quote:

---

And as far as the law is concerned, they're both a "child."

---

The law recognizes, and distinguishes, between all three terms.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If there is no difference, then there is no need for different wording. Call them all "civil unions". It's really not a difficult concept.

---

If you had two children, one girl and one boy, the relationship to the girl would be called "daughter" and the boy "son." Even though many things are the same legally, they are not semantically. We don't all of a sudden blur "daughter" and "son" into a new word and use that exclusively.

---

As BB pointed out, they are both a "child", but the difference in wording between "boy" and "girl" can be attributed to actual science. You are taking a social definition and saying it is the only possible definition, and therefore you want to use government to enforce only your definition. Why not call them all "civil unions"? Why insist on your government-issued piece of paper being the only one that says "marriage", especially when many others do not agree with your definition of "marriage"?

chuck,
Where do you draw your definition of "marriage" from?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Then you want separate but equal. And the only justification for that semantic distinction is religious. Decidedly not Constitutional.

Side note: I find it interesting that conservatives are trying to argue that it's the LGBT community that demanded marriage. There was such a massive backlash against even the idea of civil unions, and the civil union ideas put forward were not equal to marriage, that they had little choice but to go for marriage equality.

---

The distinction is social: man, woman, and child is the most basic unit of society. The covenant union between the man and the woman is unique.

And I suspect even if civil unions were initially granted, the redefinition of marriage would still be pushed (as evidenced by BB's post above).

---

So the definition is based on society at that given point in time? Social definitions/norms of "marriage" have varied from culture to culture, and age to age. Call them all "civil union", and leave the "social" definition to society, not government.

Or, even better, stop with this obsession with having government sanction everything.

---

...and society has voted repeatedly at the ballot box NOT to sanction gay marriage, yet that means nothing to the gay marriage lobby. They are pushing their agenda through the courts because even places like California are not ready for gay marriage. So I guess we are better off with 9 justices in black robes deciding the issue for us!?! In state after state after state, the people have spoken out against gay marriage. I would venture to bet that in most (if not all) of these cases the people would have supported "Civil Unions" for legal rights. Attacking the institution of marriage and changing its definition in our society is going to far for the majority.

---

Do you know why we have a judicial system?

quote:

---

chuck,
Where do you draw your definition of "marriage" from?

---

My parents.

Go back and look toward the beginning of this thread. The public opinion has changed dramatically in the last 5-10 years and the trends don't show any sign of stopping.

I can sort of understand arguing semantics if it's based in the idea that marriage has a religious definition and you don't want to mess with that, but you are basically arguing that we should keep the word marriage because that's how it's always been.

I asked earlier and didn't get an answer. If it's religious, what about two atheists? Marriage or Civil Union? You mentioned kids and procreation. What about a woman who has had a hysterectomy and a man who has had a vasectomy? Marriage or Civil Union?

It is a social definition. Two atheists, man and woman, is a marriage. As well as those who are barren or do not choose to have children.

I have no idea. Please enlighten me as to why we have a legal system? also, is the judicial branch a co-equal branch of government, or is it above the legislative branch able to overturn the will of the people whatever?


....And I think Chuckd hit the nail on the head with the son, daughter, child example. There are different terms based on the sex of the people. That is the spirit of what i am proposing. If there needs to be a "Child" term call it a "Legal Partnership" or whatever, but a marriage would be defined only by a man+woman. Call the rest whatever you want

quote:

---

...and society has voted repeatedly at the ballot box NOT to sanction gay marriage,

---

No, a majority of eligible voters that cast a ballot in that specific election chose not to sanction gay marriage.

quote:

---

yet that means nothing to the gay marriage lobby. They are pushing their agenda through the courts because even places like California are not ready for gay marriage.

---

I'd prefer that government sanction no marriage, or whatever you want to call them. But, if you are going to insist that government sanction your relationship with your wife, then all similar relationships must be treated equally.

quote:

---

So I guess we are better offwith 9 justices in black robes deciding the issue for us!?!

---

Is 9 men in black robes much better than the mob rule?

quote:

---

In state after state after state, the people have spoken out against gay marriage. I would venture to bet that in most (if not all) of these cases the people would have supported "Civil Unions" for legal rights. Attacking the institution of marriage and changing its definition in oursociety is going to far for the majority.

---

It's not attacking the institution of marriage. My marriage, your marriage, chuck's marriage, or anyone else's will in no way be adversely impacted by two men being able to marry, or enter into an identical legal relationship as you have with your wife. What you are really saying is that a single word ("marriage") if applied to people we don't approve of, attacks an institution that has existed for eons. Never mind that what constitutes a marriage has changed from culture-to-culture throughout history.

quote:

---

quote:

---

chuck,
Where do you draw your definition of "marriage" from?

---

My parents.

---

Okay, but that's no sufficient reasoning if you are attempting to use government to enforce your particular definition.

Definitions are particular, by definition.

quote:

---

I have no idea. Please enlighten me as to why we have a legal system? also, is the judicial branch a co-equal branch of government, or is it above the legislative branch able to overturn the will of the people whatever?


