Sorry to just barge into this thread but... I don't see how the legal term for it has anything to do with how people describe it in a socal context. If/when this is legal in my state of residence (and if I decide to partake), I will likely use the terms 'married' and 'husband' in spite of the official legal definition. If someone wants to waste the energy to point out that it's not technically the same (In a legal sense or using their own subjective definition of what marrage means to them), then that's their prerogative.
Honestly though, if the term marrage applies to all unions, how often will things be unclear? Unless you know very little about the person and/or they are intentionally trying to make things confusing, miscommunication seems very unlikely. Most generic terms for a spouse that I would use in a conversation are gendered... Isn't it significantly more complicated from a legal standpoint to maintain two seperate institutions with exactly the same legal function as opposed to using a single nstitution. The fact that one can have children with genetic material from both parents is not important as far as the law is considered. Wouldn't a seperate institution be more vulnerable to legal challenge? (And paperwork! How many more forms would agencies need to make?) Just because I'm curious, in what sort of situations would a mistake like this be an issue anyway? Meeting a couple for dinner and finding out that they are gay dosen't exactly ruin the evening... If special accomodations need to be made based on the precise numbers of males and females that will be attending an event or if the presense of a gay couple will be an issue, it's probably better to just ask outright rather than making assumptions. In most situations, at worst, you are going to have an "Oh, I thought he was female" moment the first time you meet someone... that dosen't seem very significant. That being said, I'll have to remember to say "I'm bringing the person I'm currently dating" or "The person I married is coming with me" when I make plans with new people, just to keep 'em guessing. (The situation would be even better if he had a gender neutral name.) On Oct 14, 2:09 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi y'all - the legal acceptance of same sex unions is a new phenomenon > in this country therefore it should be suitably named - there is no > more to my argument than that. > Let's see if I can spell it out more clearly: If I buy some real > estate the heading on the contract is "Contract for the sale of real > estate." If I take out a loan the heading is "Contract for a loan > agreement." The traditional marriage certificate is entitled > "Certificate of Marriage." As we have a new situation, which has not > legally been recognised before, what is wrong with choosing a suitable > name to identify it? Marriage won't do as I have indicated earlier. > What does everyone have against a new name? The very least that would > be achieved is that when I call someone and ask them to dinner, I > would know if they are bringing someone of the same sex or opposite, > and I can make preparations accordingly. In this instance, it is > simply a matter of etiquette. > > On Oct 14, 12:03 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > "This being the case, there is no harm in calling a new phenomenon by > > a new name to remove any confusion." - clog > > > Of course, seen from a provincial point of view, it is ‘a new > > phenomenon’. In the larger view of all of humanity, it is not. So, > > there is no ‘harm’ in attempting to accept that the word ‘marriage’ > > can have different meanings, which it has ALWAYS had and will continue > > to have. > > > On Oct 14, 8:42 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi y'all - I agree that language changes over time. I remember one of > > > my favorite songs as a youth containing the phrase "shall I be blamed > > > if god has made me gay." Of course, it referred to a happy person and > > > a womanizer. > > > This being the case, there is no harm in calling a new phenomenon by a > > > new name to remove any confusion. > > > > On Oct 14, 9:58 am, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > <<Therefore, a different purpose requires a different name. Q.E.D. >> > > > > > No, it doesn't. The meaning of words can change and this one will. > > > > Just like the meaning of the word "gay" changed to a new purpose.- Hide > > > > quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
