I meant to respond to this as well.
It takes (at least) a man and a woman to have existed within the span of time equal to whatever the span of time that a frozen sperm or ova remains viable. They need not ever be in the same room, timezone, or continent, and the genetic contributors need not be involved in the carrying of the baby at all.
That is the current state of our biology.
Whatever. There’s no point in reasoning with you then.
How dare you imply that his noble Aristotelean ideal of marriage has any relationship whatsoever with misogynistic and racist ideals of marriage as they once stood!
magellan01, this appears to be a question you completely forgot to answer:
Wouldn’t it be more effective, in the effort to preserve marriage as the natural childraising ideal you believe it to be, to outlaw divorce and adultery than to outlaw same-sex marriage? Where’s your vote on an initiative to make adultery a felony? How about an initiative to remove no-fault divorce and bring grounds for divorce back to their early 20th-century form?
It certainly has moved away from that definition, this whole idea of “natural.” But anyway, you still haven’t addressed my question: what real, concrete, material harm would be done to you or to society by gays being allowed to marry? And do you truly believe that harm, if you can indeed articulate what it is, outweighs the harm being done to gays by denying them equal rights and protections under the law?
You say you’re not bigoted against gays. OK. But you do realize that, by voting YES on Prop 8, you are aligning yourself with bigots of the most blatant and destructive stripe, all based on your semantic objections to the use of the word “marriage”? It would seem to me that, in order to be true to the spirit of your principles, you’d have to compromise on the letter of it, let your meaning of that word go, and support equal rights for gays.
You keep saying that a hetero environment is ideal for children, while a homo environmnet is reasonable, but not ideal. You act like there’s such a significant difference between the two, but there isn’t. There are natural variations between people, and I posit that:
A hetero couple where one person is chronically lazy and messy
A hetero couple where both parents work long hours
A hetero couple who believe in corporeal punishment
etc. etc. ad infinitum
would be worse than a loving gay couple. Would you disagree? Then why is is it so critical to discourage a gay couple, while not constantly discouraging any of the above. If we constantly accept only the ideal couple, there would be no more babies.
You asked for a GOOD argument. You didn’t provide one, because there isn’t one. So no, I wasn’t wrong.
And no insult you throw at me will make me ever feel anything but superior to a vile bigot like yourself. You are vermin.
No, I don’t disagree that it isn’t a compromise with society. I’m just saying that it isn’t technically your compromise; it would be your preferred societal system. It makes considerably more sense for us lot to compromise with society than with just you alone (although the adverts designed towards you, personally, would be interesting ;))
Could I prevail upon you to answer my question on page 7? I have a place i’m going with this one.
(bolding mine)
I have to say that I’ve been very much trying to give you the benefit of the doubt in this thread (as I think I demonstrated in my previous post). I want to believe that you are principled and sincere in your sentiments, and I haven’t engaged in any of the name-calling that has been going on thus far re: your seemingly contradictory stance on this topic.
But I’m afraid this defense doesn’t really cut it for me. You may say you WANT gays to have all the same rights, but when it comes to the manifestation of those rights in real, concrete, legally bullet-proof ways, you are ready to completely abandon this stand to uphold a historically dubious and intellectually porous defense of an ever-evolving definition and social understanding of a word.
A WORD. Does that word carry symbolic importance and emotional weight? Sure. Does it carry complex connotations, some sentimental and some with larger cultural resonance? Of course.
But it’s still an F-ing word. And the fact that you’re more comfortable defending the “sanctity” of a largely semantic argument over the everyday realities of same-sex couples going through the ordeals of having inheritances disputed, custody battles engaged, and hospital visitation rights revoked because they don’t have the luxury of benefitting from your WORD really does say a lot about how much you really do WANT equality for gay couples.
It’s extremely disappointing. And while you may be able to rationalize in your mind the intellectual honesty of your case, as well as the relative open-mindedness of your position, the fact of the matter remains is that your stance favors the priviledge of the bigoted at the expense of the oppressed.
You can argue all you like that it is “more easy to fix and tweak” the law, but I think there’s an enormous amount of historical evidence that demonstrates that this is actually not true. The more complicated and serpentine you contort the legalese to try to get the “same” results, the more loopholes and exceptions and interpretations and “ambiguities” opponents are going to find to exploit. With good reason–because they will always argue that if the intent was for them to mean the same thing, they would say the same thing. And they’re right.
