Biden: Gay Marriage 'Inevitable'

[billisonboard]

Usually there is a separate fee for the marriage license and the justice of the peace marrying you.

[Tennesseer]

The government is going to charge you for the marriage license. The JP is going to charge you for your civil marriage ceremony. The church will charge you for using the church and not to tip the priest, minister or rabbi for officiating is crass.

Some Christian churches are performing Commitment Ceremonies for gay couples today.

A heterosexual couple applies for and will more than likely receive a wedding license. They bring this license to the church at which time the religious figure will perform the wedding vows or vows of commitment.

So other than the heterosexual couple having a marriage license in hand (and maybe in a Catholic church a full mass including Holy Communion (but not required)), is there really any difference between a traditional heterosexual church wedding where commitment vows are exchanged and a church holding a gay commitment ceremony where commitment vows are exchanged?

[Shirina]

I personally don't think the government should be marrying anyone.

Are you suggesting that even atheists, agnostics, and pagans must submit to the will of a religious institution to be married?

And yes, the word "marriage" matters. It's a word that has a very specific meaning and a long history for me and those like me.

Yes, the word does have a long history. In fact, it's history is so long that Christians have no right to claim ownership of it.

I've been told that words doesn't matter, but after being told this I asked the person if it would be ok if started throwing around slurs and of course it wasn't, so we know words matter.

If, as you say, words truly do matter, then essentially shunting gay marriage to the status of "civil union" is nothing less than an insult. Perhaps you, and "those like you," do not intend for that to be so, but it is. If the two forms of "union" are intended to be equal, then there is no need to use two different words to describe them - except to place one above the other. In other words, to plant the seeds of inequity in a cultural, if not legal sense.

I would also point out that the word "marriage" carries a more powerful connotation than a bland legal term like "civil union," as if there exists the subtle implication that same-and-different have a more powerful bond than same-and-same.

What's odd is that even though everyone on the anti-side are willing to "lose" the right of marriage so that everyone can be equal and receive identical civil unions and the identical benefits, many people on the pro-side I talk to are against this.

They are more likely against this because, at least in part, for the reasons I mentioned. Those who are in a heterosexual commitment want a means of distinguishing themselves apart from those who are not, and that smacks of elitism. A marriage is a marriage, and, as I've said, Christianity has no rights of ownership over that word. People were getting married for thousands of years before there were even any monotheistic religions, much less Christianity.

I just don't get it. Maybe someone can explain this to me.

Hopefully, I just did.

[Tennesseer]

Welcome Shirina. Good to see you here.

[Shirina]

Hey there, Tenn. Just moseyed on over from a link on the UK boards. Thought I'd take a peek.

Best wishes.

[burnsattornincan]

Christianity has no rights of ownership over that word.

Really Ms. Shirina? Well it has been used for thousands of years by Christians so if anyone has ownership over it then it would be Christians I would presume. Why do you want gays to use it, can you not come up with another term? What if good normal Christians decided to use some other name. Would you then want to use that one also? Strange how you seek to be different yet want to be so equal.

[Shirina]

Really Ms. Shirina? Well it has been used for thousands of years by Christians so if anyone has ownership over it then it would be Christians I would presume.

Yep, really. The Christian religion has done a wonderful job of hijacking the rituals and language of other cultures, and old habits apparently die hard. The word "murder" has also been used for thousands of years by Christians. Would you like to take ownership of that word (and deed) as well?

Why do you want gays to use it, can you not come up with another term?

Why should they have to? And why do you want them to? I have a suspicion you're going to end up proving my point before this is over.

What if good normal Christians decided to use some other name.

And this comment is, predictably enough ... proving my point. "Good normal" Christians, eh? It seems the elitism is starting already. How did I know?

If "good normal" Christians want to make up some arbitrary word so they can feel all self-righteous and holier-than-thou, they are free to do so. Whether the courts or even the church accepts such a name is another matter entirely. I'm sure any invented name will go the way of "liberty fries" and "freedom cabbage," faddish for a while then long forgotten by everyone save historians.

Strange how you seek to be different yet want to be so equal.

What a bizarre statement. Should those who favor purple hair be treated unequally in comparison with those with natural shades? What about people who actually like eating liver? How about those who collect dustbunnies?

Wanting or simply being different than the norm does not mean we have to invent different words to describe it when they do what the norm does. Should we also have a word other than "walk" when gays do it? How about "drive" or "play a round of golf?" Should we invent an entire new language complete with verb conjugations and slang applicable only to gays?

Oh, and if this were not already obvious, gays want to use the word "marriage" - in other words, not to be different, but to be the same.

[billisonboard]

Quote: I personally don't think the government should be marrying anyone.

"Are you suggesting that even atheists, agnostics, and pagans must submit to the will of a religious institution to be married?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the other option is to have the government issue civil union contracts to all consenting adults who request them thus getting government out of the marriage business.

