Thoughts on the Term "Marriage Equality"

submitted by mvmlego from self.LGBDropTheT

Typically, in order to refer to the concept of two men being allowed to marry one-another or two women being allowed to marry one-another, I use the term "same-sex marriage". More often, though, I see or hear people (especially LGB or TQ+ people) use the phrase "marriage equality" to refer to this concept--and one activist has even corrected me for failing to use it. However, I'm not a proponent of the latter term for a couple of reasons, and I'm interested in sharing and hearing critiques of my reasoning.

For one thing, "same-sex marriage" is less ambiguous that "marriage equality". Forty or fifty years ago, "marriage equality" would probably be taken to mean the legalization of interracial marriages. In another decade or two, it will probably be taken to mean the legalization of polygamous marriages.

The other reason that I prefer "same-sex marriage" is that "marriage equality" is morally-laden. I generally don't care for morally-laden terminology, since it tends to unnecessarily hinder discussion between people who aren't like-minded.

Do you prefer one term over the other? What's your reasoning?

all 19 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]8bitgay 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

For one thing, "same-sex marriage" is less ambiguous that "marriage equality". Forty or fifty years ago, "marriage equality" would probably be taken to mean the legalization of interracial marriages. In another decade or two, it will probably be taken to mean the legalization of polygamous marriages.

Totally agree with that.

But apart from this point, yeah, it's same sex marriage. Sorry to burst TRAs' bubbles, but a transman was always able to marry a cis man. In fact I know of situations like this, of transmen who married their cis partners before same sex marriage was available in their countries.

The issues gay men have with legal rights and such was always because we are in relationships with the same sex. The same issues simply don't apply if your partner is opposite sex but identifies as same gender, non-binary, etc. For the law they're still opposite sex, and it's still a socially accepted straight relationship. Even for outside viewers, your transman partner can just present in a more feminine way to avoid certain situations.

[–]hermiona52 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Oh yeah. A few weeks ago (or months? time flew fast in 2020) there was a news that a first lesbian couple married in Poland.

And I was like "How?". We don't even have a right for civil partnerships, let alone a right to marry. So I instantly thought that someone trans was involved. And sure it was, a marriage between a male and female.

They celebrated it as some kind of progressive win for lesbians, when actual lesbians like me won't be able to marry for a next few years or more likely decades. I was and still am fucking outraged at this.

They don't get to take from us those important milestones.

[–]our_team_is_winning 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Given that the Erasure of Women Act is called the "equality" act, I'm not too keen on that word just now!

Same-sex drives them crazy I'm sure because they don't want to acknowledge one's sex. It's all about "gender identity."

Personally, "marriage equality" to me sounds like your partner should be sharing the household chores.

[–]reluctant_commenter 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Same-sex drives them crazy I'm sure because they don't want to acknowledge one's sex. It's all about "gender identity."

Yup, this right here. I'll keep calling it same-sex marriage anyway.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

wow that's the whole reason right there...erasure of acknowledging it was a fight for same sex rights not gender equality...

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I think same sex marriage is better for the same points you mention. By using "equality," a person's mind will jump to the most relavent controversy to their time and group. Before homosexuals were noticed much and racial equality was what everyone was talking about, race is what marriage equality would be applied to. And eventually, when same sex marriage can be safely taken for granted (hopefully) people will be looking to the next marginalized group when the buzzword is mentioned.

This is why I hate langauge, it's too maleable to make a statement that can last. I prefer math, you can't mess that up without making an objectively provable mistake

[–]mvmlego[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

This is why I hate langauge, it's too maleable to make a statement that can last. I prefer math, you can't mess that up without making an objectively provable mistake

Haha, it's nice to see a fellow math major on here. I agree. As much as I like some other fields of study, including certain fields within philosophy, I've always come back to math when I need certainty. If politics somehow manages to corrupt math, then that's when society is finally done for.

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Politics would never be able to corrupt math. They could only corrupt the name (which is part of language) by replacing it. Math would be unharmed, it would just need a different name at that point. But any attempt to do so would be sure evidence that whatever power is involved needs to be eliminated.

