Exactly my problem with tomndebb’s proclamation. Declaring mentioning the elephant in the living room to be verboten doesn’t make it go away. And it makes talking about why the sofa has been crushed difficult.
Dude, the valid argument is that I provided a documented example of a historical non-one-man-one-woman marriage, from a document that the anti-SSM side in general and you specifically ought to accept as not being a complete work of fiction.
The only pretending going on here is the pretending of those who claim that the term marriage is an immutable term that has always meant a union of one man and one woman. This is demonstrably false. Seriously, really, really, really demonstrably false. So demonstrably false that it’s ludicrous. So demonstrably false that no person could seriously keep repeating it in honest argument.
I utterly, completely believe that marriage is a term that has morphed in meaning and has indeed in the past and present been applied to unions not conforming to the one-man-one-woman model. Trust me, I really do.
I notice you recently moved the goalpost to “Oh, yes, well, okay it’s meaning has changed; it once included polygamy and no interracial unions, but now includes only one-man-one-woman, any race allowed. In this country. In this state. At the moment.”
That’s perfectly fine with me - I’ll accept that statement.
If the definition changed once, then it can change again.
I’ve read this several times, and it looks to me as though you did exactly what you accused others of doing: you accused the groups (blacks and whites/gays and straights) with the things (water fountains, sets of laws). You don’t substitute Blacks and Whites with Marriage and Civil Union. You substitute Blacks and Whites with Gays and Straights, and you substitute black-only and white-only water fountains with gay-only and straight-only laws. THEN your analogy works.
It’s not what it is, and that’s not what I’ve said. At this point, I challenge you to either show me where I asserted or implied this (as if there were even one single, monolithic entity known as “Christian morality”) or drop this line of insinuation. It’s not even related to the OP.
No, I will not “prove it” like some sixth-grader on a playground, because I never claimed it was. You said that SSM opponents merely want to keep marriage the way it’s been for hundreds of years. I called you on that by pointing out that even within the last couple hundred years, the institution that they know as marriage has taken many forms, not all of which they want to perpetuate.
Now, if you’re done wasting everyone’s time rehashing the same old stuff, will you address the OP?
I missed it, what post was it in? (And outliers don’t define the norm)
No one is saying it’s immutable, clearly it’s going to be changed, but some people are fighting the change it. Yes, there are historical examples of anything, but you’re going to have to pull out some pretty hefty cites to get my to believe that gay marriage was ever normative in a Western culture in the last 1000 years.
Ok, well make your argument then. Stop insisting and start coming up with cites. I promise I’ll pay more attention. It’d make these debates 100% more interesting.
Anti-Miscegenation laws are a poor example, because no one ever said that marriage as defined didn’t include interracial coupling, just that they didn’t want to allow it. They still considered it marriage though, which is what separates it from SSM. SSM is a redefinition of the term. Even in Polygamy and Interracial marriage the nature of a male-female partnership was understood.
So in those cases the definition was never changed. It was still between a man and a woman, or a man and multiple women. Or in the rare case of polyandry, a woman and multiple men. I have yet to see an example of a historical case of legally recognized SSM let alone a society where it was considered perfectly acceptable and a universal right.
It’s not an immutable term, but up until now it has been understood to mean that a man and a woman were involved and in western cultures like our own it has been considered as such for more than a millenium.
Ok, a person who opposes SSM says they oppose it on Christian moral grounds. You say that the only reason to oppose it is bigotry. See where the problem is here? You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.
You won’t prove it like some sixth-grader on a playground or like a normal SDMB poster in Great Debates who is expected to be able to establish his arguments in facts?
Which was the emotional and which was the rational side again? I forgot.
I have been.
Abraham and his three wives; I believe there are other examples of one-man-many-women marriages in the Bible.
As for the bigotry claim, I’m wondering if we can all agree on the following (and I believe this steers clear of Tom’s warning since I’m not calling anyone a bigot):
- Not all religious beliefs are bigoted (“God loves you.”)
