Gay marriage is "redefining marriage"? I call BS.

Great Debates
1

Many of those who oppose legalizing same-sex marriage argue that it amounts to “redefining” marriage. Well the answer to that is, no it doesn’t, it depends, you’re the ones who are redefining marriage, it’s been redefined many times, only a little bit, and so what?

The definition of marriage put forward by opponents of SSM is, “a union between a man and a woman”. If SSM is legalized, the definition would be, “a commitment between two people who are romantically in love, share a sexual bond, and plan to maintain a household as lifelong companions”. So any aspect of marriage that gays are capable of fulfilling is removed from the definition and what we are left with is a man and a woman unionizing. No love, no sex, no commitment, no soul-matery, no building a home together, just rote mating.

Opponents emphasize that marriage is thousands of years old, is integral to the “fabric” of society, and is vital for propagating the species. But how many couples would describe their own marriages in terms of these sorts of political archetypes? Most would define their relationships in more personal terms—how they feel about each other and the steady companionship they provide.

It’s misleading to call marriage an “institution” in that it implies it’s a singular entity that a small number of people could somehow ruin for everybody. Better to characterize it as a practice—the practice of creating small institutions, the fortunes of one having nothing to do with that of the others.

Allowing gays to marry is not going to overturn the entire archetype. It’s just a small exception in order to accommodate a small group of people who constitute an exception to normal patterns of human sexuality. There’s no redefinition for the majority of people.

And as significant as raising children is to a marriage, it clearly takes a back seat to the spousal bond itself, rather than being an absolute prerequisite in legitimizing any marriage. Couples marry who have no intention or ability to have children together. And people also divorce, cohabitate, and have children out of wedlock. These practices are legal and widely accepted—and have become more widespread as a result. But same sex marriage only applies to gay people. It’s not going to spread to the majority heterosexual population because sexual orientation is not contagious.

2

Your best best is not to form a convincing argument, but to inspire indifference to the issue.

3

Your argument, like most of the pro-gay marriage proponents, misstates what opponents of legal gay marriage are saying.

Of course legal gay marriage will not redefine what my own marriage means to me and my family. It would, as you said, have absolutely no impact on how I feel about my wife or daughter, or the relationship we share.

But, it would absolutely “redefine” what marriage means in the generic sense. Think back thirty years ago. What did marriage mean?

Think about legal gay marriage now. What does marriage mean in this context?

Are the two different? Of course it is. And that is a redefinition, by definition. :wink:

4

I believe that gay marriage is indeed redefining marriage since this concept has been understood for a very long time and essentially everywhere as not including gay marriage.

I also believe marriage is an institution. If it was only about bond and love, it wouldn’t exist. Most of the consequences of a marriage (social recognition, property rights, taxes, etc…) don’t have anything to do with love.

5

Eh, i’d say it’s a redefinition, to the extent that anything is. It’s not all that new a definition, but it does generally fall outside the mainstream definitions of what “marriage” has meant for a good few hundred years, at least in the societies considering it now.

My argument against that being a bad thing would rely on how affecting to the overall idea it is. Changing, say, the concept so it refers to two people jumping off a cliff together would be a rather large change (if not metaphorically), while changing the spelling to marrriage wouldn’t really be, and would also help curry favour with the pirate marriage lobby. Is it a big change? Arguably it goes differently to the way it has been thought to go. On the other hand, the gender of the participants is but one part of the definition; there’s also the point of two people being in love, which, at least to my eyes, seems to be the most important point of all. To say that to include gay marriage in the definition is against the traditional view is, I would say, correct; but likewise it is also reasonable to say that to not include it in the definition is against the traditional view. We’re left with trying to weigh up either side and say which holds the larger effect, which will work more for good or for ill; i’d say that generally to include it would be the superior option. And were I trying to sell the idea, I think that’d be my approach; we are the people putting love first, the people who want to help provide safety and security to families - they want to strip marriage down to definitions and technicalities, and make the most important part of a wedding day be that you don’t have to specify which form you want to sign. But that’s marketing.

Of course, in terms of linguistics, it doesn’t matter. Whether it will be redefined as such is entirely out of the hands of politicans or the like. Definitions in the end are down to the masses.

6

The major arguments about same-sex marriage were made against black-white marriage not so long ago.

7

Where were all the ‘traditional’ marriage defenders when Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie got married? Carmen Electra and Dennis Rodman? I could go on.

I got a thousand bucks that says, the march of history will show the anti-gay marriage stance to be pure bigotry, in my lifetime.

I’m a flaming hetero for those of you keeping score.

8

It is a redefinition, but no more dramatic than the way “marriage” has been redefined over the course of history. When discussing “traditional” marriage, one needs to realize that for the most of Western history, marriage was not a mere personal matter concerning only husband and wife, but rather the business of their two families which brought them together.

The Columbia Encyclopedia contains an excellent summary of the various incarnations marriage has taken throughout the world over the millennia. It cites examples of polygamy, polyandry, same-sex marriage, wife-sharing between brothers, and the use of marriage as a means for men to exchange women for the purpose of forming alliances.

