Same-sex Marriage

[Larv]

Originally Posted by Jway

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

But those interracial marriages you speak of are between one man and one woman, which fits my definition of marriage perfectly.

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

No, all those are true marriages, by my definition. The philosophical mistake is decrying "separate but equal" and at the same time calling for gay marriage, which, by doing so, makes gay marriage separate but equal to straight marriage.

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

To me, a "true" liberal is a philosopher who questions everything. You have to be a skeptic to be a true liberal, by my reckoning. You gotta ask hard questions, otherwise you're just running down the street with the crowd.

[Larv]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Because your personal definition is really moot.

Not to me it isn't.

Nobody is forcing you to change your personal definition, so that's a bit of a strawman. However, the argument here is primarily that you are being prevented from forcing that same personal definition on to others.

Yeah, just who is the forcer and who is the forcee in this situation?

I've wrecked this thread, I'm sorry.

[Jway]

Originally Posted by Larv

But those interracial marriages you speak of are between one man and one woman, which fits my definition of marriage perfectly.

Why do you assume I was speaking to interracial marriages between a man and a woman? I had not said this.

No, all those are true marriages, by my definition. The philosophical mistake is decrying "separate but equal" and at the same time calling for gay marriage, which, by doing so, makes gay marriage separate but equal to straight marriage.

What is the mistake? The decrying part????

You gotta ask hard questions, otherwise you're just running down the street with the crowd.

Do you mean a gay crowd? Or a separate but equal heterosexual crowd?

[Larv]

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

BTW, I am a legally married gay man in Massachusetts, the Commonwealth of "Don't tread on me." Do I make an issue of it, I try not. Everyone I work with knows, and many of the students do--all of the gay ones do. Why do I know? Because they all came out of the woodwork last year after the wedding. It was funny how they all knew. Yes, it was good to get our eleven year relationship validated...

Hi Hasanuddin,

My private definition of marriage probably is of a Middle Age mentality. But, for me, the legality of gay marriage is entirely settled by whatever a state’s Supreme Court decides is constitutional. My private definition of marriage would have to give way to state law, as I would not hold myself above such an opinion issued by a state’s Supreme Court. So, congratulations on your marriage!

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Larv

My private definition of marriage probably is of a Middle Age mentality.

So, your definition of marriage means that women are the property of the man, to be beaten, punished, and done with what he will... something deeded to the man by the girls father? You see a marriage to a woman as equivalent to buying a car or a horse? Rather curious, that.

Please note, also, those christian church delivered gay marriages referenced earlier happened during the middle ages, so your point isn't even really that accurate.

Originally Posted by Larv

I've wrecked this thread, I'm sorry.

No, not at all. Please, don't be. This is an important discussion to have. There are a great many people in our country who view this situation the exact same way you do. They don't see it as a "marriage." They are okay with domestic partnerships... okay with civil unions... okay with equal rights and protections under the law... just not okay with calling it "marriage."

That's very common, and important to understand. Some of my closest friends and colleagues feel precisely that way, so you're not alone.

I just don't. I don't understand it one bit. You, yourself, in each of your posts keep referring to it as a marriage... you're not calling it a "gay union" or "same sex partnership." You're calling it a "gay marriage," and TBH the term "gay" is extraneous. It's just how we understand the relationship. It doesn't particularly matter whether it's between two same sex or two opposite sex partners. Our parlance calls it a "marriage," as evidenced in the word you've chosen in your own posts on the subject.

That's just it. Sure, it's different from what you're used to, but it's still a marriage and your chosen lexicon implicitly suggests your agreement with my point. A gay man is not going to run up to his friends and tell them all he's getting "civil unioned" or "domestically partnered" with his mate. He's going to tell them he's getting "married," because that's what he's doing.

That is, of course, if he happens to be lucky enough to live in a state which prizes equal protections and considers it legal to begin with.

[Michaelangelica]

But I disagree that the term "marriage" should apply to both.

So, your problem is mere semantics?
Just the use of the word "marriage" is your problem?

Words always change in meaning over time-- and even according to the society using them .
eg "Silly" originally meant "saintly".

"Marriage" is now also a legal term, not just a religious word.

[Hasanuddin]

"Silly" meant "saintly?" Wow, that's an odd twist. I wonder how that perversion occurred? Personally, I prefer being more silly over overly serious.

This debate is over the wrong things. Look, as I said, by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts I was wed to the other-half of my heart, of now twelve years. The most important part of the event was not a slip of paper, a number, or bragging rights, it was to be in front of family (and God) to crystalize it. Just have both friends AND family in one place was important. I had over eighty relations from 16 state come to the Boat Slip in Provincetown, Massachusetts. P-town, as it is more simply called, is the most fabulous gay-mecca on earth: drag queens, leather, nipple-rings, twinks, bear, and lots of lesbians. It was "tranny-week" that coincided with the wedding. This was all intentional on my part; Ptown is pretty, but it is unavoidably educational. My aunt Olga from New Mexico, was apparently in awe of the profoundness of the event. She later wrote to me that "it was the most important wedding she had ever been to."

