BS: 'Gay marriage' question

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 11:48 AM

(or, I suppose, we could invent one for GfS

.... perhaps "heteromonogamoviablesancifiedgovtsanctioned"?)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 11:48 AM

In the UK, civil union means "legally joined and committed"

Marriage means very much more!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 11:39 AM

The basic word IS 'married', as several have tried to explain. It essentially MEANS 'legally joined and committed'. If a couple is M-F and has children, etc... fine! People who know them will have no problem recognizing their fairly common relationship.

Now... if you meet someone and ask "Are you married?", they can simply say "yes" or, if it seems relevant, they can say "to another man" or "to another woman".

There may be situations, now that laws are changing, where it is relevant to determine the details of a marriage relationship...i.e., for medical purposes or insurance...but otherwise it should be up to the married partners to explain...or not... their situation!

We don't need 'new' words for special situations. If an explanation is needed, a set of old words will suffice... like GfS so carefully indicates.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 09:07 AM

I rather doubt that it would be possible to coin a unique "word that accurately describes two people committing to each other in life, in love and bearing offspring from their relationship" and spread it into common usage without some people using the distinction to denigrate the relative worth and validity of unions that aren't eligible for that exact word.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 03:11 AM

"Stop being silly!"

Do you read what you write? Ever??

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 03:04 AM

I'll give you a word.

Married

Seems to fit the bill. Unless ginger people married to Asian people need a differentiation too? Why pick out single sex for a different word? If you pick out those who don't or can't have children, you would be nearer to religious definitions and if you picked out inter racial marriage, there are many who would applaud it, sadly.

Sorry, but wanting to indicate that the two partners in a marriage are of the same gender has to be for a reason. The only one that springs to mind is bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 10:05 PM

Stop being silly!
I'm only asking for a word that accurately describes two people committing to each other in life, in love and bearing offspring from their relationship, and raising their own children, in love, with the same family commitment. Not complicated at all. Two people raising their own flesh and blood. I'm not saying adoption is bad, or anything else....just trying to get an 'acceptable', 'accurate' word from someone out there, that is unique to that description.

I know it's not beyond your concept....give it a word.

GfS

P.S.....or maybe it is......yikes!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 07:04 PM

"I'm talking about a man and a woman who have a loving commitment, and who conceived their own child(ren) through sex with themselves ONLY, not 'joined' families, not anything but their own child(ren) from THAT union".

Do you honest to god realize that you are effectively saying that if two people commit to each other, find that they can't conceive children, adopt chilren, and raise them in a loving home, those people do not have a real right to call themselves married, with a family?
Do you honest to god realize that you are effectively saying that if a man and a woman each have young children, lose a spouse to early death, then marry each other and raise the children in a loving home,
they do not have the right to call themselves married, with a family?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 06:09 PM

All those marriages you mentioned, Musket, would of course be marriages within the meaning that has had since forever. Basic rule always has been it's a commitment intended to be "till death do us part" between a husband and a wife.

Analogous commitments between people of the same sex don't fall within this definition.

If countries choose to change the way they define the word and the institution within their borders they can do it, and if people choose to use the word in that sense they'll do it regardless of whether the law changes the definition or not.

Complications may arise from the fact that many, probably most, other countries won't have made that change of definition, so that there would still be two different categories of marriage, analogous to the current situation with marriage and civil partnership. That might be more of a problem in parts of the world where international movement is more common than in the USA. But not such a big deal.

I imagine the redefinition will be introduced into the various countries in the UK before too long. But those who are sceptical about the redefinition should not be assumed to be bigots.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 06:01 PM

I might add, Musket... "Procreation can only be fulfilled by a male+female...end of story."

ake... do you "read" this shit before you submit?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 05:47 PM

Like I said before and Akenaton is perpetuating the issue. Not that surprising though..

If marriage is procreation, my wife and I aren't married. My mum who found happiness again in later life after my Dad died wasn't married to her second husband. The old couple I met last week who had just got married weren't married. Every married couple who adopt aren't married. Every couple who cannot have children for medical reasons aren't married.

What was that shit you just came out with about everybody only thinking about self? Maybe if you thought about the rights and feelings of others, your prophesy would be that little bit further off.

But there again, you have form to go with your agenda. If gay people are married, your society will break down but the society I live in will be that much nicer, that much less judgemental and that bit more worthy of the word equal.

So; gay people, people who can't have kids, people too old to have kids. Any more on your list? Any cultural taboos to go with your gender based ones?

