Gay Marriage Issue Solved?

[micatala]

I know this has probably been suggested before, but a recent column in the St. Paul Pioneer Press by Joe Soucheray brought this to my mind again.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincitie ... 154831.htm

Joe's suggestion is simple.


Invent a new word for the union of two same-sex couples, and let marriage apply only two man and woman unions.



If we would invent a new word for these unions, while allowing same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples (tax deductions, etc.), would this solve the problem?


To break it down:

What specific objections would proponents of legalized gay marriage have?


What specific objections would opponents of gay marriage havae?

[juliod]

Invent a new word for the union of two same-sex couples, and let marriage apply only two man and woman unions.

The problem is that marriage is a label. Labels have meanings. If you give something a different label then it has a different meaning.

So the pro-gay-marriage people will only accept it if it really is identical to marriage. And the anti-gay-marriage people will only accept it if it really is very different from marriage. So I don't see it as an advance.

DanZ

[micatala]

I would be interested in seeing how many gay marriage proponents actually care about 'the label' versus the practical implications. I understand the symbolism can be powerful, but if all we are arguing about is the label, isn't this at least a little silly?

Even from a practical standpoint, why not go for 'civil-unions' that provide the same tax breaks, health care implications, etc. in the short run, and then go for changing the 'label' later. It seems to me that what would happen under this scenario is that language usage would eventually change all on its own, without anybody having to 'mandate' it up front. Then, the language in the laws would eventually change to reflect the changed usage.

[juliod]

It seems to me that what would happen under this scenario is that language usage would eventually change all on its own, without anybody having to 'mandate' it up front.

Of course, if the status of "civil union" was actually identical to marriage, then the label used for them would be "marriage". Gays would simply say "I'm getting married" or "we're married" rather than "we're getting unionized" or some other awkward term.

More to the point, the conservatives would also consider it marriage if it was identical to marriage. And that would be unacceptable to them.

DanZ

[Cephus]

Even when you call it a 'civil union', you get all the anti-gay people out in force against it. They don't care what you call it, they don't want it to happen in any way, shape or form. They only use the "marriage" ploy as a smokescreen to cover their real hatred of gays in general.

Doesn't matter what you call it, they don't want gays to have any rights whatsoever.

[1John2_26]

Is there a site award for bravest person to post?

I accept the nomination and thank you for my future award.

I know this has probably been suggested before, but a recent column in the St. Paul Pioneer Press by Joe Soucheray brought this to my mind again.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincitie ... 154831.htm

Joe's suggestion is simple.

Invent a new word for the union of two same-sex couples, and let marriage apply only two man and woman unions.

That is the political/social answer. Even I the lone-wolf dissenter on these threads (A conservative Christian) I cannot see this as anything but sensible in the social view of living in a diverse culture.

If we would invent a new word for these unions, while allowing same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples (tax deductions, etc.), would this solve the problem?

Progressives and Liberals have been inventing new words for decades. I'll support them on this one. Just stop inventing new words to describe Christians as bigots and "homophobia" as the convenient new word to criminalize authentic Christian beliefs and practices. Gays and lesbians can get "life-partnered" in their own ways.

To break it down:

What specific objections would proponents of legalized gay marriage have?

They could no control the masses. They could not dominate all.

What specific objections would opponents of gay marriage havae?

"Gay marriage" is probably one of the greatest oxymorons in the history of civilization and same-sex marriage would be used to outlaw Christianity even further by Gay political power. Society needs to put into law further protections for Christians and others to have their civil rights not be outlawed by homosexual political power, i.e., The Gay Agenda.

Other than that, redefine and relabel all you want to. Putting a band-aid over a scar as it were. I'll keep my old dictionaries for reference to teach people accurate history in the coming new world paradigm.

Let's here it for diversity and tolerance.

[Cephus]

"Gay marriage" is probably one of the greatest oxymorons in the history of civilization and same-sex marriage would be used to outlaw Christianity even further by Gay political power. Society needs to put into law further protections for Christians and others to have their civil rights not be outlawed by homosexual political power, i.e., The Gay Agenda.

Please explain how gay marriage affects Christianity in any way, shape or form. How does a Christian's civil rights change by what someone else is allowed to do. Or are you assuming that it is a Christian's right to tell everyone else what to do?

[micatala]

Joe's suggestion is simple.

Invent a new word for the union of two same-sex couples, and let marriage apply only two man and woman unions.

That is the political/social answer. Even I the lone-wolf dissenter on these threads (A conservative Christian) I cannot see this as anything but sensible in the social view of living in a diverse culture.

OK. It looks like we have at least one opponent of gay marriage who is willing to accept the 'invent a new word' solution. This would run counter to juliod's assertion, although we must admit at this point we have a sample of one.

