I’ve never quite understood why people get so hung up on words like this.
The problem I have with using a term like wurrel, is that in the end, it is just a ploy to isolate gay people from everyone else, by drawing focus away from the ways that we are the same, and focusing on what is (admittedly) a rather superficial difference. In order for a group to be equal, you can’t be drawing distinctions and language barriers between them and the mainstream. By using different words, you are stapling flags to the collective consciousness of people that state “These people are different, and different is bad.”
Language is a really powerful tool, and by using it to isolate differences between groups of people, you are, by virtue, drawing focus to gay people’s differences (preferred matching genitals) and away from the things that are the same (namely, everything else).
This isn’t really about the word marriage and it’s meaning. This is about equality and trying to break down the sociological barriers that focus entirely on our sexuality, and completely avoid the other things that make us the same as you.
Frankly, I find it utterly disgusting that people could be so completely unwilling to be associated with gays in passing, that they are even willing to create new language just to keep the barriers up.
This is about equality and acceptance. Not a petty definition.
I agree that coining a new word would only serve to marginalise those to whom it is applied.
Once upon a time a Nurse was a woman and a Doctor was a man.
I am sure the trail blazers in both camps were called a Male Nurse and a Female Doctor or some such, but now, you are a nurse or a doctor, regardless of your gender.
You need no qualifying term.
Times change, in years to come his will be a point so archaic and quaint that your or my (great great great)[sup]x[/sup] grandson and either his wife or his husband find it hard to believe that a bizarre notion such as the creation of a new word for something so well, ordinary, was ever suggested.
The REAL reason we don’t need a new term for gay unions, and one that can appeal to liberals, conservatives, and everybody else!
It’s cheaper to call it a “marriage.” You change the definition of marriage and all the laws, insurance policies, forms you fill out, etc REMAIN EXACTLY THE SAME! They all say “spouse” rather than “husband/wife” already.
(drop wipes his hands in satisfaction at a job well done and goes off to solve the Middle East problems and world hunger.)
Wierd_Al_Einstein, you say you don’t follow my analogy, because if we posit a world with only white people, then a non-white showing up would be similar enough to a white adult that we should have no problem calling them an adult too. That was the point I was trying to make, that by analogy, a gay relationship is similar enough to a straight one, that we should be fine calling it the same thing.
You say my dog/ kid analogy falls apart because the relationship is only similar to a point. But my point was never that the relationships are perfectly identical in every respect. As you point out, legally they may not be on the same footing as dependents. But you can still get away with using the same word to describe even these slightly different relationships, because they are similar enough in those aspects that the name of the relationship refers to; in this case, both the kid and the dog depend on you to house, feed and care for them, so they are both your dependents. No need to come up with different term because of some differences which are irrelevant to the meaning of said term.
I agree that words are labels. I agree that different things need different labels, but only where the differences are relevant to the meaning of the label. The label does not refer to any actual thing, but to an abstracted set of qualities of that thing. As long as some new thing has the same basic qualities, it does not need a new label, even if it is a different colour/ shape/ gender/ sexual orientation, unless these are the qualities that define that label.
I see, feel (this is all MHO here, but you asked) that men and women are fundementally different. They are complementry not supplimentry. They complete each other. 2 men (or women) don’t have this complete cycle (though admittadly one sometimes fills the role as the opposite gender). I think we are told too much that we are all the same inside and not told enough that we are all different, and almost never told that that difference it a great thing for humanity.
Everyone thinks differently, but most women fall under the catagory of ‘right’ brain thinking (or left, I get them confused) which makes them generally better at emotional issues and also excells at litature. While men, in general are more left brain (or right, whatever the women are not), who have more trouble with those topics and usually excell at spacial relationships and also math.
I think this is only the beginning of the differences (besides obvious, but often put down in discussions like this, physical differences).
I just read in the dentest office a artical in Newsweek about autism. I don’t know what the date is or issue number (it is a cover story) but I assume fairly recent. The artical made the following hypothsises:
1 - more men have autism because men’s brain’s tend to be more towards understanding spacial relationships and less so for emotional ones. Autism has lots to do with overfocussing on spacial relationships.
2 Some primate when given toys that are typically ‘boys toys’, will be played with by male primates - such items are blocks, cars. When given typical ‘girls toys’ such as dolls and pots, they will be played with by female primates, and gender neutral toys have no gender preference.
This is but a small part of the info I have collected over the years to decide that the genders are different on a very basic level. A marrage is suppose to be the combining of these 2 very different skill sets to the betterment of both persons. You could make the argument that any 2 people are different, and you would be correct, but the same genders have more simularities they opposite genders have and at a more basic level.
