Hi y'all "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? " I've already pointed out that I see no need to change the traditional definition of marriage. Many couples find out too late that they are unable to reproduce, some don't want to - I see no need to change.
" What to call these > unions and members?" My earlier posts reflect my views on same sex unions - I don't care what they are called as long as it is clear. " 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 " What makes you think I would sanction this? I merely propose a name selection for a new type of union and leave the old stuff alone. Why does everyone try to read more into this than I have stated? On Oct 14, 12:00 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > “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? > > What to call these > unions and members? ! ( 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 > > ... > > read more »- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
