"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]

Originally Posted by 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

What 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]

Originally Posted by Roderick Femm

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny

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]

Originally Posted by John Mace

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]

Originally Posted by Roderick Femm

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 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]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Quoth John Mace:

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]

Originally Posted by Lamia

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Candyman74

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, 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]

Originally Posted by John Mace

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Indistinguishable

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]

Originally Posted by John Mace

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.

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]

Originally Posted by John Mace

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]

Originally Posted by John Mace

...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?

Is America really this insular?!

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Chronos

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.

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.

Originally Posted by indistinguishable

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Voyager

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]

Originally Posted by magellan01

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]

Originally Posted by John Mace

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]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Quoth John Mace:

So, you're saying that we shouldn't change the law, because that would entail changing the law?

Quoth Damuri Ajashi:

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, cite, cite, etc.

Regards,
Shodan

[Damuri Ajashi]

[quote=John Mace;12785496]

Originally Posted by Chronos

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[GHO57]

Originally Posted by Indistinguishable

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]

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny

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]

Originally Posted by 42fish

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by 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? 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by magellan01

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.