Thanks for all of the information everyone. Good to get as much info as possible on a subject before making minds up.
As you may have guessed, I’m not going to picket against same-sex marriages. I am somewhat playing devil’s advocate here, but I’m also asking a legitimate (IMO) question regarding the word “marriage”.
I was thinking about this for the last few hours and I came up with an example. For argument’s sake, instead of “marriage”, same sex couples enter into a “garriage” (I know. best I could come up with at the time). Anyway, being garried is the same as being married, but folks attached to the word marriage and all its derivatives have lost the definition argument.
Also, (and Tom or another may be able to answer this because I really don’t know), we collectively are in the United States of America. As most of you know, there are at least three commonwealths (PA, VA, and Mass. Maybe Kentucky is a fourth) Anyone know the practical difference between a commonwealth and a state? Are people in a commonwealth protected from the federal government in a favorable way over people who live in states or are we basically talking semantics?
My feeling is if you take the word out of the argument, you win the argument. Yes, it may sound stupid, but marriage is one of those words that has meant a certain thing for quite a long time. I understand things change. I’m ok with a black president (although I wish it was Colin Powell ), and I don’t get heartburn when the SS neighbors walk their dogs together and stop to chat sometimes. When will it change? I don’t know. But in the meantime, it would be much more important to me that SS-couples forgot the word, entered into a legally recognized relationship that looks just like marriage, but is called something else. Get the health benefits, buy a house, the ability to adopt children if you want… those are more important than a word, aren’t they?
The only thing I object to here is that you guys are throwing ‘emotional’ and ‘irrational’ around as epithets. It applies equally to both sides. Of course it’s an emotional issue, and we are asking the government to legislate emotions. That’s why people fight for gay ‘marriage’ rather than fighting for equal rights as a civil union. Because everyone cares about the meaning of the word and wants to win the meaning of the word. It’s not about just rights, it’s about the emotional context of the word marriage.
Equal protection is a *constitutional *issue. Come on now.
No. One “side” has the law and the Constitution and morality, the other “side” has only a fear it cannot even describe. “Equally” my ass.
Tell us in your own words then, why do you think *Brown *and *Loving *mattered? Were the issues at hand any less “emotional” or in any respect different in substantiality? Did the emotion or rationality involved “apply equally to both sides”, as you put it? Why or why not?
Are you going to listen to what I say? I need to know that you understand what I am saying before I respond further to you, because last time you didn’t pay attention to a word I said and all I did with you was bail straw.
So, please prove to me you understand the argument about fixing civil unions so that in terms of rights they are IDENTICAL to marriage so that the only difference is the use of the term. I am not talking about how civil unions have been up until now, but making them exactly the same.
The thing is the SSM supporters want equal rights. Separate-but-equal isn’t equal and you know it. The only argument against SSM is that gays are icky. You admit it yourself there by using the words “emotional context”.
You’re saying that when you think of marriage you get butterflies and imagine spring weddings and all that is right in the world. But then [record-scratch] some rough-trade leather boys walk up to the altar and start grinding on each other ruining the *meaning *of the word. :dubious:
The anti-SSM crowd are generally unwilling to admit that their stance is based on derision and prejudice, so you get stupid, childish arguments for the *meaning *of the word.
I understand separate-but-equal, and the ramifications of it which have made it unconstitutional for over half a century, very well indeed. There is no evidence thus far that *you *understand it. Yet that is at the heart of the position you have fallen back to.
I have invited you to demonstrate your *own * understanding of the heart of the problem. Will you do so?
True or False: If both water fountains work the same and are just as clean, it is okay to have a pair of Whites and Niggers fountains on public buildings?
Do you understand this point?
Exactly the same with a different name isn’t exactly the same. It creates a second class divisor that creates an us-and-them mentality. Separate-but-equal is sickening and you’re championing it.
Take it further: If both water fountains get their water from the same source, drain to the same waste pipes, work the same, and are just as clean, is it OK to to have a pair of “Whites” and “Non-Whites” fountains on public buildings?
