# Gay marriage - non-religious objections? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2004, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098 "2004-02-13T20:47:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/141 "2004-02-19T07:54:17Z")
I have only skimmed this thread. If this point has been made earlier, I presume that posters more committed to this issue than I can point me in the proper direction. Alternatively, I could be ignored. A Case Against Gay Marriage … but not domestic partnerships. Today marriage is, among other things, a contract between two different genders. If one believes in the Chromosome Planets shtick, this fact will be relevant during divorce cases. By way of example: IANAL, but my understanding is that courts presume that infidelity is grounds for divorce, in the absence of evidence for an “open relationship”. This presumption may not be reasonable in the case of male couples. I’m not saying that male gays can’t be sexually monogamous with another. I’m saying that enough male couples voluntary choose nonexclusive relationships so that it may not be fair to assume that infidelity is grounds for divorce, in the absence of an explicit over-ridding contract. (Isn’t that what marriage is, a standard contract that can be over-ridden with a pre- or post-nup? Ok, admittedly, there are other elements to this particular social institution.) More generally, it may make sense to have a different set of divorce precedents for MF, MM, and FF couples. ## I propose that we call these 3 sorts of contracts, a “Marriage Contract”, a “Domestic Partnership I Contract” and a “Domestic Partnership II Contract”. Naturally, codicils would be permitted to over-ride any of these presumptions. Weakness in my argument: We _could_ call all 3 sorts of contracts, “Marriage”. But it seems silly to make an issue of labels, as opposed to substance. At any rate, since there is a necessity for setting up 3 separate precedents, it seems reasonable to apply different labels to these domestic arrangements. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/142 "2004-02-19T08:29:37Z")
> [@DesiderioDomini](#): > > Hello to all. Interesting discussion. One comment before I jump in: Hostile\_Monk65 was absolutely right when he pointed out that you cannot separate religion and morality. I also find it VERY INTERESTING that NO ONE has adaquately replied to his argument. That’s because it’s not an argument. > [@](#): > > #1Let me point out the fallisies you committed in this post, since all judgement should be based on logic, which I think we all agree to. 1. Ad hominem, attacking the person and not the argument. I did commit an ad hominem when I said he was in over his head, yes. > [@](#): > > 1. your arguments are non-sequitur. Care to elaborate? > [@](#): > > 1. Slothful Induction. Care to elaborate? > [@](#): > > #2 You claim that he hasn’t provided any evidence, which I suppose is because you don’t count logic as evidence, but in fact, you haven’t provided evidence against his claim and therefore have in no way warrented your claim. He hasn’t produced any evidence, including logic. He merely made an assertion, unproven and unsupported, expecting us to blindly accept it. Since he’s making the positive claim here, the burden of proof is on him. It is impossible for me to provide evidence against it until I’ve seen at least a tiny little shade of evidence from him. If I were to say “It’s impossible to discuss zebras without taking into account the Hale-Bopp comet”, would you think the burden of proof were on you to disprove the statement, rather than on me to prove it? The situation is perfectly analogous. He made a strange assertion. If he wants us to take it seriously, he’d better back it up. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/143 "2004-02-19T09:04:33Z")
From time to time there are discussions on this board about moral philosophy, where religion is not the focus. **Cardinal** ’s thread, [The end justifying the means](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=239927), is one example. ---
**Author:** ![hildea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ebca7d/32.png) [@hildea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hildea)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/144 "2004-02-19T10:41:28Z")
> [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > Here I think we just have a fundamental, unbridgeable disagreement. I feel very strongly that language should not be tinkered with just to make people feel better. I don’t want my language flattened down, neutered, rendered unisex. If you are interested in seeing where this kind of thinking can lead, check out [this link](http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110004691). Heh. I’m a feminist, but I’d like language to have balls 🙂 I’ve seen _your_ position as the safe, feel-good _“Let’s call this kind of spade a digging implement so we won’t offend the easily offended”_ position. I think we can safely agree that _all_ positions on this issue will offend some people and please others. I don’t want to call same-sex unions “marriage” to save gay people from being offended. I want it because I think it will, to some (small) extent, change how the majority see homosexuality - so that gay people may be less at risk from real, serious discrimination and harassment. Do you see the difference? Oh, and you do realise that we’re _all_ “tinkering with language” here? Creating new words and expressions is no more or less tinkering than changing the meaning of existing ones. \ Have you read Connie Willis’ short story “Ado”? I think you’ll like it - it’s about a teacher some time in the future trying to teach Shakespeare without attracting lawsuits… \ I see your main point as (paraphrased): “Same-sex unions are fundamentally different from opposite-sex unions, therefore they should have different names”. Is that more or less correct? My main point is: Same-sex unions are fundamentally different from opposite-sex unions in some ways, fundamentally similar in others. Lots of fundamentally different things have the same name, lots of fundamentally similar things have different names. Therefore, the differences _and_ similarities aren’t much of an argument either way, so I turn to the “Gay Agenda” section of my copy of “Agendas for All Occasions for the Bleeding Heart Liberal” 🙂 and find my arguments for calling same-sex unions “marriage” there. This isn’t a linguistic question. It’s a politicial one. **Measure for Measure** , is infidelity really relevant in divorce cases in USA? I’m surprised to hear it. Surely not all couples where one or both of the spouses cheat want to divorce. I assume they deal with it somehow. I don’t see why gay couples who want an open relationship should need a different marriage contract than straight couples who feel likewise. Nor do I see why gay couples who want a monogamous relationship shouldn’t have the same marriage contract as straight couples who want the same. There might be good reasons for changing US laws about divorce - or not, I’m not familiar with the subject. But I don’t see why these laws should be different depending on the genders involved. (A somewhat relevant factoid: A Norwegian study indicates that divorce rates for same-sex couples are mostly similar to opposite-sex ones. The material isn’t very big yet, so the conclusion might change after more study, of course.) ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/145 "2004-02-19T11:21:46Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > IANAL, but my understanding is that courts presume that infidelity is grounds for divorce, in the absence of evidence for an “open relationship”. > > This presumption may not be reasonable in the case of male couples. I’m not saying that male gays can’t be sexually monogamous with another. I’m saying that enough male couples voluntary choose nonexclusive relationships so that it may not be fair to assume that infidelity is grounds for divorce, in the absence of an explicit over-ridding contract. > > (Isn’t that what marriage is, a standard contract that can be over-ridden with a pre- or post-nup? Ok, admittedly, there are other elements to this particular social institution.) > > More generally, it may make sense to have a different set of divorce precedents for MF, MM, and FF couples. > > ## I propose that we call these 3 sorts of contracts, a “Marriage Contract”, a “Domestic Partnership I Contract” and a “Domestic Partnership II Contract”. Naturally, codicils would be permitted to over-ride any of these presumptions. > > Weakness in my argument: We _could_ call all 3 sorts of contracts, “Marriage”. But it seems silly to make an issue of labels, as opposed to substance. At any rate, since there is a necessity for setting up 3 separate precedents, it seems reasonable to apply different labels to these domestic arrangements. This argument has no merit at all. First of all, generally speaking, judges are not stupid people. They can, in most cases, identify the nature of the relationship that was involved in a marriage and determine what is and is not conduct outside the parties’ expectations. Second, every state in the country has no-fault divorce: the judge is not required to find “grounds” for divorce, but must accept the stipulation that the marriage is “irreconcilably broken” without further factfinding. The concept of “fault” is only a factor in divorce as it influences the property distribution, and the extent to which it does is fact-sensitive to the individual case. Third, your specific presumption is based in an unfounded prejudicial stereotype about gay men. Codifying a prejudicial stereotype into law is offensive. ---
**Author:** ![jkim78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@jkim78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jkim78)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/146 "2004-02-19T11:46:46Z")
You all sound pathetic in your whinings about moralities and such. I’ll present a simple argument that answers the OP. 1. Primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All emotions associated with this act stem from our biological make-up. 2. Primary purpose of marriage is the protection of the reproducted and associates. It’s inevitable that paternal and maternal instincts cause conflicts about the kid without this kind of institution. 3. Sex without purpose of reproduction has 2 effects: 1. exercise. 2. pleasure. It’s like DDR (dancing video game), except more senses intensive. 4. Community protects its young uns, and hence marriage and all benefits there of are provided - not for the couple but for the kid. The government doesnt provide subsidies for me having casual sex, going to the gym, going to video games parlor, etc. Hence they shouldnt subsidize gay sex. You whine about equality, you get married, have sex, and have a kid from the process. ok? u cant do that then stop bitching. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/147 "2004-02-19T11:59:20Z")
> [@jkim78](#): > > You all sound pathetic in your whinings about moralities and such. > > I’ll present a simple argument that answers the OP. > > 1. Primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All emotions associated with this act stem from our biological make-up. Yes. Why should we care? > [@](#): > > 1. Primary purpose of marriage is the protection of the reproducted and associates. It was, in long-gone times. No more. > [@](#): > > 1. Community protects its young uns, and hence marriage and all benefits there of are provided - not for the couple but for the kid. This is not entirely true, since some benefits of marriage don’t affect the kids, but let’s accept it for the sake of the argument. This is an argument in favour of gay marriage, since many children are already today living with same-sex parents. Why don’t you want them to have the same benefits as other children? > [@](#): > > The government doesnt provide subsidies for me having casual sex, going to the gym, going to video games parlor, etc. Hence they shouldnt subsidize gay sex. No, they shouldn’t. Has anyone said they should? The sex is incidental. > [@](#): > > You whine about equality, you get married, have sex, and have a kid from the process. ok? u cant do that then stop bitching. You’ll find that you’ll be taken much more seriously if you produce coherent arguments in acceptable grammar and avoid leetspeek. ---
**Author:** ![jkim78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@jkim78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jkim78)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/148 "2004-02-19T12:06:40Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > You’ll find that you’ll be taken much more seriously if you produce coherent arguments in acceptable grammar and avoid leetspeek. I was half-way through writing the detailed version at work… will post it on Monday (Sunday to you guys in the US) cuz i’m going to client site tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/149 "2004-02-19T12:14:49Z")
> [@MrVisible](#): > > I’ll have you know, formatting this properly was quite the chore. Tell me about it. I would have had this done yesterday if not for formatting issues. The elimination of nested quotes=Worst. “Improvement”. Ever. > [@MrVisible](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > Or rather, as I’ve asked you twice before, if marriage and civil unions were treated equally under the law, on what basis would you object to the differentiation in labelling? > > If