The Higher Lifetime Costs of Same-Sex Couples

Torrance, what Medievalist is saying is that by using a different term to describe gay marriage, you are establishing a different standard for same-sex couples that is at the same time different and substantially less than that for opposite-sex couples. You've heard of "separate but equal?" Originally, that concept was applied to schools--African-American children were allegedly supposed to get the same education as Caucasian children, but in separate facilities.

It ended up being separate and vastly inequal, which led to forced desgregation and bussing.

What difference does the damn term make? If it's a civil union instead of a marriage, that opens the door for differences in benefits, taxation, custoday rights--in short, all the things same-sex couples are fighting for in the first place.

Marriage is a contract. People should not be barred from making that contract because they are of the same gender.

This may be your opinion, but the way you stated it was offensive and derogatory. *shrug* You're entitled to have your opinion, sure, but on a privately owned board you are NOT entitled to expressing it in an insulting, flame-war-starting, insensitive way.

mscelina said:

This may be your opinion, but the way you stated it was offensive and derogatory. *shrug* You're entitled to have your opinion, sure, but on a privately owned board you are NOT entitled to expressing it in an insulting, flame-war-starting, insensitive way.

Click to expand...

I do not agree with Torrence's viewpoint at all, but I don't think the original post it was expressed in an inappropriate fashion.

Excuse me? Why are you threatening me for having an opinion? I frankly could not care less if you don't like the fact that I think the term should continue to reflect the union of heterosexuals.

Click to expand...

However, I do think this is an overreaction. We should be able to argue the merits of a position without anger -- it's not like this is a controversial subject or anything.

rugcat said:

I do not agree with Torrence's viewpoint at all, but I don't think the original post it was expressed in an inappropriate fashion.However, I do think this is an overreaction. We should be able to argue the merits of a position without anger -- it's not like this is a controversial subject or anything.

Click to expand...

I was referring to his second post, not his first.

Torrance said:

I want the word marriage to remain specific to unions/partnerships between a man and a woman.

Click to expand...

Ok, but why? I am not arguing with you. I'd just like to hear why you feel that way. It can't hurt to examine/state how you got to that position, can it?

I didn't say that they couldn't be legally joined in the same religious/civil ways as heterosexuals.

Click to expand...

That's marriage. And I'm glad you said "religious," because some churches want to marry gay couples. To deny them the word "marriage" infringes upon their religious freedoms .

Perhaps we need to refer to legal couplings as civil unions or partnerships on the whole and allow the word marriage to be a distinction under the blanket terminology.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by blanket terminology?

Again, this is more of the same. I am all for parents being able to be legally joined under the law, sharing the same rights and privileges. I am saying, and will continue to say, that I would like the term marriage to continue to denote heterosexual unions.

Click to expand...

And I still wonder why. You must have reasons, which I've not seen you articulate. Perhaps I've missed them and you can direct me to a post that would explain. It's your prerogative not to answer, of course, but I remain curious.

People will say, "separate but equal", I say "equal but separate"... the same privileges, differing terms.

Click to expand...

It's the same whichever term appears first. Using two different ones serves only to stigmatize gay couples and their children. Is that the intent?

Medi, the formatting on your last post is a bit scattered; you might want to marry it up.

mscelina said:

This may be your opinion, but the way you stated it was offensive and derogatory. *shrug* You're entitled to have your opinion, sure, but on a privately owned board you are NOT entitled to expressing it in an insulting, flame-war-starting, insensitive way.

Click to expand...

I have to ask, what was "offensive and derogatory" in what I said? What was insulting? Please cite because I think that kind of an assertion is frankly way out of line.

Torrance said:

I have to ask, what was "offensive and derogatory" in what I said? What was insulting? Please cite because I think that kind of an assertion is frankly way out of line.

Click to expand...

Gladly.

