I’m not terribly surprised that you wouldn’t see the offense in your assertions.
You really must pay better attention. Reading a thread before participating is simply good manners.
There have been no civil unions proposed to date that carry all of the legal rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage. As has been mentioned.
But they’ve never told me how I’d do so.
Transposing tradition and an astonishing psychic grasp of the will of an ill-defined society for religion is hardly a masterful tactical coup, you know. Done to death, in fact. Though capitalization of the word society certainly does lend the concept an air of authority.
The idea that tradition should supercede the rights of individuals to be treated as equals has been struck down time and time again in our society, to the benefit of all. Unless you can come up with a better argument than “But that’s the way we’ve always done it,” don’t expect people to flock to your banner in droves.
The history of our country is rife with examples of people claiming their place as equals under the law. This is tradition at work, this is an essential part of the great enterprise of building our nation. This is the democratic ideal in action.
I’m not terribly surprised that you wouldn’t see the offense in your assertions.
You really must pay better attention. Reading a thread before participating is simply good manners.
There have been no civil unions proposed to date that carry all of the legal rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage. As has been mentioned.
But they’ve never told me how I’d do so.
Transposing tradition and an astonishing psychic grasp of the will of an ill-defined society for religion is hardly a masterful tactical coup, you know. Done to death, in fact. Though capitalization of the word society certainly does lend the concept an air of authority.
The idea that tradition should supercede the rights of individuals to be treated as equals has been struck down time and time again in our society, to the benefit of all. Unless you can come up with a better argument than “But that’s the way we’ve always done it,” don’t expect people to flock to your banner in droves.
The history of our country is rife with examples of people claiming their place as equals under the law. This is tradition at work, this is an essential part of the great enterprise of building our nation. This is the democratic ideal.
I’m not MrVisible, and I have no idea why you can’t do the simple search required, since you made the original claim, but here is where they make that statement:
It’s a slippery slope that only exists in the eyes of those who will say and believe anything to defeat gay marriage.
I support the legalization of polygamy. I also suspect that most incestuous relationships (and most examples of inappropriate conduct within polygamy) that would be actually harmful can be prohibited on the basis of other law (e.g. those prohibiting adult/child relationships and those prohibiting sexual conduct between wards and their guardians), and so the general ban is unnecessary. The consanguinal reproduction issue is scientifically questionable. I’m not familiar with any claim by the ACLU that statutory rape statutes are unconstitutional, which leads me to believe that you are reporting a twisted version of the actual facts (e.g. some case in which a particular formulation of a statutory rape statute, or its particular application, has been challenged by the ACLU). I am a member of the ACLU and as far as I know it does not believe that statutory rape statutes are all inherently unconstitutional, or even unwarranted.
[QUOTE=MrVisible]
The idea that tradition should supercede the rights of individuals to be treated as equals has been struck down time and time again in our society, to the benefit of all. Unless you can come up with a better argument than “But that’s the way we’ve always done it,” don’t expect people to flock to your banner in droves.
[QUOTE]
And we’ve also quite frequentlly done away with tradition to the detriment of society. Granted, we all like to catalog these old “traditions” (staying married, not having children out of wedlock) as signs of backwards times. . . impossibilities in a progressive day where we’re extended (and living out) our God-given rights and privileges.
Once such a “tradition” is done away with for the sake of freedom & individual rights, we can never get it back. . prohibition is a fantastic example (and, for the record, I am glad for this). Marriage is one of our oldest institutions, and I think we are wise to tread cautiously and think twice before we redefine it.
Please can you give an example where relinquishing a tradition for the sake of freedom & individual rights has been detrimental to society (as a whole, not some specific perspective)? Or were you referring to the growth of marriage break-ups and births out of wedlock? I sense a little tone of disapprovement there. Presumably you would prefer that we still look down our noses at divorcees and bastards?
At the risk of repeating the already well articulated points of others, this is not about the redefinition of marriage, it is about extending rights and privileges (whether or not you believe them to be ‘God-given’) to those who have traditionally been denied them for no other reasons than intolerance and bigotry.
To deny anyone the rights of marriage, or to even seek to attach a different ‘label’ to same-sex marriages, is simply divisive. In my opinion, it says a great deal more about those who seek to maintain divisions in society because of their own deep-rooted phobias than it does about the groups that they seek to segregate themselves from. Fortunately the traditions of bigotry are being slowly, inexorably eroded and I cannot wait to see the back of them.
Those are two recent examples, yes. And clearly I was saying that we should look down our noses at divorcees and bastards :rolleyes: Or perhaps we ought to look at the number of unwanted children in the number of whacked-out families and foster care today v. 100 years ago. Do you honestly think that the average child today has a better parenting situation than the average child 100 years ago? Overall, does celebrating our right to divorce and our right to have sex (and thus babies) whenever we please really benefit society? Or might the traditions of marrying once & staying married, and saving sex until marriage have carried a greater benefit?