[Shirina]

Bill:

But who would do the marrying, and who would enforce the rights of marriage? Where would the records be kept and who would preside over them?

[burnsattornincan]

Dear Ms. Shirina, you are one diligent lady however your noxious rant was the only thing predictable here. "Murder"? What do you really mean? Taking a walk, a round of golf.... how about planting a tree? What are you talking about? The term "marriage" has traditionally been the union between a man and a woman. Nothing to do with walking or golfing. This is simply a dust cloud being thrown by you. It does not have an effect on me. You cannot escape the fact that the term "marriage" means the union between a man and a woman. If you choose to think otherwise it is your prerogative. Just do not force that view on naive and uninformed individuals to advance your own disturbed agenda.

[billisonboard]

Marriage would have no rights, only civil unions would have rights. The same governmental office that currently handles marriage licenses could easily handle civil union registration for the government. As far as who would do the marrying - who cares? A minister, a judge, Uncle Sydney, your dog. Since it would simply be something you do on your own, it doesn't matter to anyone but you.

[Shirina]

Dear Ms. Shirina, you are one diligent lady however your noxious rant was the only thing predictable here.

Noxious rant = disagreement. Yep, I get it. Of course, you haven't said a word to refute what I said, so like it or not, you ended up proving my point in the end.

"Murder"? What do you really mean? Taking a walk, a round of golf.... how about planting a tree? What are you talking about?

Do I seriously have to explain it?

The term "marriage" has traditionally been the union between a man and a woman.

First, you should understand that the Appeal to Tradition is a logical fallacy, which means your argument defeats itself without my having to say another word.

Second, there is a reason why even Websters has to publish new editions of the English language dictionary now and again.

Nothing to do with walking or golfing. This is simply a dust cloud being thrown by you.

On the contrary. Explain to me why we need a different term for a gay and straight partnership if they are both equal? I can't think of any other reason except to avoid being put into the same "class" as a gay couple. You don't like the ambiguity allowing gays to use the term "marriage" will cause. Is that not so? Before, when you said you were married, everyone knew you had an opposite sex spouse. But if gays can say they're married, too, then how will anyone know if you're gay or straight? Oh the horror!

Thus you feel the need to imprison the word "marriage" and maintain it exclusively for hetero couples even though, all things being equal, forcing gay couples to use a different word is linguistically redundant. "Tradition" simply isn't a strong enough argument to convince any sane person that this insistence isn't the result of hang-ups and insecurity about sexuality and gender identification.

Just do not force that view on naive and uninformed individuals to advance your own disturbed agenda.

Haha! Here we go! "Disturbed agenda."

Too easy!

[burnsattornincan]

Dear Ms. Shirina. You assume I think gay partnership and hetero partership are equal. You think your point is proven with every paragraph. You should get over yourself. "Imprison" the term marriage? Your subtle suggestions do not work on someone of my prominence. The term has been used for thousands of years in the same context. If you wish to acknowledge the unnatural reality of today (for reasons unknown) then derive your own term. You seem somewhat capable of doing so.

[reformeddaytrader]

Dec 27, 2010 1:40:13 GMT -5 burnsattornincan said:

Dear Ms. Shirina. You assume I think gay partnership and hetero partership are equal. You think your point is proven with every paragraph. You should get over yourself. "Imprison" the term marriage? Your subtle suggestions do not work on someone of my prominence. The term has been used for thousands of years in the same context. If you wish to acknowledge the unnatural reality of today (for reasons unknown) then derive your own term. You seem somewhat capable of doing so.

Mr Burns is it true that your Canadian law has a saying > God Made Adam & Eve and NOT Adam and Steve??

[burnsattornincan]

Shirina, your mockery of great men shows what you are really all about. You are nothing but a mirage. I was fooled and that is not an easy task.

[reformeddaytrader]

Mr Burns consider yourself exalted and pls give my best to your client Mr Fiscan ..

[burnsattornincan]

I will do so dear Mr. RDT sir. Have a great evening and I will see you in the very near future, under any circumstances.

[Shirina]

Dear Ms. Shirina. You assume I think gay partnership and hetero partership are equal.

If you don't think they are, then I was right all along. I don't even know why you'd bother responding to me, then, if I'm not wrong.

You think your point is proven with every paragraph.

Like I said before, I knew you would prove my point for me. All I did was give you enough rope to hang yourself with.

You should get over yourself.

Wait ... did you just tell me to get over myself and then post:

Your subtle suggestions do not work on someone of my prominence.

Seriously? "...my prominence"?

then derive your own term.

First of all, I don't need my own term as I'm not gay. One does not need to be a member of a group in order to defend them. Secondly, you haven't answered my original question:

Why should they have their own term? Using "tradition" as an answer is simply repeating a logical fallacy ... which, amusingly enough, is also a logical fallacy (infinitum ad nauseum).

