Poll: Do you want a separate term for homosexual marriage?

[viking]

No and yes.

And at the risk of continuing the minor hijacking, the catholic encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm has this to say about marriage:

It is usually defined as the legitimate union between husband and wife. “Legitimate” indicates the sanction of some kind of law, natural, evangelical, or civil, while the phrase, “husband and wife”, implies mutual rights of sexual intercourse, life in common, and an enduring union. The last two characters distinguish marriage, respectively, from concubinage and fornication. The definition, however, is broad enough to comprehend polygamous and polyandrous unions when they are permitted by the civil law

'course, that definition doesn’t address husband and husband or wife and wife combinations, but if they are willing to accept whatever civil authorities allow, even if the catholic church teaches against them, I don’t see why not…

[Sneeze]

1. I think it should be called whatever gays want to call it. I’ll probably just end up calling it marriage. As to reserving the term “marriage” for the religious ceremony, well, what if some religion recognizes gay marriage?
2. Straight.
3. Is this just a sneaky way for the Justice Dept. to find out everybody’s sexual orientation?

[Helen_s_Eidolon]

Well, “matrimonium” was the Roman word for marriage, in pre-Christian times. If you think that the church has a patent on the words matrimony and marriage, think again.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Sneeze

As to reserving the term “marriage” for the religious ceremony, well, what if some religion recognizes gay marriage?

Many do, as point of fact - Quakers and Unitarian Universalists, plus several Protestant churches and I believe at least one branch of Judaism.

Esprix

[Weird_AL_Einstein]

I am part of that tiny, tiny minority (at least on this board) who votes:

1: Yes.

I’ve gone into the reasons why I feel the way I do at length in the thread linked to in the OP, I’m not going to waste electrons by repeating them here, anyone who is interested can go there and check it out. That notwithstanding, I do totally agree with Dogface, who said:

*Originally posted by Dogface *
**The state should get out of marriage altogether and only license "domestic partnerships for purely legal reasons (insurance, property, inheritance, etc.) **

Without the state ruling by fiat, either way, I am perfectly happy to let the marketplace of ideas determine what is and is not a marriage and let the chips fall where they may, even if “my side” loses.

One more quick thing. A number of people have invoked the phrase “separate but equal” in this thread. I’d be interested in hearing their opinions on the issue of separate public restrooms for men and women.

Oh yes, and:

2: Straight

[Patty_O_Furniture]

Are we forgetting how easily the word “irregardless” has managed to get itself into the dictionary?

Call it whatever you want. 98% of the general public will call it marriage. I believe that it will take a very short time for the popular usage to dominate over the “official” term.

Those 2% who insist on ignoring pop culture can go hide in some sort of closet, for all I care.

[Weird_AL_Einstein]

I seriously doubt it would be 98%, but it could be a majority, and you might not even need that. But like I said in the other thread, it was only a vocal minority of Coke drinkers who kicked up a fuss when the Coca Cola company changed the formula but kept selling it in the old bottles. This fuss led directly to the creation of “Coca Cola Classic”.

So if the definition does change, I would keep my ears open for a new phrase like “marriage classic” entering the vocabulary. I mean, if people can get that worked up over an expensive brown carbonated sugar water that’s only been around for a century and which isn’t, actually, still in its real “original” formula (the original formula had actual cocaine in it), how worked up do you think they can get over an institution that’s been around since before recorded history, which also isn’t in its “original formula” (women used to be property etc)?