posted
Ah. Where do you see that they are forcing other Americans to call it that, except in legal documents?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So in the end, what it boils down to is that gays want us to agree to the word marriage on legal documents, and I want them to agree to some other word. Are we then imposing on each other's rights? Or are no rights being infringed upon at all?
posted
The arguments for "marriage" all have a failing. It is different. Regardless of whether you awknowledge it or not, I could care less. The fact is, it's different.
"Separate but Equal" is the goal that should be out there.
There are MEN and there are WOMEN LEGALLY. We differentiate between them. Are they legally EQUAL? Yes, but does that make Men/woman and vice versa? No.
We have Blacks and we have Hispanics and we have Whites.
Are White people Blacks? Would there be a problem of me, being white, claiming I was black in order to gain preferrential treatment in the discriminatory laws on the books that favor Blacks? Yes there would. The fact remains, I'm not Black.
Marriage is between a man and woman and in this country has always been.
We have this "new" Homosexual clamor not for "Equal rights" as married couples, but to be "married couples".
They are suing to be called Black when they are White instead of just wanting the same rights as Blacks.
You have as a fact, the majority of the population in this country that defines marriage as between a Man and Woman only. That is the LAW. That is the FACT of marriage.
Homosexuality is not Heterosexuality or vice versa. Otherwise the term wouldn't exist. There would be no such thing as Gay or Straight.
So for the last time:
Marriage is the civily recognized union between a man and woman. Period. That's the fact. That is the law.
_________ is the civily recognized union between a man and a man or woman and a woman.
I can claim I'm tall till I'm blue in the face, but there's the undeniable fact that I'm not.
Just because some choose to be "blind" to the factual difference doesn't mean it factually doesn't exist.
I find it ironic that the people arguing "for" this use terms such as "Gay/Strait" "Heterosexual/Homosexual" but then claim, "it's not different".
It's factually false.
Saying Gays deserve the same "rights" as married couples is one thing and I support it.
Saying Gays deserve to be classified as "married" when they don't fit the factual definition of the term, is what everyone should have a problem with.
There is room for both views to be represented. As long as the other side is unwilling to give respect to that dissenting opinion, I think it asenine to expect that same resect in return.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can agree to some legal union for gays that equals marriage, but I cannot agree to legally referring to it as such. But every time I say this, everyone goes, "Cheers! Civil Unions for everyone!" which to me is exactly the same as referring to both as marriage.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"'Separate but Equal' is the goal that should be out there."
How sad. I never thought someone on this forum would actually admit it.
quote: But every time I say this, everyone goes, "Cheers! Civil Unions for everyone!" which to me is exactly the same as referring to both as marriage.
So, to you, the important thing is to make sure that gays never get too uppity and starting thinking of their relationships as "real" ones, just as good as yours? That the point isn't that we need to protect the word "marriage," but that we simply can't call gay unions the same thing legally as heterosexual unions -- even if we gave them the same rights -- because the distinction itself is necessary to keep them in their place?
quote: Except that the majority of gays, as I understand it, are not in fact demanding this.
That is absolutely not true. I have to actually question how many homosexuals you come in contact with on a regular basis. (I'm not being rude just stating facts).
I have several close family members, friends, co-workers who are gay. I wish what you said was true, but I have not found that to be the case.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I understand you correctly, PSI, you would be okay with:
1) civil unions for male-male or female-female partnerships 2) civil unions for female-male partnerships, if that was what they chose 3) marriages for female-male partnerships, if they chose
Nobody would be forced to call civil unions "marriages," and nobody would be forced to call marriages "civil unions."
posted
*grin* My brother is gay. My uncle is gay, and has been in a monogamous relationship for nearly 30 years. I have at least three gay friends from childhood, four gay coworkers I know well, and at least three people on Hatrack here. And I'm not even getting into acquaintances, mind you.
