"Marriage has a specific meaning!"

[Chronos]

One often hears the argument made by opponents to same-sex marriage that the word "marriage" has a specific meaning, and that meaning does not encompass same-sex unions, and that therefore, same-sex unions, if they're allowed at all, ought to be called by a different name.

Now, it's true, of course, that the word "marriage" has a meaning, but a simple test will demonstrate that that meaning does, in fact, apply to same-sex couples. Namely, if I refer to a same-sex marriage, everyone knows what I mean. If I say that Bob and Frank are married, everyone knows what that means, too. Some folks might say that Bob and Frank shouldn't be married, or that in the eyes of God or of the government they aren't married and that my statement is therefore incorrect, but it's still clear what it means to say that they are married.

Compare this to other words: If I say that a table is orange, you'll understand me (though, again, you might think that the table shouldn't be orange), but if I say that gravity is orange, you would ask me what in the world it means for gravity to be orange, and that I'm not making sense. From this we see that the word "orange" encompasses things like tables, but does not encompass things like gravity. If someone tried to pass a law permitting orange gravity, I'd oppose that law because it was ridiculous.

In short, the purpose of words is to communicate, and a word that successfully communicates something is a valid use of that word. "Same-sex marriage", or the word "marriage" used in a same-sex context, clearly communicates, whereas "orange gravity" does not. Therefore, even though some words can't be sensibly applied to some situations, "marriage" as applied to same-sex unions is not one of them.

[Roderick Femm]

This is a lovely argument against that particular point of view. I don't think it will convince anyone who isn't already on your side, but that's the nature of the beast. Reason isn't what their side is about.

I personally prefer the argument that governments should get out of the marriage business. Let churches control marriages in whatever way they want. The state should be in charge of all civil unions, and all civil unions should be equal, and open to any two people. If you want to be recognized by your church as a couple, get married. If you want to be recognized by the state as a couple, get a civil union. Simple.


Roddy

[begbert2]

I have used this argument before - the fact that people understand the term "same-sex marriage" indicates that "same-sex" is a linguistically comprehensible modifier of the word "marriage", and (therefore) that "same-sex marriage" is a linguistically correct subclass of the set of things called "marriages".

Of course none of this applies if one is speaking of "marriage" as a legal term of art - but legal terms-of-art have arbitrary meanings anyway, and so could be 'expanded' to include same-sex marriages without any problems other than hammering out any tantential parts of law that rely on the assumption of the sex of the participants.

I am interested in seeing what counterarguments are made in this thread.

[begbert2]

This is a lovely argument against that particular point of view. I don't think it will convince anyone who isn't already on your side, but that's the nature of the beast. Reason isn't what their side is about.

I personally prefer the argument that governments should get out of the marriage business. Let churches control marriages in whatever way they want. The state should be in charge of all civil unions, and all civil unions should be equal, and open to any two people. If you want to be recognized by your church as a couple, get married. If you want to be recognized by the state as a couple, get a civil union. Simple.


RoddyWhat would be your response to "I agree utterly - except that it already happened decades ago. And the state should keep calling their civil unions "marriages", because there is no reason not to, and to avoid having to change the term in all the existing related laws."

[BrightNShiny]

I personally prefer the argument that governments should get out of the marriage business. Let churches control marriages in whatever way they want. The state should be in charge of all civil unions, and all civil unions should be equal, and open to any two people. If you want to be recognized by your church as a couple, get married. If you want to be recognized by the state as a couple, get a civil union. Simple.

The government has a legal institution called "marriage." That has nothing to do with anyone's religious marriage. The government doesn't care whether or not your religious institution recognizes your marriage, all it cares is that a set of specific legal requirements are met. All you are doing here is changing the legal term "marriage" to the legal term "civil union." This is like proposing that the government start using a different word to refer to corporations or that the government start using a different word to refer to estates. What's the point?

[BunnyTVS]

This is a lovely argument against that particular point of view. I don't think it will convince anyone who isn't already on your side, but that's the nature of the beast. Reason isn't what their side is about.

I personally prefer the argument that governments should get out of the marriage business. Let churches control marriages in whatever way they want. The state should be in charge of all civil unions, and all civil unions should be equal, and open to any two people. If you want to be recognized by your church as a couple, get married. If you want to be recognized by the state as a couple, get a civil union. Simple.


Roddy

I'm an atheist. Does that mean I can't get married?

[John Mace]

Well, the "same sex marriage" argument doesn't hold water since you had add "same sex" to make it clear. And to many people, if you say "Bob and Frank are married", they will assume one of the two is a woman. Further, one can argue that it's the legal meaning of the word that matters, not the vernacular. I might say that Bob is married to his TV, but everyone knows that a different sense of the word-- a vernacular sense, not a legal sense.

n.b.: I'm fully in favor of SSM. I just don't think this particular argument works. By extension, it would also mean that polygamous marriages are OK, too. Which is fine by me, but not by most people. In reverse, you might argue that we used to recognize polygamous marriages, but not any longer. That was a change in the legal meaning of the word.

[Der Trihs]

All you are doing here is changing the legal term "marriage" to the legal term "civil union." This is like proposing that the government start using a different word to refer to corporations or that the government start using a different word to refer to estates. What's the point?Inflaming anti homosexual hatred by creating a propaganda opportunity to claim that "see, they really are out to destroy marriage!" Or at least that would certainly be the effect regardless of the intent. Millions of people would be very angry to be told that their marriages have been downgraded to civil unions.

[begbert2]

n.b.: I'm fully in favor of SSM. I just don't think this particular argument works. By extension, it would also mean that polygamous marriages are OK, too. Which is fine by me, but not by most people. In reverse, you might argue that we used to recognize polygamous marriages, but not any longer. That was a change in the legal meaning of the word.No, it wouldn't mean that polygamous marriages are (legally) okay - it would just mean that the word "marriage" applied to polygamous marriage too. That is, when we see a cheezy 30's adventure movie where a white guy in a turban indroduces his seven "wives" whom he has "married", we don't all look at the screen in consternation and say, "I have no idea what sort of a relationship he's referring to with those women."

I'll add that if all the anti-SSM marriage people simultanously admitted, "Okay, okay, the word 'marriage' has meant so many different sorts of pairings and groupings that it makes our heads spin and our stomachs clench up", that wouldn't in the slightest obligate them to declare same-sex marriages legal.

[Marley23]

And if it does have a specific meaning, so what? Meanings change over time. If we were discussing the marriages of ancient Romans, or of kings and queens in medieval Europe, it would mean something very different from what it means in Western society today, which is a voluntary relationship between equals. If anything adding gay couples is a less radical shift in the meaning of marriage than the introduction of love or romance.

[Sitnam]

If you want to be recognized by the state as a couple, get a civil union. Simple.
Changing our entire law code isn't simple. But I don't think thats what this is really about, it isn't about protecting the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, it's about limiting the power of sinners.

[Chronos]

Quoth John Mace:Well, the "same sex marriage" argument doesn't hold water since you had add "same sex" to make it clear. And to many people, if you say "Bob and Frank are married", they will assume one of the two is a woman.Well, but adding the term "gravity" didn't make "orange gravity" any clearer. And for the latter, let's say that Bob and Frank are known to the person I'm addressing, or that I said that Mr. Bob Smith and Mr. Frank Jones are married.

Quoth Marley23:And if it does have a specific meaning, so what? Meanings change over time. If we were discussing the marriages of ancient Romans...Of course, it's silly to try to carry the argument back to the ancient Romans, anyway, since the word "marriage" didn't mean anything at all to them. They'd have "matrimonia" or something instead.

[Lamia]

Well, the "same sex marriage" argument doesn't hold water since you had add "same sex" to make it clear.The same is true for any other specific type of marriage though, like "interracial marriage", "arranged marriage", "happy marriage", "open marriage", etc. They're all still marriages, though.
And to many people, if you say "Bob and Frank are married", they will assume one of the two is a woman.I guess some people would think that, but I'd consider it a lot more likely that the speaker was talking about a gay couple than that there was a woman named Bob or Frank. I think most people would draw the same inference.

My real reason for posting is to share this anecdote: A couple of years ago the university where I work held a sort of mock trial event where students were supposed to decide who was morally (not legally) culpable in a murder. They had been given a description of the scenario ahead of time and were asked to write a response, and then they saw actors give "testimony" about the events leading up to the crime. Anyway, two characters involved were a married couple named Pat and Chris, and the story involved Pat cheating on Chris. I think the genders were left ambiguous in the written scenario because the actors hadn't been recruited yet, but the organizers were also curious to see what kinds of assumptions the students would make about the gender of the cheating spouse.

As it turns out, a lot of students assumed Pat and Chris were BOTH men and were surprised when a woman came onstage as Chris. This assumption wasn't limited to students who were particularly gay-friendly either. Some of the written comments said it was no surprise Pat was cheating on Chris since gay men were all promiscuous anyway and that just goes to show why gay marriage is a mistake. So at least among younger people I think it's pretty common for it to be understood that a "marriage" can involve two people of the same sex even if it is never described as a "same sex marriage".

[The Flying Dutchman]

If we could just ignore for a moment the political consequences of taking a position on the issue of what is implied by the word "marriage" you have to admit that until a few years ago, the expectation of who would be involved in a marriage contract was a one man and one woman.
Your argument is not really convincing today, although if you keep it up it might change in a generation or two. What ever, you won't convince a contrarily minded person today on that basis.

That is not to say we've lost the reason to legitimize gay style marriages. The most serious reservations are based on simply the protection of the institution.

That is why I have found this article (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/28/lorne-gunter-heterosexuals-are-the-greatest-threat-to-marriage/) in Canada's most conservative national newspaper reviewing the impact of 5 years of gay marriage, (55,000) to be very interesting reading

[Candyman74]

The weird thing to me is that it all seems to hinge over a definition of a word. Who cares? The word isn't magical; it doesn't have mystical powers. We can have it mean whatever we want it to mean. Why does it bother someone what word someone else uses?