But regardless of what this is about (and I think your assertion is arguable) let’s not pretend that a redefinition won’t happen in the process.
Look, I don’t believe that the non-religious arguments against gay marriage really hold water. But I take issue with your argument that doing away with tradition for the sake of individual rights is always a good thing. It’s wonderfully easy to take credit for the progress we make whilst blaming any negative consequences on something or anything else.
Don’t know. You got any cites to back up your assertion that children are less well off now? I don’t hear much about kids dying in coal mining accidents anymore. Orphanages aren’t quite as brutal as they were back then. I think mortality rates are down.
Let’s see what you got to show that kids, on average, are in worse shape now.
This was not my assertion (although it would be an interesting conversation).
Now with regard to the parenting situation of children today? Well, lets make sure we can agree on what’s relevant to the discussion before I go digging for statistics. My claim was that we, by eschewing tradition and excersing our right to divorce and have children outside of wedlock, have created an average parenting situation which is worse than that which existed when we upheld tradition.
Now frankly, before I go on a wild goose chase for statistics that will never convince you of anything. . . can we agree that a vast increase in single parent households, children in foster care, children who have never had the opportunity to have both a maternal and paternal influence at home. . . can we agree this would likely indicate a worse average parenting situation?"
Marriage is more to most gays than just a name. I am a co-owner of a house with my same-sex partner of 8 years. If he dies, I may lose the house, because I don’t think I can afford the federal inheritance taxes I would be forced to pay on his half of the house. No state-recognized civil union will rescue me from those taxes, only a Federally-recognized right to gay marriage, or an equal in every way Civil Union, which has never even been proposed in Congress.
You claim that we should be happy with the state-issued civil unions, but they’re NOT equal, and as long as we don’t have the same rights as straight couples, we are second-class citizens.
Finally, I ask, identify one person who would be harmed by me getting married to my partner.
It’s going to depend on how you measure a “better” parenting situation. Simply having two opposite-sex parents residing in the same house is not necessarily better. So while I don’t doubt you’ll be able to show that more kids in the 50s grew up with both biological parents in the home, I don’t think you can then assume they were necessarily in a better parenting situation than in a blended family now.
I think it’s odd that anyone would argue against gay marriage on the basis that children should be protected. After all, there are gay parents out there right now, raising kids without the benefits and protections of marriage. Wouldn’t extending marriage to include them be in the best interests of their children? Isn’t a two-parent same-sex family better than a single-parent family?
Hello to all. Interesting discussion. One comment before I jump in: Hostile_Monk65 was absolutely right when he pointed out that you cannot separate religion and morality.
I also find it VERY INTERESTING that NO ONE has adaquately replied to his argument. So, I will now address the single responce to it:
#1Let me point out the fallisies you committed in this post, since all judgement should be based on logic, which I think we all agree to. 1. Ad hominem, attacking the person and not the argument. 2. your arguments are non-sequitur. 3. Slothful Induction.
#2 You claim that he hasn’t provided any evidence, which I suppose is because you don’t count logic as evidence, but in fact, you haven’t provided evidence against his claim and therefore have in no way warrented your claim.
My next post will address MrVisibles comments to Hostile_Monk65.
[QUOTE=DMC]
Yep, that’s a pretty standard reading of the fourteenth amendment. If you list exactly which classes you’d like us to discriminate against, we could probably have a debate on every entry on that list you’d provide.
[quote]
I beleive I already listed several other than gay marriage. Care to debate those?
You said society rarely agrees on anything. If you knew what society meant you would know that society usually means it always agrees on something. Since we are talking about marriage laws. I would guess we are talking about the society that makes those laws and agrees with them. If you wish to cast aspersions on those with calling them homophobic I would think you would have to have a few words with those gay friends I have already said agree with such laws.
Well you make that a pretty broad assertion. If you are saying that you are saying you freedom from what you think is discrimination, I would say most everyone thinks the same way. And I think that is admirable in anyone. Is it ok to discriinate against a zoophile?. I thaught I was being discriminated against when at the age of 17 it would have been illegal for me to have sex with Christie Brinkley if I was so lucky.
Are you asking me a cite to say that gay marriage and pedophilia is illegal?
SO you advocate discriminating against individuals for something that can’t be given?
You assume there are victims. And expect me, and everyone else, to assume the same. Who is advocating a borgish society based on their personal copnvictions here?
Please stop with the extremism to try to invalidate my arguments. Society defines what marriage is. Not you. You apparently chose to define it as between two, adult, consenting, people. Others chose it to be between a man, woman, and thier God. The people in California has defined it between a man and woman.
No, now you are just picking who you want to discriminate against regardless of what you asserted above.
