Homosexuality: A Survey

[Callid]

Personally, I think they should at least be able to be registered as spouses with equal rights to heterosexual couples. They can call it marriage if they want.

This pretty much sums up my point of view.

Not calling it marriage seems like a way to shortchange them, "sure you can have your little union, but you'll never have a real marriage".

That depends on the definition of the term "marriage". If (if!) you define it as "union of a heterosexual couple", it is very justified to not call a homosexual union a marriage, just like you couldn't call a homosexual man a lesbian (of course, their rights should be equal in both cases). So, the definition of the term "marriage" is crucial here.

(where we already have Registered Partnerships, which are equal in marriages in all regards except adoption and taxes)

Then they aren't equal and all other argument is null.

That part is actually not debated anymore; the Federal Constitutional Court has already ruled that them being not equal is unconstitutional, and all parties, even the CDU, have agreed to respect that (to be precise, the coalition agreement between CDU and FDP, the currently ruling parties, has exactly this as a goal). Also, I weren't asking about that anyway. Please read my entire post

Now my question to you - what's your opinion on the "middle" position? Is it sufficient if the rights are equal, or is the term "marriage" of major importance?

If a distinction has to be made, then it is not equal. If you have any "except for", in any way, it's not equal. Even if that "except for" is: "Gay people can get married, except for the fact they can't call it marriage." There are a great many gay couples (like one Akonyl cited much earlier) that aren't willing to settle for less and as such don't take "domestic partnerships" or whatever politically-correct phrase has been settled on that week seriously. And I, for one, don't blame them. 100% legal equality is what's important, and until that is made a reality, this won't be over.

As I said above, the question is whether "marriage" can be applied at all, i.e. the actual definition of "marriage". After all, we wouldn't call a harem a "marriage" either

EDIT: Also, cause I somewhat felt it necessary to state that, my opinion on that matter is pretty much neutral (as long as the rights are equal, the actual term is, IMO, not of importance, but if they want to, they can make "marriage" the official term, I don't mind XD), but I'm acting a bit as a Advocatus Diaboli here

[Dwalin]

There are a lot of remarks in your post that can be taken apart, but I'm not going to bother because there's just no reason. You have the right to believe in what you want to believe and do what you want when it is not causing harm to another, so why not extend that courtesy to others as well?

I never said homosexuals don't have the rights to believe in what they do.
But may I ask you what exactly don't you agree with in my post? I tried to be as neutral as possible, I didn't say for example that Christianity is better than other religions or being an atheist. Every other Christian I personally know agrees that every non-Christian good person is no less good than a good Christian. If I don't like the concept of homosexuality, that's not because of religion, I was just like that even before becoming a Christian. It's just like you said in another post of yours that you don't like deep sea diving. I don't force my ways on others, never did and never will.

[ProfParanoia]

That depends on the definition of the term "marriage". If (if!) you define it as "union of a heterosexual couple", it is very justified to not call a homosexual union a marriage, just like you couldn't call a homosexual man a lesbian (of course, their rights should be equal in both cases). So, the definition of the term "marriage" is crucial here.

The point was that obsessing over not changing definitions just as a means to assert your perceived status of love over others is shortchanging them. Also, lesbianism was for classifying women who didn't follow gender roles as mentally ill, so going off that situation you couldn't call lesbians lesbian, except for the fact that that definition changed.

It's not that marriage's definition in America includes homosexuality, it's that it should be changed to include homosexuality.

EDIT: Plus, I figure if the definitions of "gay", "queer", and "faggot" can be changed to make homosexuals feel worse, we could change the definition of "marriage" to make them feel better.

[Callid]

That depends on the definition of the term "marriage". If (if!) you define it as "union of a heterosexual couple", it is very justified to not call a homosexual union a marriage, just like you couldn't call a homosexual man a lesbian (of course, their rights should be equal in both cases). So, the definition of the term "marriage" is crucial here.

The point was that obsessing over not changing definitions just as a means to assert your perceived status of love over others is shortchanging them. Also, lesbianism was for classifying women who didn't follow gender roles as mentally ill, so going off that situation you couldn't call lesbians lesbian, except for the fact that that definition changed.

It's not that marriage's definition in america includes homosexuality, it's that it should be changed to include homosexuality.

So, why not change "Lesbian" to mean "homosexual"? After all, we lack a neutral term for male homosexuals, so why not use that one?
Also, in English, you could simply make use of the fact that you have three words for the state of marriage - marriage, wedlock and matrimony - and have "marriage" be gender-neutral, but "wedlock" and "matrimony" be hetero-only (or vice versa) and create a new word (or words?) for homo-only. After all, it might be useful to have words to specifically refer to either type (German has only "Ehe", so it doesn't work here ).

[Suutashi]

That depends on the definition of the term "marriage". If (if!) you define it as "union of a heterosexual couple", it is very justified to not call a homosexual union a marriage, just like you couldn't call a homosexual man a lesbian (of course, their rights should be equal in both cases). So, the definition of the term "marriage" is crucial here.

