Your hypocrisy is staggering. You accused people of demonizing opponents, and of having ignorant and disingenuous arguments, yet refuse to back up why. And then you complain about “name calling” from others.
Heh. Because they don’t exist, or because you just won’t deign to share them? Which?
When one has eliminated all other possibilities, including the ones that can’t be described for some reason, what else can a rational person do?
That could explain yorick’s contention that anti-miscegenation laws discrimated against people while anti-SSM laws merely discriminate against an act.
… because, you know, those people *could *be straight if they *really *tried hard enough. It’s a lifestyle choice, don’tcha know?
Give 'em credit for possibly being simply underinformed on that point, at least.
You are correct. I thought I heard one state outlawed SSM after some marriages took place and the marriages were annulled. I can’t find it so I must be mistaken.
This seems to be the worst-case scenario. Now you have two classes of gays. One that is legally married and one that cannot marry. I don’t have a point to make here but I wonder if this solution is better or worse for the group as a whole rather than ruling that the marriages performed were illegal.
Yes. I meant to say federal recognition of SSM
It is an argument that makes sense if you make a pretty massive assumption, which yorick does. You have to presume that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, definitionally. However, poor yorick appears also to say that if a jurisdiction legalizes SSM, then those people are married. At least while SSM is legal there. So his/her argument comes down to saying SSM can’t be legal because it isn’t possible to be married to a person of the same sex because marriage doesn’t include same sex couples until it does.
I KNOW you understand what I am saying. Take, as an example, someone that wanted to marry a child or a tree. The ACT is illegal and we are all affected equally by the law. These people are not being discriminated against even though they cannot marry the person/thing that they want. These people are not being singled out…we are ALL prohibited from performing an illegal act. Contrast this with telling an opposite sex couple that they cannot perform an act (male-female marriage) that others may freely engage in just because of their race.
You are really hung up on this. There is a definition change regardless of whether the term makes sense in our brains for SSM. The establised definition of marriage here is male-female union. You KNOW this and you know that the definition would change. I don’t see how this affects the argument either way.
Sure they could. Just not by the government. The government wouldn’t marry anybody. Marriage would mean whatever the marrying couples want it to mean. (Which is kind of the way it is now, except for the oddity that government then recognizes one union one way and gay couples in a similar but different way.)
Under my proposal marriage does not become meaningless. For a devoutly Catholic couple, for example, being married in the Catholic church is and would remain the most important part of their commitment profession to each other.
If an atheist couple can find some meaningful ceremony for them to profess their bond to one another, they would absolutely have that right. The government part would be legal paperwork; nothing more – as it would be for the devoutly Catholic couple.
I see it differently. Right now the hang-up on all sides is people’s religous and traditional views versus people’s rights. The rights aspect comes in because of government’s involvement in marriage. Marriage, as I said earlier, is a quasi-religious, or out-and-out religious, ceremony for a majority of people. That’s the part that’s problematic. What’s government doing involved in religious ceremonies?
For purposes of government, marriage IS “just another kind of private contract.”
Why is marriage less special if the ceremony is done outside the walls of government, in accordance with your own belief system?
It’s not a matter of “ruining it for everyone” because gays want to marry. It’s fixing a conundrum that otherwise doesn’t get fixed to anyone’s satisfaction.
If you want to continue to try to make others change their views, that’s fine.
My plan does not in any way “destroy” or “devalue” straight marriage. It lets every pair of adults who wants to get married in accordance with their beliefs. That has as much value as you and yours give it – which is pretty much the way it is now. But it gets government out of religion in its recognition of partnership contracts, which is the way it should be.
I’m somewhat socially conservative and I don’t get the opposition to gay marriage either. Perhaps it is the insistence by some in the gay community that equal rights under the law is not enough, that it MUST be called marriage. Perhaps it is fear that the gay lobby is going to somehow force catholic priests to perform gay marriages when my sister can’t even get a catholic priest to perform a marriage because her fiance is a Presbyterian.
I’d say its mostly because society is not ready for gay marriage and perhaps it never will be. Perhaps the gay community will have to live with civil unions for a while until we all get used to the idea of gay marriage.
Oh, it’ll be, once every American currently over seventy dies and every American child currently under ten reaches voting age, if not sooner.
The gay community’s not-unreasonable argument is that if it isn’t called marriage it isn’t “equal rights under the law”. Personally, I think civil unions are a reasonable compromise, but as a straight person I can hardly begrudge them equal footing.
You know, I couldn’r agree more. I think this whole exchange started when I called you out for the tired ‘Anyone who disagrees with us must fear us or hate us’ comment.
I’ll defer the request for that evidence for the moment…
We’re not in parallel universes are we? Because the GD I know is often hip-deep in shit and ignorance.
FTR, I’ve never called you a name, ever, although you could not say the same. It’s ok though, as it was in the time out room. :dubious:
I appreciate your honesty in this comment, and can’t ever remember seeing this candor here on this subject.
Given that your experience is ‘not insubstantial’, I’m extremely hard pressed to believe that all of them displayed fear and hatred (although I’m sure some did!) and so at least some of them had their homophobia imputed to them from your own biases.