And that's ignoring the fact that the meanings of words change with usage. So even if someone could somehow manage to conclusively demonstrate that the word "marriage" meant exclusively "opposite sex marriages" - so what? Now it doesn't. Why does it matter?

[John Mace]

Quoth John Mace:Well, the "same sex marriage" argument doesn't hold water since you had add "same sex" to make it clear. And to many people, if you say "Bob and Frank are married", they will assume one of the two is a woman.Well, but adding the term "gravity" didn't make "orange gravity" any clearer. And for the latter, let's say that Bob and Frank are known to the person I'm addressing, or that I said that Mr. Bob Smith and Mr. Frank Jones are married.
But strong gravity does mean something just as orange marriage doesn't mean anything.

But my stronger argument was the legal meaning of the term vs the vernacular. Words in the vernacular change meanings all the time, but we don't change the legal meaning willy-nilly.

[John Mace]

Well, the "same sex marriage" argument doesn't hold water since you had add "same sex" to make it clear.The same is true for any other specific type of marriage though, like "interracial marriage", "arranged marriage", "happy marriage", "open marriage", etc. They're all still marriages, though.
And to many people, if you say "Bob and Frank are married", they will assume one of the two is a woman.I guess some people would think that, but I'd consider it a lot more likely that the speaker was talking about a gay couple than that there was a woman named Bob or Frank. I think most people would draw the same inference.

I think you're generalizing your own liberal views onto the majority of Americans. "You mean that Bob and Frank are married? How can two men be married?" That's a lot more common than you think.

[Ruminator]

The weird thing to me is that it all seems to hinge over a definition of a word. Who cares? ... We can have it mean whatever we want it to mean. Why does it bother someone what word someone else uses?

Because some words such as "marriage" have ramifications in legal code.


And that's ignoring the fact that the meanings of words change with usage.


I don't know of anybody intelligent on either side of the argument that believes words don't change meaning. Anybody who has struggled through Beowulf or Shakespeare understands that.

For example, a long long time ago, the word "silly" used to mean "blessed" but now means "feeble in mind" or "foolish."

However, if you research the entire 22 million words of the USA Code of laws (http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml), there's no statutes or legal issues that are affected by the word "silly" changing its meaning. We could all change our minds tomorrow and say "silly" now means "genius" and no existing laws would have to be reinterpreted.

The word "marriage" is a different ball of wax. Other words with deep legal cross references are "property", "person", and "life" -- you get the picture.

[Indistinguishable]

I think you're generalizing your own liberal views onto the majority of Americans. "You mean that Bob and Frank are married? How can two men be married?" That's a lot more common than you think.
What do they call it when two men get married in one of the many locations in the world where same-sex marriage is legal?

[Damuri Ajashi]

One often hears the argument made by opponents to same-sex marriage that the word "marriage" has a specific meaning, and that meaning does not encompass same-sex unions, and that therefore, same-sex unions, if they're allowed at all, ought to be called by a different name.

Now, it's true, of course, that the word "marriage" has a meaning, but a simple test will demonstrate that that meaning does, in fact, apply to same-sex couples. Namely, if I refer to a same-sex marriage, everyone knows what I mean. If I say that Bob and Frank are married, everyone knows what that means, too. Some folks might say that Bob and Frank shouldn't be married, or that in the eyes of God or of the government they aren't married and that my statement is therefore incorrect, but it's still clear what it means to say that they are married.

Compare this to other words: If I say that a table is orange, you'll understand me (though, again, you might think that the table shouldn't be orange), but if I say that gravity is orange, you would ask me what in the world it means for gravity to be orange, and that I'm not making sense. From this we see that the word "orange" encompasses things like tables, but does not encompass things like gravity. If someone tried to pass a law permitting orange gravity, I'd oppose that law because it was ridiculous.

In short, the purpose of words is to communicate, and a word that successfully communicates something is a valid use of that word. "Same-sex marriage", or the word "marriage" used in a same-sex context, clearly communicates, whereas "orange gravity" does not. Therefore, even though some words can't be sensibly applied to some situations, "marriage" as applied to same-sex unions is not one of them.

I'm not really sympathetic to the "marriage is a sacred bond between a man and woman" but your test would basically mean whatever people want it to mean. Polygamous marriage, interspecies marriage, polyamorous marriage, etc.

If the majority of voters don't want it to mean gay marriage, then your argument doesn't really change the outcome very much.

Gay marriage is going to have to have its day in the supreme court.

Personally I think we should get rid of the term altogether and simply call everything a civil union. Let people call themselves married, its not like the word police are going to come around and stop you from saying that.

[Indistinguishable]

Chronos is not talking about what voters legislate. Chronos is talking about how they speak. He's pointing out that, so far as how people speak goes, the matter is already settled; people do in general use the word "marriage" to cover the case of same-sex marriages granted by those existent or hypothetical future institutions willing to do so; thus, the word is clearly capable of taking on that meaning, regardless of the legal status in any particular isolated jurisdiction.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I think you're generalizing your own liberal views onto the majority of Americans. "You mean that Bob and Frank are married? How can two men be married?" That's a lot more common than you think.
What do they call it when two men get married in one of the many locations in the world where same-sex marriage is legal?
Fabulous.

[Chronos]

Quoth John Mace:
But my stronger argument was the legal meaning of the term vs the vernacular. Words in the vernacular change meanings all the time, but we don't change the legal meaning willy-nilly. So, you're saying that we shouldn't change the law, because that would entail changing the law?

Quoth Damuri Ajashi:I'm not really sympathetic to the "marriage is a sacred bond between a man and woman" but your test would basically mean whatever people want it to mean. Polygamous marriage, interspecies marriage, polyamorous marriage, etc.

If the majority of voters don't want it to mean gay marriage, then your argument doesn't really change the outcome very much.To be clear, my argument in this thread is not that gay marriage should be allowed (I do believe that, but that's not what I'm arguing here). My argument in this thread is simply a refutation to one of the arguments that gay marriage should not be allowed. If someone said that polygamous marriage shouldn't be allowed because that's not what the word "marriage" means, then I'd give them the same argument I'm giving here, but if someone said that polygamous marriage shouldn't be allowed because it tends to objectify women, or that it shouldn't be allowed because it complicates inheritance law, then this argument would be irrelevant, and I'd have to either come up with a different counterargument or concede the point.

[tim314]

And to many people, if you say "Bob and Frank are married", they will assume one of the two is a woman.And if you say "Gertrude is a swan", people will assume she's a white bird. But that doesn't mean it's changing the meaning of the word "swan" to talk about black swans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan).

But I do think it's all beside the point. Marriage is something that conveys a certain set of benefits in our society. If I'm trying to say "I think those benefits should be equally available to same sex couples", a simple and clear way to say this is "I think same-sex couples should be able to marry." If that's changing the meaning of the word "marry" from the one you used to, so what?

[DianaG]

I think you're generalizing your own liberal views onto the majority of Americans. "You mean that Bob and Frank are married? How can two men be married?" That's a lot more common than you think.
Given that this has been a rather hot topic of conversation for nearly a decade, I'm now forced to wonder exactly how common it is for people in this country to exist in isolation tanks.

[Tom Tildrum]

...but we don't change the legal meaning willy-nilly.

Technically, "willy-nilly" implies a lesbian marriage.

[Sablicious]

Gravity is an unquantifiable 'thing', therefore it cannot be attributed a colour by default. We don't even know what it is, only its effects - lol!

But marriage is indeed a quantifiable concept as it's the union of two human beings in matrimony. Therefore 'gay marriage' is indeed a valid, albeit unnecessary, expression as it indicates both the sexual persuasion of the people in question (the unnecessary part) and their partnership status - ie. married.

What makes me giggle girlishly though is how ridiculously tenuous and generally asinine the arguments against homosexual marital union and the recognition thereof are becoming. What next, if gays marry God will shoot a lightening bolt up their clackers? :smack:

Is America really this insular?!:dubious:

[John Mace]

Quoth John Mace:
But my stronger argument was the legal meaning of the term vs the vernacular. Words in the vernacular change meanings all the time, but we don't change the legal meaning willy-nilly. So, you're saying that we shouldn't change the law, because that would entail changing the law?

No. I'm saying your argument about the meaning of "marriage" doesn't hold water. It's the legal definition of the term that matters, not the vernacular. I'm saying that just because the vernacular changes, it doesn't mean that the legal definition should change.

If I say John is married to his TV, that doesn't mean I think John's TV should be able to visit him in the hospital when he gets sick or that he has to divorce his TV if he decides to buy a new one.


What do they call it when two men get married in one of the many locations in the world where same-sex marriage is legal?
Probably lots of things, along the lines of "a travesty". But not marriage.

n.b.: I'm not condoning such actions or agreeing with them. I'm just saying that just because a lot of accept SSM doesn't mean that the whole country has or that the whole country is willing to accept that two people of the same gender can be married.

[Chronos]

No. I'm saying your argument about the meaning of "marriage" doesn't hold water. It's the legal definition of the term that matters, not the vernacular. I'm saying that just because the vernacular changes, it doesn't mean that the legal definition should change.But my OP is directed in the first place against those who say that the law shouldn't change because that would change the meaning of the word. If the law shouldn't change because it would change the meaning of the word, and the meaning of the word shouldn't change because that would mean a change in the law, then we have a circular argument.

[Muffin]

Where I come from, marriage means marriage, and there is nothing about the meaning of marriage that discriminates on the grounds of sex. Deal with it.

[Voyager]

Well, the "same sex marriage" argument doesn't hold water since you had add "same sex" to make it clear. And to many people, if you say "Bob and Frank are married", they will assume one of the two is a woman. Further, one can argue that it's the legal meaning of the word that matters, not the vernacular. I might say that Bob is married to his TV, but everyone knows that a different sense of the word-- a vernacular sense, not a legal sense.

Adding to the pile-on, this is a statistical argument. At the moment since the vast majority of marriages, even in California, are OSMs, you might be justified in thinking Bob is Roberta. But that would change with legalization.

