What’s scary is your inability to read the words that actually appear on the page. It is clear that SSM proponents want, in fact, two things. One, which is the one they put on the bumper stickers, and the one I support, is that they want and deserve equal rights. For instance, they want the right the law affords married couples that allows one of them to visit the other in the hospital in dire times, etc. The other thing they want is to appropriate the word and use it as a shroud of normalcy in order to create the idea that homosexuality are merely two equal expressions of what it means to be human. They are not. Even leaving God or a god out of it, one expression would allow the species to continue, the other would not. In one, the body an its intended use are aligned. In the other they are not.
Which has nothing to do with what I wrote. The point is that if we are to believe that SSM proponents feel they deserve the same rights as married couples (which I agree with), then why would one not pursue the easiest route to those rights being granted? Especially since as a bonus they get the rights they want without jamming a thumb in the eye of their neighbors?
And some of you around here say that prayers aren’t answered…
Magellan, I have lost my temper with you in the past, which I regret. Your positions were not the ravings of a madman, but someone arguing a position I felt to be unjust and untenable. Please note what Der Trihs has said above, and explain how your conception differs from what he claims – because, to be frank, I have pretty much agreed with what he says on your motivations – and I’d like very much to think better of you than that.
Here would be my question-for-you-to-answer: Opposite-sex marriages may be entered into for a variety of reasons, may contemplate children, decide not to have children, be between people who cannot have children, may be religiously motivated or completely without religion, may be based on infatuation, financial security, social precedence, etc., etc. The reasons are multifarious. What justifies calling all such marriages by the term ‘marriage’ while classing all same-sex marriages, whether with biological or adoptive children, motivated by commitment, infactuation, or whatever, in a separate category of ‘civil union’? There appears to be a clear distinction in your mind other than the genitalia of the people involved – what is it? I frankly cannot grasp your reasoning, at least up to this point. So I’m trying again. (And yes, I did lose my temper at your comments on childless marriages – I presume you understand why, now, even if you are still irked at my doing so. I apologize for that – let us try to reason in this thread.)
What you said basically supports what I remembered from the chat - except that it wasn’t the charity’s policy, but that of their overseeing agency (the Archbishop).
From the chat:
So - from your info (which is less biased), the fellow wasn’t exactly “lying”, just skewing the truth. Sounds like the charity was caught between a rock and a hard place - and kids needing homes are the ones who suffer.
Note: I’m strongly in favor of letting people commit themselves regardless of orientation. I know several gay couples whose relationships have lasted longer than the average marriage, and they should have every right to make it legal. Regarding placing a kid in a home: When foster kids are DESPERATE for homes, it’s criminal to rule out any reasonable chance at a loving permanent situation for them just on the basis of a completely irrelevant plumbing configuration.
Because victimology on the right is rooted in particular conservative tradition, whereas from the left all it takes to be considered a victim is to be on the wrong side of the status quo. Somehow being on the wrong side of the status quo elevates the identifiers and gives it value, and then everyone clamors for that victim status, the one that is recognized as a new liberal cause celebre. You rarely hear liberals championing tolerance for Christianity, because in this country Christians are viewed as a power group. All it takes for a cause to be considered noble is that it’s adherents be weak in relation to the status quo. That is what makes it uniquely leftist.
I did above. But I have no illusions that a valid opinion from my side will be pooh-poohed and immediately be characterized as not only unconvincing, but wrong. I’m familiar with the neighborhood. And now here you come with another innocent call for reasons, even though they’ve already been typed. I’m getting deja vu all over again.
Oh what the hell: It would dilute the meaning of the word. It would move to separate the word from the special union it defines. It would deprive us of a word that describes, distinctly, an institution of great importance of society. One that is responsible for the raising of future generations. Society has a vested interested in having people enter into marriages and having families. The dilution of the word would over time, in my opinion, make “marriage” less of a special bond for a man and woman to enter into. Therefore, they wouldn’t do it as often. That, again in my opinion, would be to the detriment of society.
As i said, it allows marriage to be the special situation for a committed man and a woman, the union that will produce, and ideally, raise our future generations. It leaves marriage on a pedestal, making it a more attractive thing for a couple to want to share, a more profound contract to ask the other to enter into with them.