that was the case, I’d be singing the praises of civil unions to the skies. My boyfriend and I would be signing up for one as soon as the bandwagon hit our neighborhood. I’d be jeering at the folks who held out for calling it marriage alongside you. Well then. Alright. Good. > [@MrVisible](#): > > But it’s not. > > All of the proposed civil unions so far have been lacking basic, essential rights and privileges that heterosexual marriage conveys. All of them. There’s not one civil rights measure on the table in any state that gives my years-long relationship the same privileges that Britney and Jason enjoyed for those tempestuous 55 hours. > > In light of that fact, your argument becomes irrelevant to the point of being bizarre. We’re being offered a different, worse contract than straight people, under another name. Our objection isn’t to the name, it’s to the contract. > > It’s fun to debate about what would happen in alternate universes where chocolate cake falls from the skies like rain and birds fly backwards singing Annie Lennox tunes and legislatures offer homosexual couples the exact same rights as heterosexual couples by a different name, but none of that is happening here in this reality. > > So, please start debating things that actually exist now. In the absence of your fabled equal contract under a different name, doesn’t it make sense to simply expand the definition of a legal contract that already exists which covers all of the bases? So…your feeling is that the goal of expanding the definition of marriage is simply more achievable getting an equivilent CU? I don’t think I agree with that, not for the long and medium terms. In the short term this might be true of individual states like MA, where you have a Supreme Court amenable to it. And a lengthy and cumbersome amendment process, remember Hawaii. This is not something I’m really equipped to debate, though, nor would I want to here, as it would be a hijack. > [@Homebrew](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > Sex and sexuality are important, indeed paramount, factors in making a relationship that we might consider a marriage. > > And you can have sex without being married. You’re not making sense. > > So your list for a marriage is > Sex > ??? > I don’t see how whether the sex is homo or het makes any difference to your list. It’s completely irrelevant as to whether the person an individual would want to marry is male or female. The relationship itself would be made up of the same things: love commitment, helping one another, etc. Therefore it makes no sense to call it anything other than “marriage”. Um…I’ve gotten a bit lost here. Which “list” are you talking about? I know you came up with a list of things that are supposed to be in a marriage, and I said it wasn’t comprehensive, but I didn’t say it was wrong either. Or did you mean the list of qualities I would be looking for in a mate? In which case, “whether the sex is homo or het” would make a huge difference. I assume it would to you as well… Note: I cleaned up some coding problems in replying to this next one: > [@Joe Random](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > Sex and sexuality are important, indeed paramount, factors in making a relationship that we might consider a marriage. > > Consider that a heterosexual couple may get married, but, for one reason or another (maybe they’re both a bit elderly, and the equipment doesn’t work well anymore), they prefer cuddling to sex. Thus, by the above definition, they shouldn’t be able to get married at all, which is ridiculous. 1-What I said did not constitute a “definition”. I was simply identifying one thing, sexuality, that is intricately bound up with both the perception and reality of marriage. Do you dispute that? 2-Even if the couple don’t have sex with each other, they still make a wedding vow to be sexually faithful. You might consider it as amended to read, “if you do have sex, it will only be with each other.” 3-Some small percentage of people who get married don’t really love each other, either. Do we then conclude that love and marriage have nothing to do with each other? 4-Finally, I asked about this in another thread, and never got a response…is anyone familiar with laws on annulment? My understanding of it is that one partner in a marriage can sue for it if the marriage has not been consummated, ie there’s been no sex. Is this correct? If so, then apparently the state can decree retroactively that no valid marriage ever took place, which looks to me as though the state _does_ undertake in some measure to enforce the notion of a linkage between marriage and sex, albiet only on the initiative of a partner to that marriage. Which is appropriate, any other kind of enforcement measure would involve an intolerable invasion of privacy. > [@Joe Random](#): > > There’s obviously something other than sex that is important to marriage. Obviously. I don’t think I’ve ever denied that. Saying that one thing is important does not mean that other things also are not. > [@Joe Random](#): > > I propose that the difference is . . . . . . wait for it . . . . . . wanting to get married! That’s it. The only difference between a married couple and an unmarried couple should be that the unmarried couple didn’t want to get married. Um. So…people should be married the instant they _want_ to be? I don’t think that’s what you _meant_. But I’m not sure what you did… > [@Joe Random](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > And when it comes to sexual relationships, all of us, again excepting that very small minority who are perfectly balanced bisexuals, percieve a very big and important difference between the genders, as I went to great lengths to try to demonstrate > > And that’s the reason why we should have gay marriage! Heterosexuals are legally allowed to marry the people they want to, while homosexuals are not. 1-Nitpick time again. If the person a heterosexual wants to marry is a blood relative, underage, or already married, then they _can’t_. 2- I cannot at _all_ see how you got to “(a)nd that’s the reason why”, but never mind that, because 3-Women are legally allowed to call themselves 'women", men are not. And vice versa. Do you find this “discrimination” more acceptable, and if so, why? > [@Joe Random](#): > > I fail to see why the sexes of the participants should matter as far as the label of “marriage” is concerned. Do you also fail to see why the sex of a person should matter as far as the label of “man” or “woman” is concerned? > [@TeaElle](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > I am not advocating “maintaining” the distinction between gay and straight marriage. I am saying that there is a distinction, this distinction being that they have different gender makeups, and that this distiction is important and relevent enough such that we ought to maintain seperate labels for them, as we have seperate labels for men and women. > > And you’re basing that assertion on what other than your opinion that the XX or YY model is so outrageously different from the XY model that it should be given separate status under the law? 1-I’ve never used the word “outrageously”. You tell me, are men and women “outrageously” different? 