That’s exactly my question. Why do you want to maintain these labels? What’s the point? What are these important and relevant differences?
“(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. 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.
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.
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? Or do you seriously consider words to be more worthy of your protection than people?
And you can have sex without being married. You’re not making sense.
So your list for a marriage is
[ol]
[li]Sex[/li][li]???[/li][/ol]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”.
[QUOTE=Weird_AL_Einstein]
Sex and sexuality are important, indeed paramount, factors in making a relationship that we might consider a marriage.
[quote]
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. There’s obviously something other than sex that is important to marriage. 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.
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. I fail to see why the sexes of the participants should matter as far as the label of “marriage” is concerned.
Other than the “Ick!” factor (i.e. straight people being grossed out by gay relationships), the only argument I’ve heard that doesn’t come across as religious/morality based is survival of the species related. Gay people are effectively, for the most part, out of the gene pool. They may adopt, but that does nothing for creating brand new people. They can have surrogate parent arrangements, and perhaps in some cases new technology will allow same sex people to mix their DNA in a lab and birth the child in an artificial womb, but we’re not quite there yet.
The State has a vested interest in having new people created. The government needs workers, consumers, soldiers, and tax payers. The more the better as far as they are concerned. Gay couples are unlikely to produce offspring. In this way the government’s position on marriage (and related tax relief for straight married people) can be seen as an incentive to breed. The government wants more citizens. The government wants more born and raised natural Americans. They will not provide these incentives for relationships that work against the goals of maintaining a diverse gene pool and producing more little consumers.
It’s an interesting thought, and if this was how the politicians were presenting their case, I might find it a bit more approachable (but not without serious debate issues such as population control, the coming ability to manipulate the gene pool through genetic engineering, and the overall effectiveness any such legislation is likely to have, for example) . But as it stands this line of thinking comes as an afterthought at best. The reality is that most of the people who want to prevent same sex marriage base their decisions on religious/moral objections that have nothing to do with the stability of the gene pool or the US population. They are often bigoted, with a hatred of gay people which is sometimes openly expressed, and is sometimes guarded - depending on the speaker. They are often casually-to-devoutly religious and may fear retribution from some god or another. These feelings are real, but are reached based on such illogical rationalization that they hardly offer any legitimate reasons to forbid SSMs. They simply illustrate wide-spread bigotry and knee-jerk reactions.
The truth is, I’m guessing, that the Union and the world will continue on just fine with or without SSMs. All this talk of the downfall of our society and the moral corruption that will follow is probably just a bunch of bullshit. The world didn’t end on January 1st, 2000 either. If this country does pass laws against gay marriage, it will not be a sign of rational thought and measured risks. It will be a result of most Americans supporting and voting for like-minded politicians. When (and if) they ban SSMs, it will be an indication that most Americans disapprove of homosexuality on moral grounds. It will show, that even when the majority is bigoted, judgemental, and just plain wrong - they still have the power to shape this country in powerful ways. Ain’t that a bitch?
DaLovin’ Dj
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Oh yes it did, it expanded the definition to include couples of differing races. Rather, it removed language barring interracial marriage, just as the “expansion” of the definition of marriage to include couples of the same gender will remove language barring their marriages.
They may not be denied rights, but they are being discriminated against for no purpose, and at a cost of taxpayer dollars. There’s no justification for it.
True, but germane to the point? Not at all.
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, we are not going to tell all married people that they’re now civilly unioned. 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.
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 don’t understand how you can argue that it’s a terrible thing to “expand the definition” of marriage 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 and that denying it to a segment of the population – even if offering an alternative – continues to perpetuate an inherent, unnecessary and bigotted discrimination?
Absolutely, secretary. Secretaries were, through the second industrial revolution, men. Women may have been stenographers, typists or clerks, but the person who worked alongside as a direct assistant to the men of business, writing letters, making meeting plans, arranging travel and so forth, were other men. Women didn’t segue into the profession until WWI and thereafter.
And in contemporary language? How long have women been in Congress? How long have women been simply soldiers by the definition of our modern military, as opposed to WACS or WAVES?
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.
Which has nothing to do with how you or I or Homebrew should be treated under the law when we seek legal recognition that we’ve chosen one person with whom we wish to live and be officially partnered with.
