Many people tilt at windmills.

Jack

Why is/are the father(s) out of the picture?

Many people hate God (or Primary Cause) for making
half of the human species female and the other half
male.

If someone is unwilling to budge, we’ll just do it without them, plain and simple. You talk about things being the way they have been for hundreds of years as if that (even if true) were a sufficient reason for not making changes. Slavery, womens rights, equal pay, etc etc. should have arguably been fixed long before they were, but too many people resisted change because of their parochial views that were out of date.

We in this country have a history of freedom and equality, but sadly only after struggles that lasted too long. My feeling is that those who are resisting gay rights will find themselves looked on as the intolerant and discriminatory ‘bad guys’. History is full of these parallels. I just ask that those who resist are critical of their views (as I should be of mine, of course) and try to get and understanding of what their core concerns are. If it ISN’T, for example, the ability to make sure that gay couples can adequately protect their children the same as straight couples, then don’t throw the baby out with the bath water out of dislike of gays or specifically, gay “marriage”.

And I think RightWingHippyChick #132 makes a great point…why is the right fighting against loving couples protecting themselves and their families when they want to embrace the very unity the right claims to hold so dear(between them)?

I’ll leave you with this. I work with a lesbian who has been with her partner for around 10 years. They have two beautiful twin girls who are just over 2 years old. However, because our state won’t allow the partner to adopt the children, if my friend dies then the state gives no protection that they’ll stay with their other parent (anyone in either family can challenge for custody with a fair chance of success). They are considering having to uproot the entire family and move to another state just to make sure the kids are cared for emotionally as well as financially (because that state provides for 2nd parent adoption although not gay marriage). Does it seem like we are doing the right thing for that family? It certainly doesn’t to me.

Knowing this couple for the past 5 years and having helped put swingsets together for the kids and going their birthday parties and holiday events has made it abundantly clear to me I’m on the right side of this. Letting something foul befall this family unit simply because some people don’t like that it is what it is and so they are not afforded the same benefits as the rest of us is, in my mind, evil at worst, callous and selfish at best. I’m not trying to throw stones at you personally, but I really think you need to see the issue from their perspective a little.

Jack

Really? Whose definition is that? Yours? And who are you to decide? Marriage used to be defined as a man and a woman of the same race. But that changed. Why? Because it was bigoted and discriminatory. How typically conservative it is to forbid other people from doing things for no other reason than you find it to be icky. Well, I find it icky for priests to molest young boys, so I think we should forbid the Catholic church in this country. Let’s make a deal – we’ll forbid gay marriage and kick out the Catholic church. Don’t like that deal? Wanna keep the church? Then mind your own business.

Even the argument that marriage has changed or doesn’t mean as much to some, or the vows are taken lightly, still does not negate the fact that the word marriage has a meaning, and a definition, and including other groups into it’s meaning or definition, changes it.

Well, it could be the whole argument is out of our hands now, as it seems to be going faster than our ability to discuss it or think about it. If one day, one side or the other prevails, I will remember our conversation and will wonder what you all are thinking.

I’d also like to say that the ‘definition of marriage’ has changed over time as the centuries went by, men no longer are allowed to beat their wives, women have their own money and property and can decide whom they marry, we also now allow divorce (something I profoundly disagree with btw) and so on — today marriage is very very different to what it was even 20 years ago.

Maybe we need to discuss what we nowadays mean by marriage — it no longer is ’till death us parts’ and divorce is legal and what is nearly as bad, divorce is also a no-fault affair that totally bankrupts the families it happens to, in other words, marriage has been reduced in it’s essence to a ceremonial formality already.

I’m not sure that we’ve that much left to protect here ;(

But yeah, it’s funny to see the traditional enemy of marriage, the left, arguing FOR marriage against the traditional champion of marriage, the right. Something is definitely clashing here at the core values… hmmm.

I can’t let a child starve because we are disagreeing on the definition of “food” for example…lets feed the kid and worry about what we call that later…

That I can’t get you to look (even glance) past the definition is what is frustrating. If you don’t think they should have the rights under any circumstances, then I’m not going to quibble over terminology as it’s a very far down the list of concerns I have.

Jack

I spoke about what I thought was the attempt to ‘re-define’ the word marriage, and I did not want to distract from my argument. If you took offense, I did not mean it to do so.

Now, I was reading an article in Slate Online that it seems the writers of certain dictionaries are with you and others on this argument. They have for some years been changing the definition of marriage to suit other people.

Here’s the link and it might make you less irritated with me, since it seems your desire is becoming reality.

http://www.slate.com/id/2215628/

Well there you have it.

And don’t waste your time with LynnS. She refuses to answer anyone’s questions unless she can provide a snarky non-answer. Her only point for this entire thread is “I don’t want the definition of marriage changed”. And that’s fine, but since she clearly has nothing else to offer to the discussion, I don’t know why she doesn’t just stop talking…we got it. She doesn’t want to talk about civil rights/benefits, she doesn’t want to talk about alternatives to what we call it, she doesn’t want to talk about the legislative process, she doesn’t want to talk about how judges got into their seats, she doesn’t want to talk about whether or not gays should have the same rights as other taxpayers, she doesn’t want to talk about whether children of gay couples would benefit from their gay parents being married or not, etc. etc. etc.

Seriously, whether you like what I say or not, at least I respond to people based on what they said or asked. It’s called dialog. And I am snarky too, no doubt, but that isn’t all I say/do. Lynn just snips and pokes at people and then goes off into her spiel about not changing the definition of marriage and saying everyone is trying to put words in her mouth. It’s a broken record. Enough already if you don’t have anything else to add to the discussion!!!

That said, I’ll keep reading her posts because I’ll be amazed if she ever gets deeper in anything than simply scratching the surface and stomping her feet over and over.

Jack

And, after your name calling, I still stand by my words.

The definition of Marriage, a man and a woman become husband and wife, should not be changed. I won’t describe them as beautiful, or stinging, just simple and to the point.

And, contrary to what you may think, I’m glad your still standing.