|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted February 27, 2004 05:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What is the definition of marriage?
Wolfman asked me this very question last night while we were talking.
I must concede something here. After all the long-winded challenges we have made to one another and have responded to, and despite everything I have said, this one query stopped me dead in my tracks.
My initial answer was: "My concept of marriage is when you engage in a sacred contract with another human being that they are going to be your life partner."
In the very answering of the question I felt like I was trying to get out of something, like maybe a corner. Suddenly somehow all of Consis' arguements about historical purposes and producing children, divorce rates, Kurt Vonnegut's book Cat's Cradle (a book about the future in which marriage contracts are renewable or voidable every ten years) and such came flooding into my mind. I believe I had a bit of a paradigm shift. For an instant I lost sight of the whole point of all this. What is marriage, anyways?
The dictionary (Merriam Webster Home & Office Edition -- sorry) defines "Marriage" as 1: the state of being married (not helpful at all); 2: a wedding ceremony and attendant festivities (even less helpful) 3: a close union.
A close union. Hm. Why do I think they are talking about the use of the term here to refer loosely to a metaphoric association between two things, say like I might mean when I use one of my favorite phrases, "Well I'm not particularly wedded to the idea of clam chowder for dinner. We can have steak if you want...."
While I did remind Wolf that the dictionary draws its definitions from society and not vice versa, this question really got under my skin. The dictionary draws its definition from society. Hmmm. Well isn't that their point? If the whole idea behind the term "marriage" has always been a union between a man and a woman, then should we not create a distinct institution for the other kind of union?
Whereupon I see my own tail appearing in front of me. Wolfie agreed that the same legal rights should be accorded but just that it should not be called "marriage." (Hope it was okay to share that additional information, Wolfman). But if we do that then aren't we creating a distinction without a difference?
Let me get real specific here. What do you guys think of the question of what the definition of marriage is? How do you define it? What effect does that question have on you? How do the homosexual constituents here feel about creating a distinct but parallel institution with the same rights as "marriage," but with a different designation?
Also, why does the term "civil" bother me so much? It seems to be suggesting to me a union that is bereft of any sacred or spiritual overtones -- like the very term is trying to second-class the whole concept as against "marriage."
So, is there a compromise to be had here? What about creating a completely equal institution called "life partnership" (too long and awkward?) or "lifemates" (too awkward and inversatile?) or "sacred partnership" (too religious????) -- or something that is not quite so loaded as the term "civil union?" So, what should it be called?
Sorry if this whole line of thinking becomes offensive or nitpicky in any way, you guys. But let me try and explain it this way. If sexual identity is endemic to the whole idea of "marriage," then aren't homosexuals actually trying to buy into something that does not recognize homosexuality by insisting we call both institutions by the same label, "marriage?"
This whole thing is getting really "Chomsky-esk" on me. Chomsky (world's most noted semantician and extreme left-wing activist) might actually vie for a different term himself, given the often overlooked power of words and of distinctions between their meanings.
Any feedback is welcome here, friends.
And again, Wolfman, thanks for making me think.
<EDIT> Let me be real clear about one thing. As for me, any distinction to be drawn from the use of a different term would only designate a difference between the sexual identity of the parties to the union, not any legal distinctions. Unless sombody can throw me a curve ten times that of Wolfman's, I cannot see any justification whatsoever for there being any legal distinctions between the two types of union.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 05:53 PM |
|
|
Close union
Does anyone see any gender mention in those 2 words?
____________
The darkest skies show the brightest stars
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 06:00 PM |
|
|
Hey Romy! Sorry I didn't respond in MSN just now. I never know if doing so while posting is gonna wipe out my post.
No, I don't see any gender distinction in "Close union," but that was the point of my comment that I wasn't sure whether they were talking about marriage in the real sense of in the metaphoric sense (like "A close marriage between the Whitehouse and Pentagon last year produced vast improvements in the intelligence Department.")
Do you have a dictionary around? What does yours say?
