Yeah, you lazy gay people. Choose your goals better!
Well, we now have one instance in which it failed. But not that it matters much.
Okay. So we have nothing to look back on and point to and say “See, it was horrible.”, or “It was great, good, even.” So we’re left with you wanting to take a big risk with society (big in the sense that if I am correct the change can be seismic)." “And me wanting to not take that chance.” But with my way we also get to give SS couples all the good legal stuff hetero couples. That’s seems the far more sensible option to me.
Well, have to run now. Time to hit The Castro.
What is your evidence that the change would be big? Please provide evidence from the other countries that have SSM legalized.
Oh, you don’t have any evidence, do you?
Keeping people from enjoying their rights because you are hysterical isn’t reasonable.
You should tell some of the gays in the area about how you don’t think they deserve the same rights that you have. Because there might be some problem. That you can’t describe. Or have no evidence for.
And we’re all astounded that you think letting gays participate in it makes it less special.
This is an amazingly good argument in favor of SSM. Because looking back at history, we can see that no other society has ever tried this before. It’s not that they tried it and it failed. They didn’t try it at all. We’re the first! We get to be the experiment that all the societies going forward can model themselves on.
It’s misleading to say that the Greeks and Romans were accepting of homosexuality. They didn’t have an understanding of the concept like we do today. What mattered in sex to them wasn’t the gender of your partner, but whether you were the penetrator, or the penetrated. Men who allowed themselves to be penetrated were considered to be no better than women. And women were not well regarded.
Are you aware that your current stance on gay rights is already nearly unprecedented in human history? Gays in the west have more rights in the 21st century than they have had in any other civilization. And you support for those rights is very nearly 100% This makes your “historical” argument really hard to swallow, because there’s absolutely nothing in your reasoning on SSM that wouldn’t apply fully and equally to your reasoning on civil unions or gay adoption.
So, let me get this straight (pun intended). Gay couples should have all the legal rights that heterosexual couples have, and that’s perfectly OK and won’t impact society. But if we call their relationship “marriage”, we’re done for. The fate of our civilization hangs by a semantic thread? Do you know how utterly nutty that sounds?
In a way that sort of opinion is the most detestable one of all: it’s from someone who has admitted defeat, admitted that he can’t find any legal or moral basis to oppose an equal right to marriage, but insists that we put on some linguistic badge of inferiority in order to make gays second-class citizens for its own sake. Absolutely vile.
Not only this, but this idea is in his mind inassailable, nobody could have any possible valid objection to it, and it is so vitally important to insist on it that he hijacks every thread on same-sex marriage to insist that it and only it is the only reasonable solution, and spends the remainder of the thread asserting, with his post as his cite, that every objection raised to it is irrelevfant, thus cutting off all practical discussion of the subject.
Well, it used to be worse. His schtick was once “I’m not talking about having two laws! I want one for straights and one for gays! That’s ONE law!”
While it’s nice that you do actually seem to think gay people should have pretty much all the same rights, except the right to one word, it’s a bit contradictory to argue that:
a) Marriage has nearly always been between man and woman in all societies for a really really long time
as well as arguing that
b) Marriage is special, and an institution that has proven beneficial to the US.
Most other countries do have marriage, yeah. A lot of them are pretty fucked up, especially the ones that also happen to have strict laws against gay sex. It doesn’t seem to me that making marriage straights-only is an indicator of success for any country.
Yup! I’ve heard the same many times.
I’ve also heard your own argument, including from gay people, who accept that the word marriage is a term connected to religion, at least in the UK and US (where I’ve heard the argument made). I don’t interpret it as anti-gay-marriage and TBH I think it takes a willful misreading of you to act as if it is.
The problem is that almost all marriages already are civil unions, really - like someone else said, get married in a church without signing the govt papers or whatever else it takes to make it legal - and you’re not married. The wording is ‘marriage,’ but they are really government-sanctioned civil unions.
TBH, until very recently I’ve been fine with the UK having civil partnerships that have slowly gained more and more rights until the only one they don’t have is including religion in the ceremony. Better than waiting years and years for real marriage.
The recent possible change in Canada to invalidate same-sex marriages of people from countries where same-sex marriage is not legal has changed my mind somewhat; if that change actually happens, a few friends of mine will be affected. One could even be deported.
Turns out the word itself has a bit of power after all.
I never thought of this before, but in the UK, with an established religion, is there an impediment to SSM that doesn’t exist in a country like the US, where there is no established religion?