You have yet to really demonstrate how “defense” of this WORD will improve the integrity of the institution, or convesely, how expansion of this word to include same-sex couples will rend the larger social fabric. Everything you’re talking about is oh-so-high-minded in a theoretical/philosophical sense, but does very little to address the facts-on-the-ground as they exist in millions of living rooms and courtrooms and hospital rooms across this country.
And that’s why I don’t blame a lot of others who see your defense of equal rights for gays as little more than condescending lip service (no matter how well-intended). Rights that are immediately disposable at the whim of a lofty (not to mention arbitrary and unrealistic) “ideal” are rights that you can’t really believe in too strongly in the first place. At least that’s how it appears to these eyes.
Really, you could at least pretend to respect our intelligence by hiding the “correlation = evidence of logical relationship” fallacy a bit better than that…
I asked what detrimental effect SSM might have on regular marriages on the previous page, but I didn’t get an answer.
It’s rather like asking whether, if you paid me a million dollars, I could prove that 221 is a prime number. The desirability of a particular result has no effect on facts.
If you hired a contractor to install a hot tub, and he did everything except hook up the drain. I presume you would not be mollified if he told you, gee, too bad about the water damage, but he performed every other step of the work…
You don’t get to stipulate the proposition you are required to prove.
Have you considered licensing the copyright to your comments from this thread to authors of logic textbooks, for use as samples of common fallacies?
[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
But I’m afraid this defense doesn’t really cut it for me. You may say you WANT gays to have all the same rights, but when it comes to the manifestation of those rights in real, concrete, legally bullet-proof ways, you are ready to completely abandon this stand to uphold a historically dubious and intellectually porous defense of an ever-evolving definition and social understanding of a word.
A WORD. Does that word carry symbolic importance and emotional weight? Sure. Does it carry complex connotations, some sentimental and some with larger cultural resonance? Of course.
But it’s still an F-ing word. And the fact that you’re more comfortable defending the “sanctity” of a largely semantic argument over the everyday realities of same-sex couples going through the ordeals of having inheritances disputed, custody battles engaged, and hospital visitation rights revoked because they don’t have the luxury of benefitting from your WORD really does say a lot about how much you really do WANT equality for gay couples.
[/QUOTE]
[snipped the rest of an excellent post]
Something I’m wondering about:
In magellan’s apparent ideal future, a “separate-but-equal” status for gay couples exists. All rights, privileges, duties, etc. are exactly the same as for traditional straight marriage. Let’s call it a Civil Union, for the sake of convenience.
So when such a couple goes off and gets… civilly-united, I suppose, what do you think they tell folks they did that weekend? What gets put on their invitations? How do their friends refer to them? How do they consider themselves?
No matter how you view the cultural significance of the word, I’d be willing to bet that (at least over time) pretty much everyone will call them “married”. Because everyone knows what it means already, it’s shorter, and easier to say.
So, magellan, are you going to be the one saying, “No, no! You can’t call yourselves married! We didn’t give you permission to use that word! You have to call yourselves ‘Unioned’!”
How can you legislate the usage of a word? What’s the point?
Abolishing “marriage” as an institution recognized by the state and replacing it across the board with something else for bureaucratic purposes, leaving “marriage” strictly to religious and social institutions, would work.
The history of Western religions clearly does not restrict marriage to a man and a woman, no.
Not that I mind this idea, but I suspect everyone would call the bureaucratic state “marriage” anyway, since not everyone (even today) bothers to get married by a religious representative.
Exactly! But there’s a difference between “encourage the ideal” and “forbidding the non-ideal.” Your friend is a single mom - not ideal by your own words - and yet her situation is very legal. Why can’t you accept that gay marraiges, while maybe not ideal in your eyes, is also legal?
Yeah, I’m still waiting for an answer to this question, what do you propose to do about the single parents and divorced parents to bring them back to an Idea Unit, or explain why their right to a sub-obtimum parenting situation* is more valid that a SSM
*not saying I believe that, but for discussion sake
I think we’re not going to get any answers from magellan01. He’s been asked for concretes and specifics, so the conversation is over. He likes to get everyone riled up, and then bolt when the discussion gets down to brass tacks.