Just to add to the above, I also assumed (apparently incorrectly - but what’s that saying about the word assume) that people generally accpeted (and knew) that the genders are fundamentally different.
The stereotypes you’ve described are just that - stereotypes, and gay people tend to break the rules left and right, or haven’t you noticed? I’ve never been in a relationship in which there was any lack of either brain hemisphere. Even within my own brain, neither hemisphere is dominant, and I can say the same for my partner. When one of us is being emotional, he’s not “filling the role as the opposite gender,” he’s simply being a man with a full range of emotions.
I don’t know of any research along these lines, buy my guess is that gay people fit these stereotypes less than straights do (and there are many who don’t even fit *that *stereotype).
Not that any of this has *anything *to do with calling our marriages marriages.
Marriage has been secularized in this country for what, the past 200 years? It’s a moot issue. Marriage has taken on a distinct, secular aspect to it that it wholly and completely separate from the (dare I say) optional religious aspects.
Sure, men and women are different. Most any pair of people are different - and I’ll bet that a gay couple have differences in the same vein, especially as there are (supposedly) genders encompassing these differences. (I forget their names, but there were maybe 6 and encompassed ideas of, e.g., males with feminine tendencies, females with masculine tendencies, etc. Anyone else hear of this?) In this case, you’d get two people who have these complementary differences - and hence make a complete marriage (by your terms, at least).
Um, but back to my point. The individuals that make up the marriage may be different, but I’d argue that the marriage - whether straight or gay - is probably about the same; going to work, doing chores, going out on occasion, maintaining the relationship, arguing over money… etc. And of course the intention is the same: both straight and gay couples who want to marry are both offering the public gesture that they want to remain committed to each other forever - or whatever marriage is nowadays.
In short: the kind of people making up the relationship may be different, but the nature of the relationship is the same - so why call it something different?
I think everyone accepts that there are some differences between men and women. At least everyone will accept the anatomical ones. I personally think there’s a ton of variation within each gender, and the ranges will overlap considerably, but yeah, there are differences. The way you’ve described them is maybe a bit stereotyped, but I can live with that for the purposes of this debate.
Marriage doesn’t describe individuals, though. It describes a relationship between two (or, maybe, in some definitions, more, but we can stick to two unless there’s a strenuous objection ) individuals. And whatever differences there may be, on average, between various classes of individuals, I don’t think the individuals involved need to be from different classes to have the kind of relationship that we’ve defined marriage to be.
I asked earlier what the defining features of marriage are, in your book. Now, if you believe that fundamentally, the individuals being from different classes is one of those fundamental defining features, then we seem to have argued our way as far as we can, and that fundamental difference in views is why I think we should use the same term and you think we shouldn’t. But if you have any rationale for why the marriage relationship cannot be had between individuals of the same gender, then we can continue the debate and see if there is some even more fundamental point at which the disagreement starts…
Kanicbird, I’ve read this whole thread, and I’ll have to agree that your premise is flawed.
As TonyJ so aptly put it:
Your explanation that men and women are fundamentally different, and therefore relationships between them or each other are different, is flawed because you’re making a causal relationship between the people involved and the relationship they’re in. A marriage is a marriage is a marriage - who is in that marriage is really way too specific to try and relabel different ways.
By your thinking, it would be logical to apply a different word for the term “marriage” to every single couple on the planet, since, by definition, each individual involved is fundamentally different from every other person on the earth. I don’t see any reason to limit your celebration of differences to just one’s gender - as pointed out, there are a limitless number of variations within those sexes, so, under your guidelines, Joe and Jill can have a “farkdoodle,” Mary and Tom should have a “whooseewhatsis,” and John and Paul ought to have a “dingdanglebob.” Each of those people are fundamentally different from each other, so each of their relationships ought to be termed differently?
No?
I hope you see where this all falls apart.
On another note, as pointed out, words have power (you even called the word marriage “meaningful”). If all it is is a label, why the reluctance to give it the same name? You say you’re for equal rights under the law, so if a “civil union” gives all the same rights and responsibilities as a “marriage,” why, at least for legal reasons, call it something different?
My relationship is as good as yours. My relationship is as meaningful as yours. My relationship is also the same as yours. I see no reason to give it a different name. All that does is tacitly reduce it to a second-class institution.
You and Weird_AL_Einstein have yet to show me how a same-sex relationship is any different from an opposite-sex relationship other than the genders of the two people involved; and if the only difference is the gender of the two people involved, then we have differences of opinion over what constitutes the important part of a relationship. And to specifically address this:
So same sex couples aren’t entitled to the benefit of that label? Somehow the ineffable qualities of a lifelong committed relationship aren’t the same as opposite-sex couples?
