This clearcut statement makes your position very clear. It’s not one I agree with, but it’s one I can at last grasp.
Now – by your logic, extending the franchise to blacks in 1867, to women in 1876-1919, and to eighteen-year-olds in 1967 diluted the votes of the white men who had had it exclusivey theretofore. Was this a good or bad thing? Why? In what way is extending the “marriage franchise” to same-sex couples distinct from extending the vote as discussed – presuming you think it is? This is not snark – I at present find your position unethical, and want to grasp your understanding of why you don’t agree. Phrasing a leading question like that seems the best (most efficient and effective) way to demonstrate to you why I feel that way and find out how your understanding is different from mine. Thanks for an answer.
Please see my explanation concerning Tier 1 vs Tier 2 criteria.
This point was only reaised because someone brough up the notion that gays might be better role models for marriage. Feel free to scroll up to the poster I as responding to.
I’m not here to type the same things over and over and over for you. Seek and ye shall find.
It is. You may as well argue that a peanut butter and peanut butter sandwich is the same as a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. It’s Through the Looking Glass fantastic.
You’re confusing the rights with the word. Which has been covered.
So, let them fight for those rights, via civil unions. They would have less opposition. Me, for instance. You know, those “rights” they’ve been claiming were so important to them for so long.
Again with the lame equivalence with race? Again, seek and ye shall find.
As far as the CU rights being recognized, do it state by state. Or do it federally. No matter to me.
No, I’ll stick with my formulation. True the PC Contortion Troupe has been fairly successful in getting people to turn a blind eye to reality, but reality is still there all the same. In the end, I am absolutely confident it will prevail.
No. I want them to have the same legal rights and protection. But that doesn’t give them the right to spread the nonsense that A + B = A + A, when A does not equal B. Next thing you’ll be trying to sell is that a marriage is constituted of a husband and another husband.
In short, I reject your premise that if one thinks expanding a franchise in one instance is a good idea, and/or a moral one, then all expansion of all franchises is a good idea. Let’s start with your age requirement. This one has no real moral component. The threshhold of 18 is arbitrary. There is only a moral argument, IMO, the everyone be afforded the opportunity at some point, whether it be 18, 19, 16, 13, or 25 is just a matter of opinion. There is no objective right or wrong answer. Personally, I think 18 is a good age for everything, even drinking.
As far as the sex and race differentiators, they were mistakes that were rectified. The founding document which outlines the moral high ground that the U.S. was claiming clearly states that each of us is equal and that each of us has certain inalienable rights. If the topic was “should gays be able to vote?” that would be analogous to your examples. As I the D of I syncs with the morality I myself hold, I feel all people should have the right to help define the society they will be living in.
I simply don’t see how SSM applies at all. We’re not talking about individuals. We’re talking about a composite. When you combine A with B, then A with A, you get two different things. Things that we can choose to treat equally or not. But there is no moral imperative to treat them as equal. To offer another analogy: hydrogen (man) and oxygen (water) combine to produce water (marriage). Combine hydrogen with anything other than oxygen, and you do NOT wind up with water. Insisting that you (pl) do is nonsensical.
You choose your words well when you say “formulation”, but you’re still muddled up about “reality”. Reality does not prevail or not prevail. It simply is. Among the list of things that prevail are opinions, beliefs, hopes, and dreams. That is what you describe when you speak of something that will prevail.
It’s whatever the law says it is. The law used to say that black people were 3/5th of a person. Now it doesn’t. Naturally, all those people who believed that blacks only counted as 3/5th of a person didn’t go away or stop believing that, but too fucking bad. Eventually they all died off and now everyone agrees that blacks are full citizens, humans, and people. Marriage now says one man and one woman. In the future, it won’t. You’ll die off and then your “reality” will be gone. Too bad for you.
That’s not really an explanation - it’s just arbitrary division and labeling. And since steps have been taken to remove gender as a legal barrier in many other fields with no ill-effects, I don’t see why it needs to persist in this one.
Again, this is just labelling. How is wanting to enter into a permanent arrangement with another person in which the two of you will share certain legal protections and responsibilities (and which millions upon millions of other Americans have done and are doing) “fantastic”? This isn’t any more “fantastic” than women getting the vote, especially since a vote cast by a woman is indistinguishable from that cast by a man. Her vote isn’t jelly while the man’s is peanut butter. No effort was made to distinguish peanut butter votes from jelly votes.
