# "Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2008, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188 "2008-09-12T00:12:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/181 "2008-09-15T16:27:41Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#): > > We do _not_ “lose” the word. It’ll still be around, its meaning inarguably clear to all. The assembly of letters will still exist, yes. But it’s primary meeting will be weakened. The word will become more ambiguous. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > So, uh, you’re just going to ignore all the _other_ things to which this particular word has pointed and currently points? And insist, in spite of the fact that every dictionary in existence disagrees with you, that the above is the _only_ definition of the word “marriage?” Please. Those other definitions appropriate only a sense of the word, as in “I’m not married to that idea”. There is no confusion. Look again at the word “hero”. When someone hits a homerun in the bottom of the ninth to win the game and we call him the “hero of the game”, there is no confusion. We’re taking liberty with the word, which is fine. But when someone does a solemn piece on firemen, or policemen, or even soldiers, and tries to build the case that they’re all heroes, that degrades the word immensely. I think it is exactly the same with “marriage”. When referring to the joining of two people, we should have a word that describes that institution which has been so important in our history and culture: the joining of a man and a woman. > [@storyteller0910](#): > > If such a “declaration of preference” had been proposed at the time, by your own logic you’d have had to support it, because after all, for hundreds of years the word “vote” had specifically pointed toward a special right and duty given to white male citizens. The association of voting with white males was no less firmly established than your (supposed) association of marriage with straight couples. But there is nothing intrinsically “male” about voting. It was simply restricted. If you compared the vote of a woman to the vote of a man they would be identical. That is not true with marriage. The coming together of two men and the coming together of a woman and a male is, by definition, different. One can, and usually does, produce children. The other does not. Both are celebrations of love and commitment, but only one is also a celebration of nature that leads to birth. We valued that enough to have a word for it. I think we should still. ---
**Author:** ![Freyr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/freyr/32/5763_2.png) [@Freyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freyr)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/182 "2008-09-15T17:46:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The assembly of letters will still exist, yes. But it’s primary meeting will be weakened. The word will become more ambiguous. I’m sorry to sound pedantic about this, but I really don’t see how this happens. Could you please explain, step-by-step, **explicitlly** how this would happen? I really do not see the logic of what you’re getting at. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/183 "2008-09-15T17:51:44Z")
> [@Freyr](#): > > I’m sorry to sound pedantic about this, but I really don’t see how this happens. Could you please explain, step-by-step, **explicitlly** how this would happen? I really do not see the logic of what you’re getting at. While I disagree with **magellan** , I can see how this would happen. Right now, when you talk about marriage, the other person gets the idea of a man and a woman couple (not so of all people, of course). If gay marriage were enacted, when I say “Oh, my son David is getting married”, listeners will no longer be sure what I mean - is he marrying a woman, or a man? It becomes more ambiguous. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/184 "2008-09-15T17:53:20Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Right now, when you talk about marriage, the other person gets the idea of a man and a woman couple (not so of all people, of course). If gay marriage were enacted, when I say “Oh, my son David is getting married”, listeners will no longer be sure what I mean - is he marrying a woman, or a man? It becomes more ambiguous. “Who is he marrying?” “Pat.” “…” ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/185 "2008-09-15T18:49:57Z")
> [@Freyr](#): > > I’m sorry to sound pedantic about this, but I really don’t see how this happens. Could you please explain, step-by-step, **explicitlly** how this would happen? I really do not see the logic of what you’re getting at. Just look at the word “hero”. I remember of you heard the term “war hero”, it meant that someone was in battle and did something truly extraordinary, putting his life at grave risk above and beyond what might be expected of him. Now, I’ve seen it used to describe soldier who merely was in a war zone. I don’t mean to belittle that service in any way, but you get the idea. So now we no longer have a word that is reserved to described man acting at his most noble. That is not a good thing. On preview, thanks to **Revenant** for his assistance. