California court denies request to stay gay marriage ruling

[Jenn! 918]

Well what I meant is that the difference between "marriage" and "civil union" would not matter if it weren't for religion, not that there wouldn't be anyone who is intolerant of homosexuality.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Oh. Ok.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My personal view is that the semantics argument is a red herring, that the people who bring up "not calling it marriage" are just doing it because they actually object to the idea of same-sex couples enjoying the legal rights pertaining to marriage - which is the true crux of the argument.

Quibbling about what to call it is really a pointless exercise. If you're granting the legal recognition and rights pertaining to marriage - then quite simply - it IS marriage.

I think people need to be honest with themselves here. If they object to the "rights" issue - they should simply come out and say so.

Edited June 16, 2008 by Number 6

[Jenn! 918]

My personal view is that the semantics argument is a red herring, that the people who bring up "not calling it marriage" are just doing it because they actually object to the idea of same-sex couples enjoying the legal rights pertaining to marriage - which is the true crux of the argument.

Quibbling about what to call it is really a pointless exercise. If you're granting the legal recognition and rights pertaining to marriage - then quite simply - it IS marriage.

But I think that some people can swallow (even if it is distasteful) the idea of the state sanctioning gay civil unions. But they can't stomach the idea of calling it marriage because that somehow means to them that God has sanctioned the relationship.

Does that make any sense?

[HAL 9000 96]

My personal view is that the semantics argument is a red herring, that the people who bring up "not calling it marriage" are just doing it because they actually object to the idea of same-sex couples enjoying the legal rights pertaining to marriage - which is the true crux of the argument.

Quibbling about what to call it is really a pointless exercise. If you're granting the legal recognition and rights pertaining to marriage - then quite simply - it IS marriage.

Well I think the focus should be the hate among people towards members of a sexual deviation that honestly, probably does not describe them. Should it? Unless of course... it does...

[HAL 9000 96]

My personal view is that the semantics argument is a red herring, that the people who bring up "not calling it marriage" are just doing it because they actually object to the idea of same-sex couples enjoying the legal rights pertaining to marriage - which is the true crux of the argument.

Quibbling about what to call it is really a pointless exercise. If you're granting the legal recognition and rights pertaining to marriage - then quite simply - it IS marriage.

But I think that some people can swallow (even if it is distasteful) the idea of the state sanctioning gay civil unions. But they can't stomach the idea of calling it marriage because that somehow means to them that God has sanctioned the relationship.

Does that make any sense?

It does to me... however, not all marriages are religious... and I doubt that most homosexual marriages would take place in religious organizations that ban the practice (as sin, etc). Even though they probably would if not banned as such... I mean... murderers go to church many times... and that is probably a nastier sin than being a '**' if you look at it from a list of sins point of view.

[nana_356 0]

My personal view is that the semantics argument is a red herring, that the people who bring up "not calling it marriage" are just doing it because they actually object to the idea of same-sex couples enjoying the legal rights pertaining to marriage - which is the true crux of the argument.

Quibbling about what to call it is really a pointless exercise. If you're granting the legal recognition and rights pertaining to marriage - then quite simply - it IS marriage.

But I think that some people can swallow (even if it is distasteful) the idea of the state sanctioning gay civil unions. But they can't stomach the idea of calling it marriage because that somehow means to them that God has sanctioned the relationship.

Does that make any sense?

yes it does!

[SaadBell 0]

This is BS, and sick. They will burn in hell for this. Marriage is only for a biologically born man and woman! Next thing you know the queers and lesbians will be wanting to marry animals, or trees or rocks or some other sick disgusting object. What a joke this is.

Wow, you are wound up too tight, calm down dude

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... some people can swallow (even if it is distasteful)...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My personal view is that the semantics argument is a red herring, that the people who bring up "not calling it marriage" are just doing it because they actually object to the idea of same-sex couples enjoying the legal rights pertaining to marriage - which is the true crux of the argument.

Quibbling about what to call it is really a pointless exercise. If you're granting the legal recognition and rights pertaining to marriage - then quite simply - it IS marriage.

But I think that some people can swallow (even if it is distasteful) the idea of the state sanctioning gay civil unions. But they can't stomach the idea of calling it marriage because that somehow means to them that God has sanctioned the relationship.

Does that make any sense?

Well it doesn't really make sense... If that rationale sums up the thinking behind the argument I'd say there's a bit of obvious self-delusion at work in their reasoning. In other words - the argument is based on emotion rather than logic or rationality.

Arguing about semantics is a bit silly at the end of the day - and if this is really the problem as far as "gay marriage" goes, there probably wouldn't be a national debate on this issue at all. As it is - the main question still seems to be whether those "marriages" should be permitted by law, not so much what they're called.

Edited June 16, 2008 by Number 6