Gay 'marriage'

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I'm not convinced this makes sense. Saying that someone is literally, biologically "less of a man" than someone else is nonsensical. I've no idea what it would mean to 'fall somewhere in the middle' of being a man and a woman, other than perhaps being a hermaphrodite.

I suppose that depends on how you define man. The problem is that biologically, pretty much every definition you give, I can present a problem. If you mention say, that a man must have a Y chromosome (I'll ignore birds, hymenoptera and so on, and just focus on humans) well then there are cases of males with XX sex chromosomes which are both autosomally inherited and the result of translocations of Y chromosome material on the X chromosome. Technically these men might be regarded as less men than other men, since they are missing a y chromosome, and hence a number of genes required to make sperm and a few other things to do with maleness. There are cases of XY (phenotypical) females who have the SRY gene knocked out, who in terms of their genes, are more male than the last lot, since although they are missing one gene, all the others are there.

Then there is a bunch of stuff on how other parts of the body form. for example there are a number of grades of Androgen Insensitivity, which result in the individuals with them not developing typical male secondary sexual characteristics, and finally brain development. In the earlier ones, these people tend to be infertile, but in the latter, they are often fertile, so there is a continuum of secondary sexual characteristics at the very least, and many people define males by these things.

[dda]

Originally Posted by Emperor Rozenski

Why shouldn't mentally ill people be able to 'marry'?

Apparently they can. Congrats s|k!

[dda]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

No, it was to the OP.

Basically, gay people are now able to have a union recognised legally, and if that means the same to them as marriage, why can't they consider themselves married?

The OP didn't seem to complain about the individuals considering themselves married but rather seemed aimed at the popular press defining it as a marriage.

The dictionary in my office does not define marriage as between persons. I talks of "the institution whereby meen and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

Language is important to a lot of people. Legalities are important to a lot of people.

I have friends who are lesbians who refer to each other as husband and wife and to themselves as married. They had, what they refer to, as a marriage ceremony. All of this is fine with me. However, by definition they are not husband and wife, they are not married and they did not have a marriage ceremony.

Marriage may, one day, be redefined. But until that day, one does not have to be a homophobe to be annoyed with the press, or anyone else, playing fast and loose with the definition which had existed in the ENGLISH SPEAKING world for ages. And please remember that marriage is an English word and what other cultures use to define relationships may equate to the English term marriage it in no way redefines the English concept of marriage.

I hope, in the US, that they make marriage the word used to define all relationships with equal legal ramifications for all. As it is, I pay several thousand dollars a year in taxes more than I would if my wife and I were not married. The gay marriages have gotten away with side stepping this tax for long enough. Give them the right to be married and tax the buggers like everyone else. They would be happy to pay and I should feel better about it as well.

Also, as an attorney, the increased work load for handling of gay divorces would make the legal community richer and that can only be a good thing, surely?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by dda

Marriage may, one day, be redefined.

Definitions are made by usage of words. The dictionary usually reacts to an alteration in usage - it very rarely (if ever) instigates such alterations. There is no official body managing the English language, and thank the Lord for that. Words are constantly in flux as usage changes amongst the pool of people called collectively 'english speakers'.

[eJohn]

dda brings up an interesting point, i wonder when the first gay divorce will be

[Jennifer]

I don't hear anyone complaining when Noel Edmonds abuses the word 'decimate' on Deal or No Deal. If there are only 4 thingys left in the red, it is not *possible* to decimate the red side, because the minimum number of red chunks of cash you can remove (other than nothing) is one quarter.

But yeah, words are defined by their usage. Go go gadget Dante.