The OPs argument is not that the falsity of the "marriage has a meaning" statement means SSM should be legalized, just that this particular argument against is specious. I don't think the argument is that marriage has a specific legal meaning - of course it does, and it still would if we changed it. The argument is that marriage has a specific "natural" (read god-given) meaning - single man, single woman. That's the meaning that would be violated with SSM.

It amuses me that those who have clearly read their Bibles go an and on about the evils of polygamy. Maybe the Garden of Eden wouldn't contain Adam and Steve, but it would be in keeping with the customs of the time if it contained Adam and Even and Jane and June.

[magellan01]

I don't think the argument is that marriage has a specific legal meaning - of course it does, and it still would if we changed it.

But it would be not as specific. It would be broader.

The argument is that marriage has a specific "natural" (read god-given) meaning - single man, single woman. That's the meaning that would be violated with SSM.

Yes. Though I don't think it necessary to invoke "God". Even leaving God out of it, marriage is tightly correlated with family and procreation. And a look at the natural world around us makes the case that a male-female pairing is what nature intended.

[Marley23]

That's anthropomorphizing: nature doesn't have intent. If you're invoking nature in an argument against same-sex pairings, or for marriage or monogamy, I don't think nature backs you up.

[Ruminator]

And a look at the natural world around us makes the case that a male-female pairing is what nature intended.

However, if one looks at a large group of people as a "super-organism" (another arguably valid view of "nature"), then one could say that a certain percentage of homosexuals is to be expected and possibly also serves a greater macro purpose in the intricate interactions of biology. Therefore, nature "intends" for homosexuals to be here.

There are some studies that put forth such an argument but I can't find the links at the moment.

[begbert2]

What do they call it when two men get married in one of the many locations in the world where same-sex marriage is legal?
Probably lots of things, along the lines of "a travesty". But not marriage.I don't believe this for one single instant. Cite? Specifically, that they do not say "That gay marriage is legal is a travesty."

[Damuri Ajashi]

Quoth John Mace:
But my stronger argument was the legal meaning of the term vs the vernacular. Words in the vernacular change meanings all the time, but we don't change the legal meaning willy-nilly. So, you're saying that we shouldn't change the law, because that would entail changing the law?

Quoth Damuri Ajashi:I'm not really sympathetic to the "marriage is a sacred bond between a man and woman" but your test would basically mean whatever people want it to mean. Polygamous marriage, interspecies marriage, polyamorous marriage, etc.

If the majority of voters don't want it to mean gay marriage, then your argument doesn't really change the outcome very much.To be clear, my argument in this thread is not that gay marriage should be allowed (I do believe that, but that's not what I'm arguing here). My argument in this thread is simply a refutation to one of the arguments that gay marriage should not be allowed. If someone said that polygamous marriage shouldn't be allowed because that's not what the word "marriage" means, then I'd give them the same argument I'm giving here, but if someone said that polygamous marriage shouldn't be allowed because it tends to objectify women, or that it shouldn't be allowed because it complicates inheritance law, then this argument would be irrelevant, and I'd have to either come up with a different counterargument or concede the point.

It is very difficult to make meaningful distinctions between a gay marriage and any other type of marriage unless you believe gayness is yucky.

[Chronos]

And a look at the natural world around us makes the case that a male-female pairing is what nature intended. A look at the natural world around us confirms that same-sex pairings do indeed occur in other species that mate for life. Maybe a pair of penguins don't stand up in front of a penguin minister wearing tuxes (well, at least, there's not a penguin minister), but it's the closest thing to "marriage" you'll find in the "natural world".

[Shodan]

Proponents of SSM don't generally argue that the law should be changed - they argue the law doesn't need to be changed because the (legal) definition of "marriage" includes SSM within it already. That's the basis for argument that 'equal protection means SSM'.

The only trouble being that the legal definition of the term "marriage" does not include SSM. Cite (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m087.htm), cite (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html), cite (http://www.clgs.org/marriage/state-definitions), etc.

Regards,
Shodan

[Damuri Ajashi]

[QUOTE=Chronos;12784559]Quoth John Mace:So, you're saying that we shouldn't change the law, because that would entail changing the law?

No. I'm saying your argument about the meaning of "marriage" doesn't hold water. It's the legal definition of the term that matters, not the vernacular. I'm saying that just because the vernacular changes, it doesn't mean that the legal definition should change.

I think its a lot tougher to object to gay marriage from a legal rights point of view than it is to do so on a traditions point of view. I think this is also the reason why people have proposed the civil union concept.

[42fish]

And a look at the natural world around us makes the case that a male-female pairing is what nature intended.

Based on sheer numbers, nature apparently intended asexual reproduction. Introducing males and females into the equation is an unnatural abomination.

[GHO57]

I think you're generalizing your own liberal views onto the majority of Americans. "You mean that Bob and Frank are married? How can two men be married?" That's a lot more common than you think.
What do they call it when two men get married in one of the many locations in the world where same-sex marriage is legal?

Well, we don't actually allow same sex marriages here... What we allow is a "registered relationship"... which is exactly like s secular marriage, with the same people officiating, and the same legal obligations and rights. Then again... a non-church marriage is a..."civilian union". So marriage does have a specific meaning here...although possibly not for long as there's been talk about stripping the whole right to marry people away from churches; their refusal to marry gay people seems to piss most people off. If they don't want to play by the same rules, they won't be allowed to play at all.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

The government has a legal institution called "marriage." That has nothing to do with anyone's religious marriage. The government doesn't care whether or not your religious institution recognizes your marriage, all it cares is that a set of specific legal requirements are met. All you are doing here is changing the legal term "marriage" to the legal term "civil union." This is like proposing that the government start using a different word to refer to corporations or that the government start using a different word to refer to estates. What's the point?

I think it's a pretty effective argument. From what I gather people who yak on about the "sanctity of marriage" and "you can't just redefine words" can either put up or shut up. Call the governmental arrangement marriage and let the gays in too, or "demote" all of it to civil unions (and also let the gays in).

Either way, I don't doubt there are churches willing to marry you even if you're a same-sex couple, so this whole religious/semantic argument is just bigotry pretending to be clever.

[magellan01]

And a look at the natural world around us makes the case that a male-female pairing is what nature intended.

Based on sheer numbers, nature apparently intended asexual reproduction. Introducing males and females into the equation is an unnatural abomination.

And its comments like this that degrade serious discussion. But feel free to list all the mammals that produce asexually.

[begbert2]

Based on sheer numbers, nature apparently intended asexual reproduction. Introducing males and females into the equation is an unnatural abomination.

And its comments like this that degrade serious discussion. But feel free to list all the mammals that produce asexually.Attempting to argue about the definition of the human term for the human institution of marriage in terms of animal interaction does nothing but degrade discussion. Animals don't get married. Some (a small minority) pair-bond for life, but if humanity wanted to emulate they'd ban marriage for everybody and some people would just move in together.

Personally I think that comments that point out the absurdity of the supposed 'natural world' argument for the definition of marriage elevate discussion.

[magellan01]

That's anthropomorphizing: nature doesn't have intent. If you're invoking nature in an argument against same-sex pairings, or for marriage or monogamy, I don't think nature backs you up.

I'm not so sure it doesn't have intent. Isn't the intent of an organism to stay alive, at least long enough to procreate? And for us primates that means a man and a woman must be involved. Throw two men or two women on an island and the island will be vacant after they die. One man and one woman can start a civilization.

[Muffin]

Limit marriages to opposite sex couples on deserted islands? That's stupid.

[magellan01]

And its comments like this that degrade serious discussion. But feel free to list all the mammals that produce asexually.Attempting to argue about the definition of the human term for the human institution of marriage in terms of animal interaction does nothing but degrade discussion. Animals don't get married. Some (a small minority) pair-bond for life, but if humanity wanted to emulate they'd ban marriage for everybody and some people would just move in together.

Personally I think that comments that point out the absurdity of the supposed 'natural world' argument for the definition of marriage elevate discussion.

I'm not surprised that you think that. If you'd like to argue that SS sexual bonding is as much the norm as OS sexual bonding, I'd love to hear it.

Your position is what I see as the height of unreasonableness. To not accept that male-female pairings are the norm in nature is absurd. BUt you go right ahead and not concede one teensy weensy obvious little point. You'll sway and impress many.

[begbert2]

Attempting to argue about the definition of the human term for the human institution of marriage in terms of animal interaction does nothing but degrade discussion. Animals don't get married. Some (a small minority) pair-bond for life, but if humanity wanted to emulate they'd ban marriage for everybody and some people would just move in together.

Personally I think that comments that point out the absurdity of the supposed 'natural world' argument for the definition of marriage elevate discussion.

I'm not surprised that you think that. If you'd like to argue that SS sexual bonding is as much the norm as OS sexual bonding, I'd love to hear it.

Your position is what I see as the height of unreasonableness. To not accept that male-female pairings are the norm in nature is absurd. BUt you go right ahead and not concede one teensy weensy obvious little point. You'll sway and impress many.I am not your strawman. SS sexual bonding is not the norm. Obviously.

But whether it is the norm or not is utterly and completely irrelevent to the discussion. We are talking about the definition of the word, here. And a black swan, despite not being the norm, is still a swan. Despite being OMG horribly unnatural hide the children and get the fainting couches for the women!!!

[Superfluous Parentheses]

That's anthropomorphizing: nature doesn't have intent. If you're invoking nature in an argument against same-sex pairings, or for marriage or monogamy, I don't think nature backs you up.

I'm not so sure it doesn't have intent. Isn't the intent of an organism to stay alive, at least long enough to procreate? And for us primates that means a man and a woman must be involved. Throw two men or two women on an island and the island will be vacant after they die. One man and one woman can start a civilization.

I'm sure we've done the "marriage is for procreation" thing more than enough times already. Unless you're also advocating forbidding hetero marriages when one or both partners are sterile or just not interested in having kids, this argument makes no sense.