Nice opinion. That’s all that it is. 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
All of the personal motivation and attraction issues bound up in marriage have nothing to do with the legal contract between the parties which is or is not given the imprimatur of acceptance by the state. That’s how it’s always been for opposite gender couples, so I cannot fathom why it should suddenly change because same sex couples want the same privilege.
How’s this for a non-religious refute for gay marriages. How could something be civilized and an absolute when if the whole human race practiced it the whole human race would be extinct. Why do you think it’s not naturally possible for a man and a man, or a woman and a woman to give birth to a child? Some believe the point of existence is to survive and reproduce, and gay marriage would defy the latter. Your turn.
Okey-doke.
-
Gay marriage will not be mandatory. We’re not asking that everyone on the planet suddenly marry someone of the same sex. Therefore, there’s no danger of extinction. [sub]Whoo. That was a close one.[/sub]
-
If the whole human race was male, we’d be doomed. If the whole human race was female, we’d be doomed, but better accessorized. Does that mean that being male, or female, is wrong? Most women and men I know are both civilized, and absolute.
-
If the point of existence is to survive and reproduce, why have marriage at all? Wouldn’t it be better to have men go about fertilizing as many women as possible? Outlaw marriage! It promotes fidelity, which reduces the birth rate! Oh, and outlaw birth control. That’d give the population a boost.
-
Many gay people have children, either through adoption or through artificial insemination or by previous opposite-sex relationships. If marriage is all about reproduction, then why deny them and their children the privileges and rights that the legal state of marriage conveys?
-
Many straight people don’t have children, for an enormous variety of reasons. If marriage is all about reproduction, why should they have rights and privileges above those of unmarried couples?
Got anything else?
Here is an absolute answer has to why no one can refute this argument adequately without religion. You can’t separate this decision from religion, as it is a moral judgment, and no one can separate morality and religion. Even the belief that you could do so is a religious belief. In summary, because you cannot separate any moral judgments from religion, this premise of this discussion is flawed and is therefore self defeating and meaningless. If you’re willing to accept this absolute, I will continue. If you choose not to establish this absolute, your arguments are self defeating and futile.
Which religion?
It’s interesting to me, Weird Al, that you chose the words “man” and “woman” as words whose meaning hasn’t changed and shouldn’t change and would never change, and later mentioned something about expanding the definition of the word “man” to include women as well. Y’see, “Man” can be used to refer specifically to men, but it also can be used as a gender-neutral noun to refer to men and women, or as a synonym for “human.” “He” and “his” can also be used in either a gender-specific or gender-neutral context. In fact, the usage of “his or her,” “he or she,” and “person” instead of “his,” “he,” and “man” is relatively new. Links: man he his.
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.”
would it also be uncivilized if people remained single, since any one person by
themselves couldn’t have childern thus dooming the human race?
how about this: would it also be uncivilized for a married couple to not have kids…
since if everyone did that the whole human race would also be extinct if
marriage was a requirement of having children?
see what i’m saying… marriage is optional (both in the law and for having kids).
two people can choose weather to get married or not.
they can also choose if they want kids or not (even if they don’t marry)…
As long as the Federal Government has business with an institution (read tax incentives, comon-law marriages, etc;) then yes, it does have business with that institution.
Well then you would have to argue that polygamy should be legal as well as incestual marriages and a few other taboo relations including the ACLU’s argument that statuatory rape is unconstiutional. That is a slippery slope that i do not think we are ready for yet.
and back to the OP:
Basically because society says it it is wrong. Just as it says Incest, adult/child relations, bestiality, drugs, et.al is wrong. On every one of these things there are arguments that making a law against it is against the Constitution. That there are no victims an most of the cases involving these. That it is a personal decision and references the privacy clause to the constitution.
I think the reason society says it is wrong is because they see marriage as a traditional institution that deserves some protection by the law so that it would continue to hold teh traditional values that they see in it. I do not believe state sanctioned marriage is a right, any more than any state issued liscense is a right. I do believe in the institution of marriage and beleieve that it deserves as much protection as it can get by society and governments. I do not agree with the argument that gays have some sort of right to have a marriage liscence just because that will make them happy. If we open that Pandora’s box then marriage is not a traditionally held institution, but a just a status that means nothing more than just a label for another generic category. Marriage will mean nothing accept what it says on paper. And I do not think that should be allowed. I have gay friends that agree with me mainly because, even though they can marry the ones they love and want to spend the rest of their lives with, they understand (mainly from their parents) that marriage is a bit more sacred than their imagined right to be able to have their names on a peice of paper.
