“Marriage, for me and the huge majority (I would suggest) of Western culture is for procreation and nurture. ….Therefore, a different purpose requires a different name. Q.E.D. I do not "fear" use of the term marriage - I simply find it confusing and inappropriate in the situation…” - clog
So, what do you propose changing the name for the union of a male and a female, either or both who are sterile to? What would call them? Also, what would you change the name of those beyond the age of procreation to? And what to call them? And, of course, there are those who wish to unite for nurture alone, not procreation, INCLUDING male/female and male/male and female/ female along with the rest of the possibilities which have not yet been addressed because while not quite as rare as one would think, still are in the minority of biological anomalies. What to call these unions and members? I know that my grandparents, once their children had ‘left the nest’ and my grandmother was no longer able to procreate would have been quite perplexed to have their ‘marriage’ annulled and voided and called something else! ( as only one example of the above) On Oct 14, 7:43 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi y'all - it's me again! > "Separate but equal" doesn't come into it. Education has one purpose. > Marriage, for me and the huge majority (I would suggest) of Western > culture is for procreation and nurture. This is not an option for gay > unions (other than adoption which is a whole different ballgame.) > Therefore, a different purpose requires a different name. Q.E.D. > I do not "fear" use of the term marriage - I simply find it confusing > and inappropriate in the situation. When writing to a new > acquaintance, I would mention my wife and understanding would be > instant. Likewise (in UK especially) a mention of partner (or other > term to be decided) would impart the required knowledge. I am cooking > no herrings of any hue with this statement, and I'm sure my > theological connections are beyond question. > I do accept that many right wing religious fanatics are using the term > as a wedge strategy to undermine same sex partnerships: please believe > that is not my aim, our motives are different, and my objections would > cease with a choice of appropriate terminology. > > On Oct 13, 3:46 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 'Compromise' led to Brown vs Board of > > Education.http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/sepbutequal.htm > > > It also has led to many other anomalies throughout history. > > > The majority in the US are for making marriage egalitarian. Make it > > so. > > > Any attempt to link the word ‘marriage’ to things like children and > > tax laws is a red herring. Even IF this were not the case, the tax > > code difference(s) between married and single has not absolutely > > benefited one status over the other for decades. Even back in the > > 1970s I would calculate my wife and my taxes both ways, jointly and > > individually. Some years one would be better, others the other. > > Children only enter the picture when it comes to additional exemptions > > for each child. So, please, before you attempt to rewrite the tax code > > without understanding it, please study it at least a little. On the > > other hand, thank you for a response. > > > Also, looking at linking children to marriage is, albeit ‘natural’ in > > some people’s thoughts, far from the main function of marriage. Many > > marriages are childless and for different reasons. Even those where > > children enter the picture, it has little to do with marriage and, at > > some point, other than adoption, every marriage will fall barren and > > unable to procreate. So, here again, attempts at making the link smell > > like herrings. > > > About the only motivation for fearing using the term ‘marriage’ for > > any union between two adults I can see and understand is that coming > > from pious clergy. Yet, even here, in the USA, churches nor temples > > are required for a ‘marriage’. Marriage is a civil, thus legal and > > governmental proposition. Those who get ‘married’ in a church too do > > so for other reasons. One need never be involved with theology to get > > married. Many don’t. Thus the possibility of ‘fear’ and perhaps of > > losing one’s ‘job’ of performing non-governmental rites. > > > There is absolutely no reason, compromise or not, to reject the legal > > right of equality for all when it comes to marriage….none. > > > Oh, wait, ignorance might be one exception. > > > On Oct 13, 12:43 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 10:44 am, "Liz Purkrabek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If by calling gay unions > > > > > "marriages" it > > > > soothes the hearts and minds of millions of people all over the world, > > > > I'm > > > > for it. > > > > While I personally don't care if gay unions are called marriage, I > > > wish that gay activist would be happy to get the same rights with a > > > different name for now. Unfortunately there is a segment of the voting > > > public that takes such strong offense to the idea of gay unions being > > > called marriages that they would vote for Bush for a third term if he > > > could preserve the current traditional use of the word. Politics is > > > about many things, and one of them is compromise. > > > > On Oct 13, 2:36 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 10:44 am, "Liz Purkrabek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I just tried to post a response I wrote to S on the OBA board, but I > > > > > couldn't highlight it so I ended up forwarding the whole thing. > > > > > Sorry all. > > > > > I just thought it was a pertinent comment. > > > > > > I'm having technical difficulties this morning! :-) > > > > > > Liz > > > > > I pasted Liz's response in line so that we could more easily keep the > > > > thread going. > > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Liz > > > > Purkrabek > > > > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 10:39 AM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > > > [email protected] > > > > Subject: RE: [skeptics-145] My Philosophy > > > > > Many gay couples feel the symbolic nature of the word "marriage" would > > > > be > > > > validating. I think many gay couples wouldn't care what you call > > > > their > > > > relationships except that marriage has become a symbol of acceptance > > > > and > > > > legitimacy for the gay community. If by calling gay unions > > > > "marriages" it > > > > soothes the hearts and minds of millions of people all over the world, > > > > I'm > > > > for it. > > > > > If calling gay unions "marriages" helps to heal the thousands of > > > > years of > > > > cruelty, fear, and ignorance that have been heaped on gays, I'm for > > > > it. > > > > > Liz > > > > > On Oct 13, 10:44 am, "Liz Purkrabek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I just tried to post a response I wrote to S on the OBA board, but I > > > > > couldn't highlight it so I ended up forwarding the whole thing. > > > > > Sorry all. > > > > > I just thought it was a pertinent comment. > > > > > > I'm having technical difficulties this morning! :-) > > > > > > Liz > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clogtowner > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 10:08 AM > > > > > To: Memphis Freethought Alliance > > > > > Subject: Re: This comes close to my Philosophy > > > > > > Hi y'all - bogus! > > > > > I haven't stated that marriage is necessary to procreate. My point is > > > > > that the term marriage has been traditionally accepted in the west to > > > > > describe, for most (but not all) people, the lifetime relationship > > > > > constructed for reproduction and nurture. It has worked for me and I > > > > > like it. > > > > > I totally support gay unions - call them lifetime partnerships or > > > > > whatever. Give them legal rights - no problem. Nevertheless their > > > > > formation cannot be the same as the traditional definition of a > > > > > marriage, as reproduction is not involved. Therefore a name change, > > > > > and nothing else, is required.If we are not going to change semantics, > > > > > how do we introduce gays? "Hi I'm Mrs. Smith and this is Mrs. Smith." > > > > > It is not really a big deal - just an accurate description. > > > > > > I don't think gay "marriage" is a threat to heterosexual unions. In > > > > > fact, I welcome it. I'm still searching for enough evidence to > > > > > convince me that gay adoptions are as successful as heterosexual. If > > > > > that proves to be the case (and I'm sure there are many cases that > > > > > don't require evidence) then I think, like Michael, that it should be > > > > > positively encouraged to reduce the number of orphans. Jason has > > > > > provided a paper in the past but I think a comprehensive study is > > > > > several years away. > > > > > > On Oct 12, 11:40 am, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Bogus argument. > > > > > > > 1) Marriage isn't necessary to procreate, which throws out the > > > > > > biology > > > > > > argument, and > > > > > > 2) Gay marriage isn't a threat to heterosexual unions, since only a > > > > > > very small percentage of the population will be interested in same > > > > > > sex > > > > > > unions.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
