Originally Posted by
tomcat
Originally Posted by
Looper
This is not to suggest some kind of inferiority
that is exactly what it suggests..separate but equal black schooling and water fountains come to mind...
I don't really buy the comparison of gay marriage with inter-racial marriage (which is frequently used in these discussions - even though you are talking about simple segregation).
Yes there was opposition to interracial marriage when it first became a phenomenon. There was an instinctive sense that something was not right about this to some predjudiced minds based on ignorance about the degree of commonality between the human 'races', but it did not stand up to analysis. Science (and indeed simple day to day experience) shows us that interracial differences are in fact insignificant and that the male and female behaviour and psychlogy of different races respectively has far more in common than it has different.
Interracial marriage does not conflict with the basic definition of marriage. Interracial marriage simply did not occur until recently due to the recent advent of mass transglobal migration.
The definition of marriage as it is commonly understood requires no redefinition in any way for interracial marriage to be accomodated. It simply requires the dismantling of groundless prejudice.
For the definition of marriage to accomodate gay couples on the other hand the definition does require a fundamental change from 'man and woman' to 'two people'. There have always been gays in society and they have generally been swept under the carpet and not accomoadted by society's social mores and traditions. Now gays have been socially liberated and we accept that gay couples are expressing a seemingly naturally occurring sexual orientation.
However this recent social development does not make it incumbent on society to redefine our tradition of marriage to accomodate gay pair-bonding. It is true that there are significant similarities between gay and straight pair bonding but there is also much that is different. This follows from the fact that men and women are significantly different creatures. They have far less in common with each other than 2 males or 2 females of different ethnic backgrounds, so the inter-racial marriage parallel does not work argumentationally.
Redefining marriage is certainly one possible solution to the pair bonding needs of gays but I think it would be quite generous of mainstream society to allow what is one of the oldest and most important cultural traditions of the species to be changed so radically. I am not 100% opposed to the redefinition but I think it should recognised as a radical redefinition by the gay-marriage lobby and the political factions involved in the debate instead of them trying to railroad the issue without any debate.
Another solution is that gay pair-bonding rituals and laws could be instituted separately. It is not bigotry to a suggest this; it is recognition of the evolved fundamental differences between men and women as creatures.
If men and women are fundmentally different types of creature (emotionally and psychologically and in their evolved and culturally tradional roles) then 2 men pair-bonding is fundamentally different to a man and woman pair-bonding. This is not true of inter-racial marriage so I don't agree that the comparison between gay marriage and inter-racial marriage is valid.