Spool, I get what you're saying. Basically, arguing with logic rather then emotion weakens the real reason that we want gay marriage to be legalized and that is to recognize that true romantic love can exist being two people of the same sex.
The problem is, arguing with the far right with emotion will just not work ever. The base to this disagreement is that they do not believe that the love exists. It's just a perversion to them.
Who's talking about arguing gay marriage to the far right? If you're trying to convince moderates to support it though its important. You're not going to win many converts telling them that marriage is no big deal.
There are plenty of people out there who oppose gay marriage not because they're homophobes or hate gay people but because it seems "weird" or "off".
Spool, I get what you're saying. Basically, arguing with logic rather then emotion weakens the real reason that we want gay marriage to be legalized and that is to recognize that true romantic love can exist being two people of the same sex.
The problem is, arguing with the far right with emotion will just not work ever. The base to this disagreement is that they do not believe that the love exists. It's just a perversion to them.
Who's talking about arguing gay marriage to the far right?
Frankly, no. There is absolutely nothing empirical to back this up, and this position just ignores the whole history of gay, female, and African American rights. It is true that changing the law usually precedes changing social norms general adoption, but it really is a necessary step in changing society for the better, which is what pro gay marriage people want.
Currently, while it is true that most of the rights granted by marriage, might be gained from very expensive legal contracts this has been shown to be ineffective at granting equal treatment under the law. That's really what this is about: treating couples who are substantially the same (monogamously committed), in the same way, regardless of sexual preference. These are families in the same way that married people form family's when they join in marriage, and they deserve to be treated the same. You have to make the case to society and also to lawmakers, that expanding marriage is a bonus for all married people if you want to make any progress on this issue, and that involves anecdotes and personal interaction on the social level to get the general public to understand that they have nothing to fear, and that this other kind of family is good and won't hurt them. You also must make legal progress to have any of that social change mean anything or inevitable backlashes will erase that social understanding (see Culture
Wars).
You're right that I'm speculating here, but I think I'm on pretty firm ground in saying it would be easier to tackle all the issues surrounding the creation of a "civil union" identical in every legal way to marriage, that it has been to change/expand/clarify the legal definition of marriage. One reason civil unions don't exist is that they've been rejected by supporters of gay marriage when proposed by Republican moderates looking to triangulate, and the rejection has contained a lot of hyperbole comparing civil unions to 'separate but equal'. That line of argument has driven a wedge between the black civil rights community and gay rights supporters.
Anyway, yes I know solid civil unions don't exist, but it's not as if gay rights groups have been pushing for them only to meet failure... they've been either ignoring or opposing efforts to create analogous legal regimes because they wish to be able to get married, with all the legal, social and cultural implications of the act.
Does no one have anything to say about the actual point I was making back on pages 5 and 6? Because it all seems to have gotten lost in attempts to call me on the carpet for minor unrelated stuff. I mean seriously, did you really think I was arguing that gay couples can, right now today, get something perfectly identical to a marriage? Because you can't get that reading from what I wrote unless you start out looking for reasons to disagree with me.
whoa, citation needed. gay supporters have never rejected unions in favor of a marriage or nothing stance, as far as I know. unions have almost always been shot down by republicans and democrats that aren't on our side.
most of the movement views unions as a useful stopgap that can provide vital and necessary protections until marriage can be achieved. The idea that unions are rejected by gays in favor of not having anything at all while waiting for marriage is hyperbole and I have not seen a shred of evidence to support such a claim.
I've heard plenty of people argue that civil unions are better than nothing, but still just "separate but equal", and having them would sap the momentum of the drive for marriage rights.
Same instance, and they highlight opposition to religious exemptions as the main reason.
he bill includes an exemption that would let religious hospitals, cemeteries and schools ignore rights given through civil unions
Gay rights groups fear that would lead hospitals with religious affiliations to deny LGBT people the ability to make health care decisions for their partners. And they believe that other organizations, like schools and cemeteries, might also get away with refusing services to gay couples on religious grounds.
that's why they didn't back it. the unions were even weaker than normal, and would have prevented a stronger union bill from being backed.