[Shirina]

Shirina, your mockery of great men shows what you are really all about. You are nothing but a mirage. I was fooled and that is not an easy task.

Oh please. Stop being melodramatic. I really hate spin doctors, and your comment was a case in point. I'm not mocking anyone. Though, do you consider Tojo, Mussolini, and Hitler to be great men?

Hmmmm? Because that's what you said!

Yes, I can spin, too. Would you like to quit now?

[reformeddaytrader]

Well if Joe Biden says it is going to happen then you can take it to the bank and forget all of the discussions both for and against gay marriages because our VP is never wrong and invertible

[reformeddaytrader]

Shirina what is the purpose of your signature that appears below all of your posts?? That is bizarre..

[Deleted]

I assume Sharina's gif/avatar at the bottom is considered black humor. I don't find it offensive but don't really find it funny either...just something some 12 yo dreamed up in his basement I assume.

[Shirina]

The gif in my signature is not "black humor," it is internet humor. I keep forgetting that a large number of people here have probably never touched a video game, much less played one online. For those of you who haven't, the humor in it will be lost on you. I can't help that.

Some people here might actually "get it" and find it humorous. It wasn't meant to be analyzed like a science experiment or a patient in a psychiatrist's couch. If anyone here is or was at all active in the online gaming community, they'll understand the humor.

Have no fear, however, for it was never my intention to leave it there in my signature forever. Obviously, the generation gap is rearing it's ugly head in this case, so perhaps knock knock jokes and some Groucho Marx would be more to everyone's taste.

[reformeddaytrader]

Dec 27, 2010 4:24:37 GMT -5 Shirina said:

The gif in my signature is not "black humor," it is internet humor. I keep forgetting that a large number of people here have probably never touched a video game, much less played one online. For those of you who haven't, the humor in it will be lost on you. I can't help that.

Some people here might actually "get it" and find it humorous. It wasn't meant to be analyzed like a science experiment or a patient in a psychiatrist's couch. If anyone here is or was at all active in the online gaming community, they'll understand the humor.

Have no fear, however, for it was never my intention to leave it there in my signature forever. Obviously, the generation gap is rearing it's ugly head in this case, so perhaps knock knock jokes and some Groucho Marx would be more to everyone's taste.

How about just your favorite signature that relays to everyone what Ms Shirina is all about and one that suits you:" Never wrestle with a pig—you get dirty and the pig likes it”





.

[burnsattornincan]

Obviously, the generation gap is rearing it's ugly head in this case, so perhaps knock knock jokes and some Groucho Marx would be more to everyone's taste.

Just what would you be insinuating Ms. Shirina? Do you think it would be ok for me to insinuate you're simply a fat middle aged housewife with a crass attitude and overwhelming self righteousness? I would think not.

[mudflap81]

If, as you say, words truly do matter, then essentially shunting gay marriage to the status of "civil union" is nothing less than an insult. Perhaps you, and "those like you," do not intend for that to be so, but it is. If the two forms of "union" are intended to be equal, then there is no need to use two different words to describe them - except to place one above the other. In other words, to plant the seeds of inequity in a cultural, if not legal sense.

I would also point out that the word "marriage" carries a more powerful connotation than a bland legal term like "civil union," as if there exists the subtle implication that same-and-different have a more powerful bond than same-and-same.

Please re-read my posts. You'll find the entire time that I've been advocating one term and one law for everybody. Government-issued civil unions for couples giving and protecting those government benefits regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple.

I know this is going to come off as me being rude and I'm truly sorry for that, but since you didn't grasp the fundamental point of my argument and all your replies to me are based you getting this information wrong, I can't reply to anything else you said.

[Shirina]

How about just your favorite signature that relays to everyone what Ms Shirina is all about and one that suits you:" Never wrestle with a pig—you get dirty and the pig likes it”

Sure, RDT, just as soon as you use a signature that suits you, as well. For instance, "Better to keep one's mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Just what would you be insinuating Ms. Shirina? Do you think it would be ok for me to insinuate you're simply a fat middle aged housewife with a crass attitude and overwhelming self righteousness? I would think not

.

burnsattornican - Do you have evidence to make that insinuation? Or are you just inventing an insult (and yes, it was one despite the not-so-clever way in which you delivered it). I think it's a safe assumption that most posters in the Politics and Money section are not 20-somethings, and your complete lack of understanding of my signature reinforces that.

You see, I have evidence. You don't. Instead, you have to resort to cheap, over-used ad hominem attacks because that's all you have.

Do you wish to keep dancing?

[reformeddaytrader]

Hey Shirina do you by any chance work for Joe Biden??

[sanityjones]

Enough with the personal attacks.

Thank you for you cooperation. sanityjones, P&M moderator

[reformeddaytrader]

??Sure, RDT, just as soon as you use a signature that suits you, as well. For instance, "Better to keep one's mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."



I had that one for a few days but was told to change it so now have a new one....check it out and let me know how you like it