I am aware of this, it does not change the Y chromosone nor the 94-98% simularity between man and chimp, a small difference in genes makes a huge difference.
What is this “essence” that you are referring to? It seems like you are being a bit circular in your reasoning: “ying and yang are the essence, and the essence is ying and yang”. That’s not very helpful.
Also, what is it with people saying that something hasn’t been disproven, so it must exist? No one has ever proven that the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist, either. Failure to prove nonexistence does not make the assumption of existence valid.
Let’s say that I have a dog, which is my pet. I also have a cat. Cats are very different than dogs (much more-so than male and female humans), so I can’t call my cat a “pet”, since that word is reserved for relationships between humans and dogs. In fact, there should be four different terms for the “pet” relationship, depending on the sex of the human and dog.
That’s pretty ridiculous, isn’t it? Even if the participants are different, the relationship itself is fundamentally the same, and so it has the same name. Likewise, relationships between people can be fundamentally the same, even if the sexes of the individuals differ.
Because they’re not two different things. The relationships are fundamentally the same thing, just with different participants. I call my female friends “friends”. What about my male friends? Should I start calling them “man-friends” or something? After all, why should a relationship between two people from the same group be the same as the relationship between two people from different groups? They are two different things, so why call them the same thing.
Your own argument forbids you from calling both your male and female friends “friends”. You now have three options:[ol][li]Create a new “friend” term to call your friends of the opposite sex.[/li][li]Drop your argument that identical relationships between members of slightly different groups must have different names.[/li][li]Do neither.[/ol][/li]1 makes you look silly. 2 destroys your argument. 3 makes you a hypocrite. Looks like it’s a lose/lose/lose situation for you.
Now that I have reduced you “relationships between different groups need different names” argument to a smoking pile of rubble, do you have any valid reasons to deny gay couples the term “marriage”?
You have yet to demonstrate that “ying” and “yang” exist. Also, if they do exist, you have yet to demonstrate how they are important in the least.
I have given biological (genetics), phycological (restrooms), and physcial differences(satistics, appearence), the ‘other side’ has given bubkis, so, Im sorry I must have mised it, what are you asking?
Again I have given evidence, the other side has given nada, so what again are you asking?
Pet has ment domesticated animal companion for years, and refers to any animal, so what again are you asking?
I have shown evidence that they are, the ‘other side’ has shown none, so what again are you asking?
You can call them Joe or Tom for all I care, but again friend has a long standing meaning of any gender, or for that matter pet, so what again are you asking?
This is the most coherent statement you have made.
Anyone familiar with psychology will tell you that there are many, many, many theories of personality, your “ying/yang” theory being merely one of them, and not a very convincing one at that. It is part of your own personal belief system, and if it works for your understanding of the world, so be it.
But you have yet to show how everyone else’s rights have to be subjected to your own hypothetical, unproven theories; how the lives and rights of millions of people have to be set aside because they don’t fit neatly into Kanicbird’s parochial thinking (or lack thereof). What, pray tell, gives you the supreme right to decide by what criteria other people’s relationships may be validated.
You have merely reiterated your beliefs ad nauseum (literally), totally ignoring the fact that they are merely **YOUR **beliefs, and have no bearing on reality.
The bottom line is this: Some day, my partner and I will be married, and we will not need your permission to call our relationship a marriage. And regardless of what you may think of our marriage, life will go on.
I was under the impression that your use of “ying” and “yang” actually meant something other than the common knowledge that men and women are, to a degree, physically and mentally different. You placed such an importance on this “fusion” of ying and yang that, to my understanding, you could not possibly be referring to something so common and mundane as known differences in gender.
So if that was all you were talking about, then would you care to explain why the slight differences between sexes is so important to the “marriage” relationship?
So are you back to arguing from tradition, then? “Marriage” describes a certain relationship between people. Two people of the same sex are capable of experiencing the same relationship that “marriage” describes.
You have shown no such evidence. You have shown that men and women differ somewhat. That is not under dispute. What you have failed to show is that the relationship between two people of the same sex is not the same relationship as between two people of the opposite sex.
So, to confirm, you are back to arguing from tradition? Of what importance is the traditional usage of a word? A hundred years ago in the US, “marriage” had a long-standing meaning of a union between two people of the opposite sex and same race. Why, then, were interracial couples able to get married and call it “marriage”? Obviously, tradition is not the primary factor here. Therefore, your argument that the traditional usage of the word defines how it should continue to be used is without merit.
So let me recap:
You have failed to show that there is any fundamental difference in the relationship between two people of the same sex as compared with two people of the opposite sex. From all outward appearances, the relationships are identical. Thus, lacking any evidence to the contrary, I am forced to conclude that homosexuals experience the same relationship as heterosexuals.
