Some are. Though I prefer to say they’re “mischaracterizing” my position. They’re also guilty of a logical fallacy. They’re begging the question. The ONLY way that their statement that my way doesn’t give them ALL the rights is to presuppose that their already exists a right that gives a man the right to marry a man. No such right exists. It certainly is not one of Jefferson’s inalienable rights, which means that it must be one that has been specifically added. If so, where is it? it doesn’t exist.
They, and perhaps, you, jump the gun on “all”, as I’ve just described. I’ve shown how ALL the rights that exist for a married couple can, in fact, be extended to SS couples. I’ve shown how that be can done without "marriage?. Therefore, “marriage” is not a necessary condition for SS coupes to tap into all those rights and privileges.
And some, Miller, I think (and to his credit) is of the opinion that the “rights” are not enough. That he wants all the warm and fuzzy stuff the word connotes.
I only ask that they accept logic. And I very, very rarely hurl accusations of lying in any direction.
My point, of course, is that marriage is an institution in society, not an isolated contract affecting on one but those making the contract. And it is a valuable and precious thing – both to those who think they’re “defending” it and to the people who want it. All this “abolish legal marriage” bull is precisely that – bull. The point of my snark to Steve was that, yeah, people’s marriages are significant to society – the Federal Employees Retirement Service and the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement Program are prepared to pay out benefits to Barb and me as surviving spouses of the other as and when one of us kicks the bucket. The Franklin County Court is going to recognize one of us as entitled to half the estate of the other under North Carolina law. Wake Med will permit one of us to make health care decisions for the other if and when that is necessary. Barb is entitled to speak to Progress Energy about our utility bill as the spouse of me the accountholder. And so on through over a thousand inwtances of legal connection.
More important, though, is what our marriage means to the two of us. 34 years and a month ago we promised to be there for each other in sickness or health, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, till death do us part, We meant it then and we still mean it.
Dr Matrix and Cajun Man have been together just about as long as us, and made each other the same sort of promises. I cannot see any reason why they are not entitled to the same legal protections.
For those who don’t think people should be married, the answer is about the same as the one given the Prop H8ers – don’t get married. If you’re opposed to same-sex marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex. If you think marriage is an overrated institution, don’t marry. But for God’s sake and man’s as well, keep your hands off other people’s lives.
I take it that you think this is a really smart little thought experiment, so I’ll play along. No. Since nature has seen fit to have children by the product of a man and a woman, and that the raising of that child is best done by those two people—one male, one female—as they each give to the child different things during its upbringing, it behooves society to be able to discriminate between the ideal situation and other ones. This does not meant that single family or SS couple households cannot do a stellar job of raising a child, often better than the original situation he or she might have been born into. This is one of the reasons that I think gays should be able to adopt. But the first preference is the ideal and deserves it’s own label.
In theory, I might fine with that. If there was a differentiating descriptor that applied to heterosexual married couples on;y, that would work. But, as I’m sure you realize, attempting that from where we are now is impractical in the extreme, if not impossible.
Yeah, these terms are thrown around as if they have any bearing on what I proposed, but they don’t. Feel free to check the thread I cited. My idea has two groups tapping into ONE set of laws, not two. in the hopes that they will be made equivalent.
‘Seem’ is the operative word here. The appeal to pragmatism is simply another salvo in their war to save state sponsored bigotry. “Allowing Gays to marry changes the definition of a word. Oh no!” Phoney-baloney claptrap.
The crazy thing is we’re on an inexorable path to full equality in all things for homosexuals, including marriage, yet the purveyors and practitioners of bigotry simply won’t let it go. After losing most of their ability to legally discriminate against blacks in the '60s and '70s, if they can no longer repress Gays, all they’ll have left are the Mexicans, so they’re going to fight tooth and nail to retain the legal expression of their God-given xenophobia against Gays to the bitter end.
Maybe we should start a fund to save a few of these living anachronisms…put them on display at the Smithsonian or something.
I wouldn’t ask them. I certainly wouldn’t ask them if they were “married”. I might as well ask them if they were part Chubacca or if they had dinosaur for breakfast. It’s an impossibility. As far as I’m concerned, marriage must contain one man and one woman. And if they told me they were married. I’d accept that with the same internal roll of the eyes that I have when my good friend’s 14-year-old kid tells me he is a Minister, having received a certificate to prove it.