I don't think it is a coincidence that Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine all flipped in favor of gay marriage, while New York and New Hampshire are hotly debating it. Mine was just one wedding, and I don't have any relatives from any of the states mentioned (except that both me and my partner have gay brothers living in NYC--the largest gay villiage on Earth.) But statistically I think I am an outlier for not having much family in New England. All the states mentioned border Massachusetts (and Maine was once administered by Massachusetts.) In other words, the other New Englanders saw that the sky didn't fall in Massachusetts... actually the opposite is clearly visible. Massachusetts' resorts, like Ptown, have benefitted by extended seasons caused by marriages like mine (that occurred on the autumn equinox.) Honestly, I don't know how/why Iowa flipped. I think its wonderful. Soon the Midwesterners will see that the sky will remain firmly above the Cornbelt as it has over New England.

Primarily marriage is about family, God, and society--legal aspects and verbal definitions are so trivial. Did it make things rosy and perfect... of course not. Did it bring everyone in the family closer?.. for the most part, yes, but the finale kiss seems to have estranged my partners nieces from me to this day--whatever. But, do I regret a second?.. not a chance.

Tip for all: the best aspect of the wedding event is that we hired a caller, fiddle, and another who gave us live English Country dancing. The best thing about English Country dancing is that it forces everyone to touch one another at some point in the whirling and twirling. (Actually, that's how Patrick and I met.) But by far that was the most important thing we did. For those remaining uptight, I'm sure the physical action of grabbing another man in a doecey-doe swing must have been like a slap of refreshing, but icy cold water.

[lemit]

Larv,

Please persevere. I think the idea that homosexuality is unnatural (which has been forgotten here) has merit, since sex is nature's way of preserving and promulgating the species, and all the actions once referred to variously as sodomy do not further that cause.

What we could say is that while the naturalness or unnaturalness of same-sex partnerships might matter biologically, it doesn't matter socially, legally, or even religiously. We should be strong enough to be able to hold those two concepts in our minds and hearts at the same time: the biological versus all the others.

I think, Larv, I'm beginning to understand your frustration. Can anybody understand the dichotomy I'm trying to present here? Thanks to all of you who are willing to work at it.

--lemit

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

This debate is over the wrong things. Look, as I said, by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts I was wed to the other-half of my heart, of now twelve years. The most important part of the event was not a slip of paper, a number, or bragging rights, it was to be in front of family (and God) to crystalize it.

<...>

Primarily marriage is about family, God, and society--legal aspects and verbal definitions are so trivial.

First, I appreciate you sharing your story, and congratulate you on being able to spend your life with the person you love. I also appreciate the overall positive tone of your post. I just want to comment briefly that (especially for people like me) god has nothing to do with it. I'm an atheist, through and through... as are many of my closest friends and relatives. However, we still marry, as that's the social convention.

Either way, god plays about as much of a role in the event as the tooth fairy or easter bunny (or Thor, or Zeus, or Apollo, or any of the other thousands of figures laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology), but it's still a marriage all the same.

Originally Posted by lemit

What we could say is that while the naturalness or unnaturalness of same-sex partnerships might matter biologically, it doesn't matter socially, legally, or even religiously. We should be strong enough to be able to hold those two concepts in our minds and hearts at the same time: the biological versus all the others.

I think, Larv, I'm beginning to understand your frustration. Can anybody understand the dichotomy I'm trying to present here?

I think I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with the conclusion you've drawn. Let me quickly explain.

When considering marriages or partnerships, biology is rather irrelevant, despite your suggestion above to the contrary. As you well know, we don't require that two opposite sex partners be reproductively viable before allowing them to marry. We don't disallow infertile people from marrying, or people who simply have no plans to ever have children. Or, look at the elderly... people in their 70s or 80s... They're allowed to marry without question, despite the impossibility of offspring conception from their pairing.

So, my point... the biology is not factored in... not one iota... for opposite sex couples, so it should not be factored in either for same sex couples either. Anyone who suggests biology should be relevant is offering a double standard... putting forth an inconsistent criterion... applying it to one group, but not the other... without a relevant secular reason for doing so.

[HydrogenBond]

Natural and unnatural is not really a good argument, when it comes to human behavior, because all that is natural human may not be progressive for humans. For example, it is natural for animals to relieve themselves of body wastes, where they stand. Although this is natural for animals and maybe for even humans, it does not work out well for humans living in civilization, since this particular natural behavior would lead to unsanitary conditions, that would cause disease. This natural behavior may have worked for pre-humans living in small groups within nature, due to a natural balance.

Modern humans could go back to this natural way, if culture provided the logistical support to make it possible. For example, if we had an army of millions of do-do cleaners, whose job was to clean up and sanitize the waste, where it falls, we could go back to this natural. But without this prosthesis, this particular natural would have an adverse effect. In this case, new instinct is needed.

If culture took away all the logistical prosthesis, connected to all the natural instincts that science has found, which of these could continue to thrive in civilization, without any adverse effect to the group? For example, sexual promiscuity may be quite natural, but if we took away all the prosthesis, to make it completely natural, (no do-do cleaners), it would lead to all types of disease. The ancients did not have the logistics for the needed prosthesis to keep the old way going. They saw the need to advance culture into the way of the new instinct.

Institutions, like marriage, does not require the same prosthesis as the natural way, even if it is not natural. It is just more advanced as a function of required prosthesis. Gays are trying to move in the direction of this cultural advancement, but some are trying to leave them in the retro of natural animals, which data could show to have the higher prosthesis cost.

Science appears to be working under the false assumption that natural is better in all cases, because this is a cultural buzz word that sells soap and snake oil. What we should do is an objective study, to see if new instinct in more advanced, relative to natural instinct, based on tangible cost. This will take it out of subjective opinion and turn the subject into objectivity.