Friday, December 07, 2012

Gay Marriage Discussion

Here is a Facebook discussion I came across yesterday afternoon.

My cousin Jonathan:
There is an issue with same sex marriages in its title. Websters definition of marriage is the union between a man and woman. Biblical definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Hence, same sex union can't be titled/labeld as a marriage. Just Sayin!!!

His friend Jason:
Wanna get married?

His friend Shawn:
And who says it can not be labeled as such? Legally that law is called as such and any argument against it is a waste of time as it was voted into law. And the biblical term holds no water at all. More than likely if the Supreme Court tosses out DOMA you could very well see Webster change the defintion. 

His friend Jason:
Shawn, you are what's wrong with this country. What morals? U should then believe and be fine with the notion that it's ok to marry farm animals. Let's vote on that. I hate liberal minded idiots.

His friend Shawn:
And the backwards, backwoods minded conservative thinking is a dead product and your point shows it. The whole farm animal/incest argument is rediculous. Look you can be against same sex marrage personlly but it is civil rights issue that should neverhave been voted on. If Women'sSuffrage in 1920 and the Civil Rights Act of 1965 had been brought to a pubic vote it would have not passed in a large part of the country due to the ignorance and backwards thinking of some people. But the law passed so the argument is settled.

His friend Rob:
Sorry Jon, looks like they already changed it:

 His brother Christopher (also my cousin):
Definition of MARRIAGE
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

His friend Jason:
The backwards backwoods conservative folk are the ones growing your food and employing you.

His friend Joe:
Whatever words are used, even gay couples still deserve to celebrate their life long love for each other.

My cousin Jonathan:
Not trying to argue against whetherr gays are priviledged to marry or not. Just saying that if you receive a certificate titled 'Marriage certificate' you need to be issued a new one due to incorrect terminology.

His friend Rob:
Chris, most words in the English language have more than one definition and the order in which they appear doesn't make them more or less accurate. The dictionary definition argument hardly matters for either side though because dictionaries are always changing to reflect common usage.

His friend Joe:
I don't think Marriage should be part of the government. It was such a pain in the ass to get the certificate from the county clerk, talk about bureaucratic BS. And I have to pay them to file that I got married, what a scam.


I didn't want to get into that discussion on Facebook so emailed Jonathan personally.

I just saw your post about same sex marriage. I don't want to get into a discussion about it - here or at your post - but I wanted to be sure I was clear: You went out of your way to post your opposition to same sex marriage, fully knowing your words would be read by the gay and enlightened members of your family? Just Sayin!!!

Or was your intent to be "funny"?

He responded to me a few hours later.

Actually, I voted in favor of gay marriage here in Washington with the sole reason of family, you and Christine, in mind. I absolutely don't see any reason why someone should be bound by any government entity for sexual orientation, religion, etc... I was only pointing out the contradiction of the term marriage and it's defining meaning. As stated, I didn't seek to start any kind of argument. I did not take into account the beliefs of others and that they would post the things they said. For that I am very sorry. I am also very sorry for any offense that was taken.

I replied to him this morning.

Thanks for clarifying, Jonathan. I really appreciate it.

I had heard that some people somehow shoehorned animals into the argument, but until yesterday, I had never actually seen someone mention that point. That is just bizarre. Thankfully, I feel that person will find himself on the wrong side of history. In 10 (50?) years, I feel that the gay marriage debate will seem as quaint as the debate about separate fountains for blacks.

The key rebuttal to his argument is consent. Animals cannot provide consent and bestiality is an avenue where consent cannot be provided in a “loving” relationship. And there are medical reasons why incest is frowned upon. But there is no decent, scientific, medical or moral reason why two loving, consenting, non-related adults should not be afforded the same rights as the majority.

Gays want the same rights as straights. Incest will still be disallowed. Bestiality will still be disallowed. Marriage should be the committed relationship between two persons of consenting age which is lawful in all other ways. The "slippery slope" is all in the minds of these poor people - they are so afraid their way of life is being threatened that they are grasping at whatever straw seems to be waving their way.

As far as using the word “marriage” and not “civil union” or some other substitute: Because separate but equal is not equality, and it is not good enough. "Pretty much" has never been good enough for any minority group, and never will be. Every citizen should be accorded equal treatment under the law as a Constitutional right in the United States of America. That simple. If you want to say that "marriage is just a word," then what's the big deal? The truth is, marriage is far more than "just a word," and that's why it's so important.  

His reply to me this afternoon.

Full heartedly agree. With the debacle of same sex marriage for as long as it has been going on. Down the road, someone will argue the defining meaning to be either changed or certificates be re-issued with different terminology. Honestly, the reason I even posted it was because I was reading an article of a construction crew in Ohio that had to stop work because someone was up in arms with the 'Men At Work' sign was politically incorrect.

Unfortunately, tunnelled vision comments were made on my post, setting a negative tone to an unattended mindset/argument, that I wasn't wanting. As a result, I have taken the post down. I hope I did not offend Christine either. If so, I would like to explain.

On a side note, do you drink wine? and what is your preference? I just have one more thing to pick up before sending off your gift.
Our extended family picks names for Christmas. Jonathan happens to have my name this year. My response is below.

Christine did not see the post. I asked her. I'll see her this weekend and explain to her anyway. There's no need to have any misinformation out there.

Sure, I love wine. Cabernet is my favorite, but any red is fine.

Thanks, Cuz!

And his final comments...

absolutley. I'm glad you allowed me to explain. Thanks