Having said that, i see the effects of the gay community as somewhat changing how society is starting to see homosexual relationships. And expect society to start appreciate such relations as, maybe not traditional, but at least an accepted norm. Once that happens I think that gay marriages would be allowed and sometime soon. But if this issue is forced through the courts, as many people say they are trying to do with this San Franciso circus, then I think it will actually push back such a societal change. Because even if some liberal judge rules it as unconstitutional it will force legislation to be made that will take many more years to change than just a societal acceptance, because society is not ready to accept gay marriages.
If you’re referring to the Limon case, it has nothing to do with statutory rape laws being unconstitutional, it has to do with equal protection (or in this case, equal prosecution) of those laws. In a nutshell, Kansas decided that the “Romeo and Juliet” clause in their statutory rape laws does not apply when it’s a “Romeo and Romeo”. Had he been sentenced to 15 months, which is the max he would have gotten had his partner been a female, the ACLU would have not lifted a finger. Instead, he received 17 years, only because his partner was a male.
Which slippery slope is that again?
“Society” can’t ever agree on anything. You think this is wrong. I don’t. We’re both part of society.
Incest: Other than possible increased chance of birth defects, I don’t really see a problem with it assuming both parties are of age and neither are coerced.
Adult/Child relations: Oops, we’ll slip down this slope as long as we ignore consent. Seems a bit far-fetched to me.
Bestiality: See above.
Drugs: Huh? Legalizing gay marriage will lead us down the path to drugs?
Sure there are. The children and animals in your above scenarios.
Society has condemned a lot of things that we now know are right (interracial marriage, women’s rights, racial equality) and supported things we now realize were very, very wrong (slavery, child labor, racial segregation laws). Every time people have reversed a societal wrong, they’ve done so by bravely challenging society’s assumptions. Why do these assumptions deserve to go unchallenged?
If I’m reading that correctly, you’re equating homosexuality with pedophilia, bestiality, and drug abuse. If that’s the case, please do so in the Pit from now on; such slurs don’t have a place in civilized discourse.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees with you, as stated explicitly in Loving v. Virginia, 1967.
What is it being protected from, specifically? Can you please enlighten us as to the specific way in which same sex marriage threatens either the institution of marriage, or any individual heterosexual marriages?
How about doing it because it will give our children more protections under the law? What about doing it because it will allow partners who have been together for decades make the medical decisions for each other that they’re best qualified to make? What about doing it because all people in this country are supposed to be equal?
Have you been reading this debate at all? Or did you just feel the need to come in here and spout your opinion, as if nobody has ever said anything against gay marriage ever before? Read up, do some research, come back when you have a position that isn’t based on inane straw men and ridiculous assumptions, and that hasn’t been shot down hundreds of times before. Honestly, I’ve said it before, but it’s worth repeating: it’s like a possessed game of whack-a-mole.
The legal institution of marriage is a contract between individuals and society. All the rules of that contract are written down on paper. And the legal contract is defined by those rules on paper. What else do you need it to mean?
Ah, the term sacred rears its ugly head. This is supposed to be a debate on non-religious reasons to oppose gay marriage. If you want to use the ‘God says it’s icky’ defense, please do so elsewhere.
I don’t care as much about societal acceptance as I do about making sure my family is as well-protected and well-provided for as it can be.
Why did the government “get in the middle of marriage” in the first place? I don’t mean simply issuing licenses, but why did they/it feel compelled to start granting privileges and benefits to married couples?
No I am refering to ACLUM’s defense of NAMBLA.
The assertion that all citizens must have equal status under the law no mater their situation and regardless of the situations devience from the norm, or at least the acknowledged by society as the rightful heir of said status.
I do not think society means what you think it means. Dictionary.com is a good start.
And that is where you and society disagree. As well as the law. Wich, I remind you, one seems to pre-empt the other.
Why shouldnt we ingore consent. You seem to advocate ignoring the laws you personally disagree with. What if someone like you decides that they do not feel the societally imposed age of consent is in conformity withthe constitutions equal protection rights?
See what above? The US has never made a law requiring the consent of an animal for anything that I have ever heard of.
Stay with me here. Once you make the argument that society shall not impose its will on individuals freedoms that is a victimless act, then such an argument can be made for many things that you and I consider illegal. And once that ruling has been dictated it is hard as hell to put that genie back in the bottle and give others the ability to behave outside of thr “norm” based upon that one precedent.
