It doesn’t matter what the historical nature of marriage has always been or what tradition is. Marriage is an institution of the state and the state has an obligation to be fair to all citizens here and now. A considerable number of people want marriage within a homosexual relationship. What’s the reason NOT to provide it? That should be the overriding question here. Otherwise why is the state providing a right to some citizens and not to others? “I’m not in favor of changing the language surrounding marriage” is not a compelling reason. I can’t imagine any compelling reason, but that is really weak.
But we want to change the meaning of these words, that’s the whole point. We want marriage to include gay couples. We want gay men to be able to introduce their husbands because this communicates the reality that we now have marriage equality.[/quote]
Well if the whole point is changing the meaning of words, not simply getting equality, then I think it’s a bit of a jab at the institution of heterosexual marriage.
Mean spirited in my book.[/quote]
How is it mean spirited when the rights of heterosexual couples have not changed at all? And why would we call gay marriage something else, if it is equal? We want to call it marriage precisely because it is equal. You must have some negative feelings about gay relationships, otherwise, why would it bother you at all?
[quote=“Kiwi”]Like I’ve said numerous times. I’m 100% in favor of complete legal, social, and economic quality.
I’m just not convinced about changing the language surrounding marriage. Simple as that.[/quote]
I think the point you don’t understand is that complete equality isn’t possible if you have to invent a new civil institution just for one group of people. I know you don’t like this statement, but what you’re advocating is a “separate but equal” policy. You want to have one civil institution for straight couples (marriage), and one for gay couples (civil union). Laws don’t exist in a vacuum, they’re part of the human experience. People don’t really perceive civil unions as on par with marriage. That’s the reality.
Your claim that you support full equality but oppose extending marriage to gay couples is a contradiction in terms. Simple as that.
I guess it comes down to whether you see marriage as a ‘right’. I’m not convinced. I see it as something that just ‘is’, and that comes with its own traditional baggage. Sure, you can ignore the tradition, but in doing so you’re altering the institution.
I think homosexuals have the right to have their relationships recognized by the state in the same way that heterosexuals can have their relationships recognized. That’s a right. I see no compelling reason that civil unions can’t see homosexuals realize this right, leaving marriage to remain as what it’s always been - an institution that (for better or worse) revolves around heterosexuality, uses heterosexual-oriented terminology, etc.
If marriage is a ‘right’ then how about same sex heterosexual couples getting married? This recently happened in New Zealand, sparking protest from gays who dubbed it a disrespectful piss-take.
[quote=“Gao Bohan”][quote=“Kiwi”]Like I’ve said numerous times. I’m 100% in favor of complete legal, social, and economic quality.
I’m just not convinced about changing the language surrounding marriage. Simple as that.[/quote]
I think the point you don’t understand is that complete equality isn’t possible if you have to invent a new civil institution just for one group of people. I know you don’t like this statement, but what you’re advocating is a “separate but equal” policy. You want to have one civil institution for straight couples (marriage), and one for gay couples (civil union). Laws don’t exist in a vacuum, they’re part of the human experience. People don’t really perceive civil unions as on par with marriage. That’s the reality.
Your claim that you support full equality but oppose extending marriage to gay couples is a contradiction in terms. Simple as that.[/quote]
Or do away with marriage completely? I don’t much care.
Could just rely on defacto relationships which exist anyway (at least in NZ) when those in a relationship cohabit.
But acting like marriage was never related to biology and society only recently became sufficiently enlightened to recognize this truth is simply stupidity.
But we want to change the meaning of these words, that’s the whole point. We want marriage to include gay couples. We want gay men to be able to introduce their husbands because this communicates the reality that we now have marriage equality.[/quote]
Well if the whole point is changing the meaning of words, not simply getting equality, then I think it’s a bit of a jab at the institution of heterosexual marriage.
Mean spirited in my book.[/quote]
How is it mean spirited when the rights of heterosexual couples have not changed at all? And why would we call gay marriage something else, if it is equal? We want to call it marriage precisely because it is equal. You must have some negative feelings about gay relationships, otherwise, why would it bother you at all?[/quote]
I guess I have negative feelings about gay relationships in that I’d rather not to be in one. But generally what gays get up to has nothing much to do with me.
I’m simply not really in favor of redefining marriage, historically an institution based on opposite-sex couplings, as one based on couplings that are ‘sex-blind’ (not sure that’s the correct phrase). That strikes me as a redefinition.
I also think that the tone of this debate in western countries has been silly. I’ve had heterosexual acquaintances in NZ (where perfectly useful gay civil unions have been legal for years) express the sentiment that they are delaying their heterosexual marriage plans to protest the injustice being done to gays. This strikes me as wallowing in self righteousness.
Make marriage illegal for all I care. A huge proportion of children are growing up outside of it anyway, so it’s increasingly irrelevant.
Just don’t call me a bigot for suggesting society might want to consider erring on the conservative side in terms of redefining marriage - while still fully protecting gays and their relationships.
