If you can’t be bothered to read my posts where I’ve repeated it at least two dozen times thus far, why should I believe you’ll read it this time?
This isn’t my argument. It’s my observation that the anti-SSM argument is of no significance. My argument in favour of SSM has nothing to do with Christian values, let alone in rebellion to them.
Your point?
Or is “playing devil’s advocate” code for “a dimwitted response that no one is allowed to address because I used an almost clever sounding name to bring it up”?
Whether he’s playing devil’s advocate or not, the argument should be addressed as though it’s sincere. N’est pas ?
I’m curious. Precisely what “Freshman Rhetoric” textbook has either in it? I’d appreciate one title, preferably with a page number.
Oh, wait. You were being rhetorical. I get it. /kneeslap
I don’t presume to make his arguments for him. Indeed, there is no burden on me to come up with an argument for his position that is at least equal to his own, if not superior.
One wonders what the root of existance [sic] would purportedly be: existant [sic]?
It’s curious to note that instead of actually addressing the response, you’ve parried it off towards him. I suppose that’s fine since you were playing “devil’s advocate”. However, I think it’s disingenuous to play said advocate without mulling over the details and noting offhand what the logical incongruities are. The devil, and presumably his advocate, is in the details after all.
One would think the solution is obvious: simply have more persuasive arguments, rhetorical or otherwise.
And you do not seem to be capable of actually addressing the arguments, (or lack thereof), without hurling personal insults at other posters. However, you need to rein that in or take it to the BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
My apologies. I guess that:
"He allegedly hates Christians, therefore his ideas on civil gay marriage (which doesn’t necessarily involve any Christians) is moot? Hardly.
Many people hate Christians. Even some Christians hate Christians. This is hardly dispositive. Moreover, it’s conflates the issue by equating a dislike of policy with a hatred for an entire class of people who might support it.
I don’t like fiscal irresponsibility, but that doesn’t mean I hate republicans for having willingly driven us so far into debt. I think Christianity is a sham, but that, in and of itself, is no reason to hate any particular Christian. Same with Islam, Buddhism and so forth."
wouldn’t count for anything in the way of actually addressing the argument proffered.
I concede that one line out all of those was immoderate; however, it’s a bit unusual to discount an actual counterpoint to an argument as not addressing the argument itself.
Again, my apologies.
Nobody can be bothered to reread all your posts, much less try to find some shred of them that hasn’t been rebutted into small smoldering chunks. And if you can’t be bothered to present or even link to arguments you think have survived the onslaught, then why should we join you in pretending that any such arguments exist? I think they don’t. And I’m still thoroughly unimpressed by the tactic of trying to block debate by accusing all your opponents of having personal failings in the reading and comprehension arenas - it’s no better, and only marginally different, from just yelling bigot at everyone.
And, I’ve read your posts, and I still don’t see what you have posted that hasn’t been thoroughly rebutted. The closest thing you have to something that still stands is the “culture” argument - but because you can’t attach the whole of society to a standard, that devolves to “something’s gonna change and we don’t like it,” which is nothing like a loss of a culture, and worse yet raises the question “why is this this change bad?”
You can’t answer that with “the change is bad because it’s a change to the culture” - that’s circular. Which forces you to find some other argument for why the minor change to the culture is “harmful”.
Well, after 15 pages it is hard to remember what each person said… But I have reviewed the first 200 posts, and this is what I have found from you (Mswas) :
So are we both irrational or just me? I can’t keep it straight 
.
My uncle just married a 50+ year old woman. There is 0 chance of “breeding :rolleyes: ” with that union, should they also be barred from getting married?
Why is “history” important with regard to SSM, while other words and concepts are allowed to be fluid?
So, people who are outside of the “conservative culture system … based on the nuclear family” have no right to define family life as they feel it should be for themselves. How is this different than saying “mixed race marriages should not be allowed because it upsets the conservative culture of the white family”?
Why should I give up all of the rights that come with marriage just because it would undermine the meaning of a word to people who do not think that my lifestyle is valid or worth the same respect they expect me to give to them?
What does “false equivalency” mean? In what way is SSM not equal to OSM?
Are you just playing devils advocate? :dubious:
OK, Lets say it is a privilege, not a right. Driving is a privilege not a right, but we can not say to a group of people that they can’t have a DL because other people are uncomfortable with “those kind of people” on the road.
Slavery has been a part of many cultures for far longer than a legal-religious definition of marriage has, yet we have no problem that the whole system was dumped because it was unfair to a huge group of people.
You know, at least slavers had an economic reason to subjugate people; this whole SSM thing is not going to take anything from those against it in any material way that I can find.
So, all I can find so far is that it is about the meaning of a word, and at least mswas is not concerned with the legal level, but just the word used. I think that is the same as “Separate but equal”, and in my opinion that is not equal.
Is that a fair summary of your position?
From a “I’ll take what I can get” POV, SSM with legal equality but a different name is a step in the right direction, but it is still unfair.
Is there anyone with a different reason to appose SSM?
I don’t care if people are uncomfortable with SSM. Just as there are still people who are against mixed race marriages, I don’t expect to change minds. What I do want is to remove this inequality from the laws. It is not about making any given person happy with my SSM, it is about making it so that I am not legally disabled compared to other people who are just like me, but have mixed-gender marriages.
Since the current issue is “should group X get the same rights as group Y”, it is the burden of those that want to keep group X from getting the rights to show why group X should not get those rights.
