No, it isn’t; it might even be true. But it doesn’t matter since as you point out no one reaches anywhere near “ideal” anyway. Claiming that homosexual couples aren’t ideal as a means of denying them marriage however is bigoted, because the people who do so aren’t applying a similar demand for perfection to hetero couples before allowing them marriage. If only ideal couples should be allowed to marry, then no one qualifies to be married; but like the “only couples that can naturally have children” argument, this standard is only applied to same sex couples.
I wonder if magellan has ever seen an advertisement that described a new car model as “the perfect marriage of form and function”, and if so, did he think form was putting its penis in function’s vagina, fearlessly faithful of fathering a full family of fine f-words.
That’s what a strict application of the traditional meaning implies, after all.
I might suggest that the “ideal” situation for child-raising is two parents who are fluent in different languages. The child will have the automatic benefit of bilingualism. He will know more about languages in general, and have additional opportunities in employment. He will be smarter, wittier, and wiser.
Since marriage between two people who speak only one language is less than ideal…should we pass laws preventing it?
Even if SSM was less than ideal for child-raising (and I vigorously disagree with this premise!) so what! Our system of laws doesn’t ban single-parent child-raising, and two-parent child-raising, even if both parents are of the same sex, must surely be a better environment than a single-parent environment. So should we ban, by law, single-parent families?
Why is the “ideal” compulsory under law for this one situation, but not for others?
Indeed. In reality, I genuinely believe that the “ideal” situation would be for children to be raised by parents from significantly different ethnic/racial/cultural backgrounds, in order to expose kids to a wider variety of influences. But that “ideal” would have nothing to do with what we ought to enshrine into law, of course, and lacking any evidence whatsoever to support my opinion, I certainly wouldn’t push it on others.
Either the “ideal” situation is significant enough that we should reflect it in law, in which case there’s presumably evidence to support the claim; or it’s so trivial that it shouldn’t be reflected in law, in which case it shouldn’t be considered in a discussion of the legality of SSM; or the “ideal” situation is one we believe is important despite no evidence to support it, in which case it’s bigotry.
Questioning Zion, your odd comments abourt Pride parades have nothing to do with the subject of this thread, (at least as far as any strange claim that one group or another needs to “clean up” their behavior).
If you want to make generalized observations regarding the gay community, open a new thread.
= = =
EVERYONE ELSE: the same applies. Take any off-topic discussion regarding parades or public displays of interpersonal behavior to a separate thread.
[ /Moderating ]
Or the wonderful marriage of chocolate and peanut butter, or the marriage of the chassis and body in a car, or the concept of being married to an idea.
It seems fairly obvious to me that the word marriage has come to represent bringing two (be they man/woman, man/man, chocolate/peanut butter, dessert topping/floor wax) into one.
It’s actually meant that for at least 600 years.
I looked up “marriage” in the OED recently for another thread, and definition 5a, “An intimate union; a merging or blending of two things” (OED definition 5a), is cited back to circa 1400. My favorite quote under that section is from the late 16th century: " The cruell villayne forced the sworde with another blowe to diuorce the faire marriage of the head and body."
The earliest quote the OED has where “marriage” was used in English to mean “The condition of being a husband or wife” is dated circa 1300, so only about a century before the earliest known use of the term in the broader sense mentioned above. That’s close enough in time that these two definitions might even have both been used ever since the term first entered the English language. This seems particularly likely to me since “marriage” is one of the English words we borrowed from French, the French got it from the Latin marito, and marito was used to refer not just to a union between a man and a woman but also to mated pairs of animals and even plants that had been grafted together.
I mention this because even if one wants to be a really pedantic and literal about things there’s still no good reason why the word “marriage” couldn’t be used to describe a legally recognized union between two men or two women. The use of “civil union” to describe same-sex couples is a greater break with tradition, as that term originated in the 19th century as a synonym for “civil marriage” – that is, a marriage where the wedding is performed by a secular legal official rather than a religious one. Same-sex couples can have religious weddings and opposite-sex couples and have civil ceremonies, so in the strict traditional/literal sense some same-sex unions are not civil unions while some opposite-sex unions are.
