View Single Post
Old 2012-09-10, 10:49   Link #307
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 37
Originally Posted by willx View Post
2) Secondly, I asked whether he would be OK if instead of allowing same-sex marriage, a new status was created that was identical in every way but was labeled differently, like "committed union" -- that way marriage could continue to be defined as between a man & woman, and we'd just have to "ctrl+f" "find and replace" our existing legislature. His response "lawyered" me a little.

Rationally he wouldn't have any issues with it, and he can understand why conservative religious types who believe "marriage is an institution directly tied to their beliefs of faith and his rules regarding behaviour and morality" but his point (which I agree with) is that the create of a status that is "different" works well when people are reasonable, rational, educated and tolerant. When they are not, the "different but the same" argument won't work and would continue to result in future discrimination.
See, the only reason you would have something that is "same but different", is for the purposes of discrimination. It would be like saying Obama can be the POTUS only if his title is deliberately changed to "Black President". Obama is POTUS; this isn't up for debate. But if you decide that he needed to be specifically labelled differently from all the other POTUS in history, because of the colour of his skin, then that is discrimination by default.

Labelling is discriminatory. Here is another example: what if only couple who have children can be considered "married", and all other couples are called "Pseudo-married", all other things remain the same?

The impossible part, is the justification that somehow separate labelling is necessary. That married people who are the same sex needed to be isolated from those who are hetero, to keep marriages pure and untainted.
Vallen Chaos Valiant is offline