Poll: "Marriage" key in "Gay Marriage"?

[Silvanus]

It's pretty common that the majority tries to equate their troubles with the minority's. It's therefore unsurprising that one would equate their argument being considered a non-issue here with actual systematic discrimination.

That's true. I shouldn't still be surprised when such arguments crop up, but I am.

While I agree with you on most points, a wedding ceremony can be called whatever you want it to be called. There's neither a legal nor a religious obligation. It's what's on the paper and how the union itself is legislated. Many people already have religious ceremonies and legal ones, and they're the straight ones who can legally marry/marry in the eyes of most ideas of "God."

There are social ramifications, of course, but wedding ceremonies aren't inherently legally binding. I would think a bigger issue would be finding a suitable venue, as many dream of Church weddings even if they're not considered cool with the Lord. And that would remain an issue, because a church still has the right to not hold gay wedding ceremonies.

I can understand it; some Churches have incredible architecture.

As for naming the ceremony, I'd guess the vast majority simply opt for "marriage", because they can, and because that's what they have always thought of it as. If a gay couple has an impressive ceremony, at some impressive secular location, the name on the paper-- "Civil Partnership"-- could still be a slap in the face.

You're right, though, that the venue is likely to be the bigger consideration. Many are religious, and may feel it is only the institution that stands in their way, not the Lord. Others may even belong to Churches who want to perform the ceremonies, such as the Quakers, but who are disallowed.

 

[Kinitawowi]

equal standing for gay people isn't of much importance to you.

If you're going to put (false) words into my mouth, I rather suspect that this is my cue to bail out of the thread before things get really stupid.

 

[Silvanus]

If you're going to put (false) words into my mouth, I rather suspect that this is my cue to bail out of the thread before things get really stupid.

You haven't said anything directly to that effect, exactly. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

You did, however, say that since you don't support marriage at all, even though the institution isn't going anywhere for decades at least, you don't support gay people having equal access to it.

I don't see how else I can interpret that. You want the institution gone, but while it's here (which will be for some time yet), you would keep it unequal? Unless I'm misunderstanding you on that, that's... not placing much value on my equal standing.

EDIT: I'm genuinely not intending to be combative, here. If I'm misunderstanding, do tell me.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

Were I forced to choose I'd say the rights are the most important part as it is what proves the most impactful part, but it should be equal in both title and law. There is no reason at all to have different rules for different people. It's discriminatory, and wasteful.

 

[Conza]

Well, if you have the term than you have the rights, right?

Not in this poll, that's what makes the question difficult, the question isn't "rights vs. rights and title" it's simply one or the other, I didn't want to classic debate, I wanted people to be forced to choose (or come up with a good reason not to vote).

Just giving the rights without the term makes it an unequal institution, even if all the rights are in place, and leaves open the possibility that changes could be made.

So I'm for the term because it implies the rights and has no compromises.

But that's just it, it implies, but doesn't actually do anything, in this scenario. This isn't too much of an improbably scenario either, if legislation caved to same sex marriage, but then put provisions on them, you could be left with a title that had no meaning - if you vote for the name, in this poll, that's what you're voting for.

Although technically it's not much of a choice. Would answering that I'm for the term mean that I was not for the rights? No, I don't think so. So it is a weird question that is not well formed.

Well in this poll it does, and I take exception to the question not being well formed, its hard to come up with an original way to debate gay rights through marriage equality without the same old pro-con discussion for/against, and this is one way to do so.

 

[Olas]

I agree it should be about equality, gay marriage itself is just one aspect of that. Whether you're for or against marriage as an institution it should be the same across the board.

Even a civil union that functions the same as a marriage isn't equal since it implies that the relationship between the two is different from that of a traditional marriage, all of which is reminiscent of the 'separate but equal' argument.

Isn't that just making a fuss over meaningless semantics?

That's like saying it's unfair that when men wear perfume it gets called cologne, even though they're conceptually the exact same.

 

[shootthebandit]

I dont really care one iato. I like gay people but i dont like the idea of marriage. Its an outdated tradition that doesnt really serve a purpose. Gay marriage is a good step for gay rights so im all for it

It really bugs me when people say "if gay people get married it will ruin the sanctity of marriage". What so going to vegas and getting a drive thru wedding performed by an elvis impersonator and getting a quick divorce is really upholding the sanctity?

 

[Hagi]

That's like saying it's unfair that when men wear perfume it gets called cologne, even though they're conceptually the exact same.

Difference would be that there's absolutely no laws against men calling it perfume. Any man is free to, officially and legally, call his cologne perfume. Likewise any woman is free to, officially and legally, call her perfume cologne.

A civil union is officially and legally called a civil union and not marriage. It does not include the right to, officially and legally, call it marriage nor to call your partner husband or wife.

The equivalent would be to make it illegal for men to call the scent they wear perfume and for women to call the scent they wear cologne. Which I would think is rather unfair, the government has no right whatsoever to dictate what you call your scent just as it has no right whatsoever to dictate which gender you can or can't marry.

