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

[Something Amyss]

For Vampiric reasons, or demonic ones?

I refuse to answer that, on the grounds I might incriminate myself.

Fair enough. Admittedly, I'm not much interested in marriage myself, either. It is the difference in treatment that rankles, and the inequality that it implies about gay relationships.

I want assurances that my girlfriend and I can be with each other in an emergency. It also scares me that her family might make decisions for her, given the history there, should something happen. It's not so much the concept that really bothers me, but the thousand little things that would be at issue.

I'm transgender, too, which further complicates things, because we're pretty much the bottom of the barrel in terms of rights. Even within marriage equality states, opponents are being slow to comply, making things rough. They'll be slower to stand up for people like me, because that's how this sort of thing works.

I like the idea of marriage as a gesture of love, a large romantic one at that. But we could do that without a piece of paper.

The end result is that it's mostly about treatment. Or, to borrow from your analogy:

If everybody except gingers could get married, but gingers could get "ginger married", what do you think society is saying about gingers?

Language also influences the way we think on top of being influenced by the way we think.

 

[vIRL Nightmare]

I Believe that it is the title as much as the legal equality that is important. Even if the rights are the same, if the system goes out of the way to say that it is separate but equal then there is a problem.

History pop quiz: Can anyone tell me any other situation when there was a "separate but equal" standard by a government, and if so what was the actual result of the policy.

I'll give you one hint, it is from the United States history.

 

[Agayek]

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.

In all truth, it really is just semantics and not terribly important.

However, it does very much embody the concept of "separate but equal", and that is very much a problem. If one could somehow magically ensure human nature stops being a factor and all rights are equal in both institutions until the end of time, then yes, arguing over what it's called is pointless and stupid. We don't live in a world anywhere near that idealistic though. We live in a world where a spade and a shovel are treated as entirely different things.

As long as there's a clear division between the two, the majority will inevitably end up suppressing the minority; it's straight human nature. And that's why the semantics are not actually meaningless.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

But there are churches that marry same-sex couples. Why are you against it if it's about self-determination?

This seems like such a strawman. Nobody's trying to force churches to marry homosexuals.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant that a law that forces all religions to marry gay couples is not OK.

Nobody? I think you'd be surprised.

 

[ATRAYA]

While I'm all for civil unions that grant the same legal benefits as marriage, the original definition of marriage is a "union between a man and a woman under God". That is the literal definition and, by default, two men could simply NOT be married in a church. I wouldn't say it's fair for a man of the clergy to have to go against his beliefs just because two same-sex mammals wanted to profess their love with all of their friends in a big building, just like it isn't fair that a married homosexual couple can't get the same legal rights as a married heterosexual couple in many places.

So, technically, it's impossible for a homosexual couple to be married "under God" in a church. They can be "married" in a court of law, however.

 

[Dr. Thrax]

You do understand we are talking about a purely semantic issue here, right? If gays are allowed to be in civil unions where they have all the same rights as strait married couples, literally the only difference would be the term "civil union".

Except the problem is that "civil unions" still aren't really recognized in most places.
I remember reading a story awhile back of a gay couple in a civil union where one of the partners was hospitalized, and his partner was denied visitation rights despite providing evidence of their union, and this partner having power of attorney to make medical decisions for his partner.

EDIT: Found the story, and read that the partner was asked to leave by the brother of the hospitalized partner, the two then got into some verbal fighting, which was when the partner was forcibly removed from the hospital.

 

[Olas]

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.

In all truth, it really is just semantics and not terribly important.

However, it does very much embody the concept of "separate but equal", and that is very much a problem.

I keep seeing the term "separate but equal" get thrown around in these kinds of forums like some kind of magic buzzword, and I think it's being severely abused. I'm sorry, but calling gay marriage a "civil union" is not even remotely similar to the pre-civil rights doctrine of "Seperate but Equal" that was used to justify segregation and blatant racism.

First of all, unlike Seperate But Equal, this would actually be equal. An important distinction I think. More importantly, it wouldn't really be separate either. We're not talking about forcing gays to get married in a different church than straits, or get married with a different priest, or anything being actually different in the process. The exact wording of the vows may need to be different, but just as a legal technicality.

I understand your argument that calling it something different could be a slippery slope towards something worse, but I think that's only an issue if you're in a culture that's pushing towards intolerance and inequality to begin with, whereas homosexuality is becoming more commonly accepted all the time. If anything it seems like a possible stepping stone towards full fledged equality, considering even civil unions with equal rights are illegal in most states right now, and this would certainly be an improvement.

