I still want a different word for 'gay marriage'

I agree with your sentiment, but I'm not sure how much your arguments can actually stick.The concept of gay marriage is recent. Thus it is true that many marriage laws are written as a contract between people of opposite sexes. The fact that some recent nations and states have changed this does not alter what the traditional definition meant, and what current definitions are in most places as well as most people's minds.It seems to me that there is a point which can be made that there is no discrimination in not allowing gays to use a legal contract which by its own definition (up until a few recent rare cases) was about people of opposite sexes. One could validly argue if gays want a similar contract they should not be barred from it but the exact same contract is not available since it simply does not fit the traditional definition.I happen to believe that the gov't should be flexible and allow for cultural changes, new traditions. I'm open to allowing people to adapt previous contracts and institutions for their own needs. But it is a new thing, and despite my support for gay marriage, I don't see where the 14th amendment guarantees anyone the right to force a change in definition, just to use a contract.And I do find it ironic that posters such as CS are getting hammered on this, when polygamists are currently getting nailed by people on the left and right when they ask for equal treatment. Or how about marriages between minors/adults? Both of those forms of marriage have more commonality across cultures and history, than gay marriage, yet find no support.While CS hasn't brought it up, does the 14th amendment work to protect all these other types of marriage as you argue it should cover gays? If not, why not? If so, then why is the movement for extending rights to gays alone, rather than freeing up the concept of marriage to fit all forms currently practiced by people around the world? Indeed why when fundies bring up these other forms of marriage, do those in support of gay marriage promise it won't happen?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I can't remember what my exact reply was, but I did disagree that such a thing would not happen. Moreover I believe I pointed out that there is more than just insurance at stake. People could use this to bring in friends from foreign countries or OTHER issues which relate to marriage.That said, I don't think that's a reason to deny gay marriage. People can abuse just about anything so that's not a reason to deny people the ability to pursue a legitimate freedom.Ironically, it is this very argument that gets used against polygamists, and for some reason is considered valid in such cases. My only argument is that I think such abuses could happen, and for those that use such arguments against other groups, will have to logically accept them as arguments against gay marriage.This is why I, sadly, find antigay marriage activists with a more logically consistent position. They don't really waffle when it comes to the arguments they use for denying people the right to marriage.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Whether you find it difficult to believe fraud would occur or not, do you believe voters can restrict activity based on fears that it might happen? I mean, logically it COULD happen once gay marriage is allowed. The difference here seems to be about frequency of it actually happening.Many laws are based to exclude any possibility of abuse occuring, even at the cost of freedom for a minority group.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Ahhh... not sure if you are in the middle of replying to my post to you right now. If these replies get crossed, apologies in advance. Since children are usually (legally) considered tied to the birth mother, this really wouldn't be much of a problem. At least no more than any messy monogamous based marriage scenario now with divorces and remarriages and the ensuing custody battles.If the mother dies then the natural father would be the next caretaker. I think the only "problem" would be if both died and one had multiple other "mothers" or "fathers" to deal with that were never connected by blood. But again, that would look like any custody issue with many family members with equal claim to something (like an inheritance).But more importantly, if this is an issue then you need to consider that antigay activists can use it to exclude gay marriages. If they are to have kids then they will normally have to involve surrogacy of some kind or adoption, surrogacy being an even greater stickler than what is detailed above. Whew, and let's not even mention if it involves artificial insemination by a third party of one of two women who both want to be the "mom".One can argue that gays don't necessarily have to have children... but neither do polygamists. Indeed neither do incestuous couples who are also denied marriage rights (who are banned allegedly to prevent them from having kids)... even gay incestuous couples who couldn't have children if they wanted.It really seems to me there are two logically valid options... if we are to keep marriage as something gov't operates... champion the broadest interpretation so that all may have a shot at legally protecting their relationships, or allow the majority to set the definition based on their fears/whims.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Sorry Dan, but that doesn't work. My argument was based on the factual definition of marriage. In Loving they could very well point out that the traditional definition of marriage never included race. It was only on local levels (and "recent" times at that) where race was added. Heck, even the person arguing for the discrimination pointed out it was a recent change to marriage laws.There simply is no comparison between that and gay marriage, which has NO historical basis and is not part of the common definition. Uh, you essentially just tried to bring hypocrisy in as an issue yourself. But let's just say while you can be hypcritical if you want, it would potentially stand against you in an argument (depending on rational arguments given), and definitely stands against you on the point I was trying to make about if your arguments would stick.If you could be shown to be a hypocrite, and argued for ability to enforce such hypocrisy, then CS could argue for that same ability. Yeah, we don't have to get into it as we can use more obvious examples like polygamy and incest. However I will note that minors are not prohibited from entering contracts with the consent of their parents, that is all except marriage contracts. Thus the prohibitive laws are not based on simply being minors in some consistent fashion with other laws about minors. I'd also add that isn't really comparable with restrictions on voting, or things like driving. Those are restrictions on freedoms where the activity directly effects the well being of others. That is not the same for marriage.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Heheheh... take a look at the law books for any state, even those related to marriage issues alone. Allowing gays to marry won't make it any more lumpier than it already is. People have a point when they say if people really want to defend the concept of marriage, they'd outlaw divorce. Yes, and berb has already answered it. We've had a lot of back and forth on it and I definitely agree blank civil unions are the best answer, with people holding their own religious services as they see fit.I think you replied to him to ask what would happen to things currently addresses to "marriage"? They laws could simply recognize all mention of marriage in other laws to apply to civil unions, and all previous marriage certificates to be equal to civil union certs.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I agree, but then that brings us back to the same kinds of issues you brought up as a possible problem for polygamists.I guess I never understand the arguments that having to do such a thing (create new legal definitions to cover a new situation) should be considered a bar to any freedom. Is it that people are so stupid they can't come up with a proper solution? If that's not the case then go ahead with the freedom and we'll deal with legal solution.Looks like we're getting CS to accept civil unions... ahhhhhh, solutions.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

