Gay Marriage

[Famine]

Marriage derives from the Latin "maritare" meaning "to supply a husband or wife". It's entirely appropriate to use "marriage" when referring to any gender.

It's a lot more offensive to those who love the term in one specific context to refer to a blend of spices, musical styles or literary forms as "a marriage of"...

Call it a "Civil Union" that comes with all the same legal rights as a traditional marriage.

So it looks like a marriage, acts like a marriage and, in fact, is a marriage, but you want to call it a goose? Why?

 

[Zenith]

Marriage derives from the Latin "maritare" meaning "to supply a husband or wife". It's entirely appropriate to use "marriage" when referring to any gender.

It's a lot more offensive to those who love the term in one specific context to refer to a blend of spices, musical styles or literary forms as "a marriage of"...



So it looks like a marriage, acts like a marriage and, in fact, is a marriage, but you want to call it a goose? Why?

Just because it's only been opposite sex for so long doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Everyone else calls the spiritual and legal pact of choosing someone to spend the rest of their life with marriage, so why not gay people?

Because calling it "marriage" inflames the many people who consider it a religious term.

I'm not exactly sure where I stand on the definition issue, but I don't think there's any denying that calling it a "Civil Union" (or similar) would make things a bit easier for homosexual couples to obtain their rights. I like to think of it as a more pragmatic solution. Are we trying to change a word's definition or are we trying to secure equal rights?

 

[arora]

Yup, it's just a union no mater how you slice it. I think some religious types get offended because their definition is defiled in their eyes, and some gay activist types like to troll.

As we've discussed before though, take the government equation out of marriage and there would be zero argument imo.

 

[Famine]

Because calling it "marriage" inflames the many people who consider it a religious term.

Except it isn't.


I wonder if they think the gays get down on one knee and ask each other to "Civil Union me"...

 

[Zenith]

Except it isn't.


I wonder if they think the gays get down on one knee and ask each other to "Civil Union me"...

We can try to convince the (infamously stubborn) opposition that their definition is incorrect. This a difficult process that will take a generation or two to see widespread acceptance. That's too long for many homosexual couples who need the rights of marriage.

I believe that it would be easier and quicker to secure the rights first and the word later.

Usually I'm all for having correct laws over practical laws, but the gay marriage debate has stagnated so much and the opposition is so stubborn and willfully ignorant that it's becoming a battle of attrition.

 

[Danoff]

Because calling it "marriage" inflames the many people who consider it a religious term.

So much trouble comes from co-opting general terms like "marriage" ("this coffee table is the perfect marriage of antique and modern") for religious purposes or co-opting religious terms like "christmas" for secular (santa) purposes.

 

[Famine]

I believe that it would be easier and quicker to secure the rights first and the word later.

The rights are already there, they just aren't recognised. If it's "equal rights" you're talking about, how does calling the gays' marriage something other than marriage - pointing out that it's different - bring equality?

 

[ShobThaBob]

But what about the spiritual side of it? Implying a difference between the two, if just in name, is divisive. Churches are certainly able to wed anyone and anything they wish under their collective roof. But, if the government is marrying straight people, why would we need to call it anything different for not straight people? It comes with the same pivileges, paperwork, and requirements. Calling it something different implies that it IS something different, when it isn't.

 

[arora]

Why should the government grant you more rights to marry in the first place?

 

[Zenith]

The rights are already there, they just aren't recognised.

This is a better way of saying it. To be clear, my goal is for homosexual couples to enjoy the same legal benefits (tax breaks, gov't programs, etc.) as a heterosexual married couple.

If it's "equal rights" you're talking about, how does calling the gays' marriage something other than marriage - pointing out that it's different - bring equality?

It does not. It helps bring voters and lawmakers over to our side of the vote.

 

[Famine]

It does not. It helps bring voters and lawmakers over to our side of the vote.

It does nothing but perpetuate the difference.

You'll still have the highest number of people vehemently opposed to legal homosexual unions of any kind or largely indifferent to any part of it. A third group will be in favour of marriage as marriage. All you'll do is move around some floaters who are opposed to the "marriage" part but not the union. They'll stay that way even after you give "civil union" (or whatever florid name you give it) equal legal status.

 

[arora]

my goal is for homosexual couples to enjoy the same legal benefits (tax breaks, gov't programs, etc.) as a heterosexual married couple.

Sorry, I'm going to hammer this point, so, my goal would be then that singles, monkey owners, roller skaters etc, enjoy the same legal benefits as heterosexual married couples. Or in other words, take the government out.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Why should the government grant you more rights to marry in the first place?

Inequality.

Because calling it "marriage" inflames the many people who consider it a religious term.

It can be a religious term as well. Different religions are certainly within their rights to define their spiritual unions between whatever and whomever they like. It does not and should not have any impact on law.

 

[Zenith]

It does nothing but perpetuate the difference.

You'll still have the highest number of people vehemently opposed to legal homosexual unions of any kind or largely indifferent to any part of it. A third group will be in favour of marriage as marriage. All you'll do is move around some floaters who are opposed to the "marriage" part but not the union. They'll stay that way even after you give "civil union" (or whatever florid name you give it) equal legal status.

I agree that calling gay marriage a different name hurts the cause a bit, but I think it's worth it.

I've met plenty of people who want homosexual couples to have their rights recognized, but are uncomfortable using the term marriage.