NY state had unions and recognized gay marriages from other states, and they passed the bill in a republican controlled congress.
Same instance, and they highlight opposition to religious exemptions as the main reason.
he bill includes an exemption that would let religious hospitals, cemeteries and schools ignore rights given through civil unions
Gay rights groups fear that would lead hospitals with religious affiliations to deny LGBT people the ability to make health care decisions for their partners. And they believe that other organizations, like schools and cemeteries, might also get away with refusing services to gay couples on religious grounds.
that's why they didn't back it. the unions were even weaker than normal, and would have prevented a stronger union bill from being backed.
NY state had unions and recognized gay marriages from other states, and they passed the bill in a republican controlled congress.
You're wandering off base again, and arguing things we agree on. I know that's why they opposed civil unions in this case, and Carrot correctly points out other instances. I think gay rights supporters / groups are correct when they oppose civil unions, and ought to be pushing for full access to marriage. A civil union can't be crafted that is perfectly equal to marriage because marriage is more than just a contract, and arguing otherwise is damaging to marriage. To the extent gay rights groups make this argument, they are diminishing the thing they wish to gain. A box of crystal stemware isn't worth having, if you can only get it home by dragging it behind your car.
You said you weren't aware of a single instance. You wanted citations. There's your instance, and your citations.Why are you now arguing about the reasons behind the instance? Hell, that reason is more on-point to the thread than much of the rest of this discussion!
Same instance, and they highlight opposition to religious exemptions as the main reason.
he bill includes an exemption that would let religious hospitals, cemeteries and schools ignore rights given through civil unions
Gay rights groups fear that would lead hospitals with religious affiliations to deny LGBT people the ability to make health care decisions for their partners. And they believe that other organizations, like schools and cemeteries, might also get away with refusing services to gay couples on religious grounds.
that's why they didn't back it. the unions were even weaker than normal, and would have prevented a stronger union bill from being backed.
NY state had unions and recognized gay marriages from other states, and they passed the bill in a republican controlled congress.
You're wandering off base again, and arguing things we agree on. I know that's why they opposed civil unions in this case, and Carrot correctly points out other instances. I think gay rights supporters / groups are correct when they oppose civil unions, and ought to be pushing for full access to marriage. A civil union can't be crafted that is perfectly equal to marriage because marriage is more than just a contract, and arguing otherwise is damaging to marriage. To the extent gay rights groups make this argument, they are diminishing the thing they wish to gain. A box of crystal stemware isn't worth having, if you can only get it home by dragging it behind your car.
You said you weren't aware of a single instance. You wanted citations. There's your instance, and your citations.Why are you now arguing about the reasons behind the instance? Hell, that reason is more on-point to the thread than much of the rest of this discussion!
But the part that isn't a contract is the part they are freely able to do currently.
They can already have a ceremony at a church! That isn't something they need to fight for.
They want legal recognition of the contract that marriage totally is.
spool, let me ask you a simple question. What people have argued that gays should just be allowed to get married, because marriage isn't a big deal? I mean, you've said that this makes the gay rights movement look bad - but has it actually ever happened?
Then why any push for changing the definition of "marriage" at all? Why not abandon that altogether and push for something much more widely supported, and easier to get?
Then why any push for changing the definition of "marriage" at all? Why not abandon that altogether and push for something much more widely supported, and easier to get?
Because there isn't anything that is more widely supported and easier to get?
spool, let me ask you a simple question. What people have argued that gays should just be allowed to get married, because marriage isn't a big deal? I mean, you've said that this makes the gay rights movement look bad - but has it actually ever happened?
It happened at the bottom of page 5, for starters. And really, I'm saying that it diminishes marriage as a cultural concept. I don't think it makes the movement look bad, but I do think it's a corrosive argument for people to make.
Here's an example but there are literally dozens and dozens of sites discussing this angle in various ways from various different perspectives. Google gives me 75 million hits for "Marriage is just a contract"without quotations, and over 23,000 with the quote marks.
Edit: Here are two other examples that illustrate the point I'm making.
