this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2025
1059 points (99.4% liked)
Political Humor
1350 readers
1255 users here now
Welcome to Political Humor!
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other.
- No harassment.
- No sexism, racism or bigotry.
- All arguments should be made in good faith.
- No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence.
- All posts should relate to politics and be of a humorous nature.
- No bots, spam or self-promotion.
- If you want to run a bot, ask first.
- Site wide rules apply.
- Have fun.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, that's just fining a different word to describe what the government already does.
I don't know that I need the government to use a different word than the rest of society for an arrangement just because some people have a special ritual around it.
A government marriage is required for recognition by the government, and a (whatever religion or group) marriage is required for recognition by (whatever religion or group).
It's not that one should stop using the word or the other has a more legitimate claim, it's just different things in the same category.
It's not what the government already does at all. I can't get a government "marriage" to my 3 housemates so we can all enjoy tax advantages and share medical benefits with each other and whatever else married people do that for. 2 of us could pair up but there'd be an odd man out.
I meant more the legal partnerships aspect than the specifics of who it grants it to. Also, in some areas you can get a marriage between multiple people.
Marriage is the word for the non-business personal binding that you speak of.
You're saying they should open the doors to that to everyone in whatever organization they see fit, which I agree with.
You're also saying they should use a different word for it, which I don't. Religion doesn't own the concept of marriage.
May as well say that we're deciding that religion can't perform marriages anymore. You can have the same party and ceremony, but it's just a Catholic/Jewish/Hindu/etc union. If you want to get married you need to go down to the courthouse.
Personally I don't give a shit what it's called. Calling the legal aspect something else would shut down the resistance from the religious whackjobs that are hung up on the word marriage and the fact that it doesn't fit whatever their religions definition of it is.
Eh, they don't get to win. I care what it's called because that's the word for it in English. Letting them win means that they'll just advance to saying that the government shouldn't be encouraging what they disagree with.
When people proposed "civil unions" as the alternative to gay marriage it shut up exactly zero of the nut jobs. When gay marriage was legalized they started arguing about how you can't force them to make cakes.
Appeasement doesn't work. Get petty and make the nutters defend everything they've got twisted around in their heads. Care about the word if for no other reason than it makes them pissy.