Thank you for showing us the true face of those that oppose SSM.
Show me where there is same sex marriage in Northern Ireland. So yeah, it’s kinda stopped.
Since no seems to be able to describe any way in which same sex marriage damages opposite sex marriage we seem to be back to square one. It’s like Occam’s Razor - why propose new constructs unless you can identify something that the current constructs fail to address? We generally don’t create laws for no apparent reason.
I think you misunderstood me - calling it marriage has not stopped the UK from treating it differently, even though it is called marriage. So the idea that it will be kept permanently equal if we call it marriage instead of civil unions is not correct.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Thank you for showing us the true face of those that oppose SSM.
[/QUOTE]
If this was supposed to be a dig at me, then take it to the Pit. If it was something else, feel free to explain it.
[QUOTE=Telemark]
Since no seems to be able to describe any way in which same sex marriage damages opposite sex marriage we seem to be back to square one. It’s like Occam’s Razor - why propose new constructs unless you can identify something that the current constructs fail to address? We generally don’t create laws for no apparent reason.
[/QUOTE]
Wouldn’t the burden of proof fall on those proposing a change in definition of what constitutes a marriage?
We currently have a perfectly good term - “marriage” - referring to the union of one man and one woman (as defined, et al., in Loving v. Virginia). Now we have a flurry of proposals, ranging from the OP’s suggestion of penalizing people for using the term “marriage” to the more common idea that government will not recognize “marriage” at all. And along with the suggestion of “no marriage - just civil unions” comes the usual from people ranging from the OP to others whose names I won’t mention for fear of pushing them into more Warnings, in which it is made clear that deriding people for wanting to keep “marriage” in its current usage is very much the idea.
Given that, why is it that saying “don’t be silly, calling it ‘civil union’ instead of marriage isn’t going to change a thing and you have nothing to worry about” is preposterous addressed to one group and self-evident truth addressed to another?
Regards,
Shodan
Why is it that saying “don’t be silly, letting same sex couples get married isn’t going to change a thing and you have nothing to worry about” is preposterous addressed to one group and self-evident truth addressed to another?
What in your marriage will change to your detriment if same sex couples can also be married? Will you think less of your wife? Will she think less of you? Is it less special to the both of you unless you can find a way to deny it to others?
Nope-In this thread the burden of proof falls on those that would justify the hypothetical proposed in the OP. The mere fact that a legal definition changes is not justification enough to challenge said change, because it happens all the time.
What specifically am I denying to others in a scenario where civil unions and marriage have the same privileges and responsibilities?
Regards,
Shodan
The right to say “We are married.” The fact that this denial of status doesn’t affect and insult you doesn’t mean that it doesn’t affect and insult others…and the fact that it does affect and insult many others should be enough in a civilized society. It is hurtful, even if you personally are not hurt by it.
Well, at last we have someone actually defending separate but equal instead of trying to get us to think it wouldn’t exist.
I like when people fly their own flags rather than hiding behind someone else’s.
Well, defending the “equal” part, at least-Haven’t seen much of a defense for the “separate” part yet.
Exactly. The right to say “We are married” and the right to be married are incredibly powerful symbols in the US that a person is an adult, in a strong and important and valuable relationship in which they have chosen another person and said, “This person is now in my family. This person is now my closest relative.”
Having people say that marriage is so important that we dare not ruin it by allowing the gays in, then saying that it isn’t a suggestion that the gays are gross or anything, just that they ruin and destroy marriage and make straight people not want to marry, is one of the stupider arguments I’ve ever seen trotted out here.
The modest proposal to make civil unions in some way superior to marriage is designed to expose a contradiction in the position taken by magellan01 on the other thread. Either the name “marriage” has some intrinsic importance in and of itself, in which case he must be willing to offer some other concession in exchange for wanting to deny it to same-sex couples so that equality is maintained – or it is not, in which case wanting to deny it to same-sex couples cannot be explained on any basis other than irrational animus. (Or he can escape the dilemma by outright admitting that he is opposed to equality. His choice. The fact that this thread is still going indicates that his apparent preferred outcome “let the whole thing blow over” is not on the table.)
I’ll buy this “separate but equal” crap when I hear a country-western song in the top forty containing the words “civil union” and “legal partner”.
How was the term marriage used before Loving v. Virginia? Was it necessary to re-define marriage as a result of that ruling, and where did that re-definition take place?
What about the feelings of those who are (irrationally) hurt by the desire to label their marriages as something else? Why are only your feelings important?
Theere is nothing inherently derogatory about the term “civil union”. If you are that desperate to manufacture offense, go ahead.
Regards,
Shodan
Define the need for the term that doesn’t involve insulting those you would stick with this label. Nothing “inherently derogatory”? You mean like how some people refer to “colored people”? There is nothing inherently derogatory about the word “colored”…but we know why people say it. The same goes with the term “civil union”-the reason for it’s use makes it derogatory. It is clear as glass why people want that label forced on others-it is not so easy to take away the rights of same sex couples today, so this second class label is used as a last gasp effort to force their bigotry on others.
I’m not married, and if my girlfriend and I do get married, the only thing I expect to change is government recognition (and everything that comes with it). So it wouldn’t be the most important part of the relationship, but it would be the most important part of the marriage.
Or very different catering arrangements.
As the union of one man and one woman.
No. The term wasn’t defined in Loving and did not change as a result of it. The issue in Loving v. Virginia was that the state was denying the Lovings the equal protection of the laws establishing marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They were not setting up any new laws or new definition. Marriage has never been defined as anything other than the union of one man and one woman in the US. That is partly why Utah had to outlaw polygamy before they were admitted as a state. It would have been the same (ceteris paribus) if it were SSM instead of polygamy - their definition of marriage did not agree with the definition of marriage of the US (or the English common law before that).
Since same-sex is not included in the definition of marriage, the US can either [ul][li]change the definition of marriage, or [/li][li]call it “civil unions” (or something else).[/ul]People have been insisting that the second option is a violation of some kind or other, and I have been trying to figure out what that violation is, without much success. [/li]
Regards,
Shodan
Except, of course, for many places in the present-day United States.
If the name doesn’t matter, then lets just call any legal union between two people “marriage”. Why are you making such a big deal over what word we use?