Serious LGBTQ

[frogoholic101]

With regards to religion and gay marriage, do people in this thread think that not accepting gay marriage and homophobia are one and the same?

I ask because I personally am against gay marriage, but before you shout my head off, I'd like to clarify some things. What I object to is the use of the word 'marriage' to describe such a union, and not the coming together of two homosexuals in a joint, loving union, which I believe is well within their rights. I live in the UK, and we have 'civil partnerships', which were essentially downgraded marriages with fewer rights for those involved (the prime example being access to the spouse's pension). What my ideal situation would have been is for civil partnerships to embrace every legal right that marriage entails, such as access to pensions, benefits from the government etc, thereby literally ensuring equal rights between gay couples and straight couples. I only object to gay marriage in the sense that the word 'marriage' is used, as I believe that refers to a union between men and women only. Gay unions are not the same as straight unions biologically speaking, and hence I believe that different words should be used to describe the two.

I have been called homophobic when discussing such a viewpoint (much to my annoyance as it seems everyone who is against it is a 'bigot', hence 'discussion' on the issue seems impossible without being immediately discredited) but I bear no ill will towards the homosexual community. My religious denomination (Methodist, in the UK) allows practising homosexuals to be reverends, and are accepted by the congregation as they would accept anybody else. They are not regarded as unnatural in my religion, not would I say that they are so. With the information I've given you, do you think my position is homophobic.

In addition, I have to apologise if I offend any of you; while I know a reasonable amount about the LGBTQ community, I understand that ignorance is a very easy way to cause offence, so please understand I came here not to offend, but to ask a question.

 

[Brap]

With regards to religion and gay marriage, do people in this thread think that not accepting gay marriage and homophobia are one and the same?

I ask because I personally am against gay marriage, but before you shout my head off, I'd like to clarify some things. What I object to is the use of the word 'marriage' to describe such a union, and not the coming together of two homosexuals in a joint, loving union, which I believe is well within their rights. I live in the UK, and we have 'civil partnerships', which were essentially downgraded marriages with fewer rights for those involved (the prime example being access to the spouse's pension). What my ideal situation would have been is for civil partnerships to embrace every legal right that marriage entails, such as access to pensions, benefits from the government etc, thereby literally ensuring equal rights between gay couples and straight couples. I only object to gay marriage in the sense that the word 'marriage' is used, as I believe that refers to a union between men and women only. Gay unions are not the same as straight unions biologically speaking, and hence I believe that different words should be used to describe the two.

I have been called homophobic when discussing such a viewpoint (much to my annoyance as it seems everyone who is against it is a 'bigot', hence 'discussion' on the issue seems impossible without being immediately discredited) but I bear no ill will towards the homosexual community. My religious denomination (Methodist, in the UK) allows practising homosexuals to be reverends, and are accepted by the congregation as they would accept anybody else. They are not regarded as unnatural in my religion, not would I say that they are so. With the information I've given you, do you think my position is homophobic.

In addition, I have to apologise if I offend any of you; while I know a reasonable amount about the LGBTQ community, I understand that ignorance is a very easy way to cause offence, so please understand I came here not to offend, but to ask a question.

Gay marriage is legal in the UK. Halle-fecking-lujah. You are a homophobe. Simple as.

 

[frogoholic101]

Gay marriage is legal in the UK. Halle-fecking-lujah. You are a homophobe. Simple as.

Not in churches, and in fact my definition is still 'correct', as such, as the government has decided to have two definitions of marriage at the current point in time. Can you explain why it makes me a homophobe, 'simple as'?

 

[Brap]

Not in churches, and in fact my view is still protected as the government has decided to have two definitions of marriage at the current point in time. Can you explain why it makes me a homophobe, 'simple as'?

If you are against gay marriage, you are a homophobe.

It really is that basic. There is no other rational reason for opposing gay marriage.

 

[frogoholic101]

If you are against gay marriage, you are a homophobe.
It really is that basic. There is no other rational reason for opposing gay marriage.

Ok, now I know where you're coming from. Can you please state what step in my thought process is homophobic regarding the use of terminology? I literally support homosexuals having the same legal rights within civil partnerships as heterosexuals do in marriage, just without the word 'marriage'.