I hadn’t heard anything like that, so I looked into it. Your description doesn’t sound correct, it’s more like Canada taking steps to avoid hassles when foreign couples who come to Canada to get married (because they can’t in their home countries) later get divorced. There’s no action being taken to invalidate anyone’s same-sex marriage, just smooth over the inevitable wrinkles that happen when we’re socially advanced and most of the rest of the world is run by troglodytes, he said smugly.
Somewhat - bills have to pass through the House of Lords, which includes the Archbishop of Canterbury, 25 other Bishops and the Chief Rabbi, who’s obviously not a member of the state religion but is a religious leader who happens to have voting power. ([Wiki link](Twenty-six English bishops are ex officio members of the House of Lords, the sole members of that House that officially represent any of the .)because a couple of the non-wiki ones I saw made odd claims about only Christian functionaries being represented).
But that is of 700+ Lords members; the others are not necessarily Christian at all, and being a devout Christian is definitely not a big help in the Commons.
It’d be a bit of a derail to try to explain how the CofE (and also other churches and religions) in the UK can appear to have so much power but don’t really, but anyway… yes, there is kind of a legal impediment by having bishops voting, but that’s mitigated by the general secularism in society going against having other really seriously religious people elected to the Commons, at least.
Glad to hear it. Note my use of the words ‘possible’ and ‘could.’ It still is a bit of a reminder that civil partnerships are not necessarily counted as marriage.
And this:
Is still rather ambiguous. Hopefully there will be some clarification soon about whether the UK recognises Canadian same-sex marriages as counting as civil partnerships; the couple in the story were living in the UK and one of them was a UK citizen (the other American, from Florida). I think that, if your legal status depended on your Canadian marriage (and divorce) and you weren’t living within Canadian borders, you’d be justified in being concerned.
If you’d got married in Canada, but lived in the UK, and your partner died, would you be entitled to, say, spousal inheritance rights or pensions? That quote kinda says that you wouldn’t be because you’re not resident in Canada. If the UK counts Canadian marriages as equivalent, then I have to wonder why that couple had to go to Canada to get divorced.
Although one of my friends has joyfully leapt on this as an excuse for an extra wedding. 
Well, in any case, I hope we can agree that Canada is the best nation on Earth.
Sigh. Did you even read the thread? I was happy being an observer, being entertained by what was happening to Jack Batty. People then were asking me questions and slowly I became a focal point, as well, initially regarding the conflation of inter-racial marriage and SSM. Now why do you think that happened, and happens in these threads fairly commonly? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Oh, could it be that I am one of the few people who will voice a position on SSM that runs counter to the SD pack? Answer: Why, yes, yes that seems like a perfectly logical explanation. But since you found this so odd and troubling, I’ll tell you what I’ll do, you start another SD thread about SSM and entitle it, “The Princhester SSM Circle Jerk Thread”, and I promise to not post in it. Really and truly! OMG—just think of the fun it would be debating all those people who agree with you. Enjoy!
How exceedingly odd. I think that gay couples should be able to visit each other in the hospital, have the same inheritance rights as married couples, serve in the military, have their partners covered on their insurance, adopt children, etc., etc., etc., and that’s vile? Oh, no, wait—it’s not vile until I also include into the equation the important role the traditional family has played in our culture and want to protect it. Is that right? If I have two things that I view as important and see a way top have both of them, but you value only one of them, that’s what make it vile. Is that about right, Mr. Condescending?
I didn’t say it wouldn’t impact society, I think it would, somewhat. But this is a case, for me, of competing interests—two things that I view as a “good”. One is allowing SS couples to enjoy all the legal rights and privileges the straight couples do. The other is preserving a special place for the notion of “marriage”. You want to call finding a way for both those things to exist nutty, knock yourself out. Guess we have a different definition of “nutty”. ::shrug::
Someone check my math on this, Magellan is arguing that same-sex couples have the right to everything but the word.
Because the word is magic, and to change the word would horribly damage society in a way that Magellan is unable to communicate.
How is that any different from someone in the 1960s arguing that interracial marriages should be allowed, but should be called mixed-couplings?
Why is marriage made less *special *if homosexuals engage in it?
I agree. It would impact society. It would give people one less reason to think gays are different or that their feelings are of lesser value that those of straight people.
You have yet to articulate what negative impact there would be on society, other than people would use a word to more inclusive. It would not change any marriage between straight people in any way.