The idea of the US was to allow the states comprising the republic to be, to a degree, self-determining. The proper balance is fodder for another thread . Or ten.
We’re both advocating the same thing then. Except for the word. The difference is how these rights are accessed. You want to expand the definition of marriage and have more couples tap into the rights through that route. I want the same one set of laws, but have them apply to two groups. Think about it as “men” and “women” both being bound by the same traffic laws. We don’t need to dispense with the groups’ labels in order to have equity with the law. As I mentioned in another thread, I would have the provision that any addition, subtraction, or change to that one set would have to apply to the two groups: married people and gays in civil unions (or whatever else they want to call it, except marriage).
I see these both as viable options. I like mine better because that the rights are gained, they are equal, yet we maintain the traditional meaning of marriage. which I think is a good thing for all the reasons I’ve mentioned. And one that I haven’t actually, which I think is a bonus: it doesn’t interfere with the religious component which many people feel strongly about. (Please note that I don’t offer this as a reason, but just a bonus. My position has nothing to do with religion.)
You misunderstand the point I was making. My position is not dictated by what a particular couple wants—gay, hetero, or other. I think it’s a bad idea for society regardless of ANY couple’s opinion.
Not all problems concerning marriage are the same, and should be resolved the same way or for the same reasons. I’ve explained why mixed marriages are different than SSM. More than once. If you’d like to address those particular points, please do. But please don’t act as if I’ve not addressed it.
No. You’re wrong. Please review my last few posts which address this.
I’m using it as a guide. I simply come to a different conclusion as to which way to head. (Bonus points for the “stone tablets” line though. Credit where credit is due.)
Well, I never said they were equal. I said that society recognized what nature did on it’s own and sanctioned it, embraced it, encouraged it and protected it. I also disagree—strongly—that marital status has no impact on family building. I think that people who are married are going to feel a greater responsibility to what that marriage produces. They will be both more careful with the number of children they create and more apt to take their responsibilities to whatever children they create more seriously. I think this is one of the problems plaguing blacks in the inner cities. Women have several children with several different fathers. There is not a strong family unit. This section of society would benefit greatly with a more traditional approach to mating. And marriage, in it’s most traditional sense, would be a great benefit to them. Particularly the women and children.
I never said they were completely without benefit. The point is that while gay unions do have benefit, calling them “marriages” is a net negative. I’m willing to let what I perceive to be a greater long-term benefit “get in the way” of of a smaller benefit.
Though this is the first time I think you’ve done it, I really get tired of this disingenuous argument and attempt at gotcha. Just because one might argue against SSM because it falls short of the ideal, it doesn’t follow that one must take draconian steps to erase every little thing that taints marriage. People are fallible. People change. Marriages will fail. The argument that people should be kept in a marriage that is unhealthy is not realistic. More important to my point, it is not what any proponent of SSM would sincerely argue for. I think I’ll do myself a favor and ignore this nonsense from now on. Again, I recognize that you haven’t been doing this in our discussion until now.
Yes, I DO feel gay couples can provide just as loving and in some cases even more loving home than a heterosexual couple. I’ve said that repeatedly. Which is why I advocate gays being able to adopt. The point is that they can’t provide the “ideal”. And it benefits us to have a word that refers to that ideal situation. To be able to hold it up for younger generations and point to it.
Newsflash: there will always be bad marriages, sham marriages, etc. Just because those will exist I see no reason to further dilute the institution. If anything, it says they we should be even more protective of it in the ways that we can.
Definitions aren’t arbitrary. They’re not made up out of thin air. And they’re very important as far as our laws go. I know you know this. And nature cares quite a lot actually. While it made possible both hetero couples and gay ones, it gave only one set the ability to procreate. You think that’s incidental. I think it is of great importance. I think nature knows what it was doing. The proof of that is that you and I are here.
You seem to think that were heading inevitably and irretrievably toward a society where SS couples are as accepted as hetero ones. That may or may bot be the case. You’ll recall that at different times during Greek times (which is often pointed to as a more progressive society), homosexuality was alternatively widely accepted and rejected. So the world has headed in that direction before, and pulled back. Homosexuality, over the centuries has gained acceptance. And lost it. Why do you think that is. That after it had become accepted, it then lost favor? Do you not think that might happen again? This assumption on your part, and others, that the current trend toward being more accepting of homosexual relationships is a movement toward some objective “good”, some white light is one of the things that makes discussion difficult. You, to take liberty with a phrase, presume to have “God” on your side.
This “objective” progress you see is your wishful thinking. It may or may not come to pass. Homosexuality has been around a long, long time. But it has never gained sustained acceptance. Even during Greek times it was not viewed as equal to heterosexuality. I think it undeniable that we are on a curve where it is gaining acceptance. But it can just as easily lose it. This is another reason I advocate that the RIGHTS be the issue. It is harder to take away something that has such a strong moral and logical component.
And you’re ignoring that I’ve explained that’s not what I was doing.