Fuck me, just when you thought comments had hit rock bottom.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 05:27 PM

Well that's all fine and dandy.....I'm talking about a man and a woman who have a loving commitment, and who conceived their own child(ren) through sex with themselves ONLY, not 'joined' families, not anything but their own child(ren) from THAT union, and raising that/those child(ren), from the commitment of love, for their spouse and offspring.

Surely their is a name for that that distinguishes it from ANY other sort of 'arrangement'!

Jeez, what it takes to get a simple WORD to call a spade a spade!

What do you call it?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 05:17 PM

"Marriage describes certain types of lifelong commitment."

It is supposed to...and often does, but there are so many 'marriages of convenience' that it needs a disclaimer.

I have known of a fellow who 'married' a woman to give her American papers, then allowed her to live elsewhere. I'm not defending... just commenting.

(I have even known of divorces FROM 'lifelong committment' in order to get around certain tax laws which made filing separately a better economic choice. I 'think' that has since been fixed.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 03:04 PM

Redefining is different from clarifying.

Basically it seems a pretty trivial issue. I agree one day we'll probably wonder why people cared either way - why anybody wanted the redefinition in the first place, and why anybody worried too much about it.

But I think it will throw up a few unexpected complications nobody has thought too much about, like the oddity noted in that opening post.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 03:03 PM

Again, no mention of the family structure aspect.
Marriage should be the foundation of the extended family structure, which is disappearing from society.
To the detriment of the whole of humanity....soon our only goal will be "self"

Simplistic nonesense like "Marriage describes certain types including black & white, ginger and blonde, man and woman, man and man, ginger woman and brunette woman, man who likes good football and woman who likes soap opera nonsense, woman who has a finger missing and woman who believes in God"

Procreation can only be fulfilled by a male+female...end of story.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 02:27 PM

Agreed. Marriage describes certain types including black & white, ginger and blonde, man and woman, man and man, ginger woman and brunette woman, man who likes good football and woman who likes soap opera nonsense, woman who has a finger missing and woman who believes in God...

That's why marriage is a term that describes a commitment in love resulting in cohabitation.

Just waiting for the government to clarify an archaic point of law which goes back to when the law was allowed to be governed in line with superstition and bigotry.

A bit like the law that needs water and hay available for taxis.

One day we will wonder why marriage provoked such debate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 02:01 PM

Marriage describes certain types of lifelong commitment. Not the only kind of commitment, some of which would never be described as "marriages". For example parent and child.

Marriage is marriage. Apples are apples. Pears are pears.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 01:28 PM

Yeah but what would you call it if a black bloke marries a white woman?

Marriage is marriage. Why should the gender of either be of interest? Both Mrs Musket and I can use the term Dr and on that Dr Musket is either gender. Who needs to know otherwise? (Even more confusing for those with an interest in the gender of people, Mrs Musket is a surgeon so uses Miss in her title although we have a marriage certificate.

Marriage is marriage and if both have a dick or both have a cunt, the only dick or cunt is the one wanting to know their gender arrangements.

Calling it marriage has the advantage of describing what it is. A commitment. Civil partnership lowers it to the level of prenuptial contract to make the splitting up or death arrangements easier.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 01:02 PM

"Family" is already a word which is used to refer to a whole range of social institutions, nuclear and not particularly nuclear. Including the whole human race for that matter.

The only trouble with "partnership" as a word is that it makes for confusion with bridge and golf and business. "Wedded partner" is potentially a useful term which could be used in a way that included same-sex partnerships as well as what can still be termed married partnerships.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 12:25 PM

Well, I'm looking for that magical word that describes that UNIQUE situation, as I described...not another bending of terms.
Surely, such a technically exacting language should have a word for a natural nuclear family!!........and leave the fucking politics out of it!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 12:24 PM

How about a compromise - "marriage" with its customary meaning alongside "wedlock" for analogous same-sex unions, and both called "partnership"?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 12:20 PM

Why not the same word for things that are similar in many respects but different in others?

That's how language works. Differences, even slight differences are reflected in the existence of different words.

Even with the attempt to redefine the word marriage there'll still be linguistic differences when talking about a marriage that involves a hiusband and wife and a marriage that involves two people of the same sex. "Husband and husband"? "Wife and wife"? I suspect people will tend to talk in terms of "partners" in same-sex unions, tying in with the terminology of civil partnership.

I think it's highly unlikely that the change in the legal definition of marriage will do anything whatsoever to challenge or reduce bigotry. Any reduction in that will be a matter of time. If anything I would expect the legal redefinition to have the reveerse effect.

