Quibble?:
You are already using a ‘new word’, or more precisely, an old word in new usage, to describe your relationship. I do not go out with my ‘partner’, I go out with my girlfriend. If I was gay, I imagine I would go out with my boyfriend. If I was married to female, I would go out with my wife. If I were married to male, I would out with my husband. The only time I hear someone is going somewhere with their ‘partner’, is in the context of a gay relationship.
Nitpick?:
I have many straight friends who use partner rather than boy/ girlfriend.
In fact, I most often hear it as a generic term in, say, invitations, where some of the invitees are male, some female, some married, some not…
Then some people started using it to mean something more committed and, well, ``mature’’, maybe? than boyfriend/ girlfriend, but not formalised (either yet, or because they weren’t interested) as fiancee/ spouse.
I have never associated the term with any particular orientation, but as usual, YMMV.
kanicbird asked:
Only if they, also, are married to each other. I’m not married to my mate’s legal spouse, nor is he to mine.
Responding to viking:
I use ‘partner’ as well, fairly often. Partly, I will admit, because it tweaks the assumptions of people who presume that ‘partner’ indicates a same-sex relationship, and I’m perverse that way.
Well now that puts a whole new light on business partner. IMO, partner seemed to evolve as an appropriate designation for gay spouse because of the meanings that it already had and still does. The same is true of companion.
I think that is part of the problem. You are seeing differences where none need exist.
Cite?
I know what you mean. It makes me think of my wife.
To elaborate on Zoe’s response to these bits: Yes, men and women are different. Whether this difference is fundamental or irrelevant depends on the context. Sometimes this is relevant, so we use man' and woman’. Many times it isn’t, so we use person', co-worker’ (or cow-orker' :) ), friend’, etc.
Now, whether it follows from this axiom that the relationships are also fundamentally different is up for debate. I see no reason that that corollary is inescapable. In fact, it is so easily escaped, I will do so right here: a child is pretty fundamentally different from a puppy, yet they can both be your dependants. Fundamentally different entities, similar relationship. It may well be that there are some contexts where gay marriage and straight marriage differ in significant ways (though I can’t think of one off the top of my head), but certainly if you accept that they should have all the same legal rights and responsibilities, then it seems you are arguing that the difference really isn’t relevant in any non-semantic ways, so why not call them the same thing?
This is the third or fourth thread I’ve seen proposing a new term for Gay marriages and like others here, I still don’t understand the sentiment; is it that heterosexuals would feel at risk of being mistaken for homosexuals because the term ‘marriage’ would no longer exclusively imply it?
As other posters have said, this appears to be equivalent to saying the word “citizen” traditionally means “white male” and can’t there be a new word for “non-white or non-male who votes”?
“Marriage” engenders a transfer of legal and financial links from a person’s family to their partner. If these are the most important elements, legally speaking, of the institution called “marriage” then the creation of another term just for them appears less sensible than creating a new term just for hetero- marriages.
Well, you’re right. Husband and husband and wife and wife would prolly work just fine in a gay marriage. I was stuck in the idea of there having to be a different term for each partner in a marriage.
Well, there are a lot of bigots out there who are using the idea that “marriage” is between a man and a woman as a technicality to keep homosexuals from promulgating their agenda (Item 447: Use extensive experience and contacts in entertainment business to corner the market on self-improvement television shows).
If we come up with a new word (despite the fact that, as previous posts have proven, it is unnecessary and baseless considering how language actually works), we can remove that technicality and expose the bigotry for what it is. Because it just boils down to the old, “Population X is different, and therefore bad”. And history shows us that that statement is always wrong.
Invent new terms?
Thats called being politically correct. I abhor it completely. Its a feeble attempt to pacify people with weak sensibilities to the truth. It is intellectually coddling. I will not stand for it.
Well, I hear it a lot in the context of heterosexual relationships. I’ve used it myself, in fact. Of course, my friends are mostly a bunch of liberals – I think it’s far more common usage in liberal circles ('tho I’m not sure why).
Eliminate the marriage license and eliminate all legal recognition of marriage. Likewise, the state cannot meddle at all in whatever any religion says is “marriage” (except in cases of rape, use of threat or force, child abuse, etc.). Institute a “domestic partnership license”. Now, if you want to get married, you have to go to a religious organization. If you want the legal benefits that used to adhere to marriage, you get a “domestic partnership license”.
Making a new term would seem to be a solution; the gay marriage debate would seem to dissolve quickly then, as it would be irrelevant to the “let’s not tread on tradition” stance. I’ll give the OP the benefit of the doubt and consider this as the reason this was brought up. That is, he/she just wanted to offer a quick solution to the problem.
One reason it’s a bad idea is that it instantly carries a negative connotation. “Wurrel” - or any other term - would instantly be associated with gay marriage and negative thing associated with it. The term may eventually gain respect and nobility, but in my experience, words tend to lose nobility - not gain them. Nonetheless, the connotation would be there and the issue will not have been skirted.
I also echo the sentiments of others; marriage is a fine term. It’s not as though “marriage” has not been abused before: I recall a commercial touting the “marriage of fruit flavors” or something along those lines, and I’ve heard the term used in many other contexts.
