You still get it wrong. No matter. I explained it was simply a creative “drop dead”. Again, the creativity I can muster is both a blessing and a curse.
Actually, no. I don’t discuss this very often, except for here. And then only to offer a voice of opposition. I guess you would prefer an echo chamber, a circle jerk where you all extol the righteousness of SSM in masturbatory bliss. Here’s a tip, honey. You don’t need the circle. And come to think of it, I don’t recall ever starting a thread about this issue. And if I did, certainly not to the extent that a zealot would. Sorry to ruin tyour theory. Not that it matters one way or another anyway.
And I’ve argued with you to to the same frustration level. But you can’t see that. That’s one of the negatives about being part of a vocal majority, a mob, there’s very little incentive to evaluate your own behavior or to be fair to the voice of opposition. That’s the nature of the beast. The fact is that you try to rally the crowd. And that makes you a cowardly and immoral punk.
This is really funny. Really. And the way you do this is to continue to post to me, and respond to posts that I direct at others. Surely you can see the supidi—, ahem, the humor in that.
I’d just like to reiterate a point I and others have made earlier in the thread. In my opinion, the meaning of the word “Marriage” is undermined when the “right people” marry for the wrong reasons (ie. gold digging, or to get a Visa). When the “wrong people” want to marry for the right reasons, it’s time to expand the definition.
You’re forgetting that magellan’s definition of marriage is very much his own. Since he wants to base it in tradition, he’s forced to overlook things like how many people are involved, what the financial restrictions and rights are a.s.o., and pare it down to ‘husband and wife’. All the other traditional bits he doesn’t approve of, like polygamous marriages or relationships between husband and serf are thus cleared out. Leaving the shiny institution, unchanged and unchangeable.
You wish someone who disagreed with you would drop dead. And I’m trying to quash dissent.
That’s the thing: I am a zealot. I don’t think that’s a bad word or a bad thing to be, if you truly believe in something. Dr. King was a zealot. So was Jesus, and Gandhi, and all the people who get shit done. You’re not a zealot… so what are you? A hater who’s not worth the effort. So, from now on, I won’t respond to you, not because of a lack of zeal on my part, but because I should be spending my time more productively.
I do recognize that it doesn’t help the institution when people marry for the wrong reasons. Some of the intentional abuse is legal, which we can’t do much about (gold-digging). Some of it is illegal (Visa), which we should attempt to reduce as much as we can. I’m not understanding how you jump from these problems to expanding the definition of the word, thereby diluting the meaning from another direction.
Marriage is also a legal contract and that’s what we’re talking about here. I couldn’t care less what the bible says. Marriage laws have helped people *and *they’ve greatly complicated the legal system. They’ve also been the basis for discrimination (miscegenation laws) and government nannyism (prohibitions on sex outside of marriage). If the state had such an interest in preserving marriage for the sake of preserving marriage, it would be in their best interest to make it a bit harder to obtain and practically impossible to dissolve. But it’s supremely simple to get married and almost as simple to divorce. This is of benefit to the state, how?
Obviously, it doesn’t amount to much to you because once again, you are not terribly impacted by the differences are you? Try crawling out of your magellan-centered universe and try to imagine being treated like a second-class citizen. It’s called compassion.
Oh yes, I can blame California, because you folks had the opportunity to change the status quo and be at the front of the bus to change, but the trogs that live in California had other plans. If it makes you feel any better, my current residential state is way more behind in the times. But having been raised in California for the first half of my life, I always thought of it as a more progressive state that often sets the tone for the rest of the country.
And again, how is that equal to, or even just as good as, what a hetero married couple is faced with?
Here we get to the crux of my argument. No, most emphatically. I believe that it’s time for the federal government to step up and say to the states, “No, you do not get to discriminate in any way, shape, or form based on sexual orientation. Remember Separate but Equal? Yeah, we didn’t like it the first time around either.”
I don’t see how.
[/quote]
Sure you do. You don’t apply it to inter-racial couples. You don’t apply it to couples of vastly differing ages or elderly couples. You don’t apply it couples who marry for money or prestige. You don’t apply it to couples of pre-arranged marriages. The fact is the only distinction you make negatively impacts same-sex couples, because those are the only ones you are willing to legally prohibit.
