Science Forums 2

[Jway]

Originally Posted by Larv

You mean to say then that there is no difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage? I agree that there should be no legal difference. But I disagree that the term "marriage" should apply to both.

I still don't get why this is. You are using the very term "marriage" in your question, and so it would make sense that it can apply to both. If going with short hand of "marriage," I will admit it could be confusing, but only if prejudice.

If we legalize "gay marriage" then we will forever have two kinds of marriages, which will serve only to promote animosity.

Don't you think same things were said about interracial marriages? Do you think that interracial marriages only serve to promote animosity?

IMO, you can substitute the word "marriage" with "relationship" and approach the issue in similar, if not same, way. Do gay relationships alter the way in which we think of human relationships? Perhaps. Do they automatically lead to animosity in our consideration of human relationships? Perhaps.

How do you solve that problem? You can take the word "marriage" out of the legal context and the problem goes away. Or you can call "gay marriage" something else and the problem goes away.

I would vote for the former way before the latter. The latter would be rebelled against forever if maintained as "right." If it were other way around, "gay marriage" is "true marriage," I think people would instantly see the fallacy in the logic.

I think it is prudent to remove it from the legal, because I do think gay marriage as legal right is gateway to other forms of marriage. I can't see why we would not say polyamorous relationships couldn't also be legal marriages as well. I realize gay rights advocates may not be arguing for polygamous marriages (I'm pretty sure they are not), but if the relationship is there, and it is desired to be taken to the other level which other humans desire; the one where public witnessing and blessings and celebration is called forth, I can't see why that would be forbidden, other than prejudice is once again allowed to rule the day.

But, to me, it's only a philosophical problem. I want to see all kind people get spliced to the ones they love. But those who decry "separate but equal" make a philosophical mistake when they call for legalizing "gay marriage," which is to say that it should be separate but equal to straight marriage.

What is the philosophical mistake being made? Is that same mistake being made with interracial marriages? And interdenominational marriages?

But I don't! I want to see all of the people get all of their rights regardless of who or what they love. If you're talking about homosexuals loving each other then I'm all for legalizing same-sex domestic partnerships. But I guess you want me to redefine my definition of marriage to include "gay marriage." So, my nagging philosophical question is: Why do I need to alter my orthodox Middle Ages" definition of marriage when I already support legalizing full-on domestic partnerships for gays.

You don't have to. But what if things were to go the other way? We are now saying that heterosexual marriage is not "marriage" and gay marriage can be referred to as simply "marriage." Would you perhaps seek to alter that? You might say you wouldn't. I know I would seek to alter that. It doesn't make sense that one type of coupling or intimate relationship, between two (or more) consenting persons would have ownership on a term that is essentially neutral.

btw: I happen to be a very liberal person who is kind and respectful to life and nature, and I don't see why my questioning the need to change my definition of "marriage" should disqualify may claim of being a liberal.

You're just not being a "true" liberal.