DU opinion poll on marriage

What do you think marriage consists of?

:rofl:

But, apparently, that's how long it took. lol

:)

;-)

:shrug:

:shrug:

D'oh

:hug:

Am I still on DU or is this free republic?

women are still considered property.

who make racist comments in discussions about immigration, resort to name-calling when you say something good about a politician they dislike, and beg me to smell their farts. I can't believe some of the crazy shit I've read on here.

The term "gay marriage" is not supported well in the Democratic party. Civil Unions have widespread support.

Is someone that supports civil unions with full rights and benefits a bigot for not supporting church weddings? I'd say no.

themselves. And there are same sex church weddings anyway.

The question isn't WEDDINGS. It's MARRIAGE.

At least in this context. Is someone that's willing to give you everything you want except the title a bigot? That's what we're talking about here.

It surely cannot be for religious reasons since we have separation of church and state in this country.

And people that follow politics know that "Gay Marriage" is a loser.

When the topics of slavery and black suffrage were losers, it still didn't change what was right. Neither does the fact that a topic may be a "loser" change what those who fight against it are.

And I answered. So you're saying that people that want to give you everything except a funny title are bigots?

And their concerns are not unfounded. So I don't consider good Democrats that want to do everything for gays that they can bigots.

Thanks!

Thanks!

:-)

And bigoted all in one shot.

advocated "separate but equal" education, and outlawed interracial marriage.

It's about the dictionary definition of marriage and related matters.

common usage - it doesn't dictate law. And since it reflects common usage it must follow - not precede - the law.

Is your argument that words don't have meanings?

not understand the difference?

You can call marriage marriage. Just like it's marriage between members of different races.

But there is a qualification for gender. Am I wrong about that?

Even legally in many states there WAS no qualification for gender AS DEFINED IN THE LAW which is wha led to a rash of law suits, as well as a number of states changed the definition to include a qualification for gender.

The legal definition of marriage is what we legislate it to be -- not what the dictionary says.

Civil unions are a disaster in NJ. They're about to be overturned because they mess shit up worse than they correct it. Couples are regularly told "it's a gray area" and "it doesn't count as marriage you don't get the benefits".

I accept it as a national platform now because it's the only way to win over voters at large to prove how much it DOESN'T work. But any Democrat who REALLY THINKS straight peoples' relationships are more sacred than gay relationships are supremists and a big part of the problem.

If that term is civil union, than any hetero couple married outside of the church should be said to be entering a civil union as well. But that would never happen. Why? Because people would be up in arms over having "marriage" taken away from them. So why can't gays care about the word?


The difference in wording is important. It implies that there is a difference between two heterosexuals entering a union and two homosexuals entering a union.

Marriage is a legal contract.

How would you feel about interracial couples being denied the right to marry, but given some substitute option instead? Like "jumping the broom"?

I have this argument with someone at work all the time. I was able to convince him that gay people deserve equal rights. I couldn't believe it, but I did it. I could not convince the person that the term marriage should be used. Is the person a bigot? That's debatable.

Look at the dictionary:

mar·riage
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

I don't know who creates and maintains the dictionary, but that's what it says.

To deny citizens legal equality for purely arbitrary reasons is bigoted.

Want to ask again?

That's an argument you can't win. You'll say it is, and others will say that they are supported by the dictionary and/or the bible. The dictionary by itself negates any church-state arguments.

The dictionary is mutable, it isn't even definitive, and it doesn't govern US law. It reflects common usage - that's all.

The limitation is arbitrary, and that is an argument that CAN be won. It was won in Loving v Virginia, and may other cases.

And words have definitions. The definition of marriage doesn't include two (or more) men, or two (or more) women. The definition is what it is. I don't know controls the dictionary. So there is a good argument to be had over the use of the word marriage.

As far as the Loving case, there's a difference between interracial marriage and gay marriage. A man and a woman of different races meet the fundamental criteria for marriage based on definition (man and woman). There is no taxonomic, legal, religious, or moral justification for a ban in inter-racial marriage.

