Marriage and Divorce Entitlements

Political Philosophy
141

Romatic love is the last state of the chain and in all honesty doesn’t need any other qualifiers or rules to dictate it outside of those dictated by the nature of man (i.e. value based, selfish, honest, etc.) Marriage is one institution that has developed to formalize this in a social context

But, no! Marriage developed to formalize family bonding. No, it’s not Christian morality that took love out of marriage - love is not an essential of marriage. In fact, the two have often seemed literally incompatible. Love was sometimes seen to taint marriage because it interfered with how marriage was an economic agreement between individuals or family in many circumstances. Many societies in fact consider love and marriage to be totally different concepts, where one does not imply the other. Marriage as a concept never arose out of the concept love. They developed separately. Plato believed that true love could only exist between males, but didn’t go on to say males should get married. The word for love as we know it (but… modern English doesn’t have many concepts of emotion) in China was entirely separate from marriage up until probably a hundred years ago, seen to be an illicit relationship by definition. I can’t find which word it is, specifically. Why do you think there are separate concepts for love and marriage? The referents are different! While marriage can and does correlate with marriage, they are separate concepts that need not be present together. You can be in authentic love and never marry. You can marry but not love your spouse. You can marry and love your spouse.

… originally a product of pre-enlightenment society but that is the essentials as they boil down in an individual based society

I don’t understand this phrase, since essentials apply to any time period. There aren’t separate essentials for individual based societies. That only means you may have to reject older institutions in order to maintain an individual based society. Either the essentials also apply to all time (past, present, future), or the attributes are not essentials. I’m thinking that heterosexual might not be the essential as much as it is potential or desire to create offspring with only the people involved in the marriage. Your claims that marriage is a powerful symbol of love I can only say comes out of modern portrayals of romance. Which really do idealize marriage in fantastical ways. I can grasp arguments that marriage helps love, but you can’t say marriage is about love. If you want to claim that marriage is a symbol of love, are people that are in love yet not married just not “really” in love? If you say no, then you’re already conceding that marriage is not an aspect of love, just a correlation rarely pursued these days without love. If you say yes, then you’re giving unnecessary superiority to marriage over all other relationships.

My main argument isn’t really an argument. I’m only claiming your method of induction is incorrect. Judge the concepts as they are. Your premise just happens to be that romantic love is the essential part of romantic relationships, which is what I’m arguing against. Not only do I think your premise is wrong, I find that even if I accept your premise, it implies anyone who doesn’t want to be married has an inferior kind of love (or can’t truly commit, as many people say).

Classic definitions that remove this important and most critical aspect are to be laughed at for the archaic institutions that they are.

Archaic institutions indeed.

I hope the obvious violation of basic egoism implicit in the later reason needs no elaboration.

Point 1. It’s not a violation of egoism because if you don’t want kids, then marriage is not a needed concept for the kinds of things marriage is about. Violation would only occur if you said long-term romantic relationships means marriage is necessary for your rational self-interest. As far as I am seeing, you are saying exactly that.

I addressed point 4 in post #130. Again, to emphasize, marriage should not provide preferential treatment as awarded by the government or legal institutions. No one has said otherwise. Until that happens, anything you do with regards to marriage policy is discriminatory to someone. Better to leave it as it is and remove preferential treatment than do the opposite by giving everyone preferential treatment.

One comment about using history as inductive material:

You’ll hear lots of “history” about the awful things that supposed capitalists have done, and how governments have intervened (and continue to intervene) on behalf of industrialists, and etc.

Indeed, and the only way to come to any agreement on if capitalism is good or bad is if you iron out and discuss various historical factors. You can’t just say “capitalism is an economic system that […]” and shoot down any counterargument by definition alone. In a discussion on capitalism, you need to talk about how you came to the conclusion that capitalism is in fact all those things. History is a huge part of your evidence. Discussion on marriage is the same way. Tradition is more a concept relating to specific societies or groups, but I’ve only been attempting to identify a particular referent to a whole class of relationship classifications that have been used and consistent throughout history (longterm, monogamous, heterosexual), with the only differences being particulars (e.g. race, income, social status, love).

142

Indeed, and the only way to come to any agreement on if capitalism is good or bad is if you iron out and discuss various historical factors. You can’t just say “capitalism is an economic system that […]” and shoot down any counterargument by definition alone. In a discussion on capitalism, you need to talk about how you came to the conclusion that capitalism is in fact all those things. History is a huge part of your evidence. Discussion on marriage is the same way. Tradition is more a concept relating to specific societies or groups, but I’ve only been attempting to identify a particular referent to a whole class of relationship classifications that have been used and consistent throughout history (longterm, monogamous, heterosexual), with the only differences being particulars (e.g. race, income, social status, love).

