August 22, 2002
12:40 AM Subscribe
Same-Sex "Marriage": Should America Allow "Gay Rights" Activists to Cross The Last Cultural Frontier? Obviously, there are passionate arguments both for and against. It's a done deal in Holland, and lots of other places but not in Hawaii, and a definite maybe in Vermont. Hmm.
This post was deleted for the following reason:
I'll never understand why people oppose same sex marriage. The way I see it, two people love each other and want to make the ultimate commitment. Marriage itself puzzles me, but it has a lot of emotional and cultural significance. It seems wrong to deny people the satisfaction of such a union simply because it is between two people of the same gender. It's not dissimilar to saying interracial marriages should be forbidden.
The sanctity of marriage is practically a joke in America anyway, serial monogamy defeats the purpose of marriage. There are many ways to live your life, and as long as you aren't harming anybody, why should you be denied the right to live as you please?
posted by Grod at 1:05 AM on August 22, 2002
The sanctity of marriage is practically a joke in America anyway, serial monogamy defeats the purpose of marriage. There are many ways to live your life, and as long as you aren't harming anybody, why should you be denied the right to live as you please?
posted by Grod at 1:05 AM on August 22, 2002
same sex marriage? go-ahead.
same sex parenting, ... talk to the hand.
posted by Frasermoo at 1:07 AM on August 22, 2002
same sex parenting, ... talk to the hand.
posted by Frasermoo at 1:07 AM on August 22, 2002
serial monogamy defeats the purpose of marriage.
I don't get it.
posted by hama7 at 1:07 AM on August 22, 2002
I don't get it.
posted by hama7 at 1:07 AM on August 22, 2002
The first paper you linked is poorly argued, and suspect from the get-go because of the comical use of 'scare quotes' around the word 'marriage' when applied to gay couples (the same scare quotes you use around the words gay rights in your post, hama7). Here's a pertinent extract:
We conclude that "sexual orientation" dooes not constitute a true suspect minority classification; gays are not "just like everyone else" in terms of relational lifestyle stability; and gay activists do not desire the same kinds of "marriages" as "everyone else"; therefore, the changes in marriage brought about by same-sex "marriage" recognition would have cataclysmic effects for society at large:
Same-sex "marriage" recognition would be a "massive societal leap" into a "darkness" of radical social experimentation, endless litigation and drastic business, economic and public policy reorganization. Same-sex "marriage" would radically alter the institution of marriage as we have known it; gaining "marriage" recognition would be highly unlikely to change gay/lesbian lifestyle patterns; and same-sex "marriage" recognition would likely result in devastating damage to children in the care of such same-sex unions.
Yawn. If all the other arguments fail, toss in a "what about the children?" line.
Also have a gander at the about page of "Leadership U":
We are sponsored by Christian Leadership Ministries, a non-profit organization
The mistake made by many on the side against gay marriage (and the mistake made by anti-gay people and organizations in general) is that fundamental human rights (or, if you will, free human will) are something that can be granted or taken away. What is being discussed is the legal recognition of marriage, something that can, unfortunately, be denied to citizens. But the institution of marriage, whether you choose to accept it in a Christian or other spiritual sense, or whether you choose to view it as a profound humanist commitment between two people, is not within the power of anyone to grant or revoke. So the argument should be a practical and fiscal one, as to the merits of granting legal recognition to a sacred (again, in a spiritual sense or not, your choice) bond. But, natch, it's not.
What amazes me is that the laws and structure of America, officially, are not to be based on the principles or strictures of any religious group or practice. So technically, the 'Christian immorality' of same sex marriage (no scare quotes) should not be admissable as a profound reason against the recognition of same-sex unions. But that continues to be the main issue in this discussion. What if we exclude discussion of the morality of gay relationships as reasoning against recognition of gay marriage. What, then, are any other profound reasons for opposing it?
posted by evanizer at 1:16 AM on August 22, 2002
We conclude that "sexual orientation" dooes not constitute a true suspect minority classification; gays are not "just like everyone else" in terms of relational lifestyle stability; and gay activists do not desire the same kinds of "marriages" as "everyone else"; therefore, the changes in marriage brought about by same-sex "marriage" recognition would have cataclysmic effects for society at large:
Same-sex "marriage" recognition would be a "massive societal leap" into a "darkness" of radical social experimentation, endless litigation and drastic business, economic and public policy reorganization. Same-sex "marriage" would radically alter the institution of marriage as we have known it; gaining "marriage" recognition would be highly unlikely to change gay/lesbian lifestyle patterns; and same-sex "marriage" recognition would likely result in devastating damage to children in the care of such same-sex unions.
Yawn. If all the other arguments fail, toss in a "what about the children?" line.
Also have a gander at the about page of "Leadership U":
We are sponsored by Christian Leadership Ministries, a non-profit organization
The mistake made by many on the side against gay marriage (and the mistake made by anti-gay people and organizations in general) is that fundamental human rights (or, if you will, free human will) are something that can be granted or taken away. What is being discussed is the legal recognition of marriage, something that can, unfortunately, be denied to citizens. But the institution of marriage, whether you choose to accept it in a Christian or other spiritual sense, or whether you choose to view it as a profound humanist commitment between two people, is not within the power of anyone to grant or revoke. So the argument should be a practical and fiscal one, as to the merits of granting legal recognition to a sacred (again, in a spiritual sense or not, your choice) bond. But, natch, it's not.
What amazes me is that the laws and structure of America, officially, are not to be based on the principles or strictures of any religious group or practice. So technically, the 'Christian immorality' of same sex marriage (no scare quotes) should not be admissable as a profound reason against the recognition of same-sex unions. But that continues to be the main issue in this discussion. What if we exclude discussion of the morality of gay relationships as reasoning against recognition of gay marriage. What, then, are any other profound reasons for opposing it?
posted by evanizer at 1:16 AM on August 22, 2002
The purpose of marriage is ostensibly to assure that two people spend the rest of their lives together, originally it was more of a bargain thing, with each partner contributing something the other cannot, over time it appears to have changed more than once. Many advocates of marriage also advocate no or little sexual, um, engagements prior to marriage, for some reason, especially when viewed through this filter the practice of marrying a person, divorcing him/her for another only to later get a second divorce defeats the ideal of marriage.
Also, what's wrong with same sex parenting? Who says that only a man and a woman can raise a child? My parents certainly fucked up, as did the parents of many, if not most people I know. Having two fathers or two mothers wouldn't be all that different from having one of each, and I have read plenty of evidence that suggests same sex parents are as good or better at child rearing than more traditional parents. Saying that a homosexual couple should not be allowed to parent reminds me of the argument that deaf people should not be allowed to raise hearing children. Having several friends in the deaf community, one who has five children by a deaf wife and all of them hearing, I can say that it did them no harm. So what if the child will grow up to be heterosexual? There are plenty of heterosexual role models, and gays tend to be more accepting of a person's sexuality, and thus less likely to judge their children if they turn out straight. The idea that you can make someone gay is amusing, and growing up in a gay household does not mean you'll grow up gay anymore than growing up in a straight household means you'll be straight.
Damn, its 4:30 in the morning here, no wonder I'm getting long winded. Sorry all.
On Preview: ditto most of what evanizer said.
posted by Grod at 1:28 AM on August 22, 2002
Also, what's wrong with same sex parenting? Who says that only a man and a woman can raise a child? My parents certainly fucked up, as did the parents of many, if not most people I know. Having two fathers or two mothers wouldn't be all that different from having one of each, and I have read plenty of evidence that suggests same sex parents are as good or better at child rearing than more traditional parents. Saying that a homosexual couple should not be allowed to parent reminds me of the argument that deaf people should not be allowed to raise hearing children. Having several friends in the deaf community, one who has five children by a deaf wife and all of them hearing, I can say that it did them no harm. So what if the child will grow up to be heterosexual? There are plenty of heterosexual role models, and gays tend to be more accepting of a person's sexuality, and thus less likely to judge their children if they turn out straight. The idea that you can make someone gay is amusing, and growing up in a gay household does not mean you'll grow up gay anymore than growing up in a straight household means you'll be straight.
Damn, its 4:30 in the morning here, no wonder I'm getting long winded. Sorry all.
On Preview: ditto most of what evanizer said.
posted by Grod at 1:28 AM on August 22, 2002
hama7, I'm curious what your motivation in posting this was. I'm not going to tag this as trollery, but I have to admit to a certain curiosity as to why you'd give these bozos a bully pulpit?
posted by adamgreenfield at 1:36 AM on August 22, 2002
posted by adamgreenfield at 1:36 AM on August 22, 2002
adam: I made some goofy comments about a week or so ago, which, despite my being called a "bigot troll" several times, led to a conversation that I couldn't finish. I felt that a researched thread might be more appropriate. Is it?
posted by hama7 at 2:22 AM on August 22, 2002
posted by hama7 at 2:22 AM on August 22, 2002
Personally, I'm for same sex marriages and same sex parenting.
As a Wiccan, we don't gender discriminate when it comes to marriage. I have personally performed two same sex weddings. Both are still together after 6 and 5 years. Now, of course, these are not legally binding, but I say, why not.
Listen, the biggest reasons, that I know of, to have a marriage recognized by the state, is for property protection, insurance purposes, and custody of children issues. Same sex couples can already adopt or artificially inseminate (if female, of course). The problem is that (to my knowledge) only ONE partner has legal custody.
Listen, religious issues aside...what's the REAL problem with it? Religious issues should be irrelevant (separation of church and state). It's statistically proven that the vast majority of gay parents have/raise straight children, so you can't even lay claim to the "They'll make kids gay" argument.
The worst thing that will happen is the kids will get teased a bit more (maybe), but in exchange they grow to be more tolerant people. Gods forbid we raise children that are tolerant of people that are different.
