Really? Okay. I’ve got a boyfriend, and a lot of guy friends. As a general rule, being around my guy friends doesn’t give me butterflies in my stomach. I don’t idly day dream about what my male friends are up to right at that moment. I don’t habitually call my guy friends at least once a day if we’re not together. I don’t fight with my guy friends about who gets to use the remote control. Touching my guy friends on the arm doesn’t give me goosebumps. I’m not exasperated by my guy friends laundry habits. I don’t regularly plan elaborate days out with my one of my guy friends, and I’m not generally frustrated when I can’t spend time alone with one of them. I don’t usually worry that I’m not doing enough to make my guy friends happy. I’ve got a couple of guy friends I’d be willing to take a bullet for. I don’t have any guy friends I’d be willing to scoop the cat litter for.
Are you seriously arguing that the only thing about your wife or girlfriend that makes her stand out from all the other people you know is that she’s willing to touch your penis?
I think you’re reading “not good enough” into it. It’s just a qualification that casts no light or aspersion on anyone. It’s simply a matter of gender. For instance, there are some great loans out there for women-owned businesses. I am deprived of them, even though my new business idea will benefit the community. I don’t take that as an insult, it’s merely a qualification of gender. some for what we’re talking about here. If your M+W, you’re in. If you are not M+W, you’re not. How is that an insult to any individual?
As I’ve suggested before, look at the word “hero”. Used to be that the use of the word (aside from the obvious literary license given the world of sports, referred top someone who actively put his life in jeopardy, going well above and beyond the call, saving others in the process. Now, we have anyone wearing an American military uniform referred to as a “hero”. Similarly, whole police forces or firefighting departments are referred to in such terms. This of course, is nonsense. I’m sure that some of those people in those broad groups might be normal individuals, some even cowards. But, no, nowadays you can become a hero just by donning a uniform Ridiculous. And sad. Why can we not reserve for the true heroes a simple word? Because when we expand the definition to include broader groups, the meaning of the word becomes diluted. Fifty years ago, a man tells you that his brother is a hero. The impression was one of “WOW”. That same line today would trigger a response of. “That’s great, want to go get some pizza?” That is a disservice to both the true hero and society at large. We should be holding true heroics on a pedestal, encouraging other to future heroics. Not diluting the word nor the concept.
Again, and I really would have thought you would have been able to understand this by now and accept my idea for what it actually IS, I propose one set of laws. You can contradict that all you want, but then you are really not debating any position I hold.
And, again, no one is calling you a second class citizen. The proof of that is that you can go marry a woman tomorrow. So you, the individual, is not barred from anything. You, the individual is not being told you’re “not good enough”. It’s just that the association you want to enter into differs in a clear and real way from what has defined marriage for centuries.
I don’t see that as negating the point I made. If you think it does, please point top the actual part of it. My guess is that even a good portion of people who choose to allow SSM, when the only other option gives gay couples no means to access all the benefits and privileges of marriage, would prefer having them access them via civil unions. And I still maintain that it is an ideal compromise. Gay couples get all the benefits afforded straight couples and a cornerstone of civilization is not screwed with.
So did it decline in 4th- and 5th-century Rome, setting them up for invasion and collapse? I gather you think it did, but some evidence would help.
Why does “independence” matter? A lesbian couple who uses artificial insemination needs a gamete contribution from a man, but beyond that he need play no role whatsoever in their coupling.
A male homosexual couple needs a somewhat more elaborate contribution (gametes plus gestational support) but again, their surrogate and egg donors need not play any role in their coupled lives.
You speak boldly but ignorantly on technical issues that have been routine for decades. Are you even remotely aware of the current state of reproductive technologies, or have you written all children thus produced as “unnatural” because their conceptions were not effected “independently”? Heck, Louise Brown is 34 and has a son of her own.
Further, by 2040 perhaps or even earlier, the gamete contribution from the opposite gender may not even be necessary - the child could be a perfectly viable genetic fusion of the homosexual parents - one X chromosome from each parent in a lesbian couple, or an X-X, X-Y or Y-X pairing from a male homosexual couple. Beyond the limitation that female homosexual couples could only produce girls, while male homosexuals have the choice of gender (albeit with the larger burden of having to arrange for surrogacy), I don’t see any reason this couldn’t come to pass.
I don’t get how can miss the obvious problem with this - such a rule would prevent many more heterosexual marriages than homosexual ones.
Besides, what’s it to you if someone wants to gets married, even without the “independent” possibility of (or interest in) producing children?