So, out of curiosity… should whatever forces behind same-sex marriage prevail, if we were to revisit this argument, say, a hundred years from now… would your conceptualization of marriage have changed to embrace this new “tradition”?

143

Force is assumed by those who use the law to enforce the standard. Otherwise, you’re right.

If the law enforces something that isn’t inherently discriminatory, e.g. long term, monogamous heterosexual relationships, in a discriminatory way, e.g. long term, monogamous homogenous heterosexual relationships, then the law is unjust and will likely be repealed, as has happened many times in the past. This is hardly the fault of those who choose to marry according to the concept, which only refers to a man and woman choosing to live faithfully together 'till death parts them. The lesson to be learned from periodic instances of slavery, segregation, miscegenation and the like, is that efforts to regulate a concept outside the scope of what that concept refers to, ultimately lead to legal ambiguity; which is not unusual in our society.

I did not argue for heterosexual relationships however. I pointed out, albeit rather wordy, that it is unessential to the definition. I’m not changing anything really, just sawing off and ignoring the unnecessary extras that have been added to the definition due to tradition or religion. Thus, I’m not swapping the title but keeping it to essentials. I don’t see how it sexual organs changes anything outside of how the two people in love deal with each other.

I think Eiuol has addressed this fairly well, and will only add that you are in fact, transporting a title of preference to whatever relationship you perceive to be at legal odds with marriage… and the question remains, why??

So, looking again at your rebuttal points in the context of marriage as a long term, monogamous heterosexual relationship, points 1 & 2 necessarily reflect what a marriage is; 3 & 4 to what a marriage isn’t. Marriage looks like something designed to produce children because that’s what usually happens when boys and girls play house. That you and Mrs Architect don’t have children, or have adopted children, or have extramarital affairs, or practice celibacy, or that same sex couples have long term, monogamous relationships that include children, hasn’t any enduring effect* on the concept of marriage. And unless you consider the bond of marriage to be a kind of willing enslavement, issues of slavery, segregation, racism, miscegenation, eugenics, bigotry and the like, are simple distractions employed to cast a sense of guilt on those who advocate marriage according to concept; a way to beg for that which cannot be gained legitimately.

–

* In researching this topic, I came across a reference to Nero “marrying” his male slave, which carried no legal recognition because Roman law recognized conubium (legal marriage) as referring to the union of one male with one female. So while the Emperor was allowed to have his way with his slave (it’s always good to be the king), his “marriage” was considered eccentric, to say the least. From the same reference source:

"Furthermore, “matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her.”

http://en.wikipedia…arriage#Ancient

144

So, out of curiosity… should whatever forces behind same-sex marriage prevail, if we were to revisit this argument, say, a hundred years from now… would your conceptualization of marriage have changed to embrace this new “tradition”?

Not to speak for Eiuol, but the history of marriage includes many instances of political manipulation of the concept. From our earliest records (see my reference to Nero above), various arguments have been made to subsume homosexuality, miscegenation, etc. within the concept of marriage. Legal regulation has varied, but ultimately returns to recognizing the original concept as is…

So my rebuttal to the rhetorical answer you’re seeking is, “What new argument makes an altered concept of marriage more likely to endure today, than at any other point in history??”

145

Definition of MATRIMONY: the union of man and woman as husband and wife : marriage

Origin of MATRIMONY: Middle English, from Anglo-French matrimoignie, from Latin matrimonium, from matr-, mater mother, matron : mother

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matrimony

–

Questions, comments, observations??

146

@ Eiuol

First of all, I can admit I might be inducting some of this wrong. Epistemology is something I’m still working to improve.

I know marriage has been treated as something separate from love. Historically love has been viewed as the redheaded step child of relationships and even punished in some cultures. That is why I’m trying to slam the point home that historical views of relationships should be taken for what they are – Bad. You wouldn’t accept a pre-enlightenment view of Government nor should you accept their definition of love or marriage.