As an example, I have the right to swing my arms all I want, until that starts to risk injury to you. There is a valid reason to limit my right to swing my arm when you are near, but there is no valid reason for you to sit across the room and say “swinging arms make me uncomfortable, so stop”. In this case I think you are “sitting across the room”. There seems to be a vague assertion that my “arm swinging” is risking “your face” – if that is the case, please explain what concrete way limiting my rights to swing my arm (marry someone of the same gender) infringes on your “face” (marriage related rights)?
I do not consider the dictionary meaning of a word as a reason to make policy, what else have you got?
Dag
Without a commonly-accepted meaning/definition of a word, how can we make policy?
if we don’t agree about the definition of “human”, I might include goats while you don’t.
How can we make policy if we don’t have a common meaning/definition of a word?
I’ve been on the sidelines trying to figure out how to explain how it feels to me to incorporate SSM into what I see/consider a “marriage.”
Something like: Suddenly a bunch of people want me to redefine my dog as a cat - huh?
To me, the basic elements of a marriage are 1 man + 1 woman.
Marriage = Man + Woman
doesn’t equate to the same as
Marriage = Man + Man or Woman + Woman
The foundation, the basic elements aren’t the same.
My Dear, Saint of a Mother, married to my Father for 57 years (who when I was 12 years old accused me of being to the right of Attila the Hun and I called her of being a Commie Pinko), last year we both voted in favor of the AZ Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman; how did that happen?
At the extreme ends of “marriage” there have been and are some variations i.e. multiple woman + 1 man or multiple men + 1 woman but even those contain the basic elements of a man and a woman, not a man & a man or a woman & a woman.
To me, a same sex marriage can be and should be recognized as equal to but not the same as an opposite sex marriage.
That is to say the Duties & Responsibilities and Rights & Privileges are the same and equal in both, but the nomenclature is different.
Yes we treat a dog and a cat the same, even though they they aren’t the same.
Seeing things this way I can still look myself in the mirror and go to sleep with myself at night.
The nomenclature to whom? You and you mother will remain free to call a gay marriage anything you want, only government terminology will be affected. So for the sake of keeping the word “marriage” off government documents relating to people you don’t know and have no reason to concern yourself with, you voted to deny other citizens equal treatment under the law.
Congratulations.
And you see no historic precedence whatsoever as to why *separate but equal *is a denigrating characterization for at least one of the group of “equals?”
Bryan Ekers and** Jack Batty**
I didn’t say I wasn’t still wrestling with why I wasn’t/didn’t see it as exactly the same;
Perhaps not a good analogy, while I can see a dog and a cat as being equivalent as “pets”, I don’t see them as being identical.
It happened because cats were redefined as dogs in the past. It used to be that your mother would not have been able to vote at all, as only men were legally allowed to. Then the law was changed to grant women the right to vote – over the objections of people like yourself, I might add. Now your saintly mother is free to discriminate against another class of people.
No-one is compelling you to do so. Fellow citizens of your state want to enjoy a privilege that other citizens have that will cause no harm to you or anyone and you acted to deny them.
Congratulations, again.
Catholics consider most remarriages invalid. Say you marry someone, but it didn’t work out. So you get divorced. Then you find your true mate fall madly in love and marry them. The Catholic church won’t recognize your marriage because they didn’t recognize your previous divorce. They feel your marriage is false, and you’re committing adultery.
To them remarriage is a different animal then a first marriage. Should divorced people be prevented from calling a new marriage “marriage”? Keep in mind the Catholic definition of marriage has much more tradition then Protestant marriage.
We do need a common meaning/definition to make policy. And people are changing it - there have recently been a lot of people trying to change legal documents to the explicit definition of “one-man-one-woman”.
Ironic, isn’t it?
You should stress out about this less if you’re losing sleep.
As I’ve said earlier, the argument-from-definition approach is activist wishful thinking; the term “marriage” has never been only applied to one-man-one-woman. If it was, the term “polygamous marriage” wouldn’t make any sense - and I mean, you would literally not know what somebody meant when they said it! The same goes with “same-sex marriage” - if the word marriage was fundamentally incompatible with man+man or woman+woman unions, you’d react to the term like it was, literally, nonsense. “Spherical idea”, “shoeing a helicopter”, and “brick flange” are examples of phrases where words are being used in ways incompatible with their actual meanings. “Same-sex marriage”, demonstrably, is not.
You yourself used the acronym “SSM”, so clearly the word “marriage” means “union that may be between man+man or woman+woman” to you, too, regardless of your protestations. It’s nonsense to say otherwise.
No, what’s going on here is that you’re having difficulties not with the meaning of the word, but with the idea of same-sex marriages actually being allowed to happen. And okay, I can understand that; I have difficulties with a lot of things myself. However my current prejudices and limitations are a poor thing to base public policy on, and yours are too.
Well, I guess that the deafening silence is the answer. The best the anti side has is some stupid assertion that “marriage” has a specific meaning, and by god, if it is in websters dictionary, it’s gotta stay that way. so, lets look this up…
Dictionary.com definition of “marry” is
While a few of the meanings refer explicitly to “man and woman”, not all do. If “marry” can refer to a couple of ropes or a couple of companies, or a couple of foods, I see no reason that is can’t apply to a couple of dudes.
Any way, like I said, I see that there is no anti-ssm stance that does not boil down to an attempt at religious domination and/or homophobia. I can’t see any other motivation behind this “definition” based argument.
BTW, today is “Loving Day”, an annual celebration held on June 12, the anniversary of the 1967 United States Supreme Court decision Loving vs. Virginia which struck down all anti-miscegenation laws remaining in 16 states citing “There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the equal protection clause.”
At least we can celebrate SOME peoples freedom to marry today. One day we will be able to celebrate everyones freedom to marry.
Dag