I'm sure the definition of "vote" circa 1790 was very different than it is today.

Vote means:

vote
–noun 1. a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals.
2. the means by which such expression is made, as a ballot, ticket, etc.
3. the right to such expression: to give women the vote.
4. the decision reached by voting, as by a majority of ballots cast: The vote was for the resolution.
5. a collective expression of will as inferred from a number of votes: the labor vote.
6. an expression, as of some judgment: a vote of confidence.
–verb (used without object) 7. to express or signify will or choice in a matter, as by casting a ballot: to vote for president.
–verb (used with object) 8. to enact, establish, or determine by vote: to vote a proposed bill into law.
9. to support by one's vote: to vote the Republican ticket.
10. to advocate by or as by one's vote: to vote that the report be accepted.
11. to declare or decide by general consent: They voted the trip a success.
12. to encourage or cause to vote, esp. in a particular way.

There's no racial qualification in the usage of the word vote.

because there the word "marriage" means a legal union between two consenting adults of either gender.

That doesn't mean it fits the "definition."

That's like saying the mouse on your computer is a mouse.

HUMAN BEINGS define words, not vice versa. That's what the word "define" means.

My God, are you really that narrowminded?

show everyone a dictionary.

This is ONE SLICK LEGAL MIND we're dealing with.

It's in the 14th amendment.

There is nothing intrinsic to same sex couples that does not permit marriage - that's not debatable as Massachusetts, Canaa and other countries have demonstrated.

The understanding what marriage was CHANGED with the legal change enacted in Loving v Virginia. No doubt there were idiots back then too saying that marriage is defined as two people of the same race.

# the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"
# two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"
# the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"
# a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

A marriage is an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition, usually intimate and sexual, and often created as a contract.The most frequently occurring form of marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

"A marriage is an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition"

What if there is social recognition, but not governmental or religious? Is it still a marriage?

we're doomed!!!!!

The original meaning of the word decimate was: "to take a tenth of or from"

As the other poster pointed out, definitions are subject to CHANGE based on human usage, not the other way around.

Now it means an illegal institution eradicated in these United States. But prior to 1865, it referred to an institution legal in half of the United States.

It's a thing. It can be legal or illegal. That doesn't affect the definition.

other than that which you are ascribing to it.

In fact, the word "marriage" doesn't even have to refer to PEOPLE. You could be talking about a marriage of ideas, a marriage of two companies, etc. etc.

The word itself defines a UNION, not its constituent parts.

It's only people who wish to exclude certain people from the concept of marriage as it pertains to two people, i.e., BIGOTS, who insist the word has some intrinsic heterosexual meaning that can never be changed.

The discussion has been over this definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

That definition is clear about gender.

mar·riage (mār'ĭj) Pronunciation Key
n.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.


See? Defnitions. Changing.

Still too hard for you to understand?

We're talking about the definition of marriage affecting the legality of such.

:rofl:

:thumbsup:

There are numerous definitions, and they all change over time.

It CAN mean a union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman or between "words and music in a song". What you apply the word to is what matters and as the Netherlands and Belgium have shown, LEGALLY it can apply to same sex couples.

You can call up-down, black-white, etc.. Massachusets decided to call it gay marriage and thats terrific. My point is that treating people equally is more important than fighting over the meaning of a word.

Can you try to get SOMETHING right tonight?

So do you disagree with my point? You can call up-down, black-white, etc.. Massachusets decided to call it gay marriage and thats terrific. My point is that treating people equally is more important than fighting over the meaning of a word.

And how you treat people does matter -- case in point being your disrespect of same sex couples.

By denying gays the right to "marriage", they are saying that what two men have together or two women have together is not the same thing as what a man and a woman have together.

If we have to drag the country kicking and screaming through "civil unions" to get gays the rights they deserve, that is fine. But the fight will not be over and we cannot rest until ALL couples who chose to enter a legal contract together are either joined in civil unions or all couples are joined in marriage.