I guess I just see it as a compromise that pleases everyone. Gay people get to have the same rights as everyone else, and religious fanatics get to keep their oh-so sacred definition of "true marriage" intact.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I think people should just get over themselves and let them marry.
I don't particularly care whether they are too insecure and petty so they call it by something else, I even understand the not-in-a-church-our-religion-doesn't-accept-homosexuality thing.
But I seriously believe that anyone who says no to gay marriage is basically having a tantrum like a four year old would and deserve a good slap on the head.

To clarify, I would not hit a four year old. Only adults acting like them.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I don't know if it is about rights or the name part and I don't really care. Marriage should be open to anyone who wants the hassle of the government putting you in a different box and treating you different than unmarried people. Fuck the legal part and just have your ceremony. I don't know much about the whole of marital law but it seems that your credit gets tied together (and potentially fucks you or the other person or both), and you seem to lose rights more than gain them because you're "sharing" them legally. Why anyone would want to go through the "We gots us a legal document saying we're married" when it should be good enough just to have the ceremony is beyond me.
More money wasted on government paper, more time wasted on stupid political causes that divide a populace and muddy the waters on issues that affect whether or not you can pay your bills.
Not trying to trivialize the issue, I would be happier if there were no government precedent at all and marriage was handled outside of that entity for those who want it. But I guess being pro-smaller government isn't popular and I'll get branded a hater for it.
Just one more thing you give up for "legitimacy".

 

[Hagi]

If gays are allowed to be in civil unions where they have all the same rights as strait married couples, literally the only difference would be the term "civil union".

Except they wouldn't have the same rights. They don't have the right to call it marriage. They don't have the right to call their partner husband or wife.

Whether or not you find those rights important at all is irrelevant. It's a simple fact that in a civil union gays would not have those rights, as meaningless as you may find them. As such it's not the same. Almost the same, but not quite. Almost all the rights, but not quite all. Almost equal, except for the names.

I don't think that's a precedent you want to set. I don't think there should be an except after equality.

 

[Olas]

You do understand we are talking about a purely semantic issue here, right? If gays are allowed to be in civil unions where they have all the same rights as strait married couples, literally the only difference would be the term "civil union".

In the practical sense, simply changing the name of something doesn't change the thing itself. The only people who have a reason to care about this is people who have speech impediments that make it difficult to say the words "civil union" but not "marriage".

Do you honestly not recognise the symbolism, here? Quite aside from the fact that the only major argument for keeping them separate is to preserve the "sanctity of marriage", which is directly insulting.

If everybody except gingers could get married, but gingers could get "ginger married", what do you think society is saying about gingers?

You're free to interpret the meaning of what the terminology represents however you want, it doesn't change the fact that gays would be given equal rights under it.

I mean, sure, it's true that the reason for using the term "civil union" would be because a bunch of stupid religious fundamentalists think gays are unworthy of the title "marriage". So what? Why is their bigotry important to you? I say instead of being stubborn about it, just leave them alone, let them keep their outdated rules, and then simply circumvent those rules so that it has no affect on you. If they want to believe your institution is inferior to theirs, let them. Why should you care?

That just seems like the adult approach to me.

 

[Olas]

I don't see those religious fanatics usually calling for a change in the name when people try to pass gay marriage. You can say it pleases both sides all you like, but I don't see much evidence that the religious fanatics stop there.

I think it's called being the bigger man, and not getting up in arms because you had to change a certain word to please someone else. I guess if only getting 99.9% of what you want seems like a problem worth fighting in the courts for years over, then have at it.

 

[mrdude2010]

The rights are more important, but if some religions want to officially marry people of the same sex, than those people should be recognized as married.

 

[b3nn3tt]

I mean, sure, it's true that the reason for using the term "civil union" would be because a bunch of stupid religious fundamentalists think gays are unworthy of the title "marriage". So what? Why is their bigotry important to you?

Sorry to dive into your back and forth here, but this seems a little contradictory. The whole point is that the bigotry of others shouldn't be important, and therefore they shouldn't have a say in whether or not gay couples can call their union a marriage.

To turn this situation around, I doubt that any religious people would be too happy about having to stop calling their unions a marriage because it offends gay people. For example, they'd still have all the same rights, but they'd have to call it a 'religious union'. Do you see how people might get upset about that?

