And has anyone made the argument that polygamist marriages aren’t “marriage”? They don’t meet the one man, one woman definition either.
The OP totally skirts the issue. Redefining is not a bad thing in itself, it is only bad if the redefinition makes the institution less able to achieve its goals. Anyone can live together in love right now without the piece of paper and the legal protections of marriage. The reason people get married is the legally binding commitment. This commitment allows the participants to engage in activity that would be foolish absent this commitment, raising children. Outside a marriage a woman could be saddled with an 18 year commitment to raise a child and the man could leave with no penalties. The legal commitment means that a man can not leave the relationship without penalties, such as alimony. This makes the relationship more stable and this stability is good for child rearing. Marriage norms are changing, and more people are choosing to have children out of wedlock or to become divorced. Because of this the rates of single parenthood have skyrocketed. The effects of this change on children are controversial, but it probably has some effect. Redefining marriage as two people in love would likely have more effects on family formation as love can be a fleeting thing. This would likely have effects on children and society. How large these effects would be and if they are uniformly negative are the questions, not if redefinition is always and everywhere a bad thing. Until you present evidence on these issues, the debate is just people talking past each other.
Of course not everyone wants to debate, since calling disagreement hatred is much easier.
Alright. You want us to think of the children and to present evidence. Very well then. What kind of effect is it that you think that expanding the legal institution of marriage to include same-sex partners (who can also raise children, let us note) will have on children? Can you present evidence?
It does also seem that there is something more to the legal institution of marriage, as it stands, than simply raising children; many couples choose to get married despite a lack of desire or ability to raise children, and this is not generally particularly controversial (except insofar as it gets brought up to make this point in these debates).
Perhaps it is inherent in those wishing to change the status quo, that has existed in every known society over the past several thousand years to present evidence that the change will not be harmful rather than calling BS on your opponenets arguements while not engaging those arguements in the slightest.
This right here I think is the SSM opponents problem in a nutshell - they think that each man and each woman should marry and have children. Anyone else shouldn’t “sully” marriage by, say, not having children, divorcing, having sex outside marriage or even daring to suggest that married folks aren’t always happy. They have obviously been losing the battle to deny marriage to the childfree, extra-marital sex and divorce so their (probable) last stand is against SSM, which is so well supported by homophobes everywhere.
Unfortunately, far too many marriages take a back seat to the children. It does seem to me that far too many couples take that “vital for propagating the species” bit to an extreme as they appear that the only reason they married was so they could have “legitimate” children. These folks, along with the homophobes, are the ones that opposed SSM in California which as made obvious by the fact that their whole campaign centered around “think of the children”.
Just some thoughts from another “raging hetero” 
Meh. In almost every society over the past several thousand years, there was no such thing as iPods, microwaveable oatmeal, or Internet messageboards, but their introduction wasn’t particular tempered by a need to present evidence against nebulous charges that they might, somehow, have unspecified deleterious effects on children. If you present a specific danger or mechanism for harm which you think same-sex marriage presents, then we can debate the evidence regarding that, but it’s kind of hard to do so otherwise.
The New York Legislature redefined marriage.
In 1907, effective January 1, 1908.
Before that, it was two people committing, before a minister or judge, to live together as a married couple 'til death do them part. The 1907 law required that the state license them to do so – essentially, that you couldn’t build a legal marriage without government permission.
My grandparents were the last couple married – I was told, in the state, but that may have been family exaggeration and it was just last in the county – without a license. They married New Year’s Eve, December 31, 1907, a few hours before the law went into effect at midnight.
Marrying for love has a time-honored history – look at Romeo and Juliet – but as a standard, it’s essentially a 20th century innovation. In ancient Athens, men married to get a mother to bear your children. You found love among your male friends.
European royalty and nobility arranged marriages for financial and diplomatic reasons. For love, or even for satisfying sex, you kept a mistress or paramour.
We’ve been redefining marriage since it was invented. I despise the idea that “what was the norm when I was a kid is what’s been standard since time immemorial.”