 

[Olas]

That's like saying it's unfair that when men wear perfume it gets called cologne, even though they're conceptually the exact same.

Difference would be that there's absolutely no laws against men calling it perfume. Any man is free to, officially and legally, call his cologne perfume. Likewise any woman is free to, officially and legally, call her perfume cologne.

A civil union is officially and legally called a civil union and not marriage. It does not include the right to, officially and legally, call it marriage nor to call your partner husband or wife.

The equivalent would be to make it illegal for men to call the scent they wear perfume and for women to call the scent they wear cologne. Which I would think is rather unfair, the government has no right whatsoever to dictate what you call your scent just as it has no right whatsoever to dictate which gender you can or can't marry.

I'm pretty sure if said law was passed I would give exactly zero shits. It just feels like such a childish thing to make a fuss about.

 

[Hagi]

I'm pretty sure if said law was passed I would give exactly zero shits. It just feels like such a childish thing to make a fuss about.

Well yeah...

Gay people all around would like to give zero shits as well and just ignore the laws in place and get married anyway.

But that's not an option.

Would you still give zero shits if ignoring said law was not an option? If you were forced, against your will, to abide by it?

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I'd say the rights are more important, but the question is irrelevant, because if you don't have both then it isn't equality. Civil unions are essentially marriage without being called marriage. But why? Why not call it marriage? By saying "Straight people can marry, but gay people can do something else that has the same result", you're discriminating.

I don't think marriage should even be a thing. Much less a religious thing. But since it is, everyone should be able to do it if we're trying to be fair.

On a related note, this is why I'm not just happy to let people believe what they believe as long as they keep it to themselves. Because they still vote, and still have an opinion, and it's influenced by whatever bullshit they read that tells them gays are an anomaly.

 

[Jenvas1306]

Im for gay marriage, simply because I havent found good reasons not to. yeah its crazy, if someone wants something and I cant see good reasons why they shouldnt I dont mind them having it.
financial benefits, shared adoption, being able to make decissions for your partner if he/she cant etc, those thing are important for any long term couple.

children?
well lots of folks who dont have the money or skills to bring new people to this world still reproduce like crazy, noone cares, but if two guys want to marry its all about how they cant reproduce (which is also true for lots of hetero couples) or how adopted children would get bullied (which isnt the parents fault but that of the bullies).

so for me the rights are clearly more important, but using just the same term makes a lot of things easier. In germany we got a set of laws that regulate all kinds of benefits and responsibilites for marriage, but then we got a bunch of shoe horned laws that regulate civil unions. because cant call it the same.

 

[chadachada123]

Marriage shouldn't exist, and provides arbitrary benefits to married people over single people.

So, strictly-speaking, I'm against gay marriage. I'm against all marriage from a state-recognized standpoint.

That said, if marriage is a *legal* institution (key word being "legal," state-sanctioned and approved by a government), it needs to not be discriminatory.

If I can marry a female while my sister cannot, then she is obviously being discriminated because of her gender.

That people argue about the word and try to use their religion as a justification is laughable, since many other religions would consider THEIR marriages void and not really real for the same reason.

No, like the term "parish" being both a religious term AND a government term (the government term being similar to "township" or "county"), "marriage" clearly has both a religious definition and a legal one, and the latter must not discriminate based on gender.

So, in short, no, the word doesn't matter at all, and the ignorant infants trying to "defend the sanctity of marriage" are defending a word that already has a different legal meaning than they recognize.

It's obviously fucking retarded to try and separate same-couple "unions" from opposite-couple "marriages," but the important part is the equality aspects.

 

[Something Amyss]

If this did come across in what you were responding to, could you please clarify what you mean by "same's true of marriage"?

Same sex marriages in the United States are not afforded the same rights on a federal level[footnote]with section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act partially struck down, this is no longer completely true, but there are enough federal hurdles I still count it as such[/footnote], are not regarded as equal on an interstate level, and on a state level aren't always treated the same. Same-sex spouses are frequently denied things like visitation.

there was a time, even after miscegnation laws, where unions between a white and a person "of colour" were often treated as less. Technically, you can still see that in action, but not on quite a huge level.

My point is that, while I believe that using the same terms will be necessary for equality, it doesn't automatically become equality just because the term is used. Right now, gay marriage is largely second-class marriage, in the same sense that black and interracial marriage once were. Even in cases of equality under the law, inequity in enforcement is a very real problem, to boot.

 

[Asita]

Same sex marriages in the United States are not afforded the same rights on a federal level

Ah, you were comparing homosexual marriage to heterosexual marriage. Sorry, I hadn't caught that qualifier and had assumed you were speaking generally like I was, hence my confusion (I was interpreting it as "Marriage is a lesser institution than marriage", which obviously makes no sense). Thank you for clarifying that.