On edit: I'd also like to add that the use of "civil unions" will only continue to foster the us vs. them mentality. "We" get married. "They" get civil unions.

And after baiting people for about 2 dozen posts on the TRUE DICTIONARY MEANING you say that your point is it's silly to fight about words. Rich.

Do you actually not know there's a difference?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1324374

There is no moral justification for banning same-sex marriage except for people who support and excuse BIGOTRY like you.

You and your candidate are well suited to one another.

Which rule did I violate and who is my candidate?

Edit: and why do you want to shut down this discussion? It's been interesting and educational.

On linguistics and progressivism.

Mondo and I are doing quite well without you.

And your debate skills amount to little more than misdirection and intellectual dishonesty.

your your ass for a while now - you are simply too ungracious or too ignorant to acknowledge it.

Personal attacks from either of you = debate skills. You overestimate yourselves.

if I were you. Standing alongside history's bigots isn't a pretty picture, in my opinion.

Coretta Scott King, Desmond Tutu and Amiri Baraka are a few that come to mind.

That laws are made using words or on gay marriage? The post you're referring to is about the former.

Only in the minds of bigots--though the arguments bigots use against both types of marriage are eerily similar.




Source







Yes, there were plenty of religious and moral justifications for a ban on interracial marriages produced by "good, moral" people back in the day. They used the Bible to support their objections to interracial marriages just as people today use the Bible to support their denouncements of same-sex marriage. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. Bigotry is bigotry even when it's supported by "deeply held religious beliefs".

Thanks!

Too bad about all "those with eyes that will not see"

It took a bit of work to find but I'm glad I got it. It's deplorable the lengths people will go to in order to deprive people of rights.

Too bad about all "those with eyes that will not see"

Indeed. Too bad for those who are harmed by them, at least.

The proof is that same sex couples can, and do, marry. In Massachusetts, in Canada and in other countries.

Hence the denial to permit what CAN be done can only be arbitrary. There is no intrinsic reason.

How you treat people is actually what matters.

matters, as you say.

Having a great discussion about the usage of the word marriage rises to disrespect? Get a grip.

of full equal legal status rises to disrespect.

Or even the wikipedia one?

definitions, and all are subject to change. As such it can't be inherent.

This has been a great discussion. I understand that you are passionate about this issue. My view: All people should be treated fairly and equally. There's no reason that gay people should have different rights than anyone else. That includes the use of the word marriage.

Edit: You went over 20,000 posts arguing with me. Congrats! :patriot:

A civic institution exists.
A portion of the population eligible for entry is excluded.

You want all people to be treated fairly.

Do you:

1) Open the doors of that institution and let everyone in, or
2) Build a new institution from the ground up, adjacent to the existing one, intending that it include everything the original institution includes, though it is difficult to guarantee success, open it to that segment of the population, but remind them that they are barred from entering the original institution that everyone else will continue to use.

I hope you can see how the experience would be quite different for the segregated minority.

Is someone that supports Colored Only drinking fountains with identical water supplies a bigot for not supporting integrated drinking fountains? I'd say no. :sarcasm:

to accept that love comes in all shapes and sexes. So let's start a new church.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=9ucqDoP2FZw

married by a govt official. What does the church have to do with it?

regarding "gay marriage" vs "civil union" My point was you can not force some to accept so Fuck Them.
Go with your heart.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9ucqDoP2FZw

it disgusts me nonetheless!

In case you haven't figured out yet, most polls on DU are worthless. There, I said it.

I can see how people vote, and I can tell you the results are meaningless. One of the more interesting/annoying things is that for whatever reason, people frequently vote the opposite if their publicly stated position. I think they do it because they feel it serves their interests to make it look like there are lots of people on DU who hold the opposing viewpoint.

Or they do it to express annoyance about a particular poll topic.

Sometimes they do it because they know it will tick off certain people they don't like.

And sometimes people do it simply because they're jerks.

On DU3, we're seriously considering making votes in polls public, which would put an end to this kind of thing. We figure, if someone wants to act like an asshat, they should at least have the guts to do so publicly.