I expect you won’t answer so I’ll ask for the benefit of others, but has anyone on this board ever accepted your “one set of laws” stance as a valid argument? Seriously, has anyone ever said “okay, magellan01 is proposing that we have ‘marriage’ and ‘civil union’ and they’re legally the same for all purposes and always will be, forever and ever. I don’t see any possible problems with THAT.”
First , I have serious doubts that “one set of laws” is doable, and not just an exercise in semantics. We already have federal and state laws on the books about marriage. How do we create new laws and make one set of laws. For the sale of argument let’s say all the states and the feds {likley or unlikley?} pass a law saying all the laws regarding marriage now apply to a union for SS couples that will not be called marraige but civil unions. {sounds odd when you type it out like that} How is that differentiation enforced exactly? Do we fine SS couples that refer to themselves as married? Do we just say “Oh no you’re not”
How about the Matrimony suggestion made earlier? People who feel a deep personal need to have a special word for their union can have one, and marriage can just be a legal term. Seems easier.
Personally I think people who feel the need to protect a word, and an institution they’ve imagined need to grow up. Looking at the realities of how marriage exists in the world and how it has existed in history,creating some fantisized romatic version that we need to preserve from being tarnished by SSM seems pretty immature. I question the value in pandering to that.
Whatever value or special quality any marriage has resides in the hearts and minds of the couple involved, or nowhere at all. IMO that’is something grownups ought to understand rather than trying to keep other grownups from using a word.
That said, I think our hstorically failed expiriment in SBE was a way of easing that portion of our society that was still clinging to culturally indoctrinated bigotry into an acceptance of their error. It would be great if we outgrew that, but it’s possible civil unions is an acceptable passage from indoctrinated bigotry to real equality.
No. You attempted to make two claims that are false:
that homosexual love is based solely on “sensual pleasure” without actual intimacy and love
and that in some odd way homosexual love is problematic because anal sex is “unhealthy.”
Now you are trying to weasel out of your claims by pretending that you simply made an objective observation about the relative “healthiness” of anal sex.
Since anal sex is only potentially unhealthy, (rather than necessarily unhealthy), and given that it is an aspect of heterosexual activity just as it is of homosexual activity, your “point” is irrelevant and actually pointless.
You are also trying to play games when you imply that anal sexual activity is universal to male homosexuality, when it is not. (Certainly it plays a role in many relationships, but you have provided no evidence that it is universal or even that it is significantly related to homosexuality while not related to heterosexuality.)
Basically, you are trying to argue against Same Sex Marriage using nothing more than your personal “eewww” factor while pretending that you are making some logical, fact-based argument.
(I notice that you have made no effort to support your erroneous claim that “orgies” had anything to do with the fall of Rome. Now, if you could engage in facts regarding the rest of your arguments.)
A claim that you immmediately contradict with your next paragraph:
This appears to be some sort of back-argument that the word marriage has some special quality that should not be permitted to Same Sex unions. Yet, you have provided no reason for anyone to accept such a declaration. What characteristic of the word marriage is lessened by including any loving couple in its definition?
You lament the loss of meaning for the word hero. Fair enough. What are the qualities of a hero? Courage in the face of great danger. Resolution to overcome great odds. The accomplishment of a deed that brings safety or freedom to others. It is certainly true that any number of police, fire fighters, or military personnel can serve their terms, even honorably, without demonstrating all those qualities.
Now, what are the qualities of marriage? A faithful love committed to another person. A willingness to share one’s life with another person and to make sacrifices to secure happiness or security for that other person. A willingness to provide nurturing and support for another person. What are the qualities of a heterosexual relationship that differ from the qualities of a homosexual relationship that would preclude the homosexual relationship being identified as a marriage?
There really is no need to accuse me of using code words to hide some sinister motives, when I have been quite clear about my position that marriage should be reserved for straight couples because of its universality in human society (it’s not a social construct, but a species construct) and further than straight couples are objectively different from all other types of human relationships in that they provide the only possible potential for procreation.
Perhaps you’ve ignored other comments I’ve made on providing gays with a legal framework to rights and protections, and on all forms of sexuality as naturally-occurring phenomena.
Again, I mentioned in passing (it was in fact a one-off) in a comment three pages ago that male-on-male sex was unhealthy, and I have since responded to invitations for clarification, from the polite to not-so polite. Regardless of what the consequences of any type of sexual relationship may be (except those involving siblings), I have no business telling other people how to live their lives. If adults wish to smoke or eat fast food, that is their choice.