Seriously, why should a marriage that involves two penises or two vaginas be legally different from a marriage that has one of each, in light of the fact that having a penis (or vagina) does not entitle a citizen to special rights denied to those who have a vagina (or penis)? Without making any particular pro-homosexual emotional appeal, isn’t the trend in American law toward removing legal distinctions based on gender?
I’m confusing “rights” with “legal protections and privileges”?
I would guess that the civil union is a necessary incremental step with marriage to follow. I don’t see the point of it, personally, except as a sop to people who balk at the inevitable final result.
You calling something “lame” is not an argument for its irrelevance. Why were blacks denied the vote? Why are homosexuals denied marriage? From what I’ve seen, the reasoning behind both is very similar, and similarly pointless.
Okay, let’s start calling people who are homeless, heroes, let’s call cars candybars, lets call Halle Berry ugly. Let’s call ping-pong a contact sport. They’re just labels, arbitrarily applied to things and concepts. How can you seriously offer such an argument? I really won’t bother myself with this line of inanity again.
If it’s that, it’s fine. So let’s call it a Civil Union. But no, you want to redefine the word. The “label”, as you say.
I’m beginning to think that you can’t retain in your head anything I write except the dozen or so words you respond to each time you type. I’ve explained this in detail more than once. Recently, even. Search the thread for Christsakes. Or don’t.
Yes it is. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t limits. Tell me, how about we just call everyone a woman? Why have two labels when we can just have one. We’ll just outlaw “man”, since we don’t need it and it’s use might cause some type of discrimination. It’s “woman” for everyone. Now that’s an intentional excluded middle to counter your argument that since we’re heading in a direction we we can’t draw a line as to how far we go.
No, you’re confusing “marriage” with “legal protections and privileges”. One can enjoy the latter without the former. Not to mention adulterate it in the process.
Yet, civil unions could give gays all the rights they’ve supposedly wanted all these years. (Which has now been shown to be bullshit.) It’s really quite amazing that something that could give them ALL those rights is pooh-poohed as insufficient. Why, because, the legal goodies aren’t what they want, they want to elbow themselves where they have no business being, all in an attempt to gain a sense of normalcy through association. It’s been quite revealing to see the cloak of deception pulled away and see the “demand for rights” for the bullshit Trojan Horse it is.
Again, asked and answered. More than once. Sheesh! Can you put just a little effort into this? If not, I really won’t be interested or able to engage you. It’s difficult enough for the one of me (and mswas, when he’s around) to respond to the throng of others involved in the discussion, without retyping things over and over.
If that’s too much to ask, that’s fine, too?
Let me ask you something. Why don’t you provide to me a detailed logical argument, a proof of sorts, as to why SSM is like blacks getting the vote, or women, or blacks and whites being able to marry? I’ve explained all this more than once. I’d love to see your argument FOR why one should necessarily lead to the other.
“Where they have no business being”? “Sense of normalcy”?
One might counter this paragraph with an observation that it displays your separate but equal offer for the “bullshit” that it is.
I can see your argument to maintain conventions just because they have been around. (I don’t agree with it, but I can see it.) However, when you begin using phrases that lump all advocates for changes into a single category, using epithets and code words that tend to denigrate the entire population of homosexuals, I’m afraid that you are letting your frustration interfere with your argument. It looks very much like an appeal to the ick factor.
While there have been individual posters who have argued the “rights” case exclusively, (most of those posters, BTW, have been heterosexual), the homosexual community, (and most of the gay posters in this thread), have very clearly noted that it is the recognition of marriage they seek, not just some list of rights. By ignoring the actual arguments as well as who has made them, you have now created a straw man that seems to display your own hidden agenda–an effort to keep a negative public perception of homosexuality.
Except it’s not separate but equal, as I have demonstrated numerous times. I advocate ONE set of laws, not two. Something can’t be separate from itself. The fact that you miss this at this point is quite astonishing. And no, they have no business being included under the heading of marriage. Just as an alligator has no business being included under the heading of canine, or two different socks has no business being included under the heading of “things that are sets”.
If you want it to look that way, sure—ignoring all the reasoning I’ve given in this thread alone. The frustration I feel is people ignoring what I write and asking the same questions, without digesting answers I’ve already given. That and continually raising tired and disproven canards like “separate but equal”. Yes, I find behavior like that frustrating. Guilty.
