NationStates Jolt Archive

I know it seems silly, all those people who are so stuck on their definitions of words that they refuse to let anyone use them for anything other than their own definition... words like "marriage" for example. The real issue with the whole gay marriage thing is that most people don't like the word "marriage" being used to describe something that is not marriage. I for one am in favor of universal civil unions, and having the government just butt out, but for the sake of this argument, I'll stand by a definition of marriage as 'man and woman'.

No, for those of you who think "who cares? it doesn't effect you.

Well, you're half right there. There is a good case that the legalization of gay marriage will not harm our society all that much.

But what if we tried to broaden the definition of other terms?

For instance (hypothetically of course), what if George W. Bush started calling himself "liberal" because he wants to bring progressivism and liberty and freedom and all that to Iraq? Technically, it does fit some obscure definition of the word, but no doubt every Liberal would be pissed off about it, even though it doesn't harm them.

We've already become lax on words like "catholic"... heck, these days you don't even have to believe in God to call yourself catholic :P

Or what about a word like "bible"? Bible just means book, right? What if we started calling every book the "bible"? Obviously, it wouldn't harm anyone, but it would certainly piss a bunch of people off.

Or in a reverse case, how about "african american"? We all know what that means, but technically, there are whites who emigrate to america, who are very much african american, yet because of our limited definition of that word, people get pissed off whenever a white calls themself that, even though that doesn't harm anyone either.

See what I mean? Words are silly things, and they shouldn't have to be taken this seriously, and yet...

Well currently a civil unions act is going through the process here, (it passed the first vote, and now goes to a select commitee or something) and the only arguements that have been put up against it are 'Next thing you know, gays will want to addopt kids' and 'Its just a gay marriage act with one word changed' People are stupid.

Well currently a civil unions act is going through the process here, (it passed the first vote, and now goes to a select commitee or something) and the only arguements that have been put up against it are 'Next thing you know, gays will want to addopt kids' and 'Its just a gay marriage act with one word changed' People are stupid.
That's what my point was... words are silly, and are not worth fighting over, and yet...

You've got some decent insight here, CC. Words have power, but only the power that we as users of those words provide them. A liberal such as myself might feel a touch offended if George Bush tried to argue that he was liberal-minded, but it wouldn't harm me in any way if he did. (It would certainly harm him politically, but that's another story.)

But I disagree with your last statement. Words aren't silly things. It's silly to get tweaked about them at times, I agree, but in the end, language is the real basis for social evolution. We as humans only started to make real strides toward civilization when we developed language and were able to start passing along information down through mulitple generations. Words men everything to us as humans, which is perhaps why we get so upset at people who abuse them for what we consider foul purposes.

I love the old...someone goes to Africa and comments on all the African Americans there...bit :)
and to actually kinda make a point...I consider myself a liberal and yet I wouldn't be pissed if G.W.B. used the term to describe himself. In fact I'd be pretty happy- if it meant he was gonna try to bring liberty back to...oh....what is it, you know, that place that's he's responsible for...oh right...HERE
So I would not be angry about him using the word...but unless he started trying to give more freedoms instead of taking them away, I would be very amused :D ...and very confused :confused:
naturally, I think words should have meanings, and you know that I think there should be a separation between marriage and "civil union"
however, I don't believe in separate but equal labels for straights and gays... we already know separate but equal doesn't work...
maybe we should make up a new word...right now...that doesn't sound as lame as civil union for any "marriage" performed by the state...
any ideas?

I love the old...someone goes to Africa and comments on all the African Americans there...bit :)
and to actually kinda make a point...I consider myself a liberal and yet I wouldn't be pissed if G.W.B. used the term to describe himself. In fact I'd be pretty happy- if it meant he was gonna try to bring liberty back to...oh....what is it, you know, that place that's he's responsible for...oh right...HERE
So I would not be angry about him using the word...but unless he started trying to give more freedoms instead of taking them away, I would be very amused :D ...and very confused :confused:
naturally, I think words should have meanings, and you know that I think there should be a separation between marriage and "civil union"
however, I don't believe in separate but equal labels for straights and gays... we already know separate but equal doesn't work...
maybe we should make up a new word...right now...that doesn't sound as lame as civil union for any "marriage" performed by the state...
any ideas?heh, "Consensual bondage"? :P

Well, I'm still opposed to gay marriage.

How about "civil marriage" as opposed to "church marriage"?

heh, "Consensual bondage"? :P
ooh I like:fluffle:

oh wait...I'm thinking of something else... :eek: :D

edit: hehe...smiley overdose! :gundge:

How about "civil marriage" as opposed to "church marriage"?
you're missing the point... it's the word "marriage" that they're upset about.

Your suggestion would be considered an oxymoron to them, about as crazy as a "straight homosexual"

you're missing the point... it's the word "marriage" that they're upset about.

Your suggestion would be considered an oxymoron to them, about as crazy as a "straight homosexual"

heh, we could argue about that one too - the homosexuals are as straight as anyone else, just in a different direction?

but that's just semantics ;)

edit: sigh. i miss the old smilies. the new winky face just doesn't do it for me.

I still dont understand how a gay marriage is not a marriage.

By imply that gay marriage isnt a marriage...isnt that a double negative, or something?

Its one of those things that just makes you wonder why people put thier own definition of a word, into everyones head.

I still dont understand how a gay marriage is not a marriage.

By imply that gay marriage isnt a marriage...isnt that a double negative, or something?

Its one of those things that just makes you wonder why people put thier own definition of a word, into everyones head.

I think you are missing the point.

The real issue with the whole gay marriage thing is that most people don't like the word "marriage" being used to describe something that is not marriage. I for one am in favor of universal civil unions, and having the government just butt out, but for the sake of this argument, I'll stand by a definition of marriage as 'man and woman'.


Yep the problem is the definition of marriage. I don't understand how anyone can not define a church or civil wedding between two people as anything but a marriage.

Or what about a word like "bible"? Bible just means book, right? What if we started calling every book the "bible"?There's a difference between the Bible and a bible though. Just as there is a difference between the Internet (the WWW) and an internet (a collection of connected networks.) One is specific ('the', uppercase), the other generic.

Perhaps the institution should be more flexible, like having mutually binding agreements that range all the way from 90 day co-habitation deals to indefinite agreements with contingencies for having/adopting children.

They could be treated like business contracts and any two (or more) people could be involved in it.

I think that's where we're going to head eventually, Beluchistan. The way pre-nups are getting so detailed these days, it's not too much of a leap to get to where you're talking about.

So get politics out of marrige period. Want benifits? Get a civil union. Want marrige? Go to a church.

Only, then you can't complain about churches marrying gay people. Remember the episcopalians?

Institutions have always been for white people. The concern is for equal treatment, they can have a seperate but equal place in society. What would be wrong with that....?

Face it, seperate is not equal. Allowing gays to marry and call it what ever the hell they want to does not lead to any of your homophobic slippery slopes and 'life, liberity and the pursuit of hapiness' should apply to everyone no matter how uggy their love makes you feel.