Personally, I wasn’t incomplete before I was married; I think incomplete people have no business foisting their defectiveness off on other people and should get their act together before they start forming committed relationships.
It doesn’t matter what your religion is; I don’t subscribe to it, and I don’t think you’re entitled to foist it on nonbelievers. You are arguing for something that does not exist, as far as I can tell. My religion does not have marriage as a sacrament, because it holds that marriage is a legal contract.
I’m taller than my boyfriend. One of the people I hang out with is a man without a penis. I was one of the people most strongly associated with maths and sciences in my school. I have a direct, combative personality type and am almost completely indifferent to social dynamics, unlike my husband.
In other words: none of the rules I have ever seen suggested for gender essentialism are actually good; they all have exceptions, and the vast majority of them have huge number of exceptions. Further, the vast majority of those rules are socialisation results, and aren’t supportable with broad cultural observation.
Statistics are a lousy guide to the behaviour as individuals; trying to force people to behave according to your interpretations of statistical trends is nothing more than cruelty. At worst, that sort of thing is prettied-up bigotry; would you be making arguments about test scores and professions if the question were whether people of different ethnicities should be able to marry?
kanicbird, it is not clear which of the following you are making:
an empirical argument that the term ``marriage’’ has always meant a ying/yang pairing that gays are incapable of
a normative argument that the term ``marriage’’ should mean a ying/yang pairing that gays are incapable of
I think it pretty obvious that the empirical argument in 1) is false. ``Marriage’’ has had a very loose and flexible definition; in an IMHO poll inspired, no doubt, by this thread, I posted a definition from the catholic encyclopedia, which included such highly non-catholic unions such as polygamy and polyandry in the definition. As others have stated, the term became secularised centuries ago, if ever it really was a religious term to start (given that most government was religious, the boundaries between legal and religious terms is fuzzy at best). So if you are making argument 1), well, you are wrong, period.
So maybe you are making argument 2). But given that argument 1) is false, to make argument 2) would be to co-opt a term to mean something that it never has, traditionally, which is exactly what you accuse the gay community of doing in the OP… So if someone needs to come up with a new term, it is you, not the gays.
But either way, the whole separate-but-equal thing just doesn’t seem to work in real life, turning instead into separate-and-we-are-better-than-they. As you yourself say, whatever the intent, the perception is that different means not-as-good. Which is why people don’t respond well to using different terms unless there’s a good reason to. And, so far, we are not convinced that your ying/yang theories constitute a good reason.
What next: ``Sorry, you’re two inches too short to be a real complement to your girlfriend, so you can’t get married. You can have a spiritual union, though, it’s just as good, really’’?
A sad reality, but true often enough. As fo different ethnicities, this has been going on for milenium, kings married their offpring to other kings to expand their power, some peoples would raid other to get a bride. IIRC the ‘best man’ tradition comes from the one who watches the grooms back so he can kidnap the girl, to be later wed (most likly forceable). Perhaps that’s just an old wifes tale. Either way this custom is well established.
Lilairen if you were’t incomplete on your own, then you most likely have both ying and yang, therefore I don’t see your union as a ying/yang co-dependant relationship. As to the OP then it wouldn’t be a marriage in that respect. But I’m thinking that possible marriage should be redefined (actually I would rather scrap the word altogether), as any union that people care to call a marriage. Then define new words for the different catagories.
*1. Do you think a legalized homosexual union, with the same benefits as a heterosexual one, is morally okay?
unknown, I will say that it would be legally OK. The morality has more to do w/ the parties entering into such a union. I think such a union should exist and let the people decide if they want to and if it agrees with what they think is moral.
Are you in the “love the sinner, hate the sin” camp?
Striving for that, mainly more like tolleriate the sinner, hate the sin.
Do you think homosexuality is a choice?
For some - yes I have no doubt. For all - unknown, but it would appear that some people are prone to it, this would seem to indicate that it is not a choice for large numbers of homosexuals.
Do you think a union via a Justice of the Peace should carry the same legal benefits as a union via a religious leader?
Yes, but then again we get into the issue of what qualifies one to perform marriages, and who judges.
Do you have any issues with a union between a 30 year old male and a 13 year old female?
In modern day USA or the middle ages? In the USA there are problems such as the 13 yr old is a child and such things are not accepted here. In other societies a child becomes an adult when they reach puberty. I would have some difficulity becuase of the current legal status and risking dragging in pediphelia to this, but by itself, if both parties can furfill their role then I would not have a problem, I may question the intentions, as I feel it is the right of a witness to a marriage.
