Anti-gay marriage debate, please critique me

[Singer]

This took place in a scattered mess of Facebook comments, so definitely not a formal debate. All the same though, I think I need some improvement. Can someone take a look below and point out any of my major mistakes? I'm Jesse (J) and he's Chase (C). I’m also including some extra comments from him directed at other people.

C: Why so much emphasis on the term "married" when it's not about the term? If they can be just as much in love without that term, and still want to take it to the next level on a legal basis, why not call it a domestic partnership and be done with it?

C: Michele, if I wasn't tolerant, I wouldn't want gays to have the same legal benefits under domestic partnerships. In CA, where I live, they have the exact same rights under domestic partnership laws. I'm VERY accepting of others, I just don't think the concentration should be on the definition of a WORD right now. Gays and activists should be focusing on federal domestic partnership laws and other states that don't have same sex unions or less than equal benefits.

J: I find it funny when anti-gay marriage people talk about how words aren't important. If you think it's not such a big deal for gay couples to have civil unions rather than marriages, then shouldn't it also not be that big of a deal for them to have marriages also? After all, it's only a word right? So what's the problem? Oh I'm sorry, maybe it is kind of a big deal since you all seem so uptight about them being called "gay marriages." If it is only a word, then why get so defensive about it?

C: Jesse, because some people see through all of this activism and understand what is really going on. Like "facebook user" has said, if gays were to focus on actual temporal rights, they probably would have had them a long time ago. But BECAUSE they're focusing on a definition, it will be a never ending battle.

J: Chase:
If we have group A called "First class citizens" and group B called "Second class citizens" but both have exactly the same legal rights, are they equal?

This is why words are important.

C: No, I never mentioned that we should change the definition of marriage, I simply said that we should have a term for homosexual couples since they're fundamentally different from hetero couples.

And please don't compare gays to black people. The difference between segregation and what's going on today is completely different. Gays have every single right that straights have. NONE of us has a fundamentla right to marry whomever we want. We have to abide by the law, gay and straight. Blacks didn't have the same rights at the time. COMPLETELY different.

C: Jesse, if gays feel like 2nd class citizens for having the same rights, but a different definition, then that's their own fault.

C: Meredith, a man is fundamentally different than a woman. Do I need to go into biology? For next year's vote, should we put something on the ballot to ban "IT'S A BOY" and "IT'S A GIRL" balloons from being sold at hospitals? I mean come on!! We're discriminating against boys and girls since they're "fundamentally" the same, according to you.

J: Chase:
Bad analogy.
You are comparing physical differences, i.e. man and woman, to social differences, i.e. straight marriage vs. gay marriage. Not comparable at all. Please come up with something more convincing.

C: LeAnn, I'm trying to point out that a hetero marriage and homosexual marriage can be differentiated because they are FUNDAMENTALLY different. We have terms for things that are fundamentally different, like man and woman, gay and straight, homo and hetero. Why is it so wrong to have a term that points out a fundamental difference between couples????

C: Stephanie, it's completely different from civil rights. Like I've been saying for quite some time now, we have different labels for fundamentally different things in our society. This is one of those things.

J: Hey Chase (and others):
The fact that you want to differentiate them is discrimination. That you don't see this is amazing.

C: Jesse, do you refer to men and women differently? Or simply call them humans? Just wondering, because if you DO, then you discriminate, based on your definition.

J: Men and women are physically different though, not socially different. Marriage is a social issue, not a physical issue.

C: So you're saying Jesse that there's no physical difference between hetero and homo marriages? Last I checked, men and women are different physically.

C: You're right, Joseph, it's about love, not some stupid legal contract. It's funny how so many people think the label "marriage" will make them love each other more.

Read the posts. There's about 12,400 of them. People who say marriage is about love, nothing else, are mistaken. Love is about love. Marriage is normally about rights, rights that can be given by other means than the label "marriage."

C: Liz, does it matter? Should something be legal because a few people want it to be?

Liz, you're mistaken. Gays have 100% of the same rights in every state. Now if they CHOOSE to have a relationship with someone of the same sex, they won't get the same BENEFITS. Just like anybody who doesn't get married can't enjoy the tax benefits of someone who IS married.

LeAnn, I'm simply stating that when people claim that straights have more rights than gays, they couldn't be more wrong.

J: Chase, your arguments are so petty. You have no idea the social dynamics and status that comes with the term "marriage." The term marriage has historical and emotional significance associated with it. There is no reason for anyone to be denied it. Differentiating between gay and straight couples can be achieved through other means besides the categorical term used.

Your "draw a line in the sand" defensiveness is just ridiculous.

C: So Jesse, what's stopping gays from establishing their own "marriage" and creating social dynamics and status from it?