Where do I pick up my award?
When the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia, should they have ruled that interracial couples could have the rights of marriage but that it would have to be called something else in order to find common ground with the millions of Americans who believed, for reasons both religious and secular, that marriage between the races is wrong? After all, there was no point in jabbing a thumb in these people’s eyes, was there?
You know, sometimes I just get the feeling that it all really boils down to “if tab A does not fit into slot B, it’s not a marriage!!!” The arguments raised by many of the “anti” crowd here seem to boil down to a simple obsession with biological geometry. Somehow I doubt that most of the married couples in the history of the human race really thought that much about how their parts fit together. I would guess they were more worried about what kind of person their parents arranged for them to marry, or in modern times, whether they loved the person they were getting hitched to.
Come on, you anti-marriage-equality people, just admit that you just don’t like the thought of gay people getting hitched, of getting equal access to the special club, and be done with it. I know I’d sure respect you more if you admitted that instead of trying to hide behind “tradition” or elaborate pseudo-intellectual biology-based arguments.
Three questions:
- Are you also upset that a phrase like “I’m not married to that idea, but let’s run it by marketing” also dilutes the meaning of the word?
- Since, as has been pointed out five jillion times in this thread alone, plenty of same sex couple do have kids, why doesn’t society have a vested interest in letting them enter into marriage?
- Are you seriously proposing that straight people will say “You know, now that gays can marry each other, the thrill of it is gone. Sorry, honey, the wedding’s off”?
It also exists in Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts, and but for the spite of people like you, California. Also, Canada, Spain, and several other nations. So it’s not entirely imaginary now, is it?
Let me get this straight. If people like you have to accept gay marriage, that’s a thumb in their eye. But if people like me have to give up marriage, when we complain about, we’re playing the victim and exhibiting a persecution complex. That’s a fantastic double standard you’ve got there, magellan. I’m sure it fits well with your collection.
Which brings us back to the fallacy of fertility. For a rebuttal to this bit of nonsense, see every other post in this thread not made by you or NaSultaine.
There is, and I do.
Please collect your prize at the front door.
And so is a man and a man, and a woman and a woman. You think I’m wrong? Prove it.
I’ve said that I don’t particularly care if polygamy is legalized. I’ve never said that one will necessarily lead to the other. I’d have to be some kind of an idiot to make that argument.
Sure it does. If the point of wanting to be able to marry someone is to be afforded the same rights enjoyed by a married heterosexual couple, but I just hand you those rights in full, the reason for getting married becomes moot.
And you are arguing like an eight-year-old here, Miller, insisting that this right to SSM exists. And I say that to you as someone’s who debating style I generally applaud. See the link in my previous post to you. You’re clearly begging the question.
And I have repeatedly said that there could easily be a clause to the effect: “Any and all legal rights and privileges enjoyed by married heterosexual couples will now be enjoyed fully and equally by same-sex couples who have entered together in a Civil Union. If a new right or privilege is granted to one group, it must be granted to the other. If an existing right or privilege is stripped from one group, it must be stripped from the other.”
See? Simple. One paragraph. Feel free to take it, gratis. But why do I have the feeling that you’ll ignore this yet again and make the same point, only to have me type it again?
But why wouldn’t that be the end of the battle? Once you have the rights, hopefully with language similar to what I crafted above, why would you continue to battle? For what? You’d already have ALL the rights.
But once you have the rights, there’s no need to do that. None. There may be some desire on your part for whatever reason. But you and a married woman would be enjoying exactly the same benefits.
:rolleyes: Oh so now you know that not only is what I typed not true, but that I know it to be not true. Nice job, Kreskin. I’m disappointed that you stoop to such lazy accusations of lying. By the way, isn’t there a rule in GD against such characterization? Not that I care really, it’s just that I thought it a very good rule, for the reasons I alluded to.
The fact is that the moral component of the argument is the part that goes to equal rights—hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. Move away from that argument and I see no moral high ground. Opinion, valid maybe. But no moral high ground.
And once again you ignore HOW those laws can be crafted. the language I crafted above would take care of it easily.
Actually it wouldn’t there would be some Proposition or law or decision. But I did it in a paragraph. Shall we quibble over word count?
