What's behind the "Threat to Traditional Marriage" argument?

[Peremensoe]

Hmm. Not for the first time, I think I’ve explained what I see as the theoretical ideal in pretty simple terms, and either I’ve been greatly misunderstood, or I just don’t understand the responses in turn.

@Voyager

Civil unions today are easy to get out of. Marriages are not so easy to get out of, which is common to this type of contract.

Yes. Right now we have, in some places, two somewhat related but different legal constructs. The second was invented as a lower-grade alternative to the first, because some people didn’t want some other people to have the primary one available to them. By and large, the excluded group, and those who believe in equality generally, including myself, would like to just have the same construct available to all.

The major obstacle to this happening is the linkage between this top-level legal construct and a cultural tradition with a substantially religious context.

@Voyager

Do civil unions even make sense in a word where anyone can get married who wants to? I’m not sure.

Indeed, it doesn’t make sense to have two very similar such legal constructs. I’m arguing for exactly the opposite, that the shortest path to true freedom and equality for all is to abolish the lower-grade legal construct.

@Voyager

No one has to mix marriage and religion. In Pennsylvania you can get married with just a witness, no state sanctioned person at all.

There’s still a state sanction if it’s to be protected and enforced as a legal marriage; you must apply for a state marriage license beforehand (this is where the discrimination, and thereby the implicit religiosity, comes in) and then officially confirm, for the state’s records, that the thing has taken place, right?

@Voyager

Why does one size have to fit all? A marriage is at the top as far as responsibilities go (now modified by prenups) but why force those who don’t want to get married for whatever reason into these same responsibilities.

Who ever said anybody should be forced to be married?
Are you now saying there should be lower-grade legal marriage-like arrangements? Didn’t you just say there wasn’t much point to that?

@Voyager

What is wrong with marriage anyway? I know the religious want to claim ownership, but I don’t want to let them. They can pry my secular marriage license from my cold, dead, fingers.

There’s nothing wrong with marriage except the discrimination. I’m entirely in favor of you having a purely secular one. I submit that, in the strictest sense, you don’t have that now, because you were only allowed to get legally married by virtue of your membership in the religiously-favored majority class.

@Miller

I would really like to get married some day. If that were entirely off the table, as in spark’s idea, and I was left with civil unions… Well, who gives a shit about civil unions? I might enter into one if it made sense for tax purposes, or to get one of us onto the other’s health care plan, but absent a solid financial inducement like that, I doubt I’d ever bother.

Marriage is, indeed, special. And I want a chunk of that specialness for myself, someday. I’m not interested in a margarine marriage. If it’s not the real thing, what the hell is the point?

What do you think my proposal puts off the table for you? I want everybody to be able to have exactly the religious or otherwise personally special marriage ceremonies and celebrations of their choosing. And I also want everybody to be able to have the full package of legal rights and responsibilities entailed in marriage as it presently exists (for some); this certainly would give the solid financial inducement that marriage presently does.

I’m just saying that the two parts–the personal ceremonies, according to one’s own understanding of what marriage should be, aside from the legalisms; and the legal construct, comprising the incentives and protections that are in the public interest–don’t need to be embodied together, and that in fact true personal freedom and appropriate limits on the scope of government require their separation. Some people would get just one, others just the other, as they chose–I imagine most people who wished to make an “ultimate” commitment would have both together.

@not_alice

Asked and answered in the opinion of In Re: Marriage Cases, which is the law of the land in California once Prop 8 is invalidated. May I suggest you read it? It answers in plain language what the issue with this idea is, but basically, it doesn’t work as you think it does.

Is it possible that you could summarize “basically” what you’re talking about? I’ve gone to some trouble to try to explain (unsuccessfully? :() my thinking, and I don’t direct people to readings elsewhere without at least a sentence explaining the specific relevant point. Thanks.

[Voyager]

@spark240

There’s still a state sanction if it’s to be protected and enforced as a legal marriage; you must apply for a state marriage license beforehand (this is where the discrimination, and thereby the implicit religiosity, comes in) and then officially confirm, for the state’s records, that the thing has taken place, right?

To the (very large) extent that some people are discriminated against due to religious reasons, yes. But those of us lucky enough to be born with the “right” sexual orientation don’t have to go anywhere religion.
BTW, I’m sympathetic to those who don’t want to get married now because of its recognized discriminatory nature.

Who ever said anybody should be forced to be married?
Are you now saying there should be lower-grade legal marriage-like arrangements? Didn’t you just say there wasn’t much point to that?

