[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
I think it is to answer the usual religious objections to a gay marriage.
Really if you think about it there are two separate things happening when someone gets married. Generally a religious aspect and a legal aspect.
So, avoid the religious right objections the government can say that, as a legal matter, a mechanism exists for any two people who formally want to hitch their futures together. This grants them access to things like inheritance protections should one or the other die and equitable division of assets should they break up and so on. So, a “legal union”.
Then you have the religious aspect. If a given church does not want to consecrate a marriage between a same sex couple that is the church’s own lookout. You do not want the government dictating that to them anyway. The gay couple can either find a religious institution that will do this for them or they can have a judge do the legal union.
Makes sense to me.
[/QUOTE]
I wrote the diatribe that follows and then reread your post. I believe we are absolutely saying the same thing, so, while I apologize for rehashing what I think you said, since I spent the time thinking about it, I’m posting it anyway 
The problem is that people of the same gender are not allowed a “legal union” in most of the United States at this time. If “marriage” means a religious union, fine, I agree, find a place of worship that will recognize the marriage that you’d want, but in the meantime, the Federal and State governments still don’t really allow that “legal union” stuff.
If EVERYONE is allowed to have a “Legal Union”, and has all the rights and obligations of what is now known as “marriage”, and “Marriage” evolves to mean what happens in your own personal House of Worship, that’s excellent. The problem is that it’s just not so.
Redefine “marriage” as a union sanctioned by your religion of choice, and I’m on board. But then give the “Legal Unionists” all the things the hets have.
Lastly, remind me to never post in GD again. I think this is my once a year. At least I waited six months 
ETA: And OMG, I just read your post directly above this one, and I couldn’t possibly agree more!
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
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?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see what this has to do with the issue. Except that society as a whole should be forced to accept changes they might not want. And before you throw out the laws affecting blacks in the U.S., remember we are not talking about rights here (as you stipulate below), because the can have all the legal rights without using the word “marriage”.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent, we agree. So it is not necessary that the word be used.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
On behalf of my wife of 33 years, our legally valid and coventanted before God marriage, and the nonexistent children of our bodies that we were unable to have, you are cordially invited to perform autocopulation.
[/QUOTE]
Why, because you chose to assign meaning to my words that are not there? You may fuck yourself, as well.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
A marriage is a commitment between two (or possibly more, a separate debate) to a lifelong exclusive union (at least in intent) as spouses. Children, whether produced by the traditional method, in vitro fertilization, or adoption, are a common but not mandatory consequent.
[/QUOTE]
And you are entitled to your opinion. You can also define it is a rubber ball with apple sauce on it. Knock yourself out as you beg the question.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Times change. Equality before the law does not.
[/QUOTE]
In your attempt to appear smart you might want to rethink this.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
So it is not necessary that the word be used.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, so, per my earlier post, what word should be used for each of the following:
-
the union of a man and a woman when they do not want to have children
-
the union of a man and a woman when they are unable to have children and elect to remain childless
-
the union of a man and a woman when they are unable to have children and elect to adopt
-
the union of a man and a woman when the man is infertile and they choose to have the woman impregnated with another man’s sperm
-
the union of a man and a woman when the woman is infertile and they choose to have another woman impregnated with the man’s sperm
-
the union of a man and a woman when they’re too old to have children
Since the word “marriage” is specifically about a man and a woman having children, and all.
[QUOTE=Canadjun]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe it is too late. I don’t think so, though. But I will not help it. I will seek to hinder it. If I get to vote against gay “marriage” I will.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I will seek to hinder it.
[/QUOTE]
= homophobic.
QED.
[QUOTE=Bosstone]
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.
[/QUOTE]
That is not a right. When can argue (correctly, in my book) that gay couples should be afforded the same legal rights as married couples, but that says nothing about what the union should be called. One is a legal rights argument, the other is what makes a group of feel good.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
That is not a right. When can argue (correctly, in my book) that gay couples should be afforded the same legal rights as married couples, but that says nothing about what the union should be called. One is a legal rights argument, the other is what makes a group of feel good.
[/QUOTE]
I’d guess that once they get the right, ten years from now the number of people who care what it’s called will drop to a ridiculed minority.
I don’t think it is homophobic. It is what he thinks marriage should be. I mean it is his opinion. The term homophobic is thrown out for anything that is not progay.
