Then I propose that everyone who wishes to commit their lives to one another shall be “married”, and anyone who wants to have children must also register as a “licensed breeding pair”. How’s that for specificity and descriptiveness?
Seriously though, the common thread of all marriages is not children but mutual commitment. I don’t suppose you noticed that marriage vows generally do not mention childbearing, and progeny quite frequently pop up with no mention whatsoever of marriage?
Flaming is not allowed in Great Debates. Take it to the Pit if you must, but stop it while you’re in here.
I’m happy to entertain an analogy, but you lost me here.
My apologies. I didn’t think you were being sarcastic.
Likewise? Maybe analogies aren’t your strong suit. And whether or not some people might work against it seems beside the point. If anything, it might argue to being a little conciliatory.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
So you weren’t being sarcastic. Come on RT, we disagree often but you usually don’t play games like this.
I think you underestimate the importance of language. Or is it because you don’t underestimate it that you want the word?
Sigh. So, I’m obligated to have a black or white position? And not only me, but relationships between things in the universe themselves? Things can’t be closely related? They have to be synonymous or completely different? And if I don’t conform to those ridiculous standards you set forth, I’M being intellectually dishonest?
Gotcha. Thanks for the laugh.
Why, what do you suppose would happen if the legal contract between two members of the same sex which was identical in benefits to that between two members of the opposite sex happened to also share with it the name of “marriage”?
Sorry about that; in this case my contorted language did cause a problem. 
What I mean is that, in my opinion, the name would have to be the same for true equality. So suggesting a situation where there’s both true equality but different names to me seems as contradictory as saying you’re free to post but you don’t have an account; one’s required for the other, not just an added bonus.
I wasn’t being. I was trying to say that certainly there’s the possibility there, it’s just not a possibility in the current situation. It’s something that would work until we actually got down to the practical aspects of it, on which I believe it would fail. A good plan but one that falls down in the conception. In other situations, in other cultures, then certainly i’d agree it could work.
Likewise as in the point it fails on is that there are people who don’t want it, though my analogies could use some work. I’m afraid though I don’t get what you mean by it being concilatory. That people are against it is very much the point; if there were none, then equality-but-different-name could work.
Ah, we don’t disagree that often. I just don’t disagree with you when I don’t disagree, if that makes sense. 
I think language is very important, especially in the legal profession, and that’s precisely why I think equality-but-differently-named is a bad idea; if you call something a different name, it’s just another hook to hang a reason to avoid equality on. I’ll fully admit, however, to not considering keeping the usage of language as it has been to be all that important. Arguably it’s because i’m young and besides am not a huge fan of tradition for tradition’s sake in general, but I just don’t see that wanting to keep a word from changing in meaning is a big enough downside to outweigh the benefits in this particular instance.
I understand that in effect the word isn’t just a word, it’s a symbol of the entire history of marriage, and that some people aren’t keen on changing it because it would be including a group of people in that long tradition who they do not want to include (for whatever reason). In a sense that by diluting the word, it dilutes that history. I don’t know if that’s what you yourself would say, but I do recognise the importance to many people of not wanting to expand the definition in that way not because of literary accuracy but because of what it means to them. And I can sympathise with that; just because I don’t feel it myself doesn’t mean I ignore that others do, or don’t think their feelings matter, because they do. I just still think that what would be gained is considerably more than what would be lost.
Patently untrue. Historically, it’s been an institution for the transfer of property rights. But even if we accept your child-centric definition of the word, there’s still no reason to exclude homosexual couples from it.
One problem you’re going to have with this line of argument, at least as far as I’m concerned, is that the concept of “degrading” languages is almost, but not quite, as stupid as the idea that we need seperate terms for government recognition of homosexual couples. Languages do not degrade. It’s not possible for this to happen. The word “degrade” has no meaning in this context.
This is not necessarily true. Language changes to reflect the needs of the society that uses it. Not terribly long ago, we had a wide variety of words to describe exactly how much Negro blood a person had: quadroon, octaroon, etc. At the time, these words were necessary because it was widely held that the amount of Negro blood a person possessed reflected their worth as an individual. We have, for the most part, abandonded that viewpoint, and along with it, the necessity of specific words differentiating different “levels” of blackness, instead using a few blanket terms for everyone of African descent. What we’re seeing in the evolution of the word “marriage” is largely parrallel. There is an idea that, for some reason, we need to maintain a difference between homosexual and heterosexual marriages, even though there is no material difference between the two relationships. As more and more people recognize this, there will be less and less resistance to the common usage of “marriage” to refer to licensed gay relationships. Wether this happens before or after the supposed difference in the relationships is recognized by law is largely academic. Even if we do get fully equal civil unions, these relationships are going to be called marriage in the common parlance, and common parlance is the ultimate arbiter in language, and is not subject to the law.