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 06:37 PM |
|
|
freely translated it says: Union of love and life
I can only speak from my own experience and I felt marriage added another dimension to our love for eachother. I can't exactly explain, it's a feel kinda thing. Marriage didn't change anything else really..we're still the same people and we're still madly in love. I think marriage is more about people around you so they can see that these 2 are a couple, they belong together (and keep yer hands off LOL!!)
____________
The darkest skies show the brightest stars
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 06:56 PM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 27 Feb 2004
|
Quote:
Let me get real specific here. What do you guys think of the question of what the definition of marriage is? How do you define it? What effect does that question have on you? How do the homosexual constituents here feel about creating a distinct but parallel institution with the same rights as "marriage," but with a different designation?
The institution I refer to is a legal union and commitment between people who wish the state to recognise their status as a family. Currently, this official recognition is known as marriage. Fact is, the terminology doesn't concern me all that much. I'm more interested in the legal ramifications. They could call the arrangements "human superglue" for all I care. The only caveat important to me is that the term be the same for both heterosexual and homosexual pairings. Separate but equal has been tried before. It didn't turn out so well. A different designation for homosexual unions is unacceptable.
If the churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and what-have-you are attached to the term "marriage," then that term should simply be pulled from the legal lexicon and given over entirely to them. Some churches, covens, and other clergy already grant spiritual "marriage" to homosexual pairs. In that case, "civil unions" is a perfect term for all legally recognised mates. Yes, it removes the spiritual overtones, but spirit isn't the state's responsibility in the first place.
The state is a modern institution unto itself, as is the separation of government and religion. The older societies were more homogenous and their institutions more integrated with one another. The US is not ancient Athens, where citizenship depended upon being the legitimate child of two married citizen parents. The US is not a medieval fiefdom, where inheritance depended upon being not only a legitimate son, but the firstborn as well. Both of these societies thought love irrelevant to marriage and lust a danger to be controlled; both frequently enodorsed arranged marriages; both made divorce extremely difficult and based on sexual infidelity, due to endangering the legitimacy of the children. That is the traditional treatment of marriage! Things have changed. Why should we continue to use the old definitions when they no longer describe our world?
Edit: The Webster's New World College Dictionary chimes in.
marriage
1. The state of being married; relation between husband and wife; married life; wedlock; matrimony
2. The act of marrying; wedding
3. The rite or form used in marrying
4. Any close or intimate union
5. The king and queen of a suit, esp. as a meld in pinochle (erm, okay...)
marry
1.a) To join as husband and wife; unite in wedlock b) to join (a man) to a woman as her husband, or (a woman) to a man as his wife
2. To take as a husband or wife; take in marriage
3. To join closely or intimately; unite
(more of the same as an intransitive verb)
So, a highly gendered definition there. Alas, I must question the infallible authority of dictionaries. How many definitions would they have given for gay a century ago? I cannot help but notice that the most common use of gay in modern parlance is accorded definitions numbers 4 and 5 according to Webster, and is marked with a cute little star, indicating that its addition was part of the "Complete Update" from the second edition. If we are going to use dictionaries as our authority, might we ask why they need to be updated?
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 06:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
freely translated it says: Union of love and life
Is that a Dutch dictionary BTW?
Interesting that we have definitions popping up that do not refer to the gender of the parties....
Hmmm.
So Romy, as for your observations -- I think you raise an interesting point. There is a social recognition factor to "marriage" so that to be "married" in the eyes of society is like an acknowledgement that distinguishes "married" couples from other kinds of couples...
"Perhaps a lending of social "legitimacy"?
That brings me back to my question then, can we lend equal legitimacy to same-sex couples without calling it "marriage?" Should there be any type of distinction given the historical reality that it has always been between people of the opposite sex?
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 07:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The only caveat important to me is that the term be the same for both heterosexual and homosexual pairings. Separate but equal has been tried before. It didn't turn out so well. A different designation for homosexual unions is unacceptable.