Would you be okay with calling a same sex union a marriage as long as they remained celibate?
Has no direct bearing on it. If one was withholding sex then it may be a different issue - but I don’t care to go there.
If a gay man married a straight woman, would you be okay with calling it a marriage?
It could be a ying/yang co-dependant pairing (which would be a marriage as I defined it) or if the guy (or girl or both) was already ying/yang by them selves then I would say it is a co-independant pairing, and would get the word spirtual pairing as I defined it - the couple would decide on the term.
LOL viking, glad I wasn’t drinking anything.
Also just a little clarity, I set up the OP to explore my own beleifs, I did/do not take this as a debate such as you pick a side and stick with it to the end. This I think is a issue with no cut and dry answer and will be around for some time. I have learned somethign about myself in the process, which is what I set out to do, and never ment to preach or turn someones beleifs around. I did not expect a big surge of people doing a homer simpsom ‘duh’ while slapping their foreheads and say, yes it’s so simple, just invent a new word, why didn’t I think of that.
I am also facinated by other words that are created to group people together, by far fewer to diferenciate them i.e.
at one time we had:
Mailman
then mailwomen, letter carrier
steward, stewardess
now flight attendant
congressman
now congresswoman, congressperson
So the courts have decided, and it does cause problems, but it could be argued that together-but-equal lowers everyone to the common denomator.
I was really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now you’ve come clean, and there’s no longer any doubt about the kind of pathetic idiocy you are proposing.
You are honestly proposing that someone **(you) **actually analyze people’s personalities and pass judgment on every couple, gay or hetero, and decide whether they are different enough from each other for **you **to call them a married couple. And you want your judgment to be enforced by law. Does the word “Nazi” mean anything to you?
What the hell right do you have to pass judgment on **anybody’s **relationship except your own, and to actively prevent people from being married because your idiotic opinion counts, and theirs doesn’t? Does the word “delusional” mean anything to you?
panache45 you misunderstood by meaning. Marriage in the quote refers to the ying/yang co-dependant relationship.
to which I stated before you posted the above:
So I must conclude that you have not understood my intentions as I have written them. This may be because you didn’t read them, read them but didn’t understand what I ment, or read them and ignored them. Either way you put it, you have no basis for what you accuse me of.
I am not judging. I am stating the possibilities as I feel they exist. It just so happenes that one possibility can not exist in a gay couple, that of ying/yang co-dependency, which for the sake of this topic I defined as marriage. There are other possibilities in life that can’t exist, like a person might be carrying twins, but that possibility can not exist if that person is a male. I am open to other terms, and even borading the term marriage to be the all-inclusive term, but then creating sub terms:
As I have stated many times, I think differences should be presented, not hidden.
Yes it means National Socialism. It is a form of government where the rights of the individual are stripped away in favor of the gov’t’s. In such a system things like the rights of the citizens to defend themselves with weapons are usually one of the 1st things to go. If you read my posts, in total, you will see that I am for FULL MARRIAGE RIGHTS of gay couples, am AGAINST laws which limit indivudal freedoms, such as the Texas sodomy law, and FOR religous institutions from using public space just like any other organization.
Since you haven’t described what this hypothetical “ying” and “yang” are, not only can you not say that gay couple’s can’t have this supposed “ying/yang co-dependency”, but any definition based on such undefined concepts as “ying” and “yang” are inherently meaningless.
If you want to keep arguing that this “fusion of ying and yang” or whatever is important, then you need to clearly define what “ying” and “yang” are. Otherwise, it’s simply a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that has no relevance to anything in this discussion.
Just so there is no misunderstanding, let me say in the outset that I am all in favor of gay “marriage” or whatever evolves as proper terminology.
But I think the answer to the above question is clearly *because a significant portion of US society regards the word “marriage” as only between a man and a woman. *Indeed, legislating using the term “marriage” or “kershnootzniggle” describe such unions will not guarantee common usage.
Many gay marriage supporters have pointed out that gays are denied legal benefits & rights that conferred on heteros. Some propose compromising, calling it something else, and getting the same benefits for gays as those conferred on heterosexual partners.
I favor the pragmatic approach: Take the compromise. Let the law call it what it will, and let the common usage develop as it may*. Almost certainly that term will be “marriage”.