I guess it comes down to whether you see marriage as a ‘right’. I’m not convinced. I see it as something that just ‘is’, and that comes with its own traditional baggage. Sure, you can ignore the tradition, but in doing so you’re altering the institution.[/quote]
Of course you’re altering it–that’s besides the point. From wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights
The state entitles people under the law to “marry.” Everything the state does in modern democracies is, or is supposed to be, defined by law. Nothing just “is”.
That’s called “marriage”.
We’ve gone in a circle here. I think you need something more to deprive people of a right which they desire and which is afforded to others. I’ll agree to disagree.
Personally, I don’t see how it could be prevented. Is anyone stopping heterosexuals who aren’t sexually attracted to each other from marrying? Yet we all carry on just fine. All these desperate “how abouts” don’t change anything.
Are you married? If so, you should care. All governments provide a range of protections and benefits for married couples and their children.
New Zealand legalized gay marriage last year.
No one said it wasn’t. If you want to focus on the historical understanding of marriage, then we also need to recognize that marriage was also about power, about furthering family prospects and creating political alliances. Religion also played a large part, with couples forbidden to dissolve their union, no matter how miserable they may be. Things change. 
I don’t think you’re a bigot at all. I appreciate that you support equal rights for gays and lesbians. But your “separate but equal” idea just isn’t necessary. How about just “equal”? 
Idaho formally joins the Free States Club!
30 down, 20 to go!!
Are you married? If so, you should care. All governments provide a range of protections and benefits for married couples and their children.[/quote]
Depends on the state of course, but in many cases (e.g. in states with strong laws on defacto relationships) it’s not the ‘marriage’ as such that provides these protections. The protections come from being in any one of a number of relationships (i.e. marriage, civil union, or simply a history of having cohabited etc).
At least that’s my understanding.
And nothing really changed, because strong state protection of civil unions and defacto relationships already existed.
No one said it wasn’t. If you want to focus on the historical understanding of marriage, then we also need to recognize that marriage was also about power, about furthering family prospects and creating political alliances. Religion also played a large part, with couples forbidden to dissolve their union, no matter how miserable they may be. Things change. [/quote]
Sure marriage has been different things in different places/times, but one constant has been the biology stuff. Removing that seems a fundamental change.
Nor is gay marriage actually necessary. Various countries have done fine using civil unions. To me the latter seems preferable - optimal mix of looking after everyone’s interests and keeping tradition.
Personally, I don’t see how it could be prevented. Is anyone stopping heterosexuals who aren’t sexually attracted to each other from marrying? Yet we all carry on just fine. All these desperate “how abouts” don’t change anything.[/quote]
It was not a desperate ‘how about’. It was just an example involving gays protesting a heterosexual same sex couple getting married - apparently it undermined gay marriage or something. I just thought there was a bit of a parallel to heterosexuals protesting about homosexual marriage.
The gay communities in those nations don’t think the situation is “fine”. The same was true of your own nation, which is why they pushed for full equality. I read several articles about it at the time. The Kiwi LGBT community was not happy with the situation, that is simply a fact. The same was true in the UK, which had a very similar situation. Your statement that the situation is “preferable” is based on ignorance of the LGBT position, including in your home country.
The gay communities in those nations don’t think the situation is “fine”. The same was true of your own nation, which is why they pushed for full equality. I read several articles about it at the time. The Kiwi LGBT community was not happy with the situation, that is simply a fact. The same was true in the UK, which had a very similar situation. Your statement that the situation is “preferable” is based on ignorance of the LGBT position, including in your home country.[/quote]
I said it seems preferable ‘to me’. That’s simply an expression of my personal opinion.
Alaska is out of the club, for now.
quote - A federal appeals court on Wednesday put gay marriage temporarily on hold in Alaska so the state can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court over a judge’s decision overturning its ban on same-sex matrimony.
The decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstates Alaska’s ban on gay marriage until Friday at noon Pacific Time to give the state sufficient time to seek a more lasting ruling from the Supreme Court, according to court papers.[/quote]
I’m unclear why you keep insisting that you’re expressing a personal opinion. Of course you are, we all are. It’s a discussion forum. :eh: I could be mistaken, but you seem to believe that your opinion is somehow exempt from judgment. Again, it’s a discussion forum, and a political one at that.
Here’s the reality. You don’t believe in equality for gays. We have already explained to you that the gay community does not consider civil unions to be equal to marriage, even in nations like New Zealand and the UK where they carried nearly the same force of law. The interplay between law and social beliefs has also been explained. What could say it better than the quip, “Will you civil union me?” A civil union is not a marriage, so what you’re advocating is inequality, not equality. What you’re advocating is a separate but equal policy, and you just can’t seem to understand that separate can’t be equal.
But that’s OK. I realize we’re not going to win everybody. Your side lost in New Zealand and it’s losing everywhere else in the civilized world. It’s just a matter of time.
