[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Marriage is when two consenting adults decide to marry each other.
[/QUOTE]
No, it isn’t. It is the union of one man with one woman. When two adults of the same sex get married, it is civil union.
Most of this is simply “it is not enough that I win - my enemies have to lose”. Proponents of traditional marriage want to use a new term - that is reason enough to try to force them not to.
Regards,
Shodan
In 33 states you are wrong.
I’m sorry you feel that way. I believe you are wrong about my motivations as a supporter of equal marriage rights, as well as the motivations of most of peers. I do not believe that most of those who support SSM are out to punish anyone. They simply feel that exclusion is right.
And again, language becomes problematic. You talk about “proponents of traditional marriage” when you actually mean “proponents of never changing one specific definition of marriage.” And sure, those people want to use a “new term.”
But I’m a proponent of traditional marriage. I think it’s a great thing, and of benefit to society. I’m also a proponent of many forms of nontraditional marriage. These ideas are not contradictory.
Language changes over time. In many places, the word “marriage” applies to two adults of any gender in such a union.
I assume you mean “proponents of same-sex marriage” – but it’s not that they want to use the word “marriage” in a new way… they already are. In much of the country, it’s caught on. If 90% of English speakers use “marriage” to mean gay couples as well as straight ones, then that’s the correct use of the word.
And eighteen countries.
This is simply begging the question. You’re creating a definition and then saying it’s the definition because that’s how you defined it.
Obviously, you probably think I’m doing the same thing. But I’m not. My argument is not based on the definition of marriage. My argument isn’t that same-sex couples are entitled to get married because they fit within a particular definition of marriage. My argument is that same-sex couples are entitled to legal equality and marriage is one of the things they’re entitled to. This argument doesn’t requires some particular definition of marriage.
As I’ve said in previous posts, I agree with some of what you’re saying. Part of your argument is that traditionalists should be allowed to deny the word marriage to same-sex couples because the word has strong symbolic value. And my argument is that same-sex couples are entitled to the word marriage because of its strong symbolic value.
But I disagree with the other part of your argument. It’s not spite, as you’re implying. It’s that same-sex couples place the same value on the word that traditionalists do. They’re not trying to take it from traditionalists - nobody is suggesting that cross-sex couples can’t get married.
Same-sex couples aren’t saying they want the other side to lose. They’re saying they want both sides to win and have equality. It’s the traditionalists who are insisting they can’t win unless the other side loses.
Irony.
The burden of argument is in the other direction, to provide a positive reason why such a distinction should be necessary or useful.
About the only necessity or usefulness ever offered was as a way of placating the pro-discrimination faction. Now that they’ve lost, they don’t get anything to soothe their hurt feelings – no a copy of the Encyclopedia International, no case of Turtle Wax, no year’s supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco treat, nothing other than having made themselves look like jerks in front of millions of people and brought shame and disgrace on their family names for generations to come, as the words 'YOU LOST!" echo through their heads.
If the opponents of same-sex marriage are convinced that getting a civil union is no injustice, and the gay and lesbian community is so set on using the word marriage, then the only logical conlcusion is to allow only same sex individuals to get married, while allowing men and women to enter into civil unions that have all of the rights that same sex marriages have.
Ladies and gentlemen, let’s have a big hand for our special [del]ghost[/del] guest, Mr. DON PARDO!
Actually the fact that you can say “When two adults of the same sex get married” and know what you mean indicates that you really understand that marriage of same sex people is not fundamentally different from marriage of different sexed people. To understand what is meant by two men getting married its simply a matter taking a more traditional heterosexual marriage and changing the sex of one of the participants, but leave everything else the same. There may be some issues of sexual relations to work out, but the fact that you consider that a penile amputee could be married indicates that this is not a fundamental difference.
As far as a woman “marrying” a washing machine, I honestly have no idea what this would even mean. How would the washing machine indicate consent for the marriage? How would they own joint property etc. The case that the laws regarding marriage would have to be fundamentally re-written in order to allow for such a state of affairs. A situation that is not the case with same sex marriage.
You’re argument boils down to simply: I’m right and you are wrong.
Your statement that same sex couples are entitled to “legal equality” is simply another bald, unsupported statement that indicates your personal point of view and adds nothing to the debate.
If I say that same sex couples are no more entitled to “legal equality” than cleanlosexuals, do I win and you lose?
What makes same sex marriage more like race or religion and less like laws against speeding or jaywalking? What makes that right fundamental?
If you have an argument that same sex marriage is deeply rooted in history and tradition and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, then I might agree. If you argue that it becomes more acceptable each passing day, then I would say that is an argument against it being a fundamental right. By definition a modern rethinking of traditional beliefs makes something new and therefore not fundamental.
I made that argument. You utterly ignored it. Once again: explore anthropological descriptions of marriage in traditional cultures around the world.
I expect you will move the goalposts to say that traditional marriage is only traditional marriage for our culture, at which point I will say “what is ‘our culture.’” You’ll respond by pointing to the last 500 years or so, and I’ll talk about jumping the broom in African-American culture. You’ll find a way to exclude that by saying that that may have been accepted as marriage, but it wasn’t a legal marriage. Then we’ll be back at marriage is what the law says it is, which means that same-sex marriage is marriage because the law (increasingly) says so.
Then, a month later, some other moron will start the cycle anew.
If I get pulled over for speeding, or fined for jaywalking – or jailed for armed robbery, or sentenced to death for first-degree murder – it’d be absurd for me to say “Aw, you’d let me do it if I were black, or if I were female.” Nobody’s allowed to do that stuff, regardless of race or sex or religion.
But if I want to marry a man, you want to stop me and say “Oh, hey, it’d be cool if you were a woman, but you’re a guy, so, uh, no.”
You wouldn’t say that to a speeder or a jaywalker. Why say it to a man?
Yes, I am right and you are wrong.
My argument is supported by the Constitution. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No, you still lose. Washing machines don’t have rights. People have rights.
Because nobody has a right to break traffic regulations. But straight couples do have the right to get married. And if straight couples have the right to get married then gay couples have the right to get married.
As I’ve said before, this has nothing to do with tradition. It’s about what the law says.
Could I ask you to define “union” as you’re using it there for me?
Actually that’s what you did, or tried to do.
No, actually that is exactly what you are doing.
It does require a definition which does not include “the union of one man and one woman”.
They aren’t trying to take it away - they are trying to force them to use the term because traditionalists don’t want to.
No, they don’t. They want to win. This is clear by the terms of the debate.
A civil union is the same for a gay couple as marriage is for a straight one. Exactly the same legal status, same rights, everything the same, right down the line. But that is not good enough. IOW they have equality - but that’s not enough. They want to be able to tell other people what to think and how to talk.
Regards,
Shodan
No, it isn’t.
This is what I meant earlier by “my enemies have to lose”.
Regards,
Shodan
There’s definitely some sort of prize for that.
Under equal protection law, which is the subject matter here, yes, it is. You do have to be able to provide a good reason for legal discrimination, and “because change is bad” is not one, any more than “the thought of two guys doin’ it is just gross” is.
Wrong there too. It would be nice if those in the wrong were to come to understand why, but it is not necessary.
The various definitions of marriage throughout history and across cultures is a fascinating topic. You really ought to inform yourself about it sometime.
Really, this topic has been discussed in great depth for a long period on this board. It’s puzzling, or should be, why none of it seems to have sunk in.
Say it like you mean it.