- Some religious beliefs are bigoted (“Black people are mud people and Jews are the spawn of demons.” courtesy of Christian Identity).
- The fact that a particular belief is religious has no bearing on assessing it as bigoted or non-bigoted.
- It is possible to conclude that a person is a bigot without having such a conclusion itself be an act of bigotry.
- It is possible to conclude that a particular belief is bigoted without having such a conclusion itself be an act of bigotry.
- If one concludes that a particular belief is bigoted, and if that particular belief is one that is a bedrock principle of a particular religious group, that does not necessarily mean that the conclusion itself is an act of bigotry.
- In some cases, it is (“Jews are bigots against gentiles because they believe it’s okay to steal our money” qualifies).
7 points we can all agree on, right?
According to Geroge Washington in his “letter to the Musselman”, this is not a christian country, it is a secular country. As to contradicting ourselves by forcing God on them. isn’t God generally in the argument against SSM? Gays are bad and offfend God. Uh huh. It’s a sin. Uh huh. By the way, who gets to decide whose version of God is the official state God? Can we enforce morality?Whose brand of morality do we enforce? And, “in God we trust” wasn’t on our money until some time during the Cold War, if I remember my history.
mswas defense of opposition to SSM not being bigotry just because it’s a religious belief seems to imply that he ( ? ) doesn’t believe #2. Or if he does, it renders that argument useless.
Marriage between a man and a woman is a right. That much is plain and simple. Anything beyond that is up for discussion.
Christian moral grounds is a piss poor reason to deny people rights. Someone’s Christian Morals are theirs. Using them as a rationale for restrictions on others is morally bankrupt.
Christian morality isn’t a fact. It’s a set of opinions that are based on wishful thinking. Rights are more important than offending the religious sensibilities of someone who isn’t involved.
Thought experiment: If a particular branch of Christianity thought blacks shouldn’t vote, is that a rational argument against allowing blacks to vote.
You’ve just made a pretty big assertion about something I’m pretty sure I didn’t even say. Care to cite? I’m definitely seeing a problem here - your tone is teetering on the line between aggressive (OK by me) and belligerent (not OK by me), and this comment is leaning heavily toward belligerent.
I have nothing to prove because I made no assertion that requires proof. I didn’t claim that SSM has been normative anywhere. You yourself have acknowledged that heterosexual marriages have included polygynous marriage (in many cultures and eras, including modern times) and polyandrous marriages (much less frequently). Heck, I can think of a couple of cultures in which brother-sister marriage was encouraged among a select elite. Can you show me any significant support for anything other than one man-one woman marriage among the anti-SSM crowd? I’ll go out on a limb and guess that you can’t. So no, the anti-SSM crowd is not merely anti-SSM. It’s endorsing exactly one form of heterosexual marriage.
Except, they’re calling it a Women’s Club. So, no, it’s not the same. You might as well argue that that both use the letter “e”. They are not changing the meaning of the word “club”.
What then, if it affects people who are not christian, or a different variation of christian? Are they required to conform to your denomination? There are Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics (who are not christian according to some people), Zoroastrians, etc. They have their own religions, and to them these are every bit as vaild, every bit as important. Why would christianity take priority? Isn’t there something about government refraining from instituting a state religion, or supporting any particular religion? People are allowed to believe, or to not believe what they choose. You put someone else’s idea of christianity into law, you take that away.
Yes, it was added to currency starting in 1957. It was added to coins much earlier, starting shortly after the Civil War.
That’s also around the time that “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. The original text ran, “…One nation, indivisible…” In 1954, this was modified to read, “…One nation under God, indivisible…”
It was Adams. And there is much confusion about different translations from the time. Italian was an intermediary language, and not all copies in existence contain the same phrase. It looks like he did write it, but maybe not.
Gotta love it.
No. “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Sex was not mentioned in that at all.
‘Give your example - and by the way, it doesn’t count.’
