p>against it</p>
<p>I have no problem with either eliminating it and replacing it with civil unions or extending it to everybody. What matters to me is that it's fair to everyone, not blatantly and overtly discriminatory. I know that getting rid of the term "marriage" altogether will never happen, though (Religious Right will make too much noise), so I think the best way to go is simply to change our present concept of marriage so people aren't oppressed in the name of tradition. What I do oppose is a separate concept of "civil unions" for homosexuals, since it's just another manifestation of "separate but equal."</p>
<p>I do, however, think that there needs to be some sort of legal term similar to what we have now, for marriage benefits, power of attorney, joint income tax filing, child custody rights (including adopted children), etc. Call it whatever you want, but make it the same for everyone.</p>
<p>123.... why?</p>
<p>For! Because love is love.</p>
<p>here here !</p>
<p>When did 'love' become a legal matter, as marriage is?</p>
<p>To say "love is love" is not to say that it is in need of a legal contract, or a corporate structure, is it?</p>
<p>In fact, the opposite would seem to be the case. </p>
<p>Love is, by definition, an irrational, beautiful and transcendent force that often operates against and beyond logic: laws and contracts are not, or at least should not be trandscendent and irrational.</p>
<p>Marriage is a legal arrangement.
Love is love...indeed it is!</p>
<p>marriage is represents the love two people have for each other....</p>
<p>not really. its an institution established by religion.</p>
<p>marriage is a ceremony that not only consummates a relationship of love, but one that represents a set of commitments and values to uphold with each other for the rest of their lives.</p>
<p>most people like to see this as the basis of a natural family. allowing same-sex marriages simply would be too shattering to their values.</p>
<p>i agree with GDWilner and what Woodwork said in his/her last post. although i do not this situation would be an appropriate application "separate but equal" as it existed in racially segregated schools. we're not talking about material properties here.</p>
<p>The seperate but equal idea is nonsense - we've long held that it's ok to consider gender in a way that we can't consider race.</p>
<p>Gender divisions are thought to be ok in nearly every aspect of society. Are you ready to toss gender specific dorms, colleges, bathrooms, showers, clubs, etc under your absolutely no "seperate but equal" ideology?</p>
<p>
<em>cough</em></p>
<p>Just like in past threads, you simply ignore those if us who object to the divisions.</p>
<p>Well I was addressing mainstream ideas. Obviously, even you must admit that if you want to abolish seperate bathrooms you're on the very fringe.</p>
<p>Personally, I don't see the benefit of the strange new world of sexual assimulationism, either - but that's a different thread.</p>
<p>This is a dumb argument...you all should just accept that gays arent going to get married and get along with your lives :)</p>
<p>Agreed. There is no justice in the world. We should cast away our worldy possesions, begin self-flagellating, and repent to the Gods.</p>
<p>
[quote]
begin self-flagellating
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's a sin, as well ;)</p>
<p>sins, like evil, don't exist</p>
<p>they're cultural inventions</p>
<p>It was a joke -- wow</p>
<p>
[quote]
sins, like evil, don't exist</p>
<p>they're cultural inventions
[/quote]
</p>
<p>According to whom? If culture has invented (re: created) them, how do they not exist? Do you consider "evil" to be a deprevation, instead? Does your "evil" not exist in the same way a number (or courage or honor or anything else) might not exist (it has definite meaning, but can't be directly observed in their pure form)?</p>
<p>If something (God's will, any brand of secular morality, anything) objectively makes an action right and moral, wouldn't doing the opposite be evil (assuming evil can mean immoral, or "sinful" if you beleive right action is determined by God)?</p>
<p>Be less ambiguous when you attack my (I thought funny) joke ;)</p>
<p>"sins, like evil, don't exist</p>
<p>they're cultural inventions"</p>
<p>Great news for Hitler, Stalin, Mao, 9-11 hijackers, Timothy McVeigh and their crew! Perhaps they were all simply misunderstood misfits in a world of moral relativity I guess we really are all special in our own special ways; they werent evil, they were just different.</p>
<p>Are things wrong or unlawful just because we feel like making them so and could they be otherwise if the cultural moods begin to swing in a different direction? Or does right and wrong transcend how we happen to be feeling about them on this particular day or that?</p>
<p>With what moral authority to we prosecute crimes against humanity? Or even murder or rape? Just because we feel like it, or are there absolutes involved?</p>
<p>Morality cannot be both real and fictitious simultaneously. If there are moral absolutes, from where do they derive their unchanging authority? TV, radio, the latest cultural trends? Or something greater, constant and unchanging .hmmm?</p>
<p>M&B--It just wasn't funny.</p>
<p>If I read your post about separate but equal correctly, you would have no problem with civil unions having the same benefits bestowed upon marriages?</p>
<p>Why do same sex couples want to get married in the first place? To have their union recognized by society; ie. to be allowed to have their home pass tax-free to their partner at the death of one of them; to be allowed to name their partner as beneficiary of their IRA and be allowed to roll it over tax-free just like a married couple; to be allowed to visit their partner in the intesive care unit while he/she is on his/her deathbed (as family); to obtain the numerous practical and financial benefits of married couples.</p>