Ugh. 5:30 am here and I'm ranting.
posted by lasthrsman at 2:37 AM on August 22, 2002
As a Wiccan, we don't gender discriminate when it comes to marriage. I have personally performed two same sex weddings. Both are still together after 6 and 5 years. Now, of course, these are not legally binding, but I say, why not.
Listen, the biggest reasons, that I know of, to have a marriage recognized by the state, is for property protection, insurance purposes, and custody of children issues. Same sex couples can already adopt or artificially inseminate (if female, of course). The problem is that (to my knowledge) only ONE partner has legal custody.
Listen, religious issues aside...what's the REAL problem with it? Religious issues should be irrelevant (separation of church and state). It's statistically proven that the vast majority of gay parents have/raise straight children, so you can't even lay claim to the "They'll make kids gay" argument.
The worst thing that will happen is the kids will get teased a bit more (maybe), but in exchange they grow to be more tolerant people. Gods forbid we raise children that are tolerant of people that are different.
Ugh. 5:30 am here and I'm ranting.
posted by lasthrsman at 2:37 AM on August 22, 2002
hama7, do you still believe "...there is absolutely no reason that gays need to marry. There really is no reason to enter this discussion, because it's so ridiculous. I know plenty of people will get rabidly furious over a simple comment as that, but it is really that simple. Gays have existed since the dawn of humankind, gay "marriage" has not, and should not"?
Could you at least begin by responding to comments from our last discussion (when the Florida DCF thread was derailed)
- bas67 's 1st response to your anti-equality post
- what is the purpose of marriage, and who may deny an individual his/her rights?
- why can't the state simply redefine marriage?
I'm generally intending for others to say their piece here - i've said my bit before.
However, i'm curious about this: Frasermoo, their are gay people, some parents, on Mefi - what precisely are you saying to them?
posted by dash_slot- at 2:40 AM on August 22, 2002
Could you at least begin by responding to comments from our last discussion (when the Florida DCF thread was derailed)
- bas67 's 1st response to your anti-equality post
- what is the purpose of marriage, and who may deny an individual his/her rights?
- why can't the state simply redefine marriage?
I'm generally intending for others to say their piece here - i've said my bit before.
However, i'm curious about this: Frasermoo, their are gay people, some parents, on Mefi - what precisely are you saying to them?
posted by dash_slot- at 2:40 AM on August 22, 2002
OK, then, here's the off-topic comment you (hama7) made in that thread:
Also there is absolutely no reason that gays need to marry. There really is no reason to enter this discussion, because it's so ridiculous. I know plenty of people will get rabidly furious over a simple comment as that, but it is really that simple. Gays have existed since the dawn of humankind, gay "marriage" has not, and should not.
You find the discussion of my legal and civil rights "ridiculous". Fine. I find your opinion ridiculous, so we'll leave it at that. But when you post on a discussion board, dropping what you knew to be comments that would be roundly criticized ("I know plenty of people will get rabidly furious over a simple comment as that, but it is really that simple."), then offer no cogent arguments in suppor of them, people have every right to call you a troll.
So you started this thread in hopes of what? Telling us all, once again, that you think gay people's desire to have legal recognition of their unions is "ridiculous"? You say this is to further the discussion, but then you give two links to Christian anti-gay-marriage sites, and a few news links that tell us we're deprived of the basic right of recognized union (painfully aware of that, thank you very much)? In that other thread you then assert: The state has no responsibility to recognize a gay partnership as "marriage", because technically it's not. OK, then, where's a link to this technical manual of marriage that "technically" and immutably defines it as man/woman (and if you link the Bible, I'll box your ears)? Why does the state have no responsibility to recognize gay partnership? Why, even, does the state have any responsibility to recognize "straight" partnerships? Why then? Give it to us, since you didn't do it in your post.
I still don't understand why you want to continue this anyway, since dash_slot, bas67, cedar, and others ground you into a fine powder in that other thread. Are you a sucker for punishment? Sorry to drag info from that other thread in here, but I think it's relevant for us to understand your position on this issue.
posted by evanizer at 2:53 AM on August 22, 2002
Also there is absolutely no reason that gays need to marry. There really is no reason to enter this discussion, because it's so ridiculous. I know plenty of people will get rabidly furious over a simple comment as that, but it is really that simple. Gays have existed since the dawn of humankind, gay "marriage" has not, and should not.
You find the discussion of my legal and civil rights "ridiculous". Fine. I find your opinion ridiculous, so we'll leave it at that. But when you post on a discussion board, dropping what you knew to be comments that would be roundly criticized ("I know plenty of people will get rabidly furious over a simple comment as that, but it is really that simple."), then offer no cogent arguments in suppor of them, people have every right to call you a troll.
So you started this thread in hopes of what? Telling us all, once again, that you think gay people's desire to have legal recognition of their unions is "ridiculous"? You say this is to further the discussion, but then you give two links to Christian anti-gay-marriage sites, and a few news links that tell us we're deprived of the basic right of recognized union (painfully aware of that, thank you very much)? In that other thread you then assert: The state has no responsibility to recognize a gay partnership as "marriage", because technically it's not. OK, then, where's a link to this technical manual of marriage that "technically" and immutably defines it as man/woman (and if you link the Bible, I'll box your ears)? Why does the state have no responsibility to recognize gay partnership? Why, even, does the state have any responsibility to recognize "straight" partnerships? Why then? Give it to us, since you didn't do it in your post.
I still don't understand why you want to continue this anyway, since dash_slot, bas67, cedar, and others ground you into a fine powder in that other thread. Are you a sucker for punishment? Sorry to drag info from that other thread in here, but I think it's relevant for us to understand your position on this issue.
posted by evanizer at 2:53 AM on August 22, 2002
"Should America Allow "Gay Rights" Activists to Cross The Last Cultural Frontier?"
the way this is phrased means that only gay rights activists want marriage rights. If that's the breadth of your understanding of the issue -- that only agitators want or deserve rights -- then i say the question is so poorly framed as to render it moot.
("America" can grant them nothing, by the way. The government currently in power over the landmass currently called "America" can.)
There is no reason a state should block two people for doing whatever it is they want to do, be it have sex or declare their life-long monogamy. If the state has deemed that declaring monogamy is so deserving of benefits, then the state is simply being hypocritical by not granting everyone who declares monogamy these rights.
If a religion wants to block two people from doing what they want, and cast spells upon them, invoke curses, label them sinners or apportion them karma, it may go right ahead and do so. Just so long as they understand no one else is required to believe their fairy tales.
"Gays have existed since the dawn of humankind, gay "marriage" has not, and should not."
Let's see, humans have existed from the dawn of time. Marriage has not. Therefore, humans should not marry.
Fingernails have existed from the dawn of time, finger nail clippers have not. Therefore, no one should clip their finger nails.
Man, I love this.
Planes did not exist at the dawn of time. Therefore, they shouldn't exist at all.
Change is bad, m'kay.
posted by raaka at 3:14 AM on August 22, 2002
the way this is phrased means that only gay rights activists want marriage rights. If that's the breadth of your understanding of the issue -- that only agitators want or deserve rights -- then i say the question is so poorly framed as to render it moot.
("America" can grant them nothing, by the way. The government currently in power over the landmass currently called "America" can.)
There is no reason a state should block two people for doing whatever it is they want to do, be it have sex or declare their life-long monogamy. If the state has deemed that declaring monogamy is so deserving of benefits, then the state is simply being hypocritical by not granting everyone who declares monogamy these rights.
If a religion wants to block two people from doing what they want, and cast spells upon them, invoke curses, label them sinners or apportion them karma, it may go right ahead and do so. Just so long as they understand no one else is required to believe their fairy tales.
"Gays have existed since the dawn of humankind, gay "marriage" has not, and should not."
Let's see, humans have existed from the dawn of time. Marriage has not. Therefore, humans should not marry.
Fingernails have existed from the dawn of time, finger nail clippers have not. Therefore, no one should clip their finger nails.
Man, I love this.
Planes did not exist at the dawn of time. Therefore, they shouldn't exist at all.
Change is bad, m'kay.
posted by raaka at 3:14 AM on August 22, 2002
dash_slot: First of all, I didn't feel like I was derailing the previous thread because the very words "George Rekers railed against abortion and gay couples forming families" appeared on the front page of the thread.
Second: I tried to stress that I am not 'anti-equality' or anything like it. bas67 has every right to wed her partner. But why the necessity of state recognition? How about polygamy? Should (the currently illegal in the US) polygamists demand legitimization, claiming infringement on their rights? What if I want to marry my parrot? Should I claim "discrimination" or demand state approval for my marriage to my macaw, citing the fact that you don't love my countless wives or my pet as I do? Or should I demand that nobody outside my "community" has the right to call my intentions into question? (Which is what you mentioned in our previous discussion).
Third: I do not support denying anybody his or her rights. I am merely presenting my, and other opinions on a subject.
Fourth: The state can and has redefined marriage in Holland, but the majority opinion in the US is not exactly in sync with the progressive sophistications of the Netherlands.
dash_slot, I really appreciate your comments, as I have said before.
posted by hama7 at 3:17 AM on August 22, 2002
Second: I tried to stress that I am not 'anti-equality' or anything like it. bas67 has every right to wed her partner. But why the necessity of state recognition? How about polygamy? Should (the currently illegal in the US) polygamists demand legitimization, claiming infringement on their rights? What if I want to marry my parrot? Should I claim "discrimination" or demand state approval for my marriage to my macaw, citing the fact that you don't love my countless wives or my pet as I do? Or should I demand that nobody outside my "community" has the right to call my intentions into question? (Which is what you mentioned in our previous discussion).
Third: I do not support denying anybody his or her rights. I am merely presenting my, and other opinions on a subject.
