Someone actually read all that? Wow.
Your objection to government's stake in marriage aside, does this mean that you are not as opposed to polygamy as you are to homosexual marriage?
I have no opposition to polygamy, polygany, or any other form of multiple partnerships. To be blunt, I certainly have less respect for people in such relationships. I have far more respect for monogamous couples, regardless of their orientation. But I see no pretense upon which to claim authority to prevent anyone from associating as they choose.
My contention is simply that society functions more smoothly when the definitions of words are mostly immutable. Even more so in a society based on
written laws, where the words commonly outlive their meanings. As such, by
American tradition, I'd be opposed to incorporating polygamy into the definition of "marriage."
I would argue that it is a different, but substantially very similar definition-- and one that would impose far less upon ancient tradition than the other changes that have occurred to marriage over the past fifty years. Radical individualism and wanton irresponsibility has all but destroyed traditional marriage, at a terrible cost to three generations of Americans. More than half of American children are raised out of wedlock or in broken homes.
I agree with you that it is not an issue of rights, but an issue of traditions and institutions. However, I do not agree that admitting homosexual couples into this traditional institution will change its meaning or its purpose enough to cause any harm to it, or to the marriages of any heterosexual couples.
I completely agree that incorporating homosexual relationships into the definition of marriage seems far less damaging to the institution than other recent changes. But those other changes are already in place. Accordingly, the perceived benefits and status of marriage have been greatly diminished over the last few generations, which is in large part the genesis of my opposition to altering word definitions.
Whether adding homosexual relationships would further erode that status is debatable, but not the point of my argument. I only claim that said status would change.
I consider people like yourself, fighting to remove government from marriage, to be a far greater threat to the institution of marriage than homosexual couples. Removing the legal recognition of marriage is removing the last barrier-- however flimsy-- to people marrying and divorcing on whims and effectively declaring cohabitation to be morally and legally the equivalent of marriage.
In today's society, you're probably right. But throughout history, most cultures have considered marriage to be more of a personal and religious ceremony, than a governmental one. As marriages in the name of family and (insert deity of your choice) have historically been far more durable than those in the name of the state, my preference would be to restore those older traditions. But I see no way to get there while the state claims primacy. Because the concept of marriage was seen as necessary long before governments usurped it, I expect that, after a period of chaos, marriage would quickly revert to it's more time honored roots in family and church.
All the homosexual sex in the world can not produce a single child, but there appears to be no shortage of children for homosexual parents to raise. There are many methods that this is accomplished, ranging from adoption to medical procedures to simply lying back and thinking of England. The fact that the latter is even possible suggests that the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual is neither as necessary nor as immutable as your argument implies.
Homosexuals most certainly are able to
raise children. But they can't, on their own,
produce children. For a homosexual couple to actually birth a child requires additional changes in the definition of "marriage," as well as changes to the definition of "parent." But my claim is more fundamental than that. I can certainly envision a society in which everyone is fully bisexual. But even there, opposite sex couplings would carry the possibility of reproduction, while same sex couplings would not. That, in itself, is sufficient basis for a distinction, and therefore a difference.
As long as they are separate they will never be equal, as two things cannot be equal without being identical. The tradition of marriage can be broadened to include homosexuals without harming it; the tradition of clishnew will never be the equal of marriage, and as long as it is less than marriage it is not suitable for the purposes marriage serves.
If it does not serve the purposes of marriage, there is no reason to recognize and support it at all.
Today 12:44 AM
You're right. "Clishnew" will never be identical to marriage. That's because it describes a different concept. As you suggest, it's entirely possible to ignore away the differences between black and white. But there are fundamental, structural differences between men and women. What a man and a woman do is simply not the same as what two women do, or what two men do. While there's substantial overlap, there are things that can and can't be done, depending on the combination. And only one combination can produce children, which is why it's been recognized throughout history as the standard.
Frankly, if "clishnew" were adopted, I'd expect it to quickly divide itself into yet another pair of words. One to represent a male couple, and one to represent a female couple. My admittedly limited experience is that those two relationships tend to be less similar to each other than either is to marriage.
Separate but equal is, of course, never quite as it implies. But I contend that the disparity is usually rooted actual difference, as opposed to the choice of words used. If black people started calling themselves white, you still wouldn't see David Duke and Louis Farrakhan buying each other beers. Most likely, whites would just start calling themselves something different, because the distinction would still remain. And again, that distinction is far less basic to our concept of "self" than is sexual preference. A heterosexual white man, regardless of his racial tendencies, will almost invariably choose a black woman over a white man, as a sexual partner.
Much of sociology has cause and effect reversed. Homosexuality is not seen as different from heterosexuality, merely because different words are used. Instead, the two different words were created because a difference exists. That difference doesn't go away by simply combining the words. Similarly, the distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relationships won't disappear, simply because the definition of the word "marriage" has been broadened to include both. The meanings will remain with the concept, while the definition will follow the word. As the two continue to diverge, the growing need for a word specific to the meanings will eventually cause the creation of a new word to express them. Already, most of us recognize the distinction between the phrase "traditional marriage," and the word "marriage." 100 years ago, the two were seen as so indistinct that only the word "marriage" was ever used.
I guess the easiest way to put it is to compare colors. As men tend to, I usually describe the world in roughly the Microsoft standard 16 colors. At the moment, there are several objects on the bench in front of me. Two are similar in color. If asked about either individually, I'd call each one green. But right next to each other, they're clearly different. One is more of a forest green, and the other is more of a lime green. Simply calling both green doesn't address the obvious, and immutable difference. In the absence of the "forest" and "lime" distinctions, I'd have to invent a word or phrase to convey the meaning. The same problem exists for any two things or concepts that aren't 100% identical and interchangeable. The mere fact that we can discuss how to reduce the differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality, proves that those differences exist.