And none of those three said marriage is just a contract. Legally, marriage is a contract, but not one of your sources said that this aspect is the only one that exists, or even the only one worth considering.
Then why any push for changing the definition of "marriage" at all? Why not abandon that altogether and push for something much more widely supported, and easier to get?
Because there isn't anything that is more widely supported and easier to get?
Civil unions are clearly more widely supported by the population than redefining marriage. Whether they'd be easier to get is an open question but my impression of things, as an active Texas Republican, is that shifting away from redefining marriage would create a wedge in my party opposition that might split off a good percentage of GOP moderates and tip the balance toward gay rights supporters.
Actually, that's not really true. One third of the population hates all gays and does not want any civil unions, one third is fine with civil unions but nothing more, one third wants marriage. The first third is gradually shrinking, and the other two are growing.
Then why any push for changing the definition of "marriage" at all? Why not abandon that altogether and push for something much more widely supported, and easier to get?
Because there isn't anything that is more widely supported and easier to get?
Civil unions are clearly more widely supported by the population than redefining marriage. Whether they'd be easier to get is an open question but my impression of things, as an active Texas Republican, is that shifting away from redefining marriage would create a wedge in my party opposition that might split off a good percentage of GOP moderates and tip the balance toward gay rights supporters.
The thing is:
Who cares?
Full equality will happen whether or not there's a split in the GOP of 2011.
I'd be all for having "marriage" be something religious people or people looking for some symbolism do, while giving everyone civil unions. I doubt the country is ready for that, though, even though it'd solve every complaint except the ones from people who actually want a theocracy.
Then why any push for changing the definition of "marriage" at all? Why not abandon that altogether and push for something much more widely supported, and easier to get?
There is no change to the definition of marriage being pushed. The only thing being changed is who's allowed access to it.
Before Jackie Robinson, a "baseball player" was an athlete who played the sport of baseball.
60 years after Jackie Robinson, a "baseball player" is still an athlete who plays the sport of baseball.
The definition of "baseball player" has not changed, only who is allowed to become one has changed. They're still a bunch of folks who run around a grass field in caps and tight pants.
I would love for people, when seeing a discussion about gay rights, to not bother worrying about the imperfect strategies of the some members of the gay rights movement, and worry more about horrible bigots who seek to deny gay rights.
I suppose the problem is that there's less debate in the latter than the former? Not much to say about homophobes other than 'Bad Man! Bad!'
As an atheist married to a Shintoist, I just want to remind some people that marriage has nothing to do with Christianity whatsoever. If you're a Christian and you think of it that way, please try to remember the entire rest of the world, who are usually not Christian and have been getting married, with varying degrees of happilyness, for a long long time.
poshniallo on
I figure I could take a bear.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
You're wandering off base again, and arguing things we agree on. I know that's why they opposed civil unions in this case, and Carrot correctly points out other instances. I think gay rights supporters / groups are correct when they oppose civil unions, and ought to be pushing for full access to marriage. A civil union can't be crafted that is perfectly equal to marriage because marriage is more than just a contract, and arguing otherwise is damaging to marriage.
Well that isn't actually the point.
Going into an analogy about racial segregation: Even if black people got the same quality of water fountains and schools and busses it would still be wrong because "separate but equal" is bullshit on a theoretical level. It is not that marriage is something more so much as that denying it because you already gave all the rights technically is some fucking bullshit.
Which is why civil unions ought to be what is available to everyone, and "marriage" be done away with. All that specialness above and beyond the contract is exactly the stuff that doesn't need to be the concern of our government. If you insist it's part of marriage, then marriage needs to go.
Mm, but the state does have an interest in promoting healthy families, which is a big part of marriage that isn't really part of the papers you sign.
Bullshit. That makes it sound like non-married couples are less adept at parenting. Just going through the marriage ceremony motions does not a good parent make.
Mm, but the state does have an interest in promoting healthy families, which is a big part of marriage that isn't really part of the papers you sign.
Bullshit. That makes it sound like non-married couples are less adept at parenting. Just going through the marriage ceremony motions does not a good parent make.