ETA: And to be consistent, you should also be willing to forbid adoption for anybody but married hetero couples, ban procreation outside marriage and possibly forbidding single parents, IVF and other means of procreation, some of which are currently already open to gay people. Good luck.

[The Flying Dutchman]

That's anthropomorphizing: nature doesn't have intent. If you're invoking nature in an argument against same-sex pairings, or for marriage or monogamy, I don't think nature backs you up.

There was a time when answering the question "What are the biological imperatives?" on a science test at school, you were expected to answer

"survival and procreation".

Even now, with the expansion to territorialism, competition, and quality of life seeking, scientist still regard any organism that lacks any of these imperatives is described as maladaptive by scientists.

Hey, all I'm doing is making a counter argument. I'm all for SSM.

[magellan01]

I'm not so sure it doesn't have intent. Isn't the intent of an organism to stay alive, at least long enough to procreate? And for us primates that means a man and a woman must be involved. Throw two men or two women on an island and the island will be vacant after they die. One man and one woman can start a civilization.

I'm sure we've done the "marriage is for procreation" thing more than enough times already. Unless you're also advocating forbidding hetero marriages when one or both partners are sterile or just not interested in having kids, this argument makes no sense.

I disagree. The correlation is high enough that we equate the two, even though there are plenty of instances of the two being discreet from each other.

[begbert2]

discrete

[magellan01]

discrete

Yeah, that too!

:smack:

[Superfluous Parentheses]

I'm sure we've done the "marriage is for procreation" thing more than enough times already. Unless you're also advocating forbidding hetero marriages when one or both partners are sterile or just not interested in having kids, this argument makes no sense.

I disagree. The correlation is high enough that we equate the two, even though there are plenty of instances of the two being discreet from each other.

So what to do with all these pesky people who fail to fall within "the norm" (you know, regular heterosexual married couples with at least two kids)?

You're not arguing against SSM here, you're arguing that ANYONE who doesn't get married and procreate doesn't deserve the same rights as the "normal people".

[Der Trihs]

I'm sure we've done the "marriage is for procreation" thing more than enough times already. Unless you're also advocating forbidding hetero marriages when one or both partners are sterile or just not interested in having kids, this argument makes no sense.

I disagree. The correlation is high enough that we equate the two, even though there are plenty of instances of the two being discreet from each other.We do nothing of the kind. People have and raise kids all the time without getting married. People marry and have no children. They marry, and adopt. They marry people who can't have children and know it before hand. People marry, have kids then divorce and raise the kids without a partner.

Marriage is NOT about procreation, like it or not.

[begbert2]

I would say that marriage is about children in the same way that real estate ownership is about having a place to live. That is, it is indeed the case that real estate ownership has indeed had a lot to do with housing, for pretty much ever - to the degree that it could somewhat legitimately be assumed that if the average person owns real estate, it's probably a house. Of course, this doesn't meant that all real estate ownership focuses around housing, and in fact there are many other reasons for which people could, and do, own real estate that have nothing to do with housing at all.

So: it is indeed the case that marriage has indeed had a lot to do with reproduction, for pretty much ever - to the degree that it could somewhat legitimately be assumed that if the average person its married, they're probably interested in having kids. Of course, this doesn't meant that all marriage focuses around reproduction, and in fact there are many other reasons for which people could, and do, get married that have nothing to do with reproduction at all.

The argument that real estate ownership is excusively tied to housing is a non-starter.

[Ruminator]

So what to do with all these pesky people who fail to fall within "the norm" (you know, regular heterosexual married couples with at least two kids)?

Apparently, couples who voluntary want to remain childless (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_2001_Nov_1/ai_79501204/?tag=rbxcra.2.a.11) is trending up ... about 7%.

It's interesting that the childless-by-choice percentage is in the same range as homosexuals of the population. What that means, I don't know.

Anyways, what's the argument for allowing those 7% heterosexual-no-procreate couples to marry?

[Gangster Octopus]

So folks who are in a marriage are married, but folks in a civil union would be....??

[begbert2]

So folks who are in a marriage are married, but folks in a civil union would be....??Sinners.

[Der Trihs]

Civilians?

[The Flying Dutchman]

So what to do with all these pesky people who fail to fall within "the norm" (you know, regular heterosexual married couples with at least two kids)?

Apparently, couples who voluntary want to remain childless (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_2001_Nov_1/ai_79501204/?tag=rbxcra.2.a.11) is trending up ... about 7%.

It's interesting that the childless-by-choice percentage is in the same range as homosexuals of the population. What that means, I don't know.

Anyways, what's the argument for allowing those 7% heterosexual-no-procreate couples to marry?

You do realize that all those people in childless marriages do not have the same rights as those with children do you. For example the childless are missing out on dependant tax deductions .

[Malthus]

You do realize that all those people in childless marriages do not have the same rights as those with children do you. For example the childless are missing out on dependant tax deductions .

I don't understand how that is a dimunition of rights. If one lacks dependants, why should one get a dependant tax deduction?

[Ruminator]

You do realize that all those people in childless marriages do not have the same rights as those with children do you. For example the childless are missing out on dependant tax deductions .

Is that really a "right" or a particular circumstance that happens to have an associated tax ramification?

For example, if I read your comment literally, it means that couples that adopt an infant from Africa and raise the child cannot count him as a dependent on their tax form. They didn't "procreate" that child.

What core factual basis that actually allows the tax deduction for dependents? Being married? Being straight? Being gay? Being a biological parent? Adoptive parent? The act of supporting the child financially?

[Superfluous Parentheses]

I don't understand how that is a dimunition of rights. If one lacks dependants, why should one get a dependant tax deduction?

I suppose one could make the tired argument that homosexuals can still marry someone of the opposite sex. No I don't get it either.

[Malthus]

I don't understand how that is a dimunition of rights. If one lacks dependants, why should one get a dependant tax deduction?

I suppose one could make the tired argument that homosexuals can still marry someone of the opposite sex. No I don't get it either.

Perhaps I'm not understanding the argument ... gays marrying is (IMHO) an example of similarly situated people being treated similarly. That's why gay marriage makes sense.

People without dependants are not similarly situated to people with dependants.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

I suppose one could make the tired argument that homosexuals can still marry someone of the opposite sex. No I don't get it either.

Perhaps I'm not understanding the argument ... gays marrying is (IMHO) an example of similarly situated people being treated similarly. That's why gay marriage makes sense.
Yes, but the argument is that gay people can already marry someone of the OPPOSITE sex - hence no inequality. Not that I buy that argument.

People without dependants are not similarly situated to people with dependants.
Agreed.

[Voyager]

I don't think the argument is that marriage has a specific legal meaning - of course it does, and it still would if we changed it.

But it would be not as specific. It would be broader.

Yes, broader than what we have now, but not as broad as marriage to cats and bats. In any case, broad and specific are not contradictory - you can have two specific instances of allowable marriages instead of one and not be overly broad.

The argument is that marriage has a specific "natural" (read god-given) meaning - single man, single woman. That's the meaning that would be violated with SSM.

Yes. Though I don't think it necessary to invoke "God". Even leaving God out of it, marriage is tightly correlated with family and procreation. And a look at the natural world around us makes the case that a male-female pairing is what nature intended.[/QUOTE]

I'd suggest you read Dr. Tatiana (http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Tatianas-Sex-Advice-Creation/dp/0805063323/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281468405&sr=1-1) before you talk about what is natural. There are clearly evolutionary advantages to the existence of homosexuality, or we wouldn't be seeing it in the numbers we do.

[Voyager]

Proponents of SSM don't generally argue that the law should be changed - they argue the law doesn't need to be changed because the (legal) definition of "marriage" includes SSM within it already. That's the basis for argument that 'equal protection means SSM'.

The only trouble being that the legal definition of the term "marriage" does not include SSM. Cite (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m087.htm), cite (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html), cite (http://www.clgs.org/marriage/state-definitions), etc.

Regards,
Shodan

Mind linking to some people making this argument, which seems to be that most of the world misreads the law? The argument I've seen is that the law, as written, is unconstitutional, not misunderstood.

[Chronos]

I disagree. The correlation is high enough that we equate the two [marriage and procreation], even though there are plenty of instances of the two being discreet from each other. So, the argument goes that heterosexual married couples who don't reproduce is small compared to the number of homosexuals, so we shouldn't worry about the minor detail that such couples exist?

Well, let's see about that. The high-end estimates for the proportion of people who are homosexual is somewhere around 10%. Meanwhile, the average age at death for human women is around 75, and most women are menopausal by 50. So the typical woman spends about a third of her life post-menopausal, or (looked at another way) if the population is stable, then at any given moment about a third of the female population is post-menopausal.

If marriage were really all about procreation, then we ought to be going after the elephant in the room, not the gnat. Before we forbid the 10% of lesbians from marrying, we ought to go after the 33% of crones.

[Voyager]

I'm not so sure it doesn't have intent. Isn't the intent of an organism to stay alive, at least long enough to procreate? And for us primates that means a man and a woman must be involved. Throw two men or two women on an island and the island will be vacant after they die. One man and one woman can start a civilization.

Which wouldn't last long thanks to inbreeding. Anyhow, you are assuming that both of these people are fertile.

Methinks the island would do a lot better with one man and three or four women. Cite: Dr. Strangelove.

[Chronos]

One man and many women still leaves you the inbreeding problem, since all of the next generation would be half-siblings. If you're allowing multiple founders, it's best in the long run for them to be more or less equal numbers.

But this is drifting a bit afield of the OP.

[Malthus]

Yes, but the argument is that gay people can already marry someone of the OPPOSITE sex - hence no inequality. Not that I buy that argument.


I don't either. To my mind there is no sensible distinction, other than one of custom and tradition, which prevents gay couples and straight couples from being considered 'similarly situated' to each other; thus depriving one of the rights enjoyed by the other is wrong.

[griffin1977]

Well technically the "specific meaning" involved in marriage is the transfer of the bride, as property, from her father's household to her husband's. If we are going back to basics shouldn't we revert to that meaning of the word ?