How much do you want to bet that there’s nothing quick about this?
I don’t believe I’ve ever accused you of lying about that. I could be wrong - we’ve spent a lot of words on this issue, and tempers do fray. What I have instead pointed out is that you are apparently unable to count. I do not doubt that you believe you are advocating one set of laws. How you can look at your proposal and come to that conclusion passes all understanding, because it is clearly and unambiguously not the case, but I do accept that you believe you are only proposing one set of laws.
And because your proposal is not, in fact, one set of laws, it is not an equal set of rights. By maintaining a separation between marriage and civil unions, you make it possible to legislate separately between the two of them. This is simply undeniable. It is, in fact, the first principal of your proposal. You want a law that says, in effect, “All of the rights and privileges of marriage shall be extended to homosexual couples, except that they shall not be allowed to call it marriage.” There is absolutely nothing in your proposal that prevents additional terms being added after that “except.” And as such, what you are proposing is not equality, but a situation in which gay marriage is markedly more vulnerable to antagonistic legislation than it would be if we did not create a distinction between gay and straight marriages.
Yes, the emotional aspect of the term “marriage” has been brought up, and I think that’s an important aspect, as well. But it is far from the only, or even most important, reason no gay person on this planet will ever agree to your “compromise.”
Those of you trying to reason with magellan01 may want to go to that thread he linked earlier (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=513372&page=24), particularly post #1168, where he drops all the polite pretense that he’s worried about redefining marriage or the elusive potential harm of SSM and lays out his real objections:
So his real problem is us upppity gays refusing to accept our place and pretending we’re normal.
I’m trying to figure out why you think it’s important that it’s a man made construct.
For instance, I would say that people clearly have a right to life, and that their life is not a man-made construct. It’s a biological thing.
Otherwise, what fundamental civil rights aren’t arbitrary concepts that we made up? Equal protection under the law? Substantive and procedural due process? Freedom of speech and the press? Suffrage?
They’re all “arbitrary concepts” that were made up, yet most anyone would consider them fundamental civil rights.
For that matter, taxes, calculus homework, and parking tickets are all arbitrary man-made constructs too.
So what I’m asking is 1) why would being an arbitrary man made construct indicate that something isn`t a cherished civil right, and B) what’s the alternative? If it’s not a right identified by people, what is it?
That’s hardly a revelation. It’s been his thesis from day one. Hell, look at his post in this thread. To him, the concept of gays being married is a physical impossibility, which is why he objects in the first place. That post you quoted is just him restating it in a more exasperated and overtly offensive way.
Funny how quick those goalposts shift. The argument that “marriage has been between one man and one woman throughout history” invariably gets met with citations proving it hasn’t, at which point it becomes “well, in the West it has”.
So tell me- why is the “western definition” of marriage any more important than any other?
None? See, thing is, if one accepts the premise that gay is pretty much the same thing as normal (and I do), then one is faced with the prospect that there is just as much variety of opinion in either group. Assuming that gayitude has no effect on the logical faculties, wouldn’t it necessarily follow that there are relatively “conservative” gays, willing to compromise so long as the “important” goals are met?
Because I believe that being gay is not defining of a person, it necessarily follows that total solidarity of such an indefinite group is, well, pretty much impossible.
You have been asked something similar to what I’m about to ask in many other threads, but I do not believe you have ever answered. Might as well try again.
In this behooved discriminatory society of yours, will you be performing fertility tests and having doctors on-hand to screen for health risks to the elderly and such, in order to determine which path folks will take to your one set of laws?
And what about the fertile straight couples who know they do not want to reproduce or adopt? Is it a case of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and they can get to walk the Marriage path if they just keep their little non-reproductive motivations secret?
And what about people who have children already but have been divorced or widowed? If they find a new potential spouse, do they get to participate in the path to Marriage, or is that only available to them if they solemnly swear that they will participate in this ideal by having at least one more biological child with the new spouse? Or are they not considered married until they have genetic proof that they have consumated this ideal?
And now that I think about it, why stop there? Until there is genetic proof in the form of progeny that a heterosexual couple is not just resting on their laurels of potentially being able to participate in this ideal, should they be given that benefit of the doubt at all?