I just can't see how having to call it something other than a marriage just to please people who completely disagree with your partnership in the first place makes any sense.

 

[Olas]

If gays are allowed to be in civil unions where they have all the same rights as strait married couples, literally the only difference would be the term "civil union".

Except they wouldn't have the same rights. They don't have the right to call it marriage. They don't have the right to call their partner husband or wife.

Whether or not you find those rights important at all is irrelevant. It's a simple fact that in a civil union gays would not have those rights, as meaningless as you may find them. As such it's not the same. Almost the same, but not quite. Almost all the rights, but not quite all. Almost equal, except for the names.

I don't think that's a precedent you want to set. I don't think there should be an except after equality.

Okay, but can we at least agree that it's a step forward from gays not having either option, like they do in most states right now?

I guess I just get sick of arguments on the internet that boil down to debating word definitions as opposed to the actual subject matter of those definitions.

 

[loa]

Seems like a really shitty stalling tactic to deny people their rights just because of semantics.
I'd say fuck people who do that and don't "compromise" with them cause those seem to be the kind of people who take an arm if you offer them a finger.

If it finally goes through, it'll be called marriage, period.
Sad day for you if you don't like that but it draws near and there's less and less you can do to keep it from happening.

 

[Talvrae]

Here it's a non-issue... Gay-Marriage was legalised back in 2005 in Canada... but talking as someone in a lesbian marriage i think the right are more important.... trought having the same terms is not bad eighter

 

[rob_simple]

I think the rights are the most important part, but the fact that the name is utterly meaningless is what makes it so stupid that gay people can't call it marriage like straight people can.

It shouldn't even be referred to as 'gay marriage' it should just be 'marriage' because all the word is is a noun for the joining of two people in an officially recognised relationship.

Some idiots would argue that 'marriage' is a word meaning the union of man and woman but, hey, words change their meaning all the time; we recognise what it means to be married, and the bond that it represents, so if that bond can be experienced between the same sex as well as different ones then there is absolutely no need to create new words and terms for the exact same thing.

 

[Olas]

I mean, sure, it's true that the reason for using the term "civil union" would be because a bunch of stupid religious fundamentalists think gays are unworthy of the title "marriage". So what? Why is their bigotry important to you?

Sorry to dive into your back and forth here, but this seems a little contradictory. The whole point is that the bigotry of others shouldn't be important, and therefore they shouldn't have a say in whether or not gay couples can call their union a marriage.

I'm not really arguing about what side has more authority in deciding the legal definition of marriage. I'm simply suggesting the option that I think would be best for both parties overall. Gay people get the legal rights of marriage, religious fanatics get to keep their doctrine the same.

Ya, it may be a bit utilitarian, but it's also simply a lot more practical.

To turn this situation around, I doubt that any religious people would be too happy about having to stop calling their unions a marriage because it offends gay people. For example, they'd still have all the same rights, but they'd have to call it a 'religious union'. Do you see how people might get upset about that?

Except there you're asking people to alter deeply rooted traditions. I can somewhat understand being upset about that. Unless the gay community has a deeply rooted tradition about what they call their unions, I don't see why it would be as offensive to them.

 

[Olas]

I don't see those religious fanatics usually calling for a change in the name when people try to pass gay marriage. You can say it pleases both sides all you like, but I don't see much evidence that the religious fanatics stop there.

I think it's called being the bigger man, and not getting up in arms because you had to change a certain word to please someone else. I guess if only getting 99.9% of what you want seems like a problem worth fighting in the courts for years over, then have at it.

Did you even read my post? My point is that your proposal isn't going to result in 99.9%. You're obviously too invested in your own ideas.

Okay, so what percent is it? Since you're apparently the authority on just how important this is to everyone. I'm just going off my own personal judgement. Personally, I wouldn't care if I was forced to call my marriage a "civil union" since it doesn't change anything about it.

But that's just me. I guess you know what everyone else thinks.

Also, who the hell are you to tell people that they should be the better man instead of telling others to stop trying to insist they shouldn't be equal? Certainly you're asking people to be better than you're being.

I'm not telling anyone that they have to be the better man, I just know that no highly religious group is ever going to take the first step in resolving this conflict by reaching across the aisle, being rigid by nature.

But by all means, we can all be equally stubborn about this. It's a free country.