Incidentally, is the idea that existing civil partnerships will be rebranded as marriages, or will we have the two institutions existing alongside each other?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 11:38 AM

Maybe they should come up with a new word....Now this word would only describe THIS unique situation, and no imitations...you know, a word for two people of the opposite sex, who decide to live together, keeping only to themselves, for the purpose of having sex and conceiving their own children as a result of the sex, and lovingly raising them as their own nuclear family....the word used to be 'marriage'.

Oh wait a minute.....we've managed to destroy that concept with 'new' definitions of 'being hip', and 'permissiveness' destructive to the elements of the concept of what a family is, or should be...just to satisfy other lame behavior, and stupid decisions, horny youth, drugs and selfishness and the culture needed to accommodate unthinking people!

"Oh well, I can ALWAYS get a divorce, and get on welfare and child support...children don't need the influence of two loving parents, from the opposite sex coming together, just to have and raise them(us), just so long as I can still get MY monthly check....I'LL 'get by'."

My my, how far we've plunged, and left our children with the resentments of the role of either parent, an how easily we find it, to write that damage off!......and then have the arrogance to deny culpability!!!....and just get more permissive to let our children make up new rules as to what constitutes a 'family' or 'marriage'

Make it a 'political issue', and get the repercussions of irresponsible people away from my conscience!!

.....and for God sakes, if we find someone who is functioning as an original nuclear family, THEY must be the 'lame ones', right?????

Shows you how fucked up we've allowed ourselves to get!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 10:52 AM

McGrath,

As I see it, whilst there is little difference in law between marriage and civil partnership, you then have to ask so why not the same word?

And that is is the issue. (Starting a sentence with "and" is a completely different issue.)

The benefit of the change is that people can legally say they are married rather than some Blairspeke term. It removes the stigma that bigots would prefer to remain in place. I cannot think of a better reason, decency being what it is and all that.

As my wife and I are not planning children, does that mean we are not married? The old people I referred to above? My work colleague and her wife?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 01:47 PM

Speak for yourself, Jackass.
This is grown up talk.


Good one Mr. Wide Stance.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 01:42 PM

I wish we had your system, McG.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 01:41 PM

That's how you do it in the States, artbrooks, so I understand how people must think the only way to ensure equality is to change the definition of marriage.

But that doesn't apply in the UK, and I imagine a whole lot of other countries. When civil partnership was introduced it was intentionally given essentially the same legal status as marriage. Those kind of inequalities you mentioned wouldn't be legal here.

It seems to me that the move towards changing the definition of marriage here is a spill over from the situation in the States - a sense that if that's the way to ensure equality there, it must be necessary to ensure equality here.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 01:09 PM

The two things - civil union and marriage - are very different (at least right now), in the US at least. It's not too likely that there are any implications that haven't been considered here, ad nauseum. If they were the same, then the struggle of individuals to obtain the rights guaranteed by marriage would, IMHO, be much more muted.

As it is, individual states define marriage and, at least in theory, each state could redefine it to include same-gendered couples, just as many had to do so to legally recognize bi-racial marriages a few decades ago. This, of course, assumes that the religious fundies who think that their world view applies to everyone (Adam and Eve, my ass!) and who control a large monolithic voting bloc would allow this. The problem is the Federal "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), which governs Federal benefits such as Social Security and government pension survivors' rights. DOMA defines "marriage" as being between one man and one woman, so gay and lesbian couples are excluded from these benefits, whether or not they are married according to state law.

This is the reason that, for example, Neil Armstrong's wife was entitled to a survivor's pension, but Sally Ride's partner was not.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 12:25 PM

" Like giving apples and pears the same name."

Pomes?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 12:06 PM

Seems to me it's more a matter of passing a law to have one term instead of two for two things that aren't quite the same, because, while they have a lot in common, they also have some not insignificant differences. Like giving apples and pears the same name.

Given there are in the UK no differences between the duties and benefits of civil partnerships and marriage, I can't see much benefit to the change. And the issues mentioned in this thread do suggest there may be some unconsidered implications that might possibly cause problems down the road.

But I can't say it worries me too much. Not enough to justify getting aerated about - on either side, I'd have thought.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 09:21 AM

This is grown up talk. Now that IS amusing, Stinkle!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 07:35 AM

I wondered how long this thread would last without a slight malodour.

People have proper marriages where you are eh?Akenaton? I'll let you into a secret, people have proper marriages everywhere if they say they are married. Once the government pass a law to have the terms simplified and use one term instead of two, Nick Clegg's bigots as he rightly called them before realising they are allowed fo vote can find something else to force religious privilege on.

Of course, those whom profess to be atheists and still side with persecution of those who have same sex partners will have to sit down and think hard as to why they hate without even the feeble excuse of scriptures...