2- For the umpteenth time, I am _not_ arguing that they “should be given separate status under the law”. Only seperate _labels_. Men and women have seperate labels, and are still treated equally under the law. > [@TeaElle](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > I’m not sure what we are arguing about here, or why. The two are different but not “very distinctly” different because they have, as I said, essentially the same set of vows…sexual fidelity, “in sickness and in health, 'till death do us part” etc etc. Those exact words may not get said at every wedding, but any marriage, religous or civil, is understood to include those promises. > > Not true. As I stated, there are marriages which have no vows. There are marriages which are entered into with an understanding of an open/polyamorous relationship and consequently the promises of fidelity are not included. The law demands no promises or vows, the only condition necessary for a couple to be legally married is the filing of a legitimate and duly signed marriage license. I’m going to have to ask for a cite for this. Specifically the part about how “(t)he law demands no promises or vows”. I am aware that there may be no necessity for people to stand up and recite vows in a wedding ceremony in order to be married, but I don’t see how that has any bearing on the way that the state views the marriage contract it is bound to enforce. > [@TeaElle](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > 1-I am not demanding that it cease, only arguing that it is not appropriate in this particular case. > > 2-“predicating the discrimination against millions of people” begs the question of whether or not it is, in fact, discriminatory in and of itself to give different relationships different labels based on their gender makeup, and in fact I see no reason to think that it is. > > Yes, but your assertion begs the question of whether or not it is, in fact, accurate to suggest that a relationship should have a different label based solely on the gender of those involved. You’ve offered no reason why a different label should be used, nothing to justify the suggestion. Read the first post I made in this thread. > [@TeaElle](#): > > If the genders of people involved demand different labels for the relationships that they’re involved in, why do we have only one word for friendship regardless of whether we’re discussing the platonic relationship of two men, two women or a man and a woman and regardless of the sexual orientations of same? The word “friend” describes a person with whom you do not want, or do not necessarily want, an intimate, sexual relationship. You might find a particular friend attractive of course, but that is not a necessary precursor to that person being your friend. The words “spouse”, “husband”, “wife”, etc do typically describe a person with whom you have, or wish to have, an intimate sexual relationship. > [@TeaElle](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > Now, once again I ask you, if the two contracts were treated equally under the law, on what basis would you object to the differentiation in labelling? > > Start with the redundancy and inefficiency of having two separate labels for the same function. This is taxpayer money going to pay for separate forms, separate everything just so that people don’t get their noses out of joint by the idea of the gay guys down the street being married just like them. Another very weak argument. Why do you assume seperate forms will be needed, never mind seperate everything? What’s wrong with a single form with two checkboxes, one marked “marriage”, the other “CU”? > [@TeaElle](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > Because race and gender are two different things. And striking down laws against “miscegenation” did not involve expanding the definition of marriage. > > Oh yes it did, it expanded the definition to include couples of differing races. Oh no it did not. Unless you are prepared to argue that the law forbade _any_ racial combination in it’s participants…white and asian, white and hispanic, etc. No, the law has always held that both participants in a marriage be human, and what changed was that black people came to be accepted as fully human under the law, when before they were not. Nothing about the nature of marriage itself was changed. > [@TeaElle](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > That if the only discrimination being made between two groups of people is a semantic one, ie that they are given different labels, then no one is in fact being denied any rights. > > They may not be denied rights, but they are being discriminated against for no purpose, Then for what purpose are men discriminated against such that they may not be called “women”, and women discriminated against such that they may not be called “men”? > [@TeaElle](#): > > and at a cost of taxpayer dollars. I already addressed that one. > [@TeaElle](#): > > There’s no justification for it. And that one, in my first post, like I said. (note-post cut in half due to length limit, second half to follow) ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/150 "2004-02-19T12:21:25Z")
(note-part 2 of 2 part post) > [@TeaElle](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > 2-Given that, I actually agree with this in principle, insofar that I don’t think it is necessary for the state apply the label “marriage” to any of the contracts it enforces. I would be perfectly happy for the state to sanction nothing but “civil unions”, and let social convention dictate what is and is not called a marriage. And if social convention drifts to the point that they are called by the same label, then so be it. > > Also not germane to the point. There is marriage, civil marriage, sanctioned by the state. Period. That’s not going to change or go away, It’s not? I thought the whole point of this thread is that you _want_ to change it. > [@TeaElle](#): > > we are not going to tell all married people that they’re now civilly unioned. I concede that it is unlikely, but I don’t think it is impossible. In particular, I think a lot of people who consider themselves married “in the eyes of God” would not object to the state tinkering with the wording, especially if the alternative is to have same-sex