Also, I have demonstrated that traditional usage alone is not sufficient to restrict future re-definition of the term “marriage”, should an unexpected yet compatible relationship exist (such as interracial marriages).
Given, then, that we have a relatively new type of relationship (the homosexual relationship) that fits the same mold as the standard heterosexual relationship, and coupled with the fact that “marriage” has so far not been confined to traditional relationships, I must conclude that homosexual relationships are marriage, whether legally recognized or not, and that it only makes sense to extend the legal definition of marriage to cover same-sex unions which are, based on the nature of the relationship which “marriage” describes, already marriage.
If you wish to debunk my argument, you have two options. The linchpins of my position.
Firstly, you can show that homosexual relationships are sufficiently different from heterosexual relationships as to no be considered essentially the same thing. Thus far, you have focused on the groups being different, rather than the relationship being different, but it is the relationship that is important.
Secondly, you can show that there is a valid reason to limit the term “marriage” to its traditional usage, even though its traditional usage has been redefined over the years.
You don’t have an easy task ahead of you, I’m afraid. Good luck.
Joe Random: If you are so good at reducing Kanicbird’s arguments to a “smoking pile of rubble”, perhaps you would like to take a gander at mine. I will repost them if you like, if you don’t want the hassle of scrolling up. To get you started, though:
The words “friend” and “pet” both describe persons or…ummm, beings…with whom you do not want, or do not necessarily want, an intimate, sexual relationship. You might find a particular friend attractive of course, but that is not a necessary precursor to that person being your friend.
The words “spouse”, “husband”, “wife”, etc do describe a person with whom you have, or wish to have, an intimate sexual relationship. Thus your analogy breaks down, and is reduced…dare I say…to a smoking pile of rubble.
If this is true then, assuming you are now single, will it matter to you whether a potential future spouse, or lifelong committed intimate partner, is a man or a woman? I ask because, going by what you just said here, it shouldn’t. Right? Because you feel there is no fundamental difference between the two kinds of relationships. Right?
No. It isn’t. And here’s why:
They aren’t asking that a new term be created for them, to the exclusion of everyone else. YOU are the one asking that–not them.
They want to be granted the SAME rights as everyone else. Not DIFFERENT ones. Not SPECIAL ones.
Are you going to say that granting the right to vote to women and blacks was giving “special” treatment to women and blacks? Because it wasn’t. Women and blacks were granted the right to vote in the same manner that white males had always done.
We don’t call a woman’s vote a “whatsis.” It’s a vote. We don’t call a black person’s vote a “whosis.” It’s a vote. It’s not special or different. It’s a vote, just like everyone else’s–including a gay person’s. A gay person’s vote isn’t called a “whatchamajigger.” It’s a vote.
You’re just not seeing past your yin/yang, physical differences thing. Look at the actual relationships between the people involved in the relationships. The sex might be different from what you have, but the relationship is the same. So why call it anything different?
Ooooh, can I? Can I?
Um, no piles of rubble here, at least not on Joe’s part. The point of the analogy was to refute the logical argument:
A is different from B
Therefore, C’s relationship to A must be different from C’s relationship to B.
This is the logical form of the argument kanicbird used, and it is not valid logically, because we can easily imagine a case where we accept the premise as true, but the conclusion is false.
The fact that the logical argument is used in relation to sex once and not-sex the other time is not relevant, so your rubble-pile reduction attempt failed miserably.
Again, this is irrelevant, isn’t it? I love dogs. I hate cats, and in fact get violently ill around them (Well, OK, the allergies aren’t life-threatening, but I’d still be miserable living with a cat). So, if I were ever to get into a guardian-pet relationship, it would be with a dog, and never with a cat. How exactly does this prove that cats shouldn’t be called pets by those people who happen to like the damned things?
And no dragging the fact that marriage involves sex, and having pets doesn’t, unless you actually make a case that it is relevant to the argument at hand, as symbolised above.
My argument was that the same word describes an equivalent relationship with both males and females. The strength of the relationship as compared to friendship is a red herring.
If the relationship that exists between homosexuals who wish to be married is equivalent to the relationship between two heterosexuals who are married (which, from all outward appearances, is the case), then it makes sense to use the same term (“married”) in both cases, just as it makes sense to use the term “friend” when dealing with both opposite-sex and same-sex friendships.
I’m afraid not, as my analogy is based on the similarity of marriage to the relationship that homosexuals experience (and that I am arguing should be called marriage, as well), and not marriage’s similarity to friendship. To compare friendship to marriage is to misunderstand my argument completely.