Best,
Dev
*Isn’t legalese state and federal code filled with many such examples?
I suppose I’m glad to be found monitor-drenchingly funny, but why is the above statement any more ludicrous than what you are proposing, namely
``Sorry, you’re not ying enough to complement the yang of your girlfriend, so you can’t get married. You can have a spiritual union, though, it’s just as good, really’’
other than the fact that height actually means something and can be measured, which is more than can be said for yings and yangs…
I do hope it is clear that I haven’t been trying to “show…how a same-sex relationship is any different from an opposite-sex relationship other than the genders of the two people involved”. As to our “difference of opinion”…you are gay, right? And being gay, to you, means you want to be with a man and not a woman, right? And would I be pushing it too far to say that it is…what word to use?..important to you that any individual with whom you would consider having a long term (or even short term for that matter) intimate relationship, be a man? How about “very important”?
Certainly the above would apply to me, except with the genders switched. I would even go so far as to say “extremely important”, “of paramount importance” even. Did you look at that thread I linked to? Like I said, gender differences matter most to the people in the relationship.
People have been getting off on tangents here about brain structure and gender dimorphism, which are statistical phenomena and thus bound to have exceptions, and airy concepts like yin and yang. The “gender essentialism” I am talking about here, however, boils down to whatever it is that causes the overwhelming majority of us to be attracted to, and hence desirous of intimate relationships with, one of them and not the other. Put a label on that. It must exist because if it didn’t we’d all be bisexual, like the guy in that thread thought we should.
Well, speaking strictly as a matter of language (putting aside the legal issues), no one is “entitled” to very much at all. You are entitled to call (or continue calling) your own relationship a marriage. I certainly can’t stop you, and I wouldn’t be incined to try. Likewise, I am entitled to refrain from doing so, as I feel, due to reasoning I went though in my first post, that the “ineffable qualities of a lifelong committed relationship” are inexticably linked to the ineffable qualities of the genders of the participants thereof. If enough people follow my example, the definition of marriage will remain as it is. If enough follow yours, it will change. In the long term that’s how language works, I believe, even with the legal entanglements of government sanctioning.
However, if the definition of “marriage” does change…
I alluded to this possibility with my “New Coke” analogy. Upon further reflection, it occurs to me that this may be a useful tool for straight women to get committment-phobic men to overcome their fears. No, we’re not getting married…we’re getting Zorted. “Zort” actually sounds kinda cool. Maybe we should concede the word “marriage” and start getting Zorted.
From reading this thread, though, it seems that some people would still object to this, which I am at a loss to understand. “You’re not allowed to form a club and not invite me to be a member.” Is that how it is?
One more thing:
The traditional and legal definition of marriage has varied widely over time and space, but it has never to my knowledge included people of the same gender being married to each other. I know there was a stir a few years ago over some scholar’s claims to have discovered Catholic same-sex marriage rites dating back to the middle ages, but I haven’t seen any evidence that this “adelphopoiesis”(sp?) was meant to sanction a sexual relationship, or that it prevented its participants from also getting married in the traditional sense.
So why are you trying to say that gays can’t have a “marriage”? If it isn’t for you to judge, why do you even CARE what it’s called?
It’s all about what goes on inside the relationship, regardless of gender. How the people involved feel about each other. The words “husband” and “wife” might be somewhat gender-specific, but the word “marriage” is not. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be used to refer to so many OTHER things nowadays, as others have already mentioned in this thread.
By telling gay couples that they can legally join, but it can’t be called a “marriage” is, IMHO, at best somewhat discriminatory.
It’s not as if gays are asking for special treatment here. They don’t want MORE rights than straight people. Look at it this way–there are certain laws in this country that apply to everyone, regardless or race, gender, nationality, or orientation. At age 16, a gay person can get a driver’s license. At age 18, a gay person can vote and buy cigarettes. At age 21, a gay person can buy alcohol. Hell, at age 35, a gay person can run for the presidency of the United States. Gay people get jobs and pay taxes just like straight people.
Let them get married. And LET THEM CALL IT MARRIAGE. Denying them the right to do so is cruel and wrong. Just absolutely wrong.