The definition is your own. I just posted a definition that doesn’t include that specific terminology. You can post as many definitions as you want that do include your terminology, but that doesn’t make it the ultimate Way It Should Be. I could easily post the text of miscegenation laws, but that doesn’t make that antiquated definition right, now does it? In Massachusetts, your definition is moot. Why? Because there is no legal basis for denying marriage to same-sex couples. There is no more detriment to society than allowing celibate people to marry or allowing old people to marry or stupid people to marry.
But that doesn’t justify why they should be allowed to marry on the basis that marriage is “the ideal environment for the raising of children.” It seems to me, by this logic, you should be denying couples who don’t intend to procreate during their marriage and older couples outside of their child-bearing years, the right to marry. Clearly, there is no societal benefit for their marriage.
Further, you have already said that you think gays should be able to adopt. So if marriage is the ideal environment for the children, why is it in society’s best interest to deny it to a gay parent?
This attitude that you can parent, but you can’t be married and therefore you cannot provide the ideal environment for a child, makes even less sense.
How? Other than the obvious parts argument, which is moot if you take procreation out of the equation, how?
Okaaaaay. Since we’re defining words, then, define ‘compromise’.
You truly believe that if same-sex couples are granted the right to marry that people will, for that reason, decide *not *to marry and, further, this is going to lead to a breakdown of society? How does someone else’s marriage make my marriage less special? Is my marriage less special because Anna Nicole Smith married some old guy for his money? Is it less special because Bill Clinton got a blowjob from some starry-eyed intern? Wait, it’s gotta be less special because that bastard homo, Ted Haggard, is still allowed to be married! Talk about trashing marriage values! Talk about a marriage of convenience, eh? I’m appalled and I can’t quite look at my husband in quite the same way! What do I win? :rolleyes:
Actually, no. I keep addressing this “marriage” thing repeatedly. The fact of the matter is that I don’t accept *your *definition. Because it’s exclusive and frankly, I don’t want to be a part of that exclusivity.
I see. We’re just changing the goalposts to fit currently acceptable bigotry. The thing is, we’re not expanding the definition. We’re just not choosing to limit it in an ideological, nay bigoted is the right word, fashion you’d like to.
No, it’s really not different. It’s still a bias that has no foundation in reality. A married couple is a married couple is a married couple. White, black, rich, poor, religious, atheist, in love, in lust, ambivalent, childless, parental, patriarchal, matriarchal…All. The. Same. As related to the idea, that for whatever reason, these two people (sometimes more! :eek:) want to go through life as a unit.
From a legal standpoint, there is should be no difference if the couple is male-female or same sex.
You’re arent’ looking at it. You are spouting it. Just as I am. My ideology is that humans ought to be treated with equal respect and should not be discriminated against by our laws. Your ideology is clearly different.
There is no marriage in nature. It’s a human construct.
Ah, tradition. That same word that people have used for centuries to discriminate against others. Slavery was a tradition that withstood the test of thousands of years. It still exists actually. That must make it right. Colonialism and imperialism is a long tradition. Our founding fathers must have been wrong to buck the long-standing trend. What’d you say about tradition again?
Don’t start insulting me because you don’t like my argument. If you want to take a poll, go right ahead and ask people if they think my argument lacks reason. I understand you perfectly. It appears that many others do as well.
Wait, I should determine whether gay marriage is just based on an analysis of the NBA and WNBA? So, the gist of your argument is that since same sex couples can’t procreate, they have no right to call themselves “married”?
Right. And every time someone says FOAD they really desire for that person to both fuck off (?) and die. The mind boggles…
And if you don’t see how you were trying to quash dissent I can only recommend you think it about it longer and harder. Perhaps try turning the tables. Or create an analogy using a different issue: abortion, perhaps. I do find it extremely surprising that someone whose views were in an extreme minority not very long ago would approve of the tactic of rallying the mob. Extremely.
