Jump to content

Will same sex marriage be codified in Congress?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Chef Jim said:


Well it seems as if you don’t look at them as equals under the eye of God and that’s just sad.  
 

WWJD?  I don’t know but I doubt he’d tell someone to go ***** themselves.  Hope the nerve I struck heals.  

 Bigotry comes in all shapes and sizes Jimmy boy. I recommend you go buy yourself a mirror. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

 Bigotry comes in all shapes and sizes Jimmy boy. I recommend you go buy yourself a mirror. 

 

Geez, a reply right out of old Billy Boy playbook.  That's rather disappointing.

 

We are all bigots in some fashion.  Some of us recognize it in ourselves and admit it.  Other hide it under the auspices of religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Geez, a reply right out of old Billy Boy playbook.  That's rather disappointing.

 

We are all bigots in some fashion.  Some of us recognize it in ourselves and admit it.  Other hide it under the auspices of religion.

Go get that mirror Jim. Your bigotry is hidden right under the surface of your reply.

 

Sorry to be this way, but you’re the one that went all nasty in the discussion. ‘Dirt Gay People’….really? That’s pretty bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Go get that mirror Jim. Your bigotry is hidden right under the surface of your reply.

 

Sorry to be this way, but you’re the one that went all nasty in the discussion. ‘Dirt Gay People’….really? That’s pretty bad. 

 

Well how would you prefer I refer to a group of people that you have deemed not worthy of referring to themselves as married?  I'm not the one that has a problem with the term "same sex marriage"  I just assumed dirty was a substitute for sinner.  I guess I was wrong.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Well how would you prefer I refer to a group of people that you have deemed not worthy of referring to themselves as married?  I'm not the one that has a problem with the term "same sex marriage"  I just assumed dirty was a substitute for sinner.  I guess I was wrong.  

Yes.....you are and were wrong.  I'd respectfully suggest you back away from your religious folks hate Jim. Whether you know it or not it's just another form of blatant blind bigotry. 

  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Yes.....you are and were wrong.  I'd respectfully suggest you back away from your religious folks hate Jim. Whether you know it or not it's just another form of blatant blind bigotry. 


I’m wrong?  And what am I wrong about?  
 

Yes I’m a bigot against people who push their archaic beliefs on others.  You still haven’t explained why you’re so against same sex couples can’t call their union a marriage. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2022 at 7:29 PM, SoCal Deek said:

Sure...it's going to be great when every single word in the English language is properly hyphenated so as not to offend anyone. Yep....that'll be FANTASTIC.

Because using two words to define something is just a lazy use of the English language.

 

.

 - the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship

- the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

-an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected

 especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

-an intimate or close union

 

Who is using 2 words?  You literally have said multiple times in this thread that we should make a new, separate word for "gay marriage,"  and then in turn also say using 2 words to define something is lazy.  The above definitions all meet and describe any "type" of marriage.  It works for everything.  My wife and I are married.  My brother and his husband are also married.  Our marriages, especially in the eyes of the government, mean the same thing.  

 

Also, if the word means so much to people in "traditional" marriages, why then do people think it wouldn't mean something to everyone else as well?  Everyone gets married, and everyone is happy with that, except the people who want everyone to have to call it something different.  If it means that little, let's change "traditional" marriage to another word.  Does that work for you?

Edited by cle23
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, cle23 said:

 

.

 - the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship

- the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

-an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected

 especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

-an intimate or close union

 

Who is using 2 words?  You literally have said multiple times in this thread that we should make a new, separate word for "gay marriage,"  and then in turn also say using 2 words to define something is lazy.  The above definitions all meet and describe any "type" of marriage.  It works for everything.  My wife and I are married.  My brother and his husband are also married.  Our marriages, especially in the eyes of the government, mean the same thing.  

 

Also, if the word means so much to people in "traditional" marriages, why then do people think it wouldn't mean something to everyone else as well?  Everyone gets married, and everyone is happy with that, except the people who want everyone to have to call it something different.  If it means that little, let's change "traditional" marriage to another word.  Does that work for you?