I haven’t condemned you, and apologize if it appears to you I did. And I am not saying the “first option must be true” as much as I’m saying that it is inconceivable that it is always true. IOW, while there are enough Bubbas to give homophobia a bad name, the moment you ascribe homophobia to everyone who disagrees with you you are practicing prejudice, plain and simple.
IIRC, you are gay. (I apologize if I remember that incorrectly) If so, I imagine that you have experienced homophobia in ways a straight person would not. Nonetheless that perspective may hurt you as much as it helps you. It certainly appears, then, that everyone who disagrees with you must hate you and fear you.
That is simply not true. Which leads back to your request for “evidence.” And…both of us are asking for it, in one way or another. This exchange started when I noted that your charge of Homophobia! was banal and unwarranted.
Fortunately, we won’t need to get all ethereal as we have your own posts, and the posts of yorick73—the person you accused of Homophobia! to look at.
The issue here is one of homophobia, not whether yorick73 he/she is right or wrong. IOW, he may be simply wrong, or misguided, or uninformed, or simply stupid. Maybe he is none of those things and simply has a different value system than you---- which may be a function of his religion, or view of history, or God knows what.
In any event, you make virtually no allowance for a rationale other than fear, and hatred when you label him with the Homophobe! tag.
And since you asked, I’ve re-read every single post of yorick73’s in this thread, including his exchanges with you. Now not once did I see him exhibit fear or hatred towards homosexuals. NOT ONCE.
Before you get ahead of yourself, it would be hard enough to know what he feels, if you were in a room with him, knew him, and had a history with him that would allow you to know his [prior] views, voice inflection etc.
But you don’t do you? I don’t even remember seeing his username before this thread. Yet in spite of the fact he has said NOTHING [explicit] to indicate fear or hatred, you’ve labeled him a homophobe.
That’s simply amazing. You don’t likely know his/her gender, name, age, sexual orientation, marital status, education, religious views, background, values, family size (& their orientations) or location. In spite of this------and the simple fact he’s demonstrated virtually no fear or hatred -------you’ve labeled him as such.
So…you have my evidence. You called him a homophobe, and as I understand homophobia it requires of him both fear and hatred towards homosexuals.
Here’s my challenge: Show me [explicitly] that he’s a homophobe. I’ll go out on a limb and say you can’t. So my next challenge: Show me [implicitly] he’s a homophobe—which will you require you to know what he*** feels.***
Fair enough. I will try again. This time, I will use a totally insanely crazy analogy. Because everyone loves crazy analogies, right?
So, tomorrow, we come into contact with a race of intelligent aliens. Coming from a totally different evolutionary background, it turns out that they have FIVE genders. Here’s how their biology works:
-Any two individuals who are not of the same gender can copulate and reproduce, at which point they will produce a baby of one of the other 3 genders (draw a little 5 pointed star and little lines and stuff, and you can see how this will work). Then the juvenile gains maturity VERY quickly. The average lifespan of these aliens is the same as ours, but they grow to adulthood in 1 year instead of 20 years.
Here’s how their society works:
-Weird hormonal pressures that have no analogue among humans drive the reproductive copulation that causes two adults to have a baby. When that happens, the two adults move in together for a year to raise the baby. They are presumed to be friendly and polite with each other, but once the year is done they go their separate way (aside from continuing to have a parental relationship with the now-adult child fairly similar to an earth one, so they see it at birthdays, holidays, etc.)
-Totally separate from that, any two adults of any gender (including the same gender) can form a lifelong committed bond in which they live together, share emotions that seem very similar to human love, and form a single economic/social family unit. This relationship is solemnized with a ceremony in which they gather their friends and relatives together and exchange vows of commitment. But it is totally taboo for these committed partners to engage in the first kind of relationship and also raise kids together… that’s always done with strangers or work colleagues or non-committed friends or what have you.
So, we meet these aliens, we establish communication with them, and we start trying to write an English-alien alien-English dictionary. Now, clearly neither of those kinds of relationships corresponds directly to human marriage. So we could decide that “mateBond” and “lifeBond” are the right words for them or something like that. But we want to be able to relate cordially and sociably with these aliens (who, it turns out, are SUPER fun and friendly and have great sense of humor and grow super-strong alien weed), so it would be nice to be able to say things like “here are my buddies OoobQuak and MupDarg… they just got married last year”. So, the question is, of those two alien relationships, which one is more similar to “marriage”?
Well, the first one involves exactly two individuals of different genders and leads to babies. The second one involves love, lifelong commitment and forming a new family unit. It seems utterly 100% clear to me that the second one is WAY more similar to marriage. In fact, so similar that it would be crazy NOT to use “marriage” and related words (“wedding”, “spouse”, etc.) to describe it. When we humans are interacting with those aliens and we’re saying “we got married” or “I want to get married” or “this is my spouse”, the meaning that we’re conveying is going to FAR more often be similar to lifeBond than mateBond and vice versa. And note that this is true whether or not lifeBond has a “the two individuals can be the same gender” restriction.
