There’s a very logical way to cope with these sorts of issues. Presume the negative format of the Golden Rule – whether or not the individual him/herself espouses religion, that is one of the “values” they seek to preserve.
Theerefore, anyone who believes that civil unions are “just as good as” marriages should have their marriage transformed into a civil union, by automatic self-effecting act of law founded on their pronouncement and their presumed subscription to the Golden Rule. And for anyone who believes that marriage is important enough to strive for it instead of a civil uinon, he or she has proven that to them there is a difference, and he or she should be granted the right to marry.
About the only “change” that exists here - and it’s the only part of your argument that is comprehensible to me, though I still disagree with it - is the loss of precision in terminology and informative terms. I’m all about precision when it is important. If you call a car an airplane, you lose a lot of information, such as whether the thing can fly, whether it has wings, what sort of fuel it uses, whether it can be run on pulblic roads. But, allowing that gays have all the rights of civil union and can even adopt and conceive children nowadays, what significance is really being lost here? Nothing except a precise term that differentiates domestic partnerships that are man-woman from those which are not. And if we do not legally discriminate between such couples, and we already know the sex of the couple by other means, why is it so important to have a word reserved solely for a man-woman domestic partnership? I know you seem awfully fired up about the whole issue of linguistic precision, but you made your real intentions crystal clear when you wrote:
So in the end, it finally comes out that gay partnerships have no business being considered among things that are normal. I think you can drop the fake outrage over linguistic precision now, because you’ve finally stated outright what we all knew you meant anyway.
Is it any wonder that we “in the tribe” just skip over all that rigmarole and get to the heart of it at once? Because that’s almost always exactly what they mean from the beginning, and those of us who hear it all the time know that.
No, there is loss of communication, you’ve introduced ambiguity into the equation.
Perfectly fine and sensible old way:“Pat and Dave are married”. We know with a high degree of certainty that Dave is a man an Pat is a woman. And that there both hetero. Or, at least bi.
Fantastical, ridiculous, shiny new PC way: “Pat and Dave are married”. Is Pat a man or a woman? Are they a hetero couple, or a gay couple who might be interested in coming over to watch the gladiator movie marathon on TV this weekend?
But the main thing is no that the word cannot change. Of course it can. I just don’t think its a good idea to change it. I think it behooves us to have a word for an institution that is society’s recognition of the natural inclination of a man and woman to come together and beget and raise children. It’s beyond bizarre to me to want to adulterate that word. To deprive the institution and society of a word that describes something so fundamental to our existence.
Assume the above statement is made in a state in which same-sex marriage is illegal. Which is the man, and which is the woman?
The “ambiguity” you’re describing already exists. But here’s the thing: it has no useful bearing on the interpretation of the statement (unless, that is, the interpreter wishes to apply their prejudices to it).
Of Pat and Dave (or Dana and Stacy), which one is black, and which one is white? Does it matter?
Except, of course, that that’s going to happen no matter what. In states that only have civil union laws, gay couples are calling themselves married. In states that don’t even have civil unions, gay couples are calling themselves married. Before the concept of gay marriage was ever seriously considered in mainstream America, gay couples were calling themselves married. This isn’t something you can fight through legislation. Even if you turn back the tide on gay marriage, repeal the gay marriage legislation in the states that already have it, and by some magic make it so that no state can ever institute it again, you’ll have already lost this particular battle long before you even started fighting it.
What about Sean and Robin? I hear they’re very happy together.
magellan, you’re starting to sound like someone who’d be utterly baffled by the “I can’t operate on this patient, he’s my son!” story.
Well, pretty soon you’re going to have to use “straight marriage” to describe what you want, or make up some other phrase. You can have “special marriage” if you like, since by your claim hetero marriage is indeed special.
And do you seriously honestly believe that gay marriage adulterates something that is fundamental to our existence? If so, you should easily be able to point out how existence is unravelling (even to a minor degree) in countries that already have gay marriage.
Okay, Thank you. And my counter argument to that is that for all the millenia (as you say homosexuality has always been around) homosexuality was never put on par with heterosexuality. Even in the most accepting times (various points during the reigns of Rome and Greece), when homosexuality didn’t raise an eyebrow, society saw fit to not grant it quite the same level of acceptance. This is especially and clearly true when it comes to committed relationships sanctioned by the state.