It does, however, decrease the odds of poverty which itself can cripple a child's future as well as generally increase the workload/stress on the single parent which is not healthy.
This is not to say there aren't plenty of excellent single parents out there. But on average it is easier and less likely to lead to an unfortunate situation because of some bad luck when there are two people willing to provide for a child.
Of course, raising a kid isn't the only reason to get married anyway.
Burtle boy said in a sentence here what I said in two paragraphs on page 10. Marriage is just a contract, now how you and your new spouse go about showing it off whether it be a gigantic ceremony relevant to your own beliefs or a tasteful tweet to let the friends and family know after the fact is totally personal and has nothing to do with how your marriage is recognized by your government.
Same instance, and they highlight opposition to religious exemptions as the main reason.
he bill includes an exemption that would let religious hospitals, cemeteries and schools ignore rights given through civil unions
Gay rights groups fear that would lead hospitals with religious affiliations to deny LGBT people the ability to make health care decisions for their partners. And they believe that other organizations, like schools and cemeteries, might also get away with refusing services to gay couples on religious grounds.
that's why they didn't back it. the unions were even weaker than normal, and would have prevented a stronger union bill from being backed.
NY state had unions and recognized gay marriages from other states, and they passed the bill in a republican controlled congress.
You're wandering off base again, and arguing things we agree on. I know that's why they opposed civil unions in this case, and Carrot correctly points out other instances. I think gay rights supporters / groups are correct when they oppose civil unions, and ought to be pushing for full access to marriage. A civil union can't be crafted that is perfectly equal to marriage because marriage is more than just a contract, and arguing otherwise is damaging to marriage. To the extent gay rights groups make this argument, they are diminishing the thing they wish to gain. A box of crystal stemware isn't worth having, if you can only get it home by dragging it behind your car.
You said you weren't aware of a single instance. You wanted citations. There's your instance, and your citations.Why are you now arguing about the reasons behind the instance? Hell, that reason is more on-point to the thread than much of the rest of this discussion!
So what if you're against marriage?
I'm all for civil unions, I'm against marriage... for everyone. Not just gays. At least in the eyes of the law. You can call your contract whatever you like, have whatever crazy ceremony you like and praise whatever diety, vegetable, mineral or element you like.
So long as you have to visit a county clerk or judge to sign a standard legal contract first committing yourself to your partner first.
The only reason this solution is not viable is politically being an atheist is a harder sell than being gay or an adulterer.
I don’t understand the whole “civil-unions for everyone” argument. Seems to me to be supported by the idea that a compromise is the most logical solution, or that the bigots might have a point or two as well. The people making the argument don’t really seem to understand why it is an even more difficult goal to achieve and less ideal anyways.
First of all, the bigots don’t want civil unions either, so it is not like you are offering them a better solution. Of course you say that there are people in the middle who might be more supportive of civil unions for everyone than full on gay marriage. However, in pushing civil unions for everyone, you actually give the bigots more legitimacy. You are conceding that marriage is only in the domain of the church, which is obviously not true.
Even worse, you have made a untruthful talking point, "gays are trying to take away/change marriage," true. Now everyone who heterosexual or gay who had a civil marriage, doesn’t. Ever middle ground fence-sitter who was married, will not be married anymore under the law. I honestly have no idea why people think this will be an easier fight to make. At least now you can explain to the fence-sitters why the bigots are lying when they say gays are trying to change marriage.
On a last point, even if we could wave a wand right now and get every civil marriage changed to civil union, it wouldn’t even matter. The gay couples in states that can get civil unions are damn sure going to say that they are married, just like all the heterosexual couples. This isn’t going to change how people talk or feel about the word marriage. Since that is the case, I really don’t see any reason to go through all the mountains of paperwork and change every instance of the word marriage to union.
Same instance, and they highlight opposition to religious exemptions as the main reason.
he bill includes an exemption that would let religious hospitals, cemeteries and schools ignore rights given through civil unions
Gay rights groups fear that would lead hospitals with religious affiliations to deny LGBT people the ability to make health care decisions for their partners. And they believe that other organizations, like schools and cemeteries, might also get away with refusing services to gay couples on religious grounds.
that's why they didn't back it. the unions were even weaker than normal, and would have prevented a stronger union bill from being backed.
