# Why not just invent a new term \[for gay marriage\]? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 1, 2003, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997 "2003-09-01T18:30:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997/121 "2003-09-12T14:36:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by viking \* > \*\*So, what you’re saying, is basically marriage is fundamentally about sex of a particular variety? And here I thought it was about love, commitment, faithfullness, etc. Silly me. > > It does boggle the mind, however, that _you_ think _my_ definition of marriage cheapens and dilutes it… \*\* I am saying no such thing. What we have here is another logical fallacy, the fallacy of the excluded middle, aka [false dilemma](http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/eitheror.html). We can consider two propositions: 1: Marriage is about sex and nothing else. 2: Marriage is about “love, commitment, faithfullness, etc” and not about sex at all. The excluded middle here is that _both_ sex _and_ other factors such as love, committment, etc are fundamental aspects of what we think of as “marriage”. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joe Random \* > \*\*At this point, I _really_ have to question your ability to understand analogies. never once did I form an analogy between friendship and marriage. Not once. My analogy was between the _relationship_ between male and female friendship and the _relationship_ between same-sex and opposite-sex unions. > > I mean, I even wrote it out in the form that you’d see on a standardized test: > > Male Friend : Female Friend :: Gay Lover : Straight Lover > > Have you ever taken one of those tests with analogies like that? Here’s a simpler one: > > Tree : Seed :: Chicken : Egg > > You’re insistence that my analogies are invalid is exactly the same as saying “You can’t compare trees to chickens! Chickens are animals and trees are plants!” about the above analogy. The Tree/Chicken analogy doesn’t compare trees to chickens; It compares the relationship between trees and seeds to the relationship between chickens and eggs. > > Likewise, my analogy compares the relationship between same-sex and opposite-sex friends to the relationship between same-sex and opposite-sex lovers. > > I understand that you are completely misrepresenting my analogies. I never compared friendship nor pet ownership to marriage, just as my above example was not comparing trees to chickens. \*\* Ummmm…yes. It looks to me like you’ve gotten into an excercise in pure logic divorced from anything concrete. Assuming for the moment that it is true, as you say, that “Male Friend : Female Friend :: Gay Lover : Straight Lover”…what exactly is this supposed to prove, in relation to our debate here? ---
**Author:** ![viking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@viking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/viking)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997/122 "2003-09-12T20:10:49Z")
Maybe I should just let this thread die, already, but… First, my apologies if I misinterpreted you. > [@](#): > > Assuming for the moment that it is true, as you say, that “Male Friend : Female Friend :: Gay Lover : Straight Lover”…what exactly is this supposed to prove, in relation to our debate here? What this is supposed to prove, in relation to our debate here, is that, in the same way we have the same term (friendship) for that particular relationship, whether it’s with someone of the same sex or the opposite, we can have the same term (marriage) for this particular relationship, whether it’s with someone of the same sex or the opposite. This does not mean that marriage and friendships are the same. It doesn’t even in any way negate that some of the dynamics of the friendship might differ on average depending on the genders involved. But the friendships are similar enough that they go by the same term. Is the purpose of this analogy clear yet? I argued that the critical features of marriage are fidelity, love, commitment, etc., which are present in both gay and straight marriages; you argued that they shouldn’t go by the same name, because the sex is different. This was the source of my misunderstanding above, for which I apologise. So, now, you hold (if I am reading you right this time), that because sex is involved in the one relationship but not in the other, that analogy fails to hold. Could you explain why, in terms even an idjot such as myself can comprehend? Incidentally, I would explain the failure of the nazi to farmer analogy above not on the basis of one being humans, but on the basis that in the one case, beings are being snuffed out because they are considered worthless and the world would be better off without them, whereas in the other, they are being snuffed out to provide food. Different entities, yes, but also different intents and different relationships to the victims. I’d think a better analogy would be to predator-eradication programs, which despite dealing with non-humans, are these days considered not-good. Granted, the fact that humans are involved in one case makes it even more reprehensible, but that’s not the _crucial_ reason I reject PETA’s farming==holocaust argument. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2003, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997/123 "2003-09-14T12:47:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by viking \* > \*\*What this is supposed to prove, in relation to our debate here, \*\* No offense, but I would like to hear how **Joe** interprets his own analogy. I don’t mind responding to your interpretation of it, though: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by viking \* > \*\*is that, in the same way we have the same term (friendship) for that particular relationship, whether it’s with someone of the same sex or the opposite, we can have the same term (marriage) for this particular relationship, whether it’s with someone of the same sex or the opposite. \*\* It seems to me that here you are simply assuming what you are setting out to prove. We _can_ have the same term for this particular relationship. We _can_ do a lot of things. We could have the just one word for “cat” and “dog” if we collectively decided to. And in some circumstances, it wouldn’t make a difference. But in others it would. So in the interests of preserving clear communication, which is what language ought to be about after all, we keep the two words. I _can_ make up my own entirely new language, and start speaking to people in it. No one can _stop_ me from doing that. But no one would be able to understand me, either. So in the interests of continuing to make myself understood, I stick with english. So the question is, with these interests in mind, _should_ we expand the definition marriage. I gave my reason why I thought we should not in my first post. I have yet to see an argument that counteracts it, or an argument for a positive benefit of expanding the definition that would outweigh it. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by viking \* > \*\*So, now, you hold (if I am reading you right this time), that because sex is involved in the one relationship but not in the other, that analogy fails to hold. Could you explain why, in terms even an idjot such as myself can comprehend? \*\* I want to be sure I am not misinterpreting you here. Are you asking me, seriously, how and why a sexual relationship is different from a non-sexual one? Because I really don’t know if I can explain that, any more than I could explain sex to someone who had never had it before, or sexual desire to someone who had never experienced it. I mean, I could explain the mechanical aspects of sexual intercourse. I could also explain the phenomenon of a rainbow to a blind person, by talking about light refraction and such. But there’s just a level of communication we wouldn’t be able to achieve. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2003, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997/124 "2003-09-14T18:40:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > \*\*Ummmm…yes. It looks to me like you’ve gotten into an excercise in pure logic divorced from anything concrete. Assuming for the moment that it is true, as you say, that “Male Friend : Female Friend :: Gay Lover : Straight Lover”…what exactly is this supposed to prove, in relation to our debate here? \*\* That analogy shows that it is not necessary to invent a new term to describe an equivalent relationship just because it is between people of the same sex. A male can have a female friend and label the relationship “friendship”. A male can have a _male_ friend and label the relationship “friendship”. A male can form a union with a female and label the relationship “marriage”. A male can form a union with a male that is equivalent with the one formed with a female, and which should be correctly labeled “marriage”. The whole problem is that the law prevents them from using the word “marriage” in that last case for no particular reason. > [@](#): > > **The excluded middle here is that both sex and other factors such as love, committment, etc are fundamental aspects of what we think of as “marriage”.** But gay couples have all these aspects. They can be committed and loving, and they can have sex. Is the _nature_ of the sex they have so different that it should prevent their relationship from being labeled “marriage”? I mean, heterosexual couples have anal and oral sex, too. > [@](#): > > **Are you asking me, seriously, how and why a sexual relationship is different from a non-sexual one?** No, he’s not. You were stating that my above analogy does not hold because friendship does not include sex, and marriage does. You have failed to grasp the fact that the sexual and non-sexual relationships _were not being compared to each other_. Thus, whether or not one relationship involves sex and the other doesn’t is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > **So the question is, with these interests in mind, should we expand the definition marriage. I gave my reason why I thought we should not in my first post.** Here’s what you wrote in your first post: > [@](#): > > **Now, if you accept as an axiom that men and women are different in fundamental ways, then an inescapable corallary is that a relationship between two men is fundamentally different from a relationship between a man and a woman is fundamentally different from a relationship between two women.** I countered that, by your very argument, the relationship between to male _friends_ is fundamentally different than the relationship between male and female _friends_. Thus, if you wish to argue that a new term must be invented for gay unions because the relationship is fundamentally different, then, _by the very same argument_, you must invent a new term for same-sex _friends_. If you fail to do so, then you are admitting that your own argument is invalid. That is what I derived my analogy (which you never seemed to quite understand) from. ---