That’s ridiculous. It’s just means that you logic has to do more work and there will always be a degree of uncertainty.
Well, we disagree right there. Stripping marriage of the two-sex criterion is a huge change.
If that was all marriage was, why would you and others be so insistent on the word being used if you could get the rights, etc. through other means. Miller and others have argued that it is quite a bit more than the conglomeration of rights and privileges it comes with.
They don’t satisfy the criteria: two individuals consisting of one man and one woman. It’s like a woman not satisfying the criteria of being a man by not having a penis.
For individuals. But we’re not talking about individuals. We’re talking about the new entity they create as a couple. And society has a right to evaluate that new entity, whether it be polygamy or SSM.
I doubt they are “trivial”. In fact, I assure you they are not. But this brings up a good point. Just because the arguments may similar when looked at roughly, they are actually quite different. But many people look at the issue only as deeply as serves their purpose. Or are able to.
Well, at the very least, imagine two couples, one a man and a woman, the other two men. Would you at least admit that the new entities they create via their bonding are fundamentally different? (Please of please check your science books and say yes.)
Because I think it will be of a disservice to our society. And in the long term damage it.
Explain why it is a right. I don’t see that it is. and my motivation is “why”.
No. I’m actually arguing for a win-win solution. Gays can avail themselves of all the rights and privileges that married couples enjoy. The religious (of which I am not) don’t get fucked with. The conservatives and traditionalists have the world continue as they see fit. And we don’t run even the risk of negative long-term effects.
But some, the militant, reject the rights and privileges. Or view them as insufficient. No, this is not about the rights.
No, that’s precisely why the analogy works. You may want to check your science books again.
As has been pointed out by me several times and more than once by mswas, you’re asking for proof of what would occur forty years down the road. But since you seem to think I should have this proof, perhaps you have a time machine, you know, the one you used to look forty years into the future and found no harm to society. I’m wondering, when are you going to share this sage proof?
You might be right. I guess you’ll always have those people who elbow their way through crowds and cut in line. But I don’t see that as any reason to condone it.
I do not. Or, I do not think that any polygamous arrangement comports with our western ideas of marriage. I’m sure some tribes deep in some remote jungle probably have some arrangements that resemble marriage, but are clearly not it also.
No, it changed quite lot. Quite fundamentally. It might not have changed your particular marriage, but it—by definition—changed the definition.
The question isn’t whether a degree of ambiguity may already exist, but whether expanding the definition adds ambiguity. Just because ambiguity may exist doesn’t mean "oh, we have .001% of ambiguity already, so it matters not if we ratchet it up to a full 1%, or 3 or 58 or 99%.
Because I think it serves society to have children grow up seeing that there is a distinction. While love might be the foundation of the two types of relationships, they are, in fact, different in kind.
Oh please. Guess we can’t have an adult discussion. This is one step above Beavis and Buthead. I’ve said that it is natural, but not normal. And both those things are true. It is not of the norm. This is one of those little word games your side likes to play. You guys want the difference to be like that between vanilla and chocolate ice cream. The fact is that it’s more like the difference between vanilla and rum raisin bubble gum.
The exact same argument could be made about sexual equality, racial equality, religious tolerance, or the democratic system of government. Would, “This is the way it’s always been!” be a convincing argument against any of those social advances?
Snark aside, do you honestly expect any different? Do you really think it’s a reasonable expectation for gay people to entirely eschew the language of marriage, and invent an entirely new vocabulary to describe their relationships, just to avoid harming your delicate sensibilities? Do you honestly expect any gay person, anywhere in the country, to do that?
We’d probably take this argument more seriously if you were able to articulate a single difference between gay and straight relationships, other than one is gay, and the other is straight. You’ve had over twenty pages in this thread alone to do it, and you still haven’t come up with anything. But keep going. Maybe after forty pages, you’ll finally figure out a way to justify your beliefs.
OK, I see. You don’t think you’ll be able to teach your children that gay marriage isn’t normal if it’s called “marriage”. I really think you do underestimate yourself.
