Confused about Gay Marriage

[Ramone45]

Mostly, I'm confused about terminology. By way of disclosure, I do not agree with applying the word "marriage" to the union between same-sex persons, because the term is inaccurate. Homosexuals do have the right to have their union sanctioned and they should have all the priveleges and responsibilities of a heterosexual marriage. I don't fully understand why homosexuals are so hung up on applying the term "marriage" to their union. Which brings me to our next point. I read a story about a lesbian couple and one member of the couple was referred to as the "wife". Does that mean the other member of the couple is the "husband"? And how am I to know which is which? Or are they both "wives"? Please, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I sincerely want to understand. If they are both "wives", that clearly is not a "marriage". It is just as valid a relationship, but it is not a "marriage". Can anyone offer some insight?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Ramone, if 54 is your birth year, you are only two years older than me. You grew up without computers, without the internet, but you've learned some new ways, right? No big deal. Gay marriage is one more of those changes-- no big deal. In about ten years you'll be wondering why you were so worried.

Marriage is the term we have known all of our lives. it means "a lifelong partnership with more than six hundred privileges and responsibilities accepted by all of society along with the ring." "civil partnership" doesn't mean the same thing. When we truly love our partner, we want to use the words we know to describe our relationship. We don't want to re-invent the wheel.

In a lesbian marriage there are two wives. In a gay male marriage there are two husbands. There is no husband in a lesbian marriage, because two women make up that marriage.

You don't need to worry about which one is "the husband." The chances are good that both women take turns "topping" each other in bed, and as far as the rest of their lives, they share chores and jobs and everything, just like most married couples do. Same with gay men.

It doesn't matter to the couple what you think-- their marriage is none of your concern, any more than your straight married neighbors. It's real possible that at leas one of the men you know takes it up the butt from his wife. That doesn't make him less married, does it?

 

[Ramone45]

I guess this is about semantics for me. The love between homosexuals is certainly valid and their committment should rightfully be acknowledged. But, this union simply is not a "marriage". And while I am grateful for the clarification about the components of a homosexual union (husband/wife), it sort of confirms my feeling that it is not a "marriage" because a "married" couple is composed of a husband and a wife. Why would homosexuals want their union to be called a "marriage" anyway? Marriage has a poor track record. You don't think homosexual marriages would be any better than heterosexual marriages, do you? They are going to have the same problems and get divorced at the same rate as heterosexual couples. Why would homosexuals want to adopt the designation of an arguably tenuous heterosexual institution?

 

[BambiLenoir]

I guess this is about semantics for me. The love between homosexuals is certainly valid and their committment should rightfully be acknowledged. But, this union simply is not a "marriage". And while I am grateful for the clarification about the components of a homosexual union (husband/wife), it sort of confirms my feeling that it is not a "marriage" because a "married" couple is composed of a husband and a wife. Why would homosexuals want their union to be called a "marriage" anyway? Marriage has a poor track record. You don't think homosexual marriages would be any better than heterosexual marriages, do you? They are going to have the same problems and get divorced at the same rate as heterosexual couples. Why would homosexuals want to adopt the designation of an arguably tenuous heterosexual institution?

A marriage is a partnership between two individuals.
What makes it a marriage is the commitment between the two individuals, till death do them part.

That is what makes it a marriage. Gender has nothing to do with it.

 

[Safe_Bet]

it means "a lifelong partnership with more than six hundred privileges and responsibilities accepted by all of society along with the ring." "civil partnership" doesn't mean the same thing. When we truly love our partner, we want to use the words we know to describe our relationship. We don't want to re-invent the wheel.

It's actually over 1049 benefits that are granted by "marriage".
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm

And Stella - I disagree on the "In a lesbian marriage there are two wives" part. My Suzy was VERY careful to refer to me as her spouse, never her wife. She was my wife and was very proud of that fact. The only times when she called me a "wife" or gawd forbid a "mommy", was when she want to piss me off.