I repeat. Gay people do not need to be seen as equal people in marriage because they are already equal members in society and the government has to reflect that. And soon.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 04:16 AM

Speak for yourself, Jackass.
And no namecalling, Smedley. Be a good little boy and mind your manners. This is grown up talk.
(:-(D)=

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Smedley
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 02:03 AM

Never thought I'd see the Adam & Eve/Steve line here on Mudcat. Still, it serves the useful purpose of indicating that its user may be confidently disregarded as as a fatuous lamebrain.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 12:54 AM

Krinkle would LOVE to have a look at Ake's goat.

Ake, watch yer goat!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Melissa
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 12:11 AM

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 08:16 PM

Slow Hand


Oh, grow up and be a man.
With a slow hand.
(:-( ))=

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 08:01 PM

Ake... *I* am not leaving anything out. I am noting the differences in people's definitions.

Of course "extended family structure" is the most common ideal in most societies.... but marriage is legal whether the partners fit YOUR criteria or not.

As you say, people are entitled to their own views. You have a fairly conservative one on a number of things, but always seem surprised that not everyone sees YOUR point and has the same attitudes.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 07:31 PM

Can't argue with that, ake. Not at all. Yer good. Yer one of the best that I ever read. Vague definitely suits you. It's what all the chick trolls are wearing this season.

Hank, on the other hand, is a hack. Homosexuality is a form of immaturity, Hank? Yer a fuckin ameteur. Sign up fer a course from ake. The two of you could compare goats.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 07:28 PM

Good point, kendall. First, for example, mankind created the automobile...a self-propellin' carriage that dispensed with the need for horses. And it has been evolvin' ever since.

It's like that with any created thing. Ya look at guns, books, turtles, chimps, language. They all hadda be created first, and they've been evolvin' ever since.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: kendall
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 07:21 PM

McGrath, I was playing loose with the word. I do know the difference. I think Created is a better word. Nothing can evolve until it is first created.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 06:32 PM

You seem to leave the idea of a family structure out of the equation Bill. Surely that is the bedrock of marriage?
I agree that a few people have an unusual view of what marriage means and they are entitled to believe what they wish...but for the vast majority wordwide, marriage and the extended family structure are indivisible.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 06:28 PM

It's Adam and Eve.
Not Adam and Steve.
I think homosexuality is a form of immaturity. Childish behaviour.
But that's my opinion. And I know what some of you think of my opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 06:00 PM

How does one "legally guarantee" sex?

Like in this song *grin*

relevant verse:

♫"Her lover said "Erica, marry me.
This relationship is answering a basic need
And I'd like to have it legally guaranteed.
For without your precious love I would surely die
So why can't we make it legal?" Said Erica, "Why?
Basic needs, at your age, should be met by you;
I'm your lover, not your mother---let's be careful what we do.
If I should ever marry,I will marry to grow,
Not for tradition, or possession or protection. No!
I love you, but your needs are a very different issue."
Then He cried, and Erica handed him a tissue."♫


Do I really need to explain the concept?

Yes though... as this entire thread shows, there is a need to define marriage...and there ARE clear...but different definitions. Religious ones, personal ones, legal ones...etc.

You, Ake, just said YOU have an idea of "proper marriage"... but two people in an IMproper marriage, as defined by you, can still function in society without anyone but themselves knowing about.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 05:39 PM

Thank you, McGrath.

Annulment cannot be justified (read "PROVEN") in same sex marriage. Plain and simple. Why is that so hard for some to understand?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 05:17 PM

Divorce is not relevant in this context. Annulment is.

Sexual gratification? That could mean just about anything.

Presumably some kind of way of sorting out the legal issues would be arrived at, by judges if not by legislation. A different set of rules for the three varieties of "marriage" involved - and any others that might develop in time.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 05:16 PM

So there is no definition of marriage?
I do not recognise the two examples you quote as "proper marriage"
How does one "legally guarantee" sex? How does agreeing to sex provide security?

It just does not make sense. In this area many young people co-habit, when they wish to start a family, they get married....very few parents here remain unmarried....marriage and the family structure is still of great importance

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 05:03 PM

"Surely everyone understands .."

Everyone? Sorry, ake... not everyone. MOST of us would agree, but there is nothing about sexuality that everyone agrees on.

There are marriages where one side simply wants sex to be "legally guaranteed", while the other offers sex for security.... the law still recognizes them as married.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 04:52 PM

I thought a bit of strange stuff once in a while was fairly common.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 04:47 PM

Surely everyone understands that marriage is about a lot more than "sexual gratification"?

As Henry Krinkle has noted, some people get "sexual gratification" in very strange ways