Dear God, I think I’m going to have to go to the local hospital and check myself into the advanced irony burn unit. You’ve spent this entire thread playing one particular word game and then trying to pretend it’s the only game in town. Unbelievable.
Yes, but that doesn’t prove homosexuality is bad. It simply demonstrates that people are ignorant.
No, what it means is that you’re claiming neither of us has facts on our side, but you’re still right, somehow. This doesn’t follow.
Since two-sex marriages will continue unabated, I don’t see how.
I’m not convinced that civil union members can get all the rights, in light of earlier efforts at “separate but equal”. And there’s no point laughing or shrugging off the comparison; it’s quite an exact description of what you are proposing - a separate marriage law based on sexual orientation. You can make any number of efforts at hairsplitting semantic arguments while slathering on the capital letters and exclamation points, but “separate but equal” remains bang-on.
Anyway, for the purposes of this discussion, I don’t care in the least what marriage is beyond its rather wide range of rights and privileges. You say hetero marriage is “special”… I don’t care, unless you can translate that into something concrete. If Miller says gays want their marriages to be respected by society (I actually don’t know offhand what if any similar statements Miller has made along these lines)… I don’t care. I’m arguing only for the same legal recognition and protections straight marriages already enjoy - no more, no less. I don’t care what religious organizations, if any, embrace or deny gay marriage. I care that insurance companies that cover spouses not discriminate against same-sex spouses.
My position, deliberately, is as emotionless and clinical as I can make it. I see some citizens have certain rights that other citizens want, and not any good reason to draw the distinction.
So the major criterion is the need to satisfy certain anatomical requirements? What other legal fields can you think of where the possession of a penis is a necessary qualifier or an absolute disqualifier? Is marriage unique in this respect?
So? Let society evaluate the heck out of it. From what I’ve seen, the results thus far of this evaluation is that gay marriages benefits some and hurts none. Can you estimate how much longer this evaluation process is likely to take?
I’m disinclined to take your assurances, nor do I recognize the value of your attempt at condescension (it won’t work, give it up). When you earlier wrote “they want to elbow themselves where they have no business being” you may as well have been directly quoting George Wallace. I’m confident I could find four or five quotes from Wallace about blacks wanting integration, throw in your statement about gays wanting marriage, and make it an interesting challenge to the reader to spot which one doesn’t belong.
For legal purposes… no. Each of the four participants above is entering into a mutual relationship in which each entrusts one other person with certain rights and responsibilities recognized by law. What they do in private with their various genital configurations is none of my concern, nor should it be a concern of government. That you’re hung up on it doesn’t move me in the least.
And that’s fine, as long as you admit you only think it and don’t make any claims that you can prove it, until that moment that you actually can prove it. If counter-evidence exists that gay marriage is not a disservice to American society, will you recognize it?
And how long a “long term” do you mean?
Then you should probably read your country’s declaration of independence and constitution and other documents the describe the intent to make it a nation of free men. I don’t recall there being an exception for sodomites. The trend over the last ~225 years has been one of relaxing restrictions and increasing freedom.
Do you simply not recognize your gay fellow citizens as true Americans? What are you feelings about individual rights? Do they only exist because the government lets them, or does the government exist because the citizens let it?
If this is an issue you’re not interested in deeply analyzing, no big deal.
How are the religious getting “fucked” with gay marriage, exactly? Will they be forced to perform these ceremonies? Will their own ceremonies be invalidated? The world won’t continue as conservative and traditionalists see fit (and in the post-Reformation era, never has) because if it’s not this issue, it’ll be something else. And you can’t make a guess at the negative long-term effects might be. Maybe there will be greater negative long-term effects if gay marriage is denied. Dissatisfied homosexuals staging sit-ins and demonstrations, perhaps some radical splinter group becomes the violent equivalent of the Black Panthers.
Once you admitted that you had no facts, I have to figure you had no basis for assuming gay marriage would turn out bad while denying other equally-possible outcomes, like maybe gay marriage turning out good or denying gay marriage turning out bad (or, to be complete, denying gay marriage turning out good).
