Thank you magellan01, you have done a good job of clarifying what I was saying without changing the meaning. Enjoy the rest of your week. I found your position on the issue interesting as well.
Homosexuality is a descriptor of a sexual orientation, used by some people to instead mean sexual acts committed by a person with another person of the same sex.
Traditional marriage is the conjoining of two people as husband and wife. While, human beings being who they are, sex is usually a consistent part of marriage, and indeed failure to enter into connubial relations was traditionally one ground for annulment, there is absolutely nothing in the legal definition of marriage that requires the couple contracting marriage to have sexual relations. Indeed, some couples have contracted marriages of convenience for a variety of reasons, some good and some bad, in which sex was explicitly not contemplated by either party as between them.
Contrasting traditional marriage with homosexuality rather than with gay marriage is much like contrasting restaurant menus with bulimia rather than with pre-prepared frpzen meals from a supermarket. It skews the issue.
And while the U.S. Constitution says nothing about sexuality, many state constitutions do include sexual orientation as one of the numerous ‘suspect classes’ like race, religion, sex (=gender), national origin, which may not be discriminated against at law in the absence of a compelling reason directly related to a significant governmental function.
You know what? I was not aware you were looking for a “black swan” in your reference to 1950s marriage customs. Herewith your specific sentence:
“People”. Not “some people”. Not “a few people”. The generic. This is what I supplied anecdotal evidence in contradiction of. You’re quite capable of being specific when you choose. What you did here was bait-and-switch – moving from a generalized statement to “a single exception disproves.” Stupid of me, I know, but I try to read what you write and respond to that – not to what you may have intended to say but didn’t.
Oh, by the way: When we’re talking matters of law, anecdotal evidence is relevant, because the question is not, “Will most people be injured by this statute?” but “Will anyone be injured by it?” A law that says “All magellan01’s worldly goods shall be taken by the state through eminent domain and used to support worthy charitable causes” harms no one but magellan – but I’m sure you’d agree that it’s an unjust law nonetheless. (And I picked him specifically because he’s been on the minority side in these arguments – hence functioning as a good example of discriminating against a minority.)
No, you can’t support some things in certain posts and contradictory things in other posts-- and still claim to be offering a coherent argument.
No, I make no claim to understand your mind, either better than you do or otherwise. I accept at face value your statement that “procreation WAS my primary criteria in finding a wife”. I said that this was “almost unbelievable” because I think that most people, if asked to provide a primary reason for getting married, would answer with some reference to their interpersonal relationship, e.g., “We’re in love” or “I can’t live without him” or similar.
After all, I’ll bet I could drag a seine down most any street in town and catch dozens of women with whom I could successfully “procreate”. Heck, the drunkest, ugliest bitch of a woman left alone in a bar at last call is, statistically at least, likely to fulfill this **primary **requirement. This probably does not represent what most people would consider reasonable or sufficient search for a partner leading to marriage.
If indeed you are that black swan (the one to whom “most” does not apply), and this is how you yourself actually undertook the search for a life partner, then no, *liar *does not fit you-- but cognitive dissonance surely does.
Oh, and hey, I’m still waiting to hear, from the Devil or anybody, a single piece of evidence (not trickle-down-the-timeline speculation) suggesting societal harm from same sex marriage sufficient to overcome the requirement for equal protection.
The words “logical” and “rational” have been thrown around a lot in this thread. In fact, the word “rationale” appears in the title. Since we’ve gone for 23 pages without much headway, I think it might be conducive to the successful resolution of this debate if mswas and magellan01 would do us the favor of enumerating their premises and explaining, as dispassionately as possible, how these premises logically and validly lead to the conclusion that homosexual marriage is a right to be denied.
Seconded. Let’s have a thread reset!
Why don’t you guys start a thread about that? I won’t attend because I see it as a boring topic. I am far more interested in why people think the way they do than I am in whether or not their viewpoint is valid and correct. So have at it, start a thread about the topic and maybe Magellan will come by. But since this one isn’t about that, I have no interest in pursuing that line of inquiry.
I see what you’re talking about. The post I was seconding does poison the well.
I am interested in seeing an argument laid out, in a single post, in relatively logical terms, for the view that people of the same sex should not be married.
I am not the person to defend it since I don’t believe it.
Though you don’t believe it, aren’t you defending it in this thread?
How about: really bad movies. With same-sex marriages legal in only a handful of states, Adam Sandler unleashed the POC that is “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry” on the world. If SSM becomes legal nationwide, who knows what horrors might be released? Same-sex marriage “comedies” starring Rob Schneider? Carrot Top? Or (Og forbid) Larry the Cable Guy?
(Hey, it’s a lot more likely than magellan01’s “The straights will stop marrying because wedlock will not seem specal enough once gays start doing it” theory.)
Nope, I have studiously avoided challenges to justify it.
You have? Then what was the point of drawing this distinction:
Is the lack of ability to breed (assuming for the sake of argument that artificial insemination and surrogacy are out of the equation) a justification to block gay marriage while permitting interracial marriage?
That’s just one random example. I’m confident I can find others in which you do indeed try to present justifications for an SSM ban or at least present, devil’s advocate style, the arguments of those who believe such a ban is justified.
I was trying to elucidate the rationale of course.
Well, I can’t change your mind on this, but I admit I’m genuinely disappointed to read this. If you and magellan01 outlined exactly what you are arguing and how your premises lead to the conclusion (no homosexual marriage), I think it would provide quite a lot of insight as to the “why.” Furthermore, if the argument can be shown to be both valid and logical, then perhaps we can lead the discussion into a more informed debate.
The difference between elucidating the rationale for something and supplying a justification for it eludes me.
If we can keep it simple: why should gay marriage be opposed? Please give a rationale or a justification or whatever you want to call it.
No, **mswas ***claims *to endorse SSM (some times in some posts in this thread) but to be taking the contrary position as a matter of formal debate, and to elucidate for us the reasons actual opponents harbor for denying it.
Nobody seems quite sure what **magellan01 **is arguing.
“Why people think the way they do” *inherently *involves exploring how they can disregard validity and correctness.
Come on now.
OK. Let’s explore the ways in which you are disregarding validity and correctness.
I am simply not interested in the yawn inducing discussion of whether or not Christian morality is valid. It’d be a discussion with people who do not understand Christian morality, and are not interested in understanding because they are already certain that Christian values are worthless. So what’s the point? If I had any faith whatsoever that my interlocutors were open-minded even in the slightest, I might make the effort, but for now it seems like it would be entirely wasted on the audience. It’s an argument I am not very comfortable in making and thus not ready to confront with a hostile audience. I am uninterested in an SDMB one-sided moratorium on Christianity at this time. I’ve had enough experience with, “I don’t need to read the New Testament to know that it’s stupid.”, arguments around here to know that it’s an utter waste of time.