No one forces us to vote.

:thumbsup:

I like that idea very much!

Thank you, Skinner.

secret ballots are the cornerstone of a democracy.


PS I voted man and woman because that's what it is and that's what it has been in Western culture for the last three thousand years or so. It's also one of the few state sanctioned religious rites in the US and in other Western nations. Obviously, it cannot be salvaged as it is tainted by this history. Nor can the state dictate dogma to a religion: eg Hey Catholics, Lent now begins in July. Instead, I advocate (as I have repeatedly in the past) Civil Unions for everyone. By the way, a Civil Union should be between two people who are over the age of consent, of sound mind, and who are not closely related.

:shrug:

n/t

:D

:o

than say, Brittney Spears?

Seriously though. Britney was with her first husband for 48 hours, and with her second for what, 2 or 3 years.

I know gay couples who have been together over 20 years.

Which is more of a marriage? (in any sense but the legal one)

never offer their explanations.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1324374

Read up.

Y'know?

"How much of a person ought African Americans to count as?"

a.) 1/1
b.) 3/5
c.) 1/2

I learned that in Sociology. Aren't I clever?

Yes, I'll say the bigoted option is the wrong one.

I would say that that sure is bigoted.

i.e. a couple, most States (including my State of Wisconsin) define the couple as a man and a woman.

There are no bigoted options in this poll-but bigots are more than likely participating in it.

Those states that have taken it upon themselves to define marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman have taken a bigoted stand and those that voted for such measures are bigots.

about the majority of States in our nation being bigoted is only your opinion I don't see any rationality in responding to your subjectline's query.

to couples made up of one man and one woman." Is that what option one of this poll is asking?

:hi:

damn you got me.... knew I should have chosen "other" my dog and cat were right.;)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9ucqDoP2FZw

It's the stupidest poll I've ever seen. Both answers are technically correct since A is a subset of B.

:rofl:

that by "A man and a woman" the OP means *only* a man and a woman (and I might add, it is fairly obvious this is what was intended) then there is a wrong option.

but then.. I'm half asleep and clicked the wrong button. :(

:)

unfortunately, we meet while I'm making sleepy blunders ;)

:D Welcome to DU! :hi:

Marriage, per se, should be 'available' to anyone born under the Constitution of the US, before BushCo** started shredding it. (Trying to make light of a bad situation here).

IMHO marriage should be the same for everyone who is a citizen of the US.

It would be a man, several women, and a whole mess of concubines.

I was always amused at how the woman was barren, and never the man impotent. :rofl:

funny how the fundies who use the Bible to justify their bigotry seem to forget that.
PS- Hi Buffy! Missed seeing you around recently...I haven't been called a shill for awhile now!;-) :hi:

:P

You know how it goes:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=7291730#7291854
(I figure you should appreciate how well I am using your "artwork" as someone called it..)

Very becoming. ;-)

Don't think anyone benefits from this very artificial situation ---

How many more people do we need on this planet --- ???

Are we moving onto other planets now and populating them --- ???

and just about anything else I can think of... too long to list.

:hi:

could be welded, but it's much easier to just buy a new set... kinda like getting a divorce in Reno and re-marrying in Vegas. Shall we move on to plumbing hardware next? :D




:hi:

:7

:rofl:

This may get moved to the DIY forum. :D

marriage is for 2 people who have a monogamous sexual attraction to eachother.

....now let's read the other posts....

To anybody?

Of any orientation or choice?

Monogamy is a joke anyway; it's human nature to go around bonking everything... (Don't blame me, that's what I'm told.)

People form partnerships and share resources, and want to ensure the security of them. They want to authorize each other with certain rights that are normally assigned to next-of-kin. And when children enter a family the need to smooth over legal relationships increase.

each kid is another nail.

