As far as I know, the only variant on conventional marriage in the U.S. is “covenant marriage”, currently recognized in three states, and it’s only sought out by people who want their marriages to be legally distinct, though why they bother escapes me.
Wouldn’t be the first time, but that wasn’t a great accomplishment since “gay” and the first syllable of “kayak” don’t rhyme (at least for the conventional pronunciations). It’s like one of those old poems that uses slant rhymes.
Eating meat and vegetables has been a cornerstone of western civilization. As such, vegetarians should be called “Plant people” and not regular people. I just don’t want to dilute the language.
Why did you feel the need to use the word “vegetarians”? Why does the word exist? Why do you need to make a distinction based on something as minor as a restriction in their diet? Why not just call everyone “eaters”? Why do we need the word?
Just don’t follow this if people eat lizards. The internet would explode.
I think you have it wrong, here. If those on my side of the fence weren’t interested in the power of the meaning of “marriage”, they wouldn’t be interested in it. If we didn’t care about the meaning of the word, why would we want to fight about it? It’s not that we don’t care, it’s that generally for us the importance of the meaning is, in our view, all the more reason to do it, and all the more improved and strengthened for doing so.
I value it too. But I don’t think the man/woman part of that traditional meaning is as an important part as compared to the other meanings to the term. That’s just biology. I’m not married, but were I to do so I don’t think it’d be looking back on the day with the fond memory that my partner was of the opposite sex (or, indeed, same sex). That’s just biology. Love, family ties, the public expression of devotion, a personal expression of devotion, providing a more secure home for children, even, really, the minor sense of security that matters will be settled quickly if something should happen to either one of us, all of those would rank vastly higher than what genitalia my partner has. That’s why I, to put it bluntly, want in (or at least, the ability to opt in ;)); because the term has meaning that I value.
To put it another way, and pretty much use a tired old cliche in these argument by this point, freedom for all people was a foundational institution in your country. Except, it didn’t mean all people, it meant just men, and that changed gradually. Except, it didn’t mean all people, it meant just white people, and that also changed. But those changes didn’t decrease the value of that foundational institution; rather, they strengthened it. Your country recognised that that what was important, when it came to declaring who should be free and who shouldn’t, were things like an able mind, the ability to comprehend right and wrong and to treat others based on that, the ability to respect just laws. Gender and skin colour were part of that foundational institution, but not important parts. They weren’t the part that gave that idea it’s grand meaning; they weren’t the parts you look back on with justifiable congratulation and impressiveness of the idea. Any law which declared one thing, in that case that all were created equal, but practiced another, was cheapened by the exclusion. So, too, I think, with marriage; if at the heart of it, the very core, it’s meaning is about love and commitment and an expression of it, then to deny it, to exclude from it, cheapens it, makes a lie of it.
If, on the other hand, the very deepest meaning of the word “marriage”, the part of importance, the part that we hold up in so high esteem, that we look back on with pride or forward to with anticipation is that the person standing next to you has different genitalia than yourself, I don’t think I want any part of such a dispassionate, technical term.
Absolutely. It honors and celebrates marriage to make it available to those who are loving and committed.
And we don’t change the verbs when gay people do something as opposed to straight. Gay people don’t civilly steer while straight people drive. Gay people don’t bureaucratically peck while straight people kiss. Gay people don’t have municipal offspring while straight people have children. We don’t use made up terms because it’s unnecessary and goofy to take a word and then say that even if what gay people are doing is exactly the same, we’re going to call it something else.
It’s especially funny in that there’s no way in hell that people would use these made up terms. Everyone would say Bob and Jim are married, just as they do that now if Henry and Marie get married in a church or married in Vegas or married in Bangladesh. So the term would get used, and it would mean exactly the same thing to everyone except the government.
It would be like a government mandate that all red cars will be known, legally, as motor conveyances. Everyone would still call 'em cars. The only people who would be sticklers would be the DMV. But when it came time to increase the licensing fees, how easy to raise them only on the motor conveyances, leaving the cars untouched. Nossir, we’re not changing the rules on CARS, just on those things that function exactly as cars and that you all think of as cars but they look a little bit different.