I was not referring solely to the posters in this thread, nor to ALL of any group. I twas a general synopsis of the requests for rights over time. First, it was for tolerance. Then acceptance. and rights. Which is all fair. But now it’s for a contortion of reality. I feel no compunction to take that trip down some nonsensical rabbit hole. I have no desire to denigrate homosexuals, nor keep a negative perception of them. As you might have noticed if you have read all my posts on the subject, I am in favor of equal rights for gays, including gay adoption. I am against calling a tennis racket a food processor or contorting reality as to allow that a marriage can consist of two husbands or two wives. And you’ve might have noticed I’ve, life permitting, tried to answer not only each poster, but each of their points. I’ve learned from experience that it’s just not worth it to engage with some posters, but I’ve responded to the vast majority.
Not really. I want a trivial expansion of the concept of “marriage” that in no way affects existing marriages or future marriages that are similar to existing marriages. This no more “redefines” marriage than giving women the vote redefined “vote”. You can talk about dilution some more if you like, but it’s meaningless until you back that up with some hard facts about the effects of such dilution and not merely what you assume might happen a century from now.
I have review the thread and I see a lot of repetition that hetero marriage is special and will be diluted by homosexual marriage, but not a lot of supporting facts.
I have to assume you realize this isn’t what I’m arguing for, but just for laughs I’ll indulge you. For legal purposes, what if the government just referred to all citizens (regardless of gender) as, say, “citizen” or “person” or something similarly gender-neutral? I can think of a few minor repercussions, especially since for the most part this legalistic gender-neutrality already exists, but nothing that dilutes marriage as such.
Currently, for example, a man who walks into a restroom designated for women could, in theory, be charged with disturbing the peace or something similar. This wouldn’t be true if a citizen walked into a citizen’s restroom.
Isn’t marriage a set of legal protections and privileges? Putting aside all emotional aspects, isn’t a set of legal protections and privileges pretty much exactly what marriage is, at least as far as government is concerned?
And “adulterate” has the same problem as “dilute”. Please define the term in some measurable fashion and explain how hetero marriage is “adulterated” by homosexual marriage.
As an aside, I don’t understand why gay marriage being a relatively recent civil-rights issue (and that’s assuming Baker v. Nelson from 1972 only qualifies as “recent”) somehow earns contempt.
We have our doubts that “separate but equal” will ever be, in practice. We have evidence that it won’t.
Why not just call them “uppity” while you’re at it?
Okay, here goes:
In a land that claims to strive for a society in which all individuals are treated as equal before the law, there is a progression in gradually discarding prejudices that serve no purpose. Blacks are not alien creatures with thought processes markedly different from whites (despite centuries of pseudoscientific or religious claims) - there is no reason in an enlightened society for whites to deny blacks the vote if they want it.
Woman are not alien creatures with thought processes markedly different from men (despite centuries of pseudoscientific or religious claims) - there is no reason in an enlightened society for men to deny women the vote if they want it.
A marriage between a black person and a white person is not markedly different from a marriage between two whites, or between two blacks (despite decades of pseudoscientific or religious claims) - there is no reason in an enlightened society to deny such a marriage if the participants want it.
A marriage between two people of the same gender… now this is where I expect you to repeat how “fantastic” the difference is, but it’s my position that this is a prejudice that serves no purpose and should be discarded. I don’t know what you think the homosexual thought process is, but I get the impression you think it is something alien and unfathomable and couldn’t possibly want the stability of a decades-long mutually monogamous relationship, therefore seeking gay marriage is just a lie to advance the nefarious goal of achieving - gasp! - normalcy.
In summary, I can only repeat what I entered this thread with - a citizen wants to do something, there is no harm evident, therefore government has no business restricting it.
That’s not true. I can offer reasoning. Which I have. You can’t provide FACTS about what might happen a century from now either.
And I see your opinion advocating we change society, to no ill effects, as well. Equally unsupported by facts. But it is an unquestionable fact that include gays under the word marriage dilutes it. Maybe for good, maybe for ill, but it dilutes and changes it.
You miss my point. Just because marriage may afford one a set of legal protections and privileges doesn’t not mean they are one and the same. I thought one of the points on your side was that it is more than merely a set of rights and priveleges. and it is. But the point I was making was that marriage is but one door for one to access those rights and privileges.
What? “Measureable fashion”? If the word genius has been defined by those with IQs over 150, then we include people with IQs 0f 120 to be called geniuses, don’t you think the concept of “genius” has been diluted?
:rolleyes:Still? Unbelievable.
Agreed. I like that fact that you used the word “markedly”, acknowledging that there is a difference, but not one of any import. But I think buried in here is a notion that can be problematic. If one couches as a progression, it’s easy to erroneously assume that the progression must continue and that anything i the direction of this “progress” is, by definition, a good. I don’t know if you make this mistake or not.
