On same sex marriage and propriatary brand names (1 Viewer)

[Dittohead not!]

Were I to start a soft drink company, I could market a product identical to Coca Cola. It could taste like it, look like it, smell like it, even have the identical chemical composition.

But, I could not call it Coca Cola. I'd have to come up with a new name, as that brand is already taken.

Now, gays want to take over the brand name enjoyed by heterosexuals: Marriage.

Gays should have the same rights as anyone else. They have every right to have civil unions with all of the rights and responsibilities, not to mention the pitfalls, of marriage.

But, why do they have to call it that? That brand is already taken.

They can have a wedding, a honeymoon, call each other husband, wife, spouse, whatever they like.

The only dispute is over one word: Marriage.

And, while the government should not be in the marriage business, the fact is that it is and isn't likely to get out of it any time soon. The government has a history of applying a new name to the same old thing, and pretending it is something new. So, why not do so in the marriage debate?

California's Proposition 8 redefined, or perhaps confirmed the definition would be a better term, of one word: Marriage. It left intact civil unions with the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. It didn't address words like weddings, spouses, husbands, or wives.

So, why not simply compromise: People who oppose gay marriage can have their brand name, but the gays get their civil unions with the same meaning as marriage. They get to have as splashy and showy a wedding as they wish to have. They can have a wedding license. They can call each other whatever they choose.

Seems to me a good compromise, and one that can put an end to a debate that boils down to much ado about one word.

 

[rathi]

As a heterosexual, I am apparently the rightful owner of the word marriage according to the OP. I have just decided to grant all homosexuals in the nation a license to use the word marriage royalty-free. Mr. Dittohead shouldn't have any objections now, right? After all, his motives are clearly based on protecting the rights of property owners, he would never betray his libertarian principles to endorse government repression.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Guess what? I'm really sick and tired of people proposing that same-sex couples "compromise". It's as annoying as suggestions that blacks, Hispanics, women, Native Americans and other marginalized groups "compromise" when it comes to demanding that their humanity and equality be recognized and respected, particularly by the government.

There is no compromise because anti-same-sex marriage people do not have a legitimate position. There is no compromise because same-sex couples are asking for nothing more than equality - to not be treated as "less than". To accept "separate but equal" because some people can't deal with real equality is impermissible. It is demeaning and it is degrading.

Naming a company something different from another company is ****ing copyright and trademark issue. Naming marriage something different just because the people getting married are considered "perverts" by some idiots is a human rights and human dignity issue. The comparison is insulting and laughable.

 

[Masada]

I completely agree with the OP.

Here's what liberals do, because they use the exact same tactics when arguing about global warming.

Liberals are good at making definitive statements like, "the debate is over, science proves....yada yada yada". But the sheer fact is, the debate isn't over, and science hasn't "proven" anything, especially global warming. They insist, "every scientist agrees....". But in reality, no, not every scientist agrees. In fact, skeptic's numbers grow by the day. Why? Pesky facts and statistics. They further insist, "you're just a flat earther". A good insult, but doesn't have a shred of factual argumentation in it.

They do precisely the same thing with gay marriage. Liberals claim that anti gay "marriage" people "do not have a legitimate position". But in reality, historical tradition and biology are pretty legitimate positions.

Civil unions would resolve the entire issue.

Here's a DIRECT quote: "There is no compromise because same-sex couples are asking for nothing more than equality."

Reality is, YES THEY ARE asking for more than social or legal equality, they are asking a society to redefine an institution entirely. What does that have to do with legal rights? NOTHING. Civil union rights could identically mirror marriage rights legally. Every tax advantage, every adoption advantage, every inheritance advantage, every legal advantage there is. IDENTICALLY. Tell me that's not possible....because it is. In fact, it's been suggested, even in the OP.

Liberals and gay marriage enthusiasts aren't simply asking for equality. They are demanding millions and millions of other Americans to redefine "marriage". That has nothing to do with legal status or rights. They are also demanding religious Americans to accept their version of what "marriage" consists of. That has nothing to do with legal rights or status. Civil unions could grant them EXACTLY what the previous poster said they are looking for.....equality under the law.