Good for you. Really. Me? I am a member of society who is voicing his opinion on how that society should be run. I’ve thought about it and come out that I think that in the long term SSM would not benefit that society. It’s really that simple.
I’m not of the mind that for something to be a good idea that it need benefit me personally. I even think that something can be bad for me and be a greater good. No one person, including myself, is a valid litmus test.
To be honest, I’m torn on this issue. I do believe that states should be able to craft their own laws. If nothing else, it allows for 50 smaller societies giving each of us more options. But this may be one of those things that I’d be willing to go federal. The reason is that it would more easily allow for my idea to work: one set of laws that are accessed by the two different groups.
As far as “separate but equal”, my idea would avoid this problem. The separate but equal problem was not that the two groups were unequal, but that the systems they were tapping into were unequal. That they, in fact, couldn’t be both separate and equal. My idea has both groups tapping into an identical set of benefits. IDENTICAL. So, are you with me?
They’re the only group not comprised of the two components necessary: a man and a woman.
You can post any definition you want. It doesn’t change the fact that 1) marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman and 2) anyone not infected with this PC nonsense would readily admit that the definition the world has been working with until very recently is that a marriage is comprised of a man and a woman. So plain was this that past generations in some some states didn’t even feel the need to spell it out. Now, if you would like to argue that they were allowing for SSM, I will look forward to being thoroughly entertained.
The basis exists in nature. Marriage was the societal recognition of the natural coming together of a man and woman who wanted to commit to each other and raise a family. Do you really deny this?
I think that these marriages is not without benefit. Nor are SSMs. The problem is that only the SSMs fly in the face of tradition, the definition, and nature. (And, no, I’m not saying that homosexuality is not naturally occurring.)
It can be the ideal environment because the child gets the close bonding interaction with both a man and a woman. Children get different things from a mother and a father. It a practical fact that a SS couple does not provide that.
It acknowledges that a loving home plays a huge role. It also acknowledges that if there’s a child to adopt, he or she came form a less than ideal environment. A single parent can provide a terrific environment, but it’s not ideal. A single parent I know liked me spending time with her son so he got more of the male thing. she is really a fantastic mother and her kid turned out amazing. But that doesn’t mean even she viewed the situation for him as less than ideal. I have no doubt that a gay couple can provide as good an environment as she did.
I do believe that marriage will be viewed as less special. Therefore, more people (hertero) will decide to enter into it. I view this as not a good thing for society.
I gotta ask: what does this have to do with the discussion? Or did you want to discuss his lying that got him impeached? Not following you here.
No, my goalpost are quite eternal: marriage is comprised of a husband and a wife, a man and a woman. and how can you argue with a straight face (no pun intended, though it would have been a good one) that what you advocate wouldn’t be expanding the definition of the word? That’s absurd.
If A + B = A + A or B + B, then A = B. But then we wouldn’t need the words “man” or “woman”, would we?
And I see you think polygamy should qualify, as well. We’ll disagree there, too.
It is. But even without it, don’t you think we’d see the man/woman/family unit as a distinct group? Society simply reacted to what is the natural tendency of humans. hey saw value in that, embraced it, encouraged it, and protected it. Do you disagree with this?
You are arguing here that all tradition is automatically bad. We are lightyears apart on that.
Once again, if the couple is is not compromised of a man and woman, marriage is off the table. I’d like them to enjoy all the same rights and privileges, but marriage should refer to a man/woman union.
Nice try, but your obfuscations have no power here. Your argument depends on the assumption that all tradition is automatically good. Man up and defend that assumption, or go away.
Wow, you got me. Was it my insistence that we stick to tradition and not give SS couples any rights and prevent them from adopting? Oh wait, I said the opposite. Well, you almost had me, I guess. Keep trying, though.
On preview, way to pad your post count!! Nice job.
No, it was your insistence that your definition of marriage needs to be preserved *because *it’s traditional. You still haven’t explained what makes this particular tradition more defensible than slavery and imperialism.
