How to Define Same-Sex Marriage

This is so awesome. You need to read this all snarkily in a YouTube clip so I can watch it over and over again.

 

I didn't state it explicitly but, @curiousbear it's perfectly okay to be, as P9 suggests, in the statistical majority.

That said, it has very little to do with defining marriage.

 

I never had any religion in mind when I posted that opinion. In thesematters i will never Club with religion fanatics.

This question is the key. I am of opinion that the intent to survive is imbibed in all life. we live short. But live beyond by procreation. Sex originally is for procreation. The pleasure and joy in it is to reward us to indulge in procreation. We just decoded it all lol.
Family in my personal opinion is an institution to procreate. And yes in a human way-with culture religion etc. Note religion agnostic included in it.

Same sex couples could certainly fullfill the purpose and function of marriage conceptually especially if we are ok to ignore the raw physiology part of it.
And a hetero-sexual could fail I mean as per my above definition due to disability or medical condition. But we honor the latters marriage. Again there is difference.
I am just saying these unions are different fundamentally.

These days people don't express anything that could sound like they are against same-sex relationships. If I am gay and if I cannot be with a woman and hence can only marry and live with a guy I love then does that make me hetero-phobic? Is hetero phobia more acceptable but not homophobia?

I don't think I am explaining myself very well. All I am trying to say is why can't we accept that it is different and not same? Is it because that will make it unequal?

Last night I read about the "separate but equal" and love v.virginia. due to my view about purpose and function of marriage I don't see interracial and same sex marriage as same thing. As a teenager I use to tell my people that I will not marry anyone from my place but only someone as far away possible from our place. And I did to some extent.

You are asking all the right questions that shakes my opinion. But I clearly see the difference.

But honestly this is one such things where it really doesn't matter to me whether reality matches with my opinion. Because life is much much bigger than just my opinion.

There is one more important angle to this. Today the genders are treated separate but equal. Medically, legally (ex. divorce/custody), even restrooms in most places. In a distant future when there is no discrimination between the sexes in Any shape or form may be this whole debate will become meaningless.

 

Marriage to me is a fusion. I wanted to go places, may some one add fat away from my place of birth, and I did to some extent.

You should feel cool about what you doing especially considering what it does to your babysquirrel.

 

So what would you call marriages where people choose to not procreate, or simply can't? Should they be stripped of their right to use the word marriage?

You have allowed for the fact that different sex marriages can continue if there is something preventing them from having a kid... but what about when they choose to not have them?

Again, what is so different, when we really boil it down, between same sex and different sex marriages? You claim a fundamental difference but I think we need more details if all you are resting this on is procreation.

Really? You are going to suggest that there is an issue to discuss around hetero-phobia? That's a massive stretch.

"If I am gay and cannot be with a woman"... how does that make one afraid of straights? If I am gay, I am going to be interested in being with men. There is nothing wrong with this. Why would I want to go against my nature and be with a woman. Try this on for size: Ask yourself the same question but reverse it.

"If I am straight and cannot be with a man and hence can only live with woman I love, does that make me homophobic?"

The answer in both cases, is no.

Perhaps you aren't explaining yourself well. That's okay.

My belief is that we should not have to accept different terms for marriage whether they are different sex or same sex. Marriage is not about procreation alone. Marriage is about the union of two people who have decided to live their lives together. There is no need to differentiate between the two.

My beliefs tell me that equality before the law and before my peers is important and the language we use to describe ourselves is a key element in this.

From what I can tell, the genders are equal before the law. As for restrooms, this is more about modesty and the safety of women than anything else. I have used the women's bathroom many times in times of need.

And yes, discrimination exists. I don't see why we should perpetuate it just because it exists. We should be doing all we can to tear down discrimination when we see it.

 

I wasn't aware of two spirit people - thanks

I notice how several people use terms like "narrow", "short-sighted", "fuss". Love and marriage is not just propagate the species, but also procreate ourselves (the two people in union). I find terms like better-half, other half extremely meaningful. I can agree my view is very basic compared to the modern view. But I find it very judgmental when I am quoted to be narrow & short-sighted view. But that is really ok because otherwise it is hard to discuss

Again choice of words, i am talking about two people together creating a third individual. A unique natural select composition of her and him. I am not saying every other possibility is not valid, I am saying its different.

If I sound to be a homophobic then this discussion has failed already.