Just because there is no fundamental difference between the two relationships doesn’t mean that everyone is capable of experiencing this relationship with someone of any sex. This does not make heterosexual and homosexual relationships fundamentally different, though. To that end:
Consider some guy, Bob, who is only attracted to blondes. Let’s say that he has some “blond fetish” which prevents him from being sexually attracted to non-blonds. By your logic, he can’t get married. After all, if Bob, relationship with a blond were equivalent to another man’s marriage to a brunette, then Bob should be able to be attracted to brunettes, as well. Since that’s not the case, his relationship with blondes is fundamentally different than a “normal” relationship with a brunette, and thus it can’t be called “marriage”.
So by reductio ad absurdum, I have shown that having one party in a relationship be non-replaceable by the party in another relationship does not, in and of itself, cause the two relationships to be inherently different.
You know, I probably should have just said that. It’s easier to understand.
In fact, maybe I’ll take another shot at arguing against Weird_AL_Einstein using a simpler, numerical argument.
You would agree that the following is true:
5 = 3 + 2
right? Now, what about this next one?
8 = 4 * 2
Am I allowed to use = for the relationship between 8 and 4 * 2? If the relationships are equivalent, shouldn’t I be able to write this?
8 = 3 + 2
and
5 = 4 * 2
Since it’s obvious that 5 != 4 * 2, then = must not apply to the relationship between 8 and 4 * 2. I obviously need a different symbol to represent that relationship.
The above is your argument reworded for arithemetic instead of gay marriages. Absurd, isn’t it?
There exist bisexuals who experience differences of attraction to men and to women, affecting how they feel or the nature of the relationships formed in some way; I see no reason to doubt their reported experience, as I have similar ones (though the trait that I respond to in that way has nothing to do with sex).
These people are, however, not speaking for all actual (as opposed to hypothetical) bisexuals; a large number (I can’t honestly say which broad division I could guess to be more numerous, though I happen to have more friends in this second grouping) form their attractions using criteria in which sex and gender presentation are not considered at all, or if at all, no more strongly than something like hair colour.
Personally, I expect all my committed life-partners to be people I’m in love with, who are in love with me. What factors go into determining who qualifies for that status are between me and the folks involved; if one wants a first approximation for what people I’m likely to be attracted to, the most accurate one is “none of them”.
Ummm, no. At least, that’s not how I understood it. I thought the point of the analogy was to argue that C’s relationship to A is not sufficiently different to justify the use of two different words to describe it. As in, cats and dogs are different, hence my relationship with my cat is different from my relationship with my dog, but not so much that we need two different versions of the word “pet”.
If you still disagree with me, we can ask Joe to weigh in on exactly what he meant.
Well this is eyebrow raising. First, sexual differences are irrelevant. Now sex itself is irrelevant. We’re obviously not on the same page, are we even on the same planet? I mean, are you Borg? Sexual differences are irrelevant. Sex is irrelevant. You. Will. Be. Assimilated. I don’t want to be assimilated. I like diversity.
See my comment above. I’m certainly not “dragging in” the fact that marriage involves sex. The relationship between marriage and sex, and sexual differences, is fundamental to what I’ve been talking about since the beginning. I can’t drag in something that’s already here.
As to your latest analogy…having a sexual orientation is not the same as having an allergy, and in fact some people might find that idea insulting if you suggested it in the wrong context. Gay men don’t refrain from having sex with women because it makes them break out in hives (of course I realize that by saying this, I am setting up for a gay guy with a sense of humor to pop in here and say “Well actually…”).
I’m not talking about the comparative strength of any relationship. Heck, it’s possible too have a stronger bond with a “friend” than with a spouse.
Your statement above is certainly true, as an “if-then” proposition. What we are disagreeing about is your “if” statement.
Ummm…it looked very much to me like you were comparing a marriage style relationship with friendship, and also with pet ownership. Perhaps I did misunderstand your argument completely. However…
It looks very much to me here that you are comparing sexual orientation to a preference for a particular hair color. Is that in fact the case? I just want to be sure before I make a reply.
I also note with interest that you did not directly answer my question, which was, assuming you are now single, will it matter to you personally whether a potential future spouse, or lifelong committed intimate partner, is a man or a woman? And if so, why, if you consider both kinds of relationships to be equivilent?
And right here I am just going to break down and admit that I have no idea what you’re talking about. Anyone want to help me out?
So…you said that comparing marriage to friendship was a red herring in your last post. But you think that comparing people to numbers somehow isn’t? For the record, and I can’t believe I actually have to say this: People are not numbers. The relationships between them are not equivilent to the mathematical relationships between numbers.
Trying to reduce people to numbers and their relationships to mathematics…maybe you’re not the Borg. Maybe you’re the Foundation. Someone should inform the estate of Isaac Asimov…
Good god, man, have you no understanding of analogies, or logic, or basic common sense? Nobody is comparing marriage to having pets. Nobody is comparing sexual orientation to allergies. Nobody is comparing people to numbers. Nobody is saying sex is irrelevant to marriage.