Today there are very large benefits in civil unions, especially for those who are not allowed to get married - especially in the area of company benefits. If we took away these benefits, by having fair marriage alone, those wishing them would have to get married. Is this a good idea? I’m not sure.
No question about the benefit of making marriage fair. Until that happens, I’m for keeping the lower grade arrangements, because the religious nuts will be just as much against non-married people shacking up with benefits as they are gay people doing it. I don’t think it would put any pressure at all on the opponents of equality.

[Miller]

@spark240

What do you think my proposal puts off the table for you? I want everybody to be able to have exactly the religious or otherwise personally special marriage ceremonies and celebrations of their choosing.

Everybody already has that. I can say I’m married right now, to anybody I want. Doesn’t actually mean a goddamned thing, though. You’re not actually giving me anything with your plan. What you are doing is taking away the ability for me to have my marriage recognized by the only communal organization that has any meaning to me personally: my government. Absent that recognition, the concept of marriage is meaningless.

[KellyCriterion]

@Cheesesteak

What’s different about it? Describe any aspect of same sex love that is different than opposite sex love.

Off limits is the “same sex” vs. “opposite sex” aspect of it. It’s like claiming that yellow american cheese tastes different than white american cheese, by pointing out the color. “They taste different because that one is yellow.” If the color is the only identifiable difference between the cheeses, the taste is the same. If the sexuality of the lovers is the only difference, then the love is the same.

Knock yourself out, I’m very curious what differences you’ll come up with.

You may as well ask me to explain the difference in love that a mother has for her children compared to their father. Yet, the difference in this love has been celebrated and acknowledged right through history, in poetry, literature, religion, etc. No one walks around banging drums when people point out differences on things that aren’t hot potato issues. And again, the implicitness of your post suggests that you’re refusing to acknowledge that “different” does not mean “superior”. It means “different”.

[KellyCriterion]

@Lightnin

…
In every example, one couple’s marriage does NOT affect anyone else’s marriage…

This is like arguing that changing the rules for the handing out of a Medal of Honor so that every active serviceman gets one in no way devalues the Medal of Honor.

Obvious hogwash.

[KellyCriterion]

@Czarcasm

So the more “unique” a marriage is, the more “special” it is? When people of different faiths weren’t allowed to marry, was it more special? When people of different races weren’t allowed to marry, was it more special?

In the context of a discussion that rests on the disputed point about whether or not marriage is the celebration of the love that exists between a man and a woman, your comments are irrelevant.

[KellyCriterion]

@shy_guy

And at least the segregated water fountains ostensibly served the same function and expelled the same water. Nobody ever explains how these civil unions are ever going to achieve and maintain equality to “marriage,” especially in the face of bigot-backed politicians who will gut them at the first opportunity.

And of course I do agree with your point. Funny how comfortable people become with “separate but equal” in this context.

I’m still interested to know in what way gay relationships are different from straight ones that is sufficient to deny them access to the institution of marriage, and how that isn’t an admission that this “difference” is just “inferiority.”

Simple. Gay love gets celebrated not with marriage, but with floogenwowsen.

Floogenwowsen is the celebration of the love that exists between same sex couples, hence, its offlimits for heterosexual couples to celebrate their love with floogenwowsen.

A question for all in this thread: Do you refuse to acknowledge, in any way, Mothers Day or Fathers Day, due to the “separate” nature of what the days are celebrating? Do you actively campaign for an end to this discrimination, and instead lobby hard for a single, unified “Parent Day”? For those who already don’t acknowledge Mothers Day or Fathers Day, is this because of your strong ethical stance that mothers and fathers should not be celebrated and acknowledged differently?

[Czarcasm]

@KellyCriterion

In the context of a discussion that rests on the disputed point about whether or not marriage is the celebration of the love that exists between a man and a woman, your comments are irrelevant.

The hell they are. You are claiming that marriage is special when it is limited to a certain subset of people, and I asked if the marriage was more special when it was limited even further. Simple “yes or no” question.

[Czarcasm]

@KellyCriterion

Simple. Gay love gets celebrated not with marriage, but with floogenwowsen.

Would that be one of those “separate but equal” deals?

[Czarcasm]

@KellyCriterion

Simple. Gay love gets celebrated not with marriage, but with floogenwowsen.

And how would that work out when traveling abroad, since other countries would be under no obligation to recognize your nonsense word? BTW, the sheer silliness of your made-up word shows us what you think of about same sex relationships.

[KellyCriterion]

@Czarcasm

The hell they are. You are claiming that marriage is special when it is limited to a certain subset of people, and I asked if the marriage was more special when it was limited even further. Simple “yes or no” question.