Excellent point, Khaelo. However, this was the very reason for my edit -- to make sure it was understood that the only distinction would the recognition of a difference in the gender-pairings. So are you suggesting that the label difference itself makes discrimination inevitable? Perhaps. I'm not unconvinced of this, but am also not convinced either. "Separate but equal" (for those of you who are unfamiliar, this was the legal fiction behind different laws for Whites and African Americans during the segregation era in the US between the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement) separate but equal was never anything but unequal. The laws referred to by "separate but equal" actually condoned physical separation of Blacks and Whites, which in turn had a host of actual negative legal and social ramifications... That's not what I'm condoning here. I'm partly trying to appease those on the fence who might otherwise vote against us based on the title only when it comes down to the ultimate fate of the issue....
Quote:
If the churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and what-have-you are attached to the term "marriage," then that term should simply be pulled from the legal lexicon and given over entirely to them. Some churches, covens, and other clergy already grant spiritual "marriage" to homosexual pairs. In that case, "civil unions" is a perfect term for all legally recognised mates. Yes, it removes the spiritual overtones, but spirit isn't the state's responsibility in the first place.
Again, excellent point. the whole issue of religious involvement here treads all over the idea of separation between church and state. It astounds me how so many people fail to recognize the issue you are pointing out here. So I get it that your suggestion is that for legal purposes all unions should be referred to as "Civil Unions" and that individuals can then refer to themselves as "married" on their own or their church's terms???? This is beginning to make a lot of sense to me now as I think of it, Khaelo....
Quote:
....That is the traditional treatment of marriage! Things have changed. Why should we continue to use the old definitions when they no longer describe our world?
Another excellent point. This refers back to my own comment to Wolfie that the dictionary takes its definitions from society, not vice versa.
However, this one thing still sticks in my craw: If a large anough constiuency of hetersexual couples feel as strongly as they apparently do about having a separate title (in name only that is) distinguishing their unions as the traditional male-female ones, do they not have the right to the distinction (again, as long as it is in name only?) Not that I know this to be the case, but would your opinion on this issue change at all if that agreed title-only distinction were to win over a sufficient portion of the populace to make same sex union legislation successuful?
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 08:26 PM |
|
Edited By: bort on 27 Feb 2004
|
A human face...
Not really that threatening, is it?
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 09:22 PM |
|
|
I think it's great. Makes me every bit as weepy as any other wedding photo. I think there is no moment like that one, in the lives of any of us who have been there.
So where are they?
<EDIT>
BTW bort, your thoughts on all this about labels would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 10:49 PM |
|
|
"A close union"
Couldn't that be used to discibe a huge number of things if gay-marriage is accepted?
Books on a shelf, they're pretty close together.
Clothes in a closet, again unified in a closet, close together. If this isn't marriage, than isn't that contradictory to what you're saying?
"A close union"
It doesn't say anything about having to be people either. So one could interpret it to mean anything. That's why the Constitutional ammendment is being proposed by President Bush. If you say it is discriminative, then are you being hypocritical if you won't allow the "marriage" between two books?
My dictionary definition is: "legal union between a man and a woman"
But that is the second definition. The first one is the same as Peacemaker's: "the state of being married"
Not helpful
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 11:27 PM |
|
|
Wolfman --
Yes, exactly. This is why I think that third definition in my post is referring the the allegorical sense of the term "marriage."
However, nobody is advocating for legal rights to be accorded to inanimate objects. It is a red herring to suggest that anyone is arguing about anything other than human beings. But I think that may be your precise point. The third reference is so vague it could mean practically anything. The question is about which humans have the right to be considered married for legal and economic purposes.
The only way I would support Bush's amendment (which is not, as I understand it so far, an express intent to render civil unions unconstitutional, but to limit the term "marriage" applicable only to couples of opposite sex) is if it included the accord of legal rights to unions between people of the same sex at the very least under a different name.
Give a little, get a little....
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 11:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
However, this was the very reason for my edit -- to make sure it was understood that the only distinction would the recognition of a difference in the gender-pairings. So are you suggesting that the label difference itself makes discrimination inevitable? Perhaps. I'm not unconvinced of this, but am also not convinced either. ... I'm partly trying to appease those on the fence who might otherwise vote against us based on the title only when it comes down to the ultimate fate of the issue....
Inevitable is a strong term. Discrimination may not be inevitable. However, I think that if separate terms are used for different gendered pairings, it keeps the door open for discrimination. That's my objection: it retains the systematic assumption that the unions are somehow different. That is the very assumption that, IMO, should be dispelled.