So, it exposes something else. What is it? Because I've already proven that civil unions can acheive the goal of legal equality. It's something else. Equality under the law isn't enough. Gay marriage enthusiasts are demanding that society ACCEPT homosexual behavior on a moral level, and declare that their lifestyle choice is "normal", "healthy", "morally right", and "natural". Until society does that, gay rights activists will always have something to protest. If you think I'm wrong, then ask yourself why "gay education" is feathered into early education. Ask yourself why it's important to liberals to educate kids about same sex relationships. They are molding minds. Molding them to become minds that say, "there's nothing morally wrong with homosexuality." Some would call that indoctrination at tax payers expense.

So, I'll tell you what I'M sick of. I'm sick of people who DEMAND society change it's stripes to suit their immoral philosophy. I'm tired of being told I'm a bigot because I believe marriage is sacred, and is between man and woman. I'm tired of the left accusing anti gay marriage people of being Christian zealots. I'm tired of gays DEMANDING we recognize and sanction widely believed immoral behavior. I'm sick and tired of liberals saying the debate is over, and that any other view point besides their own is invalid.

 

[Fisher]

Guess what? I'm really sick and tired of people proposing that same-sex couples "compromise". It's as annoying as suggestions that blacks, Hispanics, women, Native Americans and other marginalized groups "compromise" when it comes to demanding that their humanity and equality be recognized and respected, particularly by the government.

There is no compromise because anti-same-sex marriage people do not have a legitimate position. There is no compromise because same-sex couples are asking for nothing more than equality - to not be treated as "less than". To accept "separate but equal" because some people can't deal with real equality is impermissible. It is demeaning and it is degrading.

Naming a company something different from another company is ****ing copyright and trademark issue. Naming marriage something different just because the people getting married are considered "perverts" by some idiots is a human rights and human dignity issue. The comparison is insulting and laughable.

You still cannot call it the Gay Olympics. There is a court case that says so :fyi:

 

[Masada]

Guess what? I'm really sick and tired of people proposing that same-sex couples "compromise". It's as annoying as suggestions that blacks, Hispanics, women, Native Americans and other marginalized groups "compromise" when it comes to demanding that their humanity and equality be recognized and respected, particularly by the government.

There is no compromise because anti-same-sex marriage people do not have a legitimate position. There is no compromise because same-sex couples are asking for nothing more than equality - to not be treated as "less than". To accept "separate but equal" because some people can't deal with real equality is impermissible. It is demeaning and it is degrading.

Naming a company something different from another company is ****ing copyright and trademark issue. Naming marriage something different just because the people getting married are considered "perverts" by some idiots is a human rights and human dignity issue. The comparison is insulting and laughable.

Human rights issue? lol....and what about the dignity of marriage itself? Care anything about that? Of course you don't.

No one has ever said, "keep those gay people apart, ban homosexuality". Civil unions don't prevent those "perverts" from coming together in a legal relationship whatsoever. They are free to be as perverted as they want. They are free to file taxes jointly. Free to adopt children and raise them to be future perverts. Free to inherit each others perverted profits. What does any of that have to do with what their relationship is classified as legally? NOTHING.

If equality under the law is ALL you guys are after, tell me one good reason you aren't satisfied with a compromise that gives gays equality under the law?

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Civil unions would resolve the entire issue.

Actually, no they wouldn't because plenty of same-sex couples and their supporters won't accept anything less than marriage. What WILL resolve the issue is legalized same-sex marriage because it will end up normalizing it among younger generations to the point where the only people who have a problem with it are 90 year old psychos with dementia who everyone laughs at during family reunions.

 

[captainawesome]

Were I to start a soft drink company, I could market a product identical to Coca Cola. It could taste like it, look like it, smell like it, even have the identical chemical composition.

But, I could not call it Coca Cola. I'd have to come up with a new name, as that brand is already taken.

Now, gays want to take over the brand name enjoyed by heterosexuals: Marriage.

Gays should have the same rights as anyone else. They have every right to have civil unions with all of the rights and responsibilities, not to mention the pitfalls, of marriage.

But, why do they have to call it that? That brand is already taken.