[–]mvmlego[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well, about that...

https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/08/05/224-woke-academics-say-not-necessarily/

(EDIT: I'm not recommending the website as a whole, BTW. I just think this particular story is relevant and well-written.)

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

HOLY SHIT! COUTNING is now considered to be imperialistic. Not only could non-Europeans not figure out sex, but apparently they can't figure out counting either. It is true that base 10 and arabic numerals are choices, but at absolutely no time in the history of the universe has there been a discrepancy between any counting method such that 2+2 could equal anything other than 4 when measuring physical phenomona. Only abstract concepts and language allow for false math. But to say that 2+2 could ever legitimately equal 5?

These people are shooting themselves in the foot at this point, especially since they're mimicing 1984 so well

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/08/2-plus-2-never-equals-5/

Smart guy describes whats going on.

[–]panderichthys 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Honestly, I don't have much to say other than I strongly agree with both of your points. "Same-sex marriage", being as explicit as you can get, cannot be twisted in bad faith to claim you said something you didn't. And yes, because humans are buttholes, many, many demographics other than same-sex attracted people have been denied marriage equality. When speaking about us specifically, I'd rather we just use the term that describes us exclusively.

"Marriage equality", being a morally-laden term, as you put it, doesn't cut it for me.

[–]OPPRESSED_REPTILIANIntersex male | GNC | Don't call me "a gay", "twink" or "queen" 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In another decade or two, it will probably be taken to mean the legalization of polygamous marriages.

I sure hope it doesn't...

The other reason that I prefer "same-sex marriage" is that "marriage equality" is morally-laden. I generally don't care for morally-laden terminology, since it tends to unnecessarily hinder discussion between people who aren't like-minded.

Okay, I was opening this thread fully expecting to disagree and post my usual statement of "why are you guys hung up on words" - but I actually agree here. I don't see marriage as a "gay rights victory" and I don't see a lack of same sex marriage as a "loss of human rights." It is what it is, and both legally and socially, marriage is a stupid concept all around. A money sink, laced with sexist "tradition", and legal stuff that doesn't make much sense to me. It's not, nor has it ever been, something I think is relevant to my "rights" or "equality."

But at the risk of sounding pretentious... It's likely because I've been through hardships that a white, rich, gay male in California has experienced, so, I have bigger priorities...

[–]mvmlego[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I sure hope it doesn't...

Oh, it will. I'm not saying that polygamy will be legal in a decade or two, but it will be a part of public debate. Specifically, I think it's the cause which left-wing identity politics will champion next, once the trans issue is settled one way or the other.

[–]Seahorse 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I hadn't considered your stance but I agree with it.

[–]BiHorror 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Just gonna repost what I said on the other sub:

Eh, I'm personally fine with both but you do have a point with:

Forty or fifty years ago, "marriage equality" would probably be taken to mean the legalization of interracial marriages. In another decade or two, it will probably be taken to mean the legalization of polygamous marriages

Although, I do think it depends on the context. If I'm reading this correctly, if we're on the discussion of LGB then I think it would be fine to say "marriage equality." But, if we were just talking about anything and brought up marriage equality, then it could be confusing since it could mean anything! Are we talking issues relating to same sex marriage? Polygamous marriage? So yeah. I think it depends. Especially if there's different groups going about marriage equality at the same time.

The other reason that I prefer "same-sex marriage" is that "marriage equality" is morally-laden. I generally don't care for morally-laden terminology, since it tends to unnecessarily hinder discussion between people who aren't like-minded.

Anyone willing to explaing this bit? I never thought that "marriage equality" was considered morally-laden.

Edit: words

[–]mvmlego[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For anyone who's curious, I posted the same thing (as well as a proper response to BiHorror's comment) on s/Bisexuals, since that sub could really use some attention: https://saidit.net/s/Bisexuals/comments/784v/thoughts_on_the_term_marriage_equality/

[–]fuck_reddit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with your reasons. I prefer same-sex marriage as well because that is exactly what it was. "Marriage equality" is a milquetoast euphemism.