|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Sounds too much like hemorrhage.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
good point, Fald.  while I understand your thoughts, mg, I feel we really don't need another word, and actually it would be a step backwards to develop one. what we need is for people to wake up and realize that people are people(pipples are pipples-The Muppets Take Manhattan ) regardless of who they love(consenting adults, of course), and should be treated equally.
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
Yeahbut (sorry, couldn't figure out how to make the symbol on this keyboard, even with cheatsheets!), I'm not trying to say pipples ain't pipples - just that marriage has been one thing for so long, is it really fair to ask it to stretch to accommodate a very new thing?
We make up new words for all kinds of new things in this new world - and "marriage" between two people of the same sex can never be what most of the world understands marriage to be. So why can't there be a new word for it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289 |
Bingley's view is common sense. The new possibility of legal unions between persons of the same sex is similar to what has happened in countries with a state religion. Time was in England that the only possible way to get married was to have the banns posted (or pay for a license) and have it done in the church, which meant the parish C of E institution, by the clergy of same. No matter if you were a dissenter; a ceremony conducted elsewhere or by someone not a C of E priest or bishop didn't count in law. It took a while for Parliament to allow a marriage to take place in any other fashion.
Same in Catholic countries. You couldn't be married anywhere else but in the parish church, whether or not you were Catholic. In time, civil marriages were allowed and, in many places were actually required for civil purposes and the church ceremony was extra. It is now the practice in Italy, for instance, if you are religious, to first go to the city hall for the civil ceremony (which only takes maybe 15 minutes), then to the church for the religious rite.
In other words, old laws and legal requirements have to be modified to allow marriage to occur in such a manner that those members of the body politic who can't meet the requirements will have a chance to be married. When there are a significant number of people shut out from legal marriage by a legal bar, it is in the interest of society (and maybe the church, if your religious views are liberal) to make modifications rather than having large numbers of people "living in sin" or being forced to be at a legal disadvantage in terms of entitlements, pensions, inheritance, etc. This, I think, is what we are now grappling with and trying to do something with, the Pope, Pat Roberts, George Bush, et al. notwithstanding.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
eta, I'm not suggesting you're otherworldly.  Just, I bet if you polled people in South America, China, India and Africa, many of them would not understand the concept of "marriage" between two people of the same sex. Also, if you polled (God love 'em, I know I do) the geriatric set, many of them would probably be confused about it. They might well be open-minded enough to accept two people of the same sex wanting to commit to each other and have that commitment recognised, but they wouldn't necessarily understand why such a union would be called a "marriage" - given that many older people understand marriage to be between a man and a woman who intend to be together forever AND PROCREATE - something that gays and lesbians will never be able to do, unless science meddles with biology even more than it already has. Homosexuals can certainly raise children together, but they can't actually produce them (unless we're talking about a gay and a lesbian). Seems to me to be a significant enough difference to warrant a new word, but obviously I'm in the minority, so forget I spoke.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
eta, I'm not suggesting you're otherworldly. rats. actually, what I was getting at was that strongly held ideas about things can change, and that I feel that this is no different. you're right about those groups, at this time, feeling that way, but I think it doesn't have to be that way. and I'm not so sure about you being in the minority. actually.
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555 |
Just, I bet if you polled people in South America, China, India and Africa, many of them would not understand the concept of "marriage" between two people of the same sexer, mg, read as worded, this statement appears to suggest that such 'concepts' are endemic to the G8 nations! And possibly inadvertently, it reinforces multiple stereotypes. Just the sort of thing that the rights movement is fighting against!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439 |
the geriatric set, many of them would probably be confused about it. Hey just a gol durn minute there, youngster! But seriously ....... Speaking for my own 74-year-old self, and for many of my friends of the same age, and a few even older, we understand quite well the concept of any type of consential union between two people - whether the same or opposite sex. And the way you kids are talking you'd think it was something new! In my youth the term for two women living together was a "Boston Marriage." Dunno' where the phrase came from but it was well known. Homosexual men were "confirmed bachelors." I can't help but think those are two euphemisms we are well off without. I favor a litle light and fresh air, thank you very much. Civil marriage is nothing new in USA - ask any Justice of the Peace! (I are one!) The legal protection thatwould be offered by a consential union is only fair for two people who have pledged themselves to each other. I have seen (and heard of) some distressing situations that have happened because of the lack of legal protection. I had two friends, lovely, kind, decent, honorable men, who had been exclusively together for 23 years when one died of a myocardial infaction. The survivor was treated very badly by police who were called to the "unexplained death." He was held in a separate room until the coroner confirmed the death by heart attack and was not allowed to leave the room until after the body was removed. Then the family swooped in - although they had refused to speak to the deceased for over 25 years because of their "lifestyle." (Arrrggghh) The body was taken a great distance out of state for burial in the "family plot" and his life companion cannot even visit the grave as they refused to tell him anything about the funeral or the location of the cemetery. All his partner's effects were taken away, and the bank accounts which were in the deceased's name (containing money contributed by the survivor) were awarded to the closest next of kin - a surviving brother. It was a nightmare! Now consider what it would be like to have someone you loved for 23 years torn from you with such ruthlessness. I am strongly in favor of a consential union that would give same-sex partners the same legal rights that enjoyed in a male-female unions. I cannot imagine what I would have done if someone had treated me that way when my beloved John died. As for the Pope's ruling, it's a regulation not an article of faith and so I am at liberty to excercise my free will and ignore it if my conscience so dictates. And it does. Homosexuality has ever been with us. God made us all and I cannot believe He would withhold Her love from any creature. So there. Harumph!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
People of the same gender who are coupled tend not to refer to their opposite as a spouse, but rather as their "partner." What is wrong with calling these relationships "partnerships"? Or is it too much like the business usage of this term?
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,331
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
|
