Words have power. Calling the unions by different names implies a possible difference in value or weighting, so it’s a tad more of an issue than semantics.
I can imagine that if the state of California tried to tell all of the hetero-sexual couples that their marriages are now to be called “legal unions”, there would be squaking over the “mere” words.
Since you already have a legally recognised term for the relationship (i.e., marriage), and since you feel that a word is not a big deal, why not expand the scope of that legal word to include homosexual couples? I think it would be easier than trying to get the hetero’s to change the name of their relationship to “legal union”.
What will make the homosexual community “feel better” is to have their union called by the same term by the state, I assume.
Note1: I am not advocating having the state force churches to marry anyone against that church’s doctrine. That’s a seperate issue to me.
Note2: I realise that some gay rights activists seek their “lifestyle” considered socially acceptable, if not vindicated as mainstream. Some may feel that if they can win the “marriage” title for their unions, then they will have advanced their cause down the road towards social acceptance. I hope that they are not wearing any rose colored glasses: I don’t think that winning this fight would “convert” any bigots into anti-bigots. But it’s their fight to fight.
That is what the word meant (past tense). You’re too late - the meaning has already changed. Many people have children without being married. Many people get married without any intention of having children (in many cases like seniors getting married, knowing that there is no possible way to have children). Homosexuals can have children either by adoption or having sex outside of a homosexual relationship.
Agreed. I almost think that if the gay community had tried to push for “Civil Unions” in 2004 instead of “Gay Marriage” there wouldn’t have been the homophobic “marriage is between a man and a woman” referendums.
And gays were, I thought, fighting for equal rights. Guess the goalpost got moved.
For many of you: “tightly tied” does not equal synonymous. If I meant “synonymous” or “equal to” I would have typed the corresponding words. Language, baby, language…
Now I gotta really run. Back later to bask in the satisfaction that I’ve changed all your minds.
Ah, and at the time when women were still at a relative starting point to seeking equal rites, you could guaranteee they’d be successful, right? There weren’t any problems along the way? There were no legal challenges to laws or rulings in favour of such rights? They only started seeking them, what, a couple of months ago, and success was achieved within that time?
I’ll agree with you that it is possible to have seperate “marriage” and “civil union” (or whatever it should be called), with truly equal results and understanding. That, however, rather relies on there being a population who want that, and conversely on the lack of a population who will seize any difference upon which to make legal challenges. If you want to cite an example of recognised pure equality and smooth sailing in bringing in new laws, I really wouldn’t pick women’s rights as an example.
I’m with others in saying that your idea that marriage is intrinsically about children rather than just incidental to the extent that calling a childless marriage a contortion of language is itself pretty contorted justification. Marriage is in my eyes connected in such similar ways with living together, the ceremony itself, a joining of families, perhaps as in the past a marriage of convinience, as it is about children.
And I would say that while i’m admittedly not a language buff to the extent you or others are, i’m reasonably sure *to keep traditional language use * as a meritous action is pretty far outweighed by pretty much any practical concern.
Nonsense. What one-word term now means specifically “a ruler who illegitimately seizes power outside the bounds of law and tradition” now that “tyrant” has spread to encompass abusive rulers without regard to the details of how they got there?
Before you waste our time, “usurper” is specific to members of a royal house who are not properly next in the line of succession. The old meaning of “tyrant” included common schlubs who seized power.
Taking this rationale at face value, the implicit assumption in this quote is that gay couples can’t and won’t have children.
But since this is demonstrably (and legally) incorrect–lesbians can give birth, and gay men can adopt–how is the language degraded by including couples who, by your own definition, are actually being unfairly excluded from a term that should rightfully include them?
Adding multiple terms doesn’t clarify things, it only confuses them more. If your “institution tied to the begetting of children” reasoning is genuinely honest, than you’ll have to agree that children can be raised by legally bound couples of any sex. And if that is your main criteria for applying the “marriage” term to such legal relationships, then how is it “sensible” to continue to create a semantic distinction based on the gender make-up of the parents? If your argument is really all about the children, what difference does it make how many mommys and daddys are at home?
Uh-huh. And it’s just as likely there would have been a hue and cry against that as well. Incremental, palliative steps toward achieving equality needlessly prolongs the effort when the opposition believes you shouldn’t have any rights at all.
It would be nice to sort it all in one fell-swoop but historically this is rarely the case when one group seeks equal rights. Generally they take what they can get when they can get it and continue to battle till the playing field is level.
Certainly rights for women and minorities did not automagically disappear in one piece of legislation. In fact it took decades and some might say it is still not all settled.
On the basis that it is abnormal behavior. The desire to usurp a normal relationship on the basis of human rights is not sensible. If you want to attach a word to it then try normalphobic, the fear of defining anything as normal. It has had a political mantra for quite some time and it’s: “anything goes as long as nobody gets hurt”. That is the litmus test.
There was a time when this behavior was regarded as a disease requiring treatment (the key word being “required”). But the medical field of psychology had a paradigm shift in philosophy. There is no longer a focus on normal behavior (just try to get a psychologist to use the term “normal” in a sentence). The focus now is to correct any behavior that is harmful to the individual or society. What is normal is now up to the individual.
