I surf conservative blogs on occasion to get a sense on what folks on the other side of the aisle are talking about, and I gotta tell you, I’m scared of reading their entries on Prop 8, especially their reactions to the protests that ensued (yes, people who are denied basic human right should just ‘get over it’ already). Scared in the sense that I don’t want to become depressed and/or enraged at not only what’s said, but what’s said in the commentary.
Yet the morbid fascination draws me. I’m resisting so far, fortunately. God, I’ll be glad when such attitudes are relegated to the loony fringe it so deserves.
A question; while illegalization based on economic/social/prestige issues is a different thing, surely it too would be an example of new or expanded definitions of marriage?
And isn’t that the real crime here? magellan and his ilk—merely trying, in the spirit of openness and candor, to be upfront and honest about their personal bigotries—are being castigated rather than congratulated! Aren’t they, in fact, the real victims of this conflict?*
*Filed for posterity, along with “you’re so big on tolerance, why can’t you tolerate the fact that I hate niggers?” and “I don’t hate hummaseckshuls, I’m just follerin’ what it says in the Bible!” under Arguments I Don’t Find Particularly Compelling.
I guess. But I think you also need to look at what I’m proposing, not just what I’ve worked against. You might not think it as ideal as I do—I understand that—but is what I prose so horrible as to deserve to be demonized. Imagine a life that you have ALL the rights of married people, you live with the person you love till you grow old and die. The only thing different between what you want and what I want is “marriage”. Not ideal in your book, I know. But I think the anger, hate, demonization should be somewhat commensurate for what I wish for you, no?
Your right in that it was a flagrant appeal to the masses. I was well aware of that. But I wasn’t attempting to use it to argue the validity of my point, only the degree to which it might not be abhorrent, some extreme and vile view. Technically, yes, the majority could hold a view that would be so classified, but the odds are against it. I was using it not to plead for an exemption from vitriol, just to suggest that the degree be in proportion to my actual views. I mean, if I (someone who wants all rights for gays sans “marriage”) is to be so demonized, what do you have left for the gay bashers and the Phelpses of the world? Again, you, plural.
Yes it has. One can not be at the table. One can go to a different restaurant. One cannot leave the society. (Well, they can, but you get my meaning.)
And my contention is that it dilutes the meaning of the word and that does our society a disservice over time. (Please scroll back in the thread for particulars.)
Just the fact that you date a smoker means your opinions on everything should be discounted.
You can’t be serious. You can’t be that clueless. You’re actually asking how the laws that we choose to have in place affect what our society is like? Whether we are permissive as far as burning the flag or outlaw it with draconian penalties, maybe the chopping off of a hand, or 20 years in prison, or a $50 fine. You want to know how those choices we make affect our society. No, I have better things to do with my time. Like scratch my ass. And I’d hate to insult you by actually explaining it to you:rolleyes:
Let’s see…Or you felt trapped by the logic and refuse to not play. Yeah, I’ll take that one.
Meh. Maybe not the best word. Better than “usurp” or “steal”. But probably not as good as “hijack” or “contort”. So, I’ll give you half a point. Congratulations. At least your post wasn’t a total loss.
In other words, I think that many of the so-called Boston Marriages were lesbian relationships to the best of the abilities of the women living them. I think that if given the opportunity, those women would have self-identified as “married” to each other.
Legal protection in that era is not the same as legal protection now. Less civil contract rights were involved with legal marriages at the time compared to now. Those women protected eachother by entering into the relationship in the way that they chose to do so.
They were excercising a loophole in the social discrimination of the times, and choosing to live their lives as closely as possible to their true homosexual nature, of this I am as certain as I can be about anything.
So yes, I do really think that some people in so called Boston Marriages did indeed believe and feel that they were “married” in all but the legal sense of the word.
My tagential argument about history will probably get ignored like all of the scientific arguments I’ve been making, so unless you’re willing to take up that line of discussion, I’ll leave my history of the wheel thoughts for some other time.