 

[elcheeso]

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: separate but equal. How does that usually work out for minorities? Do you believe that supporting segregation is fine because something something biological reasoning that has nothing to do with the word in a technical sense? Could someone also use biology to justify segregating other marriages, like interracial ones? Is that OK with you? Do you not realise that even people in civil unions still REFER to their unions as marriages 99% of the time, and as such your only reasoning for wanting to separate them is an arbitrary and pointless legal definition? Do you expect gay people to "just settle" for the current state of unequal unions in the hope that things will get better?

Maybe most importantly, would you feel comfortable telling a married gay couple to stop using the word marriage to describe their union because that word is for straights only? Whatever your answer, why is that?

 

[Brap]

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.

You think gay people shouldn't be able to get married. That is a negative attitude.

 

[frogoholic101]

Short answer: yes.
Long answer: separate but equal. How does that usually work out for minorities? Do you believe that supporting segregation is fine because something something biological reasoning that has nothing to do with the word in a technical sense? Could someone also use biology to justify segregating other marriages, like interracial ones? Is that OK with you? Do you not realise that even people in civil unions still REFER to their unions as marriages 99% of the time, and as such your only reasoning for wanting to separate them is an arbitrary and pointless legal definition? Do you expect gay people to "just settle" for the current state of unequal unions in the hope that things will get better?
Maybe most importantly, would you feel comfortable telling a married gay couple to stop using the word marriage to describe their union because that word is for straights only? Whatever your answer, why is that?

No, I don't believe supporting segregation is fine something something biological reasoning that has nothing to do with the word in a technical sense. I don't see the logic regarding interracial ones, since I don't see a biological difference there between interracial unions and non-interracial unions, but regardless, no, that is not OK with me. I do not expect gay people to settle for unequal unions. In that circumstance I would not correct the gay couple, but in my head it would register as 'partnership' and not 'marriage'.

I do think there are several biological differences between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, perhaps the biggest one being the ability of the former to have biological children related to both parents. I don't believe the unions should be unequal; in terms of rights they should be exactly the same. The only difference being the word 'marriage'.

If the legal definition of the word is pointless, i.e take the semantics of the word 'marriage' out of the equation, surely that would mean I support equal treatment of homosexual unions and heterosexuals unions, thereby making the answer not 'yes'? In this sense, if that is literally the only difference between my view of gay marriage and yours, and you have said it doesn't matter, surely I am not a homophobe?

Brap: I think homosexuals should be entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals. Is that negative?

 

[Brap]

No, I don't believe supporting segregation is fine something something biological reasoning that has nothing to do with the word in a technical sense. I don't see the logic regarding interracial ones, since I don't see a biological difference there between interracial unions and non-interracial unions, but regardless, no, that is not OK with me. I do not expect gay people to settle for unequal unions. In that circumstance I would not correct the gay couple, but in my head it would register as 'partnership' and not 'marriage'.

I do think there are several biological differences between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, perhaps the biggest one being the ability of the former to have biological children related to both parents. I don't believe the unions should be unequal; in terms of rights they should be exactly the same. The only difference being the word 'marriage'.

If the legal definition of the word is pointless, i.e take the semantics of the word 'marriage' out of the equation, surely that would mean I support equal treatment of homosexual unions and heterosexuals unions, thereby making the answer not 'yes'? In this sense, if that is literally the only difference between my view of gay marriage and yours, and you have said it doesn't matter, surely I am not a homophobe?

Brap: I think homosexuals should be entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals. Is that negative?

No that is not negative. But believing gay people should not be able to get married as straight people can is very very negative. So therefore they don't have the same rights as straight people. That's just massively hypocritical.

RE: part I bolded. Yes that is entirely true at this moment in time (might not be in the future), but what has that got to do said gay people getting married? Nothing.

 

[frogoholic101]

No that is not negative. But believing gay people should not be able to get married as straight people can is very very negative. So therefore they don't have the same rights as straight people. That's just massively hypocritical.
RE: part I bolded. Yes that is entirely true at this moment in time (might not be in the future), but what has that got to do said gay people getting married? Nothing.

You see, part of my logic was that the term 'marriage' should not be applied since there are differences between homosexual unions and heterosexual unions that merit the use of different words to describe the two.