When one insists in making things equal that aren’t, it is.
If A + B = A + A, then A = B. and men and women are two different things. Actually, if I recall correctly, you’re bi, so you should know that. You may want redo your research.
Yeah, and you continue to skirt by the reasoning and get to the hominem. It’s a necessity for you. You must characterize me as a homophobe so my opinions can be written off as homophobic by both you and others who might be more on the fence. How neat.
That was for the benefit of other readers who have not had the benefit of my enlightened insights as often as you.
Miller, you’re disappointing me here. You know how analogies work. And your analysis is wrong. The equation groups three topics and three people who feel strongly about each of them respectively. The common denominator for the people half of the analogies is devout belief.
It might. But here’s what I am sure of. If that happens, the tide will again turn against SSM. Look at history, ancient Greece, during it’s glory years homosexuality enjoyed varying degrees of acceptance (though none as full as a lot of people think). Yet, we didn’t wind up with the acceptance being the norm. Societies that came after took a lot of what Greece did have, but not their most liberal views regarding homosexuality. They talk about the wisdom of the masses in politics. I think the wisdom of the masses over ages and ages will eventually bring us back to where man has always returned: understanding that there is a line that separates men and women. And that one was meant to be with the other. Personally, I hope we don’t revert too far back, as I do think homosexuality should be accepted as natural, and that SS couples should enjoy the legal rights of any couple, but should gays be able to use political correctness to override nature today, nature will have it’s way tomorrow. As it always does.
In the meantime, I’ll see you at the next Prop 8 battle. Thanks to a previous discussion with you, I’m already saving up!
This hubris, in light of the facts of history and nature, is truly astounding.
At this point, the anti-SSM arguments seem to consist largely of snark. I take this as a sign of weakness.
And I’m neither gay nor married. I just don’t like prohibitions that serve no apparent purpose. Why deny women the vote? No reason. Why prevent interracial couples from marrying? No reason. These two cases suggest that prohibiting someone from doing something because of gender is pointless and preventing a marriage between two people of different race is pointless, so how is preventing a marriage between two people of the same gender not pointless? If someone can explain how the first two cases are viable civil rights issues but the third is not, please do so.
Sounds like that direction leads to The Handmaid’s Tale.
I actually threw up a little in my mouth, while trying to digest this stinking pile of shit. I thought I was reading a post by kanicbird.
Have you seen some of the people who are “allowing the species to continue”? This is “what it means to be human”? This is something that I should aspire to, that I am less a human being for not doing? If I felt that I needed to reproduce in order to justify my existence, I could just knock up some drunken slut like so many straight guys do, and cast off my “shroud of normalcy.” But frankly, I have better things to do with my life, and the world would be a much better place if certain people didn’t feel the need to reproduce.
Except, of course, the right to be married.
No, I’m stating a premise. If you’re going to start trying to use the rules of logic at this late date in your posting career, you really should understand the terms involved.
And someone can come along and amend it to, “except this right,” or “except that right.” If gay marriage and straight marriage are covered by the same law, they can’t do that. If there’s only one statute, they can’t craft a law that only targets gays. That’s why your “solution” is unacceptable. Well, one of the reasons. There are, as you well know, plenty more besides.
And when you type it, again, I’ll explain why it won’t work. Again.
Except the right to marriage.
It’s really amazing that you haven’t figured this part out yet. You know how strongly you feel about marriage, they you’ll spend time and money to keep people who have never done you any harm away from it? I feel just as strongly. As much as you feel that marriage is something that needs to be protected from people like me, I want to be able to get into it. Marriage is important. The word is important. The concept is important. And I won’t accept being forced out of it because people like you are so stuntedly terrified of any sort of change.
But I won’t have all the rights, will I? I think you can guess which right I won’t have: I’ll have all of them… except the right to marriage.
Sorry, is this like the “thumb in the eye thing?” Only people on your side of the debate get to do it? You’ve been told, again and again, that it is a rights issue. When you say that it’s not really a rights issue what are you doing? That’s right: you’re accusing the other side of lying.
No, I don’t expect that you can see it, from where you’re standing.
Well recalled! I’ll tell you what. You go fuck a dude, then come back and tell me how different men and women are. Until then, it looks like I’ve got more relevant experience on the issue than you do, n’est pas?
In the meantime, why don’t you meditate on all the ways people are not like algebra.
No, I’m merely pointing out a self-evident fact. The word means what it means. I’m not going to pretend it has a different definition just too avoid hurting your feelings.
Those lucky bastards.
Right. Because you certainly didn’t intend any other connotations in that particular analogy. By the way, you wouldn’t happen to have a bridge you’d like to sell, would you? I’m in the market.
Yeah, you know what else the Greeks had that didn’t catch on? Democracy. The United States picked up that particular torch and ran with it. Back when we first tried it, you know what people said? “It’ll never work.” “No one else has ever done it before.” “It’s against the natural order.” I think it’s worked out pretty well for us, though. I’m willing to bet you agree. We’ve also picked up a few other ideas. Religious freedom. That was a rarity prior to ‘76, wasn’t it? So was racial equality. Took us a while to figure that out, but in all fairness, “Kill the foreigner” was pretty deeply ingrained in the human psyche. But I think we’ve made pretty good strides in that area, don’t you? And hey, how about sexual equality? I can’t think of any other society that said, “Men and women should have the same rights,” before we came along. Probably, someone will point out some place that tried it, but it’s still got to be pretty fuckin’ rare, historically speaking. But we’ve made a real go of it!
So, what, pray tell, makes you think that gay rights is going to be any different?
Except, of course… for the right to marriage.
Glad to hear it! I can’t think of anything that will do more good for our cause than your vocal opposition. Make sure you muster the full acumen and insight you habitually bring to the table on this issue. I wouldn’t want the public at large to miss out on the full display of your intellectual rigor.
TWEEEEEET!
EVERYONE, ratchet it down a notch.
This particularly applies to magellan01 and Miller, but it goes for everyone. If you simply must insult other posters or make personal commenrts about their posting style, then just move over to the Pit and get it out of this forum.
[ /Moderating ]
Thank you!
I came back to this post after reading the later one where you claimed to have spelled out why SSM would harm society and why the exclusion of SS couples benefits society. Is this it? At least part of it right?
I’m thinking if your neighbor wanted to infringe on rights that mattered to you or someone you cared about you’d be willing to jab a thumb in their eye if that’s what it took. You should find and read Letter from Birmingham Jail by MLK. It relates.
There are very good reasons why a society should continue to challenge prejudice and bigotry and I’ll bet you can think of them. Civil unions are merely a transition to equal rights and GM. Many of the people who oppose SSM also oppose CUs because they see them as a slippery slope towards GM. Go figure.
I don’t get this. Did marriage suddenly take on a more sacred role when gays decided they wanted in? Look at the divorce rate. Higher among the religious last time I looked. Look at the rise in single parent homes , or couples who ditch the complications of marriage and potential divorce to just live together. I have two sisters in their sixties who have been living in sin with their significant other for decades. What special union are you talking about?
I’d say to the religious that the term marriage and the legal ramifications of that have nothing to do with whether your vows or your matrimony is holy. It’s in your heart or it isn’t, and evidently, statistically speaking, it isn’t. Your inference that SSM will somehow invalidate the meaning of the word just doesn’t hold up.
So do I. That’s why it’s important to challenge baseless religious belief that adversely affects the rights of others and prejudice and bigotry in general.
Let’s deal with reality as it’s presented instead. Let’s teach our kids that society and people are complex and varied and that’s something to be glad about rather than afraid of. What kind of cue is, “Let’s deny this group equal rights and find some reason to justify it”
Our climbing divorce rate shows that we’ve already said that. Polygamy is another argument. The slippery slope argument doesn’t fly any more than if I made the argument that traditional marriage often leads to broken homes which damage society.
If we give this one group equal rights then heck, other groups will be coming out asking for their rights as well. Pretty soon we have to give all sorts of undesirables equal rights and the next thing ya know some dam gay atheist is in the Senate running for president. You just have to draw the line on equal rights somewhere.
Ok, so…if this is true…
Then how do you know this to be true?
And a gaytheist president would be interesting, if only for the massive head explosions.