And even my uncle, who's living in Michigan, would be perfectly happy with the term "civil union." In fact, my own stance on that -- which is that if you're going to create civil unions at all, you should eliminate marriages altogether -- is one he considers radical and unlikely. But I'm more hopeful than he is.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I really just think they are seperate things that deserve seperate terms. I'm not refusing to call them human. I just don't believe that what they do fits the definition of marriage. Call it share-age. Call it whatever. But legally recognized gay unions are a new concept in America and it makes more sense to give a new concept a new title rather then trying to cram it in with something else.
Sara: Um, let me think. I'm hesitant to use the term civil union for the purpose of this discussion because it already has a meaning, but I suppose what I would be okay with is a civil union for anyone who wants it, but a civil union between heterosexual people would be defined as marriage, whereas a civil union between homosexual people would be called something else, a word that has not yet been invented because it has never been legally recognized.
posted
"So am I safe to assume Thom that you are opposed to the terms 'Man' and 'Woman' or racial 'Black,' 'White' or 'Hispanic/Latino?'"
Where there is a functional reason to make the distinction in legal terminology, I think the terms are useful. However, there is a reason that our law refers to "citizens," "people," etc., except where it specifically refers to a smaller subset of that population. Unless we intend for a law to only refer to "white men," it would be a mistake for us to have a law written "white men are permitted to park on the square at...."
If we have a law creating homosexual unions that are functionally identical to heterosexual unions, then there is no legal or semantic reason to differentiate between the two unions.
The only reason to create a semantic distinction between these legal terms would be if you intended to introduce legal distinctions. Do you?
------
Chad, I said "even my uncle." This does not mean that only my uncle is happy with civil unions; it means that even my uncle, who is perhaps the one you might most expect to demand full and equivalent "marriage" given his own relationship status, does not expect or demand it.
quote: Do you or do you not recognize the difference between Men/Women, Races, Minors/Adults, Gay/Straight?
I recognize the difference between my male friends/family and me.
I recognize the difference between my white friends and me.
I recognized as a child that I was different than adults and likewise, now that I'm technically an adult, I recognize the differences between myself and children.
I even recognize the difference between myself and my homosexual friends.
However, I do not recognize any justice in being treated differently than men. I do not recognize justice in being treated differently than people of other races. As a child, other than restrictions placed on me (which were equally placed on ages, not on any other factor) such as movie viewing, driving, voting, I didn't see justice in being treated differently than adults and now I don't treat children differently than I want to be treated. And so, with homosexuals, I don't see any justice in treating them as different. To me it's like treating someone different because they like a different sports team or style of music; they're still people but heaven forbid they favor something I don't. They should get the same basic rights regardless of their sexual orientation.
Posts: 378 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One question and I'm really out: Do you believe that calling them homosexuals and us heterosexuals is treating them differently? Should we all just be called sexuals?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When sexuality isn't relevant, I don't think we should be referring to it. When it is, I think we should make semantic discriminations insofar as appropriate.
When I talk to kids, I refer to people as "sexual beings" while referring to sexuality but not to genders in particular. e.g., "As sexual beings, attraction to others comes up in all sorts of relationships, and learning how to deal with that is a part of growing up.
Isn't this a common term? Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're talking to me, PSI, then no, I don't think you need to drop the prefixes.
Rather, I was trying to say, despite the differences in titles, the treatment of the people should be the same.
Seperate but equal is not the same as equal. It wasn't for Afican-Americans early last century and it won't be now for homosexuals if that stance is taken.
Posts: 378 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Do you believe that calling them homosexuals and us heterosexuals is treating them differently?"
The issue is not whether we acknowledge that they are homosexuals and we are not. The issue is whether we wish to codify into the law the fact that their form of long-term relationship is substantially different in some way from our long-term relationships.
You do, for some reason. Something about our relationships is sufficiently different, in your opinion, from theirs that you do not want their relationships to be considered legally identical. You wish to maintain a legal distinction. To you, then, these relationships are not legally equal -- or equivalent. And presumably yours is better.