The point was that obsessing over not changing definitions just as a means to assert your perceived status of love over others is shortchanging them. Also, lesbianism was for classifying women who didn't follow gender roles as mentally ill, so going off that situation you couldn't call lesbians lesbian, except for the fact that that definition changed.

It's not that marriage's definition in america includes homosexuality, it's that it should be changed to include homosexuality.

So, why not change "Lesbian" to mean "homosexual"? After all, we lack a neutral term for male homosexuals, so why not use that one?
Also, in English, you could simply make use of the fact that you have three words for the state of marriage - marriage, wedlock and matrimony - and have "marriage" be gender-neutral, but "wedlock" and "matrimony" be hetero-only (or vice versa) and create a new word (or words?) for homo-only. After all, it might be useful to have words to specifically refer to either type (German has only "Ehe", so it doesn't work here ).

I thought Lesbian already meant a female homosexual.

[ProfParanoia]

That depends on the definition of the term "marriage". If (if!) you define it as "union of a heterosexual couple", it is very justified to not call a homosexual union a marriage, just like you couldn't call a homosexual man a lesbian (of course, their rights should be equal in both cases). So, the definition of the term "marriage" is crucial here.

The point was that obsessing over not changing definitions just as a means to assert your perceived status of love over others is shortchanging them. Also, lesbianism was for classifying women who didn't follow gender roles as mentally ill, so going off that situation you couldn't call lesbians lesbian, except for the fact that that definition changed.

It's not that marriage's definition in america includes homosexuality, it's that it should be changed to include homosexuality.

So, why not change "Lesbian" to mean "homosexual"? After all, we lack a neutral term for male homosexuals, so why not use that one?
Also, in English, you could simply make use of the fact that you have three words for the state of marriage - marriage, wedlock and matrimony - and have "marriage" be gender-neutral, but "wedlock" and "matrimony" be hetero-only (or vice versa) and create a new word (or words?) for homo-only. After all, it might be useful to have words to specifically refer to either type (German has only "Ehe", so it doesn't work here ).

It might in the future, words change like that. So really there is no reason not to, try to start if you want, might catch on.

It's better not to make different terms because the concept of "Separate but Equal" didn't really work the last time. Besides, is someone so stupid that they need a whole different word to know if your marriage is heterosexual or not?

[PhoenixTears]

For the record:

Definition of MARRIAGE

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
  b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
  c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3: an intimate or close union

The only definition that even mentions gender is the first one - and it includes both heterosexual and homosexual.

[ProfParanoia]

@Callid: I would like to state a possible confusion. In German it appears that there are more sex specific declarations. However, any ounce of such thing in America, is meant in the act of devaluing the other side "hostess" is an example of this, it's less that a host and default for women. Doing such things in America would be in an act and means of devaluing the union of two homosexuals and trying to make their union less in the eyes of our vernacular.

[Callid]

It's better not to make different terms because the concept of "Separate but Equal" didn't really work the last time. Besides, is someone so stupid that they need a whole different word to know if your marriage is heterosexual or not?

Well, that was mainly because it simply wasn't equal
But do you need a different word in order to realize whether someone is a male of female homosexual?
Also, I was merely giving "Lesbian" as an example, I could have used "man" or "woman" as well - why not use "human" all the time? Clearly enough, you might want to refer to men and women by means other than "masculine human" and "feminine human", and you might want similar terms for different kinds of marriages.

@ Suutashi: Yes, but not "male homosexual"

@ Prof:
Actually, we lack those too, but we have only one term for the state of marriage, so we can't make compromises. The official name, however, is likely to be something completely different anyway, for example, the Amtsdeutsch (officialese) term for Baum (tree) is raumübergreifendes Großgrün (~ room-overarching large greenery)

[ProfParanoia]

Well, that was mainly because it simply wasn't equal
But do you need a different word in order to realize whether someone is a male of female homosexual?
Also, I was merely giving "Lesbian" as an example, I could have used "man" or "woman" as well - why not use "human" all the time? Clearly enough, you might want to refer to men and women by means other than "masculine human" and "feminine human", and you might want similar terms for different kinds of marriages.

@ Prof:
Actually, we lack those too, but we have only one term for the state of marriage, so we can't make compromises. The official name, however, is likely to be something completely different anyway, for example, the Amtsdeutsch (officialese) term for Baum (tree) is raumübergreifendes Großgrün (~ room-overarching large greenery)

1. And it wont be equal, it wont be seen as equal by anyone, it wont be equal to anyone, "SbE" was only used to reiterate the superiority of another culture, but hey, some people like the back of the bus. No, like I said, lesbian wasn't made to describe female homosexuals, it was made to describe women who didn't fit gender roles and it was then applied to female homosexuals because of a stereotype of tough girl homosexuals. In fact, we do have it for men, "gay" was made as a way to propel the stereotype that homosexual men were frilly. But, I'm saying that we don't need to and that doing so WILL BE a way to devalue any homosexual marriage.

2. I think your second post got lost in translation there.

[Jd-]

I loathe multi-quotes, but I'm going to utilize them here to make it a little easier for you to digest.

