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.
I did commit an ad hominem when I said he was in over his head, yes.
Care to elaborate?
Care to elaborate?
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.
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, is one example.
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.
<off-topic> 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… </off-topic>
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.)
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.
You all sound pathetic in your whinings about moralities and such.
I’ll present a simple argument that answers the OP.
Primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All emotions associated with this act stem from our biological make-up.
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.
Sex without purpose of reproduction has 2 effects: 1. exercise. 2. pleasure. It’s like DDR (dancing video game), except more senses intensive.
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.
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?
No, they shouldn’t. Has anyone said they should? The sex is incidental.
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.
Tell me about it. I would have had this done yesterday if not for formatting issues. The elimination of nested quotes=Worst. “Improvement”. Ever.
Well then. Alright. Good.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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…
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?
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?
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.
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.
Read the first post I made in this thread.
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.
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”?
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.
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”?
I already addressed that one.
And that one, in my first post, like I said.
(note-post cut in half due to length limit, second half to follow)
It’s not? I thought the whole point of this thread is that you want to change it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And I’ll repeat myself again, and say that I have not said that they should be treated differently under the law.
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.
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?
You may not be required to state those things, but it is assumed.
The fact that “no one asks” does not mean that it is not assumed.
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.
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.
That’s a good way of putting it
True.
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.
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…
I have heard of it. Don’t think I’ve read it, but I may have and then forgotten. Is it collected somewhere?
More or less…
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.
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”.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”?
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.
They are not different “based on” the genders involved. The difference is the genders involved.
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.
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.
No, but neither should we decide that love is required for someone to get married.
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.
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.
‘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?
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.
There is no such thing as “natural law”. If you think that there is, please define it a bit more precisely.
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?
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.
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.