| Why not? Discrimination is wrong. |
13 (22%) |
| No, the term marriage is valued by straight people who do not want it associated with gaydom. |
10 (17%) |
| Sodomy is a sin: marriage is a sacrament. |
6 (10%) |
| The Gay Liberation campaign has won all its other battles, let it lose this final one. |
0 |
| Its only a name: equal rights and status under the law is more important. |
10 (17%) |
| It is homophobic to oppose this. |
0 |
| Gays are people too. |
0 |
| It is a human rights thing and the USA must follow the world trend. |
1 |
| Call it something else. Gays must fight harder for this one. |
5 |
| Who cares? |
12 (21%) |
0 Votes
Why not? by Occams
Why not? Its not like they can propagate themselves.
Personally, I don’t think conservatives should be allowed to marry
-for fear of thisThere’s nothing worse than a young codger!
ATM, 8 for, 10 against, 15 neutral.
RE: Why not? by Jackson
ATM, 8 for, 10 against, 15 neutral.
Funny, I guess the “Its only a name…” one is a neutral. When I first was picking which one to choose I thought that the “it’s only a name” thing was trying to dismiss the religious right’s objection to marriage being applied to same-sex unions. Anybody else have that misconception (because, if Occams made the poll, Occams interpretation of said poll is correct). I wonder if it is actually 13 for, 10 against and 10 neutral, due to others misreading the intent of that option (as a kind of duplicate for “Why not?”).
For me personally? Why the hell not? I started a sh!tstorm on facebook a while ago by asking how gay marriage is harmful to heterosexual marriage. The answers ranged from “just cause” to “I’ll have to teach that gay is good” to “because then people will marry animals” nonsense to “your marriage is a sham”.
I said it there and I’ll say it again: Gay marriage will not in any way harm my (straight) marriage. The only individuals capable of messing up my marriage happen to be heterosexual (i.e. me and my wife). In the absence of any evidence of harm, calls to “tradition” or worry about future, possible, tangentially-related legislation are not reasons to deny a freedom to a group of people.
RE: Why not? by scottb
I’ve never heard a credible argument against it. Most of the “logic” fails when applied to ordinary marriages.
For example, if marriages are about procreation, then divorce should be absolutely prohibited if the couple has minor children. Moreover, a marriage should be in some sort of “trial” state until it’s “validated” by pregnancy.
RE: Why not? by Occams
It/s nice to have a controversial issue about which I really don’t care. However, if no other nerd is going to do it, then perhaps it falls on me to defend the indefensible, since I started the thread. I don’t expect to win this argument because it is a very emotional one and highly political. Neither reason or fairness will be the deciding factor.
The term “marriage” with its current meaning has been around in western civilization for thousands of years, and perhaps even longer in other cultures. During that time countless millions of people have both enjoyed and suffered from the good and bad things that this formal relationship bestows on couples. Religions have appropriated it, and laws have bestowed obligations and responsibilities. Most children have benefited greatly from it. The term has gradually acquired a complex nuanced meaning that is respected by most, although reviled by some. In recent times it has been devalued into a convenient lable that can be easily removed when it is expedient to do so.
Straght people take on all this baggage when they marry, but they do it because they want the feeling of being married and the status that brings in their society.
The question for this poll is whether gays should be allowed to adopt this name for their unions. By doing so they would obtain a fast track towards having their relationships covered by the same historical baggage and respectability that is awarded by this term “marriage”. Over time, their trials, tribulations, and joys and sorrows experienced in this institution will add to the rich meaning of the word.
It would be interesting to see whether religions attempt to appropriate the new word by endorsing it under strict conditions. I don’t think they could resist it, once the negative connotations of sexual practices have faded away and gay preferences are generally regarded as being quite normal.
I am sure that the gay contribution will change the meaning of the word for all of us, and so will to some small extent change our culture. I am not as sure whether this change will be for the better. I don’t really care, but then I am no longer married. Perhaps I would care if I were.
The issue for the majority is whether they want to embrace this change to our culture at the present time. I think it would be much more interesting if gays developed a special meaning for a unique word used to describe their unions. Hopefully, this word would would in time become endowed with admirable qualities such as faithfulness, mutual caring, social responsibility, and even good (adoptive) parenthood. Then our culture would be richer for having two words with different meaning and associations rather than one merged and blurred word having confused meaning.
