"homophobia" term

[steen]

The government should be giving the same rights to everyone. Including homosexuals.
Not if you allow civil unions for anyone who wants them. I was told not all states have civil unions of any kind and have to go through the church to be married. Make civil unions, allow the government to define them, give civilly united couples the same benefits as married couples, and you've got it made, right?

Rachel

See the bolded. What you are suggesting is the "separate but equal" idea. We already know that doesn't pass muster in the US Constitution. It is un-American.

 

[Robinsegg]

Steen,
I'm talking about the government setting up a "marriage" situation that it can define. The term "civil unions" indicates that it's a union created by the state. That's all. I'm saying that these civil unions be available to homosexual and heterosexual couples alike and that they have the same benefits as marriage. The term "marriage" is one that religious people tend to see as a religious term indicating a relationship sanctioned by God. The term "civil union" would have no religious connotation at all, and would speak to what the government creates.
It's not setting up a second-class citizen situation, because it's just two different entities setting up similar situations. The government would see them as the same, but religion need not.

Rachel

 

[seebs]

If some people can get one, and other people can only get the other, that's still "separate but equal". It's very much "separate but equal", we're even saying "but the government treats them the same".

Why not just replace all legal unions with "civil unions"?

This would be more equitable, and I would personally love it if the state stopped claiming it had the authority to create or disolve marriages.

In short, I agree that civil unions should be available for everyone; given that, let's remove the concept of "civil marriage" entirely, and leave the term "marriage" up to people to define in terms of whatever their faith teaches.

 

[steen]

Steen,
I'm talking about the government setting up a "marriage" situation that it can define. The term "civil unions" indicates that it's a union created by the state. That's all. I'm saying that these civil unions be available to homosexual and heterosexual couples alike and that they have the same benefits as marriage. The term "marriage" is one that religious people tend to see as a religious term indicating a relationship sanctioned by God. The term "civil union" would have no religious connotation at all, and would speak to what the government creates.

Ah, getting the Government out of "marriage" alltogether? That I can agree with, as what we see now is what happens when there is no separation between church and state. For a long time, some Christians have tried to pretend there is no separation, but now the issue has come home to roost, so to speak. But yes, I think that getting the Government out of religious business and religion out of Government business is a very good idea.

It's not setting up a second-class citizen situation, because it's just two different entities setting up similar situations. The government would see them as the same, but religion need not.

Rachel

That sounds like a very good idea. Thanks for clarifying. I am sorry that I misunderstood you.

 

[Robinsegg]

If some people can get one, and other people can only get the other, that's still "separate but equal". It's very much "separate but equal", we're even saying "but the government treats them the same".

Why not just replace all legal unions with "civil unions"?

This would be more equitable, and I would personally love it if the state stopped claiming it had the authority to create or disolve marriages.

In short, I agree that civil unions should be available for everyone; given that, let's remove the concept of "civil marriage" entirely, and leave the term "marriage" up to people to define in terms of whatever their faith teaches.

Okay, I guess I was trying to say something more on this order: Why not make all civil unions, but allow church officials to create some of them, and allow the church to call them marriages? Therefor, all unions would be civilly legal, but some would be religious and called "marriage". Does that make more sense?

Rachel

 

[jayem]

People are called homophobes for any old reason, but then they're told that they are all these horrible things, that they hate gays, that they're acting to harm gays...

It's just not working. It would be more productive to drop the word and coin better ones. I think "anti-gay" is fine, and covers a useful and comprehensible range of behaviors, and many people are quite willing to accept that term as describing themselves. I've never met anyone who was at all okay with being called a "homophobe", in no small part due to the obviously bogus etymology.

I have thought the term "homo-aversion" might be somewhat better. At least I think it more accurately denotes the fact that some people do have an aversion towards homosexual acts, and, to be truthful, towards homosexuals who affect certain stereotyped mannerisms. It avoids the incorrect use of "phobia." And strictly speaking, my copy of the OED (the 2 volume shorter edition), defines an aversion as a strong dislike, opposition, antipathy, or repugnance. It doesn't use the term "hatred" in association with this term. But "homophobia" does roll of the tongue easier, and is more euphonious.

And I actually haven't seen this term used. AFAIK, it's my original creation. Or not. But, if so, I offer it to the world without copyright.

 

[GhostDad]

^"homo-aversion" is pretty accurate... captures the distaste and mild derision with much more nuance

 

[MoonlessNight]

Ah, so having a gene that makes you more likely to become an alcoholic is a vice? Predispositions are vices? That sounds way weird.

I'm just expanding upon the use of the terms as Aquinas understood them. Most of the time it coincides somewhat with the common meanings, sometimes it seems strange.

Keep in mind that there is nothing immoral about possessing a vice. It is of course undesirable, since they make it harder to good. But one shouldn't be considered a "bad person" because they have a lot of vices or a strong vice (even if the vices came about because of their own behavior), what matters is what they choose to do. If you act good in spite of vice, that's in some ways more commendable than acting good without being troubled by vice, because it is so much more difficult.

It's really not that unusual if you just use the definitions I posted. A habit is a tendency towards some action. A virtue is a habit that helps one to act morally, a vice is a habit that prevents one from acting morally.

 

[quatona]

Okay, I guess I was trying to say something more on this order: Why not make all civil unions, but allow church officials to create some of them, and allow the church to call them marriages? Therefor, all unions would be civilly legal, but some would be religious and called "marriage". Does that make more sense?

I support this idea.
Religious groups have a long tradition in having a terminology of their own, so no big problem there.
I doubt, though, that the common use of terms can be established by decree. I suspect that the term "gay marriage" is already so common (and so intuitively to the point), that it will stay no matter what the official label will be.