As far as vote-getting goes, you're probably right. If using separate terms with the same meaning will help get legislation passed, then so be it. The dichotomy will be false, but that could go both ways. Maybe it would allow discrimination to retain its hold on society's consciousness. On the other hand, maybe practicing equality will undermine discrimination, allowing the terminology to be adjusted in later generations...
Quote:
However, this one thing still sticks in my craw: If a large anough constiuency of hetersexual couples feel as strongly as they apparently do about having a separate title (in name only that is) distinguishing their unions as the traditional male-female ones, do they not have the right to the distinction (again, as long as it is in name only?) Not that I know this to be the case, but would your opinion on this issue change at all if that agreed title-only distinction were to win over a sufficient portion of the populace to make same sex union legislation successuful?
Do they have the right to that distinction? In my opinion, no, they do not. However, if a lot of people think that way and they vote...All right...point conceeded. I still think sacrificing ideology to political reality sucks.  But you're right -- it is sometimes necessary to bring about real-life change.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 11:35 PM |
|
|
Khaelo just come out of the closet already
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 11:50 PM |
|
|
She did a long time ago man --
Anyway Khaelo, I deeply share in your stuggle between reformist tactics (giving a little to get a little and leaving the door open) and revolutionary ones (holding out for the ultimate goal of killing all doubts about the equal status of the unions.)
There are reasonable arguments to be had for and against both methods. Some people tend to believe that nothing short of a complete overturning of the current paradigm will accomplish anything but further excuses to continue the old one (like using a terminoloy distinction to try and argue a legal one).
However, short of a military takeover of the Whitehouse, I have come in my middle age to believe sometimes we do have to take smaller steps to account for the immensity of the social impact in peoples' minds on the current institution. (We may not think it's immense, but many apparently do).
My love and good wishes to you dear. Your posts are par excellence'!
Oh, and Wolfman, thanks for finally chiming in. You should be voicing your opinion here despite the grand tide that Khaelo, Asmodean, Romy and I, and others have created in this thread. It would serve no purpose whatsoever if it were to become nothing more than an echochamber for our own thoughts. (The recently lone voice of Consis excepted of course!)
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 11:58 PM |
|
|
As if I'm not outnumbered in other threads.
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted February 28, 2004 12:32 AM |
|
|
|
Hat's off to you Wolfie. Echo-chamber comment reiterated. Practice practice my friend.
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted February 28, 2004 02:05 AM |
|
|
I probably wouldn't care if they used a separate term for gay 'marriage'. Like Khaelo says, they can call it Human Superglue as long as it confers equality.
But really it wouldn't accomplish anything except be a sop to those on the sidelines who are nitpicking over the terminology.
We've lived with the phrase 'married' all our lives. People have 'weddings'. They get 'married'.
I can't see myself in the future getting down on one knee (I'm a closet romantic) and saying : 'Will you get glued to me'. I'll say 'Will you marry me'. I won't be alone either.
The word 'marriage' as has been pointed out, does not historically have a sacred or religious overtone to it. Religions do have marriage ceremony where they ask deity 'x' to bless the 'union'.
To me religions don't have a monopoly on 'sacred'. Or the right to dictate what is and isn't sacred to me. I'm not religious, but what could be more sacred to me than loving one person with all I am, and feeling the same from them.
So basically we can call it what we like, but a marriage by any other name will still be a marriage.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 28, 2004 02:38 AM |
|
|
Asmodean ---
ROFL
The image of you or anybody getting down on their knees and professing "superglue" is just hilarious.
But your point is not lost on us (or at least me) my friend.
I too am, at best, suspicious of religious institutions. I further agree that those institutions DO NOT HAVE ANY MONOPOLY on my spirituality, or that of any union that I have entered into.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted February 29, 2004 11:07 PM |
|
|
Superglue lol, you can express more then words /
On serious note I think women have the same right then just us men going down on one Knee asking the big Q hehe.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 01, 2004 07:56 PM |
|
|
Good one, Acu.
Consis --
Great news!
Let us know what happens man!
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