NY state had unions and recognized gay marriages from other states, and they passed the bill in a republican controlled congress.
You're wandering off base again, and arguing things we agree on. I know that's why they opposed civil unions in this case, and Carrot correctly points out other instances. I think gay rights supporters / groups are correct when they oppose civil unions, and ought to be pushing for full access to marriage. A civil union can't be crafted that is perfectly equal to marriage because marriage is more than just a contract, and arguing otherwise is damaging to marriage. To the extent gay rights groups make this argument, they are diminishing the thing they wish to gain. A box of crystal stemware isn't worth having, if you can only get it home by dragging it behind your car.
You said you weren't aware of a single instance. You wanted citations. There's your instance, and your citations.Why are you now arguing about the reasons behind the instance? Hell, that reason is more on-point to the thread than much of the rest of this discussion!
I don't understand what you're saying here. The ONLY reason supporters did not want this bill is because they wre specifically weaker than normal unions. Civil unions lack federal protections, but my understanding is that they do most of the state level protections, except for these special cases where they were weaker than normal. That's why they were rejected, not because they were unions. I asked you to cite this groundswell of the gay movement against full civil unions that aren't crippled by special legislation, and you have yet to produce it
'unions for all' isn't worth discussing. we can't even extend the current scope of marriage without encountering enormous resistance, and turning marriage into a purely symbolic thing would be absurdly difficult.
The idea that marriage is just a contract does not weaken the argument unless you subscribe to the idea that marriage is a judeo-christian institution, which it is not. It's a federal and legal contract that has nothing to do with religion unless you specifically want it to. That's why you can be married by a court, atheists can marry, and so on. Back during the days of Loving, it was argued that whites could not marry blacks because god intended the races to be separate, just as it is argued that marriage is one man and one woman, by decree of god.
essentially it boils down to whether or not you think a homosexual relationship is fundamentally different, and thusly inferior to a heterosexual one. As a gay man I have the audacity to think that they are not, I have always felt my love is essentially the same as that of the straight people I know. That's why we want marriage, even if it is just a contract. We want the government and society at large to acknowledge we have relationships that are equal and just as real as a man and a woman. Unions will do for now, but we don't want a special arrangement, just as interracial couples do.
Mm, but the state does have an interest in promoting healthy families, which is a big part of marriage that isn't really part of the papers you sign.
Bullshit. That makes it sound like non-married couples are less adept at parenting. Just going through the marriage ceremony motions does not a good parent make.
It does, however, decrease the odds of poverty which itself can cripple a child's future as well as generally increase the workload/stress on the single parent which is not healthy.
This is not to say there aren't plenty of excellent single parents out there. But on average it is easier and less likely to lead to an unfortunate situation because of some bad luck when there are two people willing to provide for a child.
Of course, raising a kid isn't the only reason to get married anyway.
How does marriage decrease the chance of poverty? Unless you're thinking about the theoretical tax breaks that married couples get, in which case that's the whole point.
Again, we're talking about unmarried couples with children. Not singles with children. Two people with kids, exactly the same as another couple with kids, except they chose not to sign a piece of paper and have a ceremony.
'unions for all' isn't worth discussing. we can't even extend the current scope of marriage without encountering enormous resistance, and turning marriage into a purely symbolic thing would be absurdly difficult.
The idea that marriage is just a contract does not weaken the argument unless you subscribe to the idea that marriage is a judeo-christian institution, which it is not. It's a federal and legal contract that has nothing to do with religion unless you specifically want it to. That's why you can be married by a court, atheists can marry, and so on. Back during the days of Loving, it was argued that whites could not marry blacks because god intended the races to be separate, just as it is argued that marriage is one man and one woman, by decree of god.
essentially it boils down to whether or not you think a homosexual relationship is fundamentally different, and thusly inferior to a heterosexual one. As a gay man I have the audacity to think that they are not, I have always felt my love is essentially the same as that of the straight people I know. That's why we want marriage, even if it is just a contract. We want the government and society at large to acknowledge we have relationships that are equal and just as real as a man and a woman. Unions will do for now, but we don't want a special arrangement, just as interracial couples do.