[Lamia]

I guess some people would think that, but I'd consider it a lot more likely that the speaker was talking about a gay couple than that there was a woman named Bob or Frank. I think most people would draw the same inference.
I think you're generalizing your own liberal views onto the majority of Americans.I'm generalizing my own lack of obliviousness onto the majority of Americans. I can easily believe that many Americans wouldn't consider a marriage between two men to be a "real" marriage, or an acceptable marriage, or a marriage that should be permitted. But if you want me to believe the majority of Americans are unaware that same-sex couples sometimes refer to themselves as being married, or that in some locations they can actually be married in the eyes of the law, I'm going to need to see a pretty impressive cite. This could only be true if the majority of Americans totally ignored both current events and popular entertainment. Heck, we're 15 years past the Friends episode about a lesbian wedding.
"You mean that Bob and Frank are married? How can two men be married?" That's a lot more common than you think.Among who? Alzheimer's patients? The Amish? People who've been hiding in bomb shelters since the 1950s? Mainstream America has had plenty of exposure to the concept of gay marriage, regardless of how accepting of the idea individuals may be.

[Shodan]

Mind linking to some people making this argument, which seems to be that most of the world misreads the law? I'm not talking about the rest of the world, I am talking about the US, Hence the mention of "equal protection" and my cites of US law. I hardly think anyone outside the US is basing their social policy on US law.

As I said, anyone who claims that gays are being denied the equal protection of the marriage laws because the state does not recognize SSM is making the argument I mentioned. Marriage means the union of one man and one woman. Gay people are perfectly free to enter into a marriage consisting of one man and one woman, therefore no violation of equal protection is occurring.

If marriage meant "the union of one man and one woman, or two men, or two women", then not recognizing SSM would be a violation of equal protection. It doesn't, so it isn't. This could certainly be changed, providing it was done legitimately, but until then, marriage does have a specific meaning.

Regards,
Shodan

[begbert2]

If marriage meant "the union of one man and one woman, or two men, or two women", then not recognizing SSM would be a violation of equal protection. It doesn't, so it isn't. This could certainly be changed, providing it was done legitimately, but until then, marriage does have a specific meaning.

Regards,
ShodanYou are acting like this is a universally settled and agreed-upon point of law, which is an opinion that seems a mite out of touch with modern reality.

[Gangster Octopus]

Mind linking to some people making this argument, which seems to be that most of the world misreads the law? I'm not talking about the rest of the world, I am talking about the US, Hence the mention of "equal protection" and my cites of US law. I hardly think anyone outside the US is basing their social policy on US law.

As I said, anyone who claims that gays are being denied the equal protection of the marriage laws because the state does not recognize SSM is making the argument I mentioned. Marriage means the union of one man and one woman. Gay people are perfectly free to enter into a marriage consisting of one man and one woman, therefore no violation of equal protection is occurring.

If marriage meant "the union of one man and one woman, or two men, or two women", then not recognizing SSM would be a violation of equal protection. It doesn't, so it isn't. This could certainly be changed, providing it was done legitimately, but until then, marriage does have a specific meaning.

Regards,
Shodan

Where do you get that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman?

[begbert2]

Where do you get that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman?He gave three cites earlier in the thread. Which means that no legal authority in America disagrees with his interpretation.

[Gangster Octopus]

Where do you get that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman?He gave three cites earlier in the thread. Which means that no legal authority in America disagrees with his interpretation.

This thread or a different one?

[Muffin]

Marriage is a state, religious or community authorized kinship contract that provides various rights and obligations between the contracting parties, and which may provide various rights and obligations between the contracting parties and the state. The contract is in force until divorce or death, upon which there is a change or termination of the various rights and obligations.

Different jurisdictions have different constraints on who may marry, be it the number of parties to the marriage / the number of marriages a person may be party to at the same time; the age of consent; whether or not the age of consent differs by sex; whether or not a person's guardian can give consent; whether or not a person's guardian can give consent against the party's wishes; whether on not a prior divorce permits a further marriage; whether or not consideration, such as a dowry, is a necessary condition to forming the contract; whether or not a non-animate object may be a party to a marriage; whether or not parties to the marriage may be related by blood or by another kinship contract, and if so, to what degree; and whether or not there are endogamic restrictions based on religion, culture, tribal alliance, race or sex.

Each state (in the broad sense) must decide for itself what constraints it will put upon those who wish to marry, and decide for itself the rights and obligations that will arise out of parties forming the contract.

Pretending that a marriage is not a marriage because it does not fit on person's particular opininon of who should and who should not be married is silly. A marriage is a marriage is a marriage. Whether or not certain parties should or should not be permitted to enter into the contract, and what rights rights and obligations should attach to the contract or following the breaking of the contract, are open for discussion, but let's not pretend that the validity of a marriage at one point in history in one particular nation defines marriage for all peoples for all time.

[begbert2]

This thread or a different one?This one:

Proponents of SSM don't generally argue that the law should be changed - they argue the law doesn't need to be changed because the (legal) definition of "marriage" includes SSM within it already. That's the basis for argument that 'equal protection means SSM'.

The only trouble being that the legal definition of the term "marriage" does not include SSM. Cite (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m087.htm), cite (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html), cite (http://www.clgs.org/marriage/state-definitions), etc.

Regards,
Shodan

[Gangster Octopus]

This thread or a different one?This one:

Proponents of SSM don't generally argue that the law should be changed - they argue the law doesn't need to be changed because the (legal) definition of "marriage" includes SSM within it already. That's the basis for argument that 'equal protection means SSM'.

The only trouble being that the legal definition of the term "marriage" does not include SSM. Cite (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m087.htm), cite (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html), cite (http://www.clgs.org/marriage/state-definitions), etc.

Regards,
Shodan

Got it, a webpage that provides no citations and a bunch of laws that have never been challenged for Constitutionality. Color me unimpressed.

[magellan01]

To get back to the OP, a marriage is composed of two individuals, a husband and a wife. The former is defined as being male (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/husband), the latter as being female. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wife)

[begbert2]

To get back to the OP, a marriage is composed of two individuals, a husband and a wife. The former is defined as being male (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/husband), the latter as being female. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wife)Says who?

I thought marriage was a union of one dude, and lots of women in his harem. And I can back this up both by pointing at current cultures, historical precedent, biblical precedent, and natural precedent (seals, specifically).

So where's your second wife? Eh? Eh???

[Gangster Octopus]

To get back to the OP, a marriage is composed of two individuals, a husband and a wife. The former is defined as being male (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/husband), the latter as being female. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wife)

I like how you didn't link to the definition of marriage (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage)

[Bookkeeper]

To get back to the OP, a marriage is composed of two individuals, a husband and a wife. The former is defined as being male (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/husband), the latter as being female. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wife)Says who?

I thought marriage was a union of one dude, and lots of women in his harem. And I can back this up both by pointing at current cultures, historical precedent, biblical precedent, and natural precedent (seals, specifically).

So where's your second wife? Eh? Eh???

Or, to give an even closer "natural" example, in our three closest relatives, gorillas typically form families of one male and a harem of females, chimpanzee females mate with multiple males when in estrus, while bonobos are bisexual party animals. None of them typically form male-female bonded partnerships.

[Voyager]

One man and many women still leaves you the inbreeding problem, since all of the next generation would be half-siblings. If you're allowing multiple founders, it's best in the long run for them to be more or less equal numbers.

Absolutely true, but I wouldn't be able to cite Dr. Strangelove then. :D

[Voyager]

I'm not talking about the rest of the world, I am talking about the US, Hence the mention of "equal protection" and my cites of US law. I hardly think anyone outside the US is basing their social policy on US law.

As I said, anyone who claims that gays are being denied the equal protection of the marriage laws because the state does not recognize SSM is making the argument I mentioned. Marriage means the union of one man and one woman. Gay people are perfectly free to enter into a marriage consisting of one man and one woman, therefore no violation of equal protection is occurring.

If marriage meant "the union of one man and one woman, or two men, or two women", then not recognizing SSM would be a violation of equal protection. It doesn't, so it isn't. This could certainly be changed, providing it was done legitimately, but until then, marriage does have a specific meaning.

Regards,
Shodan
World meant world and dog. When I was in Egypt our guide spoke about how the marriage she was in eventually including two wives, and none of the American, British and Australian people on the tour had any trouble understanding her.

Your claim was that SSM proponent say that marriage laws today allow it. That they do not is not really in question, especially when your case involves Prop. 8. Your argument about equal protection could easily allow the constitutionality of miscegnation laws, so I'm not exactly convinced, but we can leave that to the courts. Saying a marriage law is unconstitutional because it bans SSM is far different from the claim that it doesn't actually ban SSM. Beyond that, the point of the claim refuted in the OP is that marriage has a specific meaning beyond the legal one.

[Voyager]

He gave three cites earlier in the thread. Which means that no legal authority in America disagrees with his interpretation.

This thread or a different one?

In his response to me. I don't think this is in dispute in states which don't allow SSM. Whether this definition is constitutional is another matter, but until it is ruled so the law is the law.

[Voyager]

To get back to the OP, a marriage is composed of two individuals, a husband and a wife. The former is defined as being male (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/husband), the latter as being female. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wife)

Not in Egypt it isn't, and one can argue that this comes from a longer tradition than our definition.

Now, you can give a couple of reasons why this definition should not extend to the US.

- It is not Christian/Jewish. That's probably an unconstitutional reason.

- There are valid social reasons to disallow this type of marriage. I could maybe buy this.

- The majority doesn't like it, so screw the minority who would willingly enter into polygamous marriages. Majority support is no reason to violate rights.

In the Prop 8 court case they tried to give social reasons against SSM and failed miserably. I see no sign that SSM opponents would stop if the vote turned against them, so it can't be 3. (Plus, there is not a vast majority against.) That leaves 1.

[Ruminator]

... and a bunch of laws that have never been challenged for Constitutionality. Color me unimpressed.

By default, those state laws don't have to be challenged for Constitutionality. Marriage is not defined nor addressed in The United States Constitution therefore they are rights reserved for the states (Amendment #10).

