dwilhelmi wrote: The thing is, marriage has always been informally defined as between people of opposite genders. It was just never officially written down. Just look at the terms involved - in a wedding, there is a bride and a groom. Two genders are implied there.
No, actually marriage takes many, many forms.
It is a term used to apply certain rights, usually to define proper inheritance for children and the like. Not so long ago, "bastards" had basically no rights. We now, in this country have rules dictating that you have to support children born outside of wedlock.
It was also a way of conferring the legal care and rights of a woman from their father to another man, because well, of course women were not able to make their own decisions.. could not own property, could not vote, etc. IN some cases am unmarried women could not go out unaccompanied without facing serious reprecussions. Now, in this country, women have status regardless of whether they are married or not. Not necessarily equal status, but status.
It was a term very much applied to one man marrying multiple wives, but that part was taken away in recent US history.
Society is quickly moving to accept and recognize homosexuals much like any other issue -- not necessarily something we want for ourselves or our family, but well... freedom and all that.
EXCEPT.. the right wing cannot have that. So, they pushed for this amendment.
The real question to ask is why other marriage types, recognized world-wide and throughout history should NOT be recognized here? The only real reason is fear and discrimination.
If this action were based on real reasons and evidence, it would not be discrimination. It is based on fear and MISinformation. It is discrimination.
dwilhelmi wrote: Now, I don't buy into the crap that a lot of people spout out, that allowing gay marriage would somehow weaken traditional marriage. I'm not worried about that. Furthermore, if gay people were arguing that their lifelong commitments should be treated the same as marriage currently is by the government, that would be a perfectly valid discrimination argument.
That IS the argument. "Marriage" is a legal union that is instantly recognized and instantly confers many, many rights and privilages from tax breaks, ease of getting a mortgage together, the ability to get spousal health coverage and even the ability to make major medical decisions without having to pay an attorney to draw up tons of documents.. and hope that you can access them if needed. It also works for joint custody of children.
ALL of the above are complicated for homosexuals, even sometimes truly harmful (in medical care and child custody issues).
Denying them legal marriage means they cannot have all that with their life partner, while heterosexuals can.
dwilhelmi wrote: I'm not even arguing that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. I'm simply stating that it is NOT an argument of discrimination, but rather an argument of definition change. Gay people want marriage to encompass unions between people of the same gender - they want to change the definition of marriage to include that kind of union. I am perfectly happy with that argument. It just bugs me to see the debate pegged as discriminatory, when to me it is clearly a debate of definition.
Any thoughts?
No, the anthropoligic and well recognized definition of marriage does not say anything about "one man and one women". It refers to unions that may not even be sexual at all (political unions in some places, for example). No, it is the church that defines that, the Judeo Christian Church specifically, but only some portions of that church (some Christian/Jewish groups accept polygamy or have historically accepted it).