 

[elcheeso]

It is homophobic for the same reason supporting separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites is racist. No matter how equal the fountains are, the only purpose for separating them is to keep the minority away from the majority's stuff, so to speak. It degenerates the thing belonging to the minority due to power dynamics and general contempt the majority tends to feel for the minority, even if it's as simple as 'they're not the same as us', which is what you seem to feel about homosexual "partnerships". No matter how equal in quality the fountains are, it becomes 'white fountain good, black fountain bad'. Your ability to have children has no bearing on your heterosexual union, legally speaking. Even socially, people do not feel that someone has "less" of a marriage because one person is sterile or they simply choose to not have children, so why would biological differences come into play in a legal sense? Basically...

Why do you want to keep us away from your stuff?

 

[Demoness]

You see, part of my logic was that the term 'marriage' should not be applied since there are differences between homosexual unions and heterosexual unions that merit the use of different words to describe the two.

But what is the difference? Why do you need to have a different term for becoming married if you are homosexual? What does it even accomplish at all? All it does is make it seem like homosexual people need to be kept away from the word marriage because for some reason, only heterosexual people deserve the term "marriage". What makes homosexual people not deserving of it? Making up terms for different people just because they are not the majority is blatant discrimination and close-mindedness. Trying to say your are for equal rights while also saying that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to call their union a marriage is simply an attempt to try and maintain some sense of superiority over them while looking like you are for equal rights.

 

[Th!nkPi]

You have nothing against homosexual people and you want them to have the same rights, except the right to call their relationship a marriage. That is one specific right you don't want them to have. Downplaying it by just calling it a word doesn't diminish the fact you don't think they should call the love they share a marriage, and your reasoning seems to be it's because they're unable to bear children together. Keep in mind some straight couples are unable to have children together too, biologically speaking. You're not right nor wrong regardless of whether I agree with you or not. It's simply your opinion. Keep in mind you aren't vouching for equal rights if you don't want them using the word marriage.

 

[Oglemi]

Honestly marriage is by the very definition a union of the two different sexes. Most of the gay community wants the word applied to them for full "equality" when the word itself seriously does not matter. The gay community shouldn't want marriage; the want for marriage comes from wanting the same rights that marriage grants. If civil unions grant exactly the same rights that marriage grants, then that's what should be applied to homosexuals.

Wanting the word marriage to apply to gay people is an overreaching grab at full equality; equity is what should be being strove for. It'd also make the whole actual issue (civil union rights equaling marriage rights) so much easier to fight for if we dropped the whole "I WANT MARRIAGE"

 

[frogoholic101]

It is homophobic for the same reason supporting separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites is racist. No matter how equal the fountains are, the only purpose for separating them is to keep the minority away from the majority's stuff, so to speak. It degenerates the thing belonging to the minority due to power dynamics and general contempt the majority tends to feel for the minority, even if it's as simple as 'they're not the same as us', which is what you seem to feel about homosexual "partnerships". No matter how equal in quality the fountains are, it becomes 'white fountain good, black fountain bad'. Your ability to have children has no bearing on your heterosexual union, legally speaking. Even socially, people do not feel that someone has "less" of a marriage because one person is sterile or they simply choose to not have children, so why would biological differences come into play in a legal sense? Basically...
Why do you want to keep us away from your stuff?

You talk of contempt for the minorities, and I perfectly agree it has the potential to arise, but on a personal level, I do not hold contempt towards the LGBTQ community. If I am to answer that last question: it is because your stuff and our stuff are not the same. Using your analogy, the fountains would be different in some way functionally speaking. There is nothing unequal here, one is not better than the other, they are just different. Men and women are different, but I would not discriminate in terms of job opportunities, education, and the rest, for instance. Difference is not something to be afraid of, and I don't think asserting that one is different to the other is homophobic.

Again, if the word does not matter, what part of my viewpoint is homophobic?

Berserker Lord: it is not that they are not deserving of it at all, the word 'deserve' does no come into it, nor would I say that a marriage would be superior to a union; they would be of the same value.

Th!nkPi: my view differs from yours in that I don't believe that calling something 'marriage' is in any way a right. My point was that there are clear differences between the two unions, and having children is the most obvious example.

 

[Brap]

Why have 2 different things when you can just have 1 thing that works for all?

Would make everything so much more simple and can be applied to so many different scenarios.