This is sensible since you can't bring up every single law on the local books before the USA Supreme Court. Jaywalking is illegal?!?! Who says?!?! Has "jaywalking" ever been decided by the Supreme Court?!?! It would be total legal gridlock if all laws had such a high bar to pass.

Having said that, there are various ways around state laws via the USA Constitution by using creative interpretations of Amendment #14 ("equal protection" clause).

What the 10th Amendment giveth to the states, the 14th Amendment taketh away. :)

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I disagree with the OP. I can say, "My toaster and my blender are married to one another. They love one another," and people can understand what I mean and also think that I'm either misusing those words or that I'm insane.

Yes, words mean what the speaker and the audience agree on as their meaning, and in this case speaker and audience would agree on what the words mean--but people can then say that what I'm describing is impossible. Similarly, someone could understand what "Bob and Bill are married" means and disagree that it's possible for them to be married.

A person who did that is using a poor definition of marriage, I agree, and I'd do my best to persuade them that Bob and Bill getting married is no more unreasonable than Bob and Brenda getting married. But their objection would take the form of objecting to my saying my toaster married my blender, and absent arguing that their definition sucks, their objection would appear reasonable.

[Voyager]

I disagree with the OP. I can say, "My toaster and my blender are married to one another. They love one another," and people can understand what I mean and also think that I'm either misusing those words or that I'm insane.


I rather suspect they'd think you were making a joke, and laugh their heads off. A lot of humor is using well understood terms and concepts in the wrong places.

[Captain Midnight]

I wonder how many of us are sick and fucking tired of hearing about gays and their problems?

Every day it is gay this and gay that. I mean, really, WTF do you gays want? No, I don't want to watch you kiss and hold hands in public. No, I don't want my children seeing this shit or be indoctrinated by your "lifestyle". I want gays to quit lying to us stating obviously wrong things that people are born gay. If you gays want the rest of us to feel for you, don't have "gay pride" parades wearing leather chaps, dancing half naked and being a fool. Saying fuck you to society doesn't make us love you anymore.

Let's say that you and your partner both have dicks. You want to get married. Fine. I'll tell you how, right now. In any state in the union.

What's required:
Lawyer
Notary Public
Paper
Typewriter/word processor

You and your "lover" draw up a legal contract. Partners do this all the time, even heterosexual ones.
1/2 of the home, 1/2 of the assets, joint bank accounts, etc. Set aside what each partner desires if one falls ill. Let it be known in the contract that the other person will be the primary care giver of the other. Anything and everything that "queer rights" activists want can be legally drawn up.

Second, find a gay church. Open the phone book. Hire a minister, rent the church, dress up (or not) and go get your ass married. I know pronounce you, man and man. Have a service, smash cake in your faces and then have all the anal, oral, and watersport sex you want on your honeymoon.

Easy. That's the Straight Dope. Now will you gays please for fuck sake, get lost?

[Indistinguishable]

Yeah! Fucking gay people, being all gay and shit. Stop doing that.

[BrightNShiny]

I wonder how many of us are sick and fucking tired of hearing about gays and their problems?

I wonder how many of us are sick of homophobes spouting nonsense?

Let's say that you and your partner both have dicks. You want to get married. Fine. I'll tell you how, right now. In any state in the union.

What's required:
Lawyer
Notary Public
Paper
Typewriter/word processor

You and your "lover" draw up a legal contract. Partners do this all the time, even heterosexual ones.

If you were a lawyer, you'd be sued for malpractice for giving this advice. You cannot get all the rights and benefits of marriage through contracts (such as tax benefits or immigration preferences, for example). Some states will not recognize contractual agreements covering medical care decisions or end-of-life decisions. I could sit here and list any number of things which won't get covered by your proposed arrangement. You really shouldn't spout such nonsense when it's clear you've never even made a cursory study of family or marriage law.

[Der Trihs]

I wonder how many of us are sick and fucking tired of hearing about gays and their problems?Obvious not many, or there wouldn't be majorities in many states willing to pass laws that have no purpose other than to harass them. Nor would so many people try so hard to find out who is and isn't homosexual.

I mean, really, WTF do you gays want? No, I don't want to watch you kiss and hold hands in public.Tough. Maybe they don't want to see you kiss and hold hands in public. Grow some skin.

No, I don't want my children seeing this shit or be indoctrinated by your "lifestyle". I want gays to quit lying to us stating obviously wrong things that people are born gay. Don't be ridiculous; it is of course obvious that they are. All the scientific evidence, not to mention common sense, is against the silly claim that gays choose to be gay (and what would their motive be for that anyway?) Nor can anyone be indoctrinated into being gay any more than they can be indoctrinated out of being gay. And your children should see homosexuals out and being treated as equals both because that will hopefully teach them civilized behavior, and because they may well be homosexual themselves.

Saying fuck you to society doesn't make us love you anymore.Society never did. Society has always been primary composed of bigots who hated them, and hated most of humanity in general.

Let's say that you and your partner both have dicks. You want to get married. Fine. I'll tell you how, right now. In any state in the union.

What's required:
Lawyer
Notary Public
Paper
Typewriter/word processor

You and your "lover" draw up a legal contract. Partners do this all the time, even heterosexual ones.
1/2 of the home, 1/2 of the assets, joint bank accounts, etc. Set aside what each partner desires if one falls ill. Let it be known in the contract that the other person will be the primary care giver of the other. Anything and everything that "queer rights" activists want can be legally drawn up.Nonsense. That not only takes a significant sum of money but is a pale shadow of the legal status of actual marriage.

[BrightNShiny]

Here's the text of Virginia's Affirmation of Marriage Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_marriage_affirmation_act):

A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable. Va. Code Ann. § 20-45.3 (underlining added)

Notice that a PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT between same-sex persons is prohibited in VA. Furthermore, here's the text of Virginia's Marshall-Newman Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall-Newman_Amendment):

Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

See where it prohibits a LEGAL STATUS FOR RELATIONSHIPS which approximates marriage?

[Marley23]

That's anthropomorphizing: nature doesn't have intent. If you're invoking nature in an argument against same-sex pairings, or for marriage or monogamy, I don't think nature backs you up.

I'm not so sure it doesn't have intent. Isn't the intent of an organism to stay alive, at least long enough to procreate?
Individual organisms can have intent, but you said "what nature intended." Nature isn't an organism. It's a concept representing biological life.

There was a time when answering the question "What are the biological imperatives?" on a science test at school, you were expected to answer

"survival and procreation".
From what I understand this also refers to organisms and not to "nature." Marriage isn't drawn from the natural world in any particular way. It's a human social institution.

[The Sheikh]

I'm Muslim, so obviously I'm against same-sex sex relations. The reason I'm against this kind of relation is that it's not permissible in my religion and that I see it as deviation from human nature. Logic has nothing to do with my view. I can't understand why people opposing same-sex marriages are trying to LOGICALLY force their argument. The way I see it, they share my view about same-sex marriages. But my view has no place in America. So, they try to dress their argument in a nice American logical gown.

[Marley23]

I'm Muslim, so obviously I'm against same-sex sex relations.
That's not necessarily a given.

Logic has nothing to do with my view. I can't understand why people opposing same-sex marriages are trying to LOGICALLY force their argument. The way I see it, they share my view about same-sex marriages. But my view has no place in America. So, they try to dress their argument in a nice American logical gown.
This is an interesting idea. And I think you're right. In America, it's understood that just because you or your religion are opposed to something is not a good enough reason to make it illegal. The laws are supposed to be based on reason instead of religion. Gay marriage is not allowed for religious reasons, so its opponents use strange or mistaken arguments that they hope will work on a non-religious audience.

[Der Trihs]

The reason I'm against this kind of relation is that it's not permissible in my religion and that I see it as deviation from human nature.The dogma of your religion is irrelevant, and you are simply wrong about it being against human nature.

I can't understand why people opposing same-sex marriages are trying to LOGICALLY force their argument.
Because admitting that they have no other reason than bigotry for their opposition is politically unpopular and isn't a valid legal argument. They need to pretend they have a logical reason for their malice.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I'm Muslim, so obviously I'm against same-sex sex relations. The reason I'm against this kind of relation is that it's not permissible in my religion and that I see it as deviation from human nature. Logic has nothing to do with my view.
Okay, granted, you say logic has nothing to do with your view--then why tell us about it? Do you hope to persuade us you're correct through superior rhetorical skills? Are you just sharing therapeutically your illogical views?

If there's anything related to logic, though, you might at least have an intended meaning for your words. Such as "human nature": I can't think of a reasonable definition of "human nature" that would make the above quote true. I mean, isn't anything that any human does, no matter how saintly or foul, by definition part of human nature, just as anything a cat does is part of cat nature by definition?

[Der Trihs]

I mean, isn't anything that any human does, no matter how saintly or foul, by definition part of human nature, just as anything a cat does is part of cat nature by definition?No. People can and do behave in ways that go against their instincts. It's just harder and tends to be unpleasant.

[The Sheikh]

I may like orange juice but not mango juice. There is no logic behind me not liking mango. So, I don't have the right to prevent people from drinking mango juice. And no one has the right to force me to like it. Some people, I might add, eat dogs. I don't find dog meat appealing to humans. Yet, those people find it completely natural to eat dog meat.
The point is that I don't pretend to oppose same-sex marriages for logical reasons.

[BrightNShiny]

I may like orange juice but not mango juice. There is no logic behind me not liking mango. So, I don't have the right to prevent people from drinking mango juice. And no one has the right to force me to like it. Some people, I might add, eat dogs. I don't find dog meat appealing to humans. Yet, those people find it completely natural to eat dog meat.

So, you're using the term "natural" to mean your own personal preferences.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I mean, isn't anything that any human does, no matter how saintly or foul, by definition part of human nature, just as anything a cat does is part of cat nature by definition?No. People can and do behave in ways that go against their instincts. It's just harder and tends to be unpleasant.Huh. Can you give an example? Because I'm honestly having trouble imagining what you're talking about in a way that makes sense. Seems to me that, inasmuch as we're the product of instincts and environment, and that we respond to our environment according to who we are, we cannot but act according to who we are, which is human.