Do you really think this is helpful to the discussion? Insightful? Anything other than sophomoric and inane? If so, here you go: :rolleyes:
As I’m sure you well know, it’s making the clear point that your insistence that marriage means a legal arrangement between a man and a woman and absolutely nothing else is just so much nonsense. Your argument is nothing more than a really, really bad attempt to justify the persecution of homosexuals.
It’s on-point: you said it’s dangerous for “marriage” to mean anything other than the union of a man and a woman. So now there is a cite that marriage has been used to mean other things for about 700 years. Of course society’s understanding of what a marriage is has also changed a great deal. Why would this change cause a catastrophe when the others didn’t?
This unfortunately reminded me of many other laughable arguments you’ve made regarding gays and biology.
None of this makes any sense. I don’t understand what you think is going to happen or why it’s going to happen based on the legal recognition of marriages between same-sex couples or the word we use to describe those unions. Starting with the real-world situation: figuring out your sexuality can be confusing. Some people who identify as gay when they’re adults try heterosexual stuff when they’re young, and some straight adults have same-sex experiences as kids. Some people never quite sort these things out, others take decades or decide/discover much later in life that their orientation isn’t what they thought it was. Considering the fact that human reproduction is pretty binary, human sexuality and gender and emotion is remarkably complicated. So with all of that in mind, if society recognizes marriage between gay couples the same way it does with straight couples, then … young people who have same-sex experiences will decide they’re gay when they aren’t based on the definition of a word? Why is that going to happen? Particularly if you’re talking about kids and who aren’t even teenagers, they’re not thinking about marriage or an adult relationship in the first place. Why is their behavior going to change based on the meaning of a word and not wherever their hormones and their emotions take them? This seems like more of an argument in favor of anti-sodomy laws than an argument against same-sex marriage. Criminalizing the behavior sounds like a much stronger guardrail if we’re worried about kids getting the mistaken impression they might be gay.
Clearly, Cyros, your reference to a 1970s Saturday Night Live sketch undermined whatever factual value your post had.
Yes, but it’s normal for only a tiny percent of the population. For the majority it is the opposite.
As I’ve said in other threads about SSM, I agree with this. But that doesn’t make a traditional loving mother-father environment any less ideal.
It’s not bogus at all. We have an ideal situation, one that transcends the SSM debate, and the very least we can do is have a word that describes it. Having to even state this is amazing to me.
The Jupiter-sized irony of this statement is greatly amusing.
So? Should we then forbid blue eyed people from marrying because having blue eyes is normal for only a minority of the population?
Irrelevant. And again; a traditional marriage has little or nothing to do with love, and everything about the man owning the woman and crushing her into submission if she objects. If tradition is so all-important you should be agitating for that and to eliminate such filthy unnatural concepts like interracial marriage*, equal rights for women and laws against beating your wife and children.
*Which I rather suspect you do disapprove of, but wouldn’t dare admit it here
Quite the non-response.
Even if marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal situation for raising kids, which I do not believe it to be, you’re simply letting perfect be the enemy of good. Single parents are less ideal than a married couple; should we take their kids away from them? What about gay single parents?
If you find yourself making excuses for the less-than-ideal hetero parents but not for the less-than-ideal gay parents, you’re bigoted.
:rolleyes: Like there’s going to be any confusion. between marriage as we know it and the chassis of a car. Here’s an analogy for you to show the childishness of this argument. Let’s say tomorrow oceanographers discover a completely new small crustacean, how about we call it a clam, or a mussel? Or might that be confusing. On the other hand, we can enjoy scallops fra diavolo and admire a table cloth with a scalloped edge, with zero confusion.
I’m not following you here. Are you assuming I’m against adoption by gays, single or straight?
Let them marry. But let’s not start calling their blue eyes brown.
You need help. But not the kind that I can give you. But what in the world is unnatural about interracial marriage?
As opposed to your “childish” argument that there’s going to be some kind of confusion if Bob and Steve get married?
You not Cyros are the one claiming that a super-narrow definition of the word is somehow of Vital Importance, so much so that humiliating and persecuting people over the matter is justified.
Given that homosexuals aren’t calling themselves heterosexual here, you just made an argument for same sex marriage.
Ah, and now we have the classic vague, unspecific, fake-compassionate patronizing insult throwing.
The same as is unnatural about same sex marriage; nothing. You are the one with hangups here, not me.