Yes we do. For very very good reasons, that are obscure and incomprehensible to mortal man. Seriously, won’t somebody think of the kumquats?!?
We have unique terms to refer to the distinction: “same-sex marriage” and “opposite-sex marriage”. In fact, it’s already the case that we have to use separate phrases to refer to the distinction and that the word “marriage” in itself covers both. That’s highlighted by the very terms of this discussion. It’s simply a fact about the world (and its linguistic practices) that not all things called marriage are between partners of opposite sex.
So what is the value of the word marriage?
[For that matter, not all things called “marriage” are matrimonial couplings of people, but I digress…]
Well in Scrabble it is worth 11 points, plus there is a good chance you would get the Bingo for another 50 and that many letters would surely land on one of the bonus squares, so it is pretty hard to determine.
I just don’t understand why someone would be so deadset against a loving couple being allowed to say “We’re married”.
Your stupidity is as profound as your density. Just to help you understand what you’re saying, someone who chooses to live in San Francisco and has gay friends and has gone on vacation with a gay man and has gay relatives who he loves, and who happens to support gays in the military, gay adoption, and gay civl unions that would afford them ALL the benefits of married heterosexuals is, in your words, “a hateful bigot”.
And you expect to be taken seriously and for me to give a shit what your 1-synapse brain puts out? :rolleyes:
So why the flimsy bullcrap fallacy arguments about the word “marriage?”
I figure the maximum point value for marriage is 158, if played on the outermost square on an existing letter that is not the M, E, or second R, hitting the double-letter and two triple-words and playing seven tiles for the bingo.
No wonder the stakes are so high…
I’m also curious why someone with such an impressive resumé in queerology would have this one blind spot, but in lieu of any presented reasons, I’d guess it’s just a personal dislike. I can understand this - an apple-banana milkshake is unappealing to me, for no specific reason I can define other than personal taste. I’d greatly prefer strawberry.
Uh, and chicks. Yeah, I dig chicks.
First of all, that’s not true. You and your friend Joan don’t enjoy all the same rights and privileges the US offer. You and Joan are distinguishable in law because you’re a man and Joan’s a woman. Most germane to this, Joan can marry a man and you can’t. But beyond that, if Joan owns a business, it’s called a “women owned business” and the concern of an interagency committee to support her business, while a business you own isn’t. You can serve in combat roles in the army, Joan can’t. The law recognizes that Joan can be pregnant, and you can’t, and there are a bunch of laws dealing with that, and so on.
But that’s sort of beside the point. What harm is inflicted on society by having gay marriage that is not also inflicted on society by having gay civil unions that have all the same rights and benefits of marriage?
Because, I mean, I can see the argument that, say, if we allow gay marriage or civil unions, that’ll give societal approval to people being openly gay or have gay sex, and that would be wrong, because gay sex is immoral, or dangerous to the public health, or whatever, and the state shouldn’t be encouraging that. I understand that argument. I think it’s wrong, but I understand it.
But see, that argument would work equally well against gay marriage or gay civil unions. But that’s not your argument. Your argument seems to be, not that there’s something important about heterosexual marriage that would be harmed if marriage is extended to gay couples. Your argument seems to be that there’s something important about the word “marriage” that would be harmed if marriage is extended to gay couples. So could you clear that up to me, because what it seems to me you’re saying is, or at least the conclusion I’m drawing is that you think gay civil unions are ok so long as they’re not called marriage because calling them civil unions instead of marriage reinforces that gay people are inferior to straight people. Straight people get the word “marriage”, but gay people only get the term “civil unions”, because they’re not good enough to deserve the word “marriage”, and I’m sure you don’t mean that.
OK, say the country passes legislation that allows federally recognized civil unions for gays that are in every way equal to marriages except in name.
The name will not stick. They will in fact be called marriages in everyday parlance even if not legally.
Fred and Barney will decide to get hitched. Will they tell all their friends “We’re getting civilly unioned!”? No, they’ll say “We’re getting married!” They’ll call the celebration of their unioning a “wedding”, hire a “wedding planner” instead of a “civil union planner” and have a “wedding cake” instead of a “civil union cake.”
They’ll print up the “wedding invitations”, and invite their friends and family to join them in celebrating their “holy matrimony” at their local liberally-minded church. The priest will pronounce them “married” in the eyes of God. When they leave the church after the “wedding ceremony” their loved ones will all throw rice (or birdseed) because that’s what you do when people get “married”.
And not one person there will be pedantic enough to say “well, it’s not really a real marriage.” Why? Because the distinction is silly. If it’s in every way equal to a marriage, then it’s a marriage, and most people won’t feel the need to use new cumbersome phrases for an old concept.
They will be called marriages by everyone except you and a few other scared, narrow-minded holdouts. Eat it, bigot boy.
But some of my best friends are faggots!
OK, so you aren’t a hateful bigot, just a bigot.
Oh, there’ll be one. There’s always one. Just like there’s always the guy who gets drunk and hits on the bride.
magellan01, would you like to take a crack at this?
“I’m not prejudiced - I have lots of friends who I’m happy to deny rights to!”
magellan, do your gay friends and relatives know that you compare same-sex marriage to the ability to walk around naked masturbating?
Well, I trust he got the idea from somewhere…
There’s a reason the slope is slippery.
If you can’t distinguish between “state” and “society”, then the only proper response to any political bloviation you might emit is to point and laugh.
There are border guards and swift boats standing between them and some desert island they could move to if they don’t like living in modern society? News to me…