I thought the post from which I extracted this was very good. But I take issue with this last part. Having SSM is absolutely taking significance away from other, or at least, the traditional, concept of marriage. It dilutes the word to include two people of the same sex. Therefore, the degree to which someone believes the institution is a celebration of the coming together of the two parties needed for procreation, it is weakened. I really don’t see how you can argue otherwise. Now, I’m not saying that the argument stops there, only that claiming that some of the significance of marriage is taken away isn’t right.
Not “may” agree, we DO agree. On the main point that I’ve been arguing in this thread and others, we are in complete agreement. In this, we are brothers.
Except, of course, that we’re not allowed to use the family name. Too embarrassing for the “real” family members, after all…
This is absolutely untrue. It in no way dilutes the term, unless you’re operating from the assumption that gay couples are fundamentally inferior to straight couples.
The way you argue otherwise is by pointing out that secular marriage is not, and has never been, primarily about the raising of children. The other way you argue against it is by pointing out that gays have kids, too.
Cryptic?
Yes.
Makes sense when translated?
?
I don’t feel it takes away from the concept of my marriage. If you feel that your marriage is threatened by gay marriage, perhaps the problem lies within you and not with gays wanting to get married.l
Why choose to see it that way? It is a choice on your part, and not a cold, hard fact. You could choose to see it as an expansion of the meaning of marriage rather than a dilution. Why are you making that choice? From what you’ve said earlier, it seems to be because you are afraid that gays are tainting marriage with their less fully human, deviant ways. Read: homophobia.
It’s not only gays who are “weakening” it in this manner. Every infertile person who marries, every person who chooses to remain childless, is doing this, but they are perfectly allowed to marry. But you won’t legislate against them. Why not? You cannot choose to define terms and then say that your choice of interpretation should the basis for denying other people their rights without people feeling that you are being deliberately small-minded and exclusionary. There is no natural law to be obeyed here, no factual basis for this view of marriage, only human conventions among which we pick and choose. You could choose to see SSM as an expansion of marriage, but you do not. That should not be a basis for a law, and it’s shameful that it is.
I don’t believe the significance is taken away, and that is only your opinion, the point of view you choose to take. You could try to open your mind and see it differently, in a way that allows other people to share the celebration of marriage. You’re seeing the glass as half empty when I see it as half full. Full enough to share with gays, that’s for sure.
The meaning is clear. I’m pretty sure you are one of the few in this thread who apparently can’t understand it. I’m thinking that’s more disingenuous than stupid.
I’ll have to go with “no” then.
Just imagine my surprise.
Yeah. Mutual.
Sorry. I just can’t work up the enthusiasm. I think my contempt for you is getting in the way of my visceral enjoyment of calling you names.
Your analogy fails on several levels. A California driver’s license is valid anywhere in the country - you don’t become an unlicensed driver just because you and your CA license drove into Nevada. The same applies if you and your Oregon driver’s license drive into CA. Each state recognizes driver’s licenses issued by every other state.
The license renewal which you mention has more to do with the use of the driver’s license as official ID (since it typically has your full name and home address) than it has to do with your new home state’s faith in your driving skills. I’ve moved several times, but I’ve never had to re-take the road test or the written test to get a driver’s license in my new home state. Clearly, it’s not driving ability that’s in question.
Does any state require a heterosexual married couple from another state to renew their marriage vows or their marriage license? No, I didn’t think so. Even in the case of heterosexual marriages not permitted in some states (first cousins, marriage where one partner is below a certain age), if the marriage was legal in the state where it was performed, it’s legal in any other state.
How is that a huge change, and how are heterosexual couples harmed (that’s “harmed,” not “offended”) by this change? Are you suggesting that they are somehow at risk of not having their marriages legally recognized? If so, can you cite a situation in which this has happened to a heterosexual couple?
I’m not impressed by that CA couple’s claim. Regardless of the words on the marriage license, they are indisputably married. I’ll bet their ceremony used the words “bride” and “groom” too.
Unless a couple is planning to display their marriage license after the wedding, this change causes no harm to heterosexual couples.
An adequate response to point 3 requires more knowledge of law than I posess.
As we’ve seen, some people claim ownership of the word “marriage.” If it isn’t called “marriage,” many people WILL claim that the legal benefits of marriage don’t accrue to couples. As we’ve seen as well, the concept of “domestic partnership” is not portable in the way that the concept of “marriage” is.
Then you haven’t been paying attention. People who want SSM want it for the same reasons that heterosexual couples want to engage in opposite-sex marriage.
Thought experiment:
Last week, the state of New Jersey enacted a law to the effect that a Christian person can’t have a “driver’s license.” Any non-Christian who meets the appropriate criteria (legal age, passing score on written exam, passing score on road test, has $35 for the processing fee) can get a “driver’s license.” Christians who meet the same criteria can get a “car operator’s permit,” which gives them pretty much the same rights as a New Jersey driver’s license. In fact, the law in NJ says, “A ‘car operator’s permit’ shall confer the same rights and privileges as a driver’s license.” However, the ‘car operator’s permit’ doesn’t SAY “Driver’s License” at the top, and it doesn’t look like a driver’s license.
