Interestingly, my dictionary wasn’t exclusionist in its definition of marriage:
Also, marriage - or some form of recognition of same-sex relationships - did occur in the past. See the fine book Same-sex Relationships in Pre-Modern Europe for some examples. I don’t know if they were called marriages or not (It’s been a while since I read this text). That’s not the point.
I tend to agree with Fenris. (This should come as a shock to no one, I suppose.) I don’t think that the government should give benefits (or detriments) to any married couple. Government should be in the business of “civil unions” (if anything) and should not take a stance one way or the other on the persons involved in said unions.
It makes no difference who is involved in a loving, committed relationship. It is apples to apples. It is up to you to prove how my (hypothetical) relationship with the girlfriend I’ve chosen to spend my life with is any different than that of my closest female friend’s to her boyfriend. Both of us have made lifetime commitments. Both of us are contributing members of society.
{sigh} I would respectfully submit that the argument is yours to make that the default definition of marriage should include homosexual unions. Legal benefits can be granted by other means of course, which I would think would solve the civil rights issue. It’s clear that we’re talking past each other at this point, so I’ll end with this post unless something comes up that I feel I need to answer. To me, and this is simply MHO, it just goes without saying that hetero and homo-sexuals are different. Fundamentally.
NaSultainne, kindly do me the courtesy of explaining how you believe the two are different. Fundamentally. Because until I understand your definition of the difference I cannot possibly come up with any explanation of my stance that is going to address your specific concerns.
I don’t see any difference. I don’t see any difference (except gender) between me, Esprix, andygirl, Polycarp, Biggirl, stuffinb, jarbabyj…there’s a poly poster whose name I’ve forgotten, consarn it, but the point is, we’re all people. We all love; some of us (not all of us, as matt_mcl will point out) want to eventually commit ourselves to sharing our lives with another person (or people, in the case of our poly friends). And we all want the same rights - to have our relationship accepted by our religious and secular community, to be able to visit our loved one in the hospital regardless of whether or not their parents approve of us, to not lose everything we’ve built together when one or the other of us finally passes on. In some cases the idea of children applies; in others it doesn’t.
Show me the difference. Explain where you’re coming from.
(Although, as I said, I agree with Fenris about the g’ment’s rightful non-role in marriage. And I tend to agree with matt_mcl as well, that there are other issues of more pressing concern than this. Still.)
[sub]FTR, I feel like I should mention that I recently had this conversation with my mother, who didn’t understand why anyone wants to get married anymore. Hetero or homo.[sub]
Love is love, baby, The rest is just plumbing. How are homosexuals different from heterosexuals, fundamentally? I am a homosexual. Hath not a homosexual eyes? Hath not a homosexual hands, organs, dimensions, senses, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summmer as a heterosexual is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you throw us down on a bed and lick chocolate sauce off us, do we not moan? (OK, I added that one )
I believe the answer to this question is important and I would appreciate an answer from those on the pro-homosexual-marriage side of the equation. If homosexual-marriage is permissible, why shouldn’t any combination of consenting adults be allowed to marry? brother and sister, father and daughter, or even father and son? Along the same lines, why shouldn’t a bisexual man be allowed to marry a man AND a woman? Or one man marry multiple women?
Okay, dogsbody, how are hetero and homosexuals fundamentally different? A hetero couple can produce offspring, perpetuating the species. IMO, society naturally would seek to encourage relationships which promote social stability. It’s a basic biological fact. Two men, two women, do not in fact reproduce as a unit. I have the feeling that what seems clearly distinct means little to you, and vice versa. To me this seems so obvious. Humans, IMO, would not exist today if homosexuals were 95% of the population and heterosexuals the rest. That’s assuming ol’ mother nature wouldn’t adapt and modify the species…'nother subject.
To secure property and inheritance rights would also follow.
I don’t at all disagree with yougobear, that homosexuals are people just like any other, with that one exception. To consider homosexual unions identical to heterosexuals is to me, intrinsically in error.
NaSultainne, your reply brings up the question, why should infertile couples be allowed to marry? They can’t reproduce. Shouldn’t the same laws that apply to homosexuals apply to them?
And as to this quote:
What’s your point? In a hugely hypothetical case, homosexuals could be a long-term detriment to the race as a whole. Hey, if 95% of the population were men, the same thing would apply. How does that justify denying men legal rights?
And why do you think I don’t care what happens to my property upon my demise? Why wouldn’t gay people qualify for the same inheritance considerations given to straight people?
So, to sum up… what’s the difference between a marriage between two gay people, and an infertile couple? Or a couple that chooses to remain childless?
Hello MrVisible, seems we’ve been here before, doesn’t it?
Please understand, I have no dispute with civil rights for all people. Well, okay, I’ll qualify that to law-abiding people. That isn’t my area of disagreement. I merely believe that a man and a woman complement each other, resulting in offspring, which is essential to species survival, and that this is a unique and crucial distinction. No, offspring don’t always result, and that isn’t the issue. The design of humans, and I don’t mean this in a religious perspective, is what distinguishes men and women from each other, and both are required to create life. This is why I consider marriage unique to heterosexuals.
I do believe gays should have all the legal rights that anyone should rightfully call their due, I just fail to see how anyone can say, with a straight face, that there aren’t perfectly legitimate, valid, and distinct differences between heterosexual and homesexual unions. NOT better, just different. Diversity is all the buzzword these days; how can different be synonymous with same?