I think that goes a bit too far. While it has no bearing on the opinion being right, I think it does lessen the degree to which it may be off base. Granted, this would not apply in toggle-like instances: yes/no, true/false, black/white, etc. (See my response to Miller for more.)
But by saying that same-sex marriage “dilutes the meaning of the word,” your phrasing suggests that you consider same-sex marriage to be somehow lesser than heterosexual marriage. That’s why “seperate but equal” isn’t, and why we don’t want to settle for anything less than same-sex marriage.
Fair enough. But I think you’re reading WAY to mush into the cite you provided. I think you’re fixating on it because it is all you have. Seriously. The impression I got from your cite was that there was this term used lightly to refer to two women living together. Period. Might some of them have been in the type of relationship you describe. Possibly. Maybe even probably. But to imply that this was the reason for the term and that “many” of the women were in such relationships seems, at this point, to be just wishful thinking. I’m not saying that might not have been the case. Only that that is not what I get from your cite. What I got is that this term was used to, cutely, to refer to women living together for any reason. The most dominant being, they were widowed, they were simply friends or cousins, spinsters, etc. And I see no evidence that even if the term included the couples you describe, that society had intended the term to have the connotations you describe. But, again, I’m just going from what I got from the cite you provided.
My apologies for not providing a more thorough citing of the concept of Boston Marriages. Perhaps I assume too much as far as common reference in the same sex marriage arena.
I highly recommend doing some Queer Studies and Gender Studies reading on the topic, and can put together some recommendations if you like.
But in a way they are, by definition, “less”, in that they cannot offer the range of possibilities that a heterosexual marriage can produce. They may be equallly loving and committed and longlasting, and even be equally, if not better, places to raise a child, but they are NOT the same. So if you choose to apply a less/more distinction (as you have), you have to go with “less”, don’t you.
As far as not allowing for “separate but equal”, I think that laws can easily be crafted to do so. Getting them passed might be more problematic, but I honestly think this is the best course. I think see it as gays getting all the rights they are entitled to, while showing respect for an institution that they have not been part of and people would like to keep for heterosexual couples. I think one thing the gay community underplays is the genuine good will that would be gotten if the fight for gay rights was more respectful of tradition. If the goal is true equality and full acceptance, I maintain that going this route will get them there quicker. The more gays insist on ignoring the real and obvious differences between two men (or two women) and one man and one woman, the more animosity and resentment that is created. The greater the obstacles to the ultimate goal.
The reason they haven’t been “apart of” marriage is because of religious bigots. You would reward those hateful throw backs to the dark ages by forcing their will on other people?
Edit: I also await your explanation to he plethora of evidence marriage has historically included same sex couples, and other groupings.
I don’t seek to reward them or punish them. They are not my concern. I would point out though, that even in what we consider the permissive Greek societies that tolerated homosexuality (u=and usually that meant the act of sex, not committed relationships), that tolerance ebbed and flowed over the years. Religious doctrine is not the sole source of societies’ resistance to homosexuality.
If the reasons are economic/social/prestige there is no “illegality” and therefore no new definition. If my mum doesn’t want me to marry the mestizo crack-whore who works ten blocks away from my house she is in no way making it illegal for me to do it. She’s applying social pressure of the same kind as she would if I’d chosen to study she didn’t like or whatever.
The fixtation on interracial mariges being illegal is based on the US, (mostly) state law, not even federal, on a part of the US, on a relatively modern and short period of time.
Restricting something cannot be an expansion of its meaning, in the normal sense of the word(i.e. expansion would mean more categories/people, not less)
No, I still tend to disagree. The history of mankind, not to mention our current situation, shows many examples of a majority of people holding even extremely wrong views. Your argument depends on humans, as a whole, tending towards reasonability, and while I would agree again in general we don’t always find that reasonability solely or even majorly on one side.