I’ll also chime in to Evil Captor that when I make my lifelong commitment, regardless of whether the government calls it a marriage or a civil union, he will be my HUSBAND. Not roommate, not friend, not partner - HUSBAND. (“Spouse” or “significant other” fine to use in certain generic situations, such as an invitation to an event, but as far as I’m concerned, he is my HUSBAND, and I am his.)
I think one reason that there is some suggestion of adopting a new term for homosexual unions is the number of polls suggesting strong opposition to “gay marriage.” But I think it would be highly interesting to do a poll breaking out the legal benefits of marriage and then asking if committed homosexual couples should be allowed to enjoy those benefits. I think you’d get numbers suggesting that the much-touted opposition to “gay marriage” is a visceral reaction to the combination of the terms “gay” and “marriage,” rather than an opposition to allowing homosexual partners to enjoy certain legal benefits. (For some benefits, such as taxation benefits, there may still be opposition, but there is a different kind of dynamic at play there, IMHO).
This may seem like a bunch of tangents, but it is in response to questions or statements I wish to address:
P32 By what you said it would seem that you feel that gays possibly have a better ability to be ‘even’ brianed then straights. This statements seem to me that you are inferring a difference between the 2 (gay and straight) in the way the brain opperates. A relationship between a right and left brained person should be different then a relationship between 2 ‘center’ brained people.
This is the greatest argument I see for calling the relationship a marriage, the term has been secularized to a point where is it becomming meaningless except for finantial reasons. This just might kill it totally.
Somewhat I guess, It was in response to a question (not waiting to see page one so this is as I recall it) as to what difference I see between a M-F, M-M or F-F relationship (in the context of marriage).
I would say that marriage involves the day to day things, but it is not what a marriage is. Also I see marriage as a commitment to self (dare I say God), and the partner (this is where I think I will loose most) on a spirtual level.
No deadly serious. I have seen lives destroyed by treating everyone the same. People who are failing out of school, not becuase they can’t learn but because they can’t be taught the ‘normal’ way - because they are different!.
T. Edison, W. Churchhill, B. Franklin are a few who after failing out (or almost in the case of Churchhill). were able to overcome such damage, and I’m sure no one would argue they are people who could learn, they just learned differently and they have benifitted humanity many times over. I’m sure there are women in this catagory too, but I can’t come up with any right now.
I’m glad you are willing to live w/ them for this. I have always had a problem with people dismissing sterotyping if it is true. (example, The average man is taller then the average women - which leads to the inference, take any man and woman at random, and chances are that the man will be taller - I have never seen a problem with this, If someone can give me a quick reason why this is invalid, please let me know, but perhaps this should be another debate).
I think you summed it up nicely here. And I think I would have to go into beleifs to go further at this time (like the belief that the apparent differences between men and women stem from a very profound difference at a basic level).
I could continue along they lines of tradition and gays are a late comer to the party (no pun intended), and why should they get to jump on the bandwagon. I’m sure when the 1st marriages were invented/created by Thor and Shera, they were shunned and made fun of, but they stuck with it and eventually marriage became the norm (so I don’t buy the argument that gays will have a tough time with even a word they can invent themselves).
Well, I think we’re at an inpass viking but thanks for listening.
but reserve the right to post again on this topic *
The major problem I have with gender essentialism wrt personality or nature is that every time I get someone who believes in it to break down what they’re talking about, by their stated standards, I’m a man.
(Also: Woot! Esprix thinks I said something fucking brilliant!)
Y’know, I was thinking the same thing… (well, except that I have a dongle rather than a port, but on most of the ‘essential differences’ between men and women, I seem to fall towards at least the centre, if not the female side of the spectrum.)
So I guess that raises the question: if a short, left-brained, emotionally aware, spatially clueless, etc. male wants to hook up with a short, left-brained, emotionally aware, spatially clueless, etc. female, is that still marriage? Because if it is, it seems that that would belie the argument that the individuals have to be different. Unless there is some fundamental difference, other than the dongle/ port issue, that separates men and women with no overlap in the ranges of within-gender variation.
Or, what about a tall, right-brained, emotionally clueless, spatially competent, etc. male with a short, left-brained, emotionally aware, spatially clueless, etc. male? Would that be marriage? They both have dongles, but on any other attribute you care to measure, they are as ying and yang as they come.
As I see it the right/left brained, spacially awareness, emotional awareness are ‘symptoms’ influenced by the basic difference, they are not the cause of it.
) individuals. And whatever differences there may be, on average, between various classes of individuals, I don’t think the individuals involved need to be from different classes to have the kind of relationship that we’ve defined marriage to be.
*