Torrance said:

I frankly could not care less if you don't like the fact that I think the term should continue to reflect the union of heterosexuals. Excuse me? Why are you threatening me for having an opinion? I am not saying that the rights granted unions whether man to woman or same sex should be different, I am saying that the word should remain specific to the union between a man and a woman. I don't care how long the term has been used, you can argue semantics until the cows come home, traditionally speaking, in the US, the term married has been used to denote the union of man to woman. You can have your own word if you like, I won't demand that I be able to use it. People want to say that there is nothing different about the unions, ignoring the fundamental difference. Furthering your argument, I wonder why we make distinctions between people: black, white, african american, caucasian, asian, what have you. The terms easily express a difference. They are in fact all people, but there is a distinction made. Marriage is a contractual partnership, traditionally describing a union of a man to woman within the context of human couplings. Whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant, again it is my opinion and I am entitled to it. I don't appreciate somebody trying to shut down a discussion by saying that I dare not take up the argument. Sorry, I'm no shrinking violet.

Click to expand...

Bolding mine of aforementioned offensive and insulting presentation, per my opinion.

*shrug*

But then again, it's irrelevant to you if people agree with you, so why even engage in the conversation?

Marriage is a legal contract that a portion of our population is prohibited from taking. You wonder why we make distinctions between people? Read your own post and you'll see the answer.

Traditionally.

Same-sex marriage isn't an argument about tradition. It's an argument against discriminatory and prejudicial traditionsthat keep a subsect of the American population from enjoying the same civil rights that we do traditionally.

Lyv said:

Ok, but why? I am not arguing with you. I'd just like to hear why you feel that way. It can't hurt to examine/state how you got to that position, can it?

Click to expand...

I'm a traditionalist. I want the distinction to remain. You might find the reasoning to be lacking, I do not.

That's marriage. And I'm glad you said "religious," because some churches want to marry gay couples. To deny them the word "marriage" infringes upon their religious freedoms .

Click to expand...

I don't care what a church calls their ceremonial service. I want the distinction to remain within the context of language and what it denotes/connotes. I don't see how refering to a same sex marriage as a union is an infringement on rights.

What do you mean by blanket terminology?[/quotes]

Let's come up with a legal term under the law to denote a partnership between two human beings and allow marriage to be a specific distinction (man to woman) under that.

And I still wonder why. You must have reasons, which I've not seen you articulate. Perhaps I've missed them and you can direct me to a post that would explain. It's your prerogative not to answer, of course, but I remain curious.

Click to expand...

Do I need a reason beyond wanting the distinction to stand? I think that marriage is a familiar term that has traditionally described a union between a man and a woman, despite the assertions offered up by those opposed. If I write, 'Tom and Terry, were married on a Saturday,' one assumes that Terry is a woman. If I use another term like union, etc. the reader would likely think Terry was a man, otherwise why not use the term married? I would like marriage to continue to describe heterosexual unions, period.

It's the same whichever term appears first. Using two different ones serves only to stigmatize gay couples and their children. Is that the intent?

Click to expand...

Why is drawing a distinction taken as an intent to stigmatize? Why is everything a plot to undermine the acceptance of homosexuality by society? I could care less who you or anybody else chooses to love. The world needs more love and less hate. I don't see how lumping same sex unions in with heterosexual unions destigmatizes anything. If people are inclined to be bigots, calling gay unions marriages isn't going to stop them.

Click to expand...

mscelina said:

Gladly.



Bolding mine of aforementioned offensive and insulting presentation, per my opinion.

Click to expand...

So saying to someone, "you don't want to have this argument with me," isn't offensive? Okay. I probably should have ignored the comment, but I didn't. Next time I will overlook such bravado. Sorry you were offended.

Medievalist said:

I don't really see a distinction.

Click to expand...

I do. Considering that you intimated that I was somehow infering something nefarious in my comparison/distinctions where it concerns race, etc. makes me inclined to think that you're looking to paint me as a racist or a bigot and I'm not going to play that game.

We'll agree to disagree.

Torrance said:

So saying to someone, "you don't want to have this argument with me," isn't offensive? Okay. I probably should have ignored the comment, but I didn't. Next time I will overlook such bravado. Sorry you were offended.

Click to expand...

Torrance, I use that phrase or similar ones all the time. I took it to mean--You don't want to go there, because this is one of my pet projects and I'll bore you to death. It's usually the same kind of warning I give when someone starts to talk about the Roman usurpation of Greek mythologies.

