Your analogy is wrong.
And the blacks and whites got to enjoy different flavors of the same bus. I can’t see what those uppity Negroes were whining about. They probably just wanted a “shroud of normalcy” or something.
Let’s hastily note that they are not asking to sit in the seat "Be called “having a catholic marriage” or “married in the eyes of god” or “married in the mormon temple”. Those seats are reserved for the groups owning those categories.
Currently, mormon “temple marriage” is already considered separate - even within the mormon church. This is not a problem and not what we’re talking about.
We’re talking about that whole section of the bus called “being married, generically speaking” - the one that has been open to atheists for decades. Can gay couples sit in that section?
Oh, and this? Actually, people did agree, they just didn’t agree with you. In fact, it came fairly close to a consensus on what the term “homophobe” represented. About the only people who disagreed with the consensus were those who fit the definition reached by the vast majority of posters in that thread.
The problems with that argument are that those who oppose same sex marriage ARE the bad guys, that there ISN’T any good reason for their position, and they aren’t going to change their minds anyway. Bigots are outlived or defeated; they very seldom change their opinions. Certainly not due to argument, since their opinions aren’t based on facts or logic to begin with.
Yes, they ARE motivate by malice.
I certainly don’t. These people are simply scum; they deserve to lose, and they deserve all the self inflicted suffering and frustration that their loss will inflict on them.
Not when the old thing in question is evil; it’s age simply makes it that much more evil because of the cumulative suffering it’s inflicted.
magellan, why shouldn’t the state recognize a marriage between gay people?
After all this dead-end bus nonsense, I figure we should get back to the original question.
See, it’s annoying when you do this, make statements that are obviously false. (It’d be less annoying if you weren’t arguing the same side as me. 
)
A grand lot of people are motivated, not by malice, but because they have accepted wholeheartedly tales indicating that no, really, Gays shouldn’t get married, it’s a bad thing - God says so. Yes, a respectable portion of those people take it a step further and decide that they gays themselves are evil sinners (worse than the usual evil sinner, that is) and that they as entities are to be reviled, scorned, and/or punished. However, not all do, and they certainly don’t have to to continue to oppose gay marriage. All they have to do is maintain unquestioning belief in the anti-gay-marriage rule - which can be done completely without malice.
They’re still wrong, of course, and their perspectives are damaging and certainly should not be considered as a foundation for (possibly unconstitutional) law. But this wouldn’t be the first time evil was perpetrated with sheeplike innocent ignorance.
Now here’s a man who isn’t afraid to let his bigot flag fly.
And the Christian religion IS malice organized and given a pretty facade. It’s always been about the destruction of everything but itself; everything that is not itself is evil and must be converted or destroyed. In practical terms, “God says so” is the same as “malice says so”.
Your definition of bigot is so broad as to be useless.
No it isn’t. I just don’t think that political affiliation absolves one from being a bigot. Many liberals think, “I am a liberal therefore I couldn’t possibly be a bigot.”, that describes you perfectly.
A bigot is anyone who hates a target group irrationally and ignores all evidence that doesn’t fit within their carefully crafted stereotype.
You without a doubt fit within that category.
Presuming for a rather tenuous moment that this is true (the starry eyed primitives who started the religion deliberately organized malice and deliberately concealed it under a facade? Pshaw) this has precisely squat to do with whether the adherents are malicious in their following of the religion. If a person is a foolish sheep, they can’t be a malicious conspirator too.
No, though he cheerfully misapplies it to wide swaths of people who clearly don’t deserve it. (That and “intolerant”, which he swings even more freely.) You, on the other hand, range rather far afield of “calm and rational assessment of the Other”.
I honestly don’t think it’s us who don’t understand you’re position. I think it’s you. And I don’t mean that as snark - you really don’t seem to understand what you’re arguing for.