I'm not disagreeing with anyone's capacity to love, same sex or not. I'm also not trying to say that marriage is a judeo-christian construct. However, I really do believe aside from the whole "icky boys touching boys" and bigotry that people feel towards the idea of "desecrating an institution" wont be decreased by trying to convince them that marriage wasn't invented by Jesus.
If the word marriage is the sticking point, which it seems to be to fundies. Then get rid of it in the context of the law. Call yourself married, call it whatever you want. As far as the law is concerned however, it shouldn't matter what you call it.
I agree that in the terms of the fight for rights, this seems like a surrender of the fundamental reason for wanting to call it marriage - equality. That's not my intention.
I am trying to argue perhaps poorly, having someone step in and say,
"Here is what the state recognizes and these are the benefits, what you call it is your business."
Might not be all bad, and granting that it would hurt the pride of a lot of people on both sides of the issue, it would be fair legally. There are people you will never win over, and they're not all just old bigots, homophobes are born daily but I believe this would prevent them from trying to legislate some sort of quasi-exclusive morality.
Sure, they may still be able to say hateful shit, be offensive and act like lesbians are icky but if they can't violate your rights based on poorly worded laws that violate personal freedoms and the constitution. Let them be small minded and go about your day.
Edit:
Separate but equal can't work. I do realize contracts for all probably can't either. I am for calling it all marriage if that's what it comes down to. Being from California and watching friends who adopt children and get married only to have it annulled by assholes was really infuriating.
Mm, but the state does have an interest in promoting healthy families, which is a big part of marriage that isn't really part of the papers you sign.
Bullshit. That makes it sound like non-married couples are less adept at parenting. Just going through the marriage ceremony motions does not a good parent make.
It does, however, decrease the odds of poverty which itself can cripple a child's future as well as generally increase the workload/stress on the single parent which is not healthy.
This is not to say there aren't plenty of excellent single parents out there. But on average it is easier and less likely to lead to an unfortunate situation because of some bad luck when there are two people willing to provide for a child.
Of course, raising a kid isn't the only reason to get married anyway.
How does marriage decrease the chance of poverty? Unless you're thinking about the theoretical tax breaks that married couples get, in which case that's the whole point.
Again, we're talking about unmarried couples with children. Not singles with children. Two people with kids, exactly the same as another couple with kids, except they chose not to sign a piece of paper and have a ceremony.
Whoops misread that and thought it meant single.
Nah two unmarried people are fine.
Quid on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Posts
Who's talking about arguing gay marriage to the far right? If you're trying to convince moderates to support it though its important. You're not going to win many converts telling them that marriage is no big deal.
There are plenty of people out there who oppose gay marriage not because they're homophobes or hate gay people but because it seems "weird" or "off".
I am. Right there in my post.
I don't think they hate gay people, but people who consider it "weird" or "off" kinda sorta fits the definition of a homophobe.
There were two links in my post. The post you quoted and responded to. Are you being serious?
whoa, citation needed. gay supporters have never rejected unions in favor of a marriage or nothing stance, as far as I know. unions have almost always been shot down by republicans and democrats that aren't on our side.
most of the movement views unions as a useful stopgap that can provide vital and necessary protections until marriage can be achieved. The idea that unions are rejected by gays in favor of not having anything at all while waiting for marriage is hyperbole and I have not seen a shred of evidence to support such a claim.
I don't hate black people but it's really weird and off when black and white people are in a relationship
Among other issues, it is that posturing I'm condemning as "true, but counterproductive". But since you wanted citations:
Here's one from local news
Holy crap, I'm using Mother Jones as a source!
Same instance, and they highlight opposition to religious exemptions as the main reason.
that's why they didn't back it. the unions were even weaker than normal, and would have prevented a stronger union bill from being backed.
NY state had unions and recognized gay marriages from other states, and they passed the bill in a republican controlled congress.