C: OK Marie, I'll drop that argument the instant you tell me that you think that gender specific terminology should be thrown out the door.

Joanna, marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years now. Now that the fundamental definition of marriage is being changed, what's the stop it from broadening to multiple consenting adults (3+) or siblings?

J: Chase:
Why do gays have to give status to their own "marriage" term? You just proved my point that the term marriage has status associated with it. You don't want to let them share in the status of the term marriage! Why else would you want them to go and "establish their own social dynamics and status"? Why do they have to do that?

C: Because marriage has been about a man and a woman for thousands of years. Altering the fundamental part of "marriage" changes its meaning. Creating domestic partnerships or civil unions works perfectly.

C: Sorry Jennifer, these people will make you out as a bigot for wanting gays to have the same benefits, but not the term "marriage."

They're close-minded.

J: Chase:
Haha, that's funny. We're the close-minded ones for wanting to give people more options? You are the ones who want to deny people the term marriage.

That's hilarious that I'm the close-minded one.

----------

Chase never posted again after that last comment.

Anyway, thanks in advance.

[Formless]

What you should have done, IMO, is go after his "separate but equal" argument. When he said:

C: Jesse, if gays feel like 2nd class citizens for having the same rights, but a different definition, then that's their own fault.

you should have pointed out that giving homosexual partnerships a different name when they are functionally the same as a marriage (never mind if its not) is just asking people to discriminate and would further stigmatize gays. It would essentially be telling gays "you can have equal rights, but you are still not the same as us." Obviously, that is a completely arbitrary qualification, and its that mindset that is at the root of all bigotry.

[Lusankya]

You also could have asked him which legal rights granted by marriage (such as immigration facilitation, adoption, power of attorney, etc.) he feels that gay couples should not be entitled to, and why. And if he thinks that gays should be allowed all those rights, then why does he want to have two different terms for the exact same contract?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

C: No, I never mentioned that we should change the definition of marriage, I simply said that we should have a term for homosexual couples since they're fundamentally different from hetero couples.

And please don't compare gays to black people. The difference between segregation and what's going on today is completely different. Gays have every single right that straights have. NONE of us has a fundamentla right to marry whomever we want. We have to abide by the law, gay and straight. Blacks didn't have the same rights at the time. COMPLETELY different.

That's not true. Black people during segregation had all their rights. They had their rights to public education, public transportation, etc. They just had to go to different schools and sit at different seats. In fact, before 1969, black people also had every right to marry. They had the right to marry the person of the same race, just like every other non-black citizen!

[Pint0 Xtreme]

In California, we have domestic partnerships. It's been argued many times by conservatives that it's more or less marriage without the 'term'. So one of the ways we address that argument is to point out the tangible harms that the discriminatory distinction creates because everyone seems to think that this is just about the actual 'rights' as opposed to the idea that the battle of marriage equality includes the fight against prejudice and bigotry. And it is no small part either.

There are multiple cases where families were denied the tangible rights because they were not considered married. It's not a legal problem. It is a social one. Despite the fact that domestic partnerships 'provide' those rights, same-sex relationships in domestic partnerships are being denied those rights in many places simply because domestic partnerships are simply not socially accepted and recognized as binding familial relationships. In short, the separate by equal treatment espouses real, tangible discrimination (Duh!). Just like how separate by equal facilities of African Americans were in reality sub-par, so are domestic partnerships in a very real and hurtful way.

[Darth Wong]

Don't let the homophobes get away with diminishing the importance of the word "marriage". They're fighting tooth and nail to keep gays from using it, and they have the gall to say "what's the big deal, it's just a word" when gays ask why they can't use it? I call bullshit times ten. The people making this argument think the word "marriage" is enormously important, otherwise they would not be fighting so hard to keep gays from using it. And contrary to their asinine belief, its importance does not derive from religion.

The idea that marriage is a religious property because it has traditionally been done in churches in Christian nations is based on cultural ignorance. There is marriage in every society, regardless of religion. The only reason religion is involved with marriage is the same reason it's involved with spring festivals throughout history and autumn harvests: whenever people did anything important, they would ask their gods to bless the endeavour. Hell, people in the old days used to routinely ask priests to bless a new barn; does this mean that agriculture and construction are religious institutions too?

Nothing about the actual definition of marriage itself has anything to do with religion. If it did, then "civil marriage" would be an oxymoron, and it's not. No one exhibits the slightest bit of confusion when confronted with the term "civil marriage", which they should if the word "marriage" is actually defined as a religious concept. Want an example of a real religious concept? Prayer. If someone said "secular prayer", you would immediately say "what the hell is that?" There is no such confusion with "secular marriage".