Bolding added. To me, the contradiction is glaring. The possibility of childbearing doesn’t have to be there, unless you’re homosexual, in which case it does.
In any case, the medical assistance required by a lesbian couple in their twenties (who want to reproduce) is far less than the medical assistance required by a heterosexual couple in their sixties (who want to reproduce). Yet the latter gets marriage rights (I’m okay with calling it such) without question and the former cannot.
Huh. That wasn’t how it got passed in Canada. Basically the courts said “yeah, this makes sense”, and though Parliament made some noise about changing the law to pass muster, there wasn’t really any point to it since a number of provinces already had existing legislation that was either pro-SSM, or extended benefits to same-sex couples and whatnot. At no time that I can recall did a prominent national political leader come out and say we had to allow gay marriage. In fact, it looks to me like a really bad way to form national policy.
Actually, that seems true of any social change - some Americans yap about court decisions being forced down their throats, but I think it’s actually quite rare for a court decision to be radically ahead of where the country is, overall. I’m sure the southern U.S. didn’t like desegregation or interracial marriage, but the northern states were already leaning in that direction and the south just got dragged along. Similarly, by the time women got the vote nationally in the U.S., many states had already granted suffrage locally.
And when same-sex-marriage became legal all across Canada, it or a rough equivalent had already existed for several years in several provinces. The Americans are just at the beginning of this process. It’s kind of sad and primitive that many Americans are digging in their heels over this, but I guess it’s part of the process. I give it 20 years, and then the transition will be so banal and consequence-free that many Americans will wonder what the fuss was all about.
Folks saying that as long as the rights under law are the same, it doesn’t matter whether if one group gets marriage and the other gets civil union–do I take it that you’d be totally okay with giving the marriage label to same-sex couples only, and allowing straight couples only to get a civil union?
That’s different! somehow…
Would a 10% increase in marriages strain the strategic marriage reserves, or something? The implication is that allowing gay marriage will somehow impede straight marriage, as though it would increase competition for rapidly-depleting molybdenum stocks or something.
Are marriage license forms in critically short supply? Is the marriage weasel approaching extinction? Exactly how does allowing gay marriage undercut straight marriage? Are their straight couples that cannot or will not wed because gay couples could? What effect, if any, has there been on straight couples in the U.S. knowing that gay couples are being married immediately north of them?
It depends. Do you have an “Undo A Few Thousand Years of Tradition” button?
How would the tradition be undone? Would straight couples not continue to get married?
It’s our duty to overturn bad traditions.
I wasn’t talking about language. To argue that someone who favors equal rights/privileges for each group should therefore be fine with either group getting to use the term “marriage” is :rolleyes: raised to the power of :eek:.
Well, why can’t “marriage” be extended in this fashion? What you’re claiming as its traditional form will continue unabated, so what exactly is being “undone” here?
Why shouldn’t you be fine with it? Why on earth do you care so much? It genuinely baffles me why you get so riled up on this issue. You say you have no problem with gay civil unions, and no problem granting civil partners exactly the same legal rights as married straights. So why are you so hung up on the word marriage? Is it just pedantry, or is there something more substantive behind it?
I mean, there’s a very good reason why gay people should be allowed to marry, rather than “unionize”. It’s simple. “Separate but equal” arrangements are never actually equal. Not really. So long as gay people “unionize” while straight people marry, homophobic politicians will always be able to deprive gays of legal partnership rights without affecting straights. That would be a lot harder to do if everyone had an equal claim to the word marriage. Equality is all or nothing. Half measures don’t wash.
So, given that the existence of different labels reinforces the outdated idea that there exists a meaningful conceptual difference between gay unions and straight marriage, and given that this increases the likelihood that the former will suffer legislative abuses at the hands of homophobic officials and electorates, and given that the battle for equality is 90% won anyway, why do you care so damn much about the word “marriage”? Why keep gay and straight partnerships “Separate but equal”? What possible benefit exists that outweighs the potential harm?
Correction: the first line should have read, “I was talking about language.”
