So couples who cannot have children can get married. Unless the couple is of the same sex.
Why?
It dilutes the meaning of the word. It makes it less special, and thereby, less likely that people who fit the traditional description will enter into it. As I’ve stated in other threads, I view this to not be a good thing, as I see value in the institution and it’s close association with the begetting and raising of children. I know you don’t agree with my conclusion, and that’s fine. But that the meaning of the word will be diluted and altered is simply a fact. Maybe for good, maybe for ill, but a fact.
I’m not going to get into the usual long debate— I don’t have the time or fortitude right now to go through it yet again—but I did want to give you an answer.
Many, many, many homosexual couples would like to have children. They can do so via surrogate/artificial insemination means or adoption (if that was allowed).
Even childless I would call them a family. They share their ups and downs and basically do everything a hetero couple would do. They love their parents and siblings same as anyone else (or not but basically the same spectrum you find in any other family will be represented).
So to alter things slightly, and to see if you are actually consistent on this, were a state, in the past, to have required fertility tests in order to marry, you would not support the removal of that requirement? Note it is a different question to the one of whether you think infertile people should be allowed to marry…
By the way, have you given up on the specious comparison of polygamy to gay marriage?
Do you have any basis for this assumption or is it just a “gut” feeling?
Countries where SSM is allowed have had not had the experience you describe here.
ETA: SSM is allowed in Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. Has the institution of marriage been harmed in those places?
The latter part first. I was referring to man and woman coming together to produce children.
The first part: the way I want to do it marginalizes no one. It extends to ALL committed coupoles the legal benefits and privileges now reserved for heterosexual married couples. It, at the same time, preserves what I view is a beneficial institution. I see it as all upside, with no downside. Except for those who care less about the legal benefits than they do about using the term and the institution to gain some degree of psychological parity.
I agree. I am also in favor of gay adoption. I’m in favor of extending to SSC ALL the legal benefits. Just not the word. Let them call it something else.
Impassioned, but simply gibberish. You assume that marriage has meant one thing for time immemorial. If you think that you are simply ignorant of history. Marriage has meant everything from servitude to political alliances to a form of welfare for elderly widows. These things have changed and the current most common meaning of marriage is fixated on romantic love. But marriage currently includes much more than that, including marriages for money, companionship and other things.
Are you suggesting that homosexuals can’t experience romantic love?
Also dilution requires that you adulterate a material with something undesirable. You dilute wine with worthless water. Why do you think homosexual marriages are worth less than heterosexual marriages?
You are talking circles to justify your prejudices.
Interesting question. To answer quickly, if there had been a federal requirement, meaning that the two things, marriage and children, were nearly inextricably linked, barring some new information, I would not support the removal of the requirement.
No. Marriage means X. One group wants to expand that to include Y, another Z. I thinkj there are good arguments in favor of doing either. But they both still fail for me.
There is nothing to be gained in arguing with Maggellan01 Anything you say to him has already been covered in previous gay marriage threads. He firmly believes the word ‘marriage’ is too special to allow anyone else to use it.
He is a bigot. Do not waste your time.
There’s more to it than that. For example, the law exempts a wife from testifying in court against her husband (and vice-versa). This has nothing to do with wealth but rather it acknowledges that there is a strong bond between the couple, that their relationship is very important to them and such testimony would harm it.
SSM acknowledges that gay couples are just as capable of forming such a strong romantic bond. It’s not “civil”, it’s not “domestic”, it romantic.
The law deals with the practical issues that stem from such a bond, as formalized by the marriage license, but at it’s core it’s emotional.
If gays feel the same way about their partners, and they’ve made the same kind of commitment, then how does the same word–in the absence of any other word–not apply?
No. It is forbidding marriage to same sex couples that cheapens the institution. Just as slapping a “Whites Only” sign on a water fountain turns it from a simple machine into a symbol of oppression.
Never happen; it can’t be done, and won’t even be tried. Any more than separate but equal was ever anything but an exercise in oppression when applied to race.
Interesting you would pick a federal requirement, when marriage law is state based.
But you asked if my logic meant that someone opposing legalization of polygamy was being uncivil. I showed you why there is a legitimate government interest in preventing polygamy. You have yet to demonstrate a cognizable government interest in protecting opposite sex only marriage. Probably because there isn’t one.
I assume you would be okay with interracial marriages being called “Miscegenation-Unions”, right? Because that’s what you’re suggesting.
When black people were allowed to marry white people, did your marriage become that much weaker? Did it make marriage mean less to you? Did it destroy the specialness some little bit?
Your stance is irrational and utterly without merit. You can’t defend it, so you just repeat yourself.
It is a gut feeling, informed by the fact of dilution of the word, which I already explained. The countries you cite have had it only for a few years, the earliest being 2003. The change I’m talking about is deeply cultural, something that I don;t thing we’d see for a generation, probably two. Enough time where people would be born into a world where that was the norm (in their country).
And on that note, I need to go. Thank you, some of you, for the discussion.
I think they react emotionally to but in Maine there was a long and serious campaign to inform people and deal with the standard BS arguments. People still somehow chose to believe their gut reaction was better than actual information. Sad. People were concerned that accepting gay marriage would somehow harm children.
“What do I tell my kids if they see a SS couple kissing in public?”
Tell them the truth.
“if gays marry then someone my own marriage and family will be diminished in some way”
Do you know any married couples who have an alcoholic in the family?
Do you know any married couples who cheat on each other?
Do you know a couple who seems to have a better relationship than you have?
Do thier actions diminish the quality of love and committment you bring to your marriage? Can the act of comparison make your marriage more or less?
No it can’t.
In other words, you think gays are icky, you want to ghettoize them, and you have latched onto one of silliest excuses for oppressing people I’ve run across. To preserve the “specialness” of a word? :rolleyes:
I would like to point out that the reason for Magellan wanting to prevent a segment of the population from enjoying a basic human right is: A gut feeling, that the dilution of the word, may in a generation or two cause some problem that he cannot foresee.
If Magellan were king of the world, I would assume that by those criteria no one would be able to do anything ever. :rolleyes:
So because of a gut feeling with 0 data to back it up, and in the face of historic facts concerning similar gut feelings about other civil rights that proved to be completely wrong, you think it’s best to create a new word for SS couple unions that grant them equal legal rights but not the title of married?
Can they still use the words love, committment, and family?
Of course not; we wouldn’t want homo-cooties all over such important words, now would we?