Again, an example would be helpful.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I may like orange juice but not mango juice. There is no logic behind me not liking mango. So, I don't have the right to prevent people from drinking mango juice. And no one has the right to force me to like it. Some people, I might add, eat dogs. I don't find dog meat appealing to humans. Yet, those people find it completely natural to eat dog meat.
The point is that I don't pretend to oppose same-sex marriages for logical reasons.Of course you don't have the right to prevent people from drinking mango juice. If you tried, you'd be a dick, right?

So why try to prevent people from SSM? If you don't like some gay lovin, that's fine; personally, neither do I. But it's no skin off my back if others do. I let other people eat eggplant, and I let other people listen to speedcore metal, and I let other people have pet ferrets, even though I find all these things mildly repulsive. Why on earth would I try to stop gay marriage? (Note that I don't find SSM mildly repulsive--I'm talking about someone who does).

[Der Trihs]

No. People can and do behave in ways that go against their instincts. It's just harder and tends to be unpleasant.Huh. Can you give an example? Because I'm honestly having trouble imagining what you're talking about in a way that makes sense. Seems to me that, inasmuch as we're the product of instincts and environment, and that we respond to our environment according to who we are, we cannot but act according to who we are, which is human.

Again, an example would be helpful.
Pretty much anything dictated by law/ideology/theology that goes against people's natural instincts. For an extreme version, consider the various dictatorships that have forced people to act in ways dictated by ideology, instead of their natures or desires. Such dictatorships ultimately are unstable because they are constantly fighting against human nature. On a smaller scale relevant to this thread, forcing or browbeating someone into pretending to be straight when they are not is forcing them to act against their nature. Which is why it makes them miserable.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Pretty much anything dictated by law/ideology/theology that goes against people's natural instincts. For an extreme version, consider the various dictatorships that have forced people to act in ways dictated by ideology, instead of their natures or desires. Such dictatorships ultimately are unstable because they are constantly fighting against human nature. On a smaller scale relevant to this thread, forcing or browbeating someone into pretending to be straight when they are not is forcing them to act against their nature. Which is why it makes them miserable.
Ah. Sometimes instincts are in conflict. If someone forces me to eat only a vegetarian diet, that probably means they're threatening me with violence if I defy them. Then I have two instincts in conflict:
1) Eat tasty savory greasy foods; and
2) Don't get hurt.

If I act according to the second instinct, then I'm not acting in conflict with human nature; I'm acting entirely within human nature. It's just that I'm choosing survival over another human drive.

This kind of conflict happens all the time. If I get up early in the morning to go to work, it's a similar sort of conflict--but I wuoldn't say it's against human nature to go to work.

[The Sheikh]

So why try to prevent people from SSM?

I don't. Seems you're too pissed off to read.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

So why try to prevent people from SSM?

I don't. Seems you're too pissed off to read.
Huh. I just reread your posts, and I'm pretty sure this is the first time you've said that you don't believe in trying to prevent SSM. Perhaps you were too pissed off to type. But I'm glad you clarified that, and I hope you have an absolute blast being against SSM :).

[Chronos]

Quoth Left Hand of Dorkness:I disagree with the OP. I can say, "My toaster and my blender are married to one another. They love one another," and people can understand what I mean and also think that I'm either misusing those words or that I'm insane. The problem there is that you're not changing the definition of marriage. If, when you say that your toaster and blender are married, you mean that they're in love with each other, have chosen to romantically bond for life, and want to raise a family together, then you're using the word "marriage" to mean exactly what it normally means; you're just factually incorrect (unless you're in some kid's show where kitchen appliances are anthropomorphized). If, however, your blender has a removable cord, but that cord always remains attached to the blender and never gets used for any other appliance, you could describe that arrangement as the cord being married to the blender and be factually correct, though using a different definition of marriage.

Or another example: Stuffed animals have no more capacity for marriage than kitchen appliances do. But nobody ever batted an eye when I was a kid and said that two particular stuffed animals I owned were married. If anything, the same folks who say that gay marriage is a perversion of the meaning of the word would have commended me for my sense of family values, and for approving of marriage as an institution.

[Procrustus]

Proponents of SSM don't generally argue that the law should be changed - they argue the law doesn't need to be changed because the (legal) definition of "marriage" includes SSM within it already. That's the basis for argument that 'equal protection means SSM'.
* * *

Regards,
Shodan

I disagree. I think the proponents generally argue that the law prohibiting SSM is unconstitutional. That implies that a change is needed. Equal protection means SSM should be legal on equal basis with OSM.

[Paranoid Randroid]

I don't. Seems you're too pissed off to read.
Huh. I just reread your posts, and I'm pretty sure this is the first time you've said that you don't believe in trying to prevent SSM. Perhaps you were too pissed off to type.

For the sake of fairness, I'm not sure how else to interpret The Sheikh's comments as anything other than "I don't like gay marriage, but I don't see how I can argue that my view should be law."


But my view has no place in America.



There is no logic behind me not liking mango. So, I don't have the right to prevent people from drinking mango juice.


(Emphasis mine.)

[begbert2]

I disagree with the OP. I can say, "My toaster and my blender are married to one another. They love one another," and people can understand what I mean and also think that I'm either misusing those words or that I'm insane.Yeah, when you added "They love one another", you kind of killed your own point. Your toaster and blender are obvious not a normal toaster and blender; they are clearly in fact sentient entities with fully-realized minds and emotions, who emotionally engaged with one another, and (according to your statement about them), are entered into a socially recognized lasting coupling.

So you're clearly not misusing the word "marriage" - you just merely have some very unusual kitchen appliances. Or you're hallucinating the whole thing - I can't rule out the possibility that you're insane. (It's a possibility I always leave open.)

[Voyager]

For the sake of fairness, I'm not sure how else to interpret The Sheikh's comments as anything other than "I don't like gay marriage, but I don't see how I can argue that my view should be law."

That's how I read it. I wish more Christians in America were like him.

[Chronos]

Oh, as to the argument that the legal definition of marriage specifies that it be between a man and a woman, is that stipulation in any marriage law as originally written? It seems to me that an awful lot of states have added such a stipulation in the past decade or two, and it would hardly be necessary if it were already there. If changing a legal definition is undesirable for some reason, isn't that an argument against all of those folks who amended their states' legal definitions to exclude same-sex marriage?

[Marley23]

Captain Midnight, this is way off topic and it's threadshitting. Don't be a jerk: if you are tired of hearing about gay issues, don't open a thread that is expressly about those issues. And if you must post it a thread on the topic, you'd do well to leave out the grumbling and the stereotypes. You're not doing yourself any favors by posting that stuff.


I wonder how many of us are sick and fucking tired of hearing about gays and their problems?

Every day it is gay this and gay that. I mean, really, WTF do you gays want? No, I don't want to watch you kiss and hold hands in public. No, I don't want my children seeing this shit or be indoctrinated by your "lifestyle". I want gays to quit lying to us stating obviously wrong things that people are born gay. If you gays want the rest of us to feel for you, don't have "gay pride" parades wearing leather chaps, dancing half naked and being a fool. Saying fuck you to society doesn't make us love you anymore.

Let's say that you and your partner both have dicks. You want to get married. Fine. I'll tell you how, right now. In any state in the union.

What's required:
Lawyer
Notary Public
Paper
Typewriter/word processor

You and your "lover" draw up a legal contract. Partners do this all the time, even heterosexual ones.
1/2 of the home, 1/2 of the assets, joint bank accounts, etc. Set aside what each partner desires if one falls ill. Let it be known in the contract that the other person will be the primary care giver of the other. Anything and everything that "queer rights" activists want can be legally drawn up.

Second, find a gay church. Open the phone book. Hire a minister, rent the church, dress up (or not) and go get your ass married. I know pronounce you, man and man. Have a service, smash cake in your faces and then have all the anal, oral, and watersport sex you want on your honeymoon.

Easy. That's the Straight Dope. Now will you gays please for fuck sake, get lost?

[Muffin]

What it comes down to is that a word's meaning may be different in different places or cultures, may be different at different times, and may have more than one meaning at one time. the word "marriage" is no exception. In isolation, positing that "marriage" has a specific meaning is meaningless. Putting a word in context lends meaning. Unfortunately, some folks give the word meaning by putting it in context, but then assert that that particular context and that particular meaning is the only meaning, which of course is not true. An example is to say that in the context of most American marraiges, the meaning of marraige is a marriage between opposite sexes, which is true, but to then assert that all marriages must be between opposite sexes, which is demonstrably not true if one looks outside of the mainstream American context (e.g. Canada).

[Muffin]

Captain Midnight, a domestic contract between two parties does not usually convey the same rights as a marriage contract does vis a vis third parties.

[tomndebb]

Proponents of SSM don't generally argue that the law should be changed - they argue the law doesn't need to be changed because the (legal) definition of "marriage" includes SSM within it already. That's the basis for argument that 'equal protection means SSM'.

I disagree. I think the proponents generally argue that the law prohibiting SSM is unconstitutional. That implies that a change is needed. Equal protection means SSM should be legal on equal basis with OSM.I have seen no polls--much less polls taken under rigorous conditions of neutrality of questions and random selection of participants--that identifies the percentage of people who argue one way or another.

However, in regards to the SDMB, (and still without expreessing an opinion as to actual numbers or percentages), there are a significant number of people who argue in exactly the way that Shodan has expressed. It is not a universally held belief, even among supporters of SSM, but the number of posters who hold that all that is necessary for SSM to become legal across the country is for the Supreme Court to recognize certain significant phrases in the Fourteenth Amendment in a "correct" way is rather greater than zero.

[Gangster Octopus]

All I want is for those who oppose SSM to give me ANY evidence of harm if it is allowed. The truth is there is none, so those who oppose SSM are petty, hatefuly bigots. EOS.