If I gave the impression that marriage is superior to a romantic relationship or that your life is not “better” if you don’t get married, then that was my mistake. I have a friend who has been with his girlfriend for over a decade and I certainly do not think any less of them because they never got married. They are great people and very happy together. What I do consider important is that people in a romantic relationship would find ways to advance their relationship over time, not because of some mandate but simply because I have observed that couples that find ways to stay close and communicate well have better relationships in later years. If you can’t stay close later on then a re-evaluation is in order. It could be a union of some kind (civil or otherwise) or it could be taking a vacation every year to spend “Me Time” with each other. The more you love someone, the more your relationship evolves as you travel life together and some form of mutual expression is natural. My wife and I actually do the later every fall and that is far more important to us then the actual marriage certificate these days (which serves more of a practical role).

Marriage, however, is not to be dismissed when it can be used to do this. Like I said, make it yours.

I also know I’m romanticizing it, certainly more than the average person does, but that is the point. Again, make life yours. This is no different then how the typical Objectivist romanticizes work more than the average person too. Define your values then throw your passion at it.

I am not telling you that you have to get married to have a good relationship. What I am telling you is that there is nothing wrong with taking that route and it can serve your rational self-interests.

Essentials means stop, start over, and ask yourself what is the essential aspects of the subject you’re discussing. I could care less what is essential to some mystic or skeptic from history’s dust been, only what is essential as defined by reality witnessed through the lens of my life. If you are going to get married, doing so for love is essential but doing so for social or mystical reasons is not essential (and destructive). Marriage being a relationship has to be built on selfish values shared and appreciated, this is essential if you plan to live together for an unspecified length of time, having children is not essential since it bares no importance to that relationship. The sexual organs of the couple are certainly not essential to the definition. The only one who cares is the two people involved and that is for personal reasons.

147

I think Eiuol has addressed this fairly well, and will only add that you are in fact, transporting a title of preference to whatever relationship you perceive to be at legal odds with marriage… and the question remains, why??

Huh?

So, looking again at your rebuttal points in the context of marriage as a long term, monogamous heterosexual relationship, points 1 & 2 necessarily reflect what a marriage is; 3 & 4 to what a marriage isn’t. Marriage looks like something designed to produce children because that’s what usually happens when boys and girls play house.

Designed? By whom?

148

Huh?

Why call something that doesn’t reflect the concept of marriage, e.g. civil union, cohabitation, being single, etc, a marriage??

Designed? By whom?

I’m beginning to hear ticking noises in my head… OK, did your parents ever discuss the birds and the bees with you? Civil marriage is the legal recognition of the custom of matrimony, as in:

“We are gathered here today in the face of this company, to join together (Groom’s Name (hint: a guy)) and (Bride’s Name (hint: a girl)) in _ matrimony _; which is an honorable and solemn estate and therefore is not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently and soberly. Into this estate these two persons present come now to be joined. If any one can show just cause why they may not be lawfully joined together, let them speak now or forever hold their peace. Who gives this woman to be married to this man?” ~ customary marriage vows

“matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her.”

http://en.wikipedia…arriage#Ancient

By any chance, did the future Mrs Architect have a Matron of Honor??

149

Words have meaning and context is everything…

–

The origin of the word marriage comes from the Latin word mas which means male. The word maritus, which means husband, came from the word mas.

The word husband is the male counterpart to the word wife. Both words are gender specific.

The synonym of the word marriage is matrimony. Civil marriage is the legal recognition of a matrimonial ceremony.

The origin of the word matrimony is matrimonium, which is Latin for the state of being married, formed from mater, which means mother, and monium, which means state or condition.

The meaning and context of marriage is clear; a man marries a woman to be the future mother of his children. Omit the word matrimony, and the word marriage still refers to a husband, which implies a wife.

–

Now, I know from experience that trying to get an Objectivist to acknowledge any inherent weakness in their reasoning is like pulling teeth from an alligator; more trouble than its worth. But if there’s any Objectivist here that can persuasively transform the actual meaning and context of marriage, along with it’s dependent terms matrimony (which clearly implies the biological production of sons and daughters, aka children), groom, bride, husband, and wife, in a way that subsumes long term, monogamous homosexual relationships, I’ll bow to your intellectual prowess and wither away from this argument…

… the clock’s ticking.

150

Words have meaning and context is everything…

Quoted, because this might be our last point of agreement.

…I’ll bow to your intellectual prowess and wither away from this argument…

… the clock’s ticking.

Do you have any idea how unappealing this kind of junk rhetoric is? Who the hell cares for your judgement of anyone’s “intellectual prowess”? And “the clock’s ticking”? What clock, exactly? The clock where, when it goes off, you’ll stop acting like this is some sort of high school debate? Get off it already.