I must be perceiving more "floaters" than you are. Maybe I just know a few too many Progressive Christians. I think I'll go look for some polls on this. If there are as few people who are uncomfortable with the term as you make it out to be, then you can color me convinced on the spot.

Sorry, I'm going to hammer this point, so, my goal would be then that singles, monkey owners, roller skaters etc, enjoy the same legal benefits as heterosexual married couples. Or in other words, take the government out.

And that's a very valid argument that is many, many years away (if ever) from being implemented. I'm more concerned with today where the government does have role in what a modern marriage means.

It does not and should not have any impact on law.

Should not? Yes. Does not? No. That's what happens when you have religious lawmakers allowing their faith to influence their choices.

 

[arora]

I can say from my personal experiences I believe most christians would have no problem granting the 'marriage rights' to any sort of union as long as it's not called marriage. I have no idea if 'civil union' is degrading to gays or whatever. The whole thing seems silly to me, it's just tax right? We all get screwed anyway

 

[Famine]

I agree that calling gay marriage a different name hurts the cause a bit, but I think it's worth it.

Except that in the pursuit of equal rights you end up creating inequality.

If you add a descriptive modifier to an insult it becomes a hate crime ("a savage hypocrisy"). Calling someone tosser is not as bad as calling them a black tosser. Calling someone a nob is not as bad as calling them a fat nob. So why on Earth would anyone promoting equality be comfortable with marriage and gay marriage?

 

[ShobThaBob]

And if lawmakers can't pull their heads out of their collective rears and stop trying to prevent marriage equality, eventually the supreme court will have to get involved and put its foot down and silence the issue. Can't come soon enough.

Except that in the pursuit of equal rights you end up creating inequality.

Also that.

 

[arora]

All we need here in the u.s. is tax reform, then no one will care about marriage in the slightest bit.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Well that was a bit out of nowhere.

 

[arora]

Suddenly, I keep beating the same drum lol.

 

[Danoff]

All we need here in the u.s. is tax reform, then no one will care about marriage in the slightest bit.

That's definitely not true. This isn't about tax breaks as much as it is other legal forms of recognition of marriage. Guardianship, property ownership, legal instructions for what happens when one member dies, legal instructions for divorce (including but not limited to child custody, property distribution, child support and alimony), the ability to adopt, and shared credit/income for things like obtaining home loans.

The legal institution of marriage is just extremely convenient. It takes into account the pair bonding instinct with a convenient contract that is instantly recognized by the government, financial, and social institutions.

 

[arora]

Contracts are not hard to draw, but you are right, I did ignorantly simplify. There is a reason though, it's what people are crying about the most.

 

[Danoff]

Contracts are not hard to draw, but you are right, I did ignorantly simplify. There is a reason though, it's what people are crying about the most.

Imagine for a moment that you are gay and in a committed gay relationship (seems redundant but some gay people are in heterosexual marriages). You cannot combine your incomes to get a home loan. You cannot adopt children. You have no recourse in a divorce. Not you but your in-laws (who don't recognize your relationship as natural or godly) will be in charge of your partner's medical decisions if something happens to him.

All of those things are more important than paying extra taxes. All of them.

 

[arora]

I realize all of that, I promise I do.

 

[Zenith]

Except that in the pursuit of equal rights you end up creating inequality.

If you add a descriptive modifier to an insult it becomes a hate crime ("a savage hypocrisy"). Calling someone tosser is not as bad as calling them a black tosser. Calling someone a nob is not as bad as calling them a fat nob. So why on Earth would anyone promoting equality be comfortable with marriage and gay marriage?

Yes, it creates an inequality by calling it a different name. It's not ideal. It's creating a small inequality to (hopefully) solve a greater injustice sooner.

I'm curious... Assuming that calling it a "Civil Union" will help win over some amount of lawmakers and voters, what injustices could come from using the unequal word?

 

[arora]

That is valid imo, it's just a word.

 

[ShobThaBob]

what injustices could come from using the unequal word?

Take a look at the civil rights movement for that answer.

 

[Zenith]

Take a look at the civil rights movement for that answer.

Are you talking about the "Separate but Equal" doctrine? Because that is completely different to what I'm suggesting...

 

[arora]

Imagine for a moment that you are gay and in a committed gay relationship (seems redundant but some gay people are in heterosexual marriages).

By choice only.

You cannot combine your incomes to get a home loan.

This is something I have a problem with, why do we need government to decide how a bank might conduct it's business? Perhaps people need to become a bit more educated and also stand up for themselves.

You cannot adopt children.

That is not true anymore is it?

You have no recourse in a divorce.

Choose your mate more closely.

Not you but your in-laws (who don't recognize your relationship as natural or godly) will be in charge of your partner's medical decisions if something happens to him.

There are documents you can have drawn up to get past that part, seriously a straw man there.

All of those things are more important than paying extra taxes. All of them.

Sure, and by paying taxes you either do not like jail, or you subscribe to the idea that the government knows what is best for people and they create a fair environment.

I just found enough time to respond but I'd like to say I'm not trying to dig you, it does seem that libertarian is not an appropriate label for you(maybe you don't claim that) you seem to give much away. Maybe it's a practicality thing but still. We can govern ourselves without all the red tape imo, it requires responsible citizens.

Hope you understand, but go ahead and get all smart on me

 

[Pupik]

A child who's grown with a father has an elevated possibility of being sexually abused...

Or having the snot beaten out of them in the name of "tough love".

Why should the government grant you more rights to marry in the first place?

It's not "more rights", but extending the same rights to more people, law abiding ones, at that.