I didn’t actually say that what makes marriage special is that it’s limited to a subset of people. Sounds like you’ve given something else I said a mighty twist so that it resembles something far more easily dismantled.

Cite?

[KellyCriterion]

@Czarcasm

And how would that work out when traveling abroad, since other countries would be under no obligation to recognize your nonsense word?

Iran is under no obligation to recognise the Medal of Honor.

I guess the medal is no longer special.

Hmm… let’s see here…

No, it’s the logic in your post that shouldn’t be getting recognition.

BTW, the sheer silliness of your made-up word shows us what you think of about same sex relationships.

Or I just couldn’t think of anything on the fly, so made it deliberately silly so it was obvious I wasn’t really trying. Ya know, coz what you’d actually call it once it’s agreed to treat it different is irrelevant to this discussion.

[DrFidelius]

@KellyCriterion

I didn’t actually say that what makes marriage special is that it’s limited to a subset of people. Sounds like you’ve given something else I said a mighty twist so that it resembles something far more easily dismantled.

Cite?

I’m sorry. I believe he took your “marriage is ONLY for heterosexual couples” to mean “marriage is limited to only those peole who happen to be heterosexual, no other orientations are allowed to be married.”

You can see where this might be taken as limiting those who can be “married.”

[DrFidelius]

@KellyCriterion

Iran is under no obligation to recognise the Medal of Honor.

I guess the medal is no longer special.

Hmm… let’s see here…

No, it’s the logic in your post that shouldn’t be getting recognition.
Or I just couldn’t think of anything on the fly, so made it deliberately silly so it was obvious I wasn’t really trying. Ya know, coz what you’d actually call it once it’s agreed to treat it different is irrelevant to this discussion.

Oh, and I find the “Medal of Honor” argument to be irrelevant, as there is no awarding of a medal of Honor to any soldier who asks for it. As it stands, almost opposite-sex couple can ask for and receive “marriage.”

If gettign married was as difficult as getting a MoH, you might have a point.

[Czarcasm]

@KellyCriterion

I didn’t actually say that what makes marriage special is that it’s limited to a subset of people. Sounds like you’ve given something else I said a mighty twist so that it resembles something far more easily dismantled.

Cite?

You still haven’t answered the question.

[Czarcasm]

@KellyCriterion

Or I just couldn’t think of anything on the fly, so made it deliberately silly so it was obvious I wasn’t really trying.

I’m sorry, but there are thousands of same-sex couples out there fighting for their rights that aren’t in a “silly” mood right now.

[KellyCriterion]

@Czarcasm

You still haven’t answered the question.

The question rests on a premise about an alleged claim I made.

I am challenging the alleged claim. Currently, I have no question to answer. You have a cite to show.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@KellyCriterion

This is like arguing that changing the rules for the handing out of a Medal of Honor so that every active serviceman gets one in no way devalues the Medal of Honor.

Obvious hogwash.

How are the current rules for Medals of Honor even remotely analogous to heterosexual marriage? As far as I know, a couple can get a license and all the associated privileges by filling out a form or two and satisfying some minor conditions. It’s not like they have to charge an enemy machine-gun or jump on a grenade first. In fact, no prior action on their part is necessary at all.

For that matter, the Medal of Honor can be (and frequently is) awarded posthumously, while a marriage license never is.

So basically you’ve picked something utterly irrelevant to make a bad argument for a bigoted cause. Congratulations.

[Czarcasm]

@DrFidelius

Oh, and I find the “Medal of Honor” argument to be irrelevant, as there is no awarding of a medal of Honor to any soldier who asks for it. As it stands, almost opposite-sex couple can ask for and receive “marriage.”

If getting married was as difficult as getting a MoH, you might have a point.

We could give the straight soldiers the Medal of Honor, and the gay soldiers the Medal of Floogenwowsen. It would be just like the Medal of Honor.
Riiiight.

[KellyCriterion]

@Bryan_Ekers

How are the current rules for Medals of Honor even remotely analogous to heterosexual marriage? As far as I know, a couple can get a license and all the associated privileges by filling out a form or two and satisfying some minor conditions. It’s not like they have to charge an enemy machine-gun or jump on a grenade first. In fact, no prior action on their part is necessary at all.

For that matter, the Medal of Honor can be (and frequently is) awarded posthumously, while a marriage license never is.

So basically you’ve picked something utterly irrelevant to make a bad argument for a bigoted cause. Congratulations.

Ok, answer my question about the separate celebrations of Mothers Day and Fathers Day. I expect to see plenty of moral outrage at the separate nature of what the two days are celebrating.