You're wandering off base again, and arguing things we agree on. I know that's why they opposed civil unions in this case, and Carrot correctly points out other instances. I think gay rights supporters / groups are correct when they oppose civil unions, and ought to be pushing for full access to marriage. A civil union can't be crafted that is perfectly equal to marriage because marriage is more than just a contract, and arguing otherwise is damaging to marriage. To the extent gay rights groups make this argument, they are diminishing the thing they wish to gain. A box of crystal stemware isn't worth having, if you can only get it home by dragging it behind your car.
You said you weren't aware of a single instance. You wanted citations. There's your instance, and your citations.Why are you now arguing about the reasons behind the instance? Hell, that reason is more on-point to the thread than much of the rest of this discussion!
But the part that isn't a contract is the part they are freely able to do currently.
They can already have a ceremony at a church! That isn't something they need to fight for.
They want legal recognition of the contract that marriage totally is.
Because there isn't anything that is more widely supported and easier to get?
It happened at the bottom of page 5, for starters. And really, I'm saying that it diminishes marriage as a cultural concept. I don't think it makes the movement look bad, but I do think it's a corrosive argument for people to make.
Here's an example but there are literally dozens and dozens of sites discussing this angle in various ways from various different perspectives. Google gives me 75 million hits for "Marriage is just a contract"without quotations, and over 23,000 with the quote marks.
Edit: Here are two other examples that illustrate the point I'm making.
The thing is:
Who cares?
Full equality will happen whether or not there's a split in the GOP of 2011.
Yes, I read your links. No, they do not support your version of the story. Neither does anything else I've read.
If you want to make up a story out of whole cloth, knock yourself out. Just don't expect people to buy it without wanting proof.
And when you respond with bluff and bluster, don't be surprised when people lose interest in what you're saying. Like I just did.
There is no change to the definition of marriage being pushed. The only thing being changed is who's allowed access to it.
Before Jackie Robinson, a "baseball player" was an athlete who played the sport of baseball.
60 years after Jackie Robinson, a "baseball player" is still an athlete who plays the sport of baseball.
The definition of "baseball player" has not changed, only who is allowed to become one has changed. They're still a bunch of folks who run around a grass field in caps and tight pants.
I suppose the problem is that there's less debate in the latter than the former? Not much to say about homophobes other than 'Bad Man! Bad!'
As an atheist married to a Shintoist, I just want to remind some people that marriage has nothing to do with Christianity whatsoever. If you're a Christian and you think of it that way, please try to remember the entire rest of the world, who are usually not Christian and have been getting married, with varying degrees of happilyness, for a long long time.
Well that isn't actually the point.
Going into an analogy about racial segregation: Even if black people got the same quality of water fountains and schools and busses it would still be wrong because "separate but equal" is bullshit on a theoretical level. It is not that marriage is something more so much as that denying it because you already gave all the rights technically is some fucking bullshit.
Bullshit. That makes it sound like non-married couples are less adept at parenting. Just going through the marriage ceremony motions does not a good parent make.
It does, however, decrease the odds of poverty which itself can cripple a child's future as well as generally increase the workload/stress on the single parent which is not healthy.
This is not to say there aren't plenty of excellent single parents out there. But on average it is easier and less likely to lead to an unfortunate situation because of some bad luck when there are two people willing to provide for a child.
Of course, raising a kid isn't the only reason to get married anyway.
Which is the entire point to all of this.
So what if you're against marriage?
I'm all for civil unions, I'm against marriage... for everyone. Not just gays. At least in the eyes of the law. You can call your contract whatever you like, have whatever crazy ceremony you like and praise whatever diety, vegetable, mineral or element you like.
So long as you have to visit a county clerk or judge to sign a standard legal contract first committing yourself to your partner first.
The only reason this solution is not viable is politically being an atheist is a harder sell than being gay or an adulterer.
First of all, the bigots don’t want civil unions either, so it is not like you are offering them a better solution. Of course you say that there are people in the middle who might be more supportive of civil unions for everyone than full on gay marriage. However, in pushing civil unions for everyone, you actually give the bigots more legitimacy. You are conceding that marriage is only in the domain of the church, which is obviously not true.