No, we won’t. We don’t need two different terms today, and in practice, we don’t have two different terms. Gay couples, and their friends and families, have been calling themselves married for decades now, regardless of any government recognition. The move towards civil unions is only going to increase this trend. Do you really expect a gay couple in Massachusetts to say, “We’re going to get Civil Unioned this June!” Of course not: they’re going to say they’re getting married. And a gay couple in Alabama that’s having a non-legally binding commitment ceremony is going to say exactly the same thing. The language has already changed here, and there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Really? If two men enter into a civil union, you don’t think they should refer to each other as their husbands? What terms should they use? When they’re still dating, should they not refer to each other as their boyfriends? For that matter, since dating is largely a matter of seeking someone you want to marry, should we come up with a different term for when gays do it? And speaking of doing it, one could argue much more convincingly that children is the purpose behind sex, then it is the purpose behind marriage. Since gay marriage is far more likely to lead to children than gay sex ever is, should we invent a new term to describe that, too?
Your ability to provide analogies that undercut your own argument continues to amaze, magellan. As has been pointed out, the women’s sufferage movement was agitating for access to the same rights and institutions that were available to men. Similarly, the gay marriage movement is about access to the same rights and institutions available to straights. When women were demanding the right to vote, no one suggested that they be given that right, but only on the condition that it be called “woting.” Why? Because it’s a stupid idea. If you’re going to give two groups access to two identical institutions, there’s no rational reason to insist on two different names for the institutions. Unless, of course, the two institutions are not really identical.
Magellan, why would you be offended by other people using a word to describe themselves? Even if it was being used solely as a strategy for full acceptance, why wouldn’t you want that for members of your society? Your being offended by this is just mind-boggling.
Remembering that thread, and being somewhat bored, I looked it up for you. Quite the thread, actually. You got pitted for “gloating” about the results of a Louisiana plebiscite that came out against gay marriage, a Great Debate broke out in the Pit, and after 8 pages of often heated debate with many notable contributors, Left Hand of Dorkness makes the semantic argument which tips the balance, and you officially change your mind in post 366.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=277181&page=1&pp=50
It’s not only that he’s offended by it and volunteers to be the bulwark against the changing tides of language usage. What boggels me is that he absolutely would not vote for any legislative approval of same-sex unions if the the language includes the word “marriage,” an idea he says he otherwise supports wholeheartedly.
I don’t get it.
You’re the one talking about making things simpler and sensible, but when you have your feet put to the fire by your own internal inconsistencies, now you backtrack with grey areas and convenient relativism.
Nobody’s asking for a black & white position, but if you’re going to make an argument that the term for “marriage” for same sex couples is intrinsically bad (degrading the language and so on), you better have something more substantial to fall back on then knee-jerk prejudices tarted up with circular logic and panders to “traditionalism” that you try to sell off as common sense.
You can believe whatever you want, but your pretense that somehow it’s from a position of integrity, let alone coherency, is indeed what’s laughable.
Oh, I saw them. I just wanted you to confirm that you don’t have anything resembling a sensible argument here (color me shocked). Thanks.
Two conditions that are supposedly equal but have different legal titles leaves the door open to discrimination somewhere down the line. In California, we had “Registered Domestic Partnerships” for a few years which were supposed to be functionally equivalent. Even the Courts said they were supposed to be functionally equivalent. But give someone the opportunity to weasel a way to deny rights to gays and they will use it. There were many insurance companies that treated “RDPs” differently than legally married spouses. Taxes were, of course, a mess. Property rights, inheritance rights, on and on. Little things, but over time these little things add up. Leaving the door open, even if just a crack, is a sure-fired way to make sure that “Separate but Equal” fails in the way it did with racial segregation.
Come on. Even using fancy euphemisms this is wholly inppropriate to this Forum. If you so badly have to express your displeasure that forcefully, take it to the Pit.
This is a Warning that you are not to let your emotions carry you away in this Forum.
[ /Moderating]
ETA: I posted this when I saw your post and before I saw that magellan01 had responded crudely or that Marley23 had issued Warnings. This is not an additional Warning (and I only refrain from simply deleting this post because I’m sure several posters had already seen it while I was finishing reading the thread).
I have a very close friend who happens to be black. We’re usually on the same page regarding what’s racism and what isn’t. But once in a while, he considers a person or situation as racist, while I’m not quite sure. But he’s a very intelligent man, and doesn’t use that term without reason. After some dialog, he turns out to be right ***100% of the time. ***No matter how free of prejudice I think I am, sometimes I just can’t perceive racism till it’s pointed out to me. Then I understand a little better.