marriage. > [@TeaElle](#): > > But you have not made any argument why, under the law, it is necessary for the state to ascertain the gender of the people to whom marriage licenses are being issued. Well, _you_ have not made any argument why, under the law, it is necessary for the state to ascertain the gender of people who check a box marked “m” or “f” on any state form they fill out. > [@TeaElle](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > 1-If you consider expanding a definition to be a “meaningless bit of rhetoric”, then why are you so intent on expanding the definition of marriage? Assuming, as I keep saying, that you have the option of civil union that is equal to it under the law. > > No, I’m saying that the phrase “expanding the definition” as repeatedly and bandied about in this argument is meaningless rhetoric. Definitions change and expand on a daily basis, some by natural evolution and usage changes, others because someone forces the matter. I wouldn’t _object_ to the definition of marriage changing by natural evolution. Or at least, I would be opposed to the state trying to outlaw it, just as I would be opposed to the state outlawing the use of the word “parent” as a verb, even though that kind of irks me. As for forcing the matter…sometimes people try to force the matter and fail. In another thread I mentioned “New Coke” as an example. And Coke has only been around for a century or so. Just because someone is trying to force the matter doesn’t automatically mean they ought to succeed. > [@TeaElle](#): > > I don’t understand how you can argue that it’s a terrible thing to “expand the definition” of marriage Well now. I haven’t _quite_ said it would be “terrible”. Think of it like this: Would it be such a terrible thing to ban just one book? C’mon, just _one_. It’s not the end of the world. Just one. > [@TeaElle](#): > > to provide equality while simultaneously argue that it’s not a big deal because if there’s something else that does the same thing then it shouldn’t matter what it’s called. If it is a truth unquestionable that marriage is so sacrosanct as to be above and beyond having it’s defintion “expanded” then how can it not also be true that marriage has an inherent value I think you are making the mistake here of confusing a word with the thing it represents. Marriage is a phenomenon that exists, in the real world. The word “marriage” is the label we put on that phenomenon. Whether or not marriage has “inherent value” is entirely subjective…it has value to those who want it, none to those who don’t. I take no position on whether or not it is “sacrosanct”. What we are talking about here, or anyway what _I_ am talking about, is the label…“marriage”. And no, I don’t think that label, or any label, is “sacrosanct”, and I haven’t been arguing such. Rather, what I have been saying is that we _do_ have an interest in preserving…let’s call it “linguistic biodiversity”. We ought to have a diversity of labels, of words, to adequately reflect the diversity of human experience. And applying that principle to this particular case, that we ought not to stretch the label “mariage” to cover same-sex relationships. > [@TeaElle](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > 3-Disregarding the other two points, these “redefinitions” came about as a corrective to the notion that women were inherently inferior…remember that key word, inferior…to men in the qualities needed to do the things they describe. I have not put forth any argument that same sex relationships are inferior to opposite sex ones, only that they are different, jsut as the two sexes themselves are different, and thus have different labels. > > And since you’ve repeated yourself again, I’ll do likewise: you’ve claimed that they are different enough in substance to be treated differently under the law, but you have presented no substantiation to your claim. And I’ll repeat myself again, and say that I have _not_ said that they should be treated differently under the law. > [@TeaElle](#): > > Interesting that language should not be changed just to make people “feel better” but your entire argument is that language should not be changed because it would make you feel bad. I have not at any point said that “language should not be changed”, I have simply argued that it would not be appropriate in this case. And in fact I have said that if the definition of this word changes by “natural evolution”, then so be it. I just don’t want the state to _mandate_ it. > [@TeaElle](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > “(L)ove, mutual respect, commitment, sharing of resources” do not make a comprehensive list. You can have all of those things with someone who is not your husband, or wife, or partner in a civil union. Sex and sexuality are important, indeed paramount, factors in making a relationship that we might consider a marriage. > > Maybe. > > They’re completely irrelevant for people who are marrying for companionship rather than romantic connection, and such people exist. They’re irrelevant for people who are marrying for financial reasons, or immigration reasons, or for insurance purposes, and such people exist. Are you arguing that the fact that such people exist means that there is no connection between marriage and sex, or marriage and love for that matter? > [@TeaElle](#): > > The fact is that we do not ascertain the reasons motivating people’s marriages as a matter of law. You are not required to pledge your intention to have sex with your spouse when you apply for a marriage license. You aren’t even required to state that there is love between you. You may not be required to _state_ those things, but it is assumed. > [@TeaElle](#): > > You can be virtual strangers. Your pairing can be the result of a drunken hookup in Vegas or a business transaction from a Russian Mail Order Bride company. No one asks. The fact that “no one asks” does not mean that it is not assumed. > [@TeaElle](#): > > But when two people of the opposite gender say “We got married” there is never any question about the private aspects of their relationship. They may not live together most of the time, they may sleep in separate rooms, they may each have lovers, or they may be the most passionately in love couple who ever lived, incapable of keeping their hands off of one another and dying to have baby after baby and live together until they die simultaneously, entwined together, in their sleep at age 117. > > But none of that matters under the law. No matter how the day to day scenes of their marriage play out, they’re married as soon as that license is filed even if they never say another word to one another. > > And so it is with the differences between same-gender and opposite-gender relationships. They are