If I believed my opinion was exempt from judgment I probably wouldn’t be putting it out there to be judged.
I believe legislating to make marriage sex-blind fundamentally redefines marriage. I do not think this belief implies supporting inequality for homosexuals.
I’m not against equality. I’d be happy for the state to step out of marriage altogether and extend legal recognition only to (sex-blind) civil unions.
There is a cultural appropriation aspect to what is happening. I’m skeptical about homosexuals appropriating a heterosexual institution.
I agree it’s hard to actually see any harm in it. Maybe it’s OK. However, the insistence that this change merely ‘realizes equality’ (no, it redefines marriage), the insistence it is necessary (no, there are equitable alternatives), and the self-righteous aggression toward anyone who dares express doubts - these all irritate me.
As for your last comments Gao Bahan, given that I’m favor of equal rights for homosexuals, the talk of ‘sides’ is a bit odd.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of equal rights. 
I understand your position, I just don’t agree with it. There’s a good reason that most LGBT rights advocates actively campaign against civil unions now, even when it’s clear that full equality isn’t on the table. Sort of how, during the American Civil War, several regiments of black soldiers in the Union refused to accept any pay whatsoever until Congress agreed to give them equal pay to white soldiers. It’s impossible to understate the hardship that caused these men and their families, but it was a matter of honor and dignity. So is this.
I know you don’t care for the mixed race analogy, but it fits. Imagine if someone said they support equal rights for mixed race couples, but don’t think they should be allowed to marry. They support “civil unions” instead. Would you consider that person as truly supporting equality? Probably not, I’m guessing. That’s how I, and many others, feel about your separate but equal policy towards gays. Separate but equal is discrimination, plain and simple.
As for the self-righteous aggression, that’s natural under the circumstances. Inequality degrades the dignity of our fellow human beings. Indignation is a normal response in those circumstances. I try to keep my tone respectful, but I don’t blame others for not. There’s no reason to respect those who advocate discrimination. 
A federal judge in Arizona has struck down that state’s ban on gay marriage. Thus far, the state government has not indicated whether it will appeal or accept the ruling.
huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/1 … 03456.html
[quote]PHOENIX (AP) — A federal judge has struck down Arizona’s ban on gay marriage and cleared the way for legally recognized same-sex unions in the state.
The ruling Friday by U.S. District Judge John Sedwick bars state officials from enforcing a 1996 state law and a 2008 voter-approved constitutional amendment that outlawed gay marriage.
Sedwick ordered the state to “permanently cease” its ban on gay marriage and declined to stay his order.
The Arizona decision came after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Oct. 7 that gay marriage prohibitions in Nevada and Idaho violated the equal-protection rights of same-sex couples.[/quote]
Being from California, something that struck me about this debate is that a civil union sometimes has the same rights as a marriage on paper, but there’s an insistence from the left that gays don’t have true equality unless it’s called marriage.
This seems to go all the way down to the issue of mental equality – whether some people think of gays as equals – and I’m skeptical that forcing people to use certain terminology could unseat religious compunction. A similar approach has clearly failed in regards to the abortion issue. Forcing Christians to accept abortion in fact did nothing towards making them accept it mentally. I don’t get the impression that gays are necessarily invested in success in the mental arena, if they can’t convince religious people to accept them than they can at least seek to marginalize them instead and that is probably viewed as the next best thing.
The best possible outcome in my mind would have been to accept equal rights under a different legal phrasing but that wasn’t good enough for politicians who need a wedge or academics who need a controversy.
Wrong. Civil unions never had the same strength as marriage on paper. It was always understood that gays would not receive any of the automatic federal and state benefits and protections of marriage. They couldn’t claim married status on their taxes, as just one thing. The “civil union” laws theoretically simplified transfers of property and custody upon death, but even those were easily challenged when one or both had biological children from previous (straight) marriages. That’s the US. Civil unions in other countries were stronger, but even then, the LGBT community did not want to accept “separate but equal”.
Completely wrong. That was never the intent, and is not the intent. I can’t imagine there’s any LGBT equal rights advocate who seriously believes fundamentalist Christians are ever going to accept them.
Your statement is based on a false premise, and is a false analogy. Two mints in one! The Supreme Court legalized abortion to give citizens privacy and control over their own bodies, not to change the hearts and minds. There’s the false premise. The false analogy is abortion and gay marriage. They’re completely different issues. Abortion is about life and death. Gay marriage isn’t. I don’t think legalizing gay marriage will much affect Christians.
Wrong again. You should educate yourself on the issue before posting. I don’t mean that to sound offensive, not my intent. It’s just that you’ve made several inaccurate statements, essentially repeating right-wing talking points. Well that’s not completely fair. They’ve basically given up on the talking points, most of them anyways. It seems the GOP may be coming around, given their total lack of response to the recent slew of legislative victories for the LGBT community.