How would you feel about it, magellan01, if we A) instituted government-recognized “civil unions” for same-sex couplings and B) also managed somehow to institute a single law which stated that all laws (past and future) which apply to opposite-sex couplings apply just as well to same-sex couplings? That is, we legally codify that, for all legal purposes, (opposite-sex) marriage and (same-sex) civil unions are to be treated as exactly the same, the only difference between the two being the legal term and the gender makeup of the couples. Would that be acceptable?
That’s a lot of the problem right there. There are plenty of people who think we shouldn’t get a drinking fountain at all.
Those read to me as different subcategories, like there are “clubs”, and then there are more specifically “tennis clubs”, “book clubs”, “motorcycle clubs”, etc, etc, etc. All the different kinds of clubs are clubs, and have all the properties that all clubs share, with their differences described by the applied adjective.
Similarly, there are “marriages”, and then there are “gay marriages” and “straight marriages”. (And “polygamous marriages” and “childless marriages” and “disfunctional marriages” and “arranged marriages” and “political marriages”…) All are marriages, with the attributes that all marriages share; the added adjectives provide additional specifics and are used when relevent, preserving any meaning that might be lacking if you cease to assume that all marriages are arranged marriages (for an example - those punks! Marrying for love; what’re they thinking!).
This is of course already happening - anybody who tells you that a “gay marriage” isn’t a type of “marriage” has problems with understanding how words are used.
Or, just a whole new pile of adjectives.
This paragraph seems massively self-contradictory. What you’re describing is having two sets of rules: one for marriages, and one for civil unions. Those are separate rules, and because they are separate, they’re not going to be equal, because being separate, it is possible to alter one without altering the other. Since homosexual relationships are massively discriminated against in this country, that puts civil unions at a huge disadvantage right out of the gate. By being separate, they’re vulnerable to deliberate legislation that specifically weakens them. Even if (and, FTR, when I say “even if,” I’m not admitting that this scenario is actually possible) the two institutions are equal out of the gate, it’s an absolute certainty that they will not remain equal.
No, that’s not even remotely close to what I’m saying. I’m not saying that men and women are identical, I’m saying that the gender of the participants in any given wedding is irrelevant. The gender pairing does not alter the nature of the relationship.
Well, you’re wrong there, but that’s not really important, because gays have kids too. Even if we accept your redefinition of “marriage” as being primarily about child rearing, it’s still an institution that gays have both a practical and moral need to access.
I agree, but it becomes ambiguous in a way that shouldn’t matter.
It becomes ambiguous in the same way “Guess who’s coming to dinner” became ambiguous.
What is this disruption that you speak of?
I don’t have a great deal of time so I won’t be able to answer all questions, but perhaps those I miss might be covered by answers to some of the other questions.
This comes up all the time. My point is not that children are a necessary condition of marriage, but that the institution has come to be equated with it, while acknowledging exceptions.
You’ll forgive me if I don’t take three weeks to figure out all the laws. But I’m saying that all SS “civil unions” would be subject to the exact same laws and benefits as married couples. So whatever law you can point to that affects married people, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, now applies to gay couples.
The closest historic equivalent to what you’re proposing that I can think of is this, something not generally considered to be an example of true equal rights.
I’m advocating that the two groups drink from the same fountain, so to speak. That the one set of laws that apply to one apply to the other.
I pointed it out earlier: “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.”
As far as I recall reading and hearing, loving homosexual couples can be excellent parents. I also recall hearing or reading that the ideal situation is a loving couple of of either sex. We get something things from one and other things from the other. I’ll repeat though, it is my belief that a gay couple can be excellent parents—many times, much better than the original parents. This doesn’t help the debate to me. It is not about whether gays should be allowed to raise or adopt children. I believe they should.
I think that’s precisely what I’ve been trying to communicate. I might not be seeing a distinction between what you propose and my position that might be there, but I think they’re identical.
I am not suggesting two sets of rules. I’m proposing one set of rules to apply to two groups. Maybe what I just commented on immediately above will help any confusion. Unless I’m not understanding your point. What is proposed above would eliminate the fears you express. No?
As I’ve already explained, it does. And whether you want it to be the case or not, the equation applies. Women re different than women, both for what they are and the possibilities the pairing creates. If you take either two men or two women, you have fundamentally changed the equation. I truly do not see how you can deny that. I know you disagree, that you look at the love and commitment as the defining characteristics. But your list is incomplete. In the most basic way.
Ok, just wanted to make sure. So, then, if we legalized same-sex marriage as such, the only problem you would have would be with the legal terminology (you’d prefer for it to be called “civil union” rather than “marriage”, when same-sex couples are involved). You’d be perfectly fine with the legal institution of same-sex marriage being merged with that of opposite-sex marriage, so that the two are effectively a single legal institution, as long as they were officially referred to by the appropriate one of two terms depending on particular context.
Suppose the proposed legal term for same-sex marriage wasn’t “civil union” but was, instead, “same-sex marriage”. How would you feel about that?
I still want an answer. I walk up to you at work. I say “Bob and Mark got married this weekend.”
Is there any ambiguity? Is there any way you don’t know what I’m talking about? Is your mind reeling because you don’t understand how the term “marriage” could apply to two men? Are you confused as to what went on that weekend? Do you not understand the nature of Bob and Mark’s relationship?
No. You know exactly what I’m talking about.
"Marriage’ is the most accurate and obvious word to use. Other words are less clear, and don’t convey the meaning as well as the word “marriage.” Linguistic clarity- as well as common sense- calls for the use of the world “marriage.”