Well reasoned response. My sole contention is that people in general do in fact use two words to define it. It’s most commonly referred to as ‘gay marriage’ not ‘marriage’. So to show my sincerity to your hypothetical proposition, yes I’m okay with changing traditional marriage to another word. Again, mine is not a primarily religious position. It’s in essence a linguistic one. Trust me when I say I’m not losing sleep over the matter. I just believe it’d be a more accurate (not right or wrong, nor better or worse…as Chef likes to accuse/imply) use of the language. I’m fully aware that my position goes against the common narrative. But I can also assure you that it’s not coming from a position of hate or ridicule. 
Thanks for the discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Well reasoned response. My sole contention is that people in general do in fact use two words to define it. It’s most commonly referred to as ‘gay marriage’ not ‘marriage’. So to show my sincerity to your hypothetical proposition, yes I’m okay with changing traditional marriage to another word. Again, mine is not a primarily religious position. It’s in essence a linguistic one. Trust me when I say I’m not losing sleep over the matter. I just believe it’d be a more accurate (not right or wrong, nor better or worse…as Chef likes to accuse/imply) use of the language. I’m fully aware that my position goes against the common narrative. But I can also assure you that it’s not coming from a position of hate or ridicule. 
Thanks for the discussion. 


No “people” do not. Marriage is marriage to most people. 
 

When discussing the political rights of people, it can be helpful to say gay marriage but I don’t say my friend is gay-married or straight-married. They are just married. 
 

We don’t need two words because nothing is different in the union. I don’t refer to old marriage vs young marriage. Or short people vs tall people marriage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Well reasoned response. My sole contention is that people in general do in fact use two words to define it. It’s most commonly referred to as ‘gay marriage’ not ‘marriage’. So to show my sincerity to your hypothetical proposition, yes I’m okay with changing traditional marriage to another word. Again, mine is not a primarily religious position. It’s in essence a linguistic one. Trust me when I say I’m not losing sleep over the matter. I just believe it’d be a more accurate (not right or wrong, nor better or worse…as Chef likes to accuse/imply) use of the language. I’m fully aware that my position goes against the common narrative. But I can also assure you that it’s not coming from a position of hate or ridicule. 
Thanks for the discussion. 


Linguistics?  Now it’s a linguistics issue?  Why have you changed your tune?  A couple weeks ago you were adamant that the term was only between a man and a woman according to the church.  What in the world does linguists have to do with this?  Methinks you’re shying away from your religious beliefs.   If so why?  Nothing wrong with it. If the church is against it so be it.  Don’t use the word amongst yourselves. Don’t perform same sex marriages.  But do NOT tell others what to call themselves. THAT is my whole issue here. 
 

 Would you be ok if we dropped the word gay? And went with just the word marriage?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Well reasoned response. My sole contention is that people in general do in fact use two words to define it. It’s most commonly referred to as ‘gay marriage’ not ‘marriage’. So to show my sincerity to your hypothetical proposition, yes I’m okay with changing traditional marriage to another word. Again, mine is not a primarily religious position. It’s in essence a linguistic one. Trust me when I say I’m not losing sleep over the matter. I just believe it’d be a more accurate (not right or wrong, nor better or worse…as Chef likes to accuse/imply) use of the language. I’m fully aware that my position goes against the common narrative. But I can also assure you that it’s not coming from a position of hate or ridicule. 
Thanks for the discussion. 

 

I honestly think for the longest time it was called "gay marriage" because it was not allowed.  At the time, they were different.    Now, in the eyes of the government, they are not, so I feel there is no need for them to be different.  

 

I was not accusing you of anything hateful either in response.  People can have differing opinions, I just try to show WHY it may be important to people on the other side of the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

I honestly think for the longest time it was called "gay marriage" because it was not allowed.  At the time, they were different.    Now, in the eyes of the government, they are not, so I feel there is no need for them to be different.  

 

I was not accusing you of anything hateful either in response.  People can have differing opinions, I just try to show WHY it may be important to people on the other side of the argument.

Thanks! There’s no intent on my part to be disrespectful to anyone. I just personally loathe the new hyphenated trend in our shared language. And while it’s immediately exciting for the gay community to be married, I believe over time if it continues to be called “gay-marriage” they are going to look back and think this isn’t the equality they were striving for. We’ll see where the language takes us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks! There’s no intent on my part to be disrespectful to anyone. I just personally loathe the new hyphenated trend in our shared language. And while it’s immediately exciting for the gay community to be married, I believe over time if it continues to be called “gay-marriage” they are going to look back and think this isn’t the equality they were striving for. We’ll see where the language takes us. 


You may not have any intent to be disrespectful but can you see why your thoughts on the subject can be interpreted as such? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chef Jim said:


You may not have any intent to be disrespectful but can you see why your thoughts on the subject can be interpreted as such? 

I can see how reasonable adults talk to each other. That I can clearly see. It’s amazing how well it works when ‘someone’ isn’t trying to WIN every discussion. Every topic isn’t supposed to be a fight to the death. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...