They can have a wedding, a honeymoon, call each other husband, wife, spouse, whatever they like.

The only dispute is over one word: Marriage.

And, while the government should not be in the marriage business, the fact is that it is and isn't likely to get out of it any time soon. The government has a history of applying a new name to the same old thing, and pretending it is something new. So, why not do so in the marriage debate?

California's Proposition 8 redefined, or perhaps confirmed the definition would be a better term, of one word: Marriage. It left intact civil unions with the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. It didn't address words like weddings, spouses, husbands, or wives.

So, why not simply compromise: People who oppose gay marriage can have their brand name, but the gays get their civil unions with the same meaning as marriage. They get to have as splashy and showy a wedding as they wish to have. They can have a wedding license. They can call each other whatever they choose.

Seems to me a good compromise, and one that can put an end to a debate that boils down to much ado about one word.

The right wing has such immature and childish talking points.

Thats our word. You cant use our word. We would rather deny other humans liberty than let you use the word.

It is mental illness.

 

[Paschendale]

The only purpose of calling a same sex union something other than a marriage is to separate and label it as inferior to a marriage. The only purpose is to demean. The rights, duties, social expectations, and relationship of a married same sex couple are exactly the same as those of an opposite sex one. They have the same function. Giving one another name serves no purpose but to point out that it's not really a marriage even though it looks like one.

This is not a compromise. It is segregation.

Human rights issue? lol....and what about the dignity of marriage itself? Care anything about that? Of course you don't.

And yet other than your personal distaste for it, you can't show anything about homosexuality or gays marrying that is undignified.

If equality under the law is ALL you guys are after, tell me one good reason you aren't satisfied with a compromise that gives gays equality under the law?

Because "separate but equal" is NOT equality under the law. It doesn't produce that equality. It's semi-equality. The front and back of the bus are not equal. Only actual equality produces equality.

 

[Middleground]

I'm curious as to why marriage is considered a heterosexual word. That is news to me. The word itself can be properly used to describe two things/items that come together/unite.

 

[wolfsgirl]

Sorry, but I am getting married to my same sex partner, and there is nothing you can do about it.
We will have the exact same marriage license that you do. We will have the exact same federal benefits, and protections in our marriage that you do.

YOU do not hold the copyright to the word marriage.

 

[Helix]

SSM is marriage. if they get divorced, it will be called a divorce. i don't see why it should be called anything else.

 

[HonestJoe]

Seems to me a good compromise, and one that can put an end to a debate that boils down to much ado about one word.

There are two issues with this. First, there is lots of existing legislation that refers specifically to marriage. Restricting homosexuals to "civil unions" or whatever means those laws don't apply to them (for good or bad). Changing them all would be impractical.

The second issue is the social. As has been mentioned, one of the key reasons many of the objectors don't want homosexual marriage is because they want to keep homosexuals as second class citizens. Many of those would object to even civil unions and would likely continue to push the social and legal distinction between that and marriage.

The fact is that the word marriage has been used for all sorts of different unions throughout history and across the world. The people who claim ownership of the word aren't using it in all those variations but in a single, very specific definition, one that wouldn't be supported by many heterosexual couples, let alone homosexuals.

Marriage isn't a copyright like Coca Cola. Nobody owns the word and nobody owns the right to define it in only their way. Homosexual couples can call themselves "married" right now and there is nothing you can do about it. So can re-married divorcees, mixed race-couples and 16-year old girls with 50 year-old men, regardless of whether any of us object to those unions. Pretending this is about the use of a word is simply dishonest.

 

[Masada]

Actually, no they wouldn't because plenty of same-sex couples and their supporters won't accept anything less than marriage. What WILL resolve the issue is legalized same-sex marriage because it will end up normalizing it among younger generations to the point where the only people who have a problem with it are 90 year old psychos with dementia who everyone laughs at during family reunions.

You mean the only people left with a shred of traditional morality will be 90 year old psychos with dementia who everyone laughs at during family reunions.