Besides, some half of all marriages end in divorce; marriage is the butt of many a joke, especially in more recent times; and marriage in and of itself isn’t necessarily a good, perfect thing. What I’m saying is that the term “marriage” isn’t exactly the holiest, cleanest of terms, and so claiming that associating it with gay unions will tarnish it is, IMO, a pretty weak argument - almost a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Actually TonyJ that was my point (to offer a quick solution). This along the lines of a book I was reading about 2 months ago, which was a meeting with the Dally Lamma <sp>. The Dally Lamma said (not a direct quote, but close enough) if a term does not exist to define a (thing, activity, whatever) it becomes nessesary to invent a new term. This seemed to me as a solution to such thigs as women preists and gay marriages. I stopped mentioning women preists because that goes to interpertations of God’s word, so ery hard to argue.
What I have learned it that those that support the term marriage for homosexual partnerships (well some of them) don’t see a difference between a commited relationship between a man and a woman and 2 women or 2 men. I can understand their point now, I personally see a difference between the 2 (or 3, but I see it as 2), as men and women are fundementally different IMHO (ying and yang - yes I know there is a funky spelling for this).
If a difference is not seen then the term marriage should be applied to both. Do I basically understand the counter argument?
Want to bet the “tradition” argument would no longer be the focus of many who oppose gay marriage, if a new term were coined?
Many people make excuses for all sorts of behavior, and hope it flies, but when called on it, their true colors shine through.
If I were dictator, I’d make a deal with you. I’d make it immediately legal, give them the same benefits as a married couple, and name it a “wurrel”, with the condition that if there were a significant outcry against it still, gays would get to use “marriage” instead. “Wurrel” wouldn’t last a week.
kanicbird, may I ask you to expand on why you think the gay marriage is fundamentally different from that in a straight marriage? You definitely seem to be summing up my counter-argument correctly, so I surmise your argument is that gay and straight marriage-type relationships are fundamentally different, and therefore require different terms. Correct me if I’ve gotten this wrong.
So, to me, the fundamentally important parts of marriage are long-termedness, fidelity, monogamy, and love. Although I’m willing to accept other people may not require the monogamy part, if I were to marry it would be fundamental to my marriage.
But I see no reason to suspect that a gay marriage would be missing any of those aspects, which is why I don’t see a fundamental difference between the two relationships.
If I’m correct in surmising that you do see a fundamental difference, could you elaborate on what it is? What aspects are key to the marriage relationships, and how are they absent from a wurrel?
Oh, but do we really have to call it “voting” when women do it? Couldn’t we call it “suggesting” or something like that? They’d still get the same rights, but let’s face it, men and women voting are two different things.
Wow! My faith in mankind pays off.
That’s part of it, for me; I don’t see much a difference between the ideal gay marriage and the ideal traditional marriage except that one is man/wife and the other is man/man or wife/wife. They’d still be devoted to each other, care for each other in sickness and in health, etc.
The other part of my argument doesn’t lie in the difference between gay or traditional marriage; it lies in the use of marriage as a word over the years. It’s used all kinds of ways now, and more generally denotes two things forming a strong, nearly unbreakable bond.
Much like the marriage of Pecans and Coffee Cake, which I now enjoy.
In other words, marriage means many things and two gay people getting together goes along just fine with the definition marriage has acquired over the years.
I’m not following your logic here. The statements in your first paragraph are true, but I don’t see what logical inference, if any, I am supposed to draw from them. I don’t agree with what you say in the second paragraph, at all. Even positing a world in which everyone was white, if a person in this world had sufficient imagination to come up with the idea of a kind of people who had never been seen before, who were like “normal” people in every way except for a different skin color, then I don’t see why you would have any problem applying terms like “adult” to them.
I confess to some surprise that you would call my analogy “dysfunctional” and then turn around and make an analogy yourself between choosing a lawyer and choosing a mate. If I were to draw up a list of qualities to look for in hiring a lawyer, then I would be equally willing to hire a male or female lawyer that has all the qualities on my list. But if I were to draw up a list of qualities I am looking for in a mate, I would not then turn around and marry, or enter into a romantic relationship with, a man, even if he fit my list to a T. And a gay man with a similar list would not marry a woman. And a straight woman would not etc etc. You get the idea.
So the answer to your question to be answered is, yes of course there is a difference in kind between the way gobear, or any gay man, relates to his partner, and the way you, or any straight man, relates to his. A gay man relates to his partner in a way that he can only relate to another man. A straight man relates to his in a way that he only relate to a woman, a member of a gender that is…here’s that phase again…fundamentally different. A lesbian relates to her partner etc etc.
In fact the gender of the participants in an intimate relationship matters most to the people in that relationship. A gay man wants a man, not a woman, no matter how much a particular woman in his life may fit the qualities on his list. A straight man wants a woman, no matter etc etc again.
The only people who do not fit this pattern are perfectly balanced bisexuals, and I do believe they are quite rare. The importance of gender to intimate relationships got a thorough going over in this thread, in which the OP asked a question that boiled down to, basically, why isn’t everyone bisexual? You might want to give it a look.
Now here is more logic I cannot follow. Maybe it’s me. But…
Ok.
That’s a bit of a stretch (stretched too far for the IRS I think) but I’ll accept it for the sake of argument.
This is where you lose me. Similar up to a point. But only up to a point. Cats and dogs are also similar up to a point…they both have four legs and a tail…so we can refer to them collectively as “four legged creatures” when convenient to do so, but we’re not going to give up the words “cat” and “dog”.
I can think of one…
No, what I am arguing is, as I said in my first post, is that words are labels that we put on things, on phenomena that actually exist in the real world. To have clear communication, different things need different labels. The word “marriage” is a label for a phenomenon in the real world that is more than a bundle of legal rights and responsibilities