 

[elcheeso]

Honestly marriage is by the very definition a union of the two different sexes. Most of the gay community wants the word applied to them for full "equality" when the word itself seriously does not matter. The gay community shouldn't want marriage; the want for marriage comes from wanting the same rights that marriage grants. If civil unions grant exactly the same rights that marriage grants, then that's what should be applied to homosexuals.

Wanting the word marriage to apply to gay people is an overreaching grab at full equality; equity is what should be being strove for. It'd also make the whole actual issue (civil union rights equaling marriage rights) so much easier to fight for if we dropped the whole "I WANT MARRIAGE"

I think it would be easier if we just called the legal union a civil union for everyone and then left marriage as a purely social and/or religious thing. Easy doesn't always equal right, however. There are a number of people in the gay community who think acquiring equal protections under the law would be much easier if we just completely ignored trans people, letting them do their own biz because the straight community and much of the gay community considers them icky poo gross, but are you going to argue in favour of doing that just because, IDK, what we really want is some easy equality that doesn't happen to include people that a significant portion of the community don't consider important enough to fight for? Do you disagree that separate but equal doesn't really work in general?

As for you frogoholic, I don't know how else to put it to you and you don't really seem interested in taking this shit in. Straight couples are not inherently capable of having children. Sterile people exist, as do people like an ex of a friend of mine whose body was literally incapable of going through pregnancy without killing her due to medical reasons. People also often choose not to have children. Plus, even if every straight couple could and did have children, would the nature of their legal status change when a woman goes through menopause? What if a straight couple if married, has kids and then one of the parents comes out as trans and transitions? What would you do with these groups? Would they have to apply for civil unions? Would the status of their marriages change under the law? What purpose does the biological divide serve? You haven't answered this and it is the most important thing behind your argument. What purpose does separating the two serve in a practical sense? Most people are aware that gay couples cannot reproduce with each other.

Your viewpoint is homophobic because you cannot justify why the biological divide matters in terms of separating the words. You justify your belief with arguments from biology, but can't explain why it matters and certainly not why non-reproducing straight people get a free pass. You just want to keep the gays away from the straights out of fear that we'll somehow diminish marriage. If your most important (and quite frankly, only) argument cannot be explained beyond "IT'S JUST DIFFERENT OK, I DON'T KNOW WHY!", we know you're not coming into this believing that gay and straight people are truly on equal footing.

PS: Don't consider this a free pass to ignore the more important questions I asked up there, but I'm curious. What if gay people got marriage, and straight people got civil unions? Would that be alright with you?

 

[KM]

Why have 2 different things when you can just have 1 thing that works for all?
Would make everything so much more simple and can be applied to so many different scenarios.

This. Brown v. Board of Education proved more than anything else that separate is inherently unequal. Even if you want to grant all of the rights to both homosexual and heterosexual couples, on paper, it is inevitable that over time, discrimination and inequality will come purely because of having more members in one group, and having existing biases against the members of the minority group. You can't honestly say that if you created a civil union for homosexuals and a marriage for heterosexuals that you wouldn't have society-driven discrimination in the form of churches and other entities accepting marriages and rejecting civil unions. It's rather naïve to think that calling it a different name is going to get people anywhere towards equality.

The most easy way to express this is in an analogy. Let's say that there are two new theme parks opening up in town. One of them is called Disneyland, and it allows 90-95% of the population to go through its doors. The other is called Location Where One Endeavors To Have Fun, and it caters to the 5-10% of the population who aren't allowed to go into Disneyland. Upon their opening, both of these theme parks have the same amenities, the same rides, the same prices, the same food available. However, Disneyland has the cultural cache of decades, whereas LWOETHF has only recently come about, and was until recently a shoddier version of Disneyland. Over time, Disneyland continues to be successful, booming every night with thousands of visitors all reveling in their joy and happiness - everyone wants to go there, and everyone wants to work there. Meanwhile, LWOETHF is struggling - although its patron base is incredibly enthusiastic, it's much smaller, and because it doesn't have the reputation that Disneyland has, people who go there are seen as lesser, and as excluded. People at Disneyland feel good about opening a park for the people who simply couldn't be allowed to go in there, but those at LWOETHF feel as though they're being cheated. There's nothing relevant different between them and the people at Disneyland, yet they're not allowed to experience the action of going into Disneyland and seeing what everyone else does.