“Was”, not “wasn’t”. Sorry about the confusion.
Still, though, straight marriages sealed the day before gay marriage goes national will still be valid, as will straight marriages sealed the day after. What, if anything, is actually being undone or lost or what have you?
I get that it may be obvious to you, but it’s honestly not obvious to me.
NO. No, no, no, no, no. Now, ANY law can be amended. ANY. You can write the law the way you want and it could be amended in the future. That is not a problem with my law, that is a problem with ALL laws.
You’re talking about one set and another set. Sheeze. I’m advocating ONE set. ONE (1). There is no “other set”. “They” start out the same?" There is no “they” it’s just the one set. Your continuing claim that my position is that there are two sets of laws because one day the law that I advocate might be changed is unfair and dishonest. Why not claim that I have five sets of laws? Because, hell, my idea with one set of laws could be changed in the future to have five sets of laws, or three, or two, or eleven. But that’s NOT my idea.
I would appreciate you acknowledging that THE IDEA THAT I ADVOCATE requires one set of laws. Once the law is changed to create two sets or five sets, it is no longer an idea I advocate. I really can’t believe you don’t understand this.
Why complicate the matter by creating a NEW law that, by your own description, is just a duplication of existing law? What purpose is served by the redundancy? Why invite the tinkering? Why invite the confusion?
But in your own earlier description, the “crucial” aspect of your proposal begins with:
So I presume “Marriage” is defined in one part of the civil code and “Civil Union” is defined in anther part and the definitions are identical and must be amended in lockstep… and the purpose of this duplication continues to elude me and, I trust, others. Isn’t a better version of one set of laws to be, y’know, one law? Why the parallel definitions? If a law’s good enough for one set of citizens, why not another? There aren’t laws governing how men vote and parallel, identical laws governing how women vote, just laws governing how citizens vote, because a gender-based distinction serves no purpose.
What is the purpose of the sexual-orientation-based distinction in your proposal?
Sure: it’s called The Law. Any allowance for the recognition of same-sex couples (beyond the recognition of stoning them to death) will be undoing a lot of venerable traditions. Your advocacy for civil unions is advocating a change of thousands of years of homophobia.
So that card’s off the table. If we’re already undoing traditions, and you’re suggesting that civil unions are exactly equal to marriage, why give the marriage to the straight people instead of to the gay people?
I’ve a question. If the proposal is, essentially, that the sole single difference between “marriage” and “civil partnership” (or whatever name used) is the name, then surely that tradition is not particularly cherished? I mean, if you have two things that are entirely the same except for the name, then isn’t the value of the name diminished, since the only importance it now has is in differentiation? The only unique value “marriage” would have under such circumstances would be to indicate “not a civil partnership”.
I told you that I was talking about the language. We have a perfectly good term that describes something. If we introduce a new thing, just give it a new term. Why in the world would we give the new thing the old term and try to come up with a new term for the old thing? That makes zero sense, regardless of one’s stance on SSM or anything else.
We always had rocks, then we got computers. What we didn’t do was say, “hey let’s call this new thing a rock and come up with a new term for that old stone thing.”
You’re really disappointing me with this ridiculous line of “reasoning”.
I think quite the contrary. The singular difference becomes defining. Like the way a horse is different from a unicorn.
We have different terms for “horse” and “unicorn” because we want to emphasize the difference; the horn. We say that the two animals have a difference that we, as English speakers, feel is worth noting. One has a horn and one doesn’t. Why do you feel that it’s important that we, as English speakers, emphasize the difference between a heterosexual couple that gets legally hitched and a homosexual couple that gets legally hitched?
Just as a note, I didn’t get out of my gay bed today, take a gay shower, get gay dressed, gay clean my room, gay eat lunch, take a gay walk, gay read a book, gay eat my dinner, gay drink a cup of coffee, and then gay surf the web. And on Monday, I don’t plan to gay call my bank and gay ask them to unlock my gay online banking (which I accidentally gay froze after gay entering the wrong password.) This is not a distinction the English language makes generally. Why is it important to make it here?