**Author:** ![viking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@viking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/viking)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997/125 "2003-09-15T01:13:52Z")
**Weird\_Al\_Einstein** , you say that: > [@](#): > > So the question is, with these interests in mind, should we expand the definition marriage. I gave my reason why I thought we should not in my first post. I have yet to see an argument that counteracts it, or an argument for a positive benefit of expanding the definition that would outweigh it. To answer that, I am going to quote you from [another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=210162&pagenumber=3) , in which you stated > [@](#): > > I think that the difference between the US and other nations is that we have a broad assumption…one that’s not always followed as it should be, mind you, but it’s definitely relevant to the gun debate…that before the government can pass laws that restrict people’s freedoms in any way, it (the government) must have at least some evidence that there will be a positive net benefit in doing so. Now, I am going to ask you this: If the government is going to restrict the right of gay folks to call themselves married, should there not, according to your own broad assumption, be at least some evidence that there would be a positive net benefit in doing so? And if so, what is this benefit? Because, as you yourself point out, it is not up to those whose rights are being restricted (e.g. gun owners in the one case, or gay couples in this one) to prove that they _should_ have those rights; the onus of proof is on those who would restrict rights to prove that there is a benefit to such restriction. And, I might add, that is a very weak definition of ``rights’’; a stricter one would call for not only a net benefit, but an actual conflict with others’ rights, before any can be restricted. And if you tell me the broad assumption doesn’t hold because I don’t have sex with my rifle, then, well, I’ll roll my eyes so far back in their sockets that I’ll get whiplash. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997/126 "2003-09-15T12:17:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joe Random \* > **I countered that, by your very argument, the relationship between to male _friends_ is fundamentally different than the relationship between male and female _friends_. Thus, if you wish to argue that a new term must be invented for gay unions because the relationship is fundamentally different, then, _by the very same argument_, you must invent a new term for same-sex _friends_. If you fail to do so, then you are admitting that your own argument is invalid.** Ahhh, I think I see the problem here, finally. And it is, largely, my own fault. I must accept the blame. I did indeed write this: > [@](#): > > Now, if you accept as an axiom that men and women are different in fundamental ways, then an inescapable corallary is that a relationship between two men is fundamentally different from a relationship between a man and a woman is fundamentally different from a relationship between two women. But I assumed that the word “relationship” would be understood to mean “intimate, sexual relationship”. I should not have made that assumption. That is what I meant, though, and I think I had at least a little justification for assuming that it would be understood the way I meant it, as we were in a thread discussing that specific kind of relationship and no other. I _am_ sorry my mistake caused us to go around in circles the way we did. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by viking \* > \*\* > Now, I am going to ask you this: If the government is going to restrict the right of gay folks_\* Stop right there. I have been very careful, in this thread, to restrict myself to speaking only on matters of language, and not law and government. If you want to know what I think the government should do on this matter, well, if you can quote me from another thread, I can do the same. Here is what I said in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&goto=lastpost&threadid=208866) > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > \*\*I do totally agree with **Dogface** , who said: > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by Dogface_ > > The state should get out of marriage altogether and only license "domestic partnerships for purely legal reasons (insurance, property, inheritance, etc.) > > Without the state ruling by fiat, either way, I am perfectly happy to let the marketplace of ideas determine what is and is not a marriage and let the chips fall where they may, even if “my side” loses. \*\* PS to **viking** : About this: > [@](#): > > Because, as you yourself point out, it is not up to those whose rights are being restricted (e.g. gun owners in the one case, or gay couples in this one) to prove that they _should_ have those rights; the onus of proof is on those who would restrict rights to prove that there is a benefit to such restriction. And, I might add, that is a very weak definition of ``rights’’; a stricter one would call for not only a net benefit, but an actual conflict with others’ rights, before any can be restricted. I was not trying there to define what a “right” is. I was simply putting forward a _standard_ for judging whether or not to create, or keep, restrictive laws. It is necessarily a _partial_ standard, I admit. But I do try to stay narrowly focused in the GD forum, I hate getting off on tangents. Also, I find this particular standard useful in gun control threads. I have posted recently in two such threads here, challenging people to come up with evidence of restrictive gun laws having any actual, practical benefit. No one has taken up my challenge. My hope is that people who are on the fence on this issue, who happen to be reading the thread, will see this and draw the appropriate conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997/127 "2003-09-15T17:28:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > **But I assumed that the word “relationship” would be understood to mean “intimate, sexual relationship”.