No, that is not that only reason. And not THE reason. The fact that the definition has traditionally meant a union of a man and a woman is simply a fact. That tradition, I feel has served us well. I feel it will serve us well in the future, particularly if we can keep the definition where it has been. I also think that a concept that has served us so well for so long, i.e, a married heterosexual couple having children and raising a family, deserves to have a word to describe it without confusion.
I’m not aware of the U.S. having tradition of imperialism. As far as slavery, I’ve explained this, as well. The natural law theory espoused in the Declaration of Independence gets it right: all men are created equal. The country didn’t live up to those founding ideals. Finally, we did.
On preview, I see you’re now speaking for another poster. Thusly, is a sock revealed? Or can you read minds?
You’re right. I’m not gay and I’m already married, so legal same-sex marriage doesn’t affect me personally, except for the fact that it makes me prouder to live in a country that treats all of its citizens equitably and respectfully.
Yes, to an extent. But we are the **United **States of America, not 50 smaller societies. We are not unified when the law treats a certain segment of the population one way in one part of the country than in different way in a another part.
For instance, there are several states that disenfranchise convicted felons for variable amounts of time, up to and including life (Kentucky and Virginia). This creates a disparity in the rights of US citizens to vote for their federal representatives and president. A California felon who has completed probation and released back into society could vote in the Presidential election, but a Kentucky or Virgina felon can never again vote for the rest of his life. Whichever way you land in the spectrum, this variance should not exist because it means that, with no other distinction, a US citizen from, say, California, has more federal rights than a US citizen from Kentucky.
Right. The legal right to marry and have reciprocity in recognition of that marriage between every state in the Union (one set of marriage laws) accessible to both straight and same-sex couples (for two groups). Makes sense to me and precisely what I think should happen.
[quote]
As far as “separate but equal”, my idea would avoid this problem. The separate but equal problem was not that the two groups were unequal, but that the systems they were tapping into were unequal. That they, in fact, couldn’t be both separate and equal. My idea has both groups tapping into an identical set of benefits. IDENTICAL. So, are you with me?
[quote]
Not following the first part. As to the second part, you only need one set of laws that already exist. You just need to stop making those laws inaccessible to same-sex couples. There is no earthly reason to complicate the laws and apply separate but equal sets of laws to two different groups. That only makes it possible to tinker with one set without affecting the other; thereby negating the equal part. Why not just legally recognize all marriages as civil unions? If you want to call yourself married, well have it, but everyone’s license says ‘Civil Union.’ So, are you with me?
And yet you still haven’t explained the significance of gender with regard to marriage other than it’s tradition, it’s natural, it’s the only definition I can accept.
You say your defense of marriage is not based on a particular couple’s desire to have it mean what they want it to mean. I say it is based on whether that particular couple is opposite sex, which you strongly defend. If the couple is same-sex, you vehemently deny they can have a legally recognized marriage. That’s the only distinction to make, but you make it just the same.
You don’t have to defend interracial couples because there are no longer laws preventing them from marrying. From colonial times until very recently, though, there were numerous miscegenation laws in many states. The opposition to interracial marriage was widespread and vehement. There were very few people that would defend it. The only reason this changed is because the feds stepped in and declared them it unconstitutional. The only reason it came to this is because society’s attitude slowly changed as it now taking place with regard to same-sex marriage.
Would you have defended marriage at that time as between a man and woman of the same race? That is how antiquated I see your position. The very arguments you put forth to deny same-sex marriage are the very same arguments that was used for centuries to deny interracial marriages.
So what? Arranged marriages are also a tradition, as are marriages restricted to same race. Again, this is different how?
This isn’t even a reasonable argument. Just because you say this is PC nonsense, doesn’t make it so. Infected? Get real. You’re going to have to try harder than this. I don’t know what stone tablets you’re working with, but whatever they are, the time has come to smash them to a bazillion pieces and join us in the 21st century. Some words to live by: Tradition is a guide and not a jailer. (Maugham)
:rolleyes: It looks like you’re perfectly capable of inventing my arguments for me. Have at it. Everything says whatever you want it say, whether it says that or not, apparently.