Which is, of course the flaw in the whole "separate but equal" logic in the first place.
For my part, I see no reason why a gay union differs in any real and substantial way -- again, for legal purposes -- from, say, a childless heterosexual union.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Do you believe that calling them homosexuals and us heterosexuals is treating them differently? Should we all just be called sexuals? "
Nope. They describe actual distinctions.
However, if two people live together, raise children together, are monogamous to each other, share finances, possess power of attorney over each other's affairs, may declare medical preferences for each other if the other is unable, and automatically inherit should the other die, that's something I would describe as a marriage.
The gender of the people involved is the least thing about it, in my opinion.
The way I see it, that's a civil union as far as the government is concerned. According to the churches (and, admittedly, the majority of Americans) that civil union is also a "marriage."
Should two gay people enter into that union, at that point whether or not it's a "marriage" is semantics. If it walks like a duck, etc.
Personally, I think gay activists should have avoided the word "marriage" entirely, even denied it if asked, and pushed solely for civil unions. If they got 'em, within two generations people would be calling it marriage anyway.
[ November 04, 2004, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:For my part, I see no reason why a gay union differs in any real and substantial way -- again, for legal purposes -- from, say, a childless heterosexual union.
Well, one is between a man and a woman and the other is between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. What's so not real and not substantial about that?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
There is a real and substantial difference between a man and a woman working the same job, yet the law demands they receive equal compensation and opportunities.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
The only difference between what is legally relevant and what isn't is what we write in the law, and if we write in the law that there is a significant difference between "man and woman" and "man and man" then it becomes legally substantial. You're going to have to give a better reason than that - you need to say WHY it shouldn't be legally substantial, because it is completely within our power to make it legally substantial.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure that discrimination works that way, Xap. In fact, I'm pretty sure the presumption is in the other direction: that unless there is a substantial demonstrated reason for a distinction, good law is written deliberately to avoid such distinctions -- if only to close potential loopholes.
What differences in legal treatment do you believe would be relevant enough to justify legal distinction between these two types of union?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, for one thing, people think of them very differently, and want to encourage/discourage them to different degrees. Why is that not sufficient?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the primary reason for maintaining a legal distinction would be to promote and perpetuate societal discrimination against homosexual relationships?
posted
Because people can't just decide to discrimnate against a group of people and expect the law to be okay with that!
Posts: 3214 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amen Tom, The only reason I haven't chimed in here is because you have so elegently disected the argument and broken it down. You leave me with nothing substantial to add. Thank You for your logical and thoughtful insights.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So the primary reason for maintaining a legal distinction would be to promote and perpetuate societal discrimination against homosexual relationships?
Yes, I think that is fairly clear.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh. I didn't know that. I thought it was Tres (I was almost certain), but I didn't know why he sometimes uses the Xap name.
Sorry, Tres.
But, I there are people who really think that's okay - and I just can't understand it. Sorry for getting a bit emotional, though. It's been a rough couple of days.
Posts: 3214 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Marriage is the civily recognized union between a man and woman. Period. That's the fact. That is the law.
_________ is the civily recognized union between a man and a man or woman and a woman.
The weakness in your big post on this, Chad, is that you quite casually shift from the realm of semantic definitions to the realm of legal definitions.
"Civilly recognized" anything can be called whatever the enabling statute (or court decision) says the anything is called.
Words, when used in the legal context, often do not have their common usage meaning. This is intentional and necessary, because the legal lexicon needs to be precise. The legal definition is often over- and under-inclusive of common usage. That is, some events that would be included in the word under common usage are excluded by the legal definition, and some events that would be excluded from the word under common usage are included by the legal definition. The same word can be defined very differently in different legal contexts, either by statute or judicial decision.
For example, "person" can include or exclude corporations, partnerships, and groups of persons with common associations. It can also include only adults over the age of 7, or 16, or 21, etc.