If I were to describe your “argument” about the origin of the word marriage as “sophisticated,” what would you suppose I meant? Would I be referring to the common usage of today – refined, subtle, complex? Or would I be describing you as a sophist, and accusing you of intellectual dishonesty? Or would I be going further back into the Greek meaning of wise?

And what if I told you that this is not Ancient Rome? That whatever terms for marriage we offer in this country are not bound by what Emperor Nero did, or failed to do, with his male slave? (Slave, incidentally, not necessarily referring to an individual of Slavic ethnic descent, though the etymology might lead you to argue otherwise.)

You have consistently refused to be upfront about arguing against same-sex marriage. Your claims that you’re in favor of an equivalent “civil union,” just that we must use a separate term for some silly reason (tradition!), are worthless, even if true. If the institutions are the same, there would then be no point in using a separate term. We have no good reason to distinguish between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples, and because “they did so in Ancient Rome” is not a good reason. Society has no value in keeping separate homosexual couples who wish to commit to each other (as in a civil union, or marriage) versus heterosexual couples who wish to do likewise. And there are good reasons, such as what I have provided (and also see: Brown vs. Board of Education) as to why we ought not endorse “separate but equal” legal institutions.

151

Denials, obfuscations and condemnations are a poor substitute for being unable to refute your opponent’s claim, DonAthos…

You cannot agree that words have meaning and then proceed to assign whatever meaning you want to them. You cannot agree that context is everything and then proceed to drop the heterosexual context of marriage in order to subsume homosexual relationships in marriage. You can, and have repeatedly, condemned me for doing no more than identifying marriage for what it is, and isn’t, and while I believe your intention to end the discrimination of homosexuals is sincere (and shared by me for very personal reasons), marriage is the wrong venue to achieve this goal.

Discrimination against minorities didn’t end by painting them white.

Discrimination against women didn’t end by dressing them like men.

Discrimination against homosexual relationships won’t end by calling them married.

152

Denials, obfuscations and condemnations are a poor substitute for being unable to refute your opponent’s claim, DonAthos…

More high school crap.

You cannot agree that words have meaning and then proceed to assign whatever meaning you want to them.

Yup. Not doing that.

You cannot agree that context is everything and then proceed to drop the heterosexual context of marriage in order to subsume homosexual relationships in marriage.

Indeed, context is everything. The history of marriage – and we’re agreed as to its history – is part of the context.

Also part of the context is modern society (i.e. that we do not live in Ancient Rome), and the fact that history does not force us to treat present legal institutions in the manner of the past, or according to the Latin derivation of the terms employed. That’s the part of the context that you consistently drop.

You can, and have repeatedly, condemned me for doing no more than identifying marriage for what it is, and isn’t

Incorrect. I have disagreed with your conception of marriage, and the basis on which you’ve argued for that conception – i have not “condemned” those things (unless describing “tradition” as forming the basis for modern legal codes as being “silly” is condemnation, in which case, sure, have at it).

I *have* condemned your refusal to state your proposition clearly and without reservation.

Paraphrased: “You’re against homosexual marriage.” “No I’m not!” “You’re for it, then?” “No! But I’m not against homosexual marriage; I’m for heterosexual-only marriage!”

Also, I have condemned your baiting tactics and your juvenile rhetoric. What clock is ticking again? What was I meant to be backpedaling about? I keep asking about all of these little remarks you pepper your posts with, but you keep not responding to any of my questions – I guess that’s your way of saying that it was never important to begin with.

So why don’t you just cut the crap out of your posts?

, and while I believe your intention to end the discrimination of homosexuals is sincere (and shared by me for very personal reasons), marriage is the wrong venue to achieve this goal.

My interest, with respect to this discussion, is not to “end the discrimination of homosexuals.” It is to treat them the same per our legal institutions. It is to not insist on a distinction between “marriage” and “civil union,” on the basis of the gender of the participants when there is no purpose for the government to either recognize or enforce such a distinction.

Discrimination against minorities didn’t end by painting them white.

Discrimination against women didn’t end by dressing them like men.

But where legal discrimination against minorities and women did end is when we began to treat them the same with respect to our legal institutions.

Discrimination against homosexual relationships won’t end by calling them married.

Of course not. But when they *are* married – or when they are as a heterosexual couple are when on the cusp of marriage, and desirous of it – we *can* end this vestige of legal discrimination against those relationships by offering the same institution to them as we do to heterosexual relationships.

153

Why call something that doesn’t reflect the concept of marriage, e.g. civil union, cohabitation, being single, etc, a marriage??