Marriage is the public affirmation of love and commitment in the Public Institution. That institution was once dominated by religion and has in the past century waned in favor of Government. Both institutions provide the same basic services (health, education, and protection) and request virtually the same things in return (money and obligatory devotion). While governments and religions can refuse to recognize certain affirmations of love, they cannot stop them from existing. Even upon punishment of death or torture, homosexuality (for instance) has existed historically. That in my mind proves that their love is real. The question you ask is what do I think, and I think that in the case of any genuine love, the government, or religion, or whatever public institution will rule in the future (who knows, maybe it'll be MySpace) must recognize it as such regardless of whether members of that institution agree or disagree with whether the could actually love each other. Further, I'd sooner see sham marriages be made illegal and certainly abusive relationships be nulled automatically than see the love of a sect of society get brushed aside because someone doubts the ability of these people to love one another.

:rant:

Then there's the whole argument that government shouldn't recognize marriage at all, that it is a church function. This is utter stupidity. The government is Public Institution just as the church was in centuries past. I see no logical reason why the love of two individuals must be removed from the public theater. Love should be celebrated by all people and it should be a public affair. What is society but a support group for when you're hurt or a cheering section for when you succeed? It's time we put to rest the notion that love must be private, intimate only, and never seen in daylight. I've seen people who think this, that love is some how dirty, that it should be repressed, and they are not the kind of people I want running my country.


NTF

This poll seems to have (purposely?) outed many a bigot...

Bigot is not a word to by used lightly. I suppose what you mean to say is that few people have shown support for multiple person relationships. However, to use a word such as bigot to describe lack of support for such a possibility is misused in most instances. Most people don't know anyone in said relationship. Therefore they cannot be bigots, they can only be ignorant. There is a very big difference.

To the point of multiple person relationships I myself have a few questions about whether it is possible. That said I preface by saying that I am neither for nor against it, I just want to see what others feel. I know that I personally could not be a part of a multiple person relationship. Why? Because I don't believe that I can successfully hold an intimate relationship with two people simultaneously. I did not say sexual relationship. I won't deny that would be possible. But I don't believe that I could love two people in that way at the same time without weighing one over the other. For me personally, competition for attention would harm intimacy.

I don't know anyone who is in this type of relationship so I cannot judge it, but likewise nor can I endorse it. Do I think it is possible, yes, and should it be recognized if three or more people find a fulfilling relationship, yes of course. But the question asked what I know, not what I thought might be possible. I know that any couple should be recognized as a marriage if they so want. I do not know if any group of three or more people could do the same successfully. I don't have experience with it. Ignorance not bigotry.

NTF

Always have been, always will be.

straight people, thus turning the straight people into flaming homosexuals?

SARCASIM

It is so ridiculous when you put it in perspective.

but it's all about the baby steps, isn't it people? you'll get there eventually. i have faith in you, sorta.

:evilgrin: :hi:

We do not have second class citizens in this country. Gay couples pay taxes and are just as much a part of our constitution of equal rights as anyone else is. To disallow gay couples to become married both conflicts with the basic principles of our constitution and imposes upon them taxation without representation.

There should be two types of Marriage in America. No, not Homo and Hetero marriages. But Church and State Marriages instead. Every person should have the right to the marriage of their choice in either a church house or State house. If you choose a church wedding. You marriage will be governed by Church law. If you are married in a state house. Your marriage will be governed by state law. The issue truly is not about Homo and Hetero. It's all about State and Church. It's also not an either or issue. Because we currently do have both and can continue to have both Church and State marriages. It's just time to seperate them and let them each do thier own thing as the First Amendment provides for. It's really that simple.

I'd like it a whole helluva lot more if my GLBT brothers & sisters were treated as equals under the law.

Call me an optimist, but I think it's going to happen in my lifetime.

We have 33 freeper sock puppets responding to this poll.

:eyes:

Shame on anyone who voted that, because not all of you are trolls and Freepers.

BTW, the Admins can read who votes what in polls.

GET TO THE RE-NEDUCATION CENTER, NEIGHBOR. HI DIDDLY HO.

I was a bigot by accident! :o


(post 36)