Heck, I’ll admit the possibility that gay marriage might turn out bad. I just don’t (yet) have any reason to do so. And since my fellow citizens who want to get gay-married are adults, I had no basis to block them. It would be rude and presumptuous of me.
It’s not militant to distrust “separate but equal”; it only requires some cursory knowledge of American history. Anyway, for me it is just about the rights, and always has been. I would not recommend a gay American settle for civil unions. Take them if you must in the short term, but keep your eyes on the prize.
Really, the condescension doesn’t work except to demonstrate the weakness of your argument. Biological realities don’t automatically correspond to legal privileges. The 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments addressed this, in which race and gender were specifically declared to not be a barrier to the rights to vote. The Loving decision declared that race was not a barrier to exercise the right to marry. Now we have modern court cases seeking to strike down gender as a barrier to marry. I don’t see a reason, and you have not provided one, to stop them.
I’m asking for any proof of any negative effect over any timeframe. Do I have to quote posts in this thread that talked about decades or a century into the future with no proof but instead a feeling that things would be bad, somehow?
You admit you can’t be sure, but *still *want to deny some of your fellow citizens something they want, that other citiziens already enjoy? Why is that? Be honest, please… do gay people make you uncomfortable?
But that’s not the case. The issue is, would you be satisfied with a civil union with (temporarily at least) the rights and privileges of marriage but not the name, while others are free to marry? If not, don’t insist someone else ought to be.
You have not actually demonstrated anything. You have asserted a position that has been demonstrated to be historically flawed. While you make a big deal that changing the language will have some, (unknown and never described), deleterious effect, you ignore the fact that we have several hundred years of legislation and case law that will have to be examined, one law and case at a time, to determine whether your addendum actually applies in each case. On the other hand, recognizing the current, (ongoing, if incomplete), change in the language renders all those re-examinations moot because the language in the legislation and in the case law will not have to be changed or re-interpreted.
And while it makes your case stronger in your eyes to assert that the situations will be equivalent in some way, we have no reason to believe–and I tend to doubt that you can be so naive as to believe–that using separate words for equivalent situations will not soon be modified by legislation or lawsuit to render civil unions to have fewer rights or responsibilities than marriages. Nothing in history suggests that any separation of terms will not be employed to set separate rights and responsibilites.
Well, just think how frustrated they must be to see you throw out assertions that you cannot support. “All the reasoning” you have provided? You have asserted that the word marriage has a meaning that you, somehow, believe cannot be altered, (despite the fact that it is already being altered in laws and cultures that closely parallel our own), and have asserted that changing the meaning will cause some utterly unexplained harm to anyone who had previously understood it in a different way. I’ve seen several assertions in your posts. I have not seen a single reason that begins with an assembly of facts and gathers them to make a point. Assertion is not reasoning and claiming that expanding the meaning of marriage causes anyone any harm without demonstrating that harm does not rise to the level of “reasonng.”
Really? So you really think that “they” are using “rights” to try to claim something that “they” don’t deserve? I believe your claims that you are willing to grant equal rights, (as you perceive them), to all and that you harbor no makice toward homosexuals, but the point I was making was that your choice of language does nothing to promote your argument.
I suspect that you are imposing some preconceived notion on “them.” (A dangerous practice in any case, as the very employment of the undefined “them” casts your arguments into a very unfavorable light, making those arguments look like just generalized xenophobia.)
Actually, you have, until now, steadfastly ignored my posts.
I have pointed out that the word marriage is already undergoing a transformation in meaning along with why that change is occurring. I have pointed out that the views of society toward marriage had already undergone a significant change even before the concept of same sex marraige had made it into mainstream discussions and politics. It is hardly a “contortion of reality” to use the word marriage to indicate adults committing to love each other and live together sharing their domicile and finances and accepting responsibility for each other, regardless of the sex of either partner. It is a change from previous usage, but hardly rises to the ridicule you hoped to express in your “tennis racket” to “food processor” analogy. It is far closer to changing the term “fiddle” to “violin.”
One may choose to accept or doubt magellan01’s several previous assertions regarding his social relationships and attitudes toward homosexuals, but since he has already stated his views on that subject, there is no point in raising the issue again.