Marriage in some states can currently legally refer to those instituted via ceremony and license or by living together for 7 years in a co-habitive relationship. Yet in common usage, most people don't automatically include common law marriages.
If people do recognize such relationships as marriage, then they would have a different definition than some states do. If they choose to only recognize such a relationship as marriage if the state does, then they are adopting the legal definition. Either way, it is clear that the legal definition depends on the law, not how the word is commonly used.
Using common usage to attempt to show why a word can't mean something legally just doesn't work.
Your examples of differentiating by sex or race miss one crucial point: Such distinctions are made in the law ONLY when the distinction is LEGALLY meaningful. If a bill is protecting the rights of minorities, it might explicitly outlaw behavior that has a disparate impact on one or more races. BUT, absent such a legal necessity, people will general be refered to as people, not as "Whites, Blacks, Asians, and persons of all other races."
No one has ever been able to show me an example of a legal principle still in use today that depends on the presence of a man and woman in a marriage.
posted
I don't see any reason to consider a gay marriage worse than a straight marriage, myself.
But if many people do (and many people do!), why does their government have to endorse them both equally?
It seems to me like banning Marijuana but legalizing Alcohol. I, personally, see no significant difference between the two that would justify legalizing one and not the other, but many people apparently do. Yes, it will make Marijuana fans unhappy while Alcohol fans are happy, but why should I or anyone else get to say there is no distinction when clearly most people thinks there is?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have two different discussions going on that I am a part of right now and I can see that it would seem that I'm only arguing one, and very confusingly.
1. By asking about the homosexuals versus sexuals, I wanted to be sure that using terms that define people is not necessarily discrimination. I just wanted to be sure that calling people homosexual or heterosexual isn't bigotry. I have to then make the assumption that calling a homosexual civil union by some title that differentiates it from a heterosexual civil union would not be bigotry. I am not speaking in the legal sense here.
2. In another discussion, I am speaking with Tom about whether or not that terminology should then carry over into legal documents. I can understand his stance that since there would not be any legal difference, we need not bother creating a seperate term for it.
My problem is this: I do not consider a homosexual union to be marriage. I believe that in the majority of cases in history, marriage has been a union between one man and one woman. I believe that that is significant to today. To say that homosexuals would receive the exact same benefits in their unions as heterosexuals receive in their marriages does not make those unions marriages. To redefine the word marriage to mean civil unions between two men, two women, or one man and one woman is to just step around the issue.
I suppose one might say that there wouldn't *be* an issue if religious people weren't making one out of it, but that doesn't matter. If homosexuals receive the exact same benefits as heterosexuals, then it is not discriminatory to call those unions something other than marriage. It is not a right provided in the Constitution that anyone who wants to enter into a union called marriage may do so. So, technically, within the same reasoning, I believe that heterosexuals with marriages could legally have their title of "married" changed to some other word without violating their rights. But left to the majority of our citizens, I don't believe that it would happen, and I think that the will of the majority should be considered when one is not speaking of a specific right provided by the Constitution.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Men and women, regardless of sexual preference, are people.
Discriminating against alcohol does not affect its status as a citizen. Discriminating against a person does.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because, Xap, while one bans the same behavior for everyone, with the effects being mainly based on preference, the other is aimed specifically at an identifiable group of people, with at least some non-preferential criteria for group membership. It is also the denial of a significant, life-altering benefit based on that group membership. A host of our civil rights are deeply affected by the ability to marry.
I don't agree with all of your beliefs, or with all of your points in that post, but I think you did put your ideas forward in a largely polite manner.
I also think you make some good points on the value of compromise.
This thread has morphed into a discussion of whether or not gay marriage should be legaly recognized, and that's okay. I mean, heck, you have the words right there in the title. And, as far as gay-marriage threads go, this one is a pretty good one.