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/186 "2008-09-15T18:56:12Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If you say so. But no one has come even close to convincing me it’s not possible. Easy, even. And since it is you (pl) who seek the change, I think it falls to you to prove to me that a less disruptive solution would NOT work before I should be asked to accept the greater change you want. I just see a kneejerk reaction for hardliners to not want to even entertain the notion that leaving “marriage” off the table might work because their minds are already made up. So the exasperation you feel is felt by me, as well. Can you point to any other situation, in the history of this country or any other, where the concept of “separate but equal” has been successfully employed to give a minority a set of rights that really is equal to the majority? As far as I’m aware, this has ever happened. Such situations have always been specifically employed to discriminate against the minority. Can you explain why gay marriage would be any different? > [@](#): > > But there is nothing intrinsically “male” about voting. It was simply restricted. If you compared the vote of a woman to the vote of a man they would be identical. Had you asked any of the people who opposed women’s suffrage at the turn of the last century, they would have disagreed with you very strongly on this point. Sure, it sounds ludicrous today, because we’ve evolved past that sort of attitude. Just as, someday, we may evolve to the point where this: > [@](#): > > That is not true with marriage. The coming together of two men and the coming together of a woman and a male is, by definition, different. …will be regarded as equally ludicrous by most people. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/187 "2008-09-15T19:04:09Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If you say so. But no one has come even close to convincing me it’s not possible. Easy, even. And since it is you (pl) who seek the change, I think it falls to you to prove to me that a less disruptive solution would NOT work before I should be asked to accept the greater change you want. I just see a kneejerk reaction for hardliners to not want to even entertain the notion that leaving “marriage” off the table might work because their minds are already made up. So the exasperation you feel is felt by me, as well. I arleady posted to this effect - didn’t you read it? > [@begbert2](#): > > As has been stated, nobody else would be shifted by the gays being able to be married, and to call it being married. All those hetero couples? They’d still be married. This is not a _replacement_ of the existing system; it’s an expansion. > > Now if you want to talk about a _shift_, talk about jamming an entire new form of magical special different legal contract into the legal system, with _any_ pretense it will be treated similarly to marriage. You’re talking a huge undertaking. Except for the people who don’t bother to give that label legal rights, of course… > > And of course, then there’s all those bits of society that _aren’t_ part of the government. “I’m sorry, our extended insurance coverage is only available to married couples.” It would take precisely no time whatsoever for stuff like this to happen - it is literally the _default_. The idea of inventing a term and ‘declaring it to be equal’ is pretty much guaranteed not to work properly; it will _start out_ corrupted and the bigots will fight tooth and nail to keep it that way - if not make it worse. In fact that’s what ‘civil unions’ are _for_. I’m solidly convinced that there is _no other reason_ to push for the idea except to be able to allow people to say “see, it’s not _actually_ marriage, so it’s not _actually_ equal, so we’re not going to _treat_ them equally”. The **only reason** to do it as a separate institution is to make it a second-class institution. Certianly there is no semantic argument for not using the word marriage to refer to gay marriages. Oh, look at that. The word already is commonly used to refer to same-sex couplings, as demonstrated by the use of an adjective to distinguish it from \*non-\*same-sex couplings. Sure, the term ‘marriage’ when used alone is generally understood to refer to hetero mariages - just like the term ‘sheep’ alone is generally understood to refer to sheep with white wool. But a black sheep is still a sheep, without lessening the default understanding of the term. Just like legalizing gay marriages won’t change the fact that by default, when people think of marriage, they’ll think of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. So there’s no semantic argument for using a separate term. The _only_ reason to push for it as opposed to just expanding the inclusivitiy of the legal defintion of regular marriage **is to keep gay marriage unequal.** ---
**Author:** ![Canadjun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@Canadjun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Canadjun)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/188 "2008-09-15T19:15:29Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But there is nothing intrinsically “male” about voting. It was simply restricted. If you compared the vote of a woman to the vote of a man they would be identical. That is not true with marriage. The coming together of two men and the coming together of a woman and a male is, by definition, different. One can, and usually does, produce children. The other does not. Both are celebrations of love and commitment, but only one is also a celebration of nature that leads to birth. We valued that enough to have a word for it. I think we should still. So, are you saying that “comings together” that can not possibly result in children (either member of the pair is sterile due to age, surgery, disease, etc.) should not be called marriage? Quite a few people would disagree with you. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/189 "2008-09-15T19:15:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Just look at the word “hero”. I remember of you heard the term “war hero”, it meant that someone was in battle and did something truly extraordinary, putting his life at grave risk above and beyond what might be expected of him. Now, I’ve seen it used to describe soldier who merely was in a war zone. I don’t mean to belittle that service in any way, but you get the idea. So now we no longer have a word that is reserved to described man acting at his most noble. That is not a good thing. > > On preview, thanks to **Revenant** for his assistance. Oh, I’ve got an idea which might work for you. How about we cross out the word “marriage” everywhere it appears in the statute books and substitute “civil union.” That way, “marriage” can stay as the specific term for a civil union between a man and a woman, with the added connotation that this is a civil union performed by a religious authority instead of a secular one. And so, with one Replace command on the word processor, we can get the government out of the marriage business and let them just be concerned with committed and legally bound households. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/190 "2008-09-15T19:35:59Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Can you point to any other situation, in the history of this country or any other, where the concept of “separate but equal” has been successfully employed to give a minority a set of rights that really is equal to the majority? As far as I’m aware, this has ever happened. Such situations have always been specifically employed to discriminate against the minority. Can you explain why gay marriage would be any different? I don’t think I can. But I’m not proposing a separate and equal set of rules. What I’m saying is that right now our society says that married people are entitled to x, y, and z. I’m simply saying all we have to do is come up with something and then have the law read all married people and \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ are entitled to x, y, and z. > [@Miller](#): > > …will be regarded as equally ludicrous by most people. A In =essence, what you’re saying is: A + B = C A + A = C That means, A = B. No, man does not equal woman. That is ludicrous, if you ask me. You’re attempting to ignore the primary factors that brought marriage about in the first place. The begetting of children is not separable from our concept of marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/191 "2008-09-15T20:10:03Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The begetting of children is not separable from our concept of marriage. That will no doubt come as a bit of a shock to [Harold and Madonna Bentzien](http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070527/news_1m27wedding.html): > [@](#): > > Bentzien will turn 100 in July, the same month Marshall turns 81. The San Diego County Recorder doesn’t track age on marriage licenses. Still, staff members can’t remember granting a marriage license to someone of Bentzien’s age before. > > “The men all say he is robbing the cradle,” Marshall said, chuckling. “But at 81, I’m not sure that applies.” > > Those who know them say the connection is real and that they are a perfect match, sharing a deep faith, a joy for life and a keen sense of humor. Adam and Steve are more likely to begat a child. I’d like to see you tell Harold he isn’t really married to Madonna, though be prepared to duck, as he swings a mean cane. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/192 "2008-09-15T20:15:21Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t think I can. But I’m not proposing a separate and equal set of rules. What I’m saying is that right now our society says that married people are entitled to x, y, and z. I’m simply saying all we have to do is come up with something and then have the law read all married people and \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ are entitled to x, y, and z. You mean law **s**. Lots and lots and lots of them. Not to mention lots and lots and lots of company policies that are not part of any legal system. Sounds very time consuming and costly to implement and police the implementation of to me. What do you think? > [@magellan01](#): > > A In =essence, what you’re saying is: > A + B = C > A + A = C > > That means, A = B. > > No, man does not equal woman. That is ludicrous, if you ask me. You’re attempting to ignore the primary factors that brought marriage about in the first place. The begetting of children is not separable from our concept of marriage. I think he’s actually saying that most people are going to call a spade a spade, regardless of the legal term - just like we call a person drunk without first checking their blood-alcohol level. And actually _you’re_ attempting to ignore the primary factors that brought marriage about in the first place. The ownership of women is not separable from our concept of marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/193 "2008-09-15T22:30:31Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > While I disagree with **magellan** , I can see how this would happen. > > Right now, when you talk about marriage, the other person gets the idea of a man and a woman couple (not so of all people, of course). If gay marriage were enacted, when I say “Oh, my son David is getting married”, listeners will no longer be sure what I mean - is he marrying a woman, or a man? It becomes more ambiguous. Perhaps so, but I don’t see how this would be any more problematic than what has already happened to the word “dating”. If I said “Oh, my son David has a