Fourth: The state can and has redefined marriage in Holland, but the majority opinion in the US is not exactly in sync with the progressive sophistications of the Netherlands.
dash_slot, I really appreciate your comments, as I have said before.
posted by hama7 at 3:17 AM on August 22, 2002
I'm wary of posting to this troll thread that seems to have no point, but in addition to what evanizer and dash_slot have said I'd like to say this:
I have many gay friends (I'm what you'd call a fag hag) and to them the notion of getting married is a bit embarrassing because of the association with frilly white dresses, mothers crying, bouquets, being given away, bridesmaids etc. I'm also against getting married for the same reason. I feel it's an institution that is overly-related to religion and old patriarchal/heterosexual structures. It's also really corny.
What I would prefer is some kind of legal recognition that me and my partner are in it for the long term and all property and rights should be considered in that light. If children are involved that's even more important. My gay friends want that too.
If gay people want to get married (some like the corn) they should be allowed to. But us people who don't, but still want legal protection, should have an alternative. That's all.
posted by Summer at 3:34 AM on August 22, 2002
I have many gay friends (I'm what you'd call a fag hag) and to them the notion of getting married is a bit embarrassing because of the association with frilly white dresses, mothers crying, bouquets, being given away, bridesmaids etc. I'm also against getting married for the same reason. I feel it's an institution that is overly-related to religion and old patriarchal/heterosexual structures. It's also really corny.
What I would prefer is some kind of legal recognition that me and my partner are in it for the long term and all property and rights should be considered in that light. If children are involved that's even more important. My gay friends want that too.
If gay people want to get married (some like the corn) they should be allowed to. But us people who don't, but still want legal protection, should have an alternative. That's all.
posted by Summer at 3:34 AM on August 22, 2002
then offer no cogent arguments in suppor[t] of them, people have every right to call you a troll.
evanizer: People love that "t" word, it seems. I regret that an opposing view makes people uncomfortable, but remember that you yourself said that dissent is a right, but that only "the right kind of dissent" is acceptable to some? Case in point.
So you started this thread in hopes of what?
I would like to learn more about a subject that seems uncomplicated to me, but to others is steeped in taunts, indignation, and the desire to "grind me" ( I know that wasn't a personal attack) "to a fine powder".
Also, I feel that there is something a bit more here than the natural, desire to commit to a monogamous relationship with a partner of one's choice. Nobody is debating that, and never has. I have not one whit of a problem with private decisions concerning the selection of one's partner.
This is absolutely and unmistakably political.
posted by hama7 at 3:37 AM on August 22, 2002
evanizer: People love that "t" word, it seems. I regret that an opposing view makes people uncomfortable, but remember that you yourself said that dissent is a right, but that only "the right kind of dissent" is acceptable to some? Case in point.
So you started this thread in hopes of what?
I would like to learn more about a subject that seems uncomplicated to me, but to others is steeped in taunts, indignation, and the desire to "grind me" ( I know that wasn't a personal attack) "to a fine powder".
Also, I feel that there is something a bit more here than the natural, desire to commit to a monogamous relationship with a partner of one's choice. Nobody is debating that, and never has. I have not one whit of a problem with private decisions concerning the selection of one's partner.
This is absolutely and unmistakably political.
posted by hama7 at 3:37 AM on August 22, 2002
It seems apparent that societal changes are making the institution of marriage a far more fluid practice amongst heterosexuals. This link suggests to me that heterosexual couples don't necessarily have a claim to "relational lifestyle stability". Besides, if Gays were in fact less stable that heteros from a relationship perspective, surely they would just be less likely to marry in the first place.
People shouldn't be discriminated against - it's as simple as that. Why should only one group within the population enjoy the opportunity to proclaim their love and enjoy rights and benefits that that union bestows upon them? What right do we have to judge people's love for each other - that should be their decision.
posted by bramoire at 3:41 AM on August 22, 2002
People shouldn't be discriminated against - it's as simple as that. Why should only one group within the population enjoy the opportunity to proclaim their love and enjoy rights and benefits that that union bestows upon them? What right do we have to judge people's love for each other - that should be their decision.
posted by bramoire at 3:41 AM on August 22, 2002
But why the necessity of state recognition?
My parrot does not need to visit me in the hospital. Also, no one is going to keep me from visiting my parrot should he/she fall desperately ill and require hospitalization.
Also, my parrot has no taxpayer status. Introducing my parrot to friends and family has never been awkward or confusing. When I die, none of my possessions are going to my parrot.
Tedious but unfortunately, in this day and age, necessary disclaimers: I am not gay. I do not have a parrot.
posted by skoosh at 3:56 AM on August 22, 2002
My parrot does not need to visit me in the hospital. Also, no one is going to keep me from visiting my parrot should he/she fall desperately ill and require hospitalization.
Also, my parrot has no taxpayer status. Introducing my parrot to friends and family has never been awkward or confusing. When I die, none of my possessions are going to my parrot.
Tedious but unfortunately, in this day and age, necessary disclaimers: I am not gay. I do not have a parrot.
posted by skoosh at 3:56 AM on August 22, 2002
So this is a "troll thread" now? How sad.
Indeed.
Also, skoosh, you forgot to mention that your parrot doesn't have sufficient self-awareness to love you back.
posted by Summer at 4:38 AM on August 22, 2002
Indeed.
Also, skoosh, you forgot to mention that your parrot doesn't have sufficient self-awareness to love you back.
posted by Summer at 4:38 AM on August 22, 2002
You cry that people call your thread a troll when just two posts above said complaint you try to make that old (and incredibly lame) "what if I want to marry an animal, is that okay too?" jab. Good work with the consistency. Have you noticed that your parrot is not a human being, and that it would not benefit (nor would you) from things like inheritance rights? Course, I've got no problem with your lifestyle, but I don't see its relevance to a conversation about human relationships.
People should marry who they want, and the only thing anyone else should care about is that both parties enter into it consentingly.
Bah, I've been awake far too long for coherency, so I'll shut up now.
posted by Nothing at 4:43 AM on August 22, 2002
People should marry who they want, and the only thing anyone else should care about is that both parties enter into it consentingly.
Bah, I've been awake far too long for coherency, so I'll shut up now.
posted by Nothing at 4:43 AM on August 22, 2002
I wrote about this at length shortly after I became engaged. The legal 'benefits' to marriage are all that the state should be concerned with. I said, among things things: The legal aspects are but a part of what a wedding is, but they are all the state should be concerned with. If a person's religious or spiritual beliefs are such that they feel they shouldn't marry someone of the same sex, then, well, they shouldn't do it! But if one's beliefs are otherwise (and there are mainstream churches that support gay and lesbian partnerships), then one should be able to. And the legal issues that the state concerns itself with (e.g., retirement benefits, hospital visitation rights, next-of-kin, etc. etc) should remain purely in that realm -- and if that's the case, then what does it matter the gender of the people forming the marriage? I'm not sure why people make such a fuss about the genders of the 2 (or N) people involved. [self link]
posted by Medley at 4:45 AM on August 22, 2002
posted by Medley at 4:45 AM on August 22, 2002
I entered this thread all fired up and ready to add my two-cents worth, but after reading the linked articles and discussion, I had an epiphany: Who really gives a flying flip?
Marriage laws are designed for the traditional family, in which one partner provides the bulk of the finances and the other takes care of the majority of the domestic responsibilities. That really has no relevance to a homosexual union, but it also has no relevance to a large portion of heterosexual marriages. So homosexuals want to be able to take advantage of the system as well? Don't expect me to join their campaign, but I doubt the world will end if public opinion comes around.
As far as "evidence that suggests same sex parents are as good or better at child rearing than more traditional parents" (Grod), I'm curious to see it. Not that I doubt you; Rosie O'Donnell said the same thing, so it must be true.
posted by chazw at 4:58 AM on August 22, 2002
Marriage laws are designed for the traditional family, in which one partner provides the bulk of the finances and the other takes care of the majority of the domestic responsibilities. That really has no relevance to a homosexual union, but it also has no relevance to a large portion of heterosexual marriages. So homosexuals want to be able to take advantage of the system as well? Don't expect me to join their campaign, but I doubt the world will end if public opinion comes around.
As far as "evidence that suggests same sex parents are as good or better at child rearing than more traditional parents" (Grod), I'm curious to see it. Not that I doubt you; Rosie O'Donnell said the same thing, so it must be true.
posted by chazw at 4:58 AM on August 22, 2002
I don't have a parrot either. Good one.
But can we just discuss the issue? I still feel that an adequate counter-argument has not been presented, and probably won't be.
And I just know that this argument against the politically-motivated minority-seeking status of same-sex marriage will not be gladly accepted either.
Odd that when "race" enters the equation, opinions spin like Beethoven's ghost at a John Cage 'happening'.
posted by hama7 at 4:59 AM on August 22, 2002
But can we just discuss the issue? I still feel that an adequate counter-argument has not been presented, and probably won't be.
And I just know that this argument against the politically-motivated minority-seeking status of same-sex marriage will not be gladly accepted either.
Odd that when "race" enters the equation, opinions spin like Beethoven's ghost at a John Cage 'happening'.
posted by hama7 at 4:59 AM on August 22, 2002
When you have tens of millions of tax paying Americans who want the government to legally recognize their marrage to a parot you get back to us okay?
How fucking simple minded. This is how you view same sex marrage? It's as petty and insane as someone marrying their pet?
And please explain to me how this is a simple political issue. From my experience the issue is that religios types don't like gays. I'm still waiting for you to tell us why you don't think gays should have legal marrage. Because it's deviant? Because change is bad?
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:00 AM on August 22, 2002
How fucking simple minded. This is how you view same sex marrage? It's as petty and insane as someone marrying their pet?
And please explain to me how this is a simple political issue. From my experience the issue is that religios types don't like gays. I'm still waiting for you to tell us why you don't think gays should have legal marrage. Because it's deviant? Because change is bad?