I appreciate the correction that it is ruled as a right. Yet, it does not change my arguement that Society should define just what marriage is. You cannot argue that marriage is some kind of inalienable right that must be given to all people to persue happiness as you have selctively quoted. If you think that the definition of marriage between a man and woman is unconstitutional based upon that quote, please define for me exactly what you think it means. And then we can stop trying to pick my objection apart with semantics on comparissons.
And you can keep your bigotted prejudices. Talking about hypocritical. I dont hink I have anything else to say to you that is not PIT worthy.
NOW- I will respond to MrVisible when he replied to Hostile_monk65’s first post and said:
Yes, as a matter of fact I do have many other things. Lets look at your arguments:
It is completely obvious that gay marriage is not mandatory. This was not even an issue to begin with. This is the logical fallisy of Straw man. What hostilemonk was trying to show is that how can something be morally right when it doesn’t even allow reproduction. The argument made was this: IF everyone practiced it, the human race would become extinct. This argument has not been addressed.
Your second “argument” is not even an argument. This was never even touched upon by hostilemonk. This is the logical fallisy of the Straw Man as well as Non-Sequitur. Common.
Here you have missed the point. Hostile said: “some believe the point of exsistence is to survive and reproduce, and gay marriage would defy the latter.” THE LATTER> means not survive part, just reproduce!! Therefore your argument #3 is irrelevent be/c your premise to refute it is flawed and his argument has not been addressed.
Your forth argument is flawed because you are still running off of the premise that your third argument is based upon.“you say many gay people have children,” how is this an argument for gay marriage and reproduction?
This “argument” is flawed as well! Straw Man. Now, lets look at why: hostilemonk NEVER said that marriage was ALL (exclusively) about reproduction! You’re straw man is that you said he did say this, and then “refuted” that argument.
Based upon the analysis of your “refutation” we can see that the arguments presented by hostilemonk have not been addressed, and therefor still stand as true until proven otherwise, if you can do so. In order to do so you must prove that is it infact “civilized and absolute” -refer to his post.
Actually, in order to respond to you I would first as this simple question: do you believe in the exsistence of moral absolutes? This is a simple question which can be answered w/ a “yes” or “no”.
“Go tell the Spartans”. Of course the quote is out of context, but as a point of fact they had a functional society that not only had complete separation of the genders at near-infancy, their society depended on it. What does this refute about your statement? Well the Spartan child either male or female had an almost absolute detachment from the parent of the opposite gender until they themselves were expected to become parents. Even then they half joked that the couple never saw one another in daylight. Young boys were raised by men, young women were raised by women. The Spartan society may not be my ideal one to live in, but it functioned a damn sight better than many of their neighbors. And the Spartans are not unique, as sexual segregation exists to this day as a common enough practice in many African cultures. Again, not my ideal way to live but they do function.
You are being asked to defend your statement. If you hadn’t made it you would not have been asked to defend it. As it stands you seem to think things are working and have been working for some time. Divorce statistics and domestic/child abuse statistics don’t bear that out.
Because dogs can’t give consent? But I suppose you were unaware of that since Michael Savage has yet to state it on his program.
Um, okay. here you go. No such line exists as a universal rule. I could leave it as such and provide as few examples as you have but I’ll offer up a couple for you. Greece (pre-Roman Empire): Male sexual vigor was as highly valued as female chastity. Paradox? Who were these macho men proving their virility on? Each other. Accepted societal norm within what was arguably the heigh of culture and civilization of the time. Feudal Japan maybe? Quite a bit more recent than Ancient Greece, love poems between Samurai were not uncommon. Even today some are considered epics in their genre (love poems, not just “gay” love poems).
Your problems are your problems dude. All this talk about defying natural order comes from people who live in air conditioned homes, who use toilet paper, and have Supercuts hairstyles, etc. You want nature go live in a cave and eat raw meat until the chiggers eat you alive. Otherwise realize that the very act of reshaping nature to our desire is what being human is all about.
I never said you should be happy. I did say accept the proposals of Civil Unions. Vemont law does equate Civil Union as equal to marriage.
If you assert that marriage is some kind of Constitutional given right, like say freedom of speech, I would say many people would be harmed by it. Just like many people are harmed by many kinds of speech.
That argument results in a very slippery slope. Specifically, it is of the form “If all people practiced X (which results in non-reproduction), the entire human race would become extinct. Thus, X is not civilized.”
IF every male had a vasectomy, the human race would become extinct. IF every couple practiced perfectly safe sex, the human race would be come extinct. Yet these things are not uncivilized or “bad”. Thus, by reductio ad absurdum, the argument is flawed.
So, simply because I am an atheist, it is impossible for me to have morals?
I think it’s pretty cynical to think that the only reason civilization hasn’t descended into chaos is because everyone is afraid of what god might do to them.
And assuming for a second that your assertion is true that religion and morality can’t be separated, how can you possibly justify legislating anything on moral grounds? Doesn’t the First Amendment get in the way?