Marriage is a legal and binding contract between 2 people. It has legal ramifications concerning debts, rights to making decisions and distribution of assets after death or divorce. These have nothing to do with what sex you are. That definition arose as a response to gays wanting to marry. They just want the same rights. Why should these be denied a group of people for being born a little different.?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I don’t see what this has to do with the issue. Except that society as a whole should be forced to accept changes they might not want. And before you throw out the laws affecting blacks in the U.S., remember we are not talking about rights here (as you stipulate below), because the can have all the legal rights without using the word “marriage”.
[/quote]
What it has to do with the issue is that saying you give all the rights except the name is equivalent to saying I give you all the right to reply to my post without a subscription, guest or otherwise. That in practical terms you need the same name if you truly want equality, or the promotion of the best chance for it possible.
It’s also possible that I could go stick my head in a bucket of custard. This is certainly something that might happen - except of course that i’d really rather not, dairy product headgear not being in this season. Likewise, it is perfectly possible for marriage and a civil union (or equivalent) to be treated exactly the same in law, except of course that there are people who would really rather it not.
To make my statement clearer; it is not necessary that the word be used for true legal equality. It is, in my opinion, entirely necessary that the word be used for true legal equality with the current social mores of the U.S. (among other) population. Even then, I imagine that there will be challenges galore. But if you have a goal, then generally it’s a good idea to do the most you can to promote its chances - especially if the downside is “it contorts the language”.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
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.
[/QUOTE]
To me, using a word as a model is different. When the meaning is far from the original meaning, I think no damage is done. In fact, it may even become enriched. When it is close, it is not helpful. Just look at the word “hero” and how degraded its meaning has become. There is a concept of marriage as it has been understood that has been an important institution. I think it’s worth holding on to.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
And I think you’ll agree I’m not one to adopt every crazy left-wing idea that comes along.
[/QUOTE]
It appears that the winds of change are tickling not only the definition of words.
[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Since the word “marriage” is specifically about a man and a woman having children, and all.
[/QUOTE]
You must have misread Post 30 (“tightly tied”) and missed Post 45, which called attention to it.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
They just want the same rights.
[/QUOTE]
I think we can see from this thread alone, that your statement is not correct.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
So it is not necessary that the word be used.
[/QUOTE]
By all means, government at all levels should systematically expunge all references to “marriage” in laws and regulations, substitutiing “civil union” for the limited sphere in which it has any business adjudicating matters pertaining thereto.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Except that society as a whole should be forced to accept changes they might not want.
[/QUOTE]
If local society doesn’t want a Wal-Mart, they should not be forced to accept it. Wal-Mart owns an existing commercial parcel of land? Tough.
If local society doesn’t want SUVs, they should not be forced to accept them. You just bought one, and don’t like the idea of having it confiscated? Tough.
I had no idea you held such… progressive… views, Comrade.
[QUOTE=Steve MB]
If local society doesn’t want a Wal-Mart, they should not be forced to accept it. Wal-Mart owns an existing commercial parcel of land? Tough.
If local society doesn’t want SUVs, they should not be forced to accept them. You just bought one, and don’t like the idea of having it confiscated? Tough.
I had no idea you held such… progressive… views, Comrade.
[/QUOTE]
Hehe. Yes, I omitted a “not”, didn’t I? Touche!
[QUOTE=magellan01]
You must have misread Post 30 (“tightly tied”) and missed Post 45, which called attention to it.
[/QUOTE]
You mean this:
:rolleyes: For a second there (see my last post), I thought there was an outside chance you might be intellectually honest about this matter. But this absurd evasion (“Uh, words should mean something, but don’t tie me down to specifics that negate my poorly-defined argument”) essentially negated this notion.
Even though your own criteria (tradition blah blah institution blah blah think of the children) could very easily include gay couples without having to significantly redefine anything, your refusal to allow for this demonstrably proves that your intentions to make language “simpler” are laughable and that your argument that your position is not bigoted but merely “sensible” is laughable.
There is nothing simple or sensible about the contortions you’re going through to justify creating a hard-and-fast semantic distinction between two legal contracts just because the gender of one party is reversed.
Two brothers are siblings.
Two sisters are siblings.
One brother and one sister are siblings.
But in your world, I’m sure we’d have different words for each.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
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).
That looks like harm to me.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, the same problems exist with bigamy. If you have a link to the list please post it.
[QUOTE=chopperdude]
I don’t think it is homophobic. … I mean it is his opinion.
[/QUOTE]
Is it your position that there is no such thing as a homophobic opinion?