Marriage and the State

Why should there be the same benefits? And why not provide the same benefits for people who room together, married or not, who are just good friends? Should there even be a limit to the number of husbands/wives or significant others?

 

I think you are at least half right. My father is not particularly religious, and I would rate him somewhere around 70% on the control freak scale.

His father was never as bad as my mother's father.

You know that none of this is anything new. Parents and society in general have been fucking things up for young relationships at least since the days when Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet.

Especially as the kids get older. By the time I was in college, my peers had at least ten times as much influence as family.

That's in agreement with what I have seen on this side of the world.

But without a typical male role model, how are the young boys of tomorrow going to learn how to be arrogant jerks?

 

With that rationale, we might as well do away with marriage altogether. Afterall, where do you draw the line?

 

Rome AD 38-40

 

There should be because we're talking about the homosexual equivalent of heterosexual mates. Maybe neither should have benefits, but if one does, so should the other, no questions asked, THEN you can start worrying about if either should.

Good friends could get married, and sometimes do, it's up to them to weigh the consequences if they decide they don't want to be married or they want to go their separate ways, and how hard it will be to put things right.

If you want to rail against marriage for existing, fine by me. But the same marriage opportunities should exist for all. If you want to marry friends or room mates, that's fine, but you must then be able to deal with being.... married to them. These gay people CAN deal with being bound like that, and want it, so they should have that option.

 

What is being talked about is the attempt to make homosexual partnerships socially acceptable and equal in benefits to heterosexual partnerships under law. Marriage is accepted globally as a contract between a man and a woman. While I have no complaints of two men or two women engaging in a similar arrangement, it is not one that is recognized as marriage globally, and in some countries unlawful, and even punishable. Two persons, M/F, M/M, or F/F can live together and contractually bear responsibility for each other without necessity of marriage. Rather than an attempt to redefine our languages, it is better to create new words which add to our vocabulary and translate more easily from one language to another.

One solution could be to just drop the 'm' from marriage and replace it with a 'g'. And what about words to replace husband and wife? Would two males both be identified as husbands, and two females both as wives?

Try not reading more into what I write than what I write.

 

You seem to have not read much of what I wrote, so you'll have to forgive me for reading too MUCH.

I suggested your solution. And as a male in a domestic partnership is a husband, I don't see why that need change. Being a husband is dependent on being male, not having a wife, and vice versa.

 

What an odd argument.

It seems to me to say; "because it is not, it should never be."

Yet, there was a time when Interracial marriage faced similar attitudes throughout much of the world; and now it is commonplace.

There was a time when freedom of the press was a ludicrous idea; and all reports were subject to government review.

Bear baiting, bull fighting, dog fighting, cock fighting, and other bloodsports were once commonplace across the world. Now, very few areas allow it.

So were child labor and incestual marriages.

Times change.

 

Marriage isn't even a union created by man... it's common throughout nature to have monogamous couples live together and raise their children.. the very concept of nature.

Simply put, whether the state wants to or not they cannot regulate "marriage".

 

I read thoroughly what you wrote, and was responding to your use of the word 'rail'.

rail:
To utter reproaches; to scoff; to use insolent and reproachful language; to reproach or censure in opprobrious terms; followed by at or against, formerly by on.

railer:
One who scoffs, insults, censures or reproaches with opprobrious language.

railing:
1. Clamoring with insulting language; uttering reproachful words.



Words have meaning, and the more precise their meaning the more effectively and efficiently we are able to communicate understandably with one another.

male:
Pertaining to the sex that procreates young, and applied to animals of all kinds; as a male child; a male beast, fish, or fowl.

female:
Among animals, one of that sex which conceives and brings forth young.

Husband:
A man contracted or joined to a woman by marriage. A man to whom a woman is betrothed, as well as one actually united by marriage, is called a husband.

Written material from years past are made meaningless when the true meaning can only be obtained by exegetion of each word.

 

Then you have misread or misunderstood what you read. It says nothing of the sort, only that if society wishes to accept same sex unions they should be easily recognized as what they are, which is NOT identical, but only similar to a union between a man and a woman.

 

And they will easily do so, by noticing that there are two grooms/brides.

Now, why exactly shouldn't these non-identical marriages be called marriages?

 

Why should they? And why the necessity of using the word marriage in the first place, when its meaning has been universally recognized and accepted in all societies who have an equivalent word in their language?

 

A union between a man and woman does not have a universally accepted definition. That common thought is a drastic oversimplification of reality. A heterosexual marriage without kids is radically different from one with kids. An open (or semi-open) marriage is radically different from one that is closed. Religious polygamists use the word marriage in a way that is radically different from the so-called norm, and have been doing so for centuries. This universally accepted definition is a fiction that refuses to die.

 

Because the same-sex relationships we are discussing are in every way identical to those relationships traditionally referred to as marriages.

 

I'm only speaking of the word 'marriage', which even polygamists retain a heterosexual definition, of one man having more than one wife, or one woman having more than one husband. The universally accepted definition is one that must be dealt with as fact, rather than fiction.

 

"In every way", really? It really only boils down to what two consenting adults do in privacy is their business alone, whether society as a whole accepts or likes it or not.

 

Only because people with political power say so.

 

Maybe, the trouble with defining marriage is none other than the fact that marriage is something utterly unreal, arbitrary, and symbolic.

You like cute symbols and words? Cool. Snow white dresses, rings, priestly words echoed in graystone Gothic structures, sweet nothings whispered for your relatives and friends to approve of? You bet. Little contracts signed under the seal of approval of states rather than your own? All of which can be as quickly disposed of as they were acquired? I think that`s your business. Many people seem to need that.

But, some of us like tangible things. Like broccoli. :beatdeadhorse5:

 

If that is the actual argument, then fair enough, you have identified yourself as someone that really cares about semantics.

But its not like you are going to change anything, you are not going to stop the younger generations using the word sick when they really mean cool. Or Grammar and spelling, you are not going to stop them spelling the word gr8t with a numeral.

Myself and my colonial brethren, if we want to continue spelling humour with a u, or use the word fanny to mean front end, we will continue to do so. If the new worlders wish to omit the u, or use the word fanny to mean the rear end, we are still going to know what they are talking about.

You know full we no one is going to believe the argument is about semantics, for if it is why isnt the same passion given to misuses of other words.

Take homosexuality out of the equation for the moment, as Duck pointed out, if the main thrust of the argument is about semantics, you are just going to sound like part of the old guard that doesnt like things to change. "Whats happening with the kids of today, they are butchering the english language, back in my day we had one word for everything, and everyone knew what it meant".

Put homosexuality back into the equation, and there is a whole range of issues and objections that we, as well as all the younger generation just dont see coming or have any clue about till everyone gets past 30. Now if you cant say out loud what they are, cant explain it to the younger generation, instead they get these nonsensical arguments about semantics or what the bible says even though most of the west is agnostic nowadays. Then what use are they?

Which is why with Gen Y we are half way there, I can refer to the boyfriend as the boyfriend, everyone knows what I mean. Can refer to the boyfriend as the wife if I darn well want to. Make jokes about the ball and chain, better get home before 10 otherwise the wife will have me in the dog house, everyone giggles, they know what i mean. Couple dozen countries now, where if i want to marry him I can darn well want to if I please, and with Gen Z and beyond, in 20 years it will probably be the case in all Western countries - and it will end up that way, in part, because the main argument for the negative is "Well, I really care for what I think one word should mean"