 

[Mikijl Dragon]

I guess this is about semantics for me. The love between homosexuals is certainly valid and their committment should rightfully be acknowledged. But, this union simply is not a "marriage". And while I am grateful for the clarification about the components of a homosexual union (husband/wife), it sort of confirms my feeling that it is not a "marriage" because a "married" couple is composed of a husband and a wife. Why would homosexuals want their union to be called a "marriage" anyway? Marriage has a poor track record. You don't think homosexual marriages would be any better than heterosexual marriages, do you? They are going to have the same problems and get divorced at the same rate as heterosexual couples. Why would homosexuals want to adopt the designation of an arguably tenuous heterosexual institution?

I think what is comes down to is why do you think it is not a marriage. I think you may have to narrow a focus on what you call a marriage. Let me toss a few theoretical situations for you...
What if;
married couple M/F one member decides they they are of the other gender and goes through the surgery. The never divorce, how does you feel about calling their union marriage?

married couple M/F one member is involved in a horrible accident removing the use of their genitalia, the part that society defines our sex. Are they still in a marriage?

married couple M/F are in an open marriage they, with complete consent from the other, sleep with members of same and opposite sex. Are they still in a marriage?

married couple M/F, neither has sex with the other, they sleep in separate beds but other then that are happy to be together. Are they still in a marriage?

Answering yes to any of those eats away and your reasoning for not calling a same sex marriage a marriage. Sex is not the basis for which marriage should be entered. Mature people understand this. Marriage is devotion to one person in heart and mind. When you find that special person you want everyone to know that they are the one. The way society has given for us to celebrate that special devotion is through marriage. Gender should not be part of the argument. Devotion, commitment, understanding , friendship, love these are what makes a marriage work.

*drops a dime* keep the change sweetheart.

 

[FloridaCouple]

Marriage is devotion to one person in heart and mind. When you find that special person you want everyone to know that they are the one.

First, the whole marriage definition was based on 1 man and 1 woman (every culture in the world essentially believes that). The gay community wants to change that to 1 man and 1 man. Or 1 woman and 1 woman.

Your reasoning is flawed because you state, unfairly, that a person can be devoted in heart and mind to just one other person. I beg to differ. What if a person is devoted in heart and mind to more than one person regardless of gender.

Can a marriage between multiple parties be legitimate in your view?

 

[blade_rocknut]

Don't Shoot

***completely tongue-in-cheek*** Homosexuals have just as much right to be miserable as straight people!

Had to say it, sorry. But really, I think Stella's right- 10 years from now we'll wonder what was the big deal.Some of the most happy, dedicated, loving & faithful people I know are not " married" because they are lesbian. 25 plus years, btw-. I wish the rules would change to allow them the same benefits and protections married people enjoy. I am not sure how to think about gay couples adopting and such; I want to think nay, but then- straight people do a pretty damn good job at making fucked up kids as it is. Dammit, this whole topic leads to generalization. Not good. I'll shut up now.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's actually over 1049 benefits that are granted by "marriage".
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm

And Stella - I disagree on the "In a lesbian marriage there are two wives" part. My Suzy was VERY careful to refer to me as her spouse, never her wife. She was my wife and was very proud of that fact. The only times when she called me a "wife" or gawd forbid a "mommy", was when she want to piss me off.

Haha I can just hear her!

Floridacouple, some educational material;

http://www.polyamorysociety.org/

I know of one threesome-- mfm-- that has been strong since around 1971. How many couples do any of us know that can say that, eh?

As far as OP's qualms regarding samesex marriage, put your mind to rest. Whatever I decide to do in MY marriage will NEVER impact you. You don't want a same sex marriage? no problem! Don't have one!

You don't want ME to have a same sex marriage? Tough noogies, I'm afraid. I can't put my life at your disposal.

 

[Experiencedguy]

I believe you are mixing up your moral (and probably religious) personal viewpoints with the legal aspects of marriage, as defined in many states, district, etc. laws. (as well as some nations).

Look, it doesn't matter to the gay, lesbian, or straight couple what you call their relationship to them, so it shouldn't matter to you what they choose to call their own (personal) relationship.

