# Arguing against; "The definition of 'Marriage' is between a man and a woman". **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 22, 2009, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231 "2009-12-22T19:47:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![MyFootsZZZ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/myfootszzz/32/12580_2.png) [@MyFootsZZZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyFootsZZZ)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231/41 "2009-12-22T22:02:07Z")
I’m waiting for a reply… \*\*Rumor’s \*\*making me think. Why is “marriage” a legal thing anyway? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231/42 "2009-12-22T22:03:03Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > The word “marriage” has far too much of a root structure in the history and culture of heterosexual unions that to just completely changing the terms of its use means that acceptance of it may be difficult (I would like to think that it shouldn’t, but I’m pragmatic in the sense that I recognize it does). The evidence in the places where the legal fait is already accompli is quite the opposite. > [@](#): > > It’s also got an extremely trenchant use in the laws of this country. All the more reason to just use it, then. > [@](#): > > My compromise would be to remove the law’s usage of the term so the law doesn’t have to fight against certain people’s desire to adhere to word’s history. Is \*that \*really “their” desire? They’re quite happy to let the gays get equal protection under the law, but what really bothers them is _word usage_? :dubious: As I said, the motives for doing so are necessarily going to be subject to scrutiny. > [@](#): > > So no, I don’t think it’s far more activist. You haven’t addressed the other part of it, the creation of an _entire new terminology_. How is that not significantly activist, and contrary to the spirit of the language-freezing approach you advocate on the other side? > [@](#): > > It rightly provides for equal treatment amongst all people Well, apparently we are going to have to get into “separate but equal” with you, aren’t we? Tell us, what do you know of that concept and its history? What do you know about the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231/43 "2009-12-22T22:03:35Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > Did you even read the post that prompted this specific post of mine? Yes. Your response is a standard one, and unrealistic at best. You might as well claim that a 20 word bill could have made black and white facilities equal during the segregation era. Civil unions won’t ever be equal, because being inferior is why they exist. That, and ritual humiliation. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231/44 "2009-12-22T22:03:59Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > About what? Your abject misunderstanding of how new laws modify old ones? No, your abject misunderstanding of how that is a political impossibility at the federal level. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231/45 "2009-12-22T22:04:31Z")
> [@MyFootsZZZ](#): > > Why is “marriage” a legal thing anyway? [Here you go.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States) Too long to quote. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231/46 "2009-12-22T22:04:51Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > To paraphrase from Der Trihs, Bob and Joe got married in Massachusetts, one would know by the definition of Massachusetts state law that they were legally bound together. The definition of marriage has now been changed and would be recognized by any who knew Massachusetts state law. There would be no need to quantify it by saying “Bob and Joe got same-sex married in Massachusetts” as it would be redundant. You’re cherry picking an example where a person of retard-level intelligence could leap the inferential chasm that it was a homosexual marriage. What about “Bob and Kim got married”? I would assert that a clear majority of people would assume that Kim was a she. Or pick any of the unisex names you want. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231/47 "2009-12-22T22:06:17Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > Yes, but over the millenia, it’s always been between people of opposite genders. I mean, are you really arguing this or are you just trying to salvage your poor analysis? I’m unclear what history has to do with it. There are all sorts of things that have changed. Slavery was common through the majority of human history. Eventually society got around to saying that is not cool. The point is there are two aspects to marriage in the US. The religious aspect and the legal aspect. Religion can say whatever they want to about it. They can be ok with same-sex marriage or they can reject it. They can do so for whatever reasons suit them. The legal aspect is defined by the law. In the US it means whatever the law says it means. Hence at one point the law treated interracial marriages differently. Later they decided there was no distinction worth making. Same goes for SSM. The distinctions which restrict it today are not worth making. They are spurious and amount to smoke and mirrors. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231/48 "2009-12-22T22:07:51Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Yes. Your response is a standard one, and unrealistic at best. You might as well claim that a 20 word bill could have made black and white facilities equal during the segregation era. Civil unions won’t ever be equal, because being inferior is why they exist. That, and ritual humiliation. My god, you’re (not reading that, are you). “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”.” This statement is demonstrably false. I’m not disagreeing that you will have de facto problems, but the statement I’m referencing made a claim of de jure inequality stemming from a failure to retroactively rewrite all extant law. (sorry if that’s a personal attack. not intended, rather to suggest that your reading was deficient) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231/49 "2009-12-22T22:08:04Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I’m unclear what history has to do with it. There are all sorts of things that have changed. Including marriage. Almost within living memory, it included the wife being essentially the property of the husband, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231/50 "2009-12-22T22:09:31Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > You’re cherry picking an example where a person of retard-level intelligence could leap the inferential chasm that it was a homosexual marriage. > > What about “Bob and Kim got married”? I would assert that a clear majority of people would assume that Kim was a she. And? They’d also assume both were of the same race, fairly close in economic class & educational level, not missing any body parts, of roughly average height, and all sorts of other common things. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231/51 "2009-12-22T22:10:55Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > To paraphrase from Der Trihs, Bob and Joe got married in Massachusetts, one would know by the definition of Massachusetts state law that they were legally bound together. The definition of marriage has now been changed and would be recognized by any who knew Massachusetts state law. There would be no need to quantify it by saying “Bob and Joe got same-sex married in Massachusetts” as it would be redundant. > > I’m not sure who would be confused by the current definition, \*\*especially \*\*since it’s been legalized in certain jurisdictions. Nope. Bob and Joe’s marriage would not be recognized in a majority of states. Some states actually amended their laws to specifically not recognize gay marriages from other jurisdictions. The fact that something is legal in one state does not mean it is legal in other states. For that matter, there is a Federal statute that defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Granted, that law is currently being challenged in Court, but it is presumptively valid until a Court rules otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231/52 "2009-12-22T22:15:37Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Well, apparently we are going to have to get into “separate but equal” with you, aren’t we? Tell us, what do you know of that concept and its history? What do you know about the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws? It’s not separate but equal if the law uses a singular term to define the different concepts. I would hazard a guess that i know more about the 14th amendment than you do. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231/53 "2009-12-22T22:17:14Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And? They’d also assume both were of the same race, fairly close in economic class & educational level, not missing any body parts, of roughly average height, and all sorts of other common things. No, see, I don’t think they would. Because they have very very little to do with marriage as a social concept. ---
**Author:** ![MyFootsZZZ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/myfootszzz/32/12580_2.png) [@MyFootsZZZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyFootsZZZ)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231/54 "2009-12-22T22:17:48Z")
Eh, I don’t want to derail with my opinion on marriage. Homosexuals should have the option. I just want us to get to a point where we’re all equal. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231/55 "2009-12-22T22:18:11Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > It’s not separate but equal if the law uses a singular term to define the different concepts. This is about using TWO terms to define ONE concept. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231/56 "2009-12-22T22:20:04Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > It’s not separate but equal if the law uses a singular term to define the different concepts. They’re _not different concepts_. The use of a different term for the same concept, which is what you’re advocating (and you can drop the third-person pretense, btw) is “separate but equal” - and both legally and morally unacceptable for the last half-century. > [@](#): > > I would hazard a guess that i know more about the 14th amendment than you do. Based on what you’ve been trying to peddle here so far, that would be yet another misconception. ---
**Author:** ![MyFootsZZZ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/myfootszzz/32/12580_2.png) [@MyFootsZZZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyFootsZZZ)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231/57 "2009-12-22T22:21:23Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Nope. Bob and Joe’s marriage would not be recognized in a majority of states. Some states actually amended their laws to specifically not recognize gay marriages from other jurisdictions. > > The fact that something is legal in one state does not mean it is legal in other states. For that matter, there is a Federal statute that defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Granted, that law is currently being challenged in Court, but it is presumptively valid until a Court rules otherwise. I wonder how long that will take. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231/58 "2009-12-22T22:21:58Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > No, see, I don’t think they would. Because they have very very little to do with marriage as a social concept. Wrong, many of those assumptions have quite as much to do with it as does sexuality. Class, for example. And why should it matter anyway? ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231/59 "2009-12-22T22:22:36Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > You’re cherry picking an example where a person of retard-level intelligence could leap the inferential chasm that it was a homosexual marriage. > > What about “Bob and Kim got married”? I would assert that a clear majority of people would assume that Kim was a she. > > Or pick any of the unisex names you want. And why wouldn’t they assume that Kim was a she? As a gay guy I’m constantly assumed by the majority to be straight. Or right handed. Or a myriad of other innate qualities. If we’re talking about presumption, let’s just pick to distinctly female names: Julia and Katharine for instance, and say “they got married”. Without having to go into intricate detail of what was involved, you know what happened. If I said “Julia and Katharine farbled a gnugoppy”, the words “farbled a gnugoppy” would halt the listener as they wouldn’t know what the eff I was talking about. [QUOTE=Oakminster] Nope. Bob and Joe’s marriage would not be recognized in a majority of states. Some states actually amended their laws to specifically not recognize gay marriages from other jurisdictions. The fact that something is legal in one state does not mean it is legal in other states. For that matter, there is a Federal statute that defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Granted, that law is currently being challenged in Court, but it is presumptively valid until a Court rules otherwise. [/QUOTE] When the Lovings moved to Virginia from DC, was there an issue with the understood legal definition of marriage? No. The laws of DC had legally married them, even though the state of Virginia didn’t recognize the marriage. The marriage was the reason that the Lovings went to court. The state of Virginia UNDERSTOOD the couple to be married. Whether the marriage was lawful in Virginia becomes a non-issue in this debate. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2009, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231/60 "2009-12-22T22:23:19Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > They’re _not different concepts_. The use of a different term for the same concept, which is what you’re advocating (and you can drop the third-person pretense, btw) is “separate but equal” - and both legally and morally unacceptable for the last half-century. > > Based on what you’ve been trying to peddle here so far, that would be yet another misconception. I would appreciate you finding exactly where I said I would use a different term (different amongst sexual orientation) for the same concept (edit: when discussing the legal status of marriage). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguing-against-the-definition-of-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman/522231.md?page=4)