While this allows for legal codification of relationships it does not address social constructs of behavior. Historically, marriage has existed between a man and a woman as a singular event because it is sexually normal (sexual desires based on how the human body is designed) and also as a social unit (the family) We limit it to 2 people for no other reason than it is socially moral to do so. Any other combination subordinates additional partners. It is “normal” in this respect.
So while there is a desire in society for personal freedom there is also a desire for codified behavior. What is done behind closed doors is a person’s own business but it is up to society as a whole to define who we are as a group.
If it was, I’m not the one who moved it. In fact, I don’t really see how this invalidates my post at all. Women fought (are fighting) for equal rights, and we didn’t change the names of anything that were expanded to allow inclusion. They became citizens, voters, soldiers, etc. We didn’t make up new words because we had to distinguish female soldiers from male soldiers. They’re just soldiers. In the same way, homosexuals are fighting for equal rights, one of those being the ability to be a spouse in a marriage.
There was also a time when homosexuality was not only acceptable but actively encouraged (see Sacred Band of Thebes).
Yes a society decides who we are as a group. There are some societies out there who are draconian in their treatment of women. That is ok because it is a societal “norm”?
Arguably I think the best societies are the ones who do not discriminate against particular groups of their own population.
Hey, I was right there with you. I supported civil unions, but rejected the idea that “marriage” was the right word for a same-sex union.
There was a long thread here that changed my mind; I don’t have time now to search and link, but let me share with you the crucial insight I gained. Of course, this may not seem like a crucial insight to you, but it was of great value to me:
Yes, words have meaning, and specific words are better than general words. No argument there. But the word “marriage” has other meanings. No one would quibble about describing a corporate acquisition as a “marriage of their expansive client base with our superior technology solution,” for example. It’s clear that “marriage” can refer to the model of two adults in a monogamous sexual relationship who wish to combine their households into one, both socially and legally. There’s no good reason NOT to use “marriage” in this sense, and, indeed, it’s the best possible word to describe such a model.
And I think you’ll agree I’m not one to adopt every crazy left-wing idea that comes along.
It was too advantageous to the Republicans to let that go unchallenged. It wouldn’t have mattered if every pro-gay advocate had accepted the “civil union” terminology because Republicans gained by using the term “gay marriage” to spur its supporters to vote on various state referendums and amendments and, oh by the way, if you’re going to be at the polls anyway, why not vote Bush?
It worked in the short term, but it’s not as helpful now. I figure pretty much every American over 70 who dies (and a lot of them are, daily) means (more than likely) one fewer anti-SSM voter and every American who turns 18 (and a lot of them are, daily) means (more than likely) one more pro-SSM voter.
No, it’s not OK because it brings harm against an individual. It is why we don’t accept pedophelia.
I don’t entirely disagree with you but society should have some say in the codification of social laws. And that is what a marriage is. We discriminate against 3 or more partners. We discriminate against family members marrying each other (Woody Allen aside). We discriminate against people of the same sex. To the extent that people can bind themselves personally and financially is the transparent benefit of marriage. It simplifies the process. It does not negate the ability for people to commit to each other (regardless of the number or sexual intent) nor does it negate the financial ability to commit. How we define the social meaning behind the word is the purview of society.
But society changes its collective views on such things. We might do an “Eeeewwww!” today at the idea of a fifty-year-old man man marrying his “ward” when she turns eighteen today; a century ago, that wasn’t quite as objectionable. And how does society change its views?
Surely one method is vigorous public debate. And that’s what’s happening now: advocates of legalized same-sex marriage are publicly debating the desirability of their course of action. By this debate, we persuade others. Eventually, society may come to view this in a different light.
And that, too, is the “purview of society.” Right?
No. Children are secondary. The fact that many couples marry despite having no intention of having children is all the proof needed.
Degrade the language? That’s homophobia for you. If gays are allowed to participate, it will “degrade” the situation and we’ll be left with something disgusting.
Well there you go. You’re not just wanting do deprive them of the use of the term “marraige” but also husband/wife/spouse and wedding. What other terms are there to use? They’re not “partners”, they’re relationship is not “civil”. They’re in love! Two people who are romantically in love with each other and share a sexual relationship and have made a lifelong commitment to live together, forsaking all others, and have done so in an exchange of vows during a solemn ceremony.
If only we can think of a word for that situation. :rolleyes:
But this discrimination can and does bring harm to those discriminated against.
One of my brothers is gay and very intelligent and well off. He and his partner (in a monogamous relationship for going on 10 years now) have explicitly sought out attorneys to arrange their financial relationship as closely as possible to that of a married couple to protect both of them in the event of a death or if they break-up (among other things). This took them considerable time and expense and effort but they have the means and intelligence to sort it out. Not every couple has the ability to go to that effort and expense. These are things a married couple simply have codified in law and need not be particularly concerned about.
There are stories of gay couples (together for over a decade) where one dies and that guy’s family kicked his partner out of their house and gave him nothing in inheritance.
What happens in a custody case? Again with a married couple the procedures are fairly well laid out. For a gay couple one could conceivably get the children and the other has no recourse to remain a part of their life.
Inability to file a joint tax return or take advantage of tax benefits?
Inability to share a health plan?
The list could go on and on (once upon a time I saw a list of 1200+ explicit items that a married couple gets automatically by virtue of being married that a gay couple could not access).