I'm not 90, far from it, and I oppose SSM. Perhaps it's because I recognize the sacred nature and societal importance of one of the cornerstones of Western society in a historical context, not just a modern day context. No one will be laughing when the social fabric of America unravels to the point of men marrying donkeys, and women marrying toaster ovens. When you change the definition of an institution, it opens the doors to new interpretations each and every day. Sooner or later, the real psychos, the progressive left, will argue that men have a right to marry animals, minors, family members, probably even inanimate objects. After all, if gays can effectively change the definition of marriage, so can anyone else.

 

[captainawesome]

You mean the only people left with a shred of traditional morality will be 90 year old psychos with dementia who everyone laughs at during family reunions.

I'm not 90, far from it, and I oppose SSM. Perhaps it's because I recognize the sacred nature and societal importance of one of the cornerstones of Western society in a historical context, not just a modern day context. No one will be laughing when the social fabric of America unravels to the point of men marrying donkeys, and women marrying toaster ovens. When you change the definition of an institution, it opens the doors to new interpretations each and every day. Sooner or later, the real psychos, the progressive left, will argue that men have a right to marry animals, minors, family members, probably even inanimate objects. After all, if gays can effectively change the definition of marriage, so can anyone else.

Marriage used to be arranged by parents for money and title. Marriage became about love.

So do you want to go back to traditional marriage?

 

[AGENT J]

Were I to start a soft drink company, I could market a product identical to Coca Cola. It could taste like it, look like it, smell like it, even have the identical chemical composition.

But, I could not call it Coca Cola. I'd have to come up with a new name, as that brand is already taken.

Now, gays want to take over the brand name enjoyed by heterosexuals: Marriage.

Gays should have the same rights as anyone else. They have every right to have civil unions with all of the rights and responsibilities, not to mention the pitfalls, of marriage.

But, why do they have to call it that? That brand is already taken.

They can have a wedding, a honeymoon, call each other husband, wife, spouse, whatever they like.

The only dispute is over one word: Marriage.

And, while the government should not be in the marriage business, the fact is that it is and isn't likely to get out of it any time soon. The government has a history of applying a new name to the same old thing, and pretending it is something new. So, why not do so in the marriage debate?

California's Proposition 8 redefined, or perhaps confirmed the definition would be a better term, of one word: Marriage. It left intact civil unions with the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. It didn't address words like weddings, spouses, husbands, or wives.

So, why not simply compromise: People who oppose gay marriage can have their brand name, but the gays get their civil unions with the same meaning as marriage. They get to have as splashy and showy a wedding as they wish to have. They can have a wedding license. They can call each other whatever they choose.

Seems to me a good compromise, and one that can put an end to a debate that boils down to much ado about one word.

marriage inst a brand name
complete fail

/end thread

 

[Masada]

The only purpose of calling a same sex union something other than a marriage is to separate and label it as inferior to a marriage. The only purpose is to demean. The rights, duties, social expectations, and relationship of a married same sex couple are exactly the same as those of an opposite sex one. They have the same function. Giving one another name serves no purpose but to point out that it's not really a marriage even though it looks like one.

This is not a compromise. It is segregation.




And yet other than your personal distaste for it, you can't show anything about homosexuality or gays marrying that is undignified.





Because "separate but equal" is NOT equality under the law. It doesn't produce that equality. It's semi-equality. The front and back of the bus are not equal. Only actual equality produces equality.

I completely understand how you come to this conclusion. However, what you refuse to even consider, is the true nature of "marriage" itself. Everything you believe about marriage is secular and an aspect of law. You ignore other aspects of "marriage" entirely. But people like you argue that you care NOTHING whatsoever about those aspects of marriage, and that only the legal and secular aspects of marriage are what's important.

While the title "civil union" does not rise to the religious or moral equivalent of "marriage", it does satisfy secular equality, which is what you guys say this is about.

This proves my theory about gay marriage advocates. It's not SOLELY about secular and legal equality, because civil unions IN FACT do satisfy legal equality. But they do not rise to the "moral" level of "marriage", which is the only logical reason left to oppose such a compromise. Proving me right. It's not SOLELY about legal status and secular equality under the law. It's about morality, and redefining in our society, what is moral and immoral.

So the charade can stop. Gay activists are after Christian morality, not just legal rights.

 

[Masada]

Marriage used to be arranged by parents for money and title. Marriage became about love.

