How can we possibly understand what you mean by “traditional marriage” unless you tell us what you mean? Men have been marrying women for thousands of years, and for the vast majority of those years the women have been nothing more than property. Unless you give us the time frame, we’ll just have to assume that “men marrying women” is your only qualification, and we can bring up all those other “traditions”.
I borrowed the term from the thread title. Perhaps take it up with the OP.
My point was that the opponents to gay marriage aren’t focusing on denying gay couples legal protection. It’s the use of the term “marriage” they dislike most.
So, you want a legal condition that is exactly the same as “marriage” but not called "marriage.
Seperate but Equal has never worked, and I would worry that one of the legislatures who will need to write “and whatever it is that those gays have” in red crayon on all laws concerning marriage might miss one or two.
Much easier and less money to the lawyers to just change the one law that defines legal marriage by the genders of the contractees.
Why bother? Instead of making a trivial change to the legal definition of “marriage”, you suggest creating an additional, parallel legal framework, ostensibly identical in every way. Seems like a lot of trouble to go to, and for what benefit, exactly?
Not devaluing what “marriage” means to millions, perhaps billions of people?
Beyond that, nothing.
Sorry friend, but that is not a logical argument.
You might as well had been opposed to granting voting rights to women because it would “devalue” what “enfranchised” means to millions of men.
You borrowed the term and you use the term, so I assume that you have assigned meaning to the term-what is that meaning as you understand it to be?
Nothing? Really?
Are we to assume that those hypothetical “millions” would be o.k. with legal same-sex contracts that have all the rights assumed by opposite-sex couples, and that it is only the term “marriage” that is frustrating them?
Well, as long as “value” and “specialness” (and for that matter, “grue”) remain undefined, I guess you can claim gay marriage destroys them to minor degree or massive, and nobody can stop you or even challenge you, because no means exist to evaluate your claim. You may as well be claiming gay marriage will cause unicorns to go bald.
I can only point out that Canada has had legal gay marriage for almost six years now, and while it’s possible hetero marriage here is “devalued” or less “special” or whatever, hetero marriages are still happening, although the rate has been trending downward since well before gay marriage became legal. I don’t recall anyone complaining that their hetero marriage was less fulfilling because of the existence of gay marriage. I don’t recall anyone claiming in a divorce proceeding that their hetero marriage was now intolerable because gays could get married, too. Assuming the “devaluation” and/or loss of “specialness” has a measurable effect, what early warning signs should I be looking for?
Yes, but Canadian “love” is not the same as Real American Love.
Fuck that noise, Yank. Our half of Niagara Falls, the romanticest place on Earth, is twice as cool as your half.
Yes. This is why the same people who only want to protect the word marriage descended on Illinois en masse to try to prevent a civil unions bill from passing in the state legislature.
Sorry, but since you are from Canuckistan you can’t call your view “Niagra Falls.” You should be happy to see the same things and call it “Niagra Water-Dropping-Over-A-Big-Assed-Cliff” because it would devalue the word “Falls” if you called your (*obviously *different view) that.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this was erroneously posted in response to my post when it should have quoted someone else.
Are we to assume you’ve given up on the “Medal of Honor” analogy? 'Cause now it appears that you think national days of observance, ones which confer no tax or other social benefits, and ones which nobody actually gets as a day off, are somehow comparable to marriage.
Given that they both fall on Sundays, I’d say most people get them both as a day off, actually. Unless you’re retail.
The analogies from the opponents of extending marriage to same-sex couples always fail, since there is nothing quite like marriage. They either are too overreaching (the Medal of Honor is far more restrictive than getting married) or far too trivial (Mothers Day vs Fathers Day has no legal repercussions).
So far, most are willing to grant same-sex couples all the rights and responsibilities attendant on marriage, they just don’t want this legal contract to be called a marriage. This seems to be a distinction without a difference, and “It just IS different” does not clarify the situation in any way.
To say nothing of the fact that there are numerous states whose laws ban both “marriage” for same sex couples and any other form of officially-recognized union.
I also like how nobody advocating for a separate form of marriage in order to protect the million of unique snowflakes that are heterosexual marriages ever bothers to explain to us how this would actually work. “Oh, well they’d be equal.” As if the only thing those who pushed through blatantly anti-gay legislation were stuck on was the use of the word “marriage,” and as soon as gays give that up the public will be more than happy to give them equal rights in their segregated institution. Sure. If only gays weren’t so damn uppity!
I just checked my list of the holidays I get off here at the office- nope, no mention of Father’s Day *or *Mother’s Day. Clearly, I work for a bunch o’ fascists.
You illiterate Canadian-the word is not "romanticest, it is “romantiest”.
romancin’est