date tonight” this would generally be understood to mean that he has a date with a girl. Gay couples are also said to be dating, and “has a date” could even mean a non-romantic social engagement, but unless they have reason to believe otherwise people usually assume that “has a date” means “has a heterosexual, romantic date”. And they’re usually right. The thing is, gay dating and gay marriage are never going to be all that common because there aren’t all that many gay people. If listeners just assumed that “my son David” was marrying a woman, they’d be right about 90% of the time. And if they couldn’t be 100% sure, well, who cares? If my imaginary son’s sexual orientation were any of their business then they wouldn’t have to guess. They’d have heard about it long before he was making wedding plans. It’s not as if someone is going to be invited to the wedding and realize only when they see two men at the altar that it’s a _gay_ wedding. I’m reminded of the _Seinfeld_ episode where Elaine winds up talking to an older woman on the subway and mentions she’s on her way to a friend’s wedding. The woman starts asking questions like “Oh, what does he [the groom] do?” and is shocked when Elaine explains that she’s going to a _lesbian_ wedding. But the other woman was only surprised because she was prying into the business of total strangers. Elaine wasn’t confused about the sort of event she was attending, even though her lesbian friends were using the term “wedding”. ---
**Author:** ![UnwrittenNocturne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/6de8d8/32.png) [@UnwrittenNocturne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UnwrittenNocturne)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/194 "2008-09-15T23:07:09Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No, man does not equal woman. That is ludicrous, if you ask me. You’re attempting to ignore the primary factors that brought marriage about in the first place. The begetting of children is not separable from our concept of marriage. And we’re back to this. So I guess my wife and I ought not be married. We plan on no children. We’ve taken steps to make sure we never have them. The begetting of children might be inseparable to you but it sure isn’t for me. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/195 "2008-09-15T23:15:48Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > Perhaps so, but I don’t see how this would be any more problematic than what has already happened to the word “dating”. If I said “Oh, my son David has a date tonight” this would generally be understood to mean that he has a date with a girl. Gay couples are also said to be dating, and “has a date” could even mean a non-romantic social engagement, but unless they have reason to believe otherwise people usually assume that “has a date” means “has a heterosexual, romantic date”. To be clear, while I think the ambiguity exists, I believe that it is not so troubling a thing as to be all that much of a concern. I can certainly and indeed happily live with not being immediately sure the gender of the person so-and-so is getting married to if it means they _can_ get married. I’m simply in agreement with magellan that the ambiguity would exist. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/196 "2008-09-15T23:22:11Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > To be clear, while I think the ambiguity exists, I believe that it is not so troubling a thing as to be all that much of a concern. I can certainly and indeed happily live with not being immediately sure the gender of the person so-and-so is getting married to if it means they _can_ get married. I’m simply in agreement with magellan that the ambiguity would exist. Legally though, that ambiguity is meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/197 "2008-09-15T23:22:34Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t think I can. But I’m not proposing a separate and equal set of rules. What I’m saying is that right now our society says that married people are entitled to x, y, and z. I’m simply saying all we have to do is come up with something and then have the law read all married people and \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ are entitled to x, y, and z. That wouldn’t be “one law”, though. But i’m not as familiar with American law as i’d like to be, so it’s quite possible i’m mistaken. Let’s make it simple. At the moment, American law includes some law which pertains to marriage. Could you cite for me all the laws, rules and regs. which pertain to it currently? All of these would clearly be required, if only to reference, in your suggested amending law/laws, so it seems like it would be a good idea to see how big the job is. What is x, y, and z? I would also add that law is not simply that which is written down; it is that which is interpreted by judges. Simply creating a law (or indeed many laws) which would mimic the laws currently of marriage would not likewise take on the many years of legal precedent set. Likewise, a judge may quite easily rule with different interpretations when marriage and gay marriage are two seperate terms and institutions; the written word does not mean the same meaning being taken from it. [QUOTE=Antinor01] Legally though, that ambiguity is meaningless. [/QUOTE] Well, it depends. I can see people having to explain a bit more if questioned in court. But I can’t think of any reason why that ambiguity would cause any legal troubles, no. