Same Sex Marriage

fishin'

You don't live in a 'house' as people thought of this in 1000, or 100 or 1400, do you? (Would have been fortress, a villa or a castle.

I'm afraid I don't have quite that much money Walter. My "house" is based on the same basic structure used for the very same purpose as a "house" was 1000 years ago and more.

But.. Aside from the current legal ramifications of being a part of a "marriage" the word also has cultural meaning and heritge attached to it just as a person's family may have ethnic or national heritage.

While the idea here is to attain a situation where we have the same legal ramifications the cultural issues remain different between a hetrosexual and homosexual union. As a result it seems that the way to go would be to create a new word/term to define the new relationship and leave the old word as it was as opposed to co-opting the old word and then defining two new words/terms to make the distinction father on down the chain.

Surely this has become a discussion about the limitations of and/or mutability of language rather than same-sex marriage/civil union/monogamous partnerships.

Not that I mind, mind you...

Well, fishin' that's what I meant.

At least here in Central Europe the meaning of the word "house" changed through the centuries as well as the legal relation to it. (No rule without exception: the Westphalian nobility is still living in houses, which are legally now castles.)

All this is known in those states, who have got these "marriages" already. And of course, lots of people were arguing here and there, as you do.
However, no-where this called "marriages" until now - just (tabloid) papers are speaking of "gay/lesbian marriages". (Denmark calls it "register as domestic partners" [and in churches, there is no special marriage service for those marriages], in The Netherlands is a ""Registrations of Partnership", same in Germany [blessings for 'homosecual couples' in churches are similar in both countries, less in Germany and both fewer than in Denmark - by protestant churches 'of course' only.]).

I don't think that "all discrimination is wrong". When you pick a partner for a heterosexual marriage, don't you discriminate amongst differerent possible partners?

Illegality is a non-issue here, since, as you pointed out, homosexuality was once and still is unlawful in certain domains.

I specifically asked about pedophiles because I was once chastised for being a bigot when I suggested that pedophiles needed to seek help or be locked up. The argument presented to me was that pedophilia was just another "lifestyle choice" and that I was a bigot for not respecting that choice as I would a heterosexual or homosexual coupling between consenting adults.

My point is that you have to be careful when you toss around absolutes like, "I think any form of discrimination is wrong".

New Haven, With "logic" like yours, every choice we make is "discrimination." c.i.

"Pedophilia" is not just another lifestyle choice. Since you are unable to see the difference between pedophilia and discrimination, I'll leave you to your "blind" world. c.i.

Some Christians, all Bibles.

Pedophilia can be discriminated without discriminating against pedophiles.

Well, my two little cents are that OF COURSE it helps society to accept those members of society that wish to contribute in a healthy manner <of which in my opinion they are doing by forming a committed union> however, there are those that not only dont believe the lifestyle is something you cant change and/or is wrong. I firmly belive that these persons will not change their minds, nor will they see the benefit of such happenings.
Should it be 'marriage', should it be 'union'? You know what...that isnt really my concern...thats a word that is being used to legally define whatever it is for others. Basically its a comittment, and the legal issues, life issues associated with that commitment, just like other married folks have. I dont think the church would allow same sex marriages anytime soon, but if they did, heck why NOT call those marriages as well? In the meantime, why define it differently outside the church? If you need to get a marriage certificate, thats what you need. Just bizarre to me that it needs to be seperated because the people involved happen to be of the same same sex instead of different sexes.

I'm for same-sex marriages.

c.i.:

Many Americans still consider homosexuality to be abnormal and a sin.
Yes, it is prohibited in certain biblical sections and yes, many clergy of the Islamic, Jewish and Christian religions are against it.

Is it right? Is it normal? The answer depends on which side of the fence you're standing on.

As far as believing in God, many nonbelievers do not think homosexuality is a normal activity.

Interesting on reflection to consider that at one time homosexuality was considered abnormal. Read the psychology books of the 50s and early 60s. Will we see a trend in mental health, where we swing in the opposite direction? In the year 2050, will homosexuality still be considered to be normal?

Well, New Haven, to many of us homosexuality is considered to be VERY normal already.

What is normal
Websters has several definitios but the one that fits this situation seems to be:
2 : a principle of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior
3 : AVERAGE: as a : a set standard of development or achievement usually derived from the average or median achievement of a large group b : a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group c : a widespread practice, procedure, or custom : RULE <standing ovations became the norm>
I would suppose than that for gay people that is normal

If you define it as what is normal for gay people, yes. If you define it as what is normal for their families/friends, hopefully yes. Unfortunately if one uses "normal" as defined as what the greater society thinks... well, then things aren't so fortuitous.

Normal as defined by the American Psychiatric Association.

au, If cannibalism can be considered "normal" for a group, I imagine that homosexuality is also "normal" - according to the definition. c.i.

Is this from the American Psychiatric Association?

c.i
As defined in websters your answer would be yes. I was just trying to show that the word normal is meaningless.