When I was much younger, I met a great couple. A lesbian and her girl friend, who was a pre-op, MtF. She had already legally changed her name, but she dug up her birth certificate, and they were married as husband and wife (this is before same sex marriages were legal). After the ceremony, she went under the knife. The have been happily married for over 40 years now, both of them female. ??? Your thoughts on this ???

 

[Etoile]

According to the Human Rights Campaign, the exact number of federal benefits that heterosexual couples receive is 1,138. Last I checked, anyway.

I'm one of those who doesn't care what you call it, as long as I get every single one if those rights I am currently denied. We're married in Connecticut, but live in Virginia, so we have no rights as a married couple.

 

[blade_rocknut]

According to the Human Rights Campaign, the exact number of federal benefits that heterosexual couples receive is 1,138. Last I checked, anyway.

For what it's worth, I doubt it matters to those who are opposed on ideological or religious grounds ( or moral, however you arrive at that?) whether the benefits of marriage number one or ten thousand. It's the idea they can't wrap their head around. Maybe it would be less of a struggle if it was called the " equal rights to marriage" debate, instead. As a recovering thickheaded redneck, I can see the thought processes- part of the issue is folks getting the impression of a group getting " another special privelege", conjuring resentment along the lines of affirmative action and sundry benefits for female and minority owned businesses. These programs give certain people MORE benefits than the general populus and people are disgusted at that notion.
But still, many will always oppose anything out of their norm, as they choose to accept what is handed them by tradition, religion, etc.; rather than ( agony) develop an opinion on their own by way of examining pros and cons and jeapordizing what the person in the next pew will think of them for siding with the "heathens".

 

[emap]

This whole discussion rather makes me wish for no religions.

No seriously think about it, marriage is entirely a religious belief. The government took over it, you are not officially married until the government says you are and you pay a fine, forty five dollars I think. This is on top of what you pay a guy in a robe who probably gets his kicks fucking his altar boys and says a man should not do what I do, a man should only sleep with a woman and only a woman.

I mean seriously, what the hell is that?

 

[Safe_Bet]

You don't want a same sex marriage? no problem! Don't have one!

You don't want ME to have a same sex marriage? Tough noogies, I'm afraid. I can't put my life at your disposal.

Best bumper sticker I've seen on the subject:

Gay marrige is the fault of straight people!
They're the one having all the gay babies!​

 

[Mikijl Dragon]

First, the whole marriage definition was based on 1 man and 1 woman (every culture in the world essentially believes that). The gay community wants to change that to 1 man and 1 man. Or 1 woman and 1 woman.

Your reasoning is flawed because you state, unfairly, that a person can be devoted in heart and mind to just one other person. I beg to differ. What if a person is devoted in heart and mind to more than one person regardless of gender.

Can a marriage between multiple parties be legitimate in your view?

1 man and 1 woman (every culture in the world essentially believes that)-

• Excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities, also known as high culture
• An integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning
• The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group

I think you could consider GBLT community as a culture by those definitions. This would invalidate your argument for "every" culture. I also believe same sex marriage is accepted in some other cultures as well although I do not have time to research them.

You are correct multiple parties can be involved. I am fine with that if it works well for someone who am I to say they cannot . Hell who is anyone to say that? I think there will be a long road and a harder time to get a multiple party marriage legalized though

 

[Ramone45]

I don't wan't to give the impression that I'm antagonistic to homosexual couples. And clearly they should have all the rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. but we are changing the meaning of words. We have a culture and society because men and women fall in love and enter into a moral and legal contract with each other that we call marriage. The parties of this contact are called "husband" and "wife". Children are the product of this relationship and these children are loved, nurtured and raised by their mothers and fathers. These are the dynamics of the institution we have defined as "marriage". There are obviously other ways of accomplishing this and one can argue the merits of one method versus another.

