The word “and” is also in the bible, meaning it is a religious word as well.
Ya know, this particular type of argument never works for me, even when applied to military service, political leadership, motherhood, or whatever – when you want special treatment so everyone will know you’re “honored,” it kind of takes away from the honorableness of it, to me. Whining that you’re not getting enough special treatment just seems petty and childish.
I mean, it’s like we’d all honor the Umpty-Fifth Division’s sacrifices in the Late War…but if the Umpty-Fifth Division’s Veteran Society began a public campign to inform everybody that the Umpty-Third Division was held in reserve during the entire Famous Battle, and so veterans of the Umpty-Third deserve less honor and should be chiseled off the memorial, it would just be demeaning, not honorable.
Honor is inherent in what one does, not in whether or not people react to it…and absolutely not in seeking to exclude others so that one’s own “honored” status is “protected.”
Absolutely. Honor is not something that can be awarded by the state. It has to be earned. There is nothing inherently honorable about getting married anyway. The state can only give it privilege, not honor. Honor comes from how individuals conduct themselves within those marriages, and that’s not something the state has anything to do with or ability to affect.
That honor is what the debate is all about. Gay people have always had the ability to stage a ceremony, give each other rings, make extravagant promises to each other, and then have a party with an expensive cake. The imprantur of the state is being sought by gay marriage advocates not because it would change the nature of the relationships but because for many people morality is determined by legality. If gay marriage is legalized then for some gay relationships will be seen as more moral. One way of changing a culture is to change the laws. The honor attached to the legal sanctioning of marriage is the prize being sought.
Gays also want the financial benefits of marriage, like Social Security survivor benefits, as well as the other legal advantages.
Interestingly enough, many of them insist on calling it “marriage”, not civil union, and those who are reluctant to call it that are labeled bigots (unless they are Democrats).
Regards,
Shodan
Legal marriage has nothing to do with morality. That’s a religious issue, not a legal one. legal marriage does not confer morality, it confers legal benefits and protections that have nothing to do with honor or morality.
I daresay there’s a distinction worth pointing out:
I want the government to honor (verb) its legal obligation to give equal treatment.
My personal sense of honor (noun), however, is not affected by government functionaries doing or not doing their jobs.
They are labled as bigots by who? While many people (not just gay people. Belive it or not, same-sex marriage is also supported by a lot of heterosexual people), do not like the “civil union” option, they do not typically say that it’s a “bigoted” option, but that they feel it’s too compromising. I’m sure you can find somebody somewhere who has said that civil union supporters are “bigoted,” but it’s not typical or representative. For every one of those you can find, I can find 100 actual homophobic bigots who oppose SSM.
I have yet to hear a single argument opposing SSM that doesn’t boil down to “My religion doesn’t like it” (no relevance to the law) or “I think it’s icky to let those degenerates into my exclusive club” (bigotry). There is no reason to harm a segment of the population to appease some bigots.
This indicates to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of this issue.
I don’t understand how the second sentence relates to the first.
I think the point is that **Shodan **wants people to call Obama a bigot.
It’s kind of a myth that Obama is opposed to same-sex marriage. In actuality, he says that he “personally believes marriage is between a man and a woman,” but as a matter of actual policy, he does not support legislation against it, opposes an Constitutional amendment banning it and supports civil unions. His position is akin to politicians who say they are “personally opposed” to abortion, but that they still believe it has to be legal. Right wingers love to hold on to this “Obama is against teh fags TOO” line because they erroneously believe it puts liberals in a box, but it doesn’t. No matter what Obama says he believes personally (and we all know he’s lying about that anyway. He said what he had to say to get elected, just like Both Bushes said they were pro-life when neither of them actually gave a shit about abortion), in terms of public policy and legislation, he opposes any attempt to legally prohibit it.
Is that all? Hell, I’ve been saying that since before I ever voted for him for president. I’ll say it again if it’ll make Shodan happy.
Barrack Obama is a bigot.
I’m not sure what the big deal about that is supposed to be. Most Americans are prejudiced against homosexuals to some degree. Obama is a very mainstream politician. It would be pretty surprising if he didn’t hold mainstream prejudices to some degree.
You know, I thought I’d never be the one saying this, but bigotry and prejudice alone do not a bigot make. Because everyone has biases and is somewhat prejudiced. The question is how they behave when it’s pointed out (after the initial shock that takes it as an insult). I would argue that someone who knows they have bigotted beliefs, but tries their best to change them, is not a bigot.
And, if Dio is right about Obama, then he wouldn’t be a bigot anyways.
Plus, it was you who said it’s okay to be bigoted towards bigots. But surely you would feel guilty making a racial slur against our president.
I think a stronger argument from the anti-gay-marriage crowd would be to say that the love between a man and a woman is special enough to warrant its own celebration, and it’s that kind of love that marriage is celebrating. The love between two people of the same gender is of course also special, hence, probably deserves its own kind of celebration.
An analogy would be if the NBA announced they’d now be giving out “Stanley Cups” to the winner of the play-offs. Uhh, but that’s not what the Stanley Cup is for, the opponents would cry. For many years, we’d be told, the Stanley Cup has been awarded to celebrate and honour the champion NHL team.
“Hey don’t be intolerant of NBA championships!” would of course be a silly, senseless retort.
They are two different points, but the connection is that gay marriage is not simply a desire to live and let live. Proponents of SSM want society to recognize their relationships, legally and socially.
Regards,
Shodan
Except, for the vast majority of our country’s history, SS love was not considered special, it was sick, deviant, unclean, and best kept in the closet. Now we’re to believe that SS love is just as special as OS love, but special in a different way, so they should get their own “special” type of marriage?
I’m simply amazed at the logical pretzels people are twisting up to try and justify treating gay people differently than straight people.
In other words, due to history’s intolerance of SS couples, the unique celebration of love between a man and a woman should now be gotten rid of? Please elaborate on this position.
That’s just an empty and vague statement. You may as well roll out a full-fledged platitude and say that SS couples are not the same as straight couples just as much as straight couples aren’t the same as SS couples.
That’s a tautology.