Should gay marriage be called "marriage"?/Ron Paul

[Zag]

I'd like to take a break from all this acrimony to tell a story, one that makes me rather proud of my extended family on my mother's side.

In 1986, in August (I know the date precisely because I remember it was the week that, due to a packing oversight on my part, my daughter was conceived), my mother's extended family had a week-long family reunion at an adjoining pair of rented cabins. My mother, who was born in 1929, is the youngest of 9 children; the oldest of her siblings (who was there at the gathering) was born in 1910. They were raised as Quakers, a moderately wealthy, very traditional family in Pennsylvania. My point is that they were very clearly of the WWII veterans generation, well before the baby boomers -- not a generation generally known for its open-mindedness and inclusiveness. That is, they are only a couple of generations younger than Pablo!

Also attending this week-long reunion was my cousin and her partner, an openly lesbian couple. It was my first experience with someone who was out of the closet, though I had known a friend in college who had revealed himself to a few of us. When I met them and understood the situation, I was concerned that there would be an issue, that some of my more "traditional" aunts and uncles would have a big problem.

On the third or fourth day, I went out to the boat house to get the boat ready for water-skiing, and I found my cousin out there crying, alone. My first thought was that someone had said something insulting to her or her partner; in my bleeding-heart, limousine-liberal (at the time) way, I was ready to "take up the cause" and "defend her." Fortunately, I spoke to her first, and asked her what the problem was. She looked up at me through the tears and declared that there was no problem. She had been so afraid, coming to this reunion, that there would be judgement, castigation, all the rest; but everyone had been so kind and accepting that she was just overwhelmed with relief and gratitude. She had arrived bristling for a fight, but was met only with kindness.

I have since always proud to be a part of the Woodward clan.

[Mackay]

That was a real palate-cleanser. Thanks, Zag

edit to add: I apologise for coming across as acrimonious. I know that it's unavoidable given the strong emotional effect of words like "bigot", and I was trying to use the word "prejudice" instead to soften the blow, until the last couple of posts. But I really haven't been angry or bitter or upset in this discussion, other than my initial disappointment when extro first made his claim re: the profoundness of homosexual love.

Rather, I have a policy of either shutting out or actively fighting against prejudicial influences in my own life - I struggle with prejudices of my own daily, on a visceral level, and have to combat them consciously to avoid reinforcing stereotypes to myself. I have lost several friends due to the casual racism prevalent in Australia and my tendency to either attack it where I see it, or just shut the person out completely, depending upon whether the friendship is worth trying to argue them down. In this case, I feel an ethical obligation to keep arguing, even though I'm really bored with this discussion by now, because extro persists in reinforcing his perception of the inferiority of gay relationships, which is a perception that shouldn't be allowed to stand undisputed.

Again, I apologise. I know it's annoying and tiresome to everyone in the thread, including me. I just don't have it in me to let it slide, even though I basically agree with everyone on this topic except for the part about this one word.

[Silverfire]

I have to add my two cents here. I can't vouch for the "profundity" of heterosex versus homosex, but in other ways, say, medically, I can observe that the two are definitely not equal. The rectum is not an ideal place to carry out sexual relations, so male-male sex carries the risks one would expect from such an act. To be sure, heterosex also carries risks, primarily STDs and pregnancy that happens when a couple cannot support a child, but within the context of marriage and fidelity, the heterosexual act is generally healthy, not harmful. The same cannot be said of male-male sex. It is an act that carries medical risks.

The rationale behind associating sex, love, and marriage depends on the idea that people who have sex with one another do it because they love one another. Can we agree that satisfying one's desires at the cost of putting another person at risk is not truly loving?

To clarify: this post is in response to Mackay's claims that anyone who doesn't accept homosex as the equal of heterosex is "a bigot," "homophobic," etc. Frankly, that's an absurd claim. The differences between the two are obvious, and they must be acknowledged if we're to have a meaningful discussion.

(About female-female sex: there are correlations between female-female sex and destructive behaviors, but I wouldn't consider them well-established enough to use in demonstrating the differences between heterosex and homosex.)

[Mackay]

[Zag]

[casinopete]

Bravehat, Pablo & Zag:

When you say you agree with extro, you mean that you agree that the civil union terminology is the best way to handle things, right?

You are not agreeing with him that heterosexual relationships are inherently more profound than homosexual relationships, right?
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you.

[casinopete]

[extropalopakettle]

[extropalopakettle]

[extropalopakettle]

[extropalopakettle]

I'm pretty sure reading this, from earlier in the thread, should show I have no notion of intention or design in evolution:

[extropalopakettle]

[Scurra]

So it is just a definition argument again then? I thought it was, but it had got a bit long-winded.

It seems to me that there is a strong argument for the evolution of "marriage" as a social contract that says it was far more to do with political and economic power than it was to do with propagating the next generation, which was going to happen whether marriage existed or not... Indeed, you might say that marriage is actually a bit of an impediment to successful propagation of the species if you want genetic variety (which also tends to support a theory of marriage as a political invention because it strongly supports tribal structures.)

Whilst I agree that reproductive ability is predominantly male/female across the biological sphere, this seems supremely irrelevant to an argument about a social contract and whether or not this contract should be extended or remodelled. And certainly irrelevant to an argument about the "profoundness" or otherwise of human relationships.