Or a slightly different take on it, again using aliens: we come into contact with two different races of aliens. One race has no gender whatsoever. One race has no concept of love. In which race are we more likely to find a concept that is similar to marriage?
Well, fuck, I could just go and get someone to say I’m married now. It’s not a particularly special feeling, though. Marriage is a communal recognition of a relationship. As someone who’s non-religious, the state is the only agency that can recognize my relationship on a level beyond my immediate friends and family. If the state’s out of the marriage business, there is no secondary organization I can go to to get married that has any communal importance. Effectively, marriage would be removed from the table entirely as an option for me.
It’s not involved in a religious ceremony, because marriage is not, by definition, a religious union. As a cite, I offer up all the atheists out there who are currently married. If an absolute disbelief in any deity is not a bar to marriage, then one cannot reasonably claim that marriage is a religious institution.
It absolutely does, as far as I’m concerned. Your plan takes something which, in it’s current form, I find very valuable, and turns it into either the private province of the churches, or, worse, a meaningless joke that has no significance at all. Either way, it’s completely worthless to me.
You’re right. I’m sure his complaint that same-sex marriage would “cheapen” the institution is based entirely on his love and acceptance of homosexuals.
I doubt it. But I have no way of knowing that it is a result of his fear and hatred of them either.
Do you?
cosmosdan
As an addendum to my earlier posts I’d like to discuss womens rights with you, including parity in pay/performace, domestic violence etc.
Ready?
cosmosdan**, when did you stop beating your wife? **
Surely you’d see this as a disingenuous tactic to begin the discussion on my terms, and with you on the defensive. (although I suspect it is used just as often out of ignorance)
If you were smart (and I know you are) you wouldn’t take the bait. Interestingly enough, wiki says this in part:
Now I’ve been asked several times to substantiate why someone who is anti-SSM is not a homophobe.
In the end we’re not talking about the relative merits of SSM, but rather whether a anti-SSM person is a homophobe or not. In this context/debate, victory for the pro-SSM person is a vindication for SSM, while victory for the anti-SSM person can only establish that he isn’t a homophobe. (with the question of SSM remaining unanswered)
That is a sucker’s bet. Interestingly enough, I have never taken a position on SSM here, ever. And I joined this thread not to argue the merits of either side, but to challenge Miller et al to stop throwing the label Homophobe! every time someone disagrees with him.
Why would the inclusion of people he had no problem with cheapen marriage?
Why do country club racists want Jews and blacks prohibited membership?
Also, you have zero credibility since you’re constantly asserting something yet you can’t be bothered to dredge up evidence for it. 
You have “debunked” the procreation purpose? How, exactly did you do that?
Answer: by pointing out more compelling reasons on the other side of the argument.
So to be utterly clear: the government wants to encourage, reward, and legitimaize by official sanction those pairings which can result in natural procreation, and not reward pairings that do not have that result.
THAT is that rational reason.
Debunk that, please, without bringing up any other concerns at all. Because the moment you do, you are weighing concerns against each other and choosing which is the more compelling.
Of course, that’s natural and entirely appropriate, since that’s how we make every single decision in life. But since you bizarrely insist that this decision does NOT involve this process, that it simply involves the negation of one argument without recourse to any other argument, I will be fascinated to see how this is accomplished.
Have I? I don’t recall ever doing that.
I don’t know why that’s so difficult for you to believe. If someone were arguing that blacks should have fewer rights than whites, would you find it extraordinary to suggest that the only people who hold that position are racists? If someone were arguing for legal restrictions on Jews, would you argue that it’s possible to support that without being anti-Semitic? Why, then, is it so hard to believe that treating gays as second-class citizens ultimately stems from some degree of antipathy towards gays?
I don’t think that everyone who disagrees with me on this subject hates and fears me. I said that opposition to SSM is ultimately rooted in some degree of homophobia. Homophobia, like all bigotries, comes in degrees. One can be a racist without being Bull Connor. One can be a homophobe without being Fred Phelps. I don’t think that everyone who opposes SSM is secretly dreaming about going out and beating a bunch of fags down with a bat. But in my experience, when you talk to someone who opposes SSM, you eventually can boil down their reasons for opposition to the idea that gays are just not quite as good, not quite as special, as heterosexuals. It is, quite often, a very soft bigotry, but it’s still bigotry. And, as I’ve pointed out in numerous threads like this, often these sorts of homophobes are effectively allies of the gay rights movement. Someone who thinks that gays should have all the rights of marriage, but just not the word “marriage” is exhibiting a very minor degree of homophobia, but his position is still significantly less homophobic than a large portion of the population. Someone like magellan, who is one of the more outspoken opponents of SSM on this board, would be a solid ally in a place like Alabama or Florida.
Okay, sure. From his second post in the thread:
Allowing gays to marry cheapens the institution. This only makes sense if you feel that gays, or gay relationships, are somehow inferior to straight ones. If they’re of equal value, then mixing them into straight marriage would not cheapen the institution.
Again, on the spectrum of possible homophobic attitudes, this is pretty lightweight. It’s not hate or fear, but it’s clearly discrimination, and its based not on the nature of gay relationships, but the nature of the people involved in them.