4 ms·

However, as is often overlooked, this isn't purely a debate about one's personal ethics and morals; marriage extends into the legal domain, and brings with it a

However, as is often overlooked, this isn't purely a debate about one's personal ethics and morals; marriage extends into the legal domain, and brings with it a plethora of complex legal ramifications. So, in fact, preventing marriage does impact an individual's rights. I would also point out that “politically correct” is about as dismissive a term as can be found today. Cultural attitudes may shift, and at some point a marginalized concept dismissed as “politically correct” becomes simply “correct.”

victorhooi 13y ago
Well, no, it doesn't. In many countries/states, civil unions are the norm for gay people, and have been for some time. However, the current debate from gay people seems to be that they want to re-use the "marriage" label, which has traditionally been for between a man and a woman. I'm not saying it's right simply because it's tradition - but trying to argue that it has been anything but between a man and a woman for thousands of years is just historical revisionism. So yes, you can try to argue that, we should redefine marriage to include between any two people who want it. However, to claim that they're somehow being "oppressed" because we don't simply let them win their argument is just silly. If this was really about them wanting benefits, then the civil union would achieve that.
- gverri 13y ago
  Civil Unions don't grant the same benefits as Marriage does. So it's not the same thing. There's no etymology war, you can keep the word "marriage", just give everyone equal rights to marry and have their marriage recognized everywhere.
  - kevinpet 13y ago
    Prop 8 was entirely a terminology war. Prop 8 is not magically the entire concept of gay rights. It only addressed the issue of whether California would have same sex marriage or civil unions with identical treatment.
    - Borogove 13y ago
      Federal law doesn't recognize civil unions. Separate but equal is never equal.
      - exodust 13y ago
        Then the issue is: Federal law needs to recognise civil unions.
        Borogove 13y ago
        Or we could just say that Federal law shouldn't engage in sexual discrimination re. legal marriage.
- webwright 13y ago
  Unsolicited feedback: The way you disagree is pretty disrespectful-- I've seen this in a few of your comments. Don't refer to people's arguments as "silly". Civil unions or legal gay marriages are still not possible in about 2/3 of the United States. It's not "historical revisionism" for the definition of a word (in the eyes of the law) to change or evolve. For example, marriage used to be legal with women under 16-- now it's largely not. I'd say that most proponents care more about the rights than the label.
  - kevinpet 13y ago
    It's irrelevant what's possible in 2/3 of the US. The California status quo until the court case, which Eich was implicitly trying to restore by supporting prop 8, was civil unions with identical treatment to marriage under state law except the name. That's not Uganda style death penalty as some are equating it to.
    - makomk 13y ago
      Aside from the ethical issues, civil partnerships only had identical treatment to marriage under Californian state law. They weren't treated as marriages under federal law, or by many other countries and US states that recognised gay marriage. Likewise, Prop 8 meant that the marriages of gay couples from outside the state couldn't be recognised in California.
- kiyanwang 13y ago
  > but trying to argue that it has been anything but between a man and a woman for thousands of years is just historical revisionism. It's a good point, unfortunately the problem with that is how far back we should we go? For example: Same sex marriage ( not just civil union ) did occur for example in the Roman Empire, until the Christian Emperors Constantius II and Constans passed a law prohibiting same sex marriage and making it punishable by death.
  - victorhooi 13y ago
    No, it actually didn't actually exist in Rome - for example, see the Wikipedia article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient The examples were apparently satirical, and had no legal standing under Roman law. The exceptions were a few Roman emperors who had...interesting....whims. But hey, it's the emperor, who are you to tell him what's legal or illegal. Fast forward a few thousand years, and the one other exception is history is one Spanish priest in 1061.

victorhooi 13y ago

Well, no, it doesn't. In many countries/states, civil unions are the norm for gay people, and have been for some time. However, the current debate from gay people seems to be that they want to re-use the "marriage" label, which has traditionally been for between a man and a woman. I'm not saying it's right simply because it's tradition - but trying to argue that it has been anything but between a man and a woman for thousands of years is just historical revisionism. So yes, you can try to argue that, we should redefine marriage to include between any two people who want it. However, to claim that they're somehow being "oppressed" because we don't simply let them win their argument is just silly. If this was really about them wanting benefits, then the civil union would achieve that.

gverri 13y ago
Civil Unions don't grant the same benefits as Marriage does. So it's not the same thing. There's no etymology war, you can keep the word "marriage", just give everyone equal rights to marry and have their marriage recognized everywhere.
- kevinpet 13y ago
  Prop 8 was entirely a terminology war. Prop 8 is not magically the entire concept of gay rights. It only addressed the issue of whether California would have same sex marriage or civil unions with identical treatment.
  - Borogove 13y ago
    Federal law doesn't recognize civil unions. Separate but equal is never equal.
    - exodust 13y ago
      Then the issue is: Federal law needs to recognise civil unions.
      - Borogove 13y ago
        Or we could just say that Federal law shouldn't engage in sexual discrimination re. legal marriage.
webwright 13y ago
Unsolicited feedback: The way you disagree is pretty disrespectful-- I've seen this in a few of your comments. Don't refer to people's arguments as "silly". Civil unions or legal gay marriages are still not possible in about 2/3 of the United States. It's not "historical revisionism" for the definition of a word (in the eyes of the law) to change or evolve. For example, marriage used to be legal with women under 16-- now it's largely not. I'd say that most proponents care more about the rights than the label.
- kevinpet 13y ago
  It's irrelevant what's possible in 2/3 of the US. The California status quo until the court case, which Eich was implicitly trying to restore by supporting prop 8, was civil unions with identical treatment to marriage under state law except the name. That's not Uganda style death penalty as some are equating it to.
  - makomk 13y ago
    Aside from the ethical issues, civil partnerships only had identical treatment to marriage under Californian state law. They weren't treated as marriages under federal law, or by many other countries and US states that recognised gay marriage. Likewise, Prop 8 meant that the marriages of gay couples from outside the state couldn't be recognised in California.
kiyanwang 13y ago
> but trying to argue that it has been anything but between a man and a woman for thousands of years is just historical revisionism. It's a good point, unfortunately the problem with that is how far back we should we go? For example: Same sex marriage ( not just civil union ) did occur for example in the Roman Empire, until the Christian Emperors Constantius II and Constans passed a law prohibiting same sex marriage and making it punishable by death.
- victorhooi 13y ago
  No, it actually didn't actually exist in Rome - for example, see the Wikipedia article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient The examples were apparently satirical, and had no legal standing under Roman law. The exceptions were a few Roman emperors who had...interesting....whims. But hey, it's the emperor, who are you to tell him what's legal or illegal. Fast forward a few thousand years, and the one other exception is history is one Spanish priest in 1061.