Even worse, you have made a untruthful talking point, "gays are trying to take away/change marriage," true. Now everyone who heterosexual or gay who had a civil marriage, doesn’t. Ever middle ground fence-sitter who was married, will not be married anymore under the law. I honestly have no idea why people think this will be an easier fight to make. At least now you can explain to the fence-sitters why the bigots are lying when they say gays are trying to change marriage.
On a last point, even if we could wave a wand right now and get every civil marriage changed to civil union, it wouldn’t even matter. The gay couples in states that can get civil unions are damn sure going to say that they are married, just like all the heterosexual couples. This isn’t going to change how people talk or feel about the word marriage. Since that is the case, I really don’t see any reason to go through all the mountains of paperwork and change every instance of the word marriage to union.
I don't understand what you're saying here. The ONLY reason supporters did not want this bill is because they wre specifically weaker than normal unions. Civil unions lack federal protections, but my understanding is that they do most of the state level protections, except for these special cases where they were weaker than normal. That's why they were rejected, not because they were unions. I asked you to cite this groundswell of the gay movement against full civil unions that aren't crippled by special legislation, and you have yet to produce it
The idea that marriage is just a contract does not weaken the argument unless you subscribe to the idea that marriage is a judeo-christian institution, which it is not. It's a federal and legal contract that has nothing to do with religion unless you specifically want it to. That's why you can be married by a court, atheists can marry, and so on. Back during the days of Loving, it was argued that whites could not marry blacks because god intended the races to be separate, just as it is argued that marriage is one man and one woman, by decree of god.
essentially it boils down to whether or not you think a homosexual relationship is fundamentally different, and thusly inferior to a heterosexual one. As a gay man I have the audacity to think that they are not, I have always felt my love is essentially the same as that of the straight people I know. That's why we want marriage, even if it is just a contract. We want the government and society at large to acknowledge we have relationships that are equal and just as real as a man and a woman. Unions will do for now, but we don't want a special arrangement, just as interracial couples do.
How does marriage decrease the chance of poverty? Unless you're thinking about the theoretical tax breaks that married couples get, in which case that's the whole point.
Again, we're talking about unmarried couples with children. Not singles with children. Two people with kids, exactly the same as another couple with kids, except they chose not to sign a piece of paper and have a ceremony.
I'm not disagreeing with anyone's capacity to love, same sex or not. I'm also not trying to say that marriage is a judeo-christian construct. However, I really do believe aside from the whole "icky boys touching boys" and bigotry that people feel towards the idea of "desecrating an institution" wont be decreased by trying to convince them that marriage wasn't invented by Jesus.
If the word marriage is the sticking point, which it seems to be to fundies. Then get rid of it in the context of the law. Call yourself married, call it whatever you want. As far as the law is concerned however, it shouldn't matter what you call it.
I agree that in the terms of the fight for rights, this seems like a surrender of the fundamental reason for wanting to call it marriage - equality. That's not my intention.
I am trying to argue perhaps poorly, having someone step in and say,
"Here is what the state recognizes and these are the benefits, what you call it is your business."
Might not be all bad, and granting that it would hurt the pride of a lot of people on both sides of the issue, it would be fair legally. There are people you will never win over, and they're not all just old bigots, homophobes are born daily but I believe this would prevent them from trying to legislate some sort of quasi-exclusive morality.
Sure, they may still be able to say hateful shit, be offensive and act like lesbians are icky but if they can't violate your rights based on poorly worded laws that violate personal freedoms and the constitution. Let them be small minded and go about your day.
Edit:
Separate but equal can't work. I do realize contracts for all probably can't either. I am for calling it all marriage if that's what it comes down to. Being from California and watching friends who adopt children and get married only to have it annulled by assholes was really infuriating.
It's the thing people claim is the sticking point in order to not feel bad.
Whoops misread that and thought it meant single.
Nah two unmarried people are fine.
But it's so much fun to tell these people that we should get Big Government out of your holy marriage altogether.