I’m calling it. Erislover’s question has been answered.
The arguments that have been offered so far:
“on principle” - fenris
“[Marriage] is … defined as a relation between a husband(man) and wife(woman).” - NaSultainne
“I’m satisfied with the status quo” - NaSultainne
“What is wrong with the current definition of marriage?” - NaSultainne
“Not only do I think so, the dictionary says so, and so do a majority of the country.” - NaSultainne
"I don’t see it as appropriate to force upon society a new definition of marriage - waterj2
“redefining marriage to include other kinds of relationships would be a kind of “meaning” inflation to which I object in principle.” - Weird_AL_Einstein
“If homosexual-marriage is permissible, why shouldn’t any combination of consenting adults be allowed to marry?” - evilhanz
In other words, there is no compelling argument for denying gays the right to marry.
No, uglybeech, you don’t get to call it. AND your opinion matters in the grand scheme about as much as mine, which is to say, not a whole friggin’ lot. My opinions are every bit as valid as anyone’s, even yours, though, and I dare say more in line with a majority of the people in the U.S. I’ve thought a lot about this lately, and I’ll continue to do so, but I do have say I’ve not heard a persuasive argument for gay marriage, other than “because we want it”, which, see above, leaves us with the status quo. So. You stick to your opinion, I’ll stick to mine, and if either of us comes up with something absolutely irrefutable, we can come back for another round.
The question is, what does that difference entail legally? What rights should I and my (hypothetical, unfortunately) homosexual partner not have that a heterosexual married couple would have?
Should we be able to…
Visit each other in the hospital, as family members do?
Adopt children with the same amount of paperwork and research that heterosexual couples go through?
Have common-law marriage laws apply to long-term relationships?
Apply for immigration and/or naturalization status for foreign national partners?
Put our partner on our health insurance, as a family member?
Aw, heck, NaSultainne. Why don’t you go through this list of 1049 items, compiled by the General Accounting Office of the US government, and tell me which of them gay couples don’t deserve. I’ll wait.
{sigh} What a heckuva report. No, I didn’t get all the way through it, but I read enough for now. You and I are rapidly reaching a semantic impasse it seems, where it all depends on your definition of the word marriage. Again I will argue that securing legal rights of property, inheritance, etc., for gay couples doesn’t make an apple into an orange, and a rose by any other name isn’t always a rose. Let me give you a lame example, hokay? Hokay. If I was to introduce my husband as ‘my wife’, I would be making a linguistic error, correct? If you were to introduce your ‘boyfriend’ as your ‘girlfriend’, same thing.
Words do have meanings, they are commonly understood, yin and yang are complementary and become a whole together.
Bah! This is so frustrating, and I’m sure you’d agree with me on that! Again I’d say that what makes crystal clear sense to me is obviously something much less to you. I can’t think how else to make it make sense, either.
I’ve got to go now, it’s super late. If you have anything else to add, I’ll check it out in the a.m.
You know, NaSultainne, marriage has also been limited, in the past, to “a man and a woman of the same race”.
It was still illegal in 13 states as recently as 1967.
Fortunately, the definition of marriage has broadened. Society survived. I predict it would survive if the definition of the word “marriage” was broadened to include gay people as well. The definitions of social and legal institutions change over time, hopefully, to reflect a maturing social ethos.
Please elaborate on what exactly this means. Are you in favor of legal rights of property, inheritance, etc., for homosexual couples? If so, you can call it Fred for all I care. (“Wanna come to my Fredding this June?” …sorry) As long as gay marriages have the same legal rights as straight ones, we should be fine.
I’m no longer sure what you’re arguing. Please define your terms, and what you support in the way of gay marriage.
If I understand correctly, you’re saying that a gay marriage is OK as long it isn’t called “marriage”?
Why do you consider the word as so important? What the difference if the thing is called “marriage” or “gayrriage” or whatever?
It could understand that allowing an union between two homosexuals which grant them the same advantages a married pair benefit from can be considered as an issue by some people, but I can’t understand, if it exists, why you don’t want to call it marriage…
I don’t think marriages in the same bloodlines should be allowed.
I see no problem (outside obvious practical issues : I suspect tons of laws should be rewritten) in polygamous or polyandric marriages. In my opinion , they should be allowed.
It’s this - by denying the right to marriage, by lowering the status of the union between gays, you are stigmatizing them and harming them. Exactly the way forcing black children into a separate school would still have been harmful even if “separate but equal” HAD been true - and I’m referencing Anthony Kennedy on that. He said the fundamental harm of segregation was not the inequality but the STIGMA of imposing a separate institution on one class of people.
I’m sure that’s too abstract for you, so let’s stick with the concrete:
“because they want it” for something as personally important as marriage is a pretty good reason. Particularly if your best response amounts to “because that’s the way it is.” Imagine if your right to marry were taken away and the reasoning offered was - we’re just not comfortable with people like you marrying.
marriage is a socially stabilizing institution, people in it tend to have more support, be more productive, combine resources effectively, be less anti-social, and so on. It’s generally pro-society. You want to encourage that among gays as much as straights.
It’s going to happen one day. And people like you are going to eventually seem as narrow, closed-minded and oppressive as [you are] the segregationists, as those that opposed women’s suffrage, etc.
That last is not really an argument, more an observation.
)