Because it has no bearing on the concept of marriage - Sexual organs, nor any other random part of physical appearance like height, weight, or skin color, has any effect on it. It is unessential, and frankly laughable, how some people (talking heads on radio for example) want to focus on something so uselessly unimportant. Why some people worry more about some aspect of physical appearance, like sexual organs, than the people actually affected by it, the happy couple, I do not now. But I’m not accepting such a waste of induction into my lexicon.

Essentials are that, essential. Random body parts are not essential to a marriage no more than any other useless trivia of physical appearance.

I’m beginning to hear ticking noises in my head… OK, did your parents ever discuss the birds and the bees with you? Civil marriage is the legal recognition of the custom of matrimony, as in:

“We are gathered here today in the face of this company, to join together (Groom’s Name (hint: a guy)) and (Bride’s Name (hint: a girl)) in _ matrimony _; which is an honorable and solemn estate and therefore is not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently and soberly. Into this estate these two persons present come now to be joined. If any one can show just cause why they may not be lawfully joined together, let them speak now or forever hold their peace. Who gives this woman to be married to this man?” ~ customary marriage vows

“matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her.”

http://en.wikipedia…arriage#Ancient

By any chance, did the future Mrs Architect have a Matron of Honor??

Sure. We also had my two female cousins be the ushers in spite of my family’s Catholic traditions (it was not a Catholic Wedding by the way). So did we not get married since we disobeyed another nonsensical tradition invented by people who think every animal on earth once lived on a boat together? Of course not.

As an aside, I’ve always wondered if that is what really happened to the dinosaurs. They got on the wrong ark? Anyway…

The birds and the bees were about love and, more importantly for a person hitting puberty and getting the “talk” about their body, not slamming a useless obsession with random body parts into the concept of marriage. You keep going back to the argument from tradition. If you want to do that then why don’t we just go the whole way?

I think it’s safe to say that tradition has no place in how one defines the values one uses to live.

1 Like
154

More high school crap.

condemnation

Yup. Not doing that.

denial

Paraphrased: “You’re against homosexual marriage.” “No I’m not!” “You’re for it, then?” “No! But I’m not against homosexual marriage; I’m for heterosexual-only marriage!”

obfuscation

from post #133: "I’m not against homosexual civil unions; only for heterosexual-only marriage ~ my claim presented again"

from post #61: "The issue at hand, “Marriage and Divorce Entitlements”, questions the justification of entitlements which favor heterosexual marriages, on the presumption that the role of gender falls outside the context of what a marriage is: "The idea that marriage is the union of one male and one female has been thought to be so basic that it is not ordinarily specifically expressed by statute. This traditional principle has been challenged by gays and lesbians who, until recently, have unsuccessfully sought to legalize their relationships. In Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971), the Minnesota Supreme Court sustained the clerk’s denial of a marriage license to a homosexual couple."http://legal-diction…ry.com/marriage

My position is that a significant element of context (pairing by gender) regarding what marriage currently is, is being dropped to promote an inconsistent view of what marriage ought to be. The presumption that heterosexual marriage and gay unions are the same thing, is a false premise for reasons already given (and not yet rebutted)." ~ and still not refuted…

I *have* condemned your refusal to state your proposition clearly and without reservation.

Marriage refers to long term, monogamous heterosexual relationships. Marriage doesn’t refer to long term, monogamous homosexual relationships. Civil Union does refer to relationships not dependent on being heterosexual. Legal recognition of individual rights doesn’t depend on calling the members of one group by another groups title. That is the position I started with, and the position I’ve given back to you numerous times during this thread, to which you repeatedly reduce to, “Only bigots are against homosexual marriages”. Fine.. leave it at that then, and we’ll see how quickly your position resolves this issue.

155

The birds and the bees were about love and, more importantly for a person hitting puberty and getting the “talk” about their body, not slamming a useless obsession with random body parts into the concept of marriage. You keep going back to the argument from tradition. If you want to do that then why don’t we just go the whole way?

The birds and the bees are about reproduction.

Please refer back to post #134, which I think responds to your remaining comments as clearly as I can repeat here.

