I had a gentle debate with co-workers on behave of gay marriage in the breakroom the other day. Although I illustrated my point ok, I would like to know the proper defense against this claim.
They said; “Why not call it something else, is the name that big a deal!?” ** I said**; "If the label wasn’t a big deal, why would you care if they just called it marriage?
They said; “As long as they get all the benefits, what’s the difference?” I pointed to a drinking fountain and** I said**; “What if we had two of those; one for strait people and one for homosexuals… Separate, but equal?”
It ended there. I think I was calm and nice enough to have them consider what I was saying. But I wanted a specific argument tp address the “definition” of the word.
In my mind I will always think of marriage being between a man and a woman. If I see a man wearing a wedding ring I will automatically assume he is married to a woman. However I’m 100% behind the idea of homosexual marriages and the idea that it should be called a marriage. I’m for expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples.
Calling marriage something else is just plain silly. It’s silly when it comes from people who want to refer to all marriages as “civil unions” and it’s silly when it comes from those who just want homosexual marriages to be referred to as something other than a marriage.
For one thing, if I say “Bob and Joe got married” does that baffle you? Is your reaction, “Uh, how does that work?” I doubt it, because it isn’t outside of the definition of marriage, however people don’t like it. As opposed to, say, “Bob married his Lexus.”
For another; most cultures have considered marriages valid that included many women and one men; some also many men and one woman. And generally marriage has more been “a man taking ownership of a woman as his servant and sex toy”. “Marriage is a partnership between one man and one woman” is hardly some human universal.
I think the civil union issue is because many of us believe that the gov’t should get out of the marriage business. The gov’t should only do FOR ANYBODY civil union. Let Marriage be a matter for the churches - that way if your church is open-minded, you can have a marriage ceremony, if its not, then find an open-minded church. Why exactly is the gov’t involved in a ceremony that is intended as a religious ceremony?
I (IMHO) am tired of all the nonsense about the argument: you want the joys of marriage, then I don’t care who you marry, man or woman, regardless of your own gender identification. My opinion comes down to: its your bedroom/life and as long as no one is being hurt, I’ll mind my business if you mind yours.
“Marriage is what we decide it is,” is the proper response to the definitional argument. It’s not like some natural phenomenon we can just observe, it’s an invention and it can be modified at will.
There are many laws that are written to apply only to “married” people, so unless you change all those laws, you don’t get equality with “civil unions”.
Sorry for posting again, but I was hoping there would be different definitions of Marriage, not all of them specifying a gal and a dude.
John Mace, these two ladies weren’t after anything but the name. Would those laws likely be carried over if were called ‘Civil Unions’? Or would it be easier just to change the definition?
I am sure you’re right - I don’t have the legal background to really debate it. I am just tired of all the noise of people debating things that don’t really matter in the big scheme of things. Let everyone get married - it won’t hurt, I promise.
Back in the 60’s anti-miscegenation laws were struck down (marriage between races…e.g. a black man and a white woman).
A lot of people opposed allowing such marriages much on the same grounds as are being made today with homosexual marriage.
So, ask your co-workers:
“In order to allow interracial marriage would you have been ok with a black woman and white guy’s ‘marriage’ to be called a miscegenation union? As long as they got all the rights why does what you call it matter?”
That is the best example I have heard for this question and think it throws it into sharp relief.
Not the same thing. Green is the word used for the color that healthy grass has to a person with normal color vision; that’s biology and physics. Marriage is a social custom and legal arrangement.
I don’t have time to google up a cite at the moment, but I think the MA Supreme Court opinion discussed the issue, and concluded that civil union is a lesser status than marriage, and as such, not enough under the law.
Of course, in a broader sense, “marriage” means a linking-up of two compatible devices, ideas, etc. You can’t say that a gay couple is incapable of linking themselves together.
Gay couples are also capable of:
[ul]
[li]Being romantically in love[/li][li]Having sex[/li][li]Making a lifelong commitment forsaking all others[/li][li]Running a household together[/li][li]Sleeping in the same bed every night [/li][/ul]
You have to strip the definition of marriage of all these things in order to deny it to gays, and all you’re left with is rote reproduction.
was it historically the case that, up until the repeal of miscegenation laws, a marriage was never construed to exist between spouses of differing races? (to cut to the chase, no, it’s not; it was a made-up concept in the 20th century, wheras i’m pretty confident that marriage has universally been between a man and a woman up to this point)
the sex of members of a family unit (whose historical basis for its existence is reproductive) is far more important, definitionally, to the concept of marriage than the race of those members - even if you accept a notion of physical differences in races
(note, I’m not against homosexual unions. I’d rather we re-define all laws to refer only to civil unions, make them available to whoever (including polygamists/polyandrists), and let social customs drive the use of the term married. If you want to appear to be some backwater redneck who won’t refer to a homosexual couple as married, be my guest - at least I’ll know not to shake your hand)
I don’t see your point, so you’re going to have to try harder instead of making some glib post. I’m responding to someone who believes that since legal codes of this country make hundreds if not thousands of references to “married” people, “civil unions” can’t, as a matter of course, be made legally equivalent unless you change each and every one of these laws.
What I don’t understand is the fact that in some places (Massachusetts, Canada, et) marriage is already defined to included spouses of the same-sex. So the definition has already changed…and it’s changed legally.
So, to me, the argument over the definition is too late. It’s already been defined to be inclusive.