So do you want to go back to traditional marriage?

That was never the case in this Country.......try again.

 

[captainawesome]

That was never the case in this Country.......try again.

Yes it was and still happens.

 

[Masada]

SSM is marriage. if they get divorced, it will be called a divorce. i don't see why it should be called anything else.

Of course you dont, because to you, "marriage" is SOLELY a civil contract, nothing more. But you ignore the fact that traditionally speaking, this country has always viewed "marriage" as something including civil contracts, but other aspects as well. What the left has done is shed "marriage" of everything accept it's "civil" nature. The left rejects the moral nature of marriage. The spiritual nature of marriage. The sacramental nature of marriage. Today, it's merely a "civil contract" recognized by government, nothing more.

So, informed and studied people see this. We KNOW the full definition of marriage, and we exclude no part of it. People like you do.

The only aspect same sex couples could even possibly qualify for "marriage" is through the civil aspect. Legal is another word for civil in this case. Yes, "legally" gays could come together in a legally recognized relationship. Civil unions accomplish that. But same sex relationships violate other aspects of "marriage", like moral aspects, spiritual aspects, sacramental aspects, historical aspects, even biological aspects.

 

[Masada]

Yes it was and still happens.

lol....uh huh....it was once mainstream for fathers to choose their daughter's husbands for land and titles and money in America....

Come up with something better. And when you talk to me about "traditional marriage", understand I know what "traditional marriage" is, and what you described isn't what I'm referring to.

For once, can a liberal think philosophically? I highly highly doubt it, because you lack the education. I mean that too. You lack the education in this subject to even know what I'm talking about.

 

[AGENT J]

Of course you dont, because to you, "marriage" is SOLELY a civil contract, nothing more. But you ignore the fact that traditionally speaking, this country has always viewed "marriage" as something including civil contracts, but other aspects as well. What the left has done is shed "marriage" of everything accept it's "civil" nature. The left rejects the moral nature of marriage. The spiritual nature of marriage. The sacramental nature of marriage. Today, it's merely a "civil contract" recognized by government, nothing more.

So, informed and studied people see this. We KNOW the full definition of marriage, and we exclude no part of it. People like you do.

The only aspect same sex couples could even possibly qualify for "marriage" is through the civil aspect. Legal is another word for civil in this case. Yes, "legally" gays could come together in a legally recognized relationship. Civil unions accomplish that. But same sex relationships violate other aspects of "marriage", like moral aspects, spiritual aspects, sacramental aspects, historical aspects, even biological aspects.

only in your opinion but there are ZERO facts that support you

in fact some of your opinions are simply wrong because facts make them wrong

 

[Masada]

I'm even willing to test my theory.

Let me say this, and see what response it solicits:

"Gay marriage" may indeed become law of the land, even federally. I can foresee that happening because of the trajectory of the country. However, homosexuality will never be accepted as "morally right behavior" in this country. It will always be frowned upon, and it will always be deemed wrong by the vast majority of people in society. Sinful in it's nature, homosexuality will never be socially acceptable so long as Christianity remains the predominant religion of America."

Comments?

 

[captainawesome]

lol....uh huh....it was once mainstream for fathers to choose their daughter's husbands for land and titles and money in America....

Come up with something better. And when you talk to me about "traditional marriage", understand I know what "traditional marriage" is, and what you described isn't what I'm referring to.

For once, can a liberal think philosophically? I highly highly doubt it, because you lack the education. I mean that too. You lack the education in this subject to even know what I'm talking about.

The definition of marriage has indeed changed.

Marriage is now voluntary and about love. It didnt use to be.

 

[AGENT J]

I'm even willing to test my theory.

Let me say this, and see what response it solicits:

"Gay marriage" may indeed become law of the land, even federally. I can foresee that happening because of the trajectory of the country. However, homosexuality will never be accepted as "morally right behavior" in this country. It will always be frowned upon, and it will always be deemed wrong by the vast majority of people in society. Sinful in it's nature, homosexuality will never be socially acceptable so long as Christianity remains the predominant religion of America."

Comments?

everybody is free to have opinions :shrug: