The very premise of your ideal is challenged by society’s continued existence in spite of divorce, death (military service, etc) and their impact on families that previously consisted, legally speaking, of your ideal. It is the human capacity for love that holds this society together. Not your proposed ideal. You would treat your single parents more like they were excluded from being a part of your ideal that is held in such high esteem, were that ideal valid. You give them the benefit of the doubt that they will find ways to share as much love as possible, from any available source, for their family.
Until such time that there is a constitutional amendment that functionally denies people who have divorced (or endured the death of a spouse, or have an absent-t spouse due to military service, etc) from a right that is protected for individuals who have not divorced (or endured the death of a spouse, or have an absent-t spouse due to military service, etc) we have a double standard that is imposing an injustice on same sex couples/individuals.
But you just argued that it does NOT have value. Or should not, to gays. If it cannot do harm in any way to lack it, then how can it have value?
I cannot believe that you are in fact in full favor of gay rights if you insist on arguing on the one hand that the word should not be important to gays as long as they have the same legal rights, and on the other hand argue that that the word is so important, so sacred, so immutably tied to “one man and one woman” that it is vital that it not be given to those who in your words have no respect for tradition, are trying to legitimize their relationships, hijack an institution, squeeze themselves into a suit of respectability…did I miss anything?
Okay, I’m posting over here the question I posted in the other thread, as you suggested.
If we LGBTetc. people agreeing to call it a “civil union” instead of a marriage would make it all better, why is it that so many of the ballot measures banning SSM also include a ban on civil unions or “marriage-equivalent legal unions”?
These are only a few that I found the text of online. Doesn’t sound like they’re just protecting semantics.
Thanks. That helps, particularly the second paragraph. But I really do think I’ve already commented on this. With divorce, military service, etc, ewe have an accident of circumstance. What started as an ideal was degraded for one reason or another. Out response to that is as it should be, to allow that less than ideal situation to come as close to it as possible. Doing so, as we have is proof that we value traditional marriage, particularly when children are involved. I don’t see that as the double-standard you do because in the examples I just cited the state is trying to make a less than ideal situation as close to the ideal as possible. By recognizing SSM that state is giving in an imprimatur of the ideal, knowing that it falls short. I see this as diluting the term that represents the ideal. And I fear that down the road that marriage itself (which is extremely useful in in its current meaning) will lose some of its specialness for what it represents and make it less desirable an institution for people to become part of. That does not serve our future children, and therefore our future society well.
Why are we still trying to reason with Magellan the retard-troll? He got our rights taken away, and now he’s trying to convince everyone we enjoy exactly equal rights all across the country. He’s got an evil agenda. It’s very clear. Oh, he’ll keep proclaiming he fully supports equal but separate rights, but he argues from a fucking evil retard position of knowing full well he can wallow in his own filth knowing we have nothing like equal rights in this country. “Equal rights! I support equal rights!” He knows damn well we don’t have equal rights, and he loves it that way.
If you choose to inject yourself into someone else’s discussion, you should at least know what is being discussed. Please review the exchanges that preceded the one where you re-entered the thread.
Why does allowing gays to use the term “marriage” show that society doesn’t value traditional marriage? I don’t see how it would. Broadening the definition of marriage shows that society values gays and sees them as equal and valid citizens. Denying them this right indicates that society sees them as lesser citizens. Is that the message you want to give?
How does it fall short? Because the ideal is only a man and a woman? I fail to see how that is ideal when so many hetero marriages end in divorce or involve infidelity. The ideal should be of two people, genuinely in love, willing to commit for life. I’m not sure why gender is so relevant here. Fundamentally, marriage is meant to be a permanent union between two people. What threatens the ideal of marriage is not the gender of the participants but the ease and casualness with which it is ended.
I think you confuse my position with the counter position at large. You know what mine is by now. (I hope.) I would just reiterate that if the cause were mine, I would push “the rights” argument, letting people know that you WANT to respect the traditional meaning of marriage and have your own term you want to use. It’s much harder to deny someone the right to visit their loved one in the hospital than it is to deny them from contorting the meaing of a word and ignoring what has understood to be
It’s much easier to deny someone the right to (as they see it) contort the meaning of a word that was perfectly clear for hundreds of years and represents the natural state of procreation and the raising of children than it is to vote to deny someone the ability to visit the person they’ve loved for thirty years when they’re on their death bed.
My point, which has been made by several other people, is that by making the perfect the enemy of the good, you’re stomping all over people’s civil rights. There are very, very few families who reach this “ideal”, and the ‘gayness’ of a family is only one very small tic mark in the metaphysical list of good and bad attributes toward the perfect families. I see no reason to outright ban anything that stops short of the ideal. That’s not just encouraging the ideal; that’s attacking anything imperfect.
Which is wrong.
And if you can’t see that, than I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
Honestly, you are not only one of the most unpleasant posters on these boards, but clearly one of the most dishonest (as evidenced AGAIN above) and dumbest.
My husband and I don’t have children. Are we contorting the meaning of marriage by applying it to ourselves? What about my friend’s dad, who just got married for the second time at 65 to a 60 year old woman? Would you take away our rights to marry because we don’t intend to reproduce?
Marriage =/= natural state of procreation and raising children. That is a one definition but by no means the only one, nor the most commonly used one. It is a set of legal rights and privileges when it is used by the government. You would deny people those very concrete rights for love of an abstraction that is not even the standard meaning of the word anymore. The mind boggles.
No; you are a bigot, and you don’t like it when people like levdrakon or myself call you what you are. **levdrakon ** is “unpleasant” because you and your fellow bigots have won a battle in the war to take away levdrakon’s rights and dignity - did you expect gratitude in return for your vileness ?
You are correct that Ms. Loving is just one person; I only brought her up in response to your “Most blacks find [the comparison] ridiculous, infuriating, and insulting.”, which I felt was just as much a mere coincidence of opinions.
I appreciate that you have not used religion. However, as for your argument that this is not a denying of civil rights, is it not on the same level of acceptability/unacceptability as if the response to miscegenation laws had been “Ok, interracial couples can have ‘civil unions’, but they should still not be permitted to get married”?
Also: Bah. My outrage thread has become a “Lets all debate magellan01” thread, which wasn’t really the direction I foresaw. Well, I guess that at least keeps it alive, though perhaps it should move from the Pit to GD if it’s going to be like this…
What I might expect on a debate board is a debate. Guess I’m funny that way. Not only that, RUFF! RUFF! Ruff-ruff. RUFF! Woof! RUFF!RUFF!RUFF! Woof! Know what I mean, Manson?
levdrakon: This is why people debate this person. You know, and I know, and a lot of people know that his positions are untenable, but there are people who might find him reasonable - at least until he starts barking like a dog.