I never said homosexuals don't have the rights to believe in what they do.

It's not about allowing them to "believe" in what they do (it's like saying you have the right to "believe" that you're straight; it makes no sense)--it's about freedom. I said you are allowed to believe and do what you would like to do because it's about freedom, not because they don't have the right to believe in gayness (again, that's just a bizarre means of misconstruing the issue). If you don't believe that your ways or anyone else's should be forced on others... go ahead and wholeheartedly support gay marriage. That's the biggest testament you can possibly make to back up that statement. You don't have to like the idea of homosexuality to agree that gay people should have equal rights to you and every other straight person. I'm not gay and I'll defend their right to be gay and marry gay from now until I die. I will do the same for you and your right to believe in God or not believe in God. Why is it gay people can't have that same freedom? I'm not just asking you that question: I'm asking everyone.

That’s why I and many others believe the coming of Jesus Christ was necessary, to change things for the better. It’s not his fault so many people haven’t understood anything and created such things as the crusades, witch hunts, persecutions of sexual or ethnic minorities etc.

It's his dad's.

After all, if all people really listened to him, the world wouldn’t be such a bad place?

Jesus Christ according to the New Testament you hold so highly:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."

So, yeah, if we really listened to him as you're implying, I don't think it'd exactly be utopia.

[Dwalin]

It’s not his fault so many people haven’t understood anything and created such things as the crusades, witch hunts, persecutions of sexual or ethnic minorities etc.

It's his dad's.

No, the fault is the PEOPLE'S who all have their free will.

Jesus Christ according to the New Testament you hold so highly:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."

So, yeah, if we really listened to him as you're implying, I don't think it'd exactly be utopia.

If the slavemasters listened to him as well, there would be no slavery.

go ahead and wholeheartedly support gay marriage.

Sorry, but I tend to agree with 1KHF on this point – there are more important things to do, in my opinion (I am NOT talking about religious propaganda, before somebody says so). And, by the way, homosexual supporters I talked with on internet just seem too aggressive – and I don’t want to become an ally of aggressive and intolerant people, be they heterosexuals or homosexuals. To me, being mean just because you want to defend your point of view is wrong. Anyway, I think homosexuals and their supporters don't need people like me, as I may conclude from the disdain most of people here seemed to hold towards me during the discussion.
And please, don't tell me "if you don't like our way of speaking, then leave this thread". I will, don't worry, I just want to read the answers to my last questions.

May I also ask you, just out of curiosity, if you have ever thought that, if I may be wrong about something, you may be as well? (i am not saying you are wrong about the rights of the homosexuals, it's just a general question I ask because the way of speaking of most people in this particular thread makes me suspect they think they are never wrong and even thinking they sometimes are is blasphemy or something like that).

[Callid]

Well, that was mainly because it simply wasn't equal
But do you need a different word in order to realize whether someone is a male of female homosexual?
Also, I was merely giving "Lesbian" as an example, I could have used "man" or "woman" as well - why not use "human" all the time? Clearly enough, you might want to refer to men and women by means other than "masculine human" and "feminine human", and you might want similar terms for different kinds of marriages.

@ Prof:
Actually, we lack those too, but we have only one term for the state of marriage, so we can't make compromises. The official name, however, is likely to be something completely different anyway, for example, the Amtsdeutsch (officialese) term for Baum (tree) is raumübergreifendes Großgrün (~ room-overarching large greenery)

1. And it wont be equal, it wont be seen as equal by anyone, it wont be equal to anyone, "SbE" was only used to reiterate the superiority of another culture, but hey, some people like the back of the bus. No, like I said, lesbian wasn't made to describe female homosexuals, it was made to describe women who didn't fit gender roles and it was then applied to female homosexuals because of a stereotype of tough girl homosexuals. In fact, we do have it for men, "gay" was made as a way to propel the stereotype that homosexual men were frilly. But, I'm saying that we don't need to and that doing so WILL BE a way to devalue any homosexual marriage.

Good arguing. As I can't find a counter-argument anymore, I suppose there is no need for me to continue being the devil's advocate XD
(Though I might come back on your last sentence once we live in a time where homosexuality is as widely accepted as heterosexuality )

2. I think your second post got lost in translation there.

Elaborate!

[Sakina]

May I also ask you, just out of curiosity, if you have ever thought that, if I may be wrong about something, you may be as well? (i am not saying you are wrong about the rights of the homosexuals, it's just a general question I ask because the way of speaking of most people in this particular thread makes me suspect they think they are never wrong and even thinking they sometimes are is blasphemy or something like that).

Same question back at you.

[Dwalin]

May I also ask you, just out of curiosity, if you have ever thought that, if I may be wrong about something, you may be as well? (i am not saying you are wrong about the rights of the homosexuals, it's just a general question I ask because the way of speaking of most people in this particular thread makes me suspect they think they are never wrong and even thinking they sometimes are is blasphemy or something like that).

Same question back at you.

Of course, I am not afraid to admit that I am not a person who is never wrong. But, in my opinion, answering to a question with another question is just not polite, sorry.