I think you misunderstand what the founders were trying to do with the Constitutiona and the Bill of Rights. They didn’t want to, nor could they, define specifically what the enumerated rights entail, what an “establishment” is, or any of the other parts of the Constitution that need to be interpreted. They weren’t writing a statute; they weren’t trying to deal with specific instances. Instead, they opted for broad, general language, and created a system (our government) for answering the specifics. And each part of that system, the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary, interpret the Constitution, define rights and their limits, and determine the powers of the government. They realized that, if the country was going to survive for a long time, it needed to be flexible (or, if you like, ambiguous) to deal with issues that they didn’t anticipate or agree on the specifics of. They were writing a Constitution not a casebook.
You don’t want to do that; you want to have *unequal *rights (only straights could be called “married”), while telling yourself the comforting and self-excusing lie that you aren’t doing that at all, that your intentions are pure and honorable, that it’s even necessary for “defending” something that you can’t even articulate and (therefore) refuse to discuss.
Your own refusal to call gay relationships “normal”, your own analogies of homosexuality as being a defect of some kind, and your insistence on a second-class status (they can’t be “married”) for them speak even louder than your refusal to comprehend what “separate but equal” even means.
Oh totally. And we could have another water fountain JUST for them, with a sign above it saying ‘Gay Water Fountain’. The water fountain would be EXACTLY like the one heteros use, so that would be okay, right?
Appreciate the responses, pretty much as expected.
5-4-Fighting, I wasn’t limiting my question to sexual aspects, more interested in the conventional roles and how people of the same gender fall into them. That said, appreciate your input. I find the switching a bit odd, but then again, I feel the same way when hetero couples engage in similar practices. Besides I am sure my own sexual kinks and quirks are not everyone’s cup of tea.
<back on topic>
I seriously don’t understand the need for such a protracted discussion regarding the use of one freaking word. Makes not a lick of sense to me, as there’s nothing inherently “sacred” about any word. Much less “marriage” as it’s become somewhat of a joke anyway. After all, it is the number one cause of all divorces. BTW, to all of the ONE defending said untenable position, wouldn’t the word “divorce” be off limits for those engaging in “civil unions”? I mean, if you want to be a consistent prick…
Besides, as someone said upthread, why the hell should anyone care about the status of people living around you? How the fuck does that affect your own relationship? Answer: it doesn’t. So get the hell over it. Period.
Well it looks like another of the same.
At this point when it comes to marriage threads Magellan in nothing but a troll. We should probably just stop feeding him.
magellan, if you’ll do the honor of gracing your humble subject with one more answer, your majesty: For how long has marriage between one man and one woman been the cornerstone of society that you claim it to be?
Don’t sell magellan01 short; that’s not all he does. He also:
(1) cites having kids as a justification for limiting marriage to the straights, then studiously ignores anyone who points out: (a) staights are still allowed to call their unions marriages even when they have no intention and/or ability to have kids; (b) plenty of same-sex couples are out there raising kids together.
(2) repeatedly insists that his “straights can get married, gays have to settle for civil unions” proposal is true equality and complains that the 99-44/100% of other posters pointing out that he’s advocating a separate-but-equal solution must be dense.
(3) continually declares “I’m advocating ONE set of laws. Look, I’ve capitalized ONE, so it must be equality,” while ignoring that it’s about as relevant as saying that pre-Rosa Parks Montgomery had ONE set of buses.
Then none of the analogies you offered are actually analogous to the situation as you see it, are they? Because the solution you’re advocating is entirely unlike the solution used when blacks wanted equality, or when women wanted equality. In all those other situations, the ultimate decision on how to ensure equality was to make the law blind to the differences we wanted to equalize. The law cannot take a person’s skin color in account when deciding which set of rights they can have access to. Nor can it take a person’s gender into account. I want gay rights to follow the same pattern, because that’s the pattern that has worked so well for all these other groups: that the law does not take your sexuality into account when deciding what laws and rights applies to you. That means that when someone applies for a marriage license, the law is not allowed to check to see if you’re gay and shunt you into a different pile.
No, that’s not at all what I want to do. I have no interest in erasing the distinction between gay and straight as it applies to social interaction. Only as it applies to the rule of law. Which, you will note, is precisely what we’ve done with gender and race. And society seems to be the better for it, wouldn’t you agree?
Of course not. I want to make marriage better. Because right now, it’s badly broken.
Yes, I’ve read what you wrote. And there’s nothing in what you wrote that invalidates my addendum. If someone wants to modify the language you used to create a disparity between gays and civil unions, legally speaking, it would be trivially easy. All you have to do is pass a newer law that amends the definition of “civil union” from “completely equal to marriage” to “not completely equal to marriage.”
Now, it’s not impossible for this to happen if we just have marriage for everyone. But it is significantly more difficult, because before you can pass a law making gay marriage weaker than straight marriage, you need to pass a law creating a distinction between gay marriage and straight marriage. In your solution, this first, most difficult step, has already been taken for them, by establishing that there’s this thing called “civil unions” that’s separate from marriage.
So fucking what? What happens if gay people are allowed to get married? Will straight people start saying, “Ugh… if the homos are doing it, I certainly won’t!”
Is it as simple as you make it sound? It’s almost as if you’re against gay marriage because you’re a prescriptivist. If we start calling gay unions “marriages”, does that mean we can’t laugh at people who say “chaise lounge” anymore?
Seriously, what the hell is this marriage catastrophe that will occur if gay people start getting married? The suspense is killing me, and none of you people seem interested in sharing that information.
Hell no! I want to feed him the SD equivalent of compressed bread pellets and water just so I can hear him go POP when they start expanding.
Are we still allowed to do that? I quit last year, and it was really hard. If I’d known it was still OK, I wouldn’t have bothered.
I’m picturing a scene at a gay wedding along the lines of Army of Darkness when Ash mangles “klaatu barada nikto” and the dead start walking the earth. Of course, we’ve have gay weddings here in Massachusetts for five years, and that hasn’t happened yet, but I may be underestimating the awesome power of words to bring about societal calamity.
Well, shit. Maybe I’m a bigot.
Well, it’s probably just that you haven’t found a guy with a chainsaw for an arm to go fetch the book yet.
I think it’s worth pointing out that magellan01 has already missed the boat by several years. Gay people have been civilly married in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and California, and soon will be in Vermont and Maine (and possibly New Hampshire). Some churches have been performing gay weddings for much longer, regardless of whether those marriages are recognized by the government. I know a lesbian couple who were married in Wisconsin, even though Wisconsin doesn’t even allow for civil unions. There’s no point in trying to stop gay people from calling their unions marriages, because they already are and will continue to do so. The word “marriage” is not the exclusive territory of the government, the churches, straight people or gay people.
It should be very easy to espy these catastrophic societal changes. We have the perfect incubator for the End Times in New England, where gay marriage has been allowed for years, and the rest of the country, where it has not.
NE USA
gay people are fucking a whole bunch X X
straight people are still married X X
zombies walking the earth
taxes still being collected X X
oceans boiling, seas of blood
dogs and cats living together
churches catching fire, Satan laughing
terrorists won
I dunno, I’m not seeing it.
Actually, aren’t there numerous households that have one or more dogs and one or more cats?
(Warning: has sound)
None of the dogs or cats we polled responded affirmatively to the survey. However, 24% of respondents indicated they were hungry, 16% wanted out, 10% wanted in, and 3% said somebody had fallen down a deep well near the old mine.
Of those 16% and 10%, 15% subsequently wanted in and 8% wanted out.
deleted.