When John Q. Christian tries to write a check at the grocery store, the clerk says, “What’s this? Sorry, we only accept a driver’s license as ID for check writing. It’s the same thing? Well, it doesn’t say ‘driver’s license,’ it says ‘car operator’s permit.’ I don’t care if some other clerk let you write a check yesterday - I’m not her. Come back later and you can talk to the manager if you want.” John is embarrassed and he leaves without his groceries. Later, he gets cash from an ATM, goes back to the store, and purchases his groceries with cash.
Meanwhile, John’s wife, Melissa L. Christian, has gone out to Wisconsin to visit her parents. While she’s there, she borrows their car to run some errands for them. Her car is rear-ended at a traffic light, resulting in quite a lot of damage to the vehicle. Mary calls the police, because she knows that that her parent’s insurance company will insist on a police report before processing a claim. The responding officer asks for Melissa’s license, and Melissa obligingly hands over her car operator’s permit. The officer says, “What’s this? Is this some kind of learner’s permit? Do you have a driver’s license? No ma’am, you do NOT have a driver’s license. I’m sorry, but you’ll have to step out of the car and come with me.” Melissa is arrested and charged with operating a vehicle without a valid driver’s license. While she is at the police station, Melissa calls her lawyer in NJ. The lawyer explains that her ‘car operator’s permit’ is the functional equivalent of a driver’s license. Eventually, Melissa is allowed to leave, but she gets back to her parents’ house several hours later than expected.
John and Melissa are outraged. Ordinary activities are made difficult because they have a document that says ‘car operator’s permit’ instead of ‘driver’s license’. The Buddhists next door don’t have to deal with this stuff. The Jews down the block take it for granted that they can ID themselves upon request, and not get flak. Mary’s sister, who converted to Islam, says, “Well, that’s what you get for being Christian. You could save yourselves a lot of trouble if you just converted to something else. Look at me, I converted and now I have no problems with licenses or anything.” John’s father doesn’t have much sympathy, saying, “See, this is why your mother and I just tell everyone we’re agnostic. We say Christian prayers at home, but we keep it to ourselves when we’re anywhere else.” John and Melissa ask their pastor what he thinks, and he says, “This is part of the burden of being Christian.”
Questions for the reader:
- Are John and Melissa harmed by New Jersey’s new law?
- John and Melissa could convert to a different religion, or they could claim to have no religion, and thus obtain driver’s licenses. Give three arguments for and against this.
- Another couple, Fred and Minoo, were born into Zoroastrian families in Iran. The immigrated to the United States and started going to church. Fred would like to formally convert to Christianity. Minoo does, too, but she’s concerned about the inconveniences that might result after exchanging her driver’s license for a car operator’s permit. What do you think Fred and Minoo should do?
And that’s why people want to get married, not civilly unionized or domestically partnered.
For all instances of “Mary” in post #490, read “Melissa.”
To recap: you ignore questions pending, revert to snide and cryptic remarks, then refuse to explain yourself and now seek to run away.
Can’t say I blame ya.
The word “marriage” comes with no legal rights and privileges EXCEPT those we agree to give it through our laws. We’ve decided to confer upon married people a certain set of rights and privileges. We can similarly confer those same rights, and/or others, upon people in “domestic partnerships”.
No. They may be harmed by people’s ignorance of what the laws are, but not by the laws themselves.
What questions? We’ve been over this a million times in this thread alone. You. Are. Wrong. And disgustingly bigoted. I personally don’t believe that you actually have this inane and stupid “I’m for all gay rights…but they can’t call it marriage” bullshit. I think you’re lying. And no, I’m not going to apologize for that.
Fuck yourself. You’re a disgusting homophobe. Deal.
And guns don’t kill people, people kill people. When you’re the one who’s dead, it’s a meaningless distinction.
You’re just sad joke. You know, a joke, but in a sad way. Your brain is limited, your ability to scroll up and find those series of words with those little squiggles (?) at the end is limited, and your ability to even craft an original insulted is limited. So, I guess I am left to dispense with you like a cat dispenses with a chipmunk once it can no longer twitch. So, onward.
Still, you have no right to marry in CA. Deal.*
Perhaps the most pathetic of dimissives sign-offs, surpassing even “whatever”, but since you seem to like it I thought I’d leave you with a gift.
But when you’re seeking to treat the disease, or craft laws, the distinctions are critical.
To add, if the problem is with the law, the law needs to be tweaked. If the problem is with ignorance of the law, that can be corrected through education. I’d venture to say that every time a new law comes on the books there is a problem with not everyone being up to speed. No?
Married people -> set of rights and privileges. People with these rights and privileges -> married. Nice circular reasoning there.
When come back, bring new arguments.
As I said in another thread, we’re going to run up your back if you stand in the way. Prepare to be trampled.
He doesn’t have any. His entire argument is semantic. Semantics is the most important thing ever, apparently. I have no idea why he’s not speaking Anglo-Saxon (or Proto-Indo-European) if that’s the case.