Post by Sushbag (186 posts) See mini bio
Loading...
I've got it right here. Heterosexuals simply need to invent a new synonym word for "marriage," circulate it into common, accepted linguistic usage, and have that word be taken to mean 'a legal union between one male and one female human'. Boom.
This way, normal people have an exclusive term for marriage again, and gays and any other groups pushing for marriage rights can have the word "marriage" forever. The way I understand the debate is that gay people and supporters of gay marriage feel they are being denied a basic right afforded to heterosexuals. The tradition of marriage predates any sort of public tolerance of homosexuality, probably because marriages between male and female couples follows the biological evolution of our species; that is to say it was the accepted idea of two people who wanted to reproduce forming a socially acceptable bond. Given this, I'm not really sure why homosexuals want to be able to be "married" in the traditional sense anyway, since the entire point of it is contrary to their lifestyle.
As you know sexual contact between gay couples amounts to nothing more than pleasurable co-operative masturbation rather than reproduction. So, I don't think the idea of marriage in the traditional sense applies to them. But if the debate is about being able to use certain words to describe your relationship ("Married," "Husband," "Spouse," etc.) then I say the easiest way to solve the debate is to change the words. The problem with not changing the words (and having every civilized culture recognize gay marriages) is that eventually marriage will mean precisely nothing. If there is such a push for gay marriage, then I suppose if I want to marry three horses and a chicken simultaneously, it should be my right to, correct? I suppose then "marriage" may mean, "A union between any number of organisms of any species and sexual orientation, recognized when at least one of them is a rational, intelligent being." But to me that really devalues the word and makes it hard to properly define.
So, again, we can just have different words for different legal unions. One for traditional unions, one for gay unions between two people, and perhaps even several more to describe multiple-partner and multiple-organism unions.
One problem with this solution is that gay people may eventually start rallying for the ability to engage in this new word for traditional marriage, since they could feel alienated and that they are being treated unfairly. But when that happens, heterosexuals can just start the process over again by making another word, staying one step ahead. Thoughts?
This way, normal people have an exclusive term for marriage again, and gays and any other groups pushing for marriage rights can have the word "marriage" forever. The way I understand the debate is that gay people and supporters of gay marriage feel they are being denied a basic right afforded to heterosexuals. The tradition of marriage predates any sort of public tolerance of homosexuality, probably because marriages between male and female couples follows the biological evolution of our species; that is to say it was the accepted idea of two people who wanted to reproduce forming a socially acceptable bond. Given this, I'm not really sure why homosexuals want to be able to be "married" in the traditional sense anyway, since the entire point of it is contrary to their lifestyle.
As you know sexual contact between gay couples amounts to nothing more than pleasurable co-operative masturbation rather than reproduction. So, I don't think the idea of marriage in the traditional sense applies to them. But if the debate is about being able to use certain words to describe your relationship ("Married," "Husband," "Spouse," etc.) then I say the easiest way to solve the debate is to change the words. The problem with not changing the words (and having every civilized culture recognize gay marriages) is that eventually marriage will mean precisely nothing. If there is such a push for gay marriage, then I suppose if I want to marry three horses and a chicken simultaneously, it should be my right to, correct? I suppose then "marriage" may mean, "A union between any number of organisms of any species and sexual orientation, recognized when at least one of them is a rational, intelligent being." But to me that really devalues the word and makes it hard to properly define.
So, again, we can just have different words for different legal unions. One for traditional unions, one for gay unions between two people, and perhaps even several more to describe multiple-partner and multiple-organism unions.
One problem with this solution is that gay people may eventually start rallying for the ability to engage in this new word for traditional marriage, since they could feel alienated and that they are being treated unfairly. But when that happens, heterosexuals can just start the process over again by making another word, staying one step ahead. Thoughts?
Posted 5 months, 1 week ago