As tempted as I am to disagree with the first part of this, we agree.
Again, good use of the term markedly. Though you forgot to indicate “one man and one woman”, which would have been part of the argument at the time this was an issue.
IF you had been paying attention to what I’ve written in this thread you would have gleaned that I believe that two gays can be just as in love as two heteros. But here is the problem by seeking to equate hetero couples and gay couples, you are stuck equating man and woman. Which, and here’s the important part, when it comes to marriage, is an important distinction. You cannot deny that “marriage” has been the institution under which families have been created. Exclusively? Of course, not. But so much so that the two were near synonymous. It has been, in our society, defined as one man and one women. You want to change that. Can you at least admit that much? If you can, then it comes down to whether we should expand/change/dilute the definition of the word. I have heard zero compelling reasons for us to do so. All those rights and privileges can be had by other means. So it comes down to a small minority wanting to feel good. Ordinarily I’d I’d like people to feel good. But if there feeling good means we must call a car an airplane, I dismiss it. And that doesn’t even get to the point that I think the change would be detrimental to society in the long run.
Again, if A + B = A + A, then A = B. And check books on anatomy and biology, man does not equal woman.
The tricky word is “evident”. We disagree on whether or not there will be harm. Neither of us has any proof. So we defer to the logic of the arguments. And I’d say that it falls more to the person advocating the change to convince the other.
And on that note, I must go. probably for the day. Thank you for answering the questions I asked.
Seems no stranger than trying to spread the nonsense that 2=1 which your “straights can marry, gays can settle for civil unions and then we’ll have true equality” arguments require.
If only the people advocating change could support their argument by, say, providing evidence on whether marriage rates have been negatively affected in countries that do have same-sex marriage. Oh, that’s right, they already did.
Hello again. Glad you decided to keep posting in this thread, and again, I appreciate your ability to keep engaging despite the pile on. Of course, the pile on is justified because you are totally wrong.
In any case, I think this is the crux of our disagreement, so I’m going to skip over your last response directly to me, unless there’s some part of it you’d particularly like my response to.
So let’s say that, to pick one of your examples, people start using the word “ugly” to mean attractive, while it continues to mean unattractive. Now, I agree that there would be some negative consequences to this. Someone would say “I met this girl yesterday, and she was so ugly” and you’d have to say “wait, you mean ugly unattractive or ugly attractive?”, and it would be a bit harder to communicate meaning. And if we were talking about a word with a lot of important emotional resonance, like “marriage” or “mother” or “citizen” or “love” or something, I can see how that would be something you would object to. (Tangentially, I still can’t even begin to fathom how you prioritize that as more important than people’s rights, but that’s a separate avenue for discussion.)
However, there’s a big difference between changing the meaning of a word in way which fundamentally alters its basic meaning, and one which doesn’t. There’s probably a more precise linguistic way to describe what I mean, but I’ll give you an example. So, using the ugly example, currently, in a conversation like this:
“so I met this girl yesterday”
“is she ugly?”
“yes”
It’s totally clear what information the question is trying to elicit, and what the response means. The question is asking whether the girl was unattractive, and the answer to the question verifies that, in fact, she is unattractive. If, however, our hypothetical language shift occurs and ugly now also means attractive, then the above conversation becomes extremely ambiguous, and ability to communicate meaning is lost.
So, let’s apply this analogy to the words “marriage”/“married”/etc. Here’s a very representative case where one might use the word:
“That’s Pat. Pat and I have been living together for 2 years”
“So are you going to get married?”
“Pat doesn’t know, but I’m going to propose on Thanksgiving”.
Now, with the current straight-only definition of married, it’s fairly clear what the question and answer mean. The question is asking about the level of seriousness and commitment of the relationship, now and in the future, and the answer says that the answerer intends to make a lifelong loving commitment to Pat.
So, then gay marriage is legalized. Then 20 years later when everyone is used to it, the exact same conversation occurs. And here’s the thing… the conversation means EXACTLY THE SAME THING. The implications are the same. The connotations are the same. There’s no ambiguity. No one has to stop and say “wait, you’re getting straight-married or same-sex-married?”. There is no ambiguity, no loss of communication, no loss of meaning at all. That, to me, is the key issue, at least as far as the whole meaning-of-words-changing discussion is concerned.
