In case you’re wondering, that’s the sound of someone agreeing… or disagreeing, it doesn’t matter. The line has gotten so muddied that we all might as well be on both sides of the debate.
So should gay marriage be allowed, or should we leave it to they tyranny of individual states to make a majority decision that only affects the narrowest of minority, if not the straight-and-narrowest.
Debating this issue is Brian K. White of GlossyNews.com and Dean Chambers of UnSkewedPolls.com.
Brian K. White — GlossyNews.com
Gay marriage as an accepted concept has been growing since the 1970s, and as the decades have dragged on, it’s only gained momentum. The bottom line is that, if individuals are in a loving, committed relationship, who am I to tell them which legal status they should be able to enjoy. When it comes to the ‘icky factor’, I can agree that gay love is not my thing, but likewise I’d say Bob Dole’s Viagra commercials put unpretty images in my head I’d rather not have there.
But the bottom line is that those activities take place regardless of marital status, and if they want to get shackled into the worst part of a relationship, I say ‘more power to them’ for doing it. I personally welcome loving, committed relationships, even if I disagree with them (as in the case of my own parents.) What they’re really fighting for is not equal recognition, but equal rights. Let them visit each other in the hospital. Let them adopt. Let them share in the same property rights afforded to opposite-sex partners. What difference does it make to you?
Dean Chambers — UnSkewedPolls.com
Writing and communication in general requires more precise use of words. “Gay marriage” is a misnomer, as gay means happy I”m sure that virtually all who get married are happy to do so. I suspect what are we discussing here is same-sex marriage, which is another issue entirely. The word marriage alone has been defined for thousands of years in our dictionaries to mean a union of one man and one woman.
Some have proposed that same-sex couples in a similar relationship should be allowed to get married and have the same benefits and legal recognition that society grants to traditional marriage. This question as to whether to “legalize” or recognize this under law is one that should be decided by the people at the state or local level and not by government, the courts or the bureaucrats at the national level. Deciding this question at the state level, and doing so democratically by the people and not the courts, is the right way to decide this issue. In the long run, for those who are seeking public acceptance of same-sex marriage, they stand better odds of making their desired change a permanent one if they get the people to accept it rather than seeking courts or bureaucrats to impose it on an unwilling public.
Brian K. White — GlossyNews.com
If you think marriage is a universally happy thing, then you sir, have never met my in-laws. Using definitions that are thousands of years old to rule modern life makes no sense. For thousands of years publishing meant a printing press, so should digital on-demand printing not be covered? Should the internet not be covered? Sure, films enjoy copyright protection, but clearly that can’t extend to DVDs, right? Nonsense.
I know you like to throw things to ‘state’s rights’ since you know on a federal level this is coming. You want backwards pockets of America to be allowed to hold out despite majority support. That’s the same argument conservatives make with regards to pro-choice legislation, but it’s equally bullshit. We can’t put minority issues to a majority vote. And even if we do, you still want to break it down to subsets of the electorate to govern those local places. Bullshit. We have no right to deny loving, committed couples to a piece of paper that makes them equal to what some random clown can get after a drunken night in Vegas.
Dean Chambers — UnSkewedPolls.com
The issue of same-sex so-called marriage is not about denying any rights to anyone they do not already have, it’s about creating special rights for a certain class of individuals, those who choose to have a relationship with a member of their own sex rather than marry someone of the opposite sex, which is what true marriage is by definition of the word. Those seeking such special rights that will be accorded to those wanting to marry the same sex, should at least respect the rights of the people to decide such changes and pursue this democratically at the state level rather than have it imposed, anti-choice, on the population by the federal bureaucracy or courts.
Thanks for stating the obvious Brian.
I think the professor has a point, although you would think that such an educated person would catch the simple repetition error in his post before publishing it.
If marriage is legally simply a contract, why should corporations not be allowed to wed each other as well as non-corporations. And corporations screw us with contracts all the time, so why not recognize it as marriage? It’s at least as hard and painful to break one of those contracts as it is to get a divorce.
As a linguist, I can tell you that that words are arbitrary and conventional, so that there is no fixed definition to any word, but rather one that evolves and changes over time, according to the decisions of its community of users.
Marriage is certainly not defined exclusively as between one man and one woman, although that is one definition. The terms polygamy and polyandry are proof of this, and even machine parts are covered by one definition.
Even some legal definitions do not specify a man and a woman. In all cases, however, it is legally a contractual relationship. The question is whether certain classes of persons will be excluded from such contracts, as with age restrictions.
Should society be permitted to prohibit same sex marriage contracts? Not a good idea, if you ask me. I think a stronger case could be made for imposing restrictions on watching television and on becoming obese. None of our business.
Thank you for publishing so many lies and distortions in a single article. It is worthy of this site. I can’t believe that neither of you has spoken up for the right of corporations to marry, whether in homosexual, heterosexual or asexual unions. The most they can do is merger, and then only among their own kind.
Sure, corporations have the right to screw the rest of us, but marriage is forbidden. Corporations are people, too. When are they going to get equal rights?