156

condemnation

denial

obfuscation - from post #133: "I’m not against homosexual civil unions; only for heterosexual-only marriage ~ my claim presented again"

Marriage refers to long term, monogamous heterosexual relationships. Marriage doesn’t refer to long term, monogamous homosexual relationships. Civil Union does refer to relationships not dependent on being heterosexual. Legal recognition of individual rights doesn’t depend on calling the members of one group by another groups title. That is the position I started with, and the position I’ve given back to you numerous times during this thread, to which you repeatedly reduce to, “Only bigots are against homosexual marriages”. Fine.. leave it at that then, and we’ll see how quickly your position resolves this issue.

'K. I’m not going to pretend like what you say has any real meaning – it does not – but I do have a question for you, if you’re game:

Suppose a modern day church “marries” a homosexual couple (like I suspect some of them do).

And that homosexual couple lives together, and they adopt a child and raise it, and they grow old in love, and etc., and share their household till they die, at which point they bequeath their estate to the child that they have raised.

How would you describe their relationship? Would you say that this couple had been “married” to one another?

157

My main point of disagreement has been your use of traditional marriage, “long term, monogamous, heterosexual relationships,” which you’ve used to generalize all current-day marriages.. when in fact the only legal requirement of marriage is the latter.. which shouldn’t be in the definiton in the first place, because it discriminates against people based on their sexual preference, which they have no ability to control.

At the beginning of this thread, you were arguing that love is the only reason people get married, and the rest is just semantics. Then when I mentioned civil unions and how ridiculous and discriminatory the concept was, you argued that gay marriage is should continue to be outlawed because “it’s different to be in a gay relationship than a straight one.” Then you started arguing that the definition of marriage is a “long term, monogamous commitment, between husband and wife, for the purpose of creating a family,” and said that the main purpose of marriage is to create a family, and that gay people cannot do that for biological reasons.

Most recently, you’ve magically changed the definition of marriage by dropping that last part, “for the purpose of creating a family,” and argued that gay relationships still do not fit into that mold.

“I can’t get my head around this notion of gender being a non-essential contextual element of marriage but hey, whatever floats your boat…”

Well, which is it? You can (and have) dropped whatever phrase you wanted to from the traditional definition of marriage, to suit your needs. But when we argue that the word heterosexual should be dropped, you say ‘oh no, you can’t drop that word, that’s essential!’

It just doesn’t make sense.

158

Would you say that this couple had been “married” to one another?

I would not, for reasons already stated; however civil marriage is whatever the law makes of it, so this couple is “married” in the eyes of the law, the same as segregation, slavery, and prohibition were once legal. What happens if their child comes of age in a society that returns the legal recognition of marriage to the more historically consistent view (as has happened before time and again)?

159

My main point of disagreement has been your use of traditional marriage, “long term, monogamous, heterosexual relationships,” which you’ve used to generalize all current-day marriages.. when in fact the only legal requirement of marriage is the latter.. which shouldn’t be in the definiton in the first place, because it discriminates against people based on their sexual preference, which they have no ability to control.

At the beginning of this thread, you were arguing that love is the only reason people get married, and the rest is just semantics. Then when I mentioned civil unions and how ridiculous and discriminatory the concept was, you argued that gay marriage is should continue to be outlawed because “it’s different to be in a gay relationship than a straight one.” Then you started arguing that the definition of marriage is a “long term, monogamous commitment, between husband and wife, for the purpose of creating a family,” and said that the main purpose of marriage is to create a family, and that gay people cannot do that for biological reasons.

Most recently, you’ve magically changed the definition of marriage by dropping that last part, “for the purpose of creating a family,” and argued that gay relationships still do not fit into that mold.

“I can’t get my head around this notion of gender being a non-essential contextual element of marriage but hey, whatever floats your boat…”

Well, which is it? You can (and have) dropped whatever phrase you wanted to from the traditional definition of marriage, to suit your needs. But when we argue that the word heterosexual should be dropped, you say ‘oh no, you can’t drop that word, that’s essential!’

It just doesn’t make sense.

My position from the beginning has been consistent with the summary I offered in post #149. The title and context of marriage has meaning and I choose to recognize it.

160

I would not, for reasons already stated; however civil marriage is whatever the law makes of it, so this couple is “married” in the eyes of the law, the same as segregation, slavery, and prohibition were once legal. What happens if their child comes of age in a society that returns the legal recognition of marriage to the more historically consistent view (as has happened before time and again)?

I can’t believe you’re lumping the legal recognition of this as marriage: “And that homosexual couple lives together, and they adopt a child and raise it, and they grow old in love, and etc., and share their household till they die, at which point they bequeath their estate to the child that they have raised” in with segregation, slavery, and prohibition. I have just lost all respect for your views on the matter.

edited to clarify.