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:00 AM on August 22, 2002
"MetaFilter: As Usenet as We Wanna Be"... So, you said something stupid in a previous thread, now you're gonna drag yourself (and everybody else) through it again in some lame attempt to save face, convince others, or both? Yeah. like either one of those things is gonna happen. Gimme a break. I'll say it, if nobody else will: a nice plate of pancakes would really hit the spot 'bout now.
posted by JollyWanker at 5:01 AM on August 22, 2002
posted by JollyWanker at 5:01 AM on August 22, 2002
Hmmm... Nice try. Pass the syrup.
posted by JollyWanker at 5:19 AM on August 22, 2002
posted by JollyWanker at 5:19 AM on August 22, 2002
As far as "evidence that suggests same sex parents are as good or better at child rearing than more traditional parents" (Grod), I'm curious to see it. Not that I doubt you; Rosie O'Donnell said the same thing, so it must be true.
Not sure about a blanket "better than", though some studies have found specific areas where children of gay parents score slightly higher (as there are some where they scored a bit lower). The "as good as" seems to be backed up by every study I could find referenced, though the sheer amount and scope of these studies is limited, given that issue wasn't really explored seriously until the late '70s.
You can start here.
Seems to me sexual orientation should be pretty far down the list when assessing parenting skills...
posted by jalexei at 5:30 AM on August 22, 2002
Not sure about a blanket "better than", though some studies have found specific areas where children of gay parents score slightly higher (as there are some where they scored a bit lower). The "as good as" seems to be backed up by every study I could find referenced, though the sheer amount and scope of these studies is limited, given that issue wasn't really explored seriously until the late '70s.
You can start here.
Seems to me sexual orientation should be pretty far down the list when assessing parenting skills...
posted by jalexei at 5:30 AM on August 22, 2002
I fail to see how this is a troll. Someone has an opinion you don't agree with, you all scream 'troll'.
I think part of the problem lies in the word "marriage". In the eyes of the government, it is nothing more than a civil union, but to religious types, it is a contract with their diety. If people would concentrate on redefining "civil union" to allow gay marriages, there would probably be less open hostility from religious types.
posted by jbelshaw at 5:41 AM on August 22, 2002
I think part of the problem lies in the word "marriage". In the eyes of the government, it is nothing more than a civil union, but to religious types, it is a contract with their diety. If people would concentrate on redefining "civil union" to allow gay marriages, there would probably be less open hostility from religious types.
posted by jbelshaw at 5:41 AM on August 22, 2002
Why on earth do you care if homosexuals marry? Does live and let live ring a bell? Stick to posting about fish, that thread was a lot better.
posted by adampsyche at 5:45 AM on August 22, 2002
posted by adampsyche at 5:45 AM on August 22, 2002
hama7, read this.
Go to the list entitled "Because lesbians and gay men cannot marry, they have no right to:"
Everything on the list is a right or benefit bestowed by the government on heterosexual marriage...maybe it'll open your eyes....p.s.: it's not even a complete list...
Religion doesn't enter into the picture in my case--if I want to be married by a Reform rabbi (they've been doing same-sex marriages for a while), I can. It's the governmental and legal rights that we wouldn't get and that's discriminatory.
posted by amberglow at 5:51 AM on August 22, 2002
Go to the list entitled "Because lesbians and gay men cannot marry, they have no right to:"
Everything on the list is a right or benefit bestowed by the government on heterosexual marriage...maybe it'll open your eyes....p.s.: it's not even a complete list...
Religion doesn't enter into the picture in my case--if I want to be married by a Reform rabbi (they've been doing same-sex marriages for a while), I can. It's the governmental and legal rights that we wouldn't get and that's discriminatory.
posted by amberglow at 5:51 AM on August 22, 2002
but, I felt that given my comments, I had a responsibility to allow an open dialogue on the topic that I introduced.
Given the responses to my post, I should probably stick to posting things that everybody agrees with, right?
posted by hama7 at 5:56 AM on August 22, 2002
Given the responses to my post, I should probably stick to posting things that everybody agrees with, right?
posted by hama7 at 5:56 AM on August 22, 2002
On with the backslapping, "correct" posts!
*What was i thinking?*
posted by hama7 at 5:57 AM on August 22, 2002
*What was i thinking?*
posted by hama7 at 5:57 AM on August 22, 2002
Is it time for another "stir the queers" post already? I could have sworn we just had one. Well, let's take a look. Hmm.
*scratches belly*
So, let me see if I get this right. In an August 17 thread, hama7 attacks the notion of equal rights under the law for gay people with this: "There really is no reason to enter this discussion, because it's so ridiculous."
He offers no defense of this, and acts outraged when people call it a troll. Because the queers at MeFi generally have the patience of Job with this kind of shit, hama7's moronic trolling sparks fantastic rejoinders from a number of MeFi members. And hama7's response? Complete silence.
4 days later, hama7 posts an "argument" against the idea of basic equality under the law for all from -- wait for it -- Campus Crusade for Christ. Again, he is outraged when people call the post a troll.
Does that about cover it?
I submit that hama7, like anyone who repeatedly posts deliberately inflammatory formulations of issues while refusing to back them up with arguments, does not know how to be a MeFi member and could use some time to reflect. And let's be clear: This has nothing to do with engaging an opponent with a strong opinion against gay marriage. It has everything to do with the most basic principles of respectful, intelligent, worthwhile debate.
posted by mediareport at 5:58 AM on August 22, 2002
*scratches belly*
So, let me see if I get this right. In an August 17 thread, hama7 attacks the notion of equal rights under the law for gay people with this: "There really is no reason to enter this discussion, because it's so ridiculous."
He offers no defense of this, and acts outraged when people call it a troll. Because the queers at MeFi generally have the patience of Job with this kind of shit, hama7's moronic trolling sparks fantastic rejoinders from a number of MeFi members. And hama7's response? Complete silence.
4 days later, hama7 posts an "argument" against the idea of basic equality under the law for all from -- wait for it -- Campus Crusade for Christ. Again, he is outraged when people call the post a troll.
Does that about cover it?
I submit that hama7, like anyone who repeatedly posts deliberately inflammatory formulations of issues while refusing to back them up with arguments, does not know how to be a MeFi member and could use some time to reflect. And let's be clear: This has nothing to do with engaging an opponent with a strong opinion against gay marriage. It has everything to do with the most basic principles of respectful, intelligent, worthwhile debate.
posted by mediareport at 5:58 AM on August 22, 2002
I should probably stick to posting things that everybody agrees with
if you can't take it when people disagree with you then yes, that's proably a good idea.
posted by andrew cooke at 6:02 AM on August 22, 2002
if you can't take it when people disagree with you then yes, that's proably a good idea.
posted by andrew cooke at 6:02 AM on August 22, 2002
jbelshaw, it's not the opinions, it's the fact that hama7 calls other arguments "ridiculous" while refusing to address his opponents' points directly and then continuing the argument over and over again elsewhere. It's slimy, hit-and-run behavior that does nothing to air out issues in a thoughtful way. Let's take the rest to Summer's MeTa thread, which I missed on preview.
posted by mediareport at 6:10 AM on August 22, 2002
posted by mediareport at 6:10 AM on August 22, 2002
hama7, you are entitled to believe whatever it is that you want, as are the rest of us. Unfortunately, unpopular opinions carry a certain kind of weight that can be difficult to bear. When that opinion is on a topic as hot-button as this one, you have to expect a lot of people to push back.
I would suggest that you are flogging a dead topic. Let it go.
posted by ashbury at 6:10 AM on August 22, 2002
I would suggest that you are flogging a dead topic. Let it go.
posted by ashbury at 6:10 AM on August 22, 2002
I prefer to solve the problem the other way; a cleaner solution is to remove all legal recognition of marriage as such, and replace it with something more akin to the 'next friend' concept. So a person (you, for eg) can nominate one or more persons as your 'next friend', who is able to make medical/property/etc decisions on your behalf if you cannot, sign contracts etc on your behalf (with reasonable safeguards), and is automatically the first inheritor on your death. That is, basically combine the many and separate powers and duties of a spouse, executor, parent, and carer into a single system.
If a person has not registered a next friend, there should be a 'default standard'. For example, a long term sexual partner for whom witnesses can vouch (and a religious or civil marriage contract will in almost all cases meet this standard, where it is genuine), a parent, a sibling, then the eldest child. A person should be able to nominate up to (say) three people as their 'next friends', and in the case of inheritance etc, all inherit equally. In the case of a child, their 'next friends' would normally be their parents, absent a good reason for someone else to be.
So under this system, you can and normally would marry, formalizing your deep committment to each other, whether you're hetero or homosexual, religious or secular, polygamous or monogamous. Your marriage has whatever importance to you and your peer group that it should. The State wouldn't care by what rites, if any, you are married (or whatever other reason you are authorising a person to look after you); it cares only that you have, for your reasons, freely and with the free consent of the other person, authorised this person to act on your behalf. From your point of view, your husband or wife could do whatever you might currently want them to do. Probably more, since they would have an automatic right to enquire on your bank balance, for example. (And if you don't trust a person that much, may I suggest that registering this kind of relationship would not suit you. Stick with an unregistered church marriage, make a will, and let the State sort it out should you die.)
"Helpmate" seems a good word, it doesn't necessarily imply a sexual connotation but it does have strong connotations with marriage and committment.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:13 AM on August 22, 2002
If a person has not registered a next friend, there should be a 'default standard'. For example, a long term sexual partner for whom witnesses can vouch (and a religious or civil marriage contract will in almost all cases meet this standard, where it is genuine), a parent, a sibling, then the eldest child. A person should be able to nominate up to (say) three people as their 'next friends', and in the case of inheritance etc, all inherit equally. In the case of a child, their 'next friends' would normally be their parents, absent a good reason for someone else to be.