Torrance said:

I do. Considering that you intimated that I was somehow infering something nefarious in my comparison/distinctions where it concerns race, etc. makes me inclined to think that you're looking to paint me as a racist or a bigot and I'm not going to play that game.

We'll agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

No one is looking to paint you as anything, least of all Medievalist who is one of the fairest people on this board. If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at me for not agreeing to play a game of semantics with you. You state repeatedly that you "don't care" about our opinions, our arguments, or the realities of the political and legal situation involving same sex couples. Somehow, I don't think that's it.

I would aver that perhaps you care a little too much.

"Tom and Terry were joined in matriony." Got a problem with that? If so, why?
"Tom and Terry were united in wedded bliss" Got a problem with that? If so, why?
"Tom and Terry were joined at the altar." Got a problem with that? If so, why?
"Tom and Terry celebrated their nuptials..."

You see where your logic fails? If Gays can be 'wedded in bliss' - 'joined as one in the eyes of God' - "United in their lifelong vows..." - Then why stumble over the word 'marriage'?

I do not think that word means what you think it means. At least, not to EVERYONE.

You keep defending your position with words like 'traditional' - as if that was some sort of justification. Well, stoning people was 'traditional' at one time. NEW Traditions are MADE every day...

The assetion (unproven) that MARRIAGE is TRADITIONALLY only between a single man and woman - is incorrect when applied universally over the history of humanity. Now, if you want to narrow down YOUR definition of "Tradition" - then fine. Simply start your assertions with the statement "My defintition of 'traditional' excludes those cultures and era whose traditions do not agree with mine". Simple, no?

Two points for the Princess Bride reference, WriteKnight.

... wow :-O
That is a lot of out-of-pocket money same-sex couples have to pay. Out of curiousity, do heterosexual couples in common-law marriages who've been together the required 7 years or so get benefits like those mentioned. And if so, how much more ridiculous that same-sex couples don't.

Torrance said:

I'm a traditionalist. I want the distinction to remain. You might find the reasoning to be lacking, I do not.

Click to expand...

Thank you for answering. I do find that to be a lack of reasoning, especially as the result would be so hurtful to millions of people. But I appreciate the answer.

I don't see how refering to a same sex marriage as a union is an infringement on rights.

Click to expand...

If I linked to some pieces written by gay people who explain why the word "marriage" is so important, would you read them?

I know what I think, but being straight, I can only understand on some levels. As personal as it feels to me, I am not directly affected. But I've read some wonderful pieces that I could link to that would answer your questions. If you'd like, I'll give some links.

Let's come up with a legal term under the law to denote a partnership between two human beings and allow marriage to be a specific distinction (man to woman) under that.

Click to expand...

Ugh. Let's not. That's not equality.

Do I need a reason beyond wanting the distinction to stand?

Click to expand...

If it were me, I'd need more than that. Since what you propose would, whether it's your intention or not, stigmatize gay families, I think it's fair to ask for a reason. But if you don't have anything else, and feel you personally don't need one, I guess that's that.

I think that marriage is a familiar term that has traditionally described a union between a man and a woman, despite the assertions offered up by those opposed.

Click to expand...

Those "assertions" are factual.

If I write, 'Tom and Terry, were married on a Saturday,' one assumes that Terry is a woman.

Click to expand...

I don't. Lots of us in states and countries that allow same-sex marriage have stopped making that assumption. You get used to it. I love that when I meet someone, I can't use gender-specific language to inquire about their spouse until I know for sure. It's not that hard to say "spouse" instead of "husband" or "wife." I love that my friends with same-sex spouses are married, just like I am. It's wonderfully uniting. Of course, I wish it were on a federal level, but that day is coming, I believe.

If I use another term like union, etc. the reader would likely think Terry was a man, otherwise why not use the term married? I would like marriage to continue to describe heterosexual unions, period.

Click to expand...

It's all about your personal comfort zone, then?

Why is drawing a distinction taken as an intent to stigmatize?

Click to expand...

In my experience, that's the intention. And it's certainly the effect. People may not realize it, but they want "marriage" to be theirs to show that one man/one woman is the normal, acceptable choice.