It seems to me that it is easy to assume or claim one's opponents will behave in a certain way. Such assumptions may or may not be correct. We will never know for sure how many of those who oppose 'gay marriage called by that name' would accept 'gay marriage called by a different name' if we never even ask the question. Certainly, if there are polls that have been done on this precise question, we can bring them in as evidence. I have not seen any such polls to date.

What specific objections would proponents of legalized gay marriage have?

They could no control the masses. They could not dominate all.

I would respond similarly to this comment, as I did to juliod's. I think you are making a big assumption that somehow gays want to control the masses. I don't think they care what 'the masses' do, as long as the masses don't oppress, discriminate against, or otherwise abuse gay people. Again, I would say try it and call their bluff. My guess is we would find 'domination' is not something most gay people care one whit about.

[1John2_26]

1John2_26 wrote:
"Gay marriage" is probably one of the greatest oxymorons in the history of civilization and same-sex marriage would be used to outlaw Christianity even further by Gay political power. Society needs to put into law further protections for Christians and others to have their civil rights not be outlawed by homosexual political power, i.e., The Gay Agenda.

Please explain how gay marriage affects Christianity in any way, shape or form. How does a Christian's civil rights change by what someone else is allowed to do. Or are you assuming that it is a Christian's right to tell everyone else what to do?

Homosexuals criminalize anyone that simply "disapproves" of their sexual choice behavior and here is an example of the lengths they go to to oppose Christians. It will be impossible for Christians to preach and teach Christian truth when Gay marriage gains power over the issue completely. It is happening in England.

Your request granted for proof:

Homophobia in the Church

.The Lesbian and Gay Christian Fellowship has recently published a research report entitled Christian Homophobia. It defines homophobia as an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people, and their culture and details a number of case studies which illustrate the following key findings:.

That the majority of homophobic abuse suffered by gay men and lesbians in the UK is supported by the words and actions of the Christian churches..
That such homophobia has a serious daily effect on the health and well-being of the gay and lesbian population of this country, sometimes leading to absence from work, depression, physical harm and even suicide..

That the Christian churches in the UK have had a disproportionate influence on legislation affecting gays and lesbians and have, at every turn, tried to frustrate the will of parliament, defy the international consensus on human rights, and to gain exemption for themselves from the fair and equal treatment of lesbians and gay men.

That in the methods and organisation, conservative Christian groups in this country now amount to a "Christian Right" similar to that which has been active in the US for some years.

That some bishops and other church leaders act hypocritically in regard to the lesbian and gay members and clergy of their churches, knowing that they are licensing and ordaining gay clergy whilst publicly denying this.
That such hypocrisy rewards deceit and dishonesty and is deleterious to the health and well being of those who are forced into such a lifestyle.
That a significant number of clergy have been dismissed, made homeless and forced to rely on state benefits because of their sexuality.

That lesbian and gay church members are being expelled from congregations, lesbian and gay groups have been refused the use of church premises, church run welfare and housing organisations have specifically excluded gay men and lesbians.
That sermons and Christian resource material supporting gay men and lesbians have been censored or destroyed, and that young people in church youth groups and other Christian settings are being indoctrinated into homophobia.

That there are sigificant numbers of counsellors, psychologists and other health professionals whose "Christian" beliefs lead them to attempt the "changing", "curing", or "exorcising" of gay men and lesbians against all the advice of reputable professional associations.

That there are occasional instances of heroic and truly Christian people within the churches taking a stand to support the lesbian and gay community. There are many gay and lesbian Christians who are prepared to work for the redemption of the churches from the sin of homophobia, often at great personal cost.

The full report is availablefrom LGCM, Oxford House, Derbyshire St., London E2 6HG

A Christian Homphobia Hotline has also been established which invites calls in confidence from any gay man or lesbian who feels they have been discriminated against by Christians

They (Gays and Lesbians) consider "discrimination" the teaching of Biblical truth. Only those that support homosexuals are "free" to live their lives unharrassed by Gay activists. The result of the legalization of same-sex "unions" (without the word "marriage") in England has wrought this action against Christians. Legalizing same-sex "marriage" criminalizes Christian Churches that teach the truth of what a "marriage" is.

[Cephus]

Homosexuals criminalize anyone that simply "disapproves" of their sexual choice behavior and here is an example of the lengths they go to to oppose Christians. It will be impossible for Christians to preach and teach Christian truth when Gay marriage gains power over the issue completely. It is happening in England.

So people are being jailed for simply disliking homosexuality, but not doing anything else whatsoever? If so, then England is even more backwards than I thought.

However, nowhere that I am aware of have homosexuals made the simple act of not liking homosexuality against the law. I'm not sure how they could, since they make up only about 10% of the population and in a vote, they could not possibly win a majority.

Now if you're talking about preaching violence and intolerance against homosexuality, then you're talking about something wholly different. How about you stop worrying about what's going on in someone else's bedroom?