Yeah, but see - there isn’t just “one law” for marriage. There are hundreds of laws for marriage. If you create a separate institution for marriage, you can write a law that says, “All the laws pertaining to marriages pertain to civil unions,” and that’s fine. But there’s nothing there that prevents someone from coming along and adding, “except laws A, B, and C” to the end of that law. And then you no longer have equal institutions. And that means that you don’t have “one” law, you have two laws that happen (at first) to be identical. The way to avoid this is to simply alter the definition of marriage itself, so that marriage means, “the union of two people of any gender.” Then you really do have just one law. It’s not foolproof. Someone can, and will, try to figure out someway to pass a law that still discriminates against gays, but it’ll be significantly harder to craft something that would pass judicial review.
And please, before you come back, and type “one law!” in bigger and redder fonts, try to address the issue of destructively ammending civil unions laws, and how your proposal avoids that.
As I understand Magellan01, his argument relies entirely on the fact that you can create a set of laws under which there is no difference between “civil union” and “marriage.”–he relies, to use his analogy, on the principle that every seat is open to everyone.
Others have pointed out the flaws in the analogy–I’m going to try to break down this assumption–in the real world, there is one huge difference between “marriages” and “civil unions” that is simply not fixable under the laws that create the marriage—that is whether other jurisdictions also treat marriages and civil unions the same way.
Since it’s another state/country’s law, it doesn’t matter how the hypothetical “bus” is laid out–it gets to define things on its own.
In very general terms, most places recognize foreign marriages that were valid when created. Until recently, most countries did not recognize any same-sex legal relationships. However, when a country (1) legalizes same-sex marriage, or (2) decides to recognize valid same-sex marriages but not to perform its own, it generally does so by changing the rule on recognizing foreign marriages. This is because just about every country has such a thing as a “marriage”, and has a rule that recognizes marriages created in other countries.
The same is not true of civil unions. Not all countries/states allow civil unions (for example, Iowa does not register civil unions) --and generally, a nation will not recognize a civil union from some other country/state unless it (1) allows civil unions, and (2) specifically passes a law to recognize those civil unions.
You see where this is going.
Let’s say I get married in San Francisco, CA. I then wish to go somewhere else (say New Zealand). What I want is for New Zealand to also recognize that I’m married. They will do so.
Now let’s say I get a civil union in California . I move to new Zealand–which also has civil unions. However, NZ gets to pick which civil unions it recognizes–and here’s the list: http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Births-Deaths-and-Marriages-Overseas-Relationships#six
New Zealand recognizes civil unions from new jersey and vermont. So I am, in the eyes of their law, unmarried and not in a civil union.
The same applies to same-sex marriage. New zealand does not permit same-sex marriage, but does recognize all same-sex marriages that were legal where performed as civil unions.
Again, however, it does not recognize all civil unions. So if I was married in a same-sex union while it was legal in California, New Zealand would treat it as a civil union (the strongest recognition it gives to same-sex relationships). But if I entered into a civil union in california with the same person, new zealand will not recognize it EVEN IF THE RIGHTS GIVEN TO CIVIL UNIONS AND MARRIAGES ARE IDENTICAL IN CALIFORNIA. (there are a few differences, but they are minor).
So the fact that state X recognizes that civil unions and marriages are treated identically doesn’t mean that state Y will. Another example is France–it recognizes valid same-sex marriages (but does not perform them), and allows civil unions–but I have not found anything that suggests it recognizes any foreign civil unions. So again, the difference between civil unions and marriage for a gay couple means the difference between recognition and no recognition in other countries.
What does this mean? It means that if state X uses Magellan01’s argument, and has marriages for a man and a woman, and “just as good” civil unions for same-sex relationships, the two don’t get the same thing–one can automatically have their relationship recognized in other places, and the other cannot. On the other hand, if everyone got marriages, then, as above, we don’t have that problem. This can’t be fixed without “synchronizing” not just the rights of civil unions and marriage, but ensuring that other countries also recognize the “just as good” civil unions just like marriages–whereas many places that do not allow same-sex marriages do give equal recognition to valid marriages whether between opposite- or same-sex couples.
So now that I’ve shown the two aren’t the same, this breaks down the key assumption Magellan01 makes-without which, all his justifications for the distinction are without merit.
Beyond even that, the law is not just the text. You not only have to account for all the varyingly worded laws across the country, you have to account for the precedent built up around those laws. There’s another point in which an integrated system is superior - what is interpreted to apply for one is so for the other, because they’re one and the same, which is what magellan seems to be after in the first place - the problem is that his solution wouldn’t work.
What does the acceptance or correctness of their argument have to with the honesty by which they reach it?
This may be the crux of the issue. I don’t believe either side has any moral ground to stand on. Ethical ground, however, belongs entirely to the pro gay marriage side. I want to understand the givens that govern the other side’s ethics, so that I can frame better arguments with them. I don’t believe that they start from “gays are bad” and reason backwards to justify that. Some may, but they’re the same people who buy the beer advertised with sexiest models, and not worth my time.
I’d prefer to say that it is incorrect. I’m not going to be able to convince anyone that their moral system is faulty. I certainly will not be able to convince someone that they themselves are evil. I might be able to convince that they have made a mistake, though. Shutting out those who can be reached by declaring them evil strengthens their side, reaching out to them as people strengthens ours.
No, it wasn’t, providing, of course, that they were honest about their feelings. Malice isn’t causing harm alone. It’s deliberately causing harm. You’re not leaving room for anyone to be mistaken.
I have not, and do not, advocate accepting bigotry. I want to understand why someone is taking what looks to be a bigoted action. Then I can show them the harm that they’re causing within their own worldview. This has shown itself to be more effective than calling people names to make them change.
Why would you expect someone to mourn for something that was dead before they were born? Why wouldn’t you expect someone to mourn for something that they watch die before their eyes? Even if that death is required to make way for something better, it’s still a loss.
I expect that you voiced your opinion to your state reprensitives when this issue was before it? I wrote letters to mine, and encouraged every one I know to do so. We even won :). That doesn’t mean I don’t want to understand the people who came from around the country to fight us, and it doesn’t mean that I think that, as a group, they are acting out of malice. Stupidity, fear, sure.
I disagree that the only way to reach the opposition’s conclusion is through bigotry, because to do so means that I cannot honestly enter into debate with them. There are, to be sure, many on their side who are bigots, but there are those who simply have a different starting point, and different values. Just because the position can be reached from malice doesn’t mean it has to be.
I’d like to see an example of it being reached through reason. No luck thus far.
How rigid are your standards of reason? “My god says it’s bad, and my god is always right, so it’s bad” is a reasoned thought process. Somewhat lacking on the ‘backing up premises’ side, but that’s a separate problem.
I’m probably tilting at windmills here, but what the hell.
Without a doubt there are people with poor or dishonest motives on any side of an issue. The thing is, when cultural attitudes begin to change, they’re not the majority on their side. I don’t think that we’ve yet gotten to the point where they are majority on their side. It’s still worthwhile to reach out to those on that side who aren’t making the news every week with their antics.
I’ll not deny someone the right to grow and change just because they start out on the other side. If you’ve managed to be right the first time you’ve encountered every issue in your life, well, you’re a wiser man than I. If you’ve been wrong, and grown from it, then why not let others do the same?
Very little in the world is wholy evil or good, and even the merely familiar may be honestly mourned while looking forward to the days without it.
I think we’re getting to the point that the majority of those on the anti-gay side either are that way due to a perceived religious imperative, or are maliciously bigoted. (Or, uh, both.) Neither of these groups is particularly susceptible to rational persuasion, regardless of whether you understand their motives.
There’ve been a couple. Depends on what givens you’re willing to work with.
If you’re not willing to allow people the honesty of their faith, then we get to an impass pretty quickly.
Personally, as I said earlier, I prefer to argue this from an ethical and material standpoint, as I can usually get people to agree that the law should be based on those principles as opposed to religuous values. A brief trip from there to demonstrable harm and we’re done.
That doesn’t mean that they came to their conclusion dishonestly, just that they did so badly.