I’ll give this another shot. I apologize for the hijack, Quartz, but I wanted to answer some questions that were asked.
If the only difference is a word or phrase that connotes that the people are gay and not hetero, why does that equate to being second-class? Only if you think that gays are second-class would that be a problem. I don’t see it that way. “Other” does not equal “inferior”. There are boys and there are girls. I don’t see one as being inferior to the other.
Uh, read what you wrote. Notice the phrase “underfunded schools”? That is the reason the concept does not work. Now, if you are of the mind that even given equal funding, schools, teachers, etc., that blacks would still never be able to compete with whites academically, that’s a notion that you may want to float in another thread. I’d love to see the response to such an idea. You miight want to follow that with a campaign to disband black colleges.
Similarly, what inherent deficiency do you see gay unions having that would lead you to conclude that the idea of having separate terms to refer to the two different types of unions would lead to one being inferior to the other? And specifically, the gay version being inferior to the hetero version? Why mightn’t the gay version, over time, be viewed as more stable, more profound, etc.?
As luck would have it, volvelle has provided illumination: (highlighting mine)
So it seems that the rights that come with marriage is not the goal, at least not the sole or ultimate goal. As I tried to explore earlier, if you say it’s about rights and then I give you those rights, why isn’t that the end of it. And the answer is that their is an attempt to try to erase all differences between straight and gay. But newsfuckingflash: there is a difference. That is precisely the reason we have the terms “straight” and “gay”, or the prefixes “hetero” and “homo”. I find it ironic that the very group that should be unaffected by a term that defines the distinction we are talking about is so hell-bent on avoiding it. So much for gay pride, I guess.
You forgot “nefarious”: nefarious gay plot. :rolleyes:
Do you deny that “marriage” has meant, and means to the vast number of Americans, the union of a man and a woman? Do you deny that that has been the understanding of our society since the formulation of the country and before? Do you deny that marriage has been tightly associated with the procreation of children? And that while that might not be the case for all people, that the correlation is extremely strong, approaching 1:1?
Well, those are the reasons. I’m not saying that that is the end of the argument. It is not. But those seem to be pretty good “possible reason[s]” why there is a desire among many to not have gay unions be called marriage, even if they enjoy all the same legal rights.
Why is a term that would signal “different” necessarily imply “inferior”?
I apologize for continuing the hijack, Quartz, but I wanted to answer some questions that were asked.