Good GOD man! Abraham! ABRAHAM! ABRAHAM!!! Do I need to hit you with something?
Do you think we’re all making polygamy up? From the link:
Oh my god! They referred to polygamous marriages as marriages! The wikipedia has been corrupted by godless liberals!!!
I’m only mocking you because you are being so ridiculous.
No one aside from you every second post, you mean.
And I don’t give a shit how normal it is, becuase wether it is common or not is completely irrelevent. Or have you forgotten - this argument is about whether the word can be used to refer to non-one-man-one-woman marriages. Not whether it usually does, or whether most marriages are non-one-man-one-woman. This is nothing more than a stupid semantic argument where the anti-SSM is trying to argue that the term cannot be used to apply to SSM marriages because its meaning is immutable, which is a demonstrable lie.
What would make these arguments interesting would be if the anti-SSM side could do more than pretend that the other side hasn’t already made arguments. Or even, just maybe, rebut them! Rationally! With actual arguments! (Oh, be still my heart, don’t get the hopes up, lest they be dashed so cruelly yet again…)
Assert, assert, assert. Prove to me that people wouldn’t understand what you are talking about if you applied the word “marriage” to a same-sex coupling.
'Cause by my reckoning that’s obvious nonsense. We understand what’s meant when the word is used in reference to companies. When used to refer to Adam and Steve, nobody is going to go “huh?”. The word therefore already has the meaning you deny.
If the semantic argument weren’t nonsense, then we wouldn’t understand the meaning of the term “same sex marriage”. We’d react to it like the term “I’m going to shoe my airplane” - with consternation, because the phrase would be nonsensical. But “same sex marriage” isn’t nonsensical. We’re all able to apply the word “marriage” to the concept of a same-sex union just fine.
Definition, schmeshinition. The semantic argument is pure nonsense. What you want to make is the argument from tradition. “We don’t do things thart way around hare.” That’s what you want to be doing.
And then we’ll blow that off with “We don’t care about that”.
But at least you wouldn’t be making a nonsensical and demonstrably false argument.
There is a pretty acrimonious debate going on here about whether marriage has or has not always been seen as being only between opposite sexes.
I am a gay man, legally married in Canada for the past 3 years. (We rushed into it after living together for 30 years. Just a pair of crazy kids!:D)
And believe it or not, I agree with the OPPONENTS of SSM, such as mswas on that one point. Debates make strange bedfellows (relax, mswas, that is only an expression.!
It is true that King Solomon and the Biblical Patriarchs were polygamists. It is true that polygamy is legal in many countries. Admittedly, the reciprocal rights and obligations of husband and wife have changed radically over the years, and while it is true that racial intermarriage used to be illegal, let’s get real.
The simple fact is that up until about 10 or 20 years ago, about 99.9% of people in western society, including the vast, vast majority of gays and lesbians, automatically assumed that marriage was necessarily between a man and a woman. You know it, I know it, and people like mswas know that we know it.
I would recommend that people who are in favour of SSM, as I most assuredly am, get past that point, admit it, and then go on to challenge whether that historical fact, as true as it may be, is a valid argument against SSM today.
In other words, why should “That’s how it’s always been” be an argument against SSM at all?
Have you ever noticed that conservatives have this odd and annoying habit of first stating the status quo as if it were an argument in itself, and then, just for good measure, they add some crackpot prediction of doom and destruction if the status quo is changed?
[ol]
[li]Whites marry whites and blacks marry blacks. Do you want to produce a population of mongrels that will destroy America?[/li]
[li]Sodomy has been illegal for centuries. Do you want your children assaulted and turned into queers?[/li]
[li]Men have always voted, not women. Letting women vote will destroy the family.[/li]
[li]America has always had negro slaves. Free them and we will be overwhelmed by hordes of uncontrollable African barbarians.[/li]
[li]Schools have always been segregated. Do you want your children marrying negroes?[/li][/ol]
Yes marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Until now!