played out behind closed doors. They have nothing to do with the legal aspects of what constitutes a marriage. They are the same inasmuch as they both represent two people coming forward and saying “We wish to be officially recognized as a couple.” That’s all there is too it. And I have no problem with two people of the same sex being “officially recognized as a couple” regardless of whether they are passionately in love or never speak to each other or yada yada. I am simply opposed to using the word “marriage” to describe that relationship. > [@look!ninjas](#): > > Most people don’t use “Man” to mean “A man or a woman” anymore. That’s because the meaning of the word has changed. Language is changing. I don’t see why marriage is a word so sacred that it cannot be altered. Nor have I seen any sort of reasoning from you to explain why the relationship between two men or two women is different enough to require a separate word. The gender makeups vary. Okay, but why is that so important? There are differences in sex and sexuality. I’ll grant you, there are some, but it’s not like straight people have the egg and sperm while gay people reproduce via spores. I don’t see any compelling reason not to expand the definition of the word “marriage.” See my responses above re the word being “sacred”. As to the “compelling reason”…first of all, I laid out my reasoning in my first post in this thread. In the second place, I think that if _the state_ wants to change the definition of a word by fiat, the burden of providing a compelling reason, for _making_ the change, lies with _the state_. Remember I’ve said that if such a change comes naturally, I wouldn’t oppose it. > [@hildea](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > Here I think we just have a fundamental, unbridgeable disagreement. I feel very strongly that language should _not_ be tinkered with just to make people feel better. I don’t want my language flattened down, neutered, rendered unisex. If you are interested in seeing where this kind of thinking can lead, check out [this link](http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110004691). > > Heh. I’m a feminist, but I’d like language to have balls 🙂 That’s a good way of putting it 🙂 > [@hildea](#): > > I’ve seen _your_ position as the safe, feel-good _“Let’s call this kind of spade a digging implement so we won’t offend the easily offended”_ position. I think we can safely agree that _all_ positions on this issue will offend some people and please others. True. > [@hildea](#): > > I don’t want to call same-sex unions “marriage” to save gay people from being offended. I want it because I think it will, to some (small) extent, change how the majority see homosexuality - so that gay people may be less at risk from real, serious discrimination and harassment. Do you see the difference? I see your point. But I think you are making an unsupported assumption here. We could just as well assume that expanding the definition of “marriage” will cause a much bigger backlash than simply instituting civil unions, thus putting gay people _more_ at risk of harassment. Especially if the redefinition comes about via court order as in MA, rather than through the democratic process. > [@hildea](#): > > Oh, and you do realise that we’re _all_ “tinkering with language” here? Creating new words and expressions is no more or less tinkering than changing the meaning of existing ones. True. But creating new labels, as opposed to stretching old ones, preserves diversity, as I mentioned…um, up there somewhere…in this very, very long post… > [@hildea](#): > > \ Have you read Connie Willis’ short story “Ado”? I think you’ll like it - it’s about a teacher some time in the future trying to teach Shakespeare without attracting lawsuits… \ I have heard of it. Don’t think I’ve read it, but I may have and then forgotten. Is it collected somewhere? > [@hildea](#): > > I see your main point as (paraphrased): “Same-sex unions are fundamentally different from opposite-sex unions, therefore they should have different names”. Is that more or less correct? More or less… > [@hildea](#): > > My main point is: > Same-sex unions are fundamentally different from opposite-sex unions in some ways, fundamentally similar in others. Lots of fundamentally different things have the same name, lots of fundamentally similar things have different names. Therefore, the differences _and_ similarities aren’t much of an argument either way, But I don’t see how the fact that lots of fundamentally different things have the same name already provides a justification for doing it some more. You can think of it as a “bug” in the system that is our language, one that can be exploited to make jokes and puns like “Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana”, but just because you are resigned to, and even used to, the bugs that are already there, does not mean that you should go and deliberately introduce more of them into the system. > [@hildea](#): > > so I turn to the “Gay Agenda” section of my copy of “Agendas for All Occasions for the Bleeding Heart Liberal” 🙂 and find my arguments for calling same-sex unions “marriage” there. Um…I don’t have my copy. The dog ate it. Yeah. > [@hildea](#): > > This isn’t a linguistic question. It’s a politicial one. I think it’s both, myself. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/151 "2004-02-19T12:31:23Z")
You know, the amount of rhetorical energy being expended by those who are trying to keep a word in the English language from changing in definition is truly amazing. It’s SEMANTICS, people! The particular grouping of the words “World Wide Web” was meaningless in 1993. The meaning of the word “mouse” has been expanded since the mid-80s. “Instant messaging” was a telephone before the mid-90s. More to the point, “marriage” meant a man and a (legally powerless) woman of the same race at the beginning of the 20th Century. It meant a man and a woman who was actually a legal entity (of the same race) in the 1940s. It meant a man and a woman of equal legal value with no regard to race in the 1960s and after. If you want to go back further in history it changes even more. “Marriage” has meant exactly what it means today for less than 40 years. Not even that far back if you take into account all of the subtle differences in interactions between the members of a marriage between the 60s and today. Language shifts and flows. Meanings change. The last thing we need is some kind of rearguard Academie Francaise purely for the word “marriage”. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/152 "2004-02-19T12:54:34Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > You know, the amount of rhetorical energy being expended by those who are trying to keep a word in the English language from changing in definition is truly amazing. I am not trying to keep a word form changing. I am arguing against the state _mandating_ a change. > [@jayjay](#): > > It’s SEMANTICS, people! So? > [@jayjay](#): > > “Marriage” has meant exactly what it means today for less than 40 years. You must have missed the “rhetorical energy” I expended refuting this notion… > [@jayjay](#): > > Language shifts and flows. Meanings change. The last thing we need is some kind of rearguard Academie Francaise purely for the word “marriage”. Once again, I don’t want any organ of the state to _guard_ the definition of a word. I simply don’t want it to mandate a change. ---