You know for a fact that the animal and child (under ages 14-18) would never enjoy it? Care to justify that?
I never said they did. see below.
We are talking about gay marriage. Not homosexuality. And yes, I am equating all of the above with societies desire to make laws prohibiting things they deem harmful to itself. And “civilized discourse” is parochial and I did not realise SDMB was your domain. But i did not intend to offend so you can save you pretentiousness.
Would you care to quote me where SCOTUS declared marriage as a Right of anykind? I believe they were careful to word the ruling as SOLELY a racial discrimination issue. Marriage laws differ from state to state. If it was a constitutional right then why do the laws differ per state?
Justice Stewart confirms this by writing;
If you demand the “Right of Marriage” under either the equal protection under the Constitution, or some believed right to the persuit of hapiness, and not allowing Society to set the norms of marriage, then you are opening it to anyone being able to claim that rght. A man should be able to mary his daughter. A Mormon or Muslim should be able to marry as many wives as their convictions allow. A lonely widow should be able to marry her sole companion, because an air-conditioned, 80sqr-ft dog house just doesnt show the appreciation she has for Max the lhasa apso’s love and dedication.
As far as this and the rest, if Marriage is nothing to you but a name, then tell the gay community to stop insisting on the right to traditional marriage. If all you want is equal protection under the law then accept the proposals of Civil Unions? Why butt into the Traditional Marriage if you care nothing about it? Society has told you they do not want homosexuals to somehow dilute Traditional Marriage. They even made laws to that effect. Vermont has seemed to work it out legally without demanding the right to redefine what Marriage has traditionally been for thousands of years. The Federal Government has acknowledged the rights of states to define those laws. But I have yet to see a state define Marriage as anything other than between one woman and one man. And since Society has such an investment in that institution I think it a major mistake to try to force such a change in that institution. If a judge rules for you, I honestly believe legislation, or even an amendment will be forthcoming. You will probably get your civil unions but I doubt you will get you marriage in the forseeable future.
Do you get it now? I never said anything about religion. Tradition and Religion are not synonymous. The only one spouting uninformed assumptions seem to be you. If you just want to rant about how unfair it is and how much you do not care what society thinks of you than maybe you need to take it to the pit. If you want to change the world you live in by unmasking peoples uninformed ideas then you need to realise what a coherent objection is, not just what you want to hear.
That would be Curley v. NAMBLA. Here is the brief. Feel free to point out exactly where the ACLU is arguing that statutory rape laws are unconstitutional. (You actually claim that they argue that statutory rape is unconstitutional, which is a bit odd. I assume you meant they were arguing the laws were, which is still wrong, but would at least fit with the rest of your thesis).
Yep, that’s a pretty standard reading of the fourteenth amendment. If you list exactly which classes you’d like us to discriminate against, we could probably have a debate on every entry on that list you’d provide.
I’m still perfectly aware of what society means. Considering it has multiple meanings and is a pretty vague word unless you make it more descriptive, if you meant perhaps something like “homophobic society”, I would then agree with you. They are indeed one of the “societies” that are against it.
Come back after you clarified which society you’re speaking of.
I advocate freedom from discrimination. I actually don’t personally advocate ignoring laws, but I have no problems with the mayor who did so.
Then they fight to get the laws changed. They can do so by breaking them and paying the consequences, or challenging them in the courts. That’s still a completely separate issue, and has zip to do gay marriage, in which consent is a given. You are the only one here who has lumped pedophilia with gay marriage. I’m going to have to ask you for a cite as to their correlation.
That would be because an animal can’t give consent. If the dog wags its tail, that doesn’t necessarily mean “mount me boss.”
That’s not particularly easy to do when you jump from gay marriage to statutory rape to drugs to some bizarrely like-minded borgish “society.”
Like? Half the things you listed aren’t victimless, while the others are indeed victimless (and I didn’t have a problem with them being made legal).
So we’re right back to the typical “If you allow gay marriage, the world will end”, correct?
Now you’re just scary.
This is utterly silly. You haven’t shown even a tiny little shred of evidence that morality is inseparable from religion; yet you expect us to simply accept it.
The fact that you’re in over your head notwithstanding, if you think it is impossible to discuss gay marriage without religious concerns, what are you doing in a thread asking for nonreligious objections to gay marriage?