I have thought about all these questions over and over again in past. That is how I developed the opinion that recognition and benefits should be same. But I still see the difference in the type of union.
You are supportive of only same-sex marriage or do you think anyone and anything can be in marriage? Like cousins, incest, group?

The difference is trivial based on what we are wishing for. The difference is deep if you look at the biological union. It is very relative.
I just looked up Neil Patrick Harris. I will never say a word that could offend someone personally. I don't have any rights to. But in general I can say average example is always far different from exceptional examples. And the exceptional people do remarkably well in life regardless what somebody insignificant (like me) think or say!

 

This is why I have a little trouble with some religions getting involved, defining marriage in a legal sense:

Illinois bishop plans gay-marriage exorcism – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

I'm sorry, but it can be very hard to take some religious leaders seriously at times.

 

When and where did I say same sex marriages shouldn't be allowed?

So you agree there is difference. And I can understand that many think that difference is trivial. That is fine. That is in fact progressive.

 

Again where did I say that???
All I said was same-sex marriage is different from hetero-see marriage. I very specifically said a union could be religion agnostic. And I clearly said same sex marriage should have same recognition and benefits.

The difference seems to be trivial to majority. And we are in democracy. So it is acceptable as trivial.

 

This thread isn't about denying same sex unions the same rights as different sex unions. It's about what to call/how to define those unions.

curiousbear is of the opinion that there is a difference between same and different sex unions and as such only different sex unions should have the right to use the term marriage. Any other union should have a different name.

To my eyes, this is not only creating an un-equal set up but it's also an inefficient use of language. Why create layers of meaning when the word we already have is a perfect, uncomplicated descriptor?

 

The question was very specific to the direct relationship between marriage and procreation. Why is incest or marriage between cousins illegal in most countries? I can only think that could be because we don't want to have disabled offsprings. Correct me otherwise.
If you think same sex marriage is same as regular marriage because they can procreate as long as there exist supply from the hetero-sexual existence then incest/cousins could say they could marry on the same grounds. My question was whether you are on with that? Or you only support that same sex marriage?

I was very hesitant to put this across. ... Hope I don't sound pushy. I just don't get it where do we draw the line.

 

A majority of whom? A majority of heterosexuals, or homosexuals, or Republics, or Democrats? Or of the entire US populace? There's a reason we don't go all 'majority rules' when referring to people's rights and liberties.
--- merged: Nov 17, 2013 at 2:20 AM ---

The correlation with incest argument has been conducted many times over and, in my opinion, has no place in this thread. If you insist on having it again, I would recommend starting a second discussion. To clarify, if I understand this thread and your premise correctly, you are debating the use of a word, not the acceptability of a practice. The incest/homosexual marriage topic has nothing to do with what the proper terminology of unions between same-sex couples should be called.

 

I totally agree on this. It is quite convincing to me. It would be ideal to create a World without discrimination. If that is the real intent I will happily go with it.

The way I used the term phobia was totally wrong. I take that back.

Yes ok.
May I ask why it is two people? Why is there a restriction? So how do we draw this line? Same sex is good but not more than two people? Where does this restriction come from?

I am not sure.
If a couple go to court for divorce the man and woman are seen and treated same by law?
When custody comes to discussion the man and woman are same in the eyes of law?
And other things like money assets alimony are same? I ask because I really don't know. I only have a impression that law see Man and woman differently. I could be wrong.
With all due respect what is modesty to one could be Hypocrisy to an other.

Can you please tell me at least in the United States Man and woman are really same in the eyes of court and law?

 

That is right.
A set of people are practicing something under a name. Is it not alright for them to expect some modesty from somebody else who practice something entirely different to not call it same? Does that make the people bad and phobics?

 

My question is either not understood or overlooked. Or you are trying to keep the discussion/thread healthy. I am on with it. I will search for the discussion you mentioned. Thanks.

 

I may be missing somthing here, but here goes. If someone wants to set themselves out from other marriages, why not just call it what their marriage is to them? For example, I have a abrahamic religious marriage, I have a protestant marriage, I'm in a gay marriage, My wife and I had an open marriage, My husband and I were married and blessed by Father Somthing-or-other in the Catholic Church, and on and on.

Sort of like a pack of pencil crayons. There's a whole bunch of different colours, each having a different name and characteristics, but they're all pencil crayons. Not one better than the other, but yet they're all different. Some people prefer red or orange, some people can't stand violet and prefer blue.

Why can we not share a word? Because you used and defined it first? If we cannot share one word, the world is in a lot more trouble than I thought.