Hi again Banjo and Chris C.

I am genuinely interested in how you both - and anyone else - would answer Pericles’ intriguing question about word usage. (Admit I am pondering this for the first time.)

The questions seems to be this: which of the following ten different marital arrangements deserve the appellation ‘marriage’? And why?

What are the key defining factors: respectability, monogamy, permanence, gender, number, other?

Or should all ten be given their own separate individual label?

1. A man and a woman in a sanctioned union which continues monogamous and faithful throughout their lives. By sanctioned I mean officially and legally by the state, church or both. This seems to be Chris C's definition, above.

2. Two men or two women in a sanctioned union which continues monogamous and faithful throughout their lives.

3. A man and a woman in a sanctioned union which continues throughout their lives but where one partner has occasional extra-marital affairs.

4. A man and a woman in a sanctioned union which continues throughout their lives but where both partners have occasional extra-marital affairs.

5. A man and a woman in a sanctioned union which continues throughout their lives but where both partners agree regularly to invite a third person to join them for recreational sex.

6. One man and two women in a sanctioned union which continues as a faithful threesome throughout their lives. Or two men and one woman.

7. A man and a woman in a sanctioned union which continues as a faithful, monogamous union until they divorce.

8. A man and a woman in a sanctioned union but where one or both has already been in an earlier sanctioned faithful union.

9. A man and a woman in a sanctioned union but where one or both has already been in an earlier sanctioned union where one of the partners had been unfaithful.

10. Two men or two women in a sanctioned union but where one or both has already been in an earlier sanctioned union.

Thanks. AA.

Clarity about the problem here leads (I think) to the answer.

The problem is that the term marriage as currently used mixes up the legal contractual aspects with the longstanding traditional/cultural aspects.

When a heterosexual couple marry, they enter into a binding legal contractual relationship that imposes well defined obligations on each party. Similarly, after two years, a de-facto couple is deemed to have entered into a similar contractual relationship, with the same obligations. Clearly, gay couples should be able to enter into like contractual relationships, assuming that they cannot already.

The issue arises with the word "marriage". The fact is that this word carries traditional/cultural connotations that have prevailed for many many years in most cultures. It would seem unlikely that the way that word is seen will change any time soon in most cultures.

Therefore, surely, the best way to deal with this issue is to separate the legal from the cultural, ensure that gay couples have the same rights (and obligations) as heterosexual couples and de facto couples, and take the word "marriage" out of the legislation relating to these unions. Let the culture/tradition issues sort themselves out in time, as they will (or maybe won't).

Seems to me that much of the conflict/emotion about the issue of gay marriage results from insufficient clarity on these aspects.

>>The only reason they want the word marriage is because it suggests respectability. Respect has to be earned.<<

What is disrespectable about homosexual unions that isn't disrespectable about heterosexual unions? Why should heterosexuals entering into a lifelong exclusive union (marriage) be automatically afforded respect while homosexuals entering into a lifelong exclusive union (the union formerly known as marriage) have to fight tooth and claw to earn it? How do you justify your double standards?

>>We have already allowed them to hyjack the word gay, which properly has a different meaning.<<

Yes and no but mostly no. Gay does not 'properly' have a different meaning: there is no Academie Anglais so in English it is usage that determines meaning. But gay and faggot and queer all historically had different meanings and they have all been hijacked - note spelling: if you're going to be a tiresome pedant you should at least pay attention to your spellchecker.

Gay no longer means homosexual BTW. It has been reclaimed like queer: queer originally meant weird, strange, spooky - things along those lines. To see queer used in its earlier historical context have a read of The Call of Cthulhu by H.P. Lovecraft. During the 20th century the word was hijacked by homophobic bigots looking for a pejorative term to abuse homosexuals with. The LGBT community has since reclaimed the word as an umbrella term for LGBTetc.'s. Gay once meant carefree and joyous and was an acceptable name for a woman. During the 20th century the word was hijacked by lazy homosexual men who preferred a monosyllabic word instead of a mouthful like homosexual. Generation Y have since reclaimed to gay to mean - well actually I can't say what they've reclaimed as it or the prudish nanna who apparently moderates this forum will probably delete my post. Faggot was hijacked by homophobes like queer but it hasn't been reclaimed.

Word hijacking happens all the time. Language changes as any schoolboy forced to suffer through Shakespeare must surely acknowledge. There's really nothing you can do stop it.

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Alan,

<<@Chris C, Yuyutsu and individual: No, it is just not true that “Marriage is the exclusive and life-long union of one man and one woman.”>>

Why is my name included? I said nothing about what marriage is or is not!

The Logic of Gay Marriage:

By Lewis Carol

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

That's 'Carroll', Dan. And let's not forget:

"The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking hand in hand..."