Comments:Uruguay Senate gives green light for same-sex marriage

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Redefining "marriage" to silence the marriage norm322:02, 8 April 2013
hehe111:02, 4 April 2013

Redefining "marriage" to silence the marriage norm

This is not about liberty and justice. It is about silencing an inconvenient idea. The liberty and justice issues can be completely addressed by taking an editor and replacing all occurances of "marriage" with "civil union" in the laws of a jurisdiction. The queer community is not satisfied with that because equality of treatment under the law is not their objective. Their objective is to silence the marriage norm, which defines the rights and duties of a mated male and female, says that all should couple, and says that sexual intimacy outside of the context of marriage is a perversion and immoral.

Queers naturally find the marriage norm inconvenient. Redefining the word "marriage" effectively makes the expression of the marriage norm impossible. That is what the queer community wants. They want to silence their critics. This is all about redefining a word to silence the ideas that cannot be expressed without that word.

I seek intelligent, respectful conversation. Please, no name calling. No labelling. No ad hominem attacks. Just tell me what you think about my idea. If I've been unclear, ask me to clarify. If you agree, say so. If you disagree, say so and tell us your thoughts. Intelligent people of good will and the same core values (e.g. liberty and justice for all) can disagree. Let what unites us be more important than what divides us.

Wo'O Ideafarm (talk)02:52, 8 April 2013

This is a grand idea. Yes, I support it. Governments should be out of the business of morality. We should remove the word marriage from all government papers and replace it with "civil union" and remove the gendered words. May I ask if you have a government sanctioned union? I am so glad that we agree. Government out of the marriage business. This is fantastic. Think of all the economic benefits for civil unions for everyone! Think of the religious freedoms! No longer will there be Catholic concerns about government definitions of marriage because the government will be put out of business on that end! It becomes, as it should be, a purely religious celebration. :) (Please do not name call me for my Christian heritage and belief in the sacrament of marriage belonging in a Catholic church.)

Also, may I ask if you believe marriage involves women being considered chattel and property of their fathers and husbands? I would love to understand your historical definition more. :)

LauraHale (talk)05:39, 8 April 2013
 

Also, as a matter of respect, please do not refer to this as a homosexual or queer agenda. It is just as offensive for me for you to use that term as it is probably for me to call the anti-equality supporters as yourself as the "pro-militant homophobic heterosexual agenda." Please find a less offensive term to use. :) Marriage equality supporters is the correct name. :)

LauraHale (talk)05:45, 8 April 2013

Words are powerful things. I choose my words carefully and intentionally. I would not attempt to tell you which words you are allowed to use to express your views. Please show me the same respect.

You appear to be trying to draw me into a flamethrowing fight. Not interested. I am a libertarian, so I embrace "the queer agenda" almost completely. The one and only exception is that I oppose the redefinition of the word "marriage" in the English language. This is because redefining that word would silence ideas, and I oppose the silencing of ideas. That also springs from my libertarianism.

Wo'O Ideafarm (talk)21:53, 8 April 2013
 
 

ur a gay


[disclaimer] No homophobia implied, just a pun.

88.104.41.43 (talk)10:50, 4 April 2013

I'm para-gay and I was born that way. Face-smile.svg

Tom Morris (talk)11:02, 4 April 2013