Yeah, I thought you might be playing a game like this. You’ve been watching too much Sean Hannity. I guess I gave you too much credit.
Oh well. Off to my book and bed.
Good night all.
I don’t know why you think I’m playing a game. I’m honestly curious.
Sorry, I don’t mean to nit-pick (it’s my background in anthropology), but there’s a difference between gender and sex. Sex is the physical equipment you’re born with as determined by your genes (X & Y chromosomes): male and female. Gender is a social role or status or a characteristic ie: masculine or feminine. An example would the term house wife which is traditionally assigned to women, but is a role that can be as easily accomplished by either a male or female.
Traditional marriage is an opposite sex couple, man and woman. A gay marriage would be composed of a same sex couple, two men or two women. Taking this a step further, in modern marriages, either partner can take on the traditionally masculine or traditionally feminine roles. We’d think nothing of a opposite sex couple wherein the women is a junior partner in a law firm, is part of the Army reserve wherein she is a tank commander and is handy around the home, doing mechanical work like fixing cars and washing machines, etc. The man, on the other hand, graduated from a private university with a MA in English and stays at home writing cookbooks and organizing for the local PTA. This 21st century couple has taken the traditional gender roles and completely reversed them.
Yes, there’s a difference, but why should that difference matter? It’s so slight as to be inconsequential, IMHO.
And I would counter-argue that marriage is not simply about the miracle of birth, but about what happens afterwards, too. Marriage is not about producing children, but raising them. I have no hard evidence to support it, (social customs don’t fossilize, unfortunately) but I think marriage arose not simply to produce children but to assure they grow up. Any male and female can together produce a child, but it takes a committed couple to raise it up to function independently and reach its own reproduction age.
While it’s certainly easy enough for an opposite sex couple to produce a child, people seem to forget that gay men’s sperm and lesbian women’s ova are just as viable as their straight counterparts. Modern medical technology erases any difference between straight and gay couples by providing in-vitro fertilization and other reproduction technology assistance.
If you want to further insist it’s all about producing a child, think about what happens when you take that argument to its logical conclusion. Straight couples don’t love each other, they simply get together to maximize their reproduction potential. Men are seen only as potential providers and women are evaluated as to how easily they’d go thru the birthing experience. Are you sure you want to stand by that argument?
It was you that brought up the x, y, and z example. While I was certainly trying more to illustrate a point that actually get you to do that, I don’t think it’s as simple as saying there would be one law that sets out what occurs.
And the point remains that law isn’t just the words, it’s precedent and interpretation, which would remain seperate and unincluded in your law.
I’m not so sure i’d classify “house wife” as a gender. But I do see your point on sex; that’s the term I should have used.
I hate to seem to be picking on you (even if no one seems to have noticed that I am participating on this thread) but this example is kinda what we are talking about.
As long as there were laws in place defining different “water fountains” for different groups of people, there existed different “water fountains.”
The “two groups” were not allowed to drink from the same fountains until the laws defining them as seperate but equal were overturned.
This shows us that the legislative seperation is the BAD THING, not the differences between the people involved.
No it hasn’t. Heck, the traditional marriage vows that seem to be used in christain wedding ceremonies don’t even seem to mention kids.
The fact is that, aside from bald and repeated assertions, you have provided no evidence that I’ve noticed for your belief that marriage has been boiled down by society into a passionless crotch union for the purpose of squirting out babies. I’m sure that you believe it, but what reason do any of the rest of us have to agree with you, when the evidence is that marriage clearly has always had a number of purposes, with clear property ownership and inheritance (incuding the wife and kids as property for most of history) being the longest-standing constant?
I’m no lawyer, but I don’t think that you could do this from a legal standpoint without defining “civil union” as being synonymous to civil marriage. Legally speaking, I mean - I think that would be the only way to do it. Otherwise, everyone with bigotry on their mind is going to rewrite their laws and rules to specifically note the distinction between “civil unions” and REAL marriages and differentiate accordingly. If there is a distinction, there will be a difference.
They will make separate ‘fountans’ for the gay people. “We had to rewrite our new policy to account for the new legal category of ‘civil union’ - but don’t worry, it’s as close to the usual policy as we could make it.”
Next month: “Due to the tightening of the economy, we’re reducing coverage of the dependendents of married couples by 10%. And dropping it for adopted children of civil unions entirely.”
What was the word for “celebrations of love and commitment that are not celebrations of birth”, again? Because if it was true that “We valued [the childbirth-specific case] enough to have a word for it,” then there would be a separate word that described the childless case. So, what’s that word again? It’s certainly not “union”.
Okay, so why can’t we include gay marriage in with those other “acknowledged exceptions?”
Okay, let’s say we do that. Then someone passes a law that ammends it to say, “all laws except law X.” And then they add “law Y,” and “law q,” and so on, until the two institutions are no longer equal. Except, of course, they were never equal, because civil unions were vulnerably to precisely this sort of attack in a way that marriage never was.
No, I understand what you’re saying. What you’re not understanding is that if you have two seperate institutions, by definition you have two sets of rules. Even if the set of rules for one institution is, in its entirety, “All the rules for Marriage also apply to Civil Unions.” The problem remains that, as long as they’re separate, they’re subject to individual ammendation, which makes them inherently unequal.
Actually, you havn’t explained it. You’ve just stated it.
How can I deny it? Well, I’ve been in relationships with men. And I’ve been in relationships with women. And the differences between the two have not been particularly sharp. Mostly, I suspect, because I tend to be attracted to the same things in men and women. So, I can deny it by drawing on my direct, personal experience with both types of relationship.
What are you drawing on to tell me I’m wrong about homosexual relationships?