 

[Dr. Crawver]

While the rights are undoubtedly more important, though there is no reason I can see that I would find valid to stopping gay people from getting married.

On a personal note, I pretty much estranged myself from my dad last summer, and this debate was part of the reason why. He kept on throwing out the argument that "It gives some religious people comfort, and so why should they try and ruin that?" (He's not even religious). He couldn't come up with one reason why it would be bad, and so branded me a bigot. If anyone can see the logic behind that, please do say.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

A legal partnership? Fine. A religious joining? No. And BTW,

The first amendment allows one to PRACTICE whatever religion they like. That does not mean that a religion, as long as they're not doing anything blatantly illegal, can or should be regulated because someone disagrees with it.

 

[Something Amyss]

Now, there are non-religious marriage equivalents that already exist. Atheists can get married, two people from different religions can get married, people who are not particularly looking to do anything more than tie their legal lives together can get married, using these means.

This is where both you and your friend are wrong. This is marriage. It's not "equivalent" marriage or "diminished" marriage, it's marriage. Marriage has been a domestic cultural sentiment since long before the Abrahamic religions claimed it. It wasn't until the Middle Ages in Europe that same-sex marriages were even frowned upon by the church. And so on.

But the bigger point is that marriage being sacred to them doesn't mean anything with regards to other marriages. Marriage is a secular concept, its term a secular derivation, and just because Christians (or any other group) want to latch onto it and declare it sacred or proprietary doesn't mean it should make any different to us or them.

Besides, given the current Pope, your devout Catholic friend is now disagreeing with the voice of God on Earth. And that's how the devout tend to roll. They are devout in anything that supports their beliefs, but not those that do not. Even if it's an authority within their own doctrine.

I doubt your friend supports child brides or incest, but those are part of the sacred and immutable doctrine of Biblical marriage.

So is Polygamy.

So is making a woman marry her rapist.

So are concubines. Many a Biblical figure be piiiiiiimpin', yo.

At one point in time, there's a good chance your devout friend would have used the Bible to argue that a man and a woman should not marry if one of them was "of colour." It's possible, even, that he would have argued for slavery as a Biblical institution.

So again I must ask: So what?

If anything those sort of schemes seem like a delaying tactic to me, where a group can appear to be getting more progressive while slowing down actual advances in equality for as long as they possibly can.

I'm not sure they're a delaying tactic. People who oppose same-sex marriage then to oppose civil unions and domestic partnerships. It seems to be a compromise the progressives make that the anti-gay lobby isn't really interested in.

That's true. I shouldn't still be surprised when such arguments crop up, but I am.

Most people have a disparity between their intellectual and emotional responses. I'm certainly guilty of this.

I can understand it; some Churches have incredible architecture.

and acoustics. I've always wanted to record in a church, but my capacity to do so postdates my severing of ties with religious institutions. And I'm too broke to pay. Plus, the priests keep spraying me with holy water, and it burns....

As for naming the ceremony, I'd guess the vast majority simply opt for "marriage", because they can, and because that's what they have always thought of it as. If a gay couple has an impressive ceremony, at some impressive secular location, the name on the paper-- "Civil Partnership"-- could still be a slap in the face.

You're right, though, that the venue is likely to be the bigger consideration. Many are religious, and may feel it is only the institution that stands in their way, not the Lord. Others may even belong to Churches who want to perform the ceremonies, such as the Quakers, but who are disallowed.

And : civil Union" is still a slap in the face, no doubt. I'm just pointing out that we can have a marriage ceremony if we want.

My speech professor in college was a minister who couldn't perform religious ceremonies according to his sect. I forget which one it was. He was very supportive of gay couples, however. Just a weird parallel to the Quakers.

Honestly, I don't want to take anything away from religious folks, in same sex marriage or elsewhere. It's when religio tries to insinuate itself on secular society that I take issue.

Were I forced to choose I'd say the rights are the most important part as it is what proves the most impactful part, but it should be equal in both title and law. There is no reason at all to have different rules for different people. It's discriminatory, and wasteful.

Wasteful. Huh. there's an interesting thought. I mean, a lot of the vocal opponents you see on TV are also the ones who are vocal about small government. So logically, they should want to streamline things with only one set of las, right?

*crickets*

Ah, you were comparing homosexual marriage to heterosexual marriage. Sorry, I hadn't caught that qualifier and had assumed you were speaking generally like I was, hence my confusion (I was interpreting it as "Marriage is a lesser institution than marriage", which obviously makes no sense). Thank you for clarifying that.

It made sense when I first wrote it, but when I looked back it was clear that I hadn't been very clear. Yeah, the other way wouldn't make much sense, but the lunatic who edited my post (I call her Sophie) clearly had it in for me. >.>

Nah, I think I was just being too hasty. There's been a lot of points in this thread I wanted to touch on, and I have the attention span of...Well, Dory.

Just keep posting, just keep posting, just keep posting, posting posting.....