Discussion in 'Community' started by zombie, Jan 24, 2006.
Actually, I can't think of a better reason myself to be honest.
How about "because it's the right thing to do"?
The son told him 2 years ago, so it's probably been a long personal journey for him.
There are some gay people who told their parents decades ago, and the parents still don't support them.
Rob Portman is the first sitting Republican Senator to ever have this position. A majority of the people in Ohio, his state, still don't support it. He's been mentioned as a VP or even presidential candidate, and he probably just gave that up. And will probably be primaried now too (and most Republicans still strongly reject gay marriage, especially in purple/red states like Ohio, so he could definitely lose now)
It seems Portman changed his view because he realized it was the right thing to do, his son just helped him see that.
I've never heard a convincing argument on either side of this issue.
What's wrong with legal partnership? why does it have to be marriage?
It seems similar to when an actress wants to be called an actor, because she doesn't feel her gender has anything to do with it. But what's wrong with including her gender? She's a girl. What's the big deal!!???
But why not call it marriage? OMG who cares? I am reminded of two kids arguing over who goes first.
that is all...
I think the better question is, why do we need to create two separate systems to do the same thing? We already have a system for doing all the stuff that same-sex couples want. It's called marriage.
As for Portman, yeah it's tied to his son, but when someone has grown up being led to believe something, often what it takes to change that is something personal. A relative, maybe, or some other personal contact that means they have to reevaluate things. Sometimes, it needs to be something like that to break through ideological views.
Is it creating an entirely different system? Or is it just rewriting the contract with another word substituted for marriage?
Why is the word marriage so sacred?
Not getting why heteros need to own it either, unless it is going to suddenly come with a mandate that anyone who "marries" must have biological children.
Pretty sure that wouldn't fly.
I'm really happy with Portman. It's nice to see someone publically changing his stance because he's realized he was wrong.
You are only saying that because he happened to change his stance to coincide with your own.
That's kind of the very definition of having two different systems. Because if you had one system, there would be no rewriting.
Because if it's just "civil unions" for gays, then that's "separate but equal" and it sends the message that gays are inferior to heterosexual "normal" people.
well, they're not being asked to marry in separate buildings, which is what "separate but equal" is about.
They are just being asked to use a different word, since marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
People just want to be precise.
I don't get the mania for wanting to put everything under the same umbrella; nor do I understand why making distinctions necessarily carries the message that something is inferior to another thing.
I think that if we use a special term for marriage-in-everything-but-name for gays, then that special term will carry a certain connotation to it. If we pick out this one characteristic of an individual (homosexuality) and say "no no no, it's not marriage for you, it's a civil union" then the term "civil union" devolve into an indicator of inferiority and basically say that it's okay to be prejudiced against gays. Just like how picking out another characteristic (skin color) and saying "no no no, it's not this water fountain, you've got to use that one" sent the message that it's okay to be prejudiced against blacks.
And I'm sure several people made the argument then that "What's the big deal? They both get a water fountain. Why do they have to use the same one?"
Separate but equal is the same argument used by religious types to keep women in subservience, too.
While that argument is appealing, it's not an apt comparison, though. With those laws, it was illegal for a black person to drink from a white water fountain--punishable by prison time, fines, etc. There is not law prohibiting gays from marrying (to my knowledge) and even there are, there are no police officers breaking down the doors of gay couples who choose to call their commitment to each other "marriage".
Your overall point that the State should not make either an explicit or implicit moral judgment on what kind of legal union is acceptable by selective use of the word "marriage" stands. But conflating this struggle with Jim Crow laws is unhelpful hyperbole.
Well, yeah. I wouldn't think it was nice if he changed his stance to something I oppose.
Wikipedia isn't a proper authority, but gay marriage actually is illegal in some states, not just not legal. Or, map.
Individual non-governmental institutions/religious organizations should be able to do what they like, but as long as the word "marriage" and everything that comes with it is recognized by the government, it should apply to everyone equally.
Is there a law that says that if you are a homosexual and you get married, you will go to jail? That is what I inarticulately was trying to express.
@NYCitygurl, in the cases where it says that same sex marriages are banned, most (I haven't read them all) say that the State will not recognize a marriage between members of the same sex, not that it is a crime to be married. There is a difference between those two things.
Ah, yeah, I missed what you said earlier--yes, you're correct. And I agree that it's not the same situation at all as segregation and the JIm Crow laws.
Are you intentionally being obtuse? Marriage is a legal status granted by the state. (You know that.) The state (at a federal level) refuses to grant it to/acknowledge it for homosexuals. (You know that too!) Your apparent argument that only the existence of criminal penalties make something illegal is absurd and specious.
No. You seem to be the one who is being intentionally obtuse. If you did not simply take that part of my post out of context you would know that I was highlighting that it is inaccurate to equate this debate with the Jim Crow laws, which the three posts above mine did.
I am intentionally making the distinction between illegal and not legal. One involves criminal penalty and the other does not. Now that said, I went on in the very post you seem to take issue with to say:
Edit: Oh. And I did say that I was inarticulate in expressing what I meant, which is why I clarified my point.
“Separate but equal” was a specific doctrine for justifying a specific situation. That it was struck down in that specific situation does not invalidate the principal for all times and in all situations. It ought not to be cited in every instance where a distinction is made.
I mean, you could cite it, but it would be ridiculous to do so eg bathrooms ought not to be separate, thanksgiving dinner ought not to be separate (adults and children), smoking sections ought not to be separate etc...
Or, since we are talking about words, should we use the precedent against “separate but equal” to argue that we shouldn't have different words to describe similar but distinct situations? Should there only be “rain” and not “drizzle” or “mist”?
Anyway, I actually prefer the word union. For me it connotes something more noble, maybe because we use that word less often in everyday speech. but whatever I'm sure for some people with an axe to grind it's the equivalent of "pervert alliance"...
ok, but when you praise someone for agreeing with you, you are basically praising yourself... which is sort of funny to me, i guess...
LOL wut? There's some sort of rule that adults can't eat with kids at Thanksgiving?
I understand that some families will put kids at a separate table due to space considerations and because it's fun for the kids, but the idea that kids should never eat meals with adults...smh. I didn't know the Delorean was still stuck in 1885 with whiskey that is too weak for its tank. Time to get the coal in the locomotive hot enough to push that baby 88 mph off the Clayton Ravine bridge.
Even in North Carolina, whose motto for years was "tobacco is a vegetable," there is virtually no public smoking anymore and "smoking sections" in restaurants were eliminated close to ten years ago.
Try a few modern examples to prove your point.
Also, if you prefer the word "union," why not have that apply to all couples?