 

[Recidiva]

I don't wan't to give the impression that I'm antagonistic to homosexual couples. And clearly they should have all the rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. but we are changing the meaning of words. We have a culture and society because men and women fall in love and enter into a moral and legal contract with each other that we call marriage. The parties of this contact are called "husband" and "wife". Children are the product of this relationship and these children are loved, nurtured and raised by their mothers and fathers. These are the dynamics of the institution we have defined as "marriage". There are obviously other ways of accomplishing this and one can argue the merits of one method versus another.

YOU have defined it as that thing.

Other people define it differently. Gay and straight couples face the same issues in many respects that are covered by the same legal contract.

Legal rights to be "next of kin" and visit in the hospital and directing of medical wishes.

Adoption of children and consolidation of money and property.

I think the church considers "marriage" to be its own domain, but people have been "married" by the justice of the peace for a very long time and nobody's considered those things to be "not married." I've been married by a justice of the peace as I have no interest in a religious ceremony. Doesn't make me any less "married" - it just doesn't have the blessing of a religous organization.

I don't think people have the right to be married in a temple, mosque, church or other religious organization that they don't practice, so I'm fine with that temple, mosque or church refusing to marry someone.

I do think the government needs to provide the legal contract (which is always required, be it justice of the peace or church, temple or mosque wedding) to whomever is willing to enter into it, gay or straight, of legal age and noncoerced, and who meets the criteria and fills out the paperwork.

The church already has the right to individually say "I won't marry you" and that's fine. The government should not.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't wan't to give the impression that I'm antagonistic to homosexual couples. And clearly they should have all the rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. but we are changing the meaning of words.

The rights and responsibilities are all of them embodied in the word "marriage."

Furthermore, words and their meaning change all the time. The word "Nice" once meant "stupid, foolish, senseless." http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nice
(I have to say, I think the word still means that, when people tell me to "be nice" after they've just insulted the fuck out of me and I am telling them so.)

We have a culture and society because men and women fall in love and enter into a moral and legal contract with each other that we call marriage. The parties of this contact are called "husband" and "wife". Children are the product of this relationship and these children are loved, nurtured and raised by their mothers and fathers. These are the dynamics of the institution we have defined as "marriage". There are obviously other ways of accomplishing this and one can argue the merits of one method versus another.

One isn't going to argue the merits, honey, not when the topic is one's actual life and actual happiness and the guy who wants to discuss is standing on the other side. I don't come to a GLBT forum to be confronted by straights demanding answers. You are behaving like a spoiled straight guy, despite your apologies-- (which by the way, i really appreciate.)

Why should we care about your opinion? I say this not to be antagonistic, but invite you to think about it. If you think well of my marriage, will it make my marriage a better one? If you don't approve of my wife and I, will we feel sad and sorry about it over our breakfast table?

I suggest that you read judge Walker's ruling, because he's got exactly the explanations you are asking for.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/California-Prop-8-Ruling-August-2010

 

[talismania]

Well, Ramone, here's my rather academic take. I know where you're coming from because I've gone down the same road.

Simply as a word, "marriage" is an English word descended from the Latin "maritus," which means "husband" and is related to the Greek word "meirax" meaning "girl, boy" and Sanskrit "marya" meaning ""man, young man." In other words, the word is just that... a word. Meaning is assigned by society.

Throughout history, marriage has been a contract, society's way of conferring legal or religious standing upon a couple. Where the society's primary interest is reproduction of the species and transferring assets--including kingdoms and such--to those offspring, it will insist on male and female participants because 1) that's how babies are made and 2) passing assets to kids is really complicated if people are cohabiting willy-nilly and nobody knows whose kids they're having. At least with marriage there's some sort of structure to it all, even if biologically they still weren't completely sure about the progeny.

Not all marriages have been for reproduction, though. Many are religious. Men and women through the ages have been married to all kinds of things: gods, animals, mummies, and rivers or other natural features. Society has deemed these unions to be desirable or essential to the society. And make no mistake about it: these unions are called marriages. Christians often strive to be married to Christ. Why use the word "married"? Not because it's sexual. Marriage conveys the state of blessed union to which these faithful souls aspire.

