But it was a tradition for a very long time that only men were allowed to vote. Would you want me to feel less of a man just so you could use the word “vote” for a non-traditional purpose?
This is simply not true, even right now in 2014. Plenty of same sex couples marry today with the intention of forming a family to raise children. Plenty of same sex couples marry today because they already have children, and feel that marriage is the ideal situation for raising them. As you say, couples that cannot or choose not to have children do not challenge the symbolism of marriage as an institution for the raising of children. This applies whether the couples are same sex or not.
If same sex couples never married for the purpose of raising children, you might have a point, however weak or irrelevant. But this is not the case. The bottom line is that some opposite sex couples marry to raise children, and some do not. Some same sex couples marry to raise children, and some do not. The symbolism is not altered in any way by allowing same sex couples to marry.
The closest thing I can think of is a High School diploma vs a GED. Legally they carry the same weight. Of course, socially they don’t. It can be harder to get a job with a GED instead of a diploma. One is considered by nearly everyone to be lesser than then other. But they are legally the same.
That analogy falls apart quickly though since they are obtained in rather different ways.
If you have a GED and you say you have a diploma, are you lying, or are you just leaving out a detail? (I know nothing about GEDs.)
GED is for General Education Development and is classed as a high school equivalency. So no, you do not possess a high school diploma if you have one.
…because you say so? I understand you believe in what you’re saying, but you’ve yet to deploy a valid argument for it.
But they wouldn’t be able to be legally married, which is the entire point of your proposal.
It is. But it’s also yet another example of trying to redefine marriage so it’s specifically something gays can’t achieve - the ‘a gay couple can’t have biological children together’ claim - and that’s already been discussed at length. “I want to live me life with you. I want to devote myself to you.” is an enormously powerful idea. Omitting children doesn’t make it less powerful. The same goes for “Yes, I want to live me life with you. I want to devote myself to you. I want to adopt children with you.” And of course gay couples can do those things, and they can also have children with donors and surrogates. That’s yet another reason to stop quibbling over the meaning of a single word.
Nobody is going to forego marriage just because a couple that can’t have biological children together can also get married. That’s kind of silly.
::scared::
I’d say the law that restricts marriage this way is bigoted, sure. Because it is.
You were doing pretty well here in laying out your case in a straightforward way, but this closing self-pity bomb really undermines the rest of the post.
Is there a reason the couple in your example are pirates? 
Pirates have rights too, matey.
Look, we all have our own notions about the ideal marriage. I was quoting magellan01’s post, but what the heck- a pirate’s life for me, too.
Great. Now we have to talk about to-matey juice too.
It’s over for me, anyway. Gay marriage passed by referendum in Maine, yet the world did not end, and God did not send fire from the heavens to burn down this supposed modern day Sodom and Gomorrah.
And as far as I know, people are still not allowed to marry blood relatives, children, or animals (I know, those are all redundant). So it looks like the most common slippery slope fallacy employed by opponents failed to materialize.
In other words, the effects are as I suspected they would be. Gay people are happy (well, until they get past the honeymoon stage), and the effects on me and everyone else are nil.
Whatever was the big hubbub about, anyway?
Something about pineapple juice.
I see this as your biggest mistake that you make. You keep thinking that young people, the future, will give a damn about what you now see as this holy word in marriage and that it will mean something else if gays are allowed in it. Conservatives are beating themselves up with the notion that marriage has never changed, its always been the way it is, and that it never should change.
GIVE UP THAT LINE OF THINKING!
Many of us who have accepted gay marriage are way beyond those lies. We know marriage has changed a lot. We know that its just a word, and that its not sacred, and changing it wouldn’t be harmful. Maybe that makes it easier for some of us to accept gay marriage, or maybe we’re just really great people who don’t think of the dictionary when deciding what’s good for an actual human being.
I think you would be much more likely to accept gay marriage if you would disabuse yourself of thinking that marriage has always been the same, and the notion that the word or its implications mean a damn to 2 people in love. Once you give that up, most of your reasoning to continue to defend the anti-gay marriage side falls away.
Repeat to yourself: “Eh, so what if marriage changed?” and “I don’t care what young people in the future thinks about marriage”
It’ll make you feel much better
No, the problem is that your PROPOSAL is exactly the same as the PROPOSAL for the separate-but-equal schooling. The folks proposing separate-but-equal schooling also proposed equal schools, just as you propose equal benefits. Only separate.
This has two problems:
- Separate is, as others have pointed out, inherently unequal, in such cases; that’s the Brown reasoning.
- As we saw in the case of separate-but-equal schools, and as you acknowledge in your step D, the reality doesn’t match the proposal. Why would we anticipate that the reality in step D of your plan would match the proposal in step C any better than the reality in step D of racist schooling matched the proposal in step C of racist schooling?
Edit: another problem is that your steps C are written differently in a way that doesn’t actually make a material difference. Look at this rewrite that doesn’t actually change anything:
C) Proposal: Let’s have one set of educational benefits and privileges that are equally and identical accessed by the two groups in A. Namely, black children go to a black school and white children go to a white school.
C) Proposal: Let’s have one set of legal benefits and privileges that are equally and identical accessed by the two groups in A. Namely, SS couples brought together in a Civil Union and OS couples brought together in a Marriage.
While we’re at it, I call bullshit on the idea that racial segregation may have been well-intentioned.
Which is, of course, another parallel between the two situations.
AFAIK, this was almost the case with marriage law in the Netherlands between 1998 and 2001. That is, Dutch legislation during that time provided an equivalent status to civil marriage (huwelijk/trouwen) called “registered partnership” (geregistreerd partnerschap). However, the situation deviated from absolutely “separate but equal” status in the following ways:
-
Although civil marriage was not available to same-sex couples until the marriage laws were changed in 2001, registered partnership was (and remains) available to opposite-sex couples as well as to same-sex ones.
-
For both same-sex and opposite-sex couples in a registered partnership, if a child is born to them, the non-parturient partner is not automatically presumed in law to be the child’s other parent. He/she has to go through an adoption/acknowledgement procedure to gain legal parental status.
This last difference still applies in the case of same-sex marriages. The same-sex partner of a parent is not automatically presumed in law to be the other parent of the partner’s child, although he/she can legally adopt the child.
For many who endorsed it, it really was. There was a widespread, genuine belief for many that a race is inherently inferior to his own, that its members are best suited to menial, subservient positions, that they should not mix with his own, and that so doing just gave them false hope about what they could achieve and they would inevitably become unhappy when they realized otherwise.
Even though such a set of beliefs is indeed bullshit, for those who sincerely held it, and the many who still do, the conclusion that segregation was a societal good really was well-intentioned, although in a way we now find abhorrent. Yes, certainly there were many whose intentions were malevolent, preferring that “those people” go back where they came from (as long as the menial work got done by somebody, anyway), but that wasn’t universal.
Huh. I knew “failure is not an option” was used to rally football players, but I hadn’t previously heard it applied to legislation
Kinda wonder why, if the fear is that hetero couples will avoid marriage because of the gays, why would we allow gay adoptions? What if those hetero couples decide that they don’t want to adopt if the gays can adopt? Adoption is an ancient tradition and symbolically it was all about bringing children in to afamily, and we all know that families were base on hetero relationships.
I think we should call gay adoption something else, to protect the institute of adoption from dilution. I suggest “proxy parent-like relationships.”
“Hey, Fred. I didn’t know you were adopted!” “That’s because I’m not, Horace. I am proxy parent-like relationshipped!”