So under this system, you can and normally would marry, formalizing your deep committment to each other, whether you're hetero or homosexual, religious or secular, polygamous or monogamous. Your marriage has whatever importance to you and your peer group that it should. The State wouldn't care by what rites, if any, you are married (or whatever other reason you are authorising a person to look after you); it cares only that you have, for your reasons, freely and with the free consent of the other person, authorised this person to act on your behalf. From your point of view, your husband or wife could do whatever you might currently want them to do. Probably more, since they would have an automatic right to enquire on your bank balance, for example. (And if you don't trust a person that much, may I suggest that registering this kind of relationship would not suit you. Stick with an unregistered church marriage, make a will, and let the State sort it out should you die.)
"Helpmate" seems a good word, it doesn't necessarily imply a sexual connotation but it does have strong connotations with marriage and committment.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:13 AM on August 22, 2002
a long term sexual partner for whom witnesses can vouch
can we move on from the public sex thing?
seriously, marriage needs a new name - my sister just decided to get married, but is having a private ceremony with just a couple of friends. i've had my work cut out trying to explain to our (uninvited) parents that the name "marriage" is about all that the concept has in common with their generation. these days, for example, it's about two people, not two families; it's also about private commitment rather than accepting public rules...
posted by andrew cooke at 6:21 AM on August 22, 2002
can we move on from the public sex thing?
seriously, marriage needs a new name - my sister just decided to get married, but is having a private ceremony with just a couple of friends. i've had my work cut out trying to explain to our (uninvited) parents that the name "marriage" is about all that the concept has in common with their generation. these days, for example, it's about two people, not two families; it's also about private commitment rather than accepting public rules...
posted by andrew cooke at 6:21 AM on August 22, 2002
"a cleaner solution is to......."
Forgive me if I think your cleaner solution is needlessly complicated.
How about we just say same sex marrages are to be legally recognized. Lots of people are already doing this. Let's just recognize it.
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:23 AM on August 22, 2002
Forgive me if I think your cleaner solution is needlessly complicated.
How about we just say same sex marrages are to be legally recognized. Lots of people are already doing this. Let's just recognize it.
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:23 AM on August 22, 2002
Given the responses to my post, I should probably stick to posting things that everybody agrees with, right?
Welcome the the club! Meeting are Tuesdays and Thursdays at 8 at the Midtown Church of Political Correctness, bring your own beer and don't forget your grievance list.
:D
posted by UncleFes at 6:25 AM on August 22, 2002
Welcome the the club! Meeting are Tuesdays and Thursdays at 8 at the Midtown Church of Political Correctness, bring your own beer and don't forget your grievance list.
:D
posted by UncleFes at 6:25 AM on August 22, 2002
I don't understand why this is an issue.
If we lived in a society where procreation was a necessity, then fine, make it an issue.
If this is a religious-based issue, then that is a completely different ballgame where logic and discussion don't really have any place--we aren't supposed to go against the written word, are we? We must either abide by the Word or be heretics and outcasts.
If this is a political issue, where logic and discussion are supposedly allowed, I say that it's no different than a religion-based issue. Politics and religion have long been bedmates. In fact, religion is so ingrained into politics that there really is no separation of church and state (or call it "policy"). Politically speaking, the Fed can't make same-sex marriage legal without losing a vast portion of the voters who believe that it's a sin on the level of, oh, I don't know, satanism.
posted by ashbury at 6:35 AM on August 22, 2002
If we lived in a society where procreation was a necessity, then fine, make it an issue.
If this is a religious-based issue, then that is a completely different ballgame where logic and discussion don't really have any place--we aren't supposed to go against the written word, are we? We must either abide by the Word or be heretics and outcasts.
If this is a political issue, where logic and discussion are supposedly allowed, I say that it's no different than a religion-based issue. Politics and religion have long been bedmates. In fact, religion is so ingrained into politics that there really is no separation of church and state (or call it "policy"). Politically speaking, the Fed can't make same-sex marriage legal without losing a vast portion of the voters who believe that it's a sin on the level of, oh, I don't know, satanism.
posted by ashbury at 6:35 AM on August 22, 2002
Thanks all. I really appreciate all the posts on the topic and not me, personally. Very nice.
I am personally very fucked off with the "victims", who bogart their false "inferior" status up in this piece, thinking that I am too ignorant to understand their implications.
Spare me. I am not some religious "wacko", and I resent being written off as an intolerant extremist, 'cause I ain't.
You want to call me a "fuckwit", adampsyche? Then who's the troll?
mediareport: If you insist that I do not elaborate on my opinions, then obviously you haven't read them. Can I call that "trolling"? I couldn't care less.
I welcome discussion, and that's the reason I posted this.
posted by hama7 at 6:39 AM on August 22, 2002
I am personally very fucked off with the "victims", who bogart their false "inferior" status up in this piece, thinking that I am too ignorant to understand their implications.
Spare me. I am not some religious "wacko", and I resent being written off as an intolerant extremist, 'cause I ain't.
You want to call me a "fuckwit", adampsyche? Then who's the troll?
mediareport: If you insist that I do not elaborate on my opinions, then obviously you haven't read them. Can I call that "trolling"? I couldn't care less.
I welcome discussion, and that's the reason I posted this.
posted by hama7 at 6:39 AM on August 22, 2002
I'm interested to see what hama7 has to say on this. Although his post makes a vague attempt to be objective, it is quite clear from his previous posts that he is on the 'anti' side of this issue. So far he has backed up his viewpoint with some poorly marshalled thoughts on marrying parrots. Hama7, could you please post some coherent thoughts on this topic instead of defensive diatribes and sarcastic remarks?
posted by sid at 6:41 AM on August 22, 2002
posted by sid at 6:41 AM on August 22, 2002
I don't understand why this is an issue.
The U.S. Constitution, ashbury, guarantees equal protection under the law, including all of the legal and economic benefits straight people get when they marry, most of which "cannot be privately arranged or contracted for."
hama7: you fail to address any of the points raised in response to your deliberately inflammatory assertion on August 17, then post a freaking Campus Crusade for Christ link against gay marriage, and wonder why the focus of the thread became your trolling? Puh-lease.
posted by mediareport at 6:44 AM on August 22, 2002
The U.S. Constitution, ashbury, guarantees equal protection under the law, including all of the legal and economic benefits straight people get when they marry, most of which "cannot be privately arranged or contracted for."
hama7: you fail to address any of the points raised in response to your deliberately inflammatory assertion on August 17, then post a freaking Campus Crusade for Christ link against gay marriage, and wonder why the focus of the thread became your trolling? Puh-lease.
posted by mediareport at 6:44 AM on August 22, 2002
The sanctity of marriage is practically a joke in America anyway, serial monogamy defeats the purpose of marriage.
The first part of that statement is sad but true, though there are still many people who honor their spouse until their death. Serial monogamy is not the sole reason for marriage. It isn't all about sex, it's about a beneficial contract between two people who wish to pool their resources. It also creates a more favorable environment for raising children.
If this is a religious-based issue, then that is a completely different ballgame where logic and discussion don't really have any place--we aren't supposed to go against the written word, are we?
I think it is innaccurate to say that anything related to religion predicates an abandonment of all logic and reason. You should be more careful with your terms. However, when one religion tries to use the law to enforce what should be a free moral choice, then you get into the nutty areas.
*scratches belly*
Didn't I coin that?
Ah, and the term fuckwit is being bandied about, the new insult to hide behind as troll becomes antiquated.
I don't think gays should use the word marriage for a civil union, simply because marriage, by its most commonly held definition, is between a man and woman (husband and wife).
My disagreement with gay marriage is a semantic one. Perhaps some form of common law marriage ought to be applied to these cases. I do think that the law ought to be modified to make it easier for any two people, whatever their reasons, to create legal agreements (including things like power of attorney) fairly equivalent to the legal benefits of marriage., although I think some of the legal benefits of marriage are lorded over the citizens who are single (so much for equal protection under the law).
posted by insomnyuk at 6:49 AM on August 22, 2002
The first part of that statement is sad but true, though there are still many people who honor their spouse until their death. Serial monogamy is not the sole reason for marriage. It isn't all about sex, it's about a beneficial contract between two people who wish to pool their resources. It also creates a more favorable environment for raising children.
If this is a religious-based issue, then that is a completely different ballgame where logic and discussion don't really have any place--we aren't supposed to go against the written word, are we?
I think it is innaccurate to say that anything related to religion predicates an abandonment of all logic and reason. You should be more careful with your terms. However, when one religion tries to use the law to enforce what should be a free moral choice, then you get into the nutty areas.
*scratches belly*
Didn't I coin that?
Ah, and the term fuckwit is being bandied about, the new insult to hide behind as troll becomes antiquated.
I don't think gays should use the word marriage for a civil union, simply because marriage, by its most commonly held definition, is between a man and woman (husband and wife).
My disagreement with gay marriage is a semantic one. Perhaps some form of common law marriage ought to be applied to these cases. I do think that the law ought to be modified to make it easier for any two people, whatever their reasons, to create legal agreements (including things like power of attorney) fairly equivalent to the legal benefits of marriage., although I think some of the legal benefits of marriage are lorded over the citizens who are single (so much for equal protection under the law).
posted by insomnyuk at 6:49 AM on August 22, 2002
mediareport, I mis-stated. What I fail to understand is why gay people do not have equal rights under the law re marriage. I realize that it's a matter of definition, but I don't understand why that definition hasn't changed. This is what I meant by "not understanding why it's an issue".
posted by ashbury at 6:52 AM on August 22, 2002
posted by ashbury at 6:52 AM on August 22, 2002
., although I think some of the legal benefits of marriage are lorded over the citizens who are single (so much for equal protection under the law).