We’ve been
I’m unclear on your point then. You mentioned Britney’s wedding in response to:
I don’t see how 2.6 milliion hits on a search term is therefore a “flap”, which therefore translates into ‘traditional’ marriage defenders opposing Britney’s wedding. The logical chain is getting pretty thin here… If you can show me a cite where someone opposed to gay marriage was also in a “flap” about Britney’s wedding, then I’ll be satisfied.
It may be redefining marriage, but only in the sense of extending it, whilst preserving the entirety of what existed there before. It’s more of an upgrade than a redefinition.
I don’t see how it can be sanely argued to be detrimental to those already existing within the boundaries of the previous scheme. Like arguing that your neighbour has ruined your cheese sandwich by making one of his own, but containing ham.
I’m all for SSM or any other m, but why does the definition have to bring “sexual bond” into it. Lots of reasons for marriage that have nothing to do with sex.
It is a BS argument. Gay people can already raise children. Allowing gay people to get married doesn’t change this.
No, I don’t think so. We’ve suggested that gays should be allowed to marry, and we’ve laid out why we think this is a necessary good. It’s now up to those who disagree to lay out why they think it would be damaging. It’s not our job to invent your arguments for you. Tell us why you think this is a bad idea, and we can show you why you’re wrong. If you can’t do that, then we can only assume it’s because you don’t have an argument in the first place.
Also, you mean “incumbent,” not “inherent.”
Beyond which, marriage is not about children (though they’re a common result from any marriage of most fertile couples of child-bearing age). Marriage is not about romantic love (though it’s a major motivator in an overwhelming majority of marriages). Marriage is not about sex (though it’s an important part of the majority of marriages).
Marriage is about commitment – the willingness to undertake to take one other person as spouse for a lifetime. (And if a polyamorist wishes to quibble the “one” I’ll accept that – but that’s not pertinent to this debate.)
No children -/-> no marriage
No romantic love -/-> no marriage
No sex -/-> no marriage
But no commitment --> no marriage
Well, it’s obvious why they think that sort of redefinition would be damaging, isn’t it? They think it would be damaging because it would put gay relationships on par with straight ones and reflect an attitude that gay people are equal to straight people. Since they don’t believe gay relationships should be on par with straight ones, and that gay people are inferior to straight people, they consider that a negative effect.
I don’t think it’s about maximizing childbearing numbers, but rather it’s this “load-bearing archetype”.
Because marriage in its most basic, primitive sense is built around mating and reproduction, so that becomes basic to how its conceptualized. And to conceptualize it differently even once is to overthrow the whole kit-n-kaboodle because they can’t tell the difference between the concept and the reality of billions of different people, and they can’t grasp the concept of an exception.
The status quo is that 3-4% of the population is homosexual. How does acknowledging that the romantic relationships of this minority group aren’t all that much different from those of everyone else really change anything in society as a whole? You can’t demand SSM proponents prove a negative–you have to prove serious harm before you can make an exception to liberty.
What marriage meant to married people, to the churches, or to common people should mean nothing. What matters is what marriage actually IS to the State. And, to the State, a civil marriage is a collection of rights and privileges incorporated into the law. And the gender, just as the race, criminal history, or the reproductive capabilities, of the parties is of absolutely no relevance.
The problem is that many of the anti-same sex marriage conflate their view of what a marriage is (and it rarely is always the same), to what the State’s view of what a marriage actually is.
Right you are–commitment is really what makes a marriage a marriage. But gay marriages include most of the other characteristics as well.
So one question that needs to be asked then is, given the nature of, for example, George Takei’s relationship, what it the word for that if not “marriage”?
That’s what I mean, if I understood the big words correctly (sorry, only a high school education here, and that a long time ago!)
It’s been made. That’s why Utah made seven tries before we became a state.
So people have said that history books, distributed to schools all over the US, which describe polygamist marriage in ancient and foreign lands should remove the descriptor of “marriage” from their text and instead use xxxxxx, is what you’re saying? What xxxxxx was suggested, might I ask?