Hmmm, as much as I like A, I’ll go with C. Something like this:
Article “X”
**Benefits and Privileges to be enjoyed by state-recognized committed couples.
**
The following enumerates the legal privileges and benefits to be enjoyed by 1) married couples, and 2) those couples joined in civil unions.
This set of statutes can only be amended in full, affecting both those joined in (1) marriages and (2) civil unions identically.
blah, blah, blah
blah, blah, blah, blah
blah, blah
etc.
See? One set of statutes describing the legal privileges and benefits to be enjoyed by members of those two groups that qualify.
First, I don’t agree that I have not been able to convince a single person. That may be the case, as even among the support I’ve received via Private Messages, I’m not sure if I convinced them or they were already of like mind. I also find it likely that I may have convinced lurkers. That said, the reasons I’d say are:
a very left leaning board
hive mind, even if a person might think I have a good take on the issue, why open themselves to the the types of attacks I get?
an obstinate refusal to debate my actual idea. For instance, anything that says “two sets of statutes” and/or brings up SBE is not debating anything that I have put forth.
a deep-seated inability for some posters to entertain that there might be a way to achieve a fair and reasonable solution that does not toe the popular liberal line
poor logic on the part of posters who think that anti-miscegenation laws have any bearing on my idea, yet derail the discussion in just about every thread
My idea didn’t come across. When I said “society” meant people around, not the laws.
However, magellan’s proposal does give all the benefits except that the little paper says another word.
I’ll concede that maybe the phrase hasn’t been used like that before, but saying that that exact idea hasn’t been said several times, i.e., that the word marriage can change and adapt its meaning to modern times is prepostoreous.
Really? Really? A left-leanig board with a gigantic majority on th pro-SSM side plus the inability of most of them to engage in dialogue even while proclaiming their openness?
Excellent! So your answer appears to be that we’d find those definitions as part of the law. Yes?
Section X of the “State Codes & Statutes” is the section that says to treat everyone equally. Section Y (or W, if you prefer, I don’t care) of the “State Codes & Statutes” defines the terms.
Am I understanding your proposal correctly?
I’m not playing a game. Rather, I’m trying to break your argument down into tiny chunks to figure out exactly where the misunderstanding is. So far I think we’ve established that you do agree that legal definitions are part of the law, which is progress: we can take that off the table now.
Of course the word marriage can change its meaning to “artichoke empanada”. The point is that, after apoint, it loses meaning. Gay no longer has the primary meaning of happy and if you want that meaning you need to qualify it. Marriage can end up meaning “real marriage + SSM”, but then it like the meaing of hot dog changes to “real hot dog + ramen soup”.
I didn’t say it was meaningless or that others said it was.
Yes.
But, it doesn’t change my point. You want to change the definition because it is significant
Has anyone ever heard Magellan address that marriage changed its definition when blacks and whites were allowed to marry?
And if changing the definition is a bad thing, by extension legal interracial marriages, according to Magellan, should be a bad thing. Isn’t that a logical extension of his position?
Yes, a board devoted to fighting ignorance has a gigantic majority on the pro-SSM side. Remarkable, ain’t it?
Your inability to frame an argument that can withstand even the casual scrutiny of a bunch of pseudonyms on some damn message board is hardly *their *fault.
Nobody has ever said B. They’ve said something slightly similar to B, but the difference between what you’re hearing, and what they’re saying, is central to the disagreement.
Meanwhile, let me reiterate:
I’d like to see if I’m understanding your proposal correctly before I continue.
The board’s “hive mind”, though? Really? Refusal to debate your actual “idea”? No, PRATT. And no, your refusal to accept that antimiscegenation laws can be relevant at all, and even to address the point being shoved in your face, is not a show of bad faith on the part of those bringing them up.
Maybe someday reality will sink in. Maybe someday you’ll realize the laughter is entirely justified. Odds are against it, though.
No, it’s not one law. If it were one law, there wouldn’t be an A and a B. A + B = 2. Two laws. That is what you are proposing.
I didn’t say its been a historical cornerstone. I’m talking about the role of SSM in our society going forward.
Yes, you do.
That depends on what the differences you assign to the two relationships. The differences you assign to gay relationships are pretty insulting. You can tell by he way that virtually every single gay person who hears your ideas about gay relationships and SSM ends up being insulting.
Yes, really. If I believed that men and women were opposite, I probably would oppose SSM. I find it a little odd that you’re not making that argument, in fact.
So you believe across the board that romance=friendship+sex. Are you missing something sublime in your relationships or am I missing something sublime in my friendships? If neither, why is it that the only sex that reinforces the emotional bond the kind that involves a man’s penis and a woman’s vagina?
You cannot use these things together.
Granting arguendo that this is no worse than letting same-sex couples get married (and it can be done in such a way that this is true, legally speaking, though I’m not confident it would be), why is it better?
It seems to me that you’re switching – without acknowledging or necessarily realizing it – between two positions:
[ol]
[li]Marriage and civil unions are the same thing, which need two different names because something.[/li][li]Marriage is actually better than civil unions, which is why we reserve it for the preffered kind of couple.[/li][/ol]
At best, you’re proposing a needlessly complicated way for all relationships registered with the state to be covered by the same set of laws.
Again, what is the benefit of “equal except in name” over “equal”? As a straight person, how am I harmed more if Adam and Steve marry than if John and Jane marry, and why does this differential in harm not apply if what Adam and Steve do isn’t called “marriage”?
I propose that only couples whose last initials are from different halves of the alphabet can get married. If the initials are from the same half, they have to get narried instead, and be zpouses (fusband and pife, or fusband and fusband, or pife and pife, as the case may be). But don’t worry, my proposal calls for a law saying that any current or future law that mentions “marriage” or “spouse” or “husband” or “wife” should be read as though it says “or narriage”/“or zpouse”/“or fusband”/“or pife” respectively. You okay with that? If not, why not? If you think it’s a flawed analogy, what flaw(s) do you see?
But it’s a little unfair to direct this particular criticism to Ají de Gallina, since he actually acknowledges that he doesn’t consider same-sex marriages to be “real,” so it’s perfectly consistent of him to not want the same word used for it.
Refusal to debate your actual “idea”?