Traditionally, married people had children, bought property, started paying taxes and generally had a vested interest in the communities they were living in. Marriage built societies. Perhaps this is why so many religions have injunctions against premarital sex - unwed mothers could seldom provide for their children or their communities as well as two parents.
Today, with the disintegration of the traditional family unit, I doubt if the benefits given to married people helps society as a whole.
posted by sid at 6:54 AM on August 22, 2002
Traditionally, married people had children, bought property, started paying taxes and generally had a vested interest in the communities they were living in. Marriage built societies. Perhaps this is why so many religions have injunctions against premarital sex - unwed mothers could seldom provide for their children or their communities as well as two parents.
Today, with the disintegration of the traditional family unit, I doubt if the benefits given to married people helps society as a whole.
posted by sid at 6:54 AM on August 22, 2002
insomnyuk: Didn't I coin that?
I almost used tildes. ;)
The only problem I see with your semantic argument, btw, is the lingering odor of separate-but-equal. Words change their "most commonly held" definitions all the time, don't they? What do we really lose by opening up the word "marriage" to include same-sex folks as well?
ashbury, I wasn't quite sure what you meant; sorry for misinterpreting.
posted by mediareport at 7:00 AM on August 22, 2002
I almost used tildes. ;)
The only problem I see with your semantic argument, btw, is the lingering odor of separate-but-equal. Words change their "most commonly held" definitions all the time, don't they? What do we really lose by opening up the word "marriage" to include same-sex folks as well?
ashbury, I wasn't quite sure what you meant; sorry for misinterpreting.
posted by mediareport at 7:00 AM on August 22, 2002
I think it is innaccurate to say that anything related to religion predicates an abandonment of all logic and reason. --insomnyuk
Fair enough, but in some circumstances, in some areas of theology, we are asked to take much on faith, not logic and reason. Fortunately there is a lot of room to move around in when it comes to marriage, but some people look at the Book and don't bother thinking about why some things can now be changed. Heterosexual marriage, in my opinion, is not Divine, it was necessary for survival. Now it's not.
mediareport, no prob; I'm often caught out in incomplete thoughts and have to go back and explain them better. :)
posted by ashbury at 7:02 AM on August 22, 2002
Fair enough, but in some circumstances, in some areas of theology, we are asked to take much on faith, not logic and reason. Fortunately there is a lot of room to move around in when it comes to marriage, but some people look at the Book and don't bother thinking about why some things can now be changed. Heterosexual marriage, in my opinion, is not Divine, it was necessary for survival. Now it's not.
mediareport, no prob; I'm often caught out in incomplete thoughts and have to go back and explain them better. :)
posted by ashbury at 7:02 AM on August 22, 2002
ok, sorry for that. i was trying to point out that crying "you guys just don't want to hear anything but your own opinions!" is not necessarily true. there is plenty disagreement on metafilter, and plenty of civil disagreements, and what it really comes down to is that it's not what you say, but how you say it.
i guess i proved my own point above: instead of posting what i posted, i should have just said what i said here. sorry about that, you're right.
posted by adampsyche at 7:05 AM on August 22, 2002
i guess i proved my own point above: instead of posting what i posted, i should have just said what i said here. sorry about that, you're right.
posted by adampsyche at 7:05 AM on August 22, 2002
Just out of curiousity Hama7, what kind of answer do you think would persuade you? In that last thread you kept asking why gays and lesbians "needed" legal and economic recognition of their partnerships. As if you or the state might grant it to them if they needed it badly enough. But gays and lesbians in their respective democratic countries are part of the state--as much as their fellow straight citizens are. And as we the people have collectively instituted equal rights under the law for all of us, I think it's your duty to explain why any given class of people should be deprived of any of those rights.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:06 AM on August 22, 2002
posted by octobersurprise at 7:06 AM on August 22, 2002
In my opinion, I don't see why homosexuals would WANT to get married, since they would miss out on all that crazy nasty sex they all have with complete strangers every night.
Okay, kidding. back to your regularly scheduled program.
posted by bradth27 at 7:07 AM on August 22, 2002
Okay, kidding. back to your regularly scheduled program.
posted by bradth27 at 7:07 AM on August 22, 2002
In my opinion, I don't see why homosexuals would WANT to get married, since they would miss out on all that crazy nasty sex they all have with complete strangers every night.
My mom would disagree with you. She's a mega-slut.
posted by ColdChef at 7:11 AM on August 22, 2002
My mom would disagree with you. She's a mega-slut.
posted by ColdChef at 7:11 AM on August 22, 2002
Anyone want to bet hama7's response to octobersurprise will be complete silence? Come on, hama; break your own mold.
posted by mediareport at 7:16 AM on August 22, 2002
posted by mediareport at 7:16 AM on August 22, 2002
it's your duty to explain why any given class of people should be deprived et cetera.
Simply, and obviously, gay-'ness' is not a class, nor a choice.
posted by hama7 at 7:19 AM on August 22, 2002
Simply, and obviously, gay-'ness' is not a class, nor a choice.
posted by hama7 at 7:19 AM on August 22, 2002
The only problem I see with your semantic argument, btw, is the lingering odor of separate-but-equal. Words change their "most commonly held" definitions all the time, don't they? What do we really lose by opening up the word "marriage" to include same-sex folks as well?
I agree with your point that words change meanings, although marriage is one particular word which has held the same meaning for a long, long time. This doesn't mean it won't change, but any change ought to be evolutionary, not forced on the society. When I mean semantic, then, I should be more specific, in a legal sense. I'm saying the word Marriage should be the name of the legal definition of a union between a man and a woman, with the typical legal agreements found in religious marriages through the ages. A civil union between people of the same sex could be the legal name for a contractual agreement between the two people of the same sex, with legal strictures similar to marriage, if you all really want to have a marriage-type legal relationship (which has its own liabilities and benefits). Or you could and sign a specific legal contract between two people and call it whatever you want. I'm sure there are institutions willing to grant a 'certificate of marriage' which includes a legal contract similar to marriage. As the demand for this type of union goes up, there will also be more streamlined private methods to accomplish the things marriages accomplish. If we wish to live in a free society, people deserve equal protection under the law, and people must respect the free choices of others, not try to use the State to stop them.
Heterosexual marriage, in my opinion, is not Divine, it was necessary for survival. Now it's not.
Well, if that is true, is marriage still important? (it's obvious that there are many beneficial reasons for marriage, not just procreation) If it is not important (except in the equal rights issue) then why is it an issue at all? Also, To that statement I will reply with something evanizer said earlier:
"But the institution of marriage, whether you choose to accept it in a Christian or other spiritual sense, or whether you choose to view it as a profound humanist commitment between two people, is not within the power of anyone to grant or revoke."
I find this statement completely agreeable. Law is not the same as legitimacy. Ultimately, people will believe in their hearts what they know to be true no matter what the State does (no, I'm not justifying maintaining the status quo, so don't throw that at me).
posted by insomnyuk at 7:25 AM on August 22, 2002
I agree with your point that words change meanings, although marriage is one particular word which has held the same meaning for a long, long time. This doesn't mean it won't change, but any change ought to be evolutionary, not forced on the society. When I mean semantic, then, I should be more specific, in a legal sense. I'm saying the word Marriage should be the name of the legal definition of a union between a man and a woman, with the typical legal agreements found in religious marriages through the ages. A civil union between people of the same sex could be the legal name for a contractual agreement between the two people of the same sex, with legal strictures similar to marriage, if you all really want to have a marriage-type legal relationship (which has its own liabilities and benefits). Or you could and sign a specific legal contract between two people and call it whatever you want. I'm sure there are institutions willing to grant a 'certificate of marriage' which includes a legal contract similar to marriage. As the demand for this type of union goes up, there will also be more streamlined private methods to accomplish the things marriages accomplish. If we wish to live in a free society, people deserve equal protection under the law, and people must respect the free choices of others, not try to use the State to stop them.
Heterosexual marriage, in my opinion, is not Divine, it was necessary for survival. Now it's not.
Well, if that is true, is marriage still important? (it's obvious that there are many beneficial reasons for marriage, not just procreation) If it is not important (except in the equal rights issue) then why is it an issue at all? Also, To that statement I will reply with something evanizer said earlier:
"But the institution of marriage, whether you choose to accept it in a Christian or other spiritual sense, or whether you choose to view it as a profound humanist commitment between two people, is not within the power of anyone to grant or revoke."
I find this statement completely agreeable. Law is not the same as legitimacy. Ultimately, people will believe in their hearts what they know to be true no matter what the State does (no, I'm not justifying maintaining the status quo, so don't throw that at me).
posted by insomnyuk at 7:25 AM on August 22, 2002
Simply, and obviously, gay-'ness' is not a class, nor a choice.
Well, yes, I'm inclined to agree with you there. But if there's no significant difference then between citizens on the basis of sexual orientation, there's even less reason for discriminatory (using this word here in the sense of "to separate by difference") treatment among those citizens. Right?
posted by octobersurprise at 7:30 AM on August 22, 2002
Well, yes, I'm inclined to agree with you there. But if there's no significant difference then between citizens on the basis of sexual orientation, there's even less reason for discriminatory (using this word here in the sense of "to separate by difference") treatment among those citizens. Right?
posted by octobersurprise at 7:30 AM on August 22, 2002
And here's my attempt, gently now...
You left out the first part of the sentence you quoted, hama7. So let's try it another way: "And as we the people have collectively instituted equal rights under the law for all of us, I think it's your duty to explain why any given individual should be deprived of any of those rights."
Care to work with that? What is it exactly, that justifies denying *any* citizen the guarantee of equal rights under the law?
posted by mediareport at 7:31 AM on August 22, 2002
You left out the first part of the sentence you quoted, hama7. So let's try it another way: "And as we the people have collectively instituted equal rights under the law for all of us, I think it's your duty to explain why any given individual should be deprived of any of those rights."