I know people get worked up about how this word is used. My grandmother, God bless her Christian fundamentalist soul, and I have had some fiery back and forth about this one. However, I have it from a Jesuit that marriage as a contract in the Church is male-female only, but marriage as a concept is that of the blessed union, which is not gendered. He was himself married to Christ. Society imposes its values by imposing the definition.

 

[blade_rocknut]

Changing the meaning of the word as an argument holds absolutely no water. Our language ( and likely many others) have changed exponentially in the last 200 years. Meanings have changed, formerly slang terms have mainstreamed, other words have become archaic or obsolete. Change has been wrought by the American Revolution, the civil war, the industrial revolution, feminism, and the list goes on. The language can afford the change; the ridgidity is in people's perceptions. I have a lovely heterosexual marriage and see no reason to feel threatened by any loving, committed couple having the same.

 

[Recidiva]

Changing the meaning of the word as an argument holds absolutely no water. Our language ( and likely many others) have changed exponentially in the last 200 years. Meanings have changed, formerly slang terms have mainstreamed, other words have become archaic or obsolete. Change has been wrought by the American Revolution, the civil war, the industrial revolution, feminism, and the list goes on. The language can afford the change; the ridgidity is in people's perceptions. I have a lovely heterosexual marriage and see no reason to feel threatened by any loving, committed couple having the same.

If we're insisting on not changing meanings of words, I guess that just means that someone who is gay is simply happy all the time.

 

[Stella_Omega]

If we're insisting on not changing meanings of words, I guess that just means that someone who is gay is simply happy all the time.

And what's wrong with two very happy people getting married, I wonder?

 

[Recidiva]

And what's wrong with two very happy people getting married, I wonder?

Absolutely nothing as far as I am concerned.

 

[Etoile]

I don't wan't to give the impression that I'm antagonistic to homosexual couples. And clearly they should have all the rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. but we are changing the meaning of words. We have a culture and society because men and women fall in love and enter into a moral and legal contract with each other that we call marriage. The parties of this contact are called "husband" and "wife". Children are the product of this relationship and these children are loved, nurtured and raised by their mothers and fathers. These are the dynamics of the institution we have defined as "marriage". There are obviously other ways of accomplishing this and one can argue the merits of one method versus another.

Now you're just acting like an idiot. Come on, you REALLY REALLY REALLY think that our culture and society depend on men and women falling in love? The ONLY thing our culture and society depend on is procreation. Making babies is why we have a culture. It has nothing to do with love, marriage, or sexual orientation of ANY kind. If we stopped making babies, we would die out, and THEN we wouldn't have a culture or a society.

Plenty of people have babies without being married, and even without being in love. Gay people can have babies too, thanks to turkey basters, surrogate mothers, etc. So there is absolutely NO relationship between sexual orientation and procreation, AND there is no relationship between marriage and procreation.

Suggesting that humanity would die out if heterosexual people didn't love each other is like suggesting that fish should use bicycles to get around on land. In other words, BULLSHIT.

 

[teknight]

Mostly, I'm confused about terminology. By way of disclosure, I do not agree with applying the word "marriage" to the union between same-sex persons, because the term is inaccurate. Homosexuals do have the right to have their union sanctioned and they should have all the priveleges and responsibilities of a heterosexual marriage. I don't fully understand why homosexuals are so hung up on applying the term "marriage" to their union. Which brings me to our next point. I read a story about a lesbian couple and one member of the couple was referred to as the "wife". Does that mean the other member of the couple is the "husband"? And how am I to know which is which? Or are they both "wives"? Please, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I sincerely want to understand. If they are both "wives", that clearly is not a "marriage". It is just as valid a relationship, but it is not a "marriage". Can anyone offer some insight?