**Author:** ![DesiderioDomini](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5e9695/32.png) [@DesiderioDomini](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesiderioDomini)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/153 "2004-02-19T13:35:04Z")
> [@KellyM](#): > > I know many gay couples who have reproduced. Therefore, your argument is invalid not only because it is irrational, but because at least one of its premises is false. No, your premise is false, and you are not following ours. Gay couples, in and of themselves, by themselves cannot reproduce. Therefore, how can it be right when it defys natural law? > [@](#): > > Did you just start introduction to logical reasoning or something? I’ve never seen the terminology for discussing logical argument so badly abused before. I, and everyone else here, wait with bated breath for you to offer an argument against gay marriage, instead of feckless prattle about other people’s arguments studded with random phrases out of Rhetoric 101 textbooks. You offer ONLY conclusory statements with out attacking anything specific. Lets be intelligent here. You didn’t think about my arguments. If you yourself were a logician, you would have pointed out all the logical fallicies I committed, which you cannot, because I didn’t commit any. And yes right instead of quantity void of substance. In order to use logic you must use substance to your argument and not just conclusory attack. And we await your responce of substance if you have any. I will respond more later today. I’ve gotta go to school. Later. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/154 "2004-02-19T14:59:02Z")
> [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > I am not trying to keep a word form changing. I am arguing against the state _mandating_ a change. And I am against the state refusing to acknowledge that the change has already occured, and even more so against the state trying to prevent the change. Which is precisely what all the “defense of marriage” acts that have been proposed and adopted are trying to do. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/155 "2004-02-19T15:05:46Z")
> [@DesiderioDomini](#): > > No, your premise is false, and you are not following ours. Gay couples, in and of themselves, by themselves cannot reproduce. This is false. My girlfriend and I reproduced last year, by ourselves, with only minimal “outside assistance” (that being the routine services of an OB/GYN and other related professionals from two months post-conception through birth). > [@DesiderioDomini](#): > > Therefore, how can it be right when it defys natural law? Our child defies natural law? I mean, yeah, she’s occasionally defiant, but of our desire for an orderly household, which I don’t think rises to the level of natural law. > [@DesiderioDomini](#): > > You offer ONLY conclusory statements with out attacking anything specific. No, I attacked **your** conclusory statements. It is your obligation to prove your assertions, not mine to disprove yours. Prove yours, or quit the field. > [@DesiderioDomini](#): > > Lets be intelligent here. You didn’t think about my arguments. If you yourself were a logician, you would have pointed out all the logical fallicies I committed, which you cannot, because I didn’t commit any. And yes right instead of quantity void of substance. In order to use logic you must use substance to your argument and not just conclusory attack. And we await your responce of substance if you have any. The preceding was an ad hominem attack. Furthermore, you have shown by your conduct that you are neither a “logician” nor a debater. It remains to be seen what you **are** , but I am quite certain that neither of the preceding terms describes you fairly. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/156 "2004-02-19T15:06:25Z")
> [@Weird\_Al](#): > > Um…I’ve gotten a bit lost here. Which “list” are you talking about? I know you came up with a list of things that are supposed to be in a marriage, and I said it wasn’t comprehensive, but I didn’t say it was wrong either. Or did you mean the list of qualities I would be looking for in a mate? In which case, “whether the sex is homo or het” would make a huge difference. I assume it would to you as well… Homo or het makes a difference to an individual’s choice of a partner. But you still haven’t shown that the **nature of the relationship between those partners** is any different based on the genders involved. If you make a list of the things that are _ **essential** _ for a marriage, what would it contain? Tell me how _any_ of those things are dependent on the genders of the participants. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/157 "2004-02-19T16:49:39Z")
> [@KellyM](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > I am not trying to keep a word form changing. I am arguing against the state mandating a change. > > And I am against the state refusing to acknowledge that the change has already occured, Whether or not the change has already occured is another debate entirely. You think it has, I disagree. But even assuming you are right, what does it matter that the state fails to catch up to the populace on the matter of labeling as long as there is equality under the law between opposite-sex “marriage” and same-sex “civil unions”? > [@KellyM](#): > > and even more so against the state trying to prevent the change. Which is precisely what all the “defense of marriage” acts that have been proposed and adopted are trying to do. If you want to discuss a proposed legislative act or amendment, you’ll have to quote the specific text to me. There are more than one such proposal out there. > [@Homebrew](#): > > Homo or het makes a difference to an individual’s choice of a partner. But you still haven’t shown that the **nature of the relationship between those partners** is any different based on the genders involved. They are not different “based on” the genders involved. The difference _is_ the genders involved. > [@Homebrew](#): > > If you make a list of the things that are _ **essential** _ for a marriage, what would it contain? Tell me how _any_ of those things are dependent on the genders of the participants. One of the things on the list would be, that the person who participates in a marriage with me be someone who I find desirable sexually. Which, in turn, very much depends on that person’s _gender_. As it would, again I presume, with you. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/158 "2004-02-19T16:54:50Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > You know, the amount of rhetorical energy being expended by those who are trying to keep a word in the English language from changing in definition is truly amazing. Spoken like someone who’s never opened a “cracker vs. hacker” thread. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/159 "2004-02-19T17:08:12Z")