As ridiculous as this analogy may seem, it's a pretty accurate description of what happened with segregation in America in the 1900's, and what would happen with Civil Unions if they were granted all the same rights as marriage and the issue were dropped. Even if the two drinking fountains start off the same way, lack of care, lack of maintainance, and lack of respect due to ingrained discrimination against the minority group will make separate inherently unequal.

Also, as elcheeso has said, the capacity to have children is irrelevant to straight and gay couples, as it's not a given for straight couples. However, even if it were, I fail to see how this holds any relevance to the institution of marriage whatsoever. Marriage, whether you like it or not, is in the domain of the state, and as such, it should have nothing to do with the touchy-feely concept of bearing fruit from one's labor, so to speak. What a marriage represents is both practical and sentimental. Sentimentally, it represents the bonding of two people who have decided to (hopefully) spend the rest of their lives together and love and care for one another. Practically, it means that both members get the ability to share a bank account, and insurance, and other such rights. Nowhere in this equation does the ability to produce offspring come into effect - I think you'll find that bearing children happens independent of marriage quite a lot.

You say, "why would homosexuals not be satisfied with getting the same rights with a different name?". We've told you. Yet, you've failed to give us a rational reason as to why there should be a different name. At this point, this point of view seems more like a struggle to maintain some sense of superiority over homosexual couples given the inevitable tide of human rights rather than a rational argument about "preserving" the "purity" of marriage.

 

[Oglemi]

I think it would be easier if we just called the legal union a civil union for everyone and then left marriage as a purely social and/or religious thing.

This would be ideal.

But good job in overextending the argument to talking about trans people in the LGBTQ community: I'm talking purely etymologically. The religious issue of gay people being married would still exist, but the actual civil rights issues would be resolved if everyone legally and secularly entered a civil union.

The major issue is that the civil rights issue is currently intertwined within a religious issue. That's what needs to separated. And besides, you can't really argue that there are few gay people that would actually seek marriage if the two were separated.

 

[Minwu]

...So, does anyone actually have a solid understanding of gender? I'm starting to see, partly after hearing what other people have to say about their experiences, that I don't really hold a strong internal experience of "manhood" like others seem to. Although I'm not going through genital dysphoria and don't really take offense to male pronouns, could I be NB?

 

[Crux]

I am against gay marriage and I'm clearly not a homophobe. Brap can fuck off IMO.

 

[Bughouse]

The argument over usage of the term marriage is largely unproductive. That perhaps no legal union should be called marriage is somewhat persuasive logically but ultimately never going to happen, so that is a pointless (albeit often stated) opinion, elcheeso and Oglemi.

Just because many gay couples may only "form a legal union" at the courthouse without a church/synagogue/mosque/other place of religious worship ever being involved doesn't mean that society won't call it a marriage. Ask an atheist couple if they would call their union a marriage or not. It has been divorced (lol puns) from its religious heritage and is simply the common parlance of two people making a life commitment to each other. No one is going to mention the union day on which they signed paperwork to form a legal union with their partner; they're going to talk about their wedding day on which they married their partner.

 

[jumpluff]

I think it would be easier if we just called the legal union a civil union for everyone and then left marriage as a purely social and/or religious thing. Easy doesn't always equal right, however. There are a number of people in the gay community who think acquiring equal protections under the law would be much easier if we just completely ignored trans people, letting them do their own biz because the straight community and much of the gay community considers them icky poo gross, but are you going to argue in favour of doing that just because, IDK, what we really want is some easy equality that doesn't happen to include people that a significant portion of the community don't consider important enough to fight for? Do you disagree that separate but equal doesn't really work in general?

As for you frogoholic, I don't know how else to put it to you and you don't really seem interested in taking this shit in. Straight couples are not inherently capable of having children. Sterile people exist, as do people like an ex of a friend of mine whose body was literally incapable of going through pregnancy without killing her due to medical reasons. People also often choose not to have children. Plus, even if every straight couple could and did have children, would the nature of their legal status change when a woman goes through menopause? What if a straight couple if married, has kids and then one of the parents comes out as trans and transitions? What would you do with these groups? Would they have to apply for civil unions? Would the status of their marriages change under the law? What purpose does the biological divide serve? You haven't answered this and it is the most important thing behind your argument. What purpose does separating the two serve in a practical sense? Most people are aware that gay couples cannot reproduce with each other.