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/198 "2008-09-15T23:25:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If you say so. But no one has come even close to convincing me it’s not possible. Easy, even. It’s possible in the sense that the laws of physics don’t prevent such a thing from occurring. But _do_ such things occur? If it were so easy, then the history of civil rights in this and other countries should be full of cases where disenfranchised minorities won equal rights in a similar way. The closest historic equivalent to what you’re proposing that I can think of is [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JimCrowDrinkingFountain.jpg), something not generally considered to be an example of true equal rights. > [@](#): > > \*And since it is you (pl) who seek the change, I think it falls to you to prove to me that a less disruptive solution would NOT work before I should be asked to accept the greater change you want. \*If you’re unwilling to learn from history, perhaps you can learn from current events. As I mentioned before, the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in my state also bans legal recognition of any marriage-like union. The same is true in the state where I used to live, and of several others as well. Apparently there are plenty of voters and lawmakers who don’t feel that “same-sex civil unions” are any easier to tolerate than “same-sex marriage”. Since the same amendments would have to be overturned in order to legalize either same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships, I don’t see how the former is so much more disruptive than the latter. If I may be forgiven the metaphor, while I’d consider the “colored” drinking fountain of same-sex civil unions a big improvement over the ZERO legal recognition currently granted to same-sex couples in this state, I wouldn’t be fooled into thinking it was real equality. Not even if the “civil union” fountain were just as fine and nice as the “marriage” one. If straight and gay couples were really considered equal, one of them wouldn’t have made such a big deal about not letting the other use their fountain. > [@](#): > > _You’re attempting to ignore the primary factors that brought marriage about in the first place. The begetting of children is not separable from our concept of marriage._ Yes, it is. It’s pretty easy, and people do it all the time. The begetting of children predates the social construct of marriage by quite a good margin, and throughout history continuing up to the present day people frequently have children without getting married. The primary factor that brought marriage about in the first place was the sharing of property, and that’s something a lot more difficult to separate from the concept of “marriage” in any modern or historic culture. Funnily enough, the sharing of property _doesn’t_ require that one party be able to produce sperm while the other produces eggs. ---
**Author:** ![Freyr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/freyr/32/5763_2.png) [@Freyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freyr)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/199 "2008-09-15T23:29:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Just look at the word “hero”. I remember of you heard the term “war hero”, it meant that someone was in battle and did something truly extraordinary, putting his life at grave risk above and beyond what might be expected of him. Now, I’ve seen it used to describe soldier who merely was in a war zone. I don’t mean to belittle that service in any way, but you get the idea. So now we no longer have a word that is reserved to described man acting at his most noble. That is not a good thing. On preview, thanks to **Revenant** for his assistance. Okay, I can see the logic you’re using, but I still disagree with the conclusions. Additionally, I want you to define the ‘difference’ between heterosexual and homosexual couples. You see them as different. What **exactly, precisely** is this difference and what makes it so important that it necessitates the creation of a whole new term to denote their pairing? > [@magellan](#): > > No, man does not equal woman. That is ludicrous, if you ask me. You’re attempting to ignore the primary factors that brought marriage about in the first place. The begetting of children is not separable from our concept of marriage. Okay, I’ll concede that begetting children is **ONE** of the points of marriage. Big, deal, yes heterosexuals can create babies. You’re forgetting the other side of the equation, tho. Can those same heterosexuals _raise_ a child as well as a homosexual couple? Is Brittany Spears and her infamous 24 hour marriage as well suited for being a mother as some randomly picked gay male (or lesbian) couple? I challenge you to provide evidence that heterosexual couples can raise a child better than homosexual couples. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188/200 "2008-09-15T23:31:21Z")
> [@Freyr](#): > > Okay, I can see the logic you’re using, but I still disagree with the conclusions. Additionally, I want you to define the ‘difference’ between heterosexual and homosexual couples. You see them as different. What **exactly, precisely** is this difference and what makes it so important that it necessitates the creation of a whole new term to denote their pairing? I see them as different, too. One contains two people of different genders\*, the other contains two people of the same gender. I don’t think it’s enough to require a new term. But there’s certainly a difference. \*When the aliens come, with five genders and 12 sexual organs, _then_ we’re gonna have problems. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman-period/463188.md?page=11)