As your local Minister of Co-Dependency, it is my unfortunate duty to inform you that your Application for Marriage has been denied. The reasons are as follows:
Ms. Doe’s score on the Ying-O-Meter was 58.7, whereas her score on the Yang-O-Meter was 41.3. On the other hand, Mr. Smith’s score on the Ying-O-Meter was 51.2, and his score on the Yang-O-Meter was 48.8. Since your respective Ying/Yang measurements fall within 10 points of each other, we feel that your relationship could never achieve the proper level of Co-Dependency required by law, and therefore cannot satisfy this court’s definition of “marriage.”
In fact we’re not wholly convinced that Jane Doe is actually a person of the female persuasion, and we’re concerned that both parties may, in fact, be of the same persuasion, and attempting to obtain an illegal marriage license for homosexuals. Though we cannot discuss the penalties for this type of deception, rest assured that they are quite severe. We have notified the proper authorities of this matter, and urge you to turn yourselves in voluntarily, in order to be extensively tested for physical, mental and psychological anomales.
This court also must inform you that you are no longer permitted to co-habit, and your children will be seized and become wards of the State. Surely you must know that people of your ilk have no business calling yourselves a “family,” since both of your Yangs outweigh your Yings. We cannot permit impressionable children to live in that kind of Non-Co-Dependent environment. So we feel that placing them with a State-approved Family will help them become more appropriate members of Our Perfect Society.
You will be allowed no further communication or visitation with said children. Our only hope is that we can undo all the damage you’ve inflicted on them. We urge you to turn them in voluntarily, in order to spare them further trauma.
No, but it has included more than two people, and in most times and places it certainly hasn’t much resembled our current notion of “two adults in love which each other make a lifelong voluntary commitment to each other”. (Off the top of my head I don’t know of anyplace where marriage has been dependent on the couples levels of “yin” and “yang”, but the customs of the human race are many and varied.)
Of course gay marriage would be a new thing; I’m not arguing that. I’m just arguing against a.) the notion that marriage has some fixed and immutable meaning which has never changed before now and b.) the notion that Christians (or some other group of religious believers) invented the institution and therefore have first rights over it. The Christian sacrament of marriage no more means Christians invented getting married than the Christian sacrament of infant baptism means Christians invented being born.
I remain unconvinced. This convoluted logic only serves to continue to relegate the gay community - and their relationships - to second-class status. I want to be married under the law as it now stands - that, IMHO, is equality.
I am an Atheist Libertarian, so I feel that I have a middle ground to speak from. Except for the sociopaths on the fringes, I don’t think anyone wants to limit anyone any rights on any basis.
The argument here, and this goes to the crux of the point of this thread, is that the gay community deserves equal rights. But you also have to keep in mind of having respect for the religions that have this tradition intact, of not allowing same sex marriages.
If you name it a “Union” or some such term, the gay community gets all of the rights that they are fighting for, without riling up the church. It’s a win/win situation. Please, no pedophelia priest jokes here.
When you attack the term, then you give off the impression that you are attacking religion overall - the very source of today’s version of Marriage. Good luck with winning people over with that, because it is a losing situation. Just being blunt here.
If you are fighting just for the term “Marriage”, then you are fighting the wrong battle for the wrong reasons. Nobody thinks that this is a method of regulation to keep a gay person in second citizen status, because you are not.
Before Loving v. Virginia, there were a lot of people who could make an equally impassioned plea that their understanding of “marriage” did not include two people of different races – that such a union was not truly a “marriage.”
Somehow we came to change our minds on that issue.
Now, I hate to bring this up, but there are two issues here that deserve addressing:
“Marriage” is a number of things: the committed relationship created by two people between themselves, not requiring anyone else’s consent; the legally recognized commitment to that union; and the religious commitment to that union, blessed by the Supreme Power with responsibility for giving such blessing through his/her minister(s) as understood by a given religion. (Beyond the sacramental Christian meaning, I can dimly understand how embodying the Lord and Lady on that day can be a deep religious experience for a devout pagan couple marrying.) For a given faith community to decide that a same-sex union is not a marriage is one thing; but what of those who do. Are you prepared to deny their freedom of belief?
“Marriage” is a legal state with extensive case law associated. The most obvious difference between a civil union and a marriage is that states are honor-bound to recognize marriages, presuming the nature of the marriage does not violate their own “public policy,” while no such rule exists for the brand-new idea of civil unions. All it would take is for a couple from Vermont to move to Atlanta and attempt to file joint tax returns, claim “family” status on health insurance, etc., to disprove the identity of the two states.