Your viewpoint is homophobic because you cannot justify why the biological divide matters in terms of separating the words. You justify your belief with arguments from biology, but can't explain why it matters and certainly not why non-reproducing straight people get a free pass. You just want to keep the gays away from the straights out of fear that we'll somehow diminish marriage. If your most important (and quite frankly, only) argument cannot be explained beyond "IT'S JUST DIFFERENT OK, I DON'T KNOW WHY!", we know you're not coming into this believing that gay and straight people are truly on equal footing.

PS: Don't consider this a free pass to ignore the more important questions I asked up there, but I'm curious. What if gay people got marriage, and straight people got civil unions? Would that be alright with you?

I completely agree. Marriage should not be state-sanctioned, and whatever form of government-recognised union remains should be equally applicable to queer and straight alike. Even if marriage were not state-sanctioned, it would be super discriminatory to block queer people from accessing it, but I admit at that point I would probably not care (although this may be skewed by the fact that I am not interested in religious institutions) and leave that to people within the various religions to argue over. BUT marriage is state-sanctioned and it enjoys a lot of cultural legitimacy that civil unions do not. Marriage is seen as the ultimate endpoint of a relationship, and when referred to as such, nobody calls it a civil union (here, anyway). They call it marriage. Additionally, many of our customs around unions are related to the institution of marriage. So as long as it exists this way, the fact queer people cannot get legally married in many places is not just religious discrimination but state discrimination that reflects and reinforces social segregation. And what place does the state, particularly secular states, have to discriminate based on religious values?

The biological values are complete rubbish and just as bigoted for reasons already delineated. Not to mention that marriage, whether you like it or not, is not purely for the purposes of reproduction these days. Quite a lot of people have children, intentionally and unintentionally, outside of marriage, and this is becoming increasingly accepted. Nobody I've met in my life except my bigoted grandmother cares that my brother and I were born out of wedlock. It's absurd to appeal to the definition of marriage back when, I don't know, it was more of a property transaction. These days marriage is viewed primarily as a romantic union and I assume you are not calling into question the romantic integrity of queer relationships.

(fuck marriage though)

eta: you = frog, not cheeso obv lol

Minwu: have had this/a similar experience before but am cis, so can't really offer you good advice there except that genital dysphoria is not a necessary condition for being trans/GQ/whatever you are questioning about atm. Would be interested in talking to you about what I went through or even just listening to what you're thinking atm sometime but like I said I'm cis and I don't want to gaslight you or give you misinformation (especially as I feel like my situation may be different ?). Pronouns seem to be a really individual thing tbh

 

[Demoness]

...So, does anyone actually have a solid understanding of gender? I'm starting to see, partly after hearing what other people have to say about their experiences, that I don't really hold a strong internal experience of "manhood" like others seem to. Although I'm not going through genital dysphoria and don't really take offense to male pronouns, could I be NB?

Really, as Jumpluff said, gender is an individual thing that really only you yourself can understand that well. I don't want to say anything about what you may be feeling because I just flat out don't know your situation or how you think. However, as a transgender individual, I can confirm that you don't need to have genital dysphoria to have questions about your gender. I never went through it, and I questioned my gender for a good chunk of time. In the end, you are really the only person who can know for sure what you feel and how you identify. The best advice I can give is to explore these feelings you have and see what you can discover. I do recommend talking to someone about what you are feeling, however, as I find that talking, or even typing down what you are feeling, makes it easier to understand and sort out what you are thinking.

Edit: I guess I should also say that I don't really have gender dysphoria as well. I know it is there because I feel little bursts of dislike when I really think about my body, particularly my hair. It just isn't a constant force that pervades my thoughts every day. What does is the mix of anger and fear that I might not ever find a significant other, but that's something I rather not get any deeper into right now.

 

[Oglemi]

It's not an unproductive argument if that's what it takes to remove the legal civil rights issues from the institution of marriage lol. I don't doubt saying "we got married" or the celebration of such will stay around for years to come, but our language and culture doesn't stay static. If everyone enters a civil union and a marriage is a religious/secondary aspect that isn't required for the process (it technically isn't today but still), I can imagine views changing on what it means to be "married".