Surely non-Whites wouldn’t mind drinking nice, clean water from a nice, clean, state-of-the art “Non-Whites” fountain in order to keep the peace? It’s something that’s important, historically and traditionally, to many White people. Should they? Why or why not?
No there is actually a biological argument there that gets ignored by all you ‘rational’ types. Two men cannot breed. Marriage is between a man and a woman as historically defined. The desire here is to change the definition, based on emotional reasons.
This emotional non-sequitur doesn’t mean anything to me and I don’t understand what its purpose in the discussion is.
Because it isn’t that simple. The side that is in line with the historical usage of the word is hte one who has the childish argument over the meaning of the word? See, you can’t even have this discussion without deriding your opposition and speaking about them in degrading ways.
Explain to me again which side is the emotional one and which one is the rational one? Your post is making me forget.
I understand separate-but-equal, and the ramifications of it which have made it unconstitutional for over half a century, very well indeed. There is no evidence thus far that *you *understand it. Yet that is at the heart of the position you have fallen back to.
[Quote]
I understand that other side of the argument perfectly. This isn’t the same as segregation laws. It is important to frame it that way to tug at people’s heart strings I understand, that emotional resonance helps sway people when making the argument. I get it perfectly.
I agree with you. The only thing I disagree with is that one side is emotional and the other side is rational. Both sides are emotional, neither is rational.
We’ve discussed this before. There is no biological argument. The law does not make fertility, or apparent fertility, a condition for marriage; in fact, the law permits marriage between a man and a woman even when the infertility of the couple is apparent and unquestionable.
Quit dodging the question. You were trying to make a case for Civil Unions as a reasonable equivalent to marriage until a couple of posters raised the general abhorrence of “separate but equal” as a counter argument. Now you’re trying to invoke biology, citing fertility as a (nonexistent) prerequisite for marriage.
This has not convinced me before, and it will not work this time, either. It also has nothing to do with the OP, which asked responders to suggest negative consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage.
Ok, I’m going to get out interracial marriage: since marriages weren’t possible between different races before that was legalized, should we have a different word for interracial marriages? Even if for all intents and purposes, it is a marriage? What would be the point?
The fact of the matter is that definitions change every day. Marriage has changed in the last century. Blacks and whites can marry. Did that change the definition of marriage in a bad way?
And I see that you fall back on the children argument when pressed. Riddle me this: Why can the elderly marry, they can’t have children. Can a man who has a vasectomy marry? Can a woman who’s had a hysterectomy marry? Can a menopausal woman marry? Can a man who never wants children marry?
That argument is worthless. Can’t you see how far you have to dredge to come up with something that at least on the surface doesn’t sound bigoted?
You’re the one saying that the “emotional content” of marriage will be wrecked if gays can marry. Explain to me if it isn’t a wave of disgust from prejudiced assholes, what that means.
Historical marriage means women don’t get to choose. It means divorce is next to impossible. It means only similar races. It means a harem of subservient wives. It means and has meant a million things and you’re artificially choosing a subset that makes you happy. Marriage has changed its definition throughout human culture. Get used to it. And I’m sorry if I speak about bigoted people in degrading ways. I guess it’s how I was raised.
The side that says it’s logical to provide equal rights to everyone.
The illogical side is the one saying, “No, it will make the word different!!!111one” :o
Biological procreation, even the potential for it, is not and has never has been a qualifying requirement for marriage. Neither has child-rearing or the potential for it. *That *is part of the “historical usage of the word”, as you put it, and that is a concept that you seem to hold dear.
), and I don’t get heartburn when the SS neighbors walk their dogs together and stop to chat sometimes. When will it change? I don’t know. But in the meantime, it would be much more important to me that SS-couples forgot the word, entered into a legally recognized relationship that looks just like marriage, but is called something else. Get the health benefits, buy a house, the ability to adopt children if you want… those are more important than a word, aren’t they?
Come on now.