On the state level there are some (can't remember number) which codify marriage as man/woman. On the Fed level I don't think there are any marriage laws per se, but there are laws which relate to those that are married and tend to be written with a concept of man/woman.DOMA was meant to assure the the Fed gov't would not be forced to accept any state or foreign gay marriages, as well as protect other states from having to do the same. Heheheh... okay I'm gonna give ya the needle. If anyone said gays give them the jibblies, would you consider them a homophobe? I bring this up only because it has been brought up elsewhere as a question.In any case you made it sound cute. Jibblies. Yessir I like it. Heheheh... kids can drink with the permission of their parents. Remember in some churches kids don't just get grape juice, they drink BLOOD!!!... oh, I meant wine.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

What is your opinion of "log cabin" republicans? And if you know much about them, what is their proposed solutions for gay marriage, as well as dealing with the far right of their party?I don't know much about them myself, but always wondered how they could stomach the party. I'm not sure if Cheney's kid was considered one or not, but I know I couldn't stomach her.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Well that may go to show that the guy was actually a conservative. No one that voted for Bush in 2004 voted conservative. Kerry was closer to that traditional platform. I'd have liked to see that argument. I don't understand it myself.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I understand what you are saying and agree. I'm not meaning to give you a hard time or anything as I think we share an extremely similar position. I just raised the point because in another thread someone who said they didn't support laws against homosexuality but felt weirded out by it, was called a homophobe. I think one person came to his defense. As far as I understand the laws on this, it is not legal to purchase liquor for kids. But one can allow one's own children to drink alcohol (purchased for one's own use)... within limits of safety. That's even true at restaurants. On a purely geek level, would that count as science fantasy instead of science fiction? Or maybe it doesn't count as fantasy until you have a unicorn.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

What is normal? I think its pretty clear that many people do not define homosexual activity as normal, and do not view what they want to do as exactly the same.Can you think of other groups that might want to declare their love and devotion in the same way that "normal" people do, but you (or most people) would not want to give them such ability? There are no logical reasons to proscribe any basically consensual activity. Yet it happens all the time. I think you are going to have to aim at a larger target first. Must laws be based on logical foundations? If so, what are they?If this is not resolved for everyone, there is no real need for any particular group to defende their choice on such grounds.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I guess I wasn't as clear as I should have been. You created an argument which imposed a demand on the poster. The apparent thrust of your argument, and you can correct me if I am wrong, is that if someone could not match your stated criteria their position was somehow undercut.I was attempting to point out that your criteria were wholly subjective and do not actually hold with respect to the accepted legitimacy for laws. That is to say the poster need not fit your criteria for their position to be valid. But then you realize your whole argument is circular, correct? You have created your own definition or perception of normality and are using that to shape your question, despite the fact that no one else has to agree. Only by assuming your position to be true, does your argument become valid. You said exactly the same way in your earlier post which is partly what drew me into replying. Other people look at the differences and cue in on those as important. Apparently you are cueing in solely on reason, which is not itself sufficient.Let me give you an example. Many people want to be chefs or enjoy preparing the food of others. They all have the same "reason". So did Typhoid Mary. Yet society took it into their own to prevent her from doing such things because of OTHER aspects related to her engaging in those functions.You may not know of many gays who state another reason for wanting to be married, but I seriously don't remember anyone trying to prevent gays from marrying as focusing on their reason to get married. That is besides from trying to "normalize" gayness in the culture, which you seem willing to accept as a possible reason for some. Ahem... by which I take it you did not read the OP? This thread certainly isn't about logical reasons to make a distinction between gay marriage and straight marriage, and certainly isn't a thread to use your criteria for doing so. Thus the author and anyone else can throw your above statement back at you.As it is I was not trying to discuss all laws, though I suppose I could, I was only meaning to discuss laws about codifying relationsips. I'm sorry for not being clearer.Given that legal codes regarding relationships are not based on logic at all, why should anyone have to find a logical reason for not accepting homosexual marriages? Why must this be true for homosexuals when it is not going to be applied to others? You may want to parse it out in order to avoid potential hypocrisy, but my question is legitimate given the argument you have advanced.As far as miscegenation laws go, the currrent argument against homosexual marriage is the traditional meaning or definition of marriage in our culture. As I pointed out earlier that was not true for miscegenation. Even those in support of miscegenation laws stated that it was an alteration from traditional definitions, simply a change that they felt was necessary.And it might be pointed out that the criteria most people are likely to focus on when judging relationships would be the same for interracial couples, namely being able to support the family you are going to build via heterosexual intercourse.Edited by holmes, : removing some of the pepper

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)