I wouldn’t take that willingness at face value, either. There has been enough pushing by Focus on the Family, NOM and other anti-gay hate groups against limited civil union legislation that it’s pretty obvious that the whole “just don’t call it marriage” dodge is purely for the cameras. It’s not marriage that these groups care about. It’s preventing LGBT people from being treated like people.
Now, now-I’m sure KellyCriterion can come up with major groups whose only concern is the use of the word 'Marriage".
Right?
I can only respond to points raised by participants here, and neither magellan01 nor KellyCriterion are saying they don’t want equal treatment under the law - they are specifically saying they don’t want the term “marriage” to apply to same-sex couples.
It’s another one of those meaning of the word games. Words like ‘people’ and ‘human’ should only be used to describe what people traditionally think of when you say them, since the majority is heterosexual obviously those words where meant to describe straight people. Those pesky gays are trying to devalue words like humanity trying to include themselves in it.
Gays should be restricted to using words like subhuman, queers, or faggots to describe their existence. How dare they want to be given equal standing using equal words.
/sarcasm
But when they use Argumentum ad populum, mentioning the millions(and even billions!) that believe the same way they do, that opens the door to us questioning what those millions really believe.
I just keep hoping that something more sophisticated than “I don’t want the term for my relationship with my spouse to be used for people who do icky things to each other” will be presented.
I expect to be disappointed.
OK, I’ll play along. Let’s say, for the purposes of this debate, that a “Traditional Marriage” is simply any marriage which includes one man and one woman.
Please explain, in as much detail as possible, exactly how any given M-F couple’s “Traditional Marriage” is in any way altered, weakened, or otherwise “threatened” by a married M-M or F-F couple living down the street.
Or if you prefer, how is it that – in the words of the State Rep I quoted in the OP – that “no longer in America are we going to give the honor to a man and a woman in marriage”?
In other words: What the heck does anybody else’s marriage have to do with yours?
Haven’t you been following along? It’ll dilute the specialness of it. Kelly, her husband, and the other 119,999,998 married people in the US will no longer be unique.
… and in a way that Britney Spears’ drunken hookups don’t.
I totally just solved this issue.
Apparently, LGBT marriages would devalue M-F marriages, right? Cheapen the tradition, and all that. Alright, so here’s what we’ll do: opposite sex marriage will now be called Traditional Marriage. Failure to capitalize will be punishable by law. And gay/lesbian marriages will just be “marriage”.
Crisis averted. You can thank me via PM.
You know why we celebrate Father’s Day? Because someone raised by a father wanted equal time. Cite. Know why we celebrate two holidays? To sell more cards, flowers, and restaurant meals. Each of these holidays is just over 100 years old, it is not like they are at the root of our culture.
Yep, I got that part. I’ve just yet to see a plausible explanation of why this is so.
I thought Kelly was a dude.
Once again you’re not following along. It’s because of your lack of moral outrage about giving your mother the Medal of Honor on Father’s Day.
I think.
Frankly I’ve always thought that interfaith marriages should cause more of an uproar from the “don’t dilute marriage” crowd. After all, it makes the whole wedding ceremony meaningless (in a sense) for half the couple involved. Surely that does more damage [sic] to the institution than two people of the same gender marrying?
Thing is, suppose we called gay marriages “civil unions” under the law. Or suppose we called every marriage a “civil union” under the law. What exactly would that change?
Would I be prohibited from calling my marriage a marriage? No, people would still call themselves married, it wouldn’t matter what the legal term used in the regulations was.
Or, suppose opposite sex couples could be legally married, but same sex couples could only have a civil union, which coincidentally would have the exact same legal status as marriage.
What exactly would this accomplish? What would happen if two guys with a civil union described this union as “marriage”? Because anyone can see that is what would happen. No one would be fooled by the “civil union” dodge. If you meet Bob at a party and he introduces you to his husband, Steve, are you going to correct him and say, no, he’s not your husband, he’s your civil partner?
Of course, same sex couples can describe their relationship as marriage TODAY, it’s just that the government doesn’t recognize that marriage. Because marriage isn’t something created by religion, or by government, it is something created by human beings. You aren’t married by a priest or a judge, you marry each other.
The only purpose of a “legal marriage” is to regulate the behavior of the rest of us. If Bob is in a coma in the hospital, who makes medical decisions for him? His parents, or that guy he’s living with and having sex with? When Bob dies, what happens to his estate? If Steve is from another country, can he legally permanently stay in the United States? And on and on. So while marriage is a private agreement between two people, legal marriage is a way to let the rest of us in on the secret.
And so if gay marriage gets legal recognition but is called “civil union”, what’s really going to happen is that gay civil unions are going to be called “marriages”. Because that’s what they will be. And this is why “civil unions for all” is so silly, because it doesn’t change anything. We already have a term for “civil union”, it’s called marriage.
Look, the horse is way out of the barn on that one. If a man says to me, “This is my husband, he and I got married last week.” I don’t say, “What? How could that be? There must be a woman and a man for it to be a marriage!” No one says that. We know what they mean, even if their marriage is not actually legal. Anyone arguing that they do not want the word marriage to be broadened to include same sex as well as opposite sex couples might as well argue against the weather. It’s a done deal. The word is broadened. Get used to it.
Here’s the thing: you take a kid. That kid is raised by an opposite sex couple, possibly married or used-to-be-married to each other. You raise that kid to take the same steps society wants people to take - school, college, good job, marriage, house, kids of their own. They grow up going to weddings, watching movies and tv shows that glorify or play off weddings and marriages, they see their relatives and family friends get married, they see how people gush about weddings and marriages. And then, when that kid turns out to be gay, you want to tell him or her that, despite what you have been telling them all this time, they are not good enough to marry the person they fall in love with. Even though marriage, in common terms, include gay marriage. That, right there, is the emotional core of the issue. The rights are damned important, but this is the reason that people will fight to apply the term marriage to their couplings. Because straight society raised them to.
I believe that some people would.
I was going to say the same thing. There are people on this very board who have argued that it’s impossible for gay people to have sex, so I’m no longer really surprised by the extent to which some homophobes take it upon themselves to dicate how two grown, consenting adults relate to one another, or by the ability of people to act shamelessly boorish in public.
Really? What was their line of thinking?