I love this post! “motor conveyances” is genius. Let’s rename minority single mothers “solitaire matriarchs” and minority pregnant teens “adolescent gestaters” and promise that they’ll have all the same rights and access to health care as single mothers and pregnant teens 
You’re trying to slice the word and throw away one part of it. A part that up until a short time ago was so assumed that it would never be questioned. It, for our culture, referred to one man and one woman. But your gamesmanship here is disappointing, Rev. For me, and many others, the word is important because of all the good things you see in it—AND that it gives name to the ideal relationship between man and woman. And the coming together of man and woman into marriage is a foundation of our society. I really feel like I’m in Bizarro Land when people want to cease having a word that clearly—which means exclusively—refers to that union.
The word marriage is also used for polygamous unions. It’s also used for unions where the woman is given no choice. It’s also used for same sex unions in several countries as well as in states in this country.
Your objection is bullpoopies.
It also just means a close or intermingling relationship. The marriage of the soundtrack and images made that film captivating!
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
It also just means a close or intermingling relationship. The marriage of the soundtrack and images made that film captivating!
[/QUOTE]
Oh, so now I see. You just want to be able to use the “word”, while winking that we all know that “married” gay couples art not really—wink, wink—“married”. That they just use the word because it so cute to use that word when playing house. Kinda like referring to someone who knocks in the winning run in the bottom of the ninth as a “hero”. Sure we know that he’s not a real hero, like a soldier who jumps on a grenade for his buddies or a guy who risks his life running into a burning building to save a stranger, but we appropriate the word to have fun with it. Like the hero I encountered leaving the supermarket this afternoon…my hands were full with packages and I dropped my car keys. This nice lady picked them up and put them in my hand, saving me the deathly anguish of putting my packages down and getting my keys myself. Maybe I should give her sick kid a kidney, her being my hero and all. But now I’m understanding you. You want to call gay couples married—wink, wink.
I’ll have to think about that. It seems very insulting to me, but I ilke the thread of truth running through it.
So what you’re saying is that you managed to read that entire paragraph preceding the quoted line from Rev, and didn’t absorb a single word.
By the way, Rev, brilliant post. Seriously.
Given that you have already been posting insulting nonsense, I suspect that your claim to find it insulting will continue to be based on no rational basis beyond personal prejudices.
Only bigots think like you’re making out there.
No one on the pro-SSM side is using the word ironically. You probably think that because homosexuals disgust you. Which is likely why you think they *dilute *the word. You don’t dilute something with another thing of equal value. You adulterate it with water, or other worthless things.
Yeah, if you dilute marriage with homosexuality, you make it homopathic!
I don’t really care if gays get married, but yes, you can. If we were to go back to the time since the Romans the rise of Christianity, you will find that male-female relationships have been generally (I say generally because I’m sure you could find me one western civilization in which something like polygamy was widely practiced) considered the norm and that entire communities were formed around this.
Edit: Oh, I see the word “bigot” has been used. I wonder how many times it’s popped up in this thread.
I said “the evidence presented in this thread” for a reason. magellan01 has solely been arguing from a place of personal feeling with no historical cites whatsoever, as though he expects us to believe him implicitly in Great Debates.
The whole historical argument, pro or con, is a nonstarter anyway. Why are we beholden to the conventions of past societies, anyway, on this issue or any other?
The users of this thread, indeed of this board, have been more than patient with magellan in asking him to explain his reasoning. As far as I can tell, he has never offered a satisfactory explanation of why a legal distinction should exist other then he wants it to exist. He has offered a great deal of invocations of tradition and “specialness”, but a bigot could do that and thus far he has failed to offer up a distinction between his position and a bigot’s.
Sometime you just have to admit that someone feels the way they do because… they feel the way they do - there’s no reasoning behind it, and “bigotry” is a fair descriptor of unreasoning prejudice.
He could, of course, change this at any time by offering up a reasoned argument why gays should not legally marry and/or why legal marriage should exclude homosexuals. I believe at least some of the users here would be prepared to honestly consider such an argument if presented, but it’s been six or seven threads so far and I’ve not seen any sign this magic moment is approaching.
Your dismissive attitude is misplaced. At this point, I think someone could call magellan a bigot with good reason (i.e. “he’s posted to gay marriage threads some 500 times to describe his opposition, but has never given a reason for it, hence he has no reason and may as well be labeled a bigot”), but you imply something along the lines of “some people are calling magellan a bigot for no reason, therefore they are not open to reason”.
Back off on the personal comments or take it to The BBQ Pit.
This sort of “explanation” as a way to justify name-calling is also not appropriate to Great Debates. Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]