I don't know, OP. It feels to me like you're trolling. I apologize for jumping to that conclusion, but, is you marriage gonna be worse if someone else calls their legally binding relationship a marriage? Marriage is between a man and a woman (or more than one woman), 'cause we used to kill people who expressed the desire to have things play out differently. Hell, the puritans came to america to escape religious prosecution (which carried more than spiritual penalties). Would you have denied them their right? They were different too.
The Americans chose to call themselves a country too, but the British Empire opposed it. They just wanted right and equality- those self righteous bastards!
Yeah, I know, none of these arguments are convincing you in any way.

I wonder if you really believe that gay couple should have equal rights to straight couples...or do you just want to believe? It's ok- the web's anonymous.

A marriage is a partnership between two individuals.
What makes it a marriage is the commitment between the two individuals, till death do them part.

That is what makes it a marriage. Gender has nothing to do with it.

A marriage is a legally binding contract. It should say til lawyers do us part.

This whole discussion rather makes me wish for no religions.
No seriously think about it, marriage is entirely a religious belief. The government took over it, you are not officially married until the government says you are and you pay a fine, forty five dollars I think. This is on top of what you pay a guy in a robe who probably gets his kicks fucking his altar boys and says a man should not do what I do, a man should only sleep with a woman and only a woman.
I mean seriously, what the hell is that?

Marriage is an assertion of possession. Religion got in on the game after the fact. If you look at older marriage customs, the bride/ wife /property all of a sudden takes on a special status. She's no longer just a girl- she bears markings (such as headscarves ,etc.) that indicate her to be someone's possession and thus no longer available. It's important for the woman to be marked, because the man doesn't wanna be responsible for anyone else's bastard child (my hard work should be going to promote my genes, and my blood, not some other lazy bastard's whose sole accomplishment was to impregnate a woman).

I don't wan't to give the impression that I'm antagonistic to homosexual couples. And clearly they should have all the rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. but we are changing the meaning of words. We have a culture and society because men and women fall in love and enter into a moral and legal contract with each other that we call marriage. The parties of this contact are called "husband" and "wife". Children are the product of this relationship and these children are loved, nurtured and raised by their mothers and fathers. These are the dynamics of the institution we have defined as "marriage". There are obviously other ways of accomplishing this and one can argue the merits of one method versus another.

Culture and society are spawned from love? I'm sorry, but, we're not bonobos. Culture and society are at best fortuitous accidents, into which we are born without choice or options. We "swallow" a particular culture that surrounds us, 'cause it surrounds us (yes, you can rebel, and move away, but that's Hegel's thesis-antithesis(-synthesis) at work, I'd say). Matter of fact, we don't move around 'cause it's difficult, expensive and downright painful to part with that with which you grew up in (assuming it's been benign to you, or at the very least, not explicitly maligning you).

And yet many people grow up without both parents and still come out OK- or are they damaged goods? Just 'cause you give birth to someone (and are legally bound to care for them) doesn't mean you'll be good, kind, nurturing parent, now does it?

Ok, I take back what I said above. Maybe you do believe in equality...but:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

Well, Ramone, here's my rather academic take. I know where you're coming from because I've gone down the same road.

Simply as a word, "marriage" is an English word descended from the Latin "maritus," which means "husband" and is related to the Greek word "meirax" meaning "girl, boy" and Sanskrit "marya" meaning ""man, young man." In other words, the word is just that... a word. Meaning is assigned by society.

Throughout history, marriage has been a contract, society's way of conferring legal or religious standing upon a couple. Where the society's primary interest is reproduction of the species and transferring assets--including kingdoms and such--to those offspring, it will insist on male and female participants because 1) that's how babies are made and 2) passing assets to kids is really complicated if people are cohabiting willy-nilly and nobody knows whose kids they're having. At least with marriage there's some sort of structure to it all, even if biologically they still weren't completely sure about the progeny.

However, I have it from a Jesuit that marriage as a contract in the Church is male-female only, but marriage as a concept is that of the blessed union, which is not gendered. He was himself married to Christ. Society imposes its values by imposing the definition.

What talismania said- woot! etymology's hot! (entomology bugs me though...hmmm)
Bah! only a jesuit could spout such "nonsense"