[extropy-chat] FWD [SK] Re: Just curious, it's not natural!

[Samantha Atkins]

On Nov 2, 2006, at 1:14 AM, Anna Taylor wrote:

> Anna wrote on Mon Oct 30:
>>>>> Why wouldn't the gay communities want their own
>>>>> word for their union and still keep the basic
>>>>> laws for spouse and marital?
>
> On 10/31/06, Terry Colvin <fortean1 at mindspring.com>
> forwarded:
>>> Maybe because they're forming a union, joined for
>>> life, and creatin a family -- so there's a perfectly
>>> good word for that already in existence.
>
> That word is already taken.  It describes the "Union"
> between male and female.
>

Says who?  The Law?  The law is a matter of societal convention.  The  
law once said that no female could vote and that slavery was ok.    
That did not make it right.

>>> In any case, it's not "scriptural" -- the
>>> institution predates and is independent of any
>>> particular scripture.
>
> No. Laws are institutions that predate.

Predate what?  See the above.

>   If gays want
> to be married, I again will repeat, I have no problem
> with that.  I believe they should have every right to
> the same benefits and laws as a "married" couple
> should have but I think it should be defined by a
> different word.
>

What for?

>>>> I can't pressume to understand the relationship
>>>> between 2 men or 2 women and who am I to judge what
>>>> "Union" they want but as a heterosexual woman,
>>>> don't I have every right to keep word "marriage"?.
>
>>> Sure you do. Your marriage won't suddenly become
>>> a "flerm" just because someone else got married. Did
>>> all heterosexual marriages suddenly change somehow
>>> in 1989, when Denmark recognized gay marriage?
>
> It's not about recognizing gay marriage.  I have the
> upmost respect for gays, I would never disrespect any
> choice of sexual behavior unless it violates rights. I
> feel using the word "marriage" as a symbol of the
> union between 2 men or 2 women violates my right as a
> heterosexual female.  Why is that so wrong?
>

Because you have no such right.  You have no right to decide the word  
marriage is only for people like yourself and not others.


>>> What you don't necessarily have is the right to
>>> deny the word to other people.
>
> Why? If the word had already been established, why
> wouldn't I have the right to keep it just the way it
> is?

Why should you have any such right?  What makes you think you do?

- samantha