But that's not, to me, what your initial post is about. I am seeing that Hatrack's conservatives have shown open-mindedness and willingness to compromise. And your point, that those of us who believe that there should be no distinction between same-gender marriages and different-gender marriages might get further if we would compromise some ourselves, and if we were not so quick to labe those who disagree with us with onerous terms like "bigot," is worth thinking about.
Thanks for the thread.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Men and women, regardless of sexual preference, are people.
Discriminating against alcohol does not affect its status as a citizen. Discriminating against a person does.
Yes, but gay marriage is not a person - it is a thing. And it is only gay marriage that we are discriminating against if we pass such a ban.
Gay people are free to do everything straight people have, just as Marijuana fans are free to do everything Alcohol fans do.
quote:Because, Xap, while one bans the same behavior for everyone, with the effects being mainly based on preference, the other is aimed specifically at an identifiable group of people, with at least some non-preferential criteria for group membership.
The criteria for defining the group that wants the thing in question should not matter, I believe. For instance, banning the pill would hurt only women, but it is not discriminatory for the law to do so.
quote:It is also the denial of a significant, life-altering benefit based on that group membership. A host of our civil rights are deeply affected by the ability to marry.
Have the courts ruled that such a relationship is a fundamental right? If so, then that would work, but it would still seem that a civil union law would allow them to recieve this benefit while still not recognizing gay marriage as marriage.
posted
Actually, banning the pill does NOT only hurt women - it also hurts men whose partners lack access to convenient, cost-effective birth control.
You clearly don't believe that the criteria for defining the group doesn't matter. For example, I doubt you would find it acceptable to ban black people from smoking marijuana but allow it for white people.
Imagine a law that said "AAA is defined as the civil union of two consenting adults of the same sex. AAA shall inherit all precedents relating to marriage. In the future, no law may be passed that treats AAA different from marriage." How long would it take before either a new word encompassing AAA and marriage was invented, or courts just adopted the shorthand of using the word "marriage" to refer to both.
If the underlying legalities are the same, then they are the same thing. After all, we're talking legal definitions here.
quote: If the underlying legalities are the same, then they are the same thing. After all, we're talking legal definitions here.
I know you weren't talking to me but I'll jump from here:
While legally there wouldn't be anything wrong with using the word marriage to make a legal definition meaning all civil unions, wouldn't it be extremely confusing to say that "legally" marriage can include homosexual unions, but technically it doesn't?
I guess my point is that you could use the word "death" to mean civil unions too but that would be pretty confusing.
quote:For example, I doubt you would find it acceptable to ban black people from smoking marijuana but allow it for white people.
That's not at all what we are talking about. We are talking about banning smoking for everyone, even if (for instance) black people were the only ones who liked smoking. That would not be discriminatory, assuming we were doing it because we though smoking was bad, not because we though black people were bad.
And its certainly reasonable to say that people think gay marriage is a bad thing while not thinking gay people are bad.
quote:If the underlying legalities are the same, then they are the same thing. After all, we're talking legal definitions here.
Again, once a ban is passed, the law is changed, and hence the underlying legalities are different.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap: Except that gays are the only people who *can* have gay unions. If you created a word that meant "black people smoking" and then banned it, that would be discriminatory.
(I can't tell you how many times I've typed "gay onions" in the last couple of hours.)
posted
I normally avoid these threads and now I know why.... my head is spinning, but anyway...
quote:Gay people are free to do everything straight people have, just as Marijuana fans are free to do everything Alcohol fans do.
Isn't that the whole point of the debate, though? Gay couples are NOT free to do everything straight couples are, as evidenced by this week's elections. They are being prohibited from having the same (or an equivalent under another term) legal relationship and legal rights as their straight counterparts. For example, and I know I saw this in one of the threads, surviving spousal rights to inherit property, right to medical coverage under a spouse's policy, right to be in intensive care (which is typically limited to immediate family only) with a wounded partner, right to medical information in general about the partner.
I care less about what we call it than ensuring that gay couples have the right to those kinds of "marital" priviledges that straight couples enjoy.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