Ying and Yang refers to male and female essinece, which no one has proven that it does not differ either. Now do we start with the assumption that male and female are fundementally the same or different - who gets to decide? To support that they are different, I submit:
1 Humans and Chimps (which I hope no one would argue are different, please no one argue this) share 94-98% of generic material yet are very different (and about 75% of a slug or somethign like that). The human genes have XX for female and XY for males (keeping it simple here, and don’t want to go into such things as supermales and the like). AFAIK the code on the y gene not persent on the X, therefore the y gene is additional information that the female does not have (and the male does not have the extra X). This will mean that males and females are different by a certain %age, and if such a small %age (as small as 2%) means so much in the case of man vs. chimps I would say that a gene not present would make enough of a difference to mean the 2 ‘humans’ are indeed different.
2 I also submit satistical data, which though overlap, usually show clear trends that differenciate males and females. This can be data on physical attrubutes, occupation, brain patterns, life expentacy.
3 The fact that there are Mens and Ladies rooms, and in this PC world we now live in people want to keep it that way indicate that people know there is a actual difference.
So as far as I can see it men and women are sufficently different so a relationship between a male and a female is a relationship between 2 different groups, while a M-M or F-F relationship is one within the same group. I think differences are importaint to point out (as I stated) so I would like to see 3 terms for the 3 different pairings - on this alone.
Why should a relationship between 2 people each in a different group be the same as the relationship of 2 people within the same group? These are 2 different things, why call them the same thing.
How do homesexuals fit into your definition? I don’t think I buy this.
This is how I feel most of the opposition is coming across, as I stated above, it’s the need not to be different.
Persephone
An aside, gays can have a marriage - if they marry someone of the opposite gender.
I have already expressed that I think the relationships are different and should have different terms (weather it be marriage, zorts or whatever), I have stated many times that the 2 relationships should have equal rights under the law. My arugment is based on 2 things, men and women are different, and differences are a good thing. Why is it so importaint to you that you get to use the term marriage? I see that this thread is really pushing your buttons, for which I apologise. If 2 terms are created and the word marriage is applied to one of the types, why should the term marriage be applies to homosexual marriages when it has ment hetrosexual marriages for years?
Please tell me why it’s wrong to create a new term for a relationship that is becoming more accepted and more mainstream? And please tell me why it’s crule to give people who enter into such a relationship the exact same rights as is given to a relationship that has 1000’s of years of acceptance?
Sounds darn correct and nice if you ask me.
To be be able to use a term that arguably by definition excludes them is not special treatment ???
panache45 where did I say that a gov’t entity would deny the term marriage (meaning in this case a ying-yang codependant pairing) to a hetro couple? AFAIK, I have always stated the couple decides what their union is to be called, if not then I retract that statement. This does not apply to gays because they can not have a ying/yang co-dependant pairing but default.
I don’t have any problem with A or B, but I fail to see how creating a new term is not the violating either. and you even state
It is a new thing, meaning it is a relationship that wasn’t reconized before, fine lets reconize it and give it full rights, and come up for a new name for it so people won’t be confused.
I am not happy about it becoming a 2nd class citizen issue, but then again this is a relatively new concept (legal recognition) and think it is fair for it to go through a proving period, wether the term be marriage or wurrel or whatever. Calling it a ‘marriage’ however I see as two wrongs making a right (why we all know is false)(btw the 2 wrongs in this case are 1 some people will demote a wurrel to 2nd class status, and 2 redefinign marriage to help alleviate #1)
Well the Gov’t alreadys denys certain religious/spirtual practices.
If the faith says man and women are the same under the eyes of the creator, and any person may select any other person to ‘marry’? Maybe they would be married under their faith but wurlled under legal status
From early on I stated that a condition of a new term is a law passed giving full marrital rights to a wurrel.
And finally I present the paperwork reduction act as another argument:
Marital Status
a. single b. married c. wurlled d. divorced e. widowed
vs
Marital Status:
a. single b. married c. divorced d. widowed
Your spouses gender:
a. M b. F
That could easily make the document 1 page longer, think of all the trees we’ll save
(that last part was not ment to be taken seriously)
kanicbird, you might do a little research into the genetic determination of sex (hint: the Y chromosome has liottle to do with it),
And in view of the ying/yang theory, I offer fror your amusement this thread. The OP will be familiar to some of you, but where they go with it is hilarous – and moving. (“Ex straight reparative therapy groups!” “We’re straight! It’s great! Get used to it!” )
???