Personally I'd rather leave it up to people to make their own decisions about social structures by making the options available to everyone rather than restricting them. For instance, I don't oppose the idea of schools that charge fees. What I object to is when other people make judgements based on that, by presuming that certain types of school are better than others, regardless of anything else. However, as this unfortunately seems to be a part of what, for want of a better term, is "human nature" - the whole tribal us/them dichotomy combined with rampant egotism* - it's probably insoluble. But then again I'm a woolly liberal who has this hopelessly naive view of the world.

*please note that I am saying that we are all egotistical, in that we all presume that our own worldview must be the right and proper one..
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[casinopete]

[Silverfire]

I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't think there's some kind of binary divide between "loving" and "unloving." I sincerely love my parents, but I do things every day that are unloving toward them.

[Pablo]

[Zag]

[casinopete]

[Pablo]

[Quailman]

I've tried to keep out of this thread, but it keeps staying at the top of OT.

The arguments about how the parts fit together during sex or the particular emotion that is possible between the various parties are irrelevant to whether or not the government should be involved in the marriage question. Although I agree to an extent with Pablo that they shouldn't, I don't think there's a way to avoid it, as long as you recognize the line between a church's definition of marriage and the government's.

As I said on page 1, marriage is a religious institution that government has recognized for certain purposes such as joint filing of income taxes, distribution of property upon death, etc. And the juducual branch gets involved when the religious institution comes crashing to a tragic end (divorce).

Because of that involvement, which I do not advocate the government step back from, unions between two parties need to be acknowledged by the government. There is no reason, however, for the union to be limited to persons of opposite gender. Just define it as two consenting adults (I admit to being prejudiced when it comes to more than two). While it should be a civil union or partnership in the eyes of the government, the term marriage is so interwoven into the fabric of our society and governement, go ahead and use the term marriage. And don't qualify it. Thats demeaning.

As for the measure of love that can be felt between to people of opposite sex vs. two of the same sex, well, that's just hooey. I thought I loved my wife when I married her, but now I'm not so sure. The love that I have for her after 22 years of marriage and raising our children is so much greater than what I felt for her when we wed that I don't know if I loved her at all back then.

So who defines a marriage? Your church does. Each is different, though some not so much. Some do not allow or recognize divorce, though their members go through the judicial process to acheive it. The government just accepts the marriage as a partnership or civil union for the pruposes I mentioned above. For those who do not get married under the auspices of a church, the government will even provide a Justice of the Peace to perform the ceremony. Especially in this case it is still just to people forming a partnership. I still see no reason for the governemtn not to allow it to be between any two consenting adults and to limit the involvement to one at a time. And why not call it marriage? I'm okay with that.

[extropalopakettle]

[Nsof]

To Scurra and Quailman
Its kind of weird but feel relieved that most of what i wanted to say was finally written and in a much better way than i could have written. Thanks

@extro,
1. Why do you think homosexuality is a disorder? What kind of a disorder? Do you think blue eyes are a disorder?
2. I think you agree that equal rights for gays is a requirement and is "nonnegotiable". Their way of achieving equal rights is by including gay unions in government sanctioned marriages whereas yours is by calling it "civil unions". In several places you refer to "civil unions" as a compromise. Why do you think "civil union" option is a compromise? (put another way, what have you compromised?)
_________________
Will sell this place for beer

[extropalopakettle]

[BraveHat]

[extropalopakettle]

[Quailman]

[extropalopakettle]

This is neither here nor there, but something I find peculiarly amusing:

[Mackay]

Wow, lots of new posts. I'll try to address what has been asked of me, but it will be in bits and pieces, and maybe not all today (I need to prepare for and go to work). If I miss something that is particularly important for me to address, please point it out, I don't want to ignore something significant.

For now:

[Mackay]

re: "compromise" - suddenly seems like a terrible choice of words on my part. I am opposed to it, but sympathetic to the views of those who feel the "civil unions for everyone" view is the best solution, because I felt that way till, well, basically the time this thread started. But I hadn't really thought about it until that point. When I did, I realised the stigma that redefining marriage for everyone places upon gay couples. When you say it is the "lesser evil", I agree that it is a lesser evil than giving heterosexual and homosexual people separate terms. However, I think changing all the legal terms for this specific type of contract just to not have gay people use the word "marriage" is still a far greater evil than using the word that already exists for the legal contract in question.

Greatest evil: Not allowing gay unions at all, or giving them a separate title. This is discrimination. Not much clarification required here.

Medium/"lesser" evil: Changing all marriage contracts to "civil unions". This is exclusive - it will undoubtedly send the message that gay people cannot use the word "marriage". I'd love to think, as in Pablo's post, that it could be read as a sign that government is scaling back its interference in people's personal lives, but I think he knows that anti-gay people would use it as a victory, and gay activists would be outraged, even if the government framed it in the most flattering terms. It's unfortunate, but it is reality.

Not evil: Allowing gay people to use the word "marriage". This is inclusive. The word "marriage" already exists for the exact contract that we are talking about granting to gay people, so I'd struggle to even call it a "redefinition", at least from a government standpoint.

All of this has already been said better by both cp and Quailman, but it seemed like you wanted me to clarify.

[Mackay]

re: Bravehat - by stating that his reasons are personal, he has made it clear that he doesn't want those views questioned in this thread (at least that's how it seemed to me), and I respect that even though I disagree with him.

Since you posted this

[Nsof]

[casinopete]

[Pablo]

[extropalopakettle]

[extropalopakettle]

I want to drill this in just a bit more, in shorter form.

[Scurra]

[Quailman]

Don't forget, also, that some women like it in the back door. That can be a real bond strengthener.

[extropalopakettle]

[extropalopakettle]

[Scurra]