Yeah. I deny it. Societal recognition does not equal natural recognition. There is no basis in nature because, again, nature doesn’t recognize marriage. An unmarried couple may be just as prolific in family-making as a married couple, obviously. Or quite the opposite. Marital status has absolutely no natural impact whatsoever on family building.
So, you’re going to let a little tradition, the way a word is defined to you, and (well, no, not) nature, get in the way of benefit to society? I thought you said SSMs were not beneficial? Now they are?
But you’re in favor of adoption for same-sex couples. Young children of divorced parents very often lack any kind of bonding with their non-custodial parent. Do you think we should prohibit divorce between couples with young children, so we can ensure an environment in which children can keep that connection with both parents?
Do you think that gay couples lack family, friends and acquaintances of the opposite sex that can impact their children’s life positively? You don’t feel that gay couples can provide just as loving and in some cases even more loving home than a heterosexual couple? Do you think that children raised to accept homosexuality as normal and insignificant to daily life, can’t feel loved and nurtured? What if the child is a product of the relationship and not an external adoption from a less-than-ideal environment? Women do have children within committed, loving same-sex relationships. Men, to a lesser extent, can as well with the assistance of a surrogate, in the same way couples with fertility issues do. There is no legal basis for treating these families different, and doing so, is a detriment to these families.
Proponents of miscegenation laws believed that interracial marriage was not a good thing for society either. You’ll notice that interracial marriages are not destroying the fabric of society. If a few people devalue their own relationships based on other people’s relationships that have nothing to do with them, they don’t deserve to be married anyway.
Well, the fact that you took this one question out of the whole paragraph is telling. This isn’t about politics, but you know that. It’s not about a bunch of Senators throwing stones. Is it hard for you to understand that adultery is not all that nurturing to a marriage? Shouldn’t that demean my own marriage because others commit adultery and trash the marital values they promised to uphold? Tell you what, strike that one and let’s talk about this one:
Not only is he a shameless adulterer, he had homosexual relations with a paid escort. It’s a triple header of iniquity! I won’t even mention the drugs. But don’t you think his wife had to be apoplectic by the time the dust settled on his public humiliation? I would have been. And yet, I still feel secure in my own marriage. Imagine that. Even the most heinous of marital baseness that I could possibly imagine doesn’t phase my own marriage.
Nope, what’s absurd is that you think the more you shout “MAN AND WOMAN,” the more sense you make. Get your dictionary back out again. Your new word of the day is exclusivity. I advocate laws that do not exclude on the basis of sexual orientation because they are not discriminatory for arbitrary reasons like definitions **magellan **prefers, traditions that have outlived their applicability to modern life, and nature. Oh wait, not nature. It doesn’t care.
Well, this is a tangential subject that I’d be willing to explore in another thread. I’ll help you keep beating this dead horse here, if we must. I don’t think there’s enough room for more horses, though.
Society always reacts with respect to the natural tendency of humans. And over time societal acceptance changes. The natural tendency of some humans is attraction to their own gender (humans aren’t even the only species this occurs in). As this becomes more prevalent in our modern life, society is adapting to it. It’s the normal progression of society. Some societies happen to be ahead of ours in this respect and others are far behind. Not so ironically, it’s the more religious societies that are a bit more reluctant to evolve. I am not alone in seeing value in this progression.
Nope, I’m arguing that tradition for tradition’s sake is stupid and sets us back lightyears.
What fascinates me is how he accepts the changes of the traditional definition of marriage up to this point, but now he hangs on by the skin of his teeth. What makes the definition of the last 40 or so years more valid than that of the previous some thousand?
Items that may or may not have been part of the tradition of marriage:
Marriage is a union of
[ul]
[li]two[/li][li]or more[/li][li]people[/li][li]of the same race[/li][li]of more than one gender[/li][li]where one of the people is subservient financially[/li][li]and otherwise[/li][li]as agreed by the parents of the soon-to-be married[/li][/ul]
So, you’re down to your last few list items, magellan. Why wouldn’t a more inclusive yet more precise definition be better? You’re the one adding conditions to the definition of the word.
Since we’re defining words, then, define ‘compromise’.
Not following you here.