** Ah, I see. That explains why we seem to have been talking past each other 😉 However, on what do you base your assumption that sexual relationships between two members of the same gender are different from sexual relationships between members of opposite genders? So different, in fact, that they require a different name? Opposite-sex partners can love each other, have a committed relationship, and have sex. Same-sex partners can love each other, have a committed relationship, and have sex. Is the _type_ of sex so very important that it should deprive same-sex couples from being married? Even though you would not deny that option to an opposite-sex couple that only had oral and/or anal sex? I just can’t see _how_ the relationship between same-sex couples is different from a relationship between opposite-sex couples. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997/128 "2003-09-15T19:51:57Z")
I’m equally confused as to why the specific sex act makes a difference in what the relationship ought to be called. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![viking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@viking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/viking)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997/129 "2003-09-15T20:20:35Z")
As I understand it, it’s not the specific sex act that’s relevant. It’s the fact that men and women are different. But somehow, the fact that men and women are different is _only_ relevant for intimately sexual relationships. I’m confused as to why that is, though. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997/130 "2003-09-16T12:51:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joe Random \* > **However, on what do you base your assumption that sexual relationships between two members of the same gender are different from sexual relationships between members of opposite genders? So different, in fact, that they require a different name?** I base it on the fact that men and women are different, in a way that _matters_ to people _in_ a sexual relationship. Is of paramount importance even, except, again, to that very small minority of us that are perfectly balanced bisexuals. I mean, we have the gender-free word “person”, which is appropriate for use in many circumstances, but not when seeking a mate. There’s no column in the personals for “persons seeking persons”. If men and women are _unique_ for the purpose of having a sexual relationship…and I think all of us participating in this thread have agreed to this, as we all have a strong preference one way or the other for our own sexual relationships…then can’t we agree that with different combinations of unique ingredients it is desirable to have different names? ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997/131 "2003-09-16T13:21:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > \*\*If men and women are _unique_ for the purpose of having a sexual relationship…and I think all of us participating in this thread have agreed to this, as we all have a strong preference one way or the other for our own sexual relationships…then can’t we agree that with different combinations of unique ingredients it is desirable to have different names? \*\* No, I most certainly _cannot_ agree with that. Some people love dogs and hate cats. Other people love cats and hate dogs. Except for the small minority which likes both (just play along, here). If dogs and cats are _unique_ for the purpose of having a pet relationship…and I think all of us participating in this thread have agreed to this, as we all have a strong preference one way or the other for our own pet relationships…then can’t we agree that with different combinations of unique ingredients it is desirable to have different names? In other words, can’t we agree that you can’t call both dogs and cats pets? Your whole argument hinges on the fact that the people who can have a relationship with both men _and_ women are largely in the minority. If true bisexuals were more common, then it’s obvious that you would not have been able to make your argument at all. So now I ask, does the existence of bisexuals somehow alter the nature of heterosexual or homosexual relationships _for other people_? If not, then it makes no difference if 99% of the population are bisexual, or 0% are. The differences and similarities between hetero- and homosexual relationships would be identical in both cases. From this, we must conclude one of the following:[ol][li]There should be different names for both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships even if 100% of the population is perfectly bisexual.[/li]There should be the same name for both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships even if 0% of the population is perfectly bisexual.[/ol]I would say that option 2 makes more sense. ---
**Author:** ![viking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@viking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/viking)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997/132 "2003-09-16T16:19:41Z")
But this is the logic we’ve been refuting by use of various analogies, which you claim don’t hold. You have yet to defend why you think they don’t hold, except that the fact that marriage is an intimate sexual relationship makes everything different. So I’ll try one more here: Alice wants to marry Bob. Chris wants to marry Diane. Alice has no interest in marrying Chris, and Bob has no interest in marrying Diane. Clearly, Alice, Bob, Chris and Diane are all _unique_ for the purpose of having a sexual relationship, so how can we call Alice and Bob’s union the same thing as Chris and Diane’s? Now I’m sure you’ll agree that the above logic is silly if the reason Alice has no interest in Chris is that he’s a tough-guy biker dude and she likes soft-spoken accountants. But you’re saying the same logic is perfectly valid if the reason Alice has no interest in Chris is that Chris is Christine, and Alice likes, well, men. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997/133 "2003-09-17T14:13:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joe Random \* > \*\*No, I most certainly _cannot_ agree with that. > > Some people love dogs and hate cats. Other people love cats and hate dogs. Except for the small minority which likes both (just play along, here). If dogs and cats are _unique_ for the purpose of having a pet relationship…and I think all of us participating in this thread have agreed to this, as we all have a strong preference one way or the other for our own pet relationships…then can’t we agree that with different combinations of unique ingredients it is desirable to have different names? In other words, can’t we agree that you can’t call both dogs and cats pets? \*\* Ok, before I reply here, I just want to be sure I am understanding you correctly. This time, you really _are_ comparing pet ownership to marriage. Am I right this time? I want to be sure. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by viking \* > \*\*But this is the logic we’ve been refuting by use of various analogies, \*\* I thought we had a misunderstanding on the purpose of all those analogies. I certainly don’t concede that any of my arguments have been refuted. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by viking \* > \*\*Alice wants to marry Bob. > Chris wants to marry Diane. > > Alice has no interest in marrying Chris, and Bob has no interest in marrying Diane. Clearly, Alice, Bob, Chris and Diane are all _unique_ for the purpose of having a sexual relationship, \*\* No, they are not. All individuals are unique, of course, but for the purposes of having a sexual relationship, Bob is _not_ unique for Alice (assuming she is straight). If Bob were not available to her, for whatever reason…say he died and left her a widow…she _could_ have a relationship with another man. But _not_ with a woman. In this respect, it is Bob’s _gender_…the male gender…that is unique for Alice. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by viking \* > \*\*Now I’m sure you’ll agree that the above logic is silly if the reason Alice has no interest in Chris is that he’s a tough-guy biker dude and she likes soft-spoken accountants. \*\* If Alice meets a really nice soft spoken accountant, who meets every requirement on her list of things she is looking for in a mate, and then some, with the sole exception that she (the accountant) is a woman, then Alice (still assuming she is straight) is not going to have a sexual relationship with her. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997/134 "2003-09-17T14:53:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > **Ok, before I reply here, I just want to be sure I am understanding you correctly. This time, you really _are_ comparing pet ownership to marriage. Am I right this time? I want to be sure.** _sigh_ No, you’re not right this time _either_. You really don’t grasp the concept of analogy very well, do you? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997/135 "2003-09-17T15:18:38Z")
Hmmm. “Pet ownership” and “marriage” don’t equate unless you have a chauvinist POV where “my wife” equals “my car” or “my dog” – a possession of the man. But at rock bottom, what we’re talking about is legal and societal recognition of a _relationship_ – a mutually agreed upon bond between two people. On the other hand, try this one: the reasons for keeping a pet are varied, but generally that which people get out of keeping pets, they get from keeping a dog, a cat, a rabbit, a hamster. Therefore we can call “pettiage” the relationship between a human being and another mammal which considers itself attached to the human and gives him/her affection and allegiance. But a small minority of people keep boas and pythons as what they call pets, and claim to have the same feelings towards their snakes, and receive the same affection and allegiance from them, which “normal” people do from their dogs and cats. Now, this is obviously a perversion – have you seen what Scripture says about snakes? 😉 But in a free society, they’re privileged to keep snakes if they want. But it’s clearly not “pettiage” as it’s been traditionally defined – the relationship of a human with another mammal. Therefore, we need to coin a new term for it – a “herpeto-human commensalistic union,” perhaps? This seems close to the argument that’s being used. Care to work from it? ---
**Author:** ![viking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@viking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/viking)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997/136 "2003-09-17T16:25:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > \*\*No, they are not. All individuals are unique, of course, but for the purposes of having a sexual relationship, Bob is _not_ unique for Alice (assuming she is straight). If Bob were not available to her, for whatever reason…say he died and left her a widow…she _could_ have a relationship with another man. But _not_ with a woman. In this respect, it is Bob’s _gender_…the male gender…that is unique for Alice. > \*\* How can you say that? Have you ever met Alice? Have you discussed the issue with her? Maybe Alice is a type-A, high-energy, extroverted party-girl, and for her, marriage requires a complementarity between her and a more laid-back, relaxed, down to earth fellow like Bob. Maybe Chris, on the other hand, is also type-A, high-energy, extroverted, and wants to marry someone who can share his wild party-animal lifestyle. By your logic, only Alice and Bob can marry, because marriage is all about complementarity of the the people, whereas Chris and Diane can only have a union, because they are too similar and don’t complement each other. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997/137 "2003-09-17T18:09:53Z")
If my husband or my boyfriend were to die I could have another relationship of that sort, yes. That does not indicate that my partners are interchangeable with other people; I think the idea that people are interchangeable, that there’s nothing important about a particular person, that it doesn’t really matter who those people are so long as they have the right genitalia, is not only wrongheaded and disgusting, but actively harmful to actual relationships. (How many people do _you_ know who spend their dating lives trying to “trade up” and leaving wounded people behind them?) Neither of my partners is just a penis to me. They are unique, wonderful individuals who would be impossible to “replace” if, gods forbid, I lost either of them. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997/138 "2003-09-17T18:31:22Z")
It doesn’t matter. The qualities of the differences between men and women are not an essential part of marriage. In no traditional marriage vow does it say “I vow to think with the other side of my brain than my partner”, or “I vow to put tab A in slot B”. Nor does legal marriage acknowledge the role of the differences between men and women. It just isn’t the big issue. Now marriage has traditionally and is legally between a man and a woman. However, the tradition is changeing and some are seeking out to change the legal. But I don’t see anyone seeking to codify the differences between genders into either traditional or legal marriage. There is no widespread “established gender roles in marriage” movement. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997/139 "2003-09-18T07:28:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joe Random \* > \*\*_sigh_ No, you’re not right this time _either_. You really don’t grasp the concept of analogy very well, do you? \*\* Perhaps not. Perhaps someone else here, who is better than me at understanding analogies, or at least _your_ analogies, can help us out. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*On the other hand, try this one: the reasons for keeping a pet are varied, but generally that which people get out of keeping pets, they get from keeping a dog, a cat, a rabbit, a hamster. Therefore we can call “pettiage” the relationship between a human being and another mammal which considers itself attached to the human and gives him/her affection and allegiance. > > But a small minority of people keep boas and pythons as what they call pets, and claim to have the same feelings towards their snakes, and receive the same affection and allegiance from them, which “normal” people do from their dogs and cats. > > Now, this is obviously a perversion – have you seen what Scripture says about snakes? 😉 But in a free society, they’re privileged to keep snakes if they want. But it’s clearly not “pettiage” as it’s been traditionally defined – the relationship of a human with another mammal. Therefore, we need to coin a new term for it – a “herpeto-human commensalistic union,” perhaps? > > This seems close to the argument that’s being used. Care to work from it? \*\* Well. **Joe Random** has disparaged my ability to discern the true meaning of analogies, and perhaps he is right, so I am going to continue to be careful. Are _you_ drawing an analogy between pet-owner relationships, and marriage (or marriage-style) relationships? It certainly seems that way to me, what with your coining of the term “pettiage”. But I do want to be certain. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by viking \* > **How can you say that? Have you ever met Alice? Have you discussed the issue with her?** Ummm…no, of course not. Alice is a hypothetical person. She isn’t real. Why do I have the sudden feeling I’m in the middle of a Dave Barry column… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by viking \* > \*\*By your logic, only Alice and Bob can marry, because marriage is all about complementarity of the the people, whereas Chris and Diane can only have a union, because they are too similar and don’t complement each other. \*\* I never said, or meant, that “marriage is all about complementarity of the the people”. In the first place, marriage has several aspects, so it is not “all about” any one thing. In the second place, I have been arguing that we ought to continue to reserve the use of the word “marriage” to describe relationships that have _one particular kind of_ complementarity, and I have laid out my reasons for why I think that. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by even sven \* > \*\*It doesn’t matter. The qualities of the differences between men and women are not an essential part of marriage. \*\* So…assuming you are now single, it won’t be an essential matter to you whether a potential future spouse, or lifelong committed intimate partner, is a man or a woman? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by even sven \* > \*\*In no traditional marriage vow does it say “I vow to think with the other side of my brain than my partner”, or “I vow to put tab A in slot B”. \*\* Actually, failure to consumate a marriage, ie failure to “put tab A in slot B” as you put it, has traditionally been a grounds for annulment. Also, withholding of sex by one partner in a marriage has traditionally been grounds for the other to sue for divorce. In [this recent thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=210103) the OP asked how these laws might apply to legal gay marriage. Interestingly, nobody answered it. I believe these things are still in the current marriage laws, though I don’t know for certain, and anyway I am sure there is some variation among different jurisdictions. Perhaps there is a lawyer specializing in family law hanging around here somewhere who can fill us in on the details. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997/140 "2003-09-18T08:21:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > **Well. Joe Random has disparaged my ability to discern the true meaning of analogies, and perhaps he is right, so I am going to continue to be careful. Are _you_ drawing an analogy between pet-owner relationships, and marriage (or marriage-style) relationships? It certainly seems that way to me, what with your coining of the term “pettiage”. But I do want to be certain.** Well, **Polycarp** can certainly answer for himself. However, I’ll go ahead and give my interpretation, because this is very similar to an analogy that I made earlier. To answer your question, no one is comparing owning pets to marriage. Just because an analogy contains both pets and marriage doesn’t mean that they’re being directly compared. What is being compared here is an _idea_, a _concept_. On the one hand, we have a relationship for which we have a name. “Pettiage”, in this particular analogy. On the other hand we have a relationship which we name “marriage”. Now, these two relationships are nothing alike, and no one is suggesting any differently. However, they both have one thing in common. They are _relationships_, and they each have a _traditional meaning_. On the side of “pettiage”, we can see that the _traditional meaning_ involves a fond attachment to another mammal. Now, there exists a small minority who wish to keep snakes as pets. A good number of other pet owners are deathly afraid of snakes. Keeping a snake as a pet is not an option for them. On the snake-person’s side of things, they may have severe animal dander allergies, and so keeping a mammal is not an option for them. So we have a minority who wish to have a relationship that fails to fit the _traditional meaning_ of the label they wish to give it, and for whom it is not an option to participate in the _traditional_ form of this relationship. Now, look at the above sentence. Without any other context, can you tell whether I’m talking about “snake pettiage” or “gay marriage”? Or maybe it’s about something else entirely. Therein lies the power of analogy. The above can apply to **any** type of relationship for which there is a traditional form, and which has a small minority who are unable to participate in that traditional form. The purpose of the analogy is to construct a generalization, and that I have done. Now I can apply the generalization to specific instance of “relationship” which fits the “shape” of that generalization. Notice that I am not comparing any specific relationship to any other specific relationship. Rather I am comparing multiple specific relationships to the generalization that encompasses them. Should snake owners be allowed participate in “pettiage” with their snakes? Should homosexuals be allowed to participate in “marriage” with their partners? Because both of those situations can be represented exact same generalization, they must have the same answer. Either you answer “yes” to both, or you answer “no”. So if you say that gay couples cannot participate in “marriage” because their relationship doesn’t fit the traditional meaning, and because they cannot participate in the tradition form of the “marriage” relationship, then you must also agree that snakes cannot be part of the “pettiage” relationship for the exact same reasons. To me, it makes less sense to deprive snake owners the ability to participate in “pettiage” than it does to allow homosexuals to participate in “marriage”. Thus, I must conclude that gay marriage is permissible. > [@](#): > > **So…assuming you are now single, it won’t be an essential matter to you whether a potential future spouse, or lifelong committed intimate partner, is a man or a woman?** We’ve been down this road before. To the snake owner, you could say “So…assuming you are now petless, it won’t be an essential matter to you whether a potential future pet has fur or not?” To which the person will reply, “of _course_ it makes a difference! I’m allergic to pet dander!” Does that mean that snake owners can’t call their snakes “pets”? Please be aware that I’m not comparing pets to spouses. I’m simply taking your exact line of reasoning and applying it to a situation that is similarly constructed. If your line of reasoning is valid, then it is valid no matter what _kind_ of relationship is under consideration. If applying your line of reasoning to another kind of relationship (one that has the same general form) results in an absurdity, then your line of reasoning is flawed. Applying your line of reasoning to the relationship called “pettiage” – a relationship which I have shown has the same abstract, general form as “marriage” – results in an absurdity. Thus I conclude that your line of reasoning is flawed. > [@](#): > > **Actually, failure to consumate a marriage, ie failure to “put tab A in slot B” as you put it, has traditionally been a grounds for annulment. Also, withholding of sex by one partner in a marriage has traditionally been grounds for the other to sue for divorce.** Gay people have sex, too, y’know. What about a heterosexual couple that only participates in either oral or anal sex? Not the likeliest of scenarios, but still within the realm or reason. If they can still be considered married, then the _type_ of sex a couple has is irrelevant when determining whether or not to consider them married. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-invent-a-new-term-for-gay-marriage/198997.md?page=8)