....And I think Chuckd hit the nail on the head with the son, daughter, child example. There are different terms based on the sex of the people. That is the spirit of what i am proposing. If there needs to be a "Child" term call it a "Legal Partnership" or whatever, but a marriage would be defined only by a man+woman. Call the rest whatever you want

---

Then call them all "civil unions". If we are talking about the civil, not religious, definition, then call them all "civil unions". Why do you need a special name for your relationship?

quote:

---

I have no idea. Please enlighten me as to why we have a legal system? also, is the judicial branch a co-equal branch of government, or is it above the legislative branch able to overturn the will of the people whatever?


....And I think Chuckd hit the nail on the head with the son, daughter, child example. There are different terms based on the sex of the people. That is the spirit of what i am proposing. If there needs to be a "Child" term call it a "Legal Partnership" or whatever, but a marriage would be defined only by a man+woman. Call the rest whatever you want

---

I'll answer with a question. Why did Loving vs. Virginia have to happen? Why wasn't interracial marriage left up to the states?

quote:

---

It is a social definition. Two atheists, man and woman, is a marriage. As well as those who are barren or do not choose to have children.

---

I think a same sex couple can fit the social definition of a marriage every bit as well as a heterosexual couple.

The social definition implies nothing about a desire or ability to have children.

quote:

---

It is a social definition.

---

So, when society changes, the definition will.

Yes, when the basic unit of society stops being man, woman, and child, "marriage" will change.

quote:

---

Yes, when the basic unit of society stops being man, woman, and child, "marriage" will change.

---

So if there is no child, then it's no longer part of the "basic unit of society"? It's only a "marriage" when there's a child?

quote:

---

...and society has voted repeatedly at the ballot box NOT to sanction gay marriage, yet that means nothing to the gay marriage lobby. They are pushing their agenda through the courts because even places like California are not ready for gay marriage. So I guess we are better off with 9 justices in black robes deciding the issue for us!?! In state after state after state, the people have spoken out against gay marriage.

---

Let me ask you this: say one of those godless liberal states, like Massachusetts or California, overwhelmingly passes legislation at the ballot box outlawing selling, buying, or possessing a Bible. It's not even controversial - 95% of voters approved of this. Do you support this law, given it's overwhelming popularity?

quote:

---

So if there is no child, then it's no longer part of the "basic unit of society"? It's only a "marriage" when there's a child?

---

No, but if the basic unit of society only becomes man and woman, humanity won't last long.

The basic unit if society is the individual. Govt marriage is simply a financial and legal contract to bind individuals together. Govt marriage has no requirement to have anything to do with children.

We and our own churches define our own marriages.

quote:

---

Yes, when the basic unit of society stops being man, woman, and child, "marriage" will change.

---

So because I'm not married, I'm not a member of society?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yes, when the basic unit of society stops being man, woman, and child, "marriage" will change.

---

So because I'm not married, I'm not a member of society?

---

You are a member of society as you have parents.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So if there is no child, then it's no longer part of the "basic unit of society"? It's only a "marriage" when there's a child?

---

No, but if the basic unit of society only becomes man and woman, humanity won't last long.

---

So should those that are incapable of producing a child be allowed to marry? Or should the barren have to just get a civil union instead?

This unit of society discussion is a perfect example of why that's a poor basis for legislation. Obviously too subjective.

quote:

---

So should those that are incapable of producing a child be allowed to marry? Or should the barren have to just get a civil union instead?

---

As long as they are man and woman, it is a marriage. Barrenness is a tragedy as those folks cannot have a family without going outside of their marriage.

quote:

---

This unit of society discussion is a perfect example of why that's a poor basis for legislation. Obviously too subjective.

---

And another argument that any of us should be embarrassed to make in court as a reason to deny a civil right to part of society.

quote:

---

The basic unit if society is the individual. Govt marriage is simply a financial and legal contract to bind individuals together. Govt marriage has no requirement to have anything to do with children.

We and our own churches define our own marriages.

---

The silly thing is that even if Franklins got his wish, and gays were only allowed to get a "civil union", it wouldn't change the fact that they'd still refer to their partner as their husband/wife. They'd still refer to their relationship as a "marriage". Their friends wouldn't call and say "can I speak to your civil partner". The only difference would be in the piece of paper that they keep locked away with other important documents. So, as far as society goes, they'd be treated as though the piece of paper said "marriage". Yet, the relationship can be treated equally in every possible way, except for that piece of paper, so "marriage" is safe.

Your personal definition of marriage can include or require kids.

Governments financial and legal contract has no such requirement to have kids, be able to have kids or anything of the sort.

Marriage isn't a procreation contract. Marriage isn't a child rearing contract.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So should those that are incapable of producing a child be allowed to marry? Or should the barren have to just get a civil union instead?

---

As long as they are man and woman, it is a marriage. Barrenness is a tragedy as those folks cannot have a family without going outside of their marriage.

