Chronos is not talking about what voters legislate. Chronos is talking about how they speak. He’s pointing out that, so far as how people speak goes, the matter is already settled; people do in general use the word “marriage” to cover the case of same-sex marriages granted by those existent or hypothetical future institutions willing to do so; thus, the word is clearly capable of taking on that meaning, regardless of the legal status in any particular isolated jurisdiction.
Fabulous.
Quoth John Mace:
So, you’re saying that we shouldn’t change the law, because that would entail changing the law?
Quoth Damuri Ajashi:
To be clear, my argument in this thread is not that gay marriage should be allowed (I do believe that, but that’s not what I’m arguing here). My argument in this thread is simply a refutation to one of the arguments that gay marriage should not be allowed. If someone said that polygamous marriage shouldn’t be allowed because that’s not what the word “marriage” means, then I’d give them the same argument I’m giving here, but if someone said that polygamous marriage shouldn’t be allowed because it tends to objectify women, or that it shouldn’t be allowed because it complicates inheritance law, then this argument would be irrelevant, and I’d have to either come up with a different counterargument or concede the point.
And if you say “Gertrude is a swan”, people will assume she’s a white bird. But that doesn’t mean it’s changing the meaning of the word “swan” to talk about black swans.
But I do think it’s all beside the point. Marriage is something that conveys a certain set of benefits in our society. If I’m trying to say “I think those benefits should be equally available to same sex couples”, a simple and clear way to say this is “I think same-sex couples should be able to marry.” If that’s changing the meaning of the word “marry” from the one you used to, so what?
Given that this has been a rather hot topic of conversation for nearly a decade, I’m now forced to wonder exactly how common it is for people in this country to exist in isolation tanks.
Technically, “willy-nilly” implies a lesbian marriage.
Gravity is an unquantifiable ‘thing’, therefore it cannot be attributed a colour by default. We don’t even know what it is, only its effects - lol!
But marriage is indeed a quantifiable concept as it’s the union of two human beings in matrimony. Therefore ‘gay marriage’ is indeed a valid, albeit unnecessary, expression as it indicates both the sexual persuasion of the people in question (the unnecessary part) and their partnership status - ie. married.
What makes me giggle girlishly though is how ridiculously tenuous and generally asinine the arguments against homosexual marital union and the recognition thereof are becoming. What next, if gays marry God will shoot a lightening bolt up their clackers? :smack:
Is America really this insular?!:dubious:
No. I’m saying your argument about the meaning of “marriage” doesn’t hold water. It’s the legal definition of the term that matters, not the vernacular. I’m saying that just because the vernacular changes, it doesn’t mean that the legal definition should change.
If I say John is married to his TV, that doesn’t mean I think John’s TV should be able to visit him in the hospital when he gets sick or that he has to divorce his TV if he decides to buy a new one.
Probably lots of things, along the lines of “a travesty”. But not marriage.
n.b.: I’m not condoning such actions or agreeing with them. I’m just saying that just because a lot of accept SSM doesn’t mean that the whole country has or that the whole country is willing to accept that two people of the same gender can be married.
But my OP is directed in the first place against those who say that the law shouldn’t change because that would change the meaning of the word. If the law shouldn’t change because it would change the meaning of the word, and the meaning of the word shouldn’t change because that would mean a change in the law, then we have a circular argument.
Where I come from, marriage means marriage, and there is nothing about the meaning of marriage that discriminates on the grounds of sex. Deal with it.
Adding to the pile-on, this is a statistical argument. At the moment since the vast majority of marriages, even in California, are OSMs, you might be justified in thinking Bob is Roberta. But that would change with legalization.
The OPs argument is not that the falsity of the “marriage has a meaning” statement means SSM should be legalized, just that this particular argument against is specious. I don’t think the argument is that marriage has a specific legal meaning - of course it does, and it still would if we changed it. The argument is that marriage has a specific “natural” (read god-given) meaning - single man, single woman. That’s the meaning that would be violated with SSM.
It amuses me that those who have clearly read their Bibles go an and on about the evils of polygamy. Maybe the Garden of Eden wouldn’t contain Adam and Steve, but it would be in keeping with the customs of the time if it contained Adam and Even and Jane and June.
But it would be not as specific. It would be broader.
Yes. Though I don’t think it necessary to invoke “God”. Even leaving God out of it, marriage is tightly correlated with family and procreation. And a look at the natural world around us makes the case that a male-female pairing is what nature intended.
That’s anthropomorphizing: nature doesn’t have intent. If you’re invoking nature in an argument against same-sex pairings, or for marriage or monogamy, I don’t think nature backs you up.
However, if one looks at a large group of people as a “super-organism” (another arguably valid view of “nature”), then one could say that a certain percentage of homosexuals is to be expected and possibly also serves a greater macro purpose in the intricate interactions of biology. Therefore, nature “intends” for homosexuals to be here.
There are some studies that put forth such an argument but I can’t find the links at the moment.
I don’t believe this for one single instant. Cite? Specifically, that they do not say “That gay marriage is legal is a travesty.”
It is very difficult to make meaningful distinctions between a gay marriage and any other type of marriage unless you believe gayness is yucky.
A look at the natural world around us confirms that same-sex pairings do indeed occur in other species that mate for life. Maybe a pair of penguins don’t stand up in front of a penguin minister wearing tuxes (well, at least, there’s not a penguin minister), but it’s the closest thing to “marriage” you’ll find in the “natural world”.
Proponents of SSM don’t generally argue that the law should be changed - they argue the law doesn’t need to be changed because the (legal) definition of “marriage” includes SSM within it already. That’s the basis for argument that ‘equal protection means SSM’.
The only trouble being that the legal definition of the term “marriage” does not include SSM. Cite, cite, cite, etc.
Regards,
Shodan
[quote=“John_Mace, post:28, topic:549765”]
No. I’m saying your argument about the meaning of “marriage” doesn’t hold water. It’s the legal definition of the term that matters, not the vernacular. I’m saying that just because the vernacular changes, it doesn’t mean that the legal definition should change.
I think its a lot tougher to object to gay marriage from a legal rights point of view than it is to do so on a traditions point of view. I think this is also the reason why people have proposed the civil union concept.
Based on sheer numbers, nature apparently intended asexual reproduction. Introducing males and females into the equation is an unnatural abomination.