[tomndebb]

. . . so those who oppose SSM are petty, hatefuly bigots. EOS.This comes too close to attacking other posters. If you need to characterize other people in negative ways, take it to the Pit.

[ /Moderating ]

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Sorry, Sheikh, if I misread you, which I think I did.

As to the toasters, my point is that someone may believe that a word is being misused, even though they understand what is meant. Take the stuffed animals who are married: while nobody batted an eye, that's because we understand that kids have charming imaginations. If pressed on the issue, though, I can pretty much guarantee that most people would deny that two stuffed animals are literally married, and that the word cannot properly be applied to them.

As another example, you hear every now and then about some inbred British noble who's decided to throw a wedding for her two schnauzers or something. The stories are funny because they're so absurd: clearly it's a misuse of the word "marriage" to apply it to two dogs. Even though we know what's meant by the idea.

It's not a misuse to apply the word to SSM, because it means most of what we mean when we apply it to a straight couple, and the little bit of difference is not really important. But that doesn't mean that we can't object to an application of the word in other circumstances.

[MaxTheVool]

Arguing this issue with magellan is endlessly fascinating to me. He's obviously an intelligent and logical person, in that he responds to the things I say in a meaningful and relevant fashion. He's not just spewing gibberish, or using an entirely different set of logical axioms.

And, as far as I can tell, he in does honestly believe it when he says that he believes in full civil union rights, and absolutely does not discriminate against or dislike gay people in person.

And yet, he has this argument that he obviously holds dear which he defends to the absolute bitter end despite the fact that I feel like I have completely obliterated it and eviscerated it over and over again. This isn't like some other arguments I've had with people on the SDMB where I think "well, it's a tricky issue and I think I've made some good points, but I can certainly see why he wouldn't change his mind", or "well, he and I just view the issue from different starting assumptions, so we'll obviously never end up agreeing". It's like, I read his argument, and my thought process is "aha! I can easily disprove that claim. Type type type. I win!", and then I'm baffled when I did not, in fact, win. It's truly bizarre.


Anyhow, here's my favorite argument relating to this issue, because it's simultaneously so off-the-wall and yet such a fantastic analogy:

Tomorrow, we are contacted by friendly aliens. So we start talking to them, learning their language, their culture, their biology, etc. Turns out their entire evolutionary heritage has no concept of gender. It does take two of them to reproduce, but any two members of their species can do it. And it turns out that in their culture, there's a ceremony where two of them have decided that they want to spend the rest of their lives together, so they gather together friends and family (they have "friends" and "family" much the same way we do), and express their intent to spend the rest of their lives living together, having alien sex, raising alien babies, and generally being a social unit. Oh, and they love each other (they also have "love").

So, we're writing the English-alien alien-English dictionary. What words should we use to describe this ceremony/commitment?


It seems 100% completely inarguably clear to me that the correct words to use would be "wedding/marriage/etc". As in, "hey, my buddies Glorp and Zorp got married!" or "I am going to attend Glorp and Zorp's wedding".


But, as far as I can tell, magellan would object to this. And not just for some political reason. He would actually claim that that's the wrong word, that's it's confusing and misleading.... that picking that word and trying to use it actually would lead to confusion and misunderstanding because it's doing a worse job of representing the concept than some other word, or because using that word meaningfully alters what we know it to mean.


Yeah, I don't get it either.

[Muffin]

I don't know about toasters, but certainly marriage to plants is important in some cultures, be it to ward off future marital bad fortune, or to make one eligible for rights that require one to have been married (e.g. cremation), or to form kinship bonds (and thus property inheritance bonds) between families when an actual human child is not available to make a kinship bond.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=stIUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=%2Bgauras+orissa+marriage+tree&source=bl&ots=NLAAvRGJZW&sig=pgodt7jd_BbGYkkT-TLLA4JfjBc&hl=en&ei=dEBjTNXpHI_LOLK3wL4M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAQ
http://www.indianetzone.com/27/marriage_with_trees_plants_inanimate_objects_indian_custom.htm

[Chronos]

If pressed on the issue, though, I can pretty much guarantee that most people would deny that two stuffed animals are literally married, and that the word cannot properly be applied to them.
The statement that they are married is incorrect, but the usage of the word is correct. For comparison, if I told you that Mary and Bob are married, you wouldn't be able to tell, without knowing about them, whether that was a true statement or not, but it's well-formed. If it turned out that they're not married, then you wouldn't say that I was mis-using the word "married"; you'd just say that I was wrong.

MaxTheVool, that's a great analogy! I'll have to remember that one.

[Indistinguishable]

It seems 100% completely inarguably clear to me that the correct words to use would be "wedding/marriage/etc". As in, "hey, my buddies Glorp and Zorp got married!" or "I am going to attend Glorp and Zorp's wedding".
Disgusting... Ranxicon Five made Glorp and Vorp, not Glorp and Zorp!

[SteveG1]

For the sake of fairness, I'm not sure how else to interpret The Sheikh's comments as anything other than "I don't like gay marriage, but I don't see how I can argue that my view should be law."

That's how I read it. I wish more Christians in America were like him.

Yes. he doesn't like it, but is honest enough to admit that it is just his personal opinion, and doesn't try to hide behind any Book or fake logic. Honesty can be refreshing and I respect that.

[Gangster Octopus]

. . . so those who oppose SSM are petty, hatefuly bigots. EOS.This comes too close to attacking other posters. If you need to characterize other people in negative ways, take it to the Pit.

[ /Moderating ]

My apologies, I forgot I was in GD as there is a Prop 8 thread in the Pit, won't happen again.

[Chronos]

Y'know, on thinking about the alien example some more, there are probably a fair number of humans who wouldn't refer to the alien ceremony as "marriage". Best guess for what they'd call it would be whatever word the aliens use, if it's pronounceable.

I'm thinking of the Honor Harrington books, a science-fiction series I follow. There's a race of creatures called treecats, catlike creatures about a meter long and with six legs. They're close to human intelligence, and mate for life. Well, one of the major characters is a treecat named Nimitz, and another treecat named Samantha is referred to as his "mate" for most of the series, a word that nobody really disputes. It's not until about the tenth book or so that we learn Nimitz's own feelings on the matter, and he prefers to use the word "wife" to refer to Samantha. Which, of course, makes obvious sense, in retrospect, but all this time, the humans have been using the animal term, rather than the human one.

[Der Trihs]

Of course, to be fair the treecats were trying fairly hard for most of the series to make humans think of them as animals...

[sqweels]

I sometime wonder if opponents of SSM even know anyone who is married.

Couples don't marry in order to fulfil a natural imperitive to procreate or to conform to a traditional definition of a word. They marry because they're in love with each other and want to stay together.

ISTM that the actual definition of marriage is, " commitment to make a romantic relationship permanent".

Defining marriage as "a union between a man and a woman" removes the commitment part and the romantic part.

Childbearing obvioulsy looms large in marriage, but clearly it is secondary. A couple is fully married before, after, and in lieu of raising children. The argument becomes particularly flimsy and straw-grasping when it's maintined that, so long as they're going through the heterosexual motions--or did for a time--then that's what makes their marriage real.

No, it's because they want to stay together and they're commited to staying together, "forsaking all others, in sickness and in health", etc.

Having children isn't even mentioned in wedding vows!

[Xenocrates]

That a statement is intelligible (using the term loosely) is not a good indicator of whether the words in the statement are being used correctly. If someone said "My favorite animals are those big fish with blowholes," you know that they are talking about whales even though there is no such thing a fish with a blowhole. So you can understand what they say insofar as it provides you knowledge about the world even though, strictly speaking, they are being nonsensical.

Similarly if you said that Bob and Frank are married, I could understand that Bob and Frank are in a monogamous and committed relationship while maintaining that, strictly speaking, your statement is false.

However, it's hard to see where this kind of view would get you policy-wise. According to this view, same-sex marriage is impossible so it can't possibly be legalized, nor can it be opposed - it doesn't exist! So whatever it is that people are talking about legalizing must be something different than same-sex marriage even though they call it "same-sex marriage." But this shouldn't be that surprising since we already recognize (I assume) that the legal concept of marriage differs from the social/religious concept of marriage even though they are obviously related. I suppose one could argue that if you allow "same-sex marriage" the legal concept of marriage now differs so much from the social/religious concept that it is appropriate to call it something different.

[Bryan Ekers]

I'm Muslim, so obviously I'm against same-sex sex relations. The reason I'm against this kind of relation is that it's not permissible in my religion

If I could find Muslim enclaves where same-sex relations were commonplace, would you revisit this claim?

[Shodan]

Proponents of SSM don't generally argue that the law should be changed - they argue the law doesn't need to be changed because the (legal) definition of "marriage" includes SSM within it already. That's the basis for argument that 'equal protection means SSM'.
* * *

Regards,
Shodan

I disagree. I think the proponents generally argue that the law prohibiting SSM is unconstitutional. That implies that a change is needed. Equal protection means SSM should be legal on equal basis with OSM.I was unclear - proponents of SSM often argue in two phases. The first is that that the legal definition of "marriage" already includes SSM, and therefore laws to establish it are not necessary. See Chronos' post about marriage as "the union of one toaster and one blender".

Then, for better or worse, somebody points out inconveniently that the laws on marriage say "one woman and one man", rather specifically, or the voters of California amend their constitution to say even more specifically that 'no, marriage does not mean the union of one toaster and one blender - it means what it says - one woman and one man. Get it? One woman, and one man." Then the argument has to shift to what you mention - that the definition of marriage as "one woman and one man" contradicts something or other in the Constitution. I am not quite sure how one can get an "equal protection" argument from that, but no doubt a Justice who sees penumbrae and emanations can get an equal protection argument from a tuna salad recipe.

Regards,
Shodan

[John Mace]

[quote]MaxTheVool, that's a great analogy! I'll have to remember that one.

Actually, it's a terrible analogy. What we call the ceremony of a non-human, extra-terrestrial species has nothing to do with the laws governing our own species her on Earth.