Of course this profound meaning would take generations to develop, and would not affect the contemporary gay population very much. So, it is expedient for them to demand coverage by the old word. I can see no moral reason to agree to this, other than that it would make some Gays very happy. Is that enough?
I think that English is such a dynamic and adaptable language, that a new name for gay unions will inevitably emerge, and will probably quickly become the most widely used term. If that is the case, then “marriage” covering gay unions will be only a transient thing and we will have been concerned about it for no good reason. I think Gays would be better employed now by taking control of the emerging new word than being stuck with one that could well be derogatory.
RE: Why not? by Brandon
I don’t think it will hurt your marriage, or mine. The whole argument is semantics – on both sides. Some people want to call same-sex relationships marriages because they think it shows respect. And some people want don’t want to call them marriages because they think it takes away from the concept. (And there are lots of other groups who think other things, I’m sure.)
You can have the same discussion about plural marriage or lots of other kinds of relationships. (You could even have it about words like love.) It’s just a matter of what you want to let into the club. And, of course, if there’s a club and you’re not letting everyone in, then you need to have a line and some rules.
What should those rules be and who should set them? It’s hard for me to see why the government should get involved, and it probably makes most sense to leave it up to society as a whole … in which case we (as in the US as a whole) seem to be in the middle-ground right now where society doesn’t agree. Seems like a perfectly reasonable place to be – especially since we State societies are deciding for themselves.
I don’t know why people get so uppity about it; that’s how it should happen – and not everyone has to agree with you.
RE: Why not? by Brandon
Here’s another question to think about: Will not being called marriage hurt a gay relationship? It doesn’t seem to. Like you said, the only individuals capable of messing up those relationships are the people in them.
I’m not saying that constitutes a sufficient argument to not call them marriages; I’m just saying it’s good to think about it from this direction, too.
One other question: When you say freedom, do you mean the “freedom to have the government define the relationship I’m in as a marriage?” Or something else?
RE: Why not? by Occams
“freedom to have the government define the relationship I’m in as a marriage?”
I think that is what they are asking for. The Marriage Act would need to be changed from “a union between a man and a woman” to " a union between two people".
RE: Why not? by Jackson
When you say freedom, do you mean the “freedom to have the government define the relationship I’m in as a marriage?” Or something else?
When I say freedom, I mean the freedom to have the same protections under the law that come with heterosexual marriage. The right to jointly own property without creating a business entity. The right to not have wills contested by one partner’s family. The right to immediate acceptance as “next of kin”. The freedom to adopt and raise kids. There are lots of protections that aren’t there for gay unions. Even in places where they have set down legislative rules in a separate-but-equal kind of way (civil unions), gays often find out that, in practice, hospitals and others just disregard them.
Personally, I think the government needs to get out of the marriage business. Protect unions of two consenting adults and allow them the same benefits. Call your union whatever you want, but one name under the law for legal purposes.
RE: Why not? by Occams
I mean the freedom to have the same protections under the law that come with heterosexual marriage.
I agree absolutely with all of that, but I think that Gays are demanding the name of Marriage as well, and that strategy is causing a lot more resistance to the rights issue. It inflames the religious right and gives conservatives more ammo. This poll tried to focus on the name issue only, but all the equal rights aspects are equally open for debate.
In my opinion the right to adopt children is a much bigger issue than the name. I saw recently a TEDx talk where the speaker was an African American Gay who was obviously a stable, decent person, and already a good father to an admirable son from his failed marriage. He had been denied the right to adopt, and was very bitter about that.
I think that the adoption authorities must always be extremely careful about to whom they give vulnerable children. Being gay should not automatically rule a person out, but all the other criteria should be the same as for straight couples. I can’t help a bias here. I still think that on average a child would do better with both a mother and a father, and that is a worthwhile goal for the authorities, who must consider averages in their policies. I have no proof to offer on this average assumption, it is merely a gut feeling based on my own experience as a child and a parent.
I agree that there will always be exceptions, and the policies should provide for gay adoption with a greater onus being placed on a gay couple to demonstrate that they are one of those exceptions. Natural justice rules should apply, including rights of appeal.RE: Why not? by Brandon
Personally, I think the government needs to get out of the marriage business.