Well, then I can provide reasoning, too. Homosexuals have been around pretty much forever to varying degrees of tolerance by the rest of society, and I’m not aware of any time, even when tolerance was at its highest, that heterosexual marriages and reproduction were jeopardized. If neither of us can provide FACTS then all speculation on the results of gay marriage are moot and all concerns for its effect groundless. Thus, there are no FACTS describing the so-called “dilution”, therefore it has no value as a point of discussion.
The change under discussion is a minor one and if there are no facts, on what basis do you claim dilution? What are the observable facts of this dilution, assuming it occurs? What signs should we be watching for?
I must still be missing the point, because I can’t figure out what you’re driving at. As far as my argument is concerned, marriage is exactly a particular set of rights and privileges. Any emotional aspects of “specialness” and whatnot are irrelevant. What “more” did you think I thought marriage was?
Sure. Now explain the equivalent measuring system in marriage where a hetero marriage scores a 150 and a gay marriage gets a mere 120.
Yes, it’s a shame that many people in society are still so hung up on what other people do in bed.
Fine, a difference exists but it’s of no significance, let alone sufficient significance for government to write laws based on it.
In this particular case, the progression is a series of legal initiatives in the U.S. that have removed sexual orientation as a basis for legal discrimination, as well as the examples set by other countries that have approved gay marriage and not suffered any negative consequences (that I’m aware of).
My main reason for referencing suffrage for blacks and women is not that they are precursors to argument for gay marriage (though I’d say the Loving decision was) but that the arguments against them are virtually identical to those against gay marriage. Many of the things you’ve said in this thread could, with trivial changes, have been spoken by someone in decades past arguing that blacks or women don’t need the vote, shouldn’t get the vote, don’t deserve the vote, and if they got the vote, disaster would follow.
No, you’re quite wrong. I’ve always recognized the objective biological and anatomical differences between men and women. I just see no reason for government to use these differences to form law.
Sure, I want to change that. But not just on a whim. I want it changed (and in my own country it has changed) because I like individual freedom not just for myself but all individuals in my society. Some of my fellow citizens wanted access to the legal responsibilities and privileges offered by marriage. I have no reason to want to deny it. Some of your fellow citizen want the same. I don’t understand why you’d want to deny them.
Until you present evidence that gay marriage has a detrimental effect on hetero marriage and reproduction, I won’t argue it any further. I figure it’s been examined and found empty.
My main motivation is “why not?” The burden is on lawmakers to justify their laws, not on individuals to justify their rights, at least in a free society.
Can they? Can someone in a civil union invoke privilege to prevent their CU-partner from testifying about private CU matters, as a married person can? Let’s assume that it is true that one can design a civil union that in every existing way and in every conceivable way is legally equivalent to marriage. Why not just call it a marriage and skip the whole civil union thing? You’re arguing for a waste of time.
Well, feel good and have the rights and privileges of marriage.
The situations are not analogous unless cars can fly, i.e. they can do what airplanes do.
You’re perfectly free to think whatever you like. I’ve asked you to prove it. I’m still waiting.
My saying “evident” (as well as using other qualifiers) is simply me being generous because I’m leaving open the possibility that maybe you’ll eventually give me some evidence. At this point, I’m starting to lean toward confident use of absolutes, where I’ll declare that there is no harm in gay marriage. If you can provide some evidence in future, I’ll re-evaluate. I am confident that you will not but, of course, I can’t be sure.
Well, the answerer intends to propose a lifelong loving commitment to Pat. Pat could say “no”. Whether Pat and the answerer are the same gender won’t matter, though, for the purposes of this example.
I suppose the answerer could intend to make a lifelong loving commitment to Pat no matter how Pat feels. In this case, we potentially slide into the realm of obsession and stalking, possibly ending in a murder/suicide.
Just nitpicking.
I was just in Egypt, where while women can initiate a divorce it is not financially advantageous to do so. It seems that a standard method of a man who wishes a divorce to get her to do so is to get another wife, quite legal up to 4. So, unless you wish to consider Islamic marriages not real ones, number cannot be a Type 1 criterion. Since historically multiple marriages have been allowed, we might even say that requiring monogamy dilutes marriage. So all we have is sex.
As for the “fact” of dilution, that is your opinion only. When SSM was legal in California, nothing about my marriage, either the meaning or definition or strength, changed even the slightest.
When I lived in Louisiana they had a “head and master” law which stated that the man was head and master of the household. My wife, who was making most of the money, couldn’t get a check cashing card without my signature. During the repeal process some of the anti-repeal legislators complained that they got married under the law, and the definition of their marriage was being changed. They had more of a case than you do.