> [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > 1-What I said did not constitute a “definition”. I was simply identifying one thing, sexuality, that is intricately bound up with both the perception and reality of marriage. Do you dispute that? To a degree. Sex is certainly is part of the connotation of marriage, but it is not a requirement, and there exist many married heterosexual couples who, for one reason or another, do not have sex. Thus, while sex tends to be assumed in most cases, it is not important enough that a marriage _requires_ is to be called a marriage. > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > 3-Some small percentage of people who get married don’t really love each other, either. Do we then conclude that love and marriage have nothing to do with each other? No, but neither should we decide that love is _required_ for someone to get married. > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > Um. So…people should be married the instant they want to be? I don’t think that’s what you meant. But I’m not sure what you did… I mean that the _only_ thing that differentiates a married couple from a non-married couple is that the married couple had the desire to marry, and carried through with that desire. Whether a couple can have sex or not, whether that can have children or not, whether they “really” love each other or not, those are all irrelevant when it comes to deciding if a couple should be married. All the various circumstances that married couples can exist under are duplicated by non-married couples. There is no “magic ingredient” that makes a couple eligible for marriage, other than the fact that they went and got a marriage license and got hitched. > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > 1-Nitpick time again. If the person a heterosexual wants to marry is a blood relative, underage, or already married, then they can’t. While I find incest “icky”, I can’t think of any good reason to deny blood relatives the option to marry, nor can I think of any good reason not to allow multiple partners (if all parties consent). Underage relations, however, bring the ability to consent into question, and that’s a whole 'nother can of worms. > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > 3-Women are legally allowed to call themselves 'women", men are not. And vice versa. Do you find this “discrimination” more acceptable, and if so, why? ‘Man’ and ‘woman’ are labels that take into account the fundamental biological differences of the two sexes, and are used solely when it is useful to differentiate between the two. For a man to call himself ‘woman’ would be like a person with black hair calling themself ‘blond’. However, I can see no _fundamental_ difference between heterosexual and (proposed) homosexual marriage. “Marriage” is a word describing the _relationship_. not the participants, and that relationship is identical in both cases. Look at it from this perspective. We have different terms for “caucasian”, “asian”, and “black” people. Does that mean that we need different terms for marriages between these different racial groups? > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > Do you also fail to see why the sex of a person should matter as far as the label of “man” or “woman” is concerned? I’ll address this again, because it’s important. The whole _purpose_ of the ‘man’ and ‘woman’ labels is to differentiate between the sexes, because such differentiation is very useful in our society. However, there is no reason to differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual marriages at such a fundamental level as to require different words. You could always label people as a “gay married couple” if you felt that the distinction needed to be made in a certain case – just like you could call someone a “female person” instead of a “woman”. However, marriage is fundamentally about the relationship itself, and not about any specific attributes of the married couple. We don’t have different words for “black married couples” or “old married couples” or “tall married couples”, and we don’t need one for “gay married couples” because, frankly, it’s not a useful or necessary distinction. > [@DesiderioDomini](#): > > how can it be right when it defys natural law? There is no such thing as “natural law”. If you think that there is, please define it a bit more precisely. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/160 "2004-02-19T17:58:53Z")
> [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > They are not different “based on” the genders involved. The difference _is_ the genders involved. You are absolutely wrong. The genders of the participants is relevant only to the participants. But the NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP is fundamentally the same. Each and every relationship is different in the specific workings. What makes a specific marriage work or not for any two partners is not relevant to whether they are married, though. Dual-Income No Kids couples and 1950s style Leave It To Beaver marriages are quite different in how they work. But they still use the same term, marriage. By the same token Tina and Bette are a couple in the same way as the DINK couple (although they’re trying to be more like the ones with the SAHM). So why do they need a differnent term for their relationship? > [@](#): > > One of the things on the list would be, that the person who participates in a marriage with me be someone who I find desirable sexually. Which, in turn, very much depends on that person’s _gender_. As it would, again I presume, with you. Your list would include Sexual compatibility. So would mine. So what’s the difference? We’re not talking about specific cases. We’re talking about the general requirements of a marriage. If the same checklist can be used, then the relationships are fundamentally the same and don’t need a different term. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098.md?page=9)