Same thing with female friends. They’re the ones who get to decide what’s sexist and what’s not. And they’re always right. My options are either to agree with them right away, or learn from them. When they reasonably perceive sexism, it’s their call, not mine.
So when I, as a gay man, can reasonably identify an attitude as homophobic . . . whether that attitude belongs to one person or millions . . . believe me, I know what I’m talking about. If someone’s definition of marriage excludes my partner and me, then yes, “it is what he thinks marriage should be.” But that doesn’t make it right. And yes, “it is his opinion.” But that doesn’t make it right. And if “the term homophobic is thrown out for anything that is not progay,” it’s because things that are anti-gay simply ***are ***homophobic. Just like anything that is anti-black (or any other ethnicity) is racist, and anything that is anti-female (or male) is sexist. Saying it’s not, doesn’t make it so.
And if some people in this thread think that their attitudes aren’t homophobic, it doesn’t change the fact that they are.
A whole lot of our modern understanding of marriage never would have occurred to the overwhelming majority of people throughout history!
Really? Historically?
Historically marriage has been an institution used to protect and advance the wealth (land, titles, etc) of the parents of those being married, most often without any input from those being married. Marrying beneath your class wasn’t exactly common IGTU. (For a historically recent take on who gets to decide whom one may or may not marry when one is marrying down, see Edward VIII’s abdication crisis.)
Was a right to marry even acknowledged in Western law before Loving v. Virginia? After Loving it’s hard to accept any governmental interference without a rock solid reason that meets the current tests for such governmental interference, appeals to some rose colored glasses version of that tradition just don’t rise to that standard.
The notion of marriage as the penultimate act of romantic love doesn’t exist historically. Appeals to marriage’s history without acknowledging its actual history are embarrassing at best. (In light of the firestorm over Edward VIII it seems clear that if it was it was honored it was hardly guarantied. I mean if the fucking King of England can’t marry who he wants without having to abdicate the throne it doesn’t suggest any widely accepted understanding that that decision rests solely in the parties who are seeking to be married)
CMC +fnord!
Question: If the “begetting of children” was not intended to be portrayed as a requirement of marriage, then why did you bring it up? As you’ve explained it, it sounds like it was nothing more than “Well, I’m just sayin’ is all.”
Yes, I think the statement is homophobic. And the statements like the one quoted that I’ve heard from Obama in the past have concerned me.
As has been mentioned up-thread, he recently voiced his opposition to the California ballot initiative to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and also voiced his opposition to the idea of such a federal amendment.
I don’t intend to hijack the thread, but I find the juxtaposition of the statements to be interesting, especially during a long campaign season where language and phrasing are repeatedly hauled under the microscope of media/pundit/public scrutiny.
Do his previous statements represent a personal opinion that his ethics cannot justify writing into a state or federal constitution? Was he being dishonest and pandering to those who do not support gay rights or marriage equality? Is he now pandering in different direction, as the antithesis of McCain’s support for the California ballot initiative? Is it something else entirely? Has he changed his mind?
But I don’t think it’s reasonable to maintain that the “concept of marriage” is fundamentally dependent on the gender arrangement. Doesn’t the stipulation that it’s between a man and woman automatically fall by the wayside once it’s clear that sex and romantic love are possible within same-gender couples as well?
But for a moment, let’s back off marriage per se for gays and instead, magellan ask you for a moment to consider their relationships. Boyfriends and boyfriends and girlfriends and girlfriends are together the same way that boyfriends and girlfriends are. The legal benefits may be where the ribber meets the road with discrimination, but saying it can be made the equivalent of marriage in a legal sense misses the point, which is that it’s the equivalent of marriage in a personal and emotional sense.
So much of the opposition to gay marriage is based on the fear that it would thrust the whole of society into some mysterious unknown territory, where who knows what sort of troubling eventualities might ensue. Degrading the language? Heavens, where will it all end?
Look it’s perfectly simple: A small percentage of society are homosexuals, and apart from that one difference, they tend to for relationships just like “normal” people. And that’s all. It’s not like there are countless other weirdos waiting in the wings to have their god-knows-what legitimized, and it’s not like some scourge like drug addiction that threatens to spread throughout society.
So relax.
Obama has been consistent on this issue as far as I know. Consistently wrong, but consistent.
I think you are incorrectly concluding that the referendums were the result of genuine widespread anguish among the voting public, when actually they wer ea calculated political action. The GOP would have behaved the exact same way if gay rights advocates had asked for civil unions. The distinction in terminology doesn’t fool anybody. People know a marriage when they see it, and if gays give them the creeps, most of them won’t care if the gays want to be civil unionized or married.