Agreed.
Protect unions of two consenting adults and allow them the same benefits.
Are you saying they should specify two, or was that a slip up? Because really, why should the government care if there are more?
Call your union whatever you want, but one name under the law for legal purposes.
Would you oppose using something other than “marriage” as that name? Say, something sterile and generally undesirable like “designated legal partner in personal matters” – or, DLPIPM?
RE: Why not? by Jackson
Are you saying they should specify two, or was that a slip up? Because really, why should the government care if there are more?
Not a slip up. We already have the infrastructure to handle parties of two. Adding another person creates a lot of new situations that we don’t currently have processes to deal with. The added complexity in a legal relationship between three (or more) people is a great deal more than is perhaps obvious.
Would you oppose using something other than “marriage” as that name?…
Not really. Partnership. Legal Union. Marriage. I don’t care as long as there’s one set of rules for them across the board so groups can’t work around extending the benefits to the participants in said unions. If your church wants to “marry” (or “seal”) you, then you are married. But the legal term is independent. Though it is entirely possible that I am overlooking a downside to this. It’s hard to take the goggles off.
RE: Why not? by Jackson
Are you saying they should specify two
Just a cheeky follow-up, I think the structure of the union should be based on how many people are involved in decision making for the union, not how many penises are present. I pretty much feel that since we already have rules for two person legal unions and those rules are largely unaffected by the sexual organs of the participants, it’s a low-risk change.
RE: Why not? by Brandon
I don’t think you’re overlooking a down side from a legal standpoint. Now, if you believe homosexuality is a sin and that it’s the government’s duty to discourage all sin, then you’d think differently. I think we are on the page on all that, though, so I’ll move on.
The thing that’s interesting to me is that your position is very close to so many others, but it turns into a big hullaballoo just because you’re okay with using the word marriage and others aren’t.
We already have the infrastructure to handle parties of two.
I think this argument is a little weak – unless you’re willing to give up (or at least severely water down) all of the “freedom” and “right” stuff.
RE: Why not? by scottb
I don’t have any objections to numbers greater than two.
I think the term “marriage” should either apply to all of them or none of them. I don’t think it’s acceptable for the law to recognize “marriage” between heterosexual couples and “something else” for others.
I think it would be acceptable for the government to stop calling all of them “marriages”, and only offer “civil unions” or whatever, but the same term should apply to all, precisely because the intent is that they are equivalent. Using separate language is just an invitation to future inequality.
RE: Why not? by Brandon
I agree the government should use a general word that applies to all when it’s trying to speak concerning laws that apply to all. If it wants to give benefits or exact penalties on only certain types of relationships, then it should use a word that only applies to some of them.
It sounds insanely obvious … but that’s my point.
It makes me chuckle that people are in such a fuss over this. It reminds me of my kids. As soon as my 1-yr old plays with a toy, that is the toy my 4-year old wants. It doesn’t matter what toy it is; it matters that his brother has it and he doesn’t.
RE: Why not? by scottb
It makes me chuckle that people are in such a fuss over this. It reminds me of my kids. As soon as my 1-yr old plays with a toy, that is the toy my 4-year old wants. It doesn’t matter what toy it is; it matters that his brother has it and he doesn’t.
Yes, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that the 1-year-old has every right to make a fuss, and it’s the 4-year-old that’s misbehaving.
Likewise, homosexuals have every right to be complaining, and it’s their opponents (primarily the religious right) who are behaving like 4-year-olds.
RE: Why not? by Brandon
I don’t see either of them as misbehaving. (Although I work to teach my older son to share, his reaction is age-appropriate.)
My point is how silly it is when large groups of adults start having the same sorts of interactions.
RE: Why not? by Occams
The religious protectors of the sanctity of marriage are merely acting in character. As Einstein is said to have said The definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the same things and expecting different results. He knew about prayer.
RE: Why not? by Occams
I don’t think you’re overlooking a down side from a legal standpoint. Now, if you believe homosexuality is a sin and that it’s the government’s duty to discourage all sin, then you’d think differently. I think we are on the page on all that, though, so I’ll move on.
I think that the best way to resolve this issue would be for the government to recognise only civil unions. Churches could then apply their form of marriage after the civil union, limit access to it with any rules they like, and call it any name that pleases them. I think it would be useful to provide for these names to be registered like company names so that no other group can use them.