However, I do not agree that everyone should be compelled to subsidize relationships that are inherently non-procreative, either through tax dollars (social security survivors benefits and other public pension payouts) or through market dollars (increased insurance premiums to fund the coverage of newly recognized married couples). Indeed, when you look at the cases that have come before the Supreme Court since the passage of DOMA, you can see they almost exclusively deal in financial benefits. Let me state that I think Edith Windsor’s inheritance taxes should have been zero, as that was not a subsidy, but the private business of the parties (but I’m against death taxes in general).
In addition to universality in human society and exclusivity of male/female coupling, I would add one more argument in support of marriage: utility to society. While unspoken pair-bonding has been widely-observed across animals species, I argue that marriage has given human beings an edge. The explicit, public commitment of one man and one woman to each other, before their families and communities, and almost always avowed with local religious rites that bind the marriage further to the mysteries of the universe (at least, in the minds and hearts of those involved) creates the best possible environment for children because they will have two people who are solely and equally responsible to make sure they are cared for, educated, and trained. The parents have a greater personal sense of duty to the kids, and are discouraged from shirking their duty as deadbeats by the fear of social stigma (yes, fear is a factor in marriage). Of course, people should not be forced to get married; but this institution should be encouraged, and even subsidized in the above mentioned ways (and, no, I don’t think its necessary to weed out those couples who for whatever reason don’t conceive, or to conduct fertility testing on married couples to see if they’re still eligible to be married).
Again, straight couples cannot conceive only incidentally; gay couples cannot conceive absolutely: this is an objective difference (And please don’t tell me that *race *is an objective difference, because race is largely a social construct).
That’s not what I’m saying. Principles should not be thrown out because of exceptions. By way of analogy, should we reject the idea that a year is necessarily 365 days because, if you measure a long enough time period, some years will not have 365?
Well, read what I wrote, Miller. I said that the sex reinforces the emotional bond. When something is reinforced, is it not stronger? And I would say that the ultimate material bond to an emotional connection is conceiving a child together, creating a life that was not there before (And please don’t bring up the few exceptions of married couples who for whatever reason don’t conceive).
Only in a universe where 1+ 1 = 1. Which is not this universe. Your proposal plainly and unambiguously calls for two separate laws. The fact that you keep saying its one set of laws is not terribly persuasive whe set against my ability to count to very small sums.
No, it’s pretty clearly embedded in the text of what you wrote. I absolutely believe you when you say that you don’t intend it to be there, but it’s an inextricable part of your argument. When you set up two systems, and say that one system has all of these really good features, and that we have to keep the two systems separate so we don’t forget all the good things about that system, you are, perforce, saying that the other system is lacking those qualities. I mean, “cornerstone of our society” is a good thing, right? And you’ve pretty much explicitly said that gay relationships are lack that “cornerstone” criteria. So, right there, you’ve already said that gay relationships are less than straight ones. On top of that, you’ve argued that letting gays marry would damage that “cornerstone” aspect. So, per your argument, not only do gay relationships not possess this positive aspect that you ascribe to gay marriage, it is actively corrosive to that aspect. That’s pretty definitively negative.
And that’s not even taking into account other threads where you’ve posited tha gay relationships are somehow “less fulfilling” than straight ones.
I have this dream that someday, we’ll be in an argument, and you’ll come up with an example or a hypothetical that actually illustrates your argument, instead of mine. Sadly, that day is not here. Because, as per your example, being a hero is plainly better than not being a hero, right? The gu who throws himself on a hand grenade is a hero. The guy who, say, manages not to die of cancer is not so much a hero, right? He may be a perfectly good dude, but compared to the grenade guy, what he disks just oti the same league.
Which is exactly what your two law system is saying about gay marriage - that it’s just not as good as straight marriage, and needs to be differentiated, just he way we need to differentiate between “real” heroes, and guys who were just lucky, or have moderately difficult jobs.
There’s nothing unhealthy about anal sex, provided both partners are disease free or are using protection. Getting a little shit on your dick isn’t going to hurt you, and is not even a necessary part of having anal sex.
Please show evidence of this alleged “species construct.”
What you did was make a “one-off” as an excuse to deny some their rights–a position that you have insisted on defending with errors. That is more than a simple “one-off.”
So, you can invent reasons to subsidize marriage even though you don’t believe in subsidies and then you want to limit those subsidies to a specific set of people based on no particular principle. Your “procreation” argument is without value when one considers raising children regardless how they came to be.
It is objective and meaningless. It is a distinction without a difference in terms of society.
More game playing.
From the fall of the Republic until the “Fall of Rome” was six centuries. The “orgies” period was rather brief and began a century after the empire. Setting up this sort of silliness and clinging to it is nonsense and clearly indicates that, to you, it is more than just a “one-off.”