Care to work with that? What is it exactly, that justifies denying *any* citizen the guarantee of equal rights under the law?
posted by mediareport at 7:31 AM on August 22, 2002
Careful mediareport...children don't have the same rights as adults (privacy, medical care determination, contracts) and neither do convicted criminals (right to assembly, private ownership). There are examples where society has said that just because you are a citizen, you don't get all the rights that everyone else does. I'm all for those rights-limitations as they stand now, and I'm sure most people would feel the same way.
That said, I'm all for legally-recognized gay marriages.
posted by grum@work at 7:40 AM on August 22, 2002
That said, I'm all for legally-recognized gay marriages.
posted by grum@work at 7:40 AM on August 22, 2002
If gayness is not a class or a choice, then gay people are the same as straight people. How do you justify advocating denying them a right?
The concept of marriage exists independent of the simple name that we give to it. It could be called "cookies" or "mookaschwaga" and still entail the same feelings, emotions, rights, and responsibilities. All people should be entitled to it, not just a certain portion of the population, and I honestly haven't seen any justification otherwise, here or elsewhere. I invite you to change my mind, hama7 and others, with reasoned well-argued points, but until then, I'll think to the end that you're dead wrong.
posted by The Michael The at 7:40 AM on August 22, 2002
The concept of marriage exists independent of the simple name that we give to it. It could be called "cookies" or "mookaschwaga" and still entail the same feelings, emotions, rights, and responsibilities. All people should be entitled to it, not just a certain portion of the population, and I honestly haven't seen any justification otherwise, here or elsewhere. I invite you to change my mind, hama7 and others, with reasoned well-argued points, but until then, I'll think to the end that you're dead wrong.
posted by The Michael The at 7:40 AM on August 22, 2002
How about polygamy? Should (the currently illegal in the US) polygamists demand legitimization, claiming infringement on their rights?
Why not?
posted by rushmc at 7:45 AM on August 22, 2002
Why not?
posted by rushmc at 7:45 AM on August 22, 2002
grum@work: The cases of children and criminals are special. Children are deemed to not have the same decision-making abilities as adults, which creates problems as they near adulthood (18 or so). Felons have, in a sense, forfeited some of their rights by committing the crimes that they did. I don't think it could be argued that gays either 1) don't have decision making capicities or 2) have forfeited their rights by committing crimes. Fundamentalists wouldn't agree with me, but I think I have science and psychology on my side.
posted by The Michael The at 7:45 AM on August 22, 2002
posted by The Michael The at 7:45 AM on August 22, 2002
This issue was raised by an Australian columnist. She was universally condemned by the blogs I read for her homophobia (and her claim that proposed legislative changes are part of a gay anti-bourgeois conspiracy).
posted by robcorr at 7:52 AM on August 22, 2002
posted by robcorr at 7:52 AM on August 22, 2002
First I think that gay couples should be able to marry. This thread talks about what it means to be married, that it's a union between two people and it grants you certain benefits. But the real reason for a formal marriage these days (in the practical sense) is that when it ends you don't end up getting screwed, it's a contract is all. Couldn't gay couples get married in whatever unlegally binding way they have been up until now and then sign some kind of binding marriage contract that mimics what a traditional marriage contract would bestow upon the couple, the problem I see with that is for benefits, not sure how custody works either i.e can two unmarried people have joint custody of a child
posted by zeoslap at 7:59 AM on August 22, 2002
posted by zeoslap at 7:59 AM on August 22, 2002
Grum, yes, I assumed that mediareport used "individual" as shorthand for "class of individuals." I think most of us would agree that society is justified in denying some classes of citizens (the class of children, for ex., because of their developing faculties, the class of convicts because of a demonstrated habit of abusing their rights) the full range of rights. The question of course is on what grounds these classes are defined and who defines them. Hama7 has agreed that the sexual orientation of citizens is not a significant class, thereby invalidating his entire argument as far as I can see.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:01 AM on August 22, 2002
posted by octobersurprise at 8:01 AM on August 22, 2002
OK, I'll jump off the fence.
I find the arguments for legal recognition of homosexual marriage much stronger than those against.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the benefits associated with marriage are designed to accommodate disparity in earnings between partners in a traditional family relationship. What are the benefits for a married couple with no children and approximately equal salaries, a description that would fit many homosexual couples? In many cases, the penalties outweigh the benefits.
As others have already pointed out, marriage, in the eyes of the law, is simply a contractual agreement between two parties. Perhaps the government should get out of the marriage business entirely, but until it does, it has an obligation to provide equal protection to all its citizens.
All the arguments against homosexual marriage I've seen, except the morality issue, raise concerns that could easily apply to many heterosexual marriages. If it boils down to morality, then the current restrictions on marriage clearly, in my mind, violate the First Amendment.
posted by chazw at 8:08 AM on August 22, 2002
I find the arguments for legal recognition of homosexual marriage much stronger than those against.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the benefits associated with marriage are designed to accommodate disparity in earnings between partners in a traditional family relationship. What are the benefits for a married couple with no children and approximately equal salaries, a description that would fit many homosexual couples? In many cases, the penalties outweigh the benefits.
As others have already pointed out, marriage, in the eyes of the law, is simply a contractual agreement between two parties. Perhaps the government should get out of the marriage business entirely, but until it does, it has an obligation to provide equal protection to all its citizens.
All the arguments against homosexual marriage I've seen, except the morality issue, raise concerns that could easily apply to many heterosexual marriages. If it boils down to morality, then the current restrictions on marriage clearly, in my mind, violate the First Amendment.
posted by chazw at 8:08 AM on August 22, 2002
Oh, and today a prominent Australian lesbian responds.
posted by robcorr at 8:09 AM on August 22, 2002
posted by robcorr at 8:09 AM on August 22, 2002
How about polygamy? Should (the currently illegal in the US) polygamists demand legitimization, claiming infringement on their rights?
Why not?
North American polygamists traditionally do all kinds of creepy things like marrying their wives' sisters or very young daughters from previous marriages. There's a lot of physical and emotional abuse that goes on in these communities - they do a lot more that's illegal than marry >1 person.
posted by sid at 8:10 AM on August 22, 2002
Why not?
North American polygamists traditionally do all kinds of creepy things like marrying their wives' sisters or very young daughters from previous marriages. There's a lot of physical and emotional abuse that goes on in these communities - they do a lot more that's illegal than marry >1 person.
posted by sid at 8:10 AM on August 22, 2002
the problem I see with that is for benefits, not sure how custody works either i.e can two unmarried people have joint custody of a child
The benefits issue is a red herring. Benefits are handed out to same sex partners already by some corporations, regardless of marriage. I think that the way benefits are distributed should be left up to individual businesses, after all, benefits are little more than a glorified income tax shelter, and are responsible for creating the monstrous HMOs we have today. Benefits are also voluntary on the part of the corporation, they don't have a legal obligation to give the spouse of an employee healthcare coverage, nor should they.
Perhaps the government should get out of the marriage business entirely
I could deal with that, but too many competing financial special interests will keep that from happening, at least in the short term.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:14 AM on August 22, 2002
The benefits issue is a red herring. Benefits are handed out to same sex partners already by some corporations, regardless of marriage. I think that the way benefits are distributed should be left up to individual businesses, after all, benefits are little more than a glorified income tax shelter, and are responsible for creating the monstrous HMOs we have today. Benefits are also voluntary on the part of the corporation, they don't have a legal obligation to give the spouse of an employee healthcare coverage, nor should they.
Perhaps the government should get out of the marriage business entirely
I could deal with that, but too many competing financial special interests will keep that from happening, at least in the short term.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:14 AM on August 22, 2002
Thanks, grum@work, for the clarification.
hama7, what is it, exactly, that justifies denying *any* adult, non-convict citizen the guarantee of equal rights under the law?
Or are you going to disappear on us again when faced with an argument you don't have an answer for?
posted by mediareport at 8:36 AM on August 22, 2002
hama7, what is it, exactly, that justifies denying *any* adult, non-convict citizen the guarantee of equal rights under the law?
Or are you going to disappear on us again when faced with an argument you don't have an answer for?
posted by mediareport at 8:36 AM on August 22, 2002
North American polygamists traditionally do all kinds of creepy things like marrying their wives' sisters or very young daughters from previous marriages. There's a lot of physical and emotional abuse that goes on in these communities - they do a lot more that's illegal than marry >1 person.
So presumably we could make polygamy legal, keep all those other things illegal, and still prosecute the creepy ones for the other illegal things they're doing--meanwhile, polygamy without any of the creepy elements you cite would be fine.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:39 AM on August 22, 2002
So presumably we could make polygamy legal, keep all those other things illegal, and still prosecute the creepy ones for the other illegal things they're doing--meanwhile, polygamy without any of the creepy elements you cite would be fine.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:39 AM on August 22, 2002
mediaretort: What answer? I am here. On second thought, no I'm not.
posted by hama7 at 8:43 AM on August 22, 2002
posted by hama7 at 8:43 AM on August 22, 2002
I'm an atheist, so the concept of marriage isn't such a big deal to me. My partner and I are together over ten years now, and doing something official like this isn't going to change our status. We did register in San Francisco as domestic partners, primarily for the sake of benefits.
I'm more with aeschenkarnos on this. I've heard arguments (sorry I don't remember enough to appropriately attribute them) in favor of establishing a law to allow anyone to select next of kin--not necessarily a romantic partner, but anyone you choose--with the same legal rights now offered spouses, particularly with regard to death benefits.
I always thought it was ridiculous that I could pay as much into Social Security than a married guy, but when I die my money disappears, while his can get passed on to his wife as a survivor benefit. Marriage penalty, indeed.
posted by troybob at 8:48 AM on August 22, 2002
I'm more with aeschenkarnos on this. I've heard arguments (sorry I don't remember enough to appropriately attribute them) in favor of establishing a law to allow anyone to select next of kin--not necessarily a romantic partner, but anyone you choose--with the same legal rights now offered spouses, particularly with regard to death benefits.