Gay unions might be in the rules for some curches and excluded by others and gays could register their own name and adimit straits if they want to.
I think that there does need to be at least two people involved, or some wanker will want to marry his right hand. The government might choose to limit Civil unions to two people for reasons to do with the law and entitlements.
RE: Why not? by scottb
I think it would be useful to provide for these names to be registered like company names so that no other group can use them.
Won’t work. Either you’d have to force the different major branches of Christianity to squabble over who gets to call theirs “marriage”, with all of the other relegated to finding a new name, or you’d have to grandfather in the term “marriage” to apply at a broader level than a single sect, which leaves you in pretty much the current situation.
RE: Why not? by Occams
Not necessarily. they can all use marriage but precede it with their denomination" Catholic Marriage; Baptist Marriage: etc. After all, that is all thy have the power to do.
RE: Why not? by scottb
I don’t see how that’s any better. Would gays then have to say, “Oh, we’re Gay Married”, and Catholics, “We’re Catholic Married”? It’d never happen — you might as well just do the right thing and say it’s “marriage” for everybody.
RE: Why not? by Brandon
Either you’d have to force the different major branches of Christianity to squabble over who gets to call theirs “marriage”, with all of the other relegated to finding a new name, or you’d have to grandfather in the term “marriage” to apply at a broader level than a single sect, which leaves you in pretty much the current situation.
Who’s you and why does you care?
When Mormons marry in the temple they call it a sealing because they view it as persisting after death (whereas typical marriage ceremonies use the “’till death do you part” language). Do you really think that causes problems?
RE: Why not? by scottb
Wow… did you wildly miss the point.
Occams suggested that each religious organization should register and own its own, unique name for whatever their analog for marriage is — this in response to the often offered objection that “marriage” is a religious term, and it’s somehow wrong to apply it to gay couples.
Sure, if you’ve got a sect that calls their ceremony “sealing”, and nobody else wants that, there’s no issue. But what if, say, an FDLS organization, excommunicated by LDS, were to register first, claiming “sealing” for their ceremonies, and (in the proposed system) legally barring LDS from using it?
That’s the issue — “marriage” is what Catholics, virtually every Protestant sect, Orthodox churches, and many others all use. If only one of them were permitted to register the term, barring all the others, to say there’d be issues is an understatement.
RE: Why not? by Brandon
If you were painting his system as not a good idea while not endorsing government meddling on that sort of scale, then yes – I missed the point. If you were doing the former without the latter, then I was shifting focus to say the latter is what really matters.
Anyways.
RE: Why not? by scottb
I think I already made myself clear on the subject. Gays should be allowed exactly the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples.
If “marriage” is a religious term, then I think the government shouldn’t recognize it at all. Instead, all couples, gay or straight, would need a civil union to file taxes jointly or take advantage of any of the other benefits we currently offer to married couples. If they want to separately marry, as a religious act, they’re welcome to it, but they wouldn’t be recognized by the state without the civil union.
I think Occams’ proposal is unworkable, having nothing to do with the “scale of government meddling”. The government is the mechanism by which we establish our rules. If Occams’ solution actually solved anything, I wouldn’t have a problem with it — the government would be an entirely appropriate mechanism to carry it out.
What matters is civil rights — human rights. Homosexuality isn’t a crime, and treating gay relationships differently than straight ones is a simple and obvious failure to uphold those rights.
RE: Why not? by Occams
I think Occams’ proposal is unworkable, having nothing to do with the “scale of government meddling”.
I think you have misunderstood my proposal. I cant see any real difference from yours:
civil unions without discrimination conferred only by the state and providing all legal rights and obligations. “Marriage” optionally provided by clubs, cults and religious bodies, conferring recognition and responsibilities defined by that organisation – a civil union being a necessary prerequisite. The name should be what it is: civil union, or Catholic, Lutheran, Hell’s Angel; whatever “marriage”. The generic term "marriage’ would no doubt be used on most occasions but would have no basis in law on its own.
There would be no government “meddling” with religious marriage and no discrimination on the civil side: except for: identification; a minimum age limit; anti bigamy provisions; and possibly citizenship (I haven’t thought that last one through yet).