Bullshit. In this country for almost two hundred years marriage met a union between a man and a woman of the same color. Whites were free to marry whites and blacks were free to marry blacks. I had a friend in elementary school whose parents had to come to north to get married–inter-racial marriage was illegal in their state.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. The idea of “separate but equal” was declared illegal decades ago.
They would make an exception for that last one, because of course if Daddy wasn’t out there serving in the Navy, the evil Eye-Rackee military would come here and take away everybody’s guns and Bibles and FREEDUMB!
What does reproduction have to do with anything? Have you never known a childfree married couple?
Some people do have a problem with that as well, and perhaps they seem to be the same ones who have a problem with SSM. I’m not sure.
What if Mommy is serving over in Iraq? Shouldn’t she know a mother’s place is in the home?
The idea that children need to be raised by their biological parents is not up for debate. What with sperm donation, surrogate mothers, and adoption and all. Or all you saying that the four children of my sister and her wife are somehow lesser than the four children of my brother and his wife?
You cannot say that “children need biological parents” or “a mother and a father” without excluding single motherhood and adoption. Should pregnant widows be forced to get married or give up their children?
By the way 13% of Americans don’t approve of interracial marriage. And most say it doesn’t make them bigots and it’s for “the sake of the children.” REALLY!
(bolding mine)
Interestin. You call my claim bullshit, then SUPPORT the actual point I made by posting the above. Color does not come into it any claim I’ve made. So, we agree on the man + woman thing. Excellent.
Good thing no one is proposing that, then. Whew! I’m not going to rehash it here, yet again, but I’ve laid out the specifics for this in numerous threads, so feel free to search. And if you’d like, start a new thread lest this one get hijacked even more. When you search you’ll see that I’m talking about having one (1) set of laws that both SS and OS couples tap into equally. Your “separate but equal” claim would require two sets of laws that we’d try to make equal.
We could ask, could we not? Otherwise, why interpret his statement in the narrowest possible way - unless it’s because the version with the least context is the best one for your claim.
You DO realize that this was the entire point? Right? Your cavalier glossing over of the racial history of marriage in our country? The fact that we have, in recent memory, “changed” the definition of marriage regarding race, and the institution of marriage still stands? You understand that, right?
I’ll try it for you again.
In the past, marriage between people of different races was often not recognized or illegal in this country. Laws were changed so that those marriages are offered full recognition nationwide. We changed the “definition” of marriage to include interracial marriages. You have accepted this change. You refuse to accept a different change, but offer no reason why one change is OK and another is not OK.
Fine. But before we do, I’d like to know what you thought his phrase was referring to, since you disagree with my interpretation. What’s yours? And why? And why you think that it was a more logical assumption than the one I made? You seem to not want to share your thinking for some reason.
Wrong, in so many ways. My claim has nothing to do with color. Nothing. What my clam is, is that until the recent contortions of logic and language, marriage has ALWAYS involved man + woman.
If you want to make the point that “just because it has been that way doesn’t necessitate that it must always be that way”, well, DUH! The fact that you point to an example that involves marriage gives your point—a valid one, I agree—more credence then pointing to any other law that has been changed. And it does not change the accuracy of my claim one iota of one scintilla.
I couldn’t be less interested. Hey Miller, what did you mean? Were you saying that the U.S. society doesn’t enforce the precept that marriage is about biological children, or does that apply to Western society?
What do you mean by sets of laws? You can have one set of laws that treats people unequally by dividing them into arbitrary classes. Many Jim Crow laws applied to everyone but they still discriminated against black people. That was the whole point of the exercise.
Actually your claim was that it involved one man and one woman.
Several of us spent the last two pages arguing about this statement because it was wrong. If you’re now conceding that it was wrong, there’s no reason to discuss it further. Of course if that’s the case I don’t know why you’ve been arguing about it for two pages.
Except for one minor detail that has been pointed out to you repeatedly, without your acknowledgment.
Once again: One of your proposed sets of laws would allow the married couple to use the word married. One would not. Therefore they are separate and not equal. :rolleyes:
Let us presume, for the sake of argument, that this claim is correct. What relevance does it have on the SSM debate? A lovely piece of etymological history, certainly, but I don’t know why this should have any influence on public policy.
While you ponder this, realize that the meaning of marriage has changed in other ways throughout the years, the “traditional meaning” was not a strict barrier to policy changes.
Fortunately, for the sake of good communication, we both know that this claim of yours is complete bullshit. YOU are the one that brought it up. YOU evidently thought differently than I did. Then when I showed you what I was responding to (because in your rush to find fault you didn’t bother to pay attention to context on your own) you don’t want to share why you thought I was wrong, and heavens, c certainly not what YOU thought. And now you want to ask what Miller meant. This is what you do when you “couldn’t be less interested”?
:rolleyes:
Oh, you’re a tricky-dicky one, aren’t you. How about simply asking him to clarify what he meant by “this society”. Too forthright a way to proceed?
If someone wants to charge that my solution suffers from the problem of being separate but equal the way that separate but equal schools did, then one has to point to two sets of laws that I propose, that we would then attempt to make “separate but equal”. Since my idea proposes one set of laws that charge is hot wind triggered by a hyper-active and twitchy knee.
The saccharine sincerity of your question aside, I offer the above not for your benefit, as you have been involved in many threads in which this has been discussed. And I see no reason what you would choose to allow the words to penetrate your Anti-Logic, Anti-Fair, Anti-Magellan forcefield this time.
That SSM would change the institution in a profound way. We have an institution that has been a cornerstone of our society, and some want to change it. I’m fine having the debate about changing it, as it is an important one. But the other side treats it cavalierly. “It’s just a word.” You’ll have to ask those who try to attack the simple FACT I point out, which is incontestable, why they expend so much energy trying to craft a narrative in which it is not true. That is by far the more interesting question.
I’m sure Miller can read all of this. It’s text.
…As posters have already done here and in other threads…
I just got through explaining that that’s not how separate but equal works. In fact this started with my asking you what sets of laws were, and you didn’t get around to answering.
Bullshit. On both counts.
Hope that clears things up for you.
Well there’s a devastating counterargument.
Nothing happened to Donald Sterling due to a private conversation held in his own home.