I think everything that either side has to offer in this discussion has been said. And I have to go. I do apologize for upsetting some of you. To those of you who simply decided to be aggressive and attack me, you deserve any angst this thread produced. It truly was my desire to simply offer an alternative view. I thought it would be welcome as fodder for discussion. Bu I see now that for some, this issue is too sensitive for them. They MUST believe that ALL reason is on their side of the debate. That anyone who does not agree with them or cannot be swayed to their position is either devoid of reason, filled with hate, and/or evil. I guess it doesn’t dawn on some of you that I’m as certain of my position as you are of yours. That it is every bit as frustrating when you do not see things my way as when I don’t see things your way. One of the things they probably contributes to your sense of righteousness is being surrounded by like-minded individuals. That is not meant as in insult in any way, simply as an observation of human behavior. As much as there is strength in numbers, there is certainty. Both are comforting. Neither makes someone right. It is threads like this that make me respect and appreciate posters like Revenant Threshold and others as much as I do. We disagree often and temperatures might rise some, but I cannot recall either of us attacking or demonizing the other in a debate.
So, until next time. For now, I have to go. Spartacus is on in five minutes!
To you, it’s an abstract debate. To us, it’s our lives. Forgive me if I can’t find it in me to be objective about something this important. Your opinion means that we are denied equality. That’s not something I can calmly discuss. When you’re more concerned about semantics than you are about an entire class of human beings stripped of rights that they actually HAD previous to Nov. 4th, then I have to question your motives. I’m sorry if that upsets you, but we’re not having a fucking forensics match here. This is real life for us.
I have no idea why you started making dog noises, no. And there’s not much debate because your side is utterly vile, bigoted, and wrong. Go post about how black people shouldn’t be allowed to marry and you’ll get a similar response, and for the same reason.
I’m still not understanding. You are willing to accept the situation as legal if it is an accident? OK then all gay people accidently became gay. Now is it all ok? Your beliefs seem awfully arbitrary.
Did I miss something? Why is opposite sex union an “ideal” form of union? Why is that “ideal” if unions are not necessarily about children?
Also, even if opposite sex unions are somehow an “ideal” form of union, is there any other “thing” that we know of where we take the “ideal” form of it and give that “ideal form” its own word to the exclusion of other forms of the same thing that are somehow not “ideal?” I can’t think of one.
Also, if opposite sex unions are “ideal” because of procreation, then “marriage” as describing that ideal should not apply to unions lacking children or at least the intent to bear children. No?
I voted No on 2. I am a straight woman in Florida, and letting gays get married takes nothing from me, my family and possible future husband.
Magellan’s clinging to the word marriage like a dog protecting its bone, like a junkie to a needle, does nothing to convince me that he’s right. All i see is a sad person clinging desperately to the one thing that gives him a status that puts him above anyone GLBT.
Because law in America is based on precedent, and utilising two different terms for marriage and gay marriage gives those who would prefer no gay marriage at all a way to seperate the two in terms of the law that covers them. Think how many times on these boards someone tries to make a legal point by citing code against how many times they cite a decision, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say they both have a strong effect on what actually practically occurs. By using a different term, a person can argue that the two are still seperate, and that thus gay marriage is not entitled to the support of precedence that marriage has built up; likewise, decisions affecting gay marriage may not be applied equally to marriage.
Calling the two by different names materiall and concretely harms gays by providing a considerable legal loophole that may be used to either prevent or take away or modify those rights, without having to touch marriage. It’s sort of equivalent to saying we’ll give them equal rights, then writing up the documents for marriage on etched steel while the ones for gay marriage are on a whiteboard. Yes, both would be there, both would contain the same things, but a whiteboard can be altered, adjusted, and indeed wiped clean much more easily.
I really don’t see the difference you’re making, here. Marriage is closer to the ideal if both partners have a secure financial background, if they don’t sleep around, and probably most obviously if they love each other. But we don’t forbid the poor to marry. If one of a partner loudly declares he’ll be sleeping around during the marriage, we don’t void their license. If what occurs is a marriage of convenience, perhaps to secure rights for another person or to help one partner become a citizen, absent love, we do not strike down that marriage at the highest levels. The state recognises all of these as valid marriages, though they fall short of the ideal.
I’m surprised no one decided to comment on this winner of a quote before me.
The meaning of marriage has been perfectly clear for hundred of years? I suppose you still consider your wife property.
The definition has continued for hundreds of years to adjust with the changes in society. I fail to understand the logic that it shouldn’t have been modified to accept yet another change.
Gay marriage already exists. I think you should be arguing your bigotry to Websters dictionary at this point. Your trying to remove an accepted definition from a word by denying rights to people in your particular state.
Considering Plato’s admiration of pederasty, I find it really funny that the SSM proponent in this thread is arguing against them on the basis of some imaginary Platonic ideal of marriage. Only, not funny in that way where you laugh. More like funny where you grind your teeth until you develop a twitch.
So I guess it’s not actually funny.
I’m starting to think that arguing with any proponent of SSM is a waste of time. Logic and debates imply that this is a reasonable discussion. It isn’t. To have to debate about basic human rights is in no way reasonable. Equal rights should be a foregone conclusion and anyone who doesn’t see this can only be pitied for their narrow worldview. While there are certainly some intelligent individuals who can have their horizons broadened through debate, they aren’t the majority.
The majority of people aren’t thinking about this topic at all. That’s the problem. They voted Yes on 8 without actually thinking. We can argue and direct our vitriol at morons on the Internet all we want, but the real enemy of SSM isn’t some wannabe linguist who’d be laughed out of the lowest level semantics class any community college offers. The real enemy is simply the thoughtlessness behind the masses. They would probably be horrified to be called bigots and the majority would never do something openly racist–but race is easy to see, and sexual orientation is not. Deny a black woman a spot at the front of the bus and this is a clear, visual shame. Deny some imaginary gay people you’ve never met the rights you take for granted and you don’t even have to think about it.
Fuck the debate. Fuck these bigots. What this country needs is an absolute onslaught of gay. Women kissing women, men kissing men, 30-minute infomercials about couples who couldn’t visit one another in the hospital, Lifetime movies about middle aged housewives falling madly in love with each other. Gay, Gay, GAY. Everywhere. That is what we need. Until gay is so ordinary, so overdone, that the thought that they are in any way different from straights, any less deserving of the title marriage, is utterly ridiculous.
This goes beyond just trying to get one internet person to change his world view (aka “doctrine” ;)). Engaging in civil discourse by hashing out the arguments in a sensible manner is to constructively participate in the marketplace of ideas, on a quest for truth, ultimately resulting in the inevitable conclusion that people who are anti-SSM are just bigots.
It’s an understandable confusion, since SSM opponents were Prop 8 proponents, and with all the ground we’ve (fruitlessly) covered in this thread, I don’t blame anyone for getting their terms confused.
Be cool to see a successful counter-initiative repeal this in 2010 based on that confusion.
Be even cooler to see the State Supreme Court agree with the ACLU’s argument about “revision” vs. “amendment”. Friend Bricker’s analysis notwithstanding.
Prop 8 passed by a slim margin. I doubt the voters would recall 5 Justices if the SCOCA found Prop 8 a revision. Perhaps the voters would consider recalling 1 Justice in hopes of turning the majority by a new appointment, but Arnold was against Prop 8.