---

But you said the "basic unit of society" is man + woman + child. I'm assuming that's your rationale for why "marriage" should be defined as "man + woman". If the definition is dependent on the "basic unit of society", but the individuals are incapable of providing that 3rd piece, which you admit would mean humanity won't last long, then why should the barren be free to share in your title of "marriage"? They should get a "civil union".

What defines a marriage? If it's the legal benefits associated with it, then it seems silly to "protect" marriage by creating a carbon copy of the legal benefits, with the only difference being what you call it.

If it's the emotional commitment to another person, then having two different names for it makes no sense, as the sincerity of the commitment is not impacted by the genitalia of the ones making the commitment.

If it's the continuation of the human race, then it seems that that the barren should not be using the term "marriage", nor those that freely choose not to reproduce. But, is there really a difference between a man and woman that choose not to have children and a gay couple that is incapable of having children (ignoring options like IVF)?

If it's how your particular religion defines it, then why should your particular faith's definition be forced onto those of different faiths, or no faith at all?

quote:

---

What defines a marriage? If it's the legal benefits associated with it, then it seems silly to "protect" marriage by creating a carbon copy of the legal benefits, with the only difference being what you call it.

If it's the emotional commitment to another person, then having two different names for it makes no sense, as the sincerity of the commitment is not impacted by the genitalia of the ones makes the commitment.

If it's the continuation of the human race, then it seems that that the barren should not be using the term "marriage", nor those that freely choose not to reproduce. But, is there really a difference between a man and woman that choose not to have children and a gay couple that is incapable of having children (ignoring options like IVF)?

If it's how your particular religion defines it, then why should your particular faith's definition be forced onto those of different faiths, or no faith at all?

---

So which one is it?

quote:

---

quote:

---

I have no idea. Please enlighten me as to why we have a legal system? also, is the judicial branch a co-equal branch of government, or is it above the legislative branch able to overturn the will of the people whatever?


....And I think Chuckd hit the nail on the head with the son, daughter, child example. There are different terms based on the sex of the people. That is the spirit of what i am proposing. If there needs to be a "Child" term call it a "Legal Partnership" or whatever, but a marriage would be defined only by a man+woman. Call the rest whatever you want

---

I'll answer with a question. Why did Loving vs. Virginia have to happen? Why wasn't interracial marriage left up to the states?

---

Admittedly, I am not a constitutional scholar but I will play along.... In Loving vs. Virginia there was a clear violation of the 14th amendment under the equal protection clause. Clearly this was well within the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court and the correct verdict was rendered. Please explain where/how the federal judiciary has the authority to make a judgment on same-sex marriage? The 14th amendment does not and did not address the issue of sexual orientation...the 14th amendment was about race.

quote:

---

quote:

---

...and society has voted repeatedly at the ballot box NOT to sanction gay marriage,

---

No, a majority of eligible voters that cast a ballot in that specific election chose not to sanction gay marriage.

quote:

---

yet that means nothing to the gay marriage lobby. They are pushing their agenda through the courts because even places like California are not ready for gay marriage.

---

I'd prefer that government sanction no marriage, or whatever you want to call them. But, if you are going to insist that government sanction your relationship with your wife, then all similar relationships must be treated equally.

quote:

---

So I guess we are better offwith 9 justices in black robes deciding the issue for us!?!

---

Is 9 men in black robes much better than the mob rule?

quote:

---

In state after state after state, the people have spoken out against gay marriage. I would venture to bet that in most (if not all) of these cases the people would have supported "Civil Unions" for legal rights. Attacking the institution of marriage and changing its definition in oursociety is going to far for the majority.

---

It's not attacking the institution of marriage. My marriage, your marriage, chuck's marriage, or anyone else's will in no way be adversely impacted by two men being able to marry, or enter into an identical legal relationship as you have with your wife. What you are really saying is that a single word ("marriage") if applied to people we don't approve of, attacks an institution that has existed for eons. Never mind that what constitutes a marriage has changed from culture-to-culture throughout history.

---

1. Actually, the voters in California voted to amend the state constitution to prohibit SSM, and the courts stepped in to overturn the valid state constitutional amendment process. Time and time again the courts insert themselves where they do not have "jurisdiction" and the people are left without recourse.

2. I agree...anyone who enters into a relationship similar to me and my wife (where intercourse may lead to the creation of human life where the offspring would be genetically linked to both of us) should be treated equally and called marriage. Any relationship that differs from that relationship should NOT be referred to by marriage.

3. We live in a Constitutional Republic. This does not constitute mob-rule. The courts dictating their will and legislating from the bench amounts to tyrannical government that is not of, for, and by the people. The courts are acting outside of their constitutional authority.

4. Changing the definition and make-up of Marriage is absolutely attacking marriage as an institution, as the nature of marriage would not be the same after. That is the very reasons that emotions and convictions are so strong on this subject. As I have stated, I think the vast majority of Americans support equal rights for gay partners, but the vast majority oppose calling it marriage. Just call it anything but marriage and make the laws equal and then nobody has to argue this anymore.


(please forgive the formatting here)