Why is everything a plot to undermine the acceptance of homosexuality by society?

Click to expand...

Whomp! Whomp! Whomp! Hyperbole alert. See, when you say things like that, it's really hard to discuss calmly and politely.

WriteKnight said:

You see where your logic fails? If Gays can be 'wedded in bliss' - 'joined as one in the eyes of God' - "United in their lifelong vows..." - Then why stumble over the word 'marriage'?

Click to expand...

The logic doesn't fail where it concerns the word marriage. Citing Medievalist:

Marriage has historically been used to refer to the coupling of animals for breeding purposes. It's not even a thousand years old in terms of primarily referring to humans.

Click to expand...

The term marriage is indicative of a union capable of producing offspring, ie that between a male and a female.

I do not think that word means what you think it means. At least, not to EVERYONE.

Click to expand...

Well, then I'll say a majority of people (in the United States to be specific)... even in California.

Torrance said:

The term marriage is indicative of a union capable of producing offspring, ie that between a male and a female.

Click to expand...

To you.

I was already infertile when I got married. One man, one woman, no possibility of kids without assistance. Conversely, well over half of my gay married friends have kids, many of them conceived, not adopted. On some cases, conceived the same way I would have had to--my husband's sperm, someone else's eggs and uterus.

Language evolves. Do you insist on the "traditional" meanings of other words, too?

Lyv said:

Whomp! Whomp! Whomp! Hyperbole alert. See, when you say things like that, it's really hard to discuss calmly and politely.

Click to expand...

This horse has been beaten to death. I think it is similarly hyperbolic to assert that people wanting to preserve the traditional meaning of marriage are seeking to stigmatize millions of people.

Torrance said:

This horse has been beaten to death. I think it is similarly hyperbolic to assert that people wanting to preserve the traditional meaning of marriage are seeking to stigmatize millions of people.

Click to expand...

Not at all. That's the effect. no matter the intent. However, as a gay rights activist, I've plenty of evidence that this is exactly why the word "marriage" is an issue.

Did you want to read those pieces I mentioned? You've said why you want to keep the word "marriage" from gay couples. But would you like to hear from a few of those directly affected why that word is so important to them?

Lyv said:

To you.

I was already infertile when I got married. One man, one woman, no possibility of kids without assistance. Conversely, well over half of my gay married friends have kids, many of them conceived, not adopted. On some cases, conceived the same way I would have had to--my husband's sperm, someone else's eggs and uterus.

Language evolves. Do you insist on the "traditional" meanings of other words, too?

Click to expand...

Were they conceived of that union? Did a woman mate with a woman or a man mate with a man and poof, baby? If you were healthy that would have been possible in your relationship, that is not the case with homosexual unions. It seems that distinctions are great while they are convenient, ie saying marriage has been used to describe the breeding of animals... and inconvenient when that argument is processed out and supports the opposite viewpoint.

I feel like I am making you angry and that isn't the intent. I'm going to leave this one be at this point. Thanks for the back and forth, regardless of what you think it has provided food for thought.

Torrance said:

I'm a traditionalist. I want the distinction to remain. You might find the reasoning to be lacking, I do not.

Click to expand...

Medievalist already adequately shot this down. Marriage being narrowly defined to only include legal unions between heterosexuals is, in fact, not a tradition in any sense. The word has a long history with a wide variety of semantic shadings. From what I can tell based on my studies, this new meaning was born of the (false) binary perception of sexuality invented in the 19th century.

Torrance said:

Were they conceived of that union?

Click to expand...

As I said, they were conceived the same way my husband and I would have had to conceive a child--my husband's sperm, someone else's eggs and uterus.

If you were healthy that would have been possible in your relationship, that is not the case with homosexual unions.

Click to expand...

In both cases, a baby would be the result.

I feel like I am making you angry and that isn't the intent. I'm going to leave this one be at this point. Thanks for the back and forth, regardless of what you think it has provided food for thought.

Click to expand...

I'm not angry in the least. Not the tiniest bit. So don't use that as a reason to withdraw from the conversation. It's your choice to do so, but don't use my nonexistent anger. I enjoy discussing with you.