I always thought it was ridiculous that I could pay as much into Social Security than a married guy, but when I die my money disappears, while his can get passed on to his wife as a survivor benefit. Marriage penalty, indeed.
posted by troybob at 8:48 AM on August 22, 2002
Oh, good. Here it is again, then: What is it, exactly, that justifies denying *any* adult, non-convict citizen the guarantee of equal rights under the law?
posted by mediareport at 8:51 AM on August 22, 2002
posted by mediareport at 8:51 AM on August 22, 2002
It seems that we have several different ideas about marriage floating through this thread. In my work as a Christian pastor (our church is soon to be going through a human "sexuality" study yet again) I find it helpful to think about several factors in marriage and then apply them to the issue of homosexual marriages.
Weddings are not marriages. Weddings are simply the ceremonies around publicly spoken, and witnessed commitments between two people. Ideally (imho) this also includes a blessing and an invitation from God to join together in this commitment. Realistically, most weddings are a bunch of fluff. The good ones last <10 minutes.
Legal Contracts. This is what the govt is concerned with and there have been some good thoughts on this aspect already written in the thread. Perhaps we should revisit our assumptions about what these contracts should include.
Commitment. This is the important part. I believe our society is built on the foundation of these commitments. The Bible compares God's commitment to humanity with the commitment made in a marriage. It takes work and change and forgiveness to make such a commitment work.
In these three areas I see no reason to deny homosexual marriages. The nagging question I have is about gender differences. Women and men think, perceive and relate differently. Is it possible that heterosexual unions are more complete (sorry for the way that sounds) or well rounded than homosexual unions? And even if it is, does that mean that homosexual unions should be banned?
'nuff said
posted by ziklagz at 9:09 AM on August 22, 2002
Weddings are not marriages. Weddings are simply the ceremonies around publicly spoken, and witnessed commitments between two people. Ideally (imho) this also includes a blessing and an invitation from God to join together in this commitment. Realistically, most weddings are a bunch of fluff. The good ones last <10 minutes.
Legal Contracts. This is what the govt is concerned with and there have been some good thoughts on this aspect already written in the thread. Perhaps we should revisit our assumptions about what these contracts should include.
Commitment. This is the important part. I believe our society is built on the foundation of these commitments. The Bible compares God's commitment to humanity with the commitment made in a marriage. It takes work and change and forgiveness to make such a commitment work.
In these three areas I see no reason to deny homosexual marriages. The nagging question I have is about gender differences. Women and men think, perceive and relate differently. Is it possible that heterosexual unions are more complete (sorry for the way that sounds) or well rounded than homosexual unions? And even if it is, does that mean that homosexual unions should be banned?
'nuff said
posted by ziklagz at 9:09 AM on August 22, 2002
All together, one more time:
What is it, exactly, that justifies denying *any* adult, non-convict citizen the guarantee of equal rights under the law?
posted by adampsyche at 9:15 AM on August 22, 2002
What is it, exactly, that justifies denying *any* adult, non-convict citizen the guarantee of equal rights under the law?
posted by adampsyche at 9:15 AM on August 22, 2002
So presumably we could make polygamy legal, keep all those other things illegal, and still prosecute the creepy ones for the other illegal things they're doing--meanwhile, polygamy without any of the creepy elements you cite would be fine.
Touche. But what about benefits? One's spouse is 'foremost' other than oneself - how does one split benefits among several spouses? How can several people be 'foremost'?
posted by sid at 9:19 AM on August 22, 2002
Touche. But what about benefits? One's spouse is 'foremost' other than oneself - how does one split benefits among several spouses? How can several people be 'foremost'?
posted by sid at 9:19 AM on August 22, 2002
Women and men think, perceive and relate differently.
Yes, they do. But individual women think, perceive, and relate differently. Individual men think, perceive, and relate differently. Some women think, perceive, and relate in a way that could be identified as stereotypically male, and vice versa.
My point is that even if one of the benefits of marriage is to bring completeness to a relationship, that would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis--some heterosexual unions are complete, some are not, some homosexual unions are complete, some are not. Of course, there's no easy way to evaluate this, so I would think the state is better off not trying to make that determination at all.
An analogy: suppose a certain job requires a certain amount of physical strength--"must be able to lift 80 pounds" or something like that. On average, men are stronger than women--so is the employer justified in accepting only male applicants for the job? Of course not. Some women are capable of lifting 80 pounds, and some men are not. They should be evaluated as to whether they have the necessary strength as individuals, and not as members of a group. Likewise, if some sort of "completeness" is desirable for a marriage, couples should be evaluated as to whether they meet that criterion as individual couples, and not as members of a group.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:26 AM on August 22, 2002
Yes, they do. But individual women think, perceive, and relate differently. Individual men think, perceive, and relate differently. Some women think, perceive, and relate in a way that could be identified as stereotypically male, and vice versa.
My point is that even if one of the benefits of marriage is to bring completeness to a relationship, that would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis--some heterosexual unions are complete, some are not, some homosexual unions are complete, some are not. Of course, there's no easy way to evaluate this, so I would think the state is better off not trying to make that determination at all.
An analogy: suppose a certain job requires a certain amount of physical strength--"must be able to lift 80 pounds" or something like that. On average, men are stronger than women--so is the employer justified in accepting only male applicants for the job? Of course not. Some women are capable of lifting 80 pounds, and some men are not. They should be evaluated as to whether they have the necessary strength as individuals, and not as members of a group. Likewise, if some sort of "completeness" is desirable for a marriage, couples should be evaluated as to whether they meet that criterion as individual couples, and not as members of a group.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:26 AM on August 22, 2002
Hama7 is apparently determined to be the ParisParamus of homosexuality topics. Oh, yay.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:26 AM on August 22, 2002
posted by five fresh fish at 9:26 AM on August 22, 2002
DevilsAdvocate: You are exactly right. I can imagine many instances in which two men or two women function as a better team (in a marriage) than a man and a woman.
However I think my point is more than just a generalization about men and women. There is a fundamental differrence between men and women not just a sliding scale. Some men can think, percieve and relate more like a woman than other men but they still are not a woman. There will always be a difference. It's this difference (regardless of my fuzzy description) that makes all the difference.
posted by ziklagz at 9:50 AM on August 22, 2002
However I think my point is more than just a generalization about men and women. There is a fundamental differrence between men and women not just a sliding scale. Some men can think, percieve and relate more like a woman than other men but they still are not a woman. There will always be a difference. It's this difference (regardless of my fuzzy description) that makes all the difference.
posted by ziklagz at 9:50 AM on August 22, 2002
What hama7 apparently doesn't realize is that this could be a critical moment in his MeFi career. Now that he's got the attention he's wanted, the eyeballs looking his way are probably at least a little curious to see how he's going to react in debate to points that refute his initial position. Is he capable of admitting he's wrong, and thus willing to join the fray as an equal? Or will he persist in hit-and-run-style arguing and be shown for a troll who's not interested in honestly engaging his opponents in a way that helps MeFi remain "a diverse yet surprisingly inclusive community where the focus is on discourse and debate"? Does he want to keep the typical discussion here "reasoned, textured and passionate" or not?
[cue Jeopardy music]
posted by mediareport at 9:54 AM on August 22, 2002
[cue Jeopardy music]
posted by mediareport at 9:54 AM on August 22, 2002
although marriage is one particular word which has held the same meaning for a long, long time.
Not really. It used to be essentially a business contract between two families, very often arranged by the fathers while their children were babies, for the benefit of the extended families not the individuals. It then became essentially an agreement between two men - the husband would ask the father of a woman for his daughter's hand in marriage. This didn't have much to do with mutual love, but with desire / positive business connections on the part of one man and acceptance / positive business connections on the part of the other. It evolved to include the asking of the woman herself, & a courtship process that would allow her to turn the suitor down. These days it's just between two people, and often enough it's discussed mutually or the woman brings it up. People get married even if they don't want children, or are past the age of child-bearing etc; it's really only about a personal commitment. Expanding this to include homosexuals is not stretching it much further beyond it's current use. I'm embarrassed to even share a first name with the writer of that australian article who claimed it was an attempt to destroy something. Lady: it's already changed. Deal.
Women and men think, perceive and relate differently.
Wouldn't this mean that homosexual unions are stronger and deeper, then? If a pair of men or women understand each other better than one of each, I can't see how that should count against them. Though for the record, I think there is greater diversity within the genders than difference between them.
posted by mdn at 11:15 AM on August 22, 2002
Not really. It used to be essentially a business contract between two families, very often arranged by the fathers while their children were babies, for the benefit of the extended families not the individuals. It then became essentially an agreement between two men - the husband would ask the father of a woman for his daughter's hand in marriage. This didn't have much to do with mutual love, but with desire / positive business connections on the part of one man and acceptance / positive business connections on the part of the other. It evolved to include the asking of the woman herself, & a courtship process that would allow her to turn the suitor down. These days it's just between two people, and often enough it's discussed mutually or the woman brings it up. People get married even if they don't want children, or are past the age of child-bearing etc; it's really only about a personal commitment. Expanding this to include homosexuals is not stretching it much further beyond it's current use. I'm embarrassed to even share a first name with the writer of that australian article who claimed it was an attempt to destroy something. Lady: it's already changed. Deal.
Women and men think, perceive and relate differently.
Wouldn't this mean that homosexual unions are stronger and deeper, then? If a pair of men or women understand each other better than one of each, I can't see how that should count against them. Though for the record, I think there is greater diversity within the genders than difference between them.
posted by mdn at 11:15 AM on August 22, 2002
« Older Google makes another killer app? | A sort of inadequate memorial tribute to John... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by hama7 at 12:51 AM on August 22, 2002