All those analogies were meant to do was show that the logic you are using to get from a bunch of premises (most of which we agree with) to your conclusions (which we don’t) is flawed, because applying the same logic to other situations. And we fail to see why all of the differences above should mean that different logical frameworks apply to the different situations.
I’d break this down again in more detail, but I suspect it would be a waste of typing.
I meant that the relationships are functionally identical (i.e. no different than what you would expect to see between any two separate heterosexual relationships.)
You were unnecessarily bringing sexual intercourse into the picture, though. My use of “friend” was to show that it is possible to have the same type of relationship (with the same name) with members of both sexes.
I’d be interested in knowing why. From all outward appearances, the relationship seems identical. In other words, if I somehow had the genders of the parties involved blocked out, and I saw only their actions and attitudes toward each other, I would have no way of telling if they were the same gender of different genders.
You most certainly did misunderstand. I was comparing friendship with a male to friendship with a female, and showing that the relationship between those two types of friendships is the same thing as the relationship between heterosexual and homosexual couples.
Male Friend**:Female Friend::Gay Lover:**Straight Lover
I was comparing sexual orientation to a fetish:
I already answered that and explained my answer.
That means that, yes, it does matter to me what the gender of my partner is.
As for why I consider both kinds of relationships to be equivalent, I answered that, as well. The whole “blonde fetish” argument was my answer. It was a reductio ad absurdum:
A person with a fetish for blondes is psychologically incapable of becoming aroused for a non-blonde. Will it matter to that person whether a potential future spouse, or lifelong committed intimate partner, is a blonde or a burnette? And if so, why, if you consider both kinds of relationships to be equivalent?
reductio ad absurdum is to show that the consequences of your argument result in a contradiction or absurdity.
You claimed that, since it matters whether or not a potential spouse is male or female, then the two relationships must not be equivalent.
I then showed that, to a man with a fetish for blonde hair, hair color mattered for a potential spouse. Yet even you will agree that the man with the fetish has the same relationship with his spouse as some other man would have with a brunette.
Thus I concluded that not being able to switch males and females in my romantic relationships does not make the two types of relationships different enough to warrant different names, just like you wouldn’t deny a man with a blonde fetish the word “marriage” simply because he is unable to have a sexual relationship with a brunette.
My original post was a bit hard to follow. Is the above rewording any clearer?
sigh You just don’t seem to be getting the broader concepts, here. I never compared marriage to friendship, and I never compared people to numbers. You’re reading things to literally. I’m comparing relationships here. My number argument is essentially identical to my “blond fetishist” argument.
In marriage, there is a relationship between people. In math, there is a relationship between numbers.
You claim that, since you can’t substitute males for females in a relationship, that the relationship between two males, and a male and a female, must be different.
I showed that, by that same logic, not being able to replace anything to the right of the equals sign must mean that “equals” means a different relationship in my second example as compared to my first example.
Of course, it’s obvious that the relationship expressed by the equals sign (e.g. equality) is the same all the time, even if you can’t replace the stuff on the RHS with anything that you want.
Thus, relationships between people can be the same, even if you cannot replace one party with anyone you want.
You really do keep missing my point, don’t you? I never implied that the relationships were equivalent to mathematical relationships. I just wanted to show that relationships in general can be identical even though you can’t substitute any possible gender (or number) into one side of the relationship.
And, no offense, but maybe you’re just really bad at picking up on extended analogies. 
kanic, you do realize there are several mainstream religious institutions that fully condone same-sex marriages, yes?
Since you (and others) are arguing, at least in part, that “marriage” is a spiritual term and should only be used as such, how does the above fact fit into your thinking?
Esprix
If you UU’s are done sugaring your porridge, Esprix, please pass the sugar; we Episcopalians want some too. 
Alrighty then. Let’s try this. Ya’ll do understand that there is such a thing as a good analogy and a bad analogy, right? For a refresher, you might want to look at this site. Especially instructive is their example of a bad analogy, the claim by PETA and it’s sympathizers that factory farming is analogous to the Holocaust. The reason that this analogy is faulty, despite the superficial similarities, is that the Jews and sundry others that died in the Holocaust, on the one hand, and the animals that are slaughtered in the process of factory farming, on the other hand, lack the critical commonality of both being human.
Hence, an analogy between the relationship between the Nazis* and their victims, on the one hand, and the relationship between factory farmers and their “victims”, on the other, is also faulty.
Are we clear so far? Ok, so, the critical, and I do mean critical, aspect that exists in the relationship that we call marriage, that does not exist in the relationship we call “friendship”, or between friends (necessarily), or