Prop 8: Great riddance, or GREATEST riddance?

[cim]

About separate being inherently unequal, I ask for a definition of equal. You cannot simply say that equal means the same, because that would technically make equal treatment of people wrong, for no two people are the same, therefore no two people would be equal by that definition of equal, therefore no two people would be deserving of equal treatment. So, what definition of equal do you use?

Come on, you're just being pedantic. Everyone knows what equal means, and arguing that "equal rights" means "everyone gets the same rights for the people involved" is just going to drive this debate into pointless banter.

Equal rights, in this argument, mean the right to marry one person you are attracted to, regardless of gender. (Attractedness is not a requirement, but is part of the "right" in question)

 

[Mikazukinoyaiba]

1) Separate is inherently unequal; what this means is that in order to actually make a valid domestic union relationship, you'd need to actually abolish the current relationship of marriage (i.e. so everything that was a marriage is now a domestic union). This would be hard to get the civilian masses on board with.

No you wouldn't have to do that, since the exact same rights that married couples have would still be in the "domestic union". All this does is re-label that same "marriage" in legal terms to "domestic union". Such a law wouldn't null any past marriages, just re-label them while also now allowing same-sex couples to form domestic unions. Essentially it's just allowing gays to "marry" but avoid using the word "marriage" that is getting the religious types in such a hissyfit.

About separate being inherently unequal, I ask for a definition of equal. You cannot simply say that equal means the same, because that would technically make equal treatment of people wrong, for no two people are the same, therefore no two people would be equal by that definition of equal, therefore no two people would be deserving of equal treatment. So, what definition of equal do you use?

This is an ugly can of worms and I don't understand why we would be discussing this, we know what "equal" means and if you're confused than look it up in the law books.

 

[UncleSam]

While I actually support that move, there are a couple of problems with it.

1) Separate is inherently unequal; what this means is that in order to actually make a valid domestic union relationship, you'd need to actually abolish the current relationship of marriage (i.e. so everything that was a marriage is now a domestic union). This would be hard to get the civilian masses on board with.

2) Following on from the above: you can't retroactively remove the marriage that people already have. Even if you could, creating a new relationship and abolishing the recognition of marriage would create a mass of administration costs of people needing to reregister their marriage.

3) Marriage is actually not a religious term inherently; the legal definition exists without the religious connotations (consider: multiple religions have slightly different versions of marriage, hence there's no religious holistic definition). There are arguments that the religious lobby should not be able to castigate the term for themselves and deny it to the general populace.

1. They are not separate. And they can easily be made equal by simply making all unions a "Domestic Partnership" in terms of the State, it's just people who get married in a Church can have their ceremony be called a "Marriage". This has nothing to do with the "separate but equal" ruling because it is quite easy to give everyone the exact same rights. The only difference is religions can hold onto their word "Marriage".
2. I never suggested that, I suggested rephrasing it to a "Domestic Partnership". I fail to see how you could have drawn this conclusion from anything I said.
3. The concept of Marriage has been a religious one for far longer than it has been a legal one, and given this, the religious lobby has "first dibs" on it, in a sense. The religious lobby has every right to deny the "general populace" (which isn't the case by the way-far more than half of the United States is religious) the use of the term in legal definitions because they got to it first. The word is their intellectual property. Besides, why does anyone who is not religious care about the use of the word? They only reason anyone brings it up is to upset the religious lobby because they hate religious people and like to see them upset for what they consider to be silly or stupid reasons.

 

[cantab]

The religious lobby has every right to deny the "general populace" (which isn't the case by the way-far more than half of the United States is religious) the use of the term in legal definitions because they got to it first. The word is their intellectual property.

There are no rights to the use of a natural English word. And the term "Intellectual Property"is misleading and assumes a certain view on how works of art, inventions, and brands should be treated.

 

[Mikazukinoyaiba]

3. The concept of Marriage has been a religious one for far longer than it has been a legal one, and given this, the religious lobby has "first dibs" on it, in a sense. The religious lobby has every right to deny the "general populace" (which isn't the case by the way-far more than half of the United States is religious) the use of the term in legal definitions because they got to it first. The word is their intellectual property. Besides, why does anyone who is not religious care about the use of the word? They only reason anyone brings it up is to upset the religious lobby because they hate religious people and like to see them upset for what they consider to be silly or stupid reasons.

Various cultures have always had something like marriage and yes while in those cultures marriage has been a religious ceremony, it has also been a cultural ceremony.

Given that no one religion can make any claims to marriage just as much no one culture can, it's safe to says no one "owns" the word or the idea of marriage. It has been around far before written language and therefore it can't be discerned whether it started as a religious ceremony or a cultural one.

 

[Objection]

Everyone knows what equal means

we know what "equal" means and if you're confused than look it up in the law books.

It is clear that this has become a debate, and in a debate, all relevant terms need to be defined by someone participating, preferably someone whose main argument relies on certain definitions. "Equal" is a relevant term; therefore, it needs to be defined. At least "equal rights" was defined.

 

[MrIndigo]

No you wouldn't have to do that, since the exact same rights that married couples have would still be in the "domestic union". All this does is re-label that same "marriage" in legal terms to "domestic union". Such a law wouldn't null any past marriages, just re-label them while also now allowing same-sex couples to form domestic unions. Essentially it's just allowing gays to "marry" but avoid using the word "marriage" that is getting the religious types in such a hissyfit.

I wasn't clear enough; I agree with what you say hear, but this engages the second part of "Why do religions get to control marriage as a word?" and also it will be hard to convince existing married people to agree to the change in terminology.

 

[MrIndigo]

There are no rights to the use of a natural English word. And the term "Intellectual Property"is misleading and assumes a certain view on how works of art, inventions, and brands should be treated.

You don't need to cite the (politically biased) open-source group's philosophy on it; it's not even being used correctly in a legal sense there. You don't have intellectual property in a word.

It's also not really clear that marriage has been a religious term longer than a legal term, especially given the lack of congruence between the many different religious concepts of marriage.

 

[Aqueos]

OH NO DOUBLE POST rarararar No but anyway more or less why shouldn't we allow gay marriage? Most of this is back and forth arguments about meanings of words that aren't going anywhere.