The impact of marriage has been one of contentious debate even between Christian faiths, most dramatically played out between the dueling ideologies of the Council of Trent and the Protestant Reformation. John Witte, Jr. (a renowned specialist in legal history, religious liberty, marriage & family law, and human rights) writes that the Catholics were canonizing laws of marriage “grounded in a rich sacramental theology” while the Protestant Reformation insisted that “[p]articipation in marriage required no prerequisite faith or purity and conferred no sanctifying grace.”

The definition of marriage have changed several times within the United States itself. Since it’s inception, the U.S. had borrowed many laws and customs regarding marriage from it’s European lineage, including the subordination of women within marriage. This subordination is epitomized by the concept of “coverture,” which, in stating that a married couple were seen in the eyes of the law as one entity, effectively eliminated a woman’s separate legal existence with regards to property rights and contracts. This condition was rectified on a state-by-state basis in the 1860’s with the passing of Married Woman’s Property Acts, decades before women won the right to vote. African-Americans were denied the right to marry in many states until after the Civil War. However, it took the U.S. over 100 years to guarantee interracial marriage in 1967 with the case of Loving v. Virginia.

Allowing gays to marry is a redefinition, but one that is no more dramatic than the many redefinitions that have already happened to marriage.

9

Even if it is a redefinition – which I’m willing to admit it is, from “man and woman” to “two adults” – what I don’t understand is why that is a problem.

10

Indeed. Besides, in ordinary language, the redefinition has already taken place; the government has no power to regulate how people speak. In legal language, it would be a change (for some areas; clearly, there are places in the world where this shift of legal terminology has already taken place), but legal jargon is divorced from ordinary language and shifts arcanely all the time with no one caring in the slightest. Defense against redefinition is an odd rallying cry…

11

Flaming hetero here too, but I remember quite a flap was raised when Britney Spears got her marriage and then quickie divorce not that long ago FWIW.

12

This, and the rest of your post are spot on.

JXJohns, I do not recall major church groups protesting this short marriage, or stating that they were destroying the institution of marriage. Cite?

13

Here’s what I recently posted in a related thread:

14

Nor do I recall stating such was the case. I said a flap, like 2.6 million hits on the terms “Britney Wedding Las Vegas”.

15

I wouldn’t view “enfranchising” as being redefining. If for thousands of years society was led by white men, that doesn’t make the position of the king or president any different for being filled by a woman or a black person. Barack Obama is not changing the definition of presidency in the United States, he is simply becoming enfranchised.

The definition of a role in society is based on what the role accomplishes, not who is accomplishing it. If two people love each other, want to live together, raise children together, support each other financially and in illness, and leave their possessions to one another after death–well that’s what marriage is. Who the two people are is a matter of tradition not definition. Anyone capable of fulfilling the position is going to be doing the same exact thing as anyone else filling the position.

If a person ties people’s wounds closed, prescribes medicine, and diagnoses illness, they are a doctor. If a person fights for the rights of a person based on law and evidence, they are a lawyer. Allowing women to become doctors and lawyers wasn’t a redefining of these words.

That being said, obviously there are instances where a role was called a different name, for instance a female king is called a queen. But a female president is simply a president. Choosing to call it something else than what the position is is solely a matter of insecurity, not definition.

16

Opponents are not simply arguing that SSM is, in a narrow sense, redefining marriage. They’re insisting that it must not be allowed (or rather, recognized) on the grounds that there would likely be catastrophic consequences for society.

If “automobile” is defined as “a four-wheeled vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine” simply because they’ve always been that way, do we ban electric cars on the grounds that they would “redefine” the automobile?

Most of the vital aspects are still in place, there’s just one exception to a hitherto common characteristic.

17

That’s just appeal to history. The question hasn’t seriously come under consideration until recently.

Saying you “believe” isn’t much of an argument. I’m saying it’s misleading to use the word “institution” because most institutions are singular entites, like a school or a prison or a hospital, with all the components being interdependent.

If I were the custodian at a school and I decided to “redefine” the heating system, I could easily render the entire institution uninhabitable for every one of its members (but not the institutions across town). But if we were to define studenthood as an institution and the school board decided to “redefine” studenthood by allowing a few well-behaved chimpanzees to attend classes, that doesn’t mean that studenthood in general has been harmend. Best to define it as a practice or a role.

Ask any couple why they are married and what will they tell you? Probably because they love each other, they enjoy the companionship, they’re soulmates, they’d rather not be with anyone else, etc. They’d be a little bit demure about the sex, but it’s huge. But if you marry just to get your hands on someone’s property rights, that’s generally frowned upon.

As for social recognition, I think that’s what gays are really after, instead of the social limbo their relationships are kept in.

18

BTW, here’s my older and longer essay on gay issues (and yet I’m not gay):
http://www.squeakywheelsblog.com/gays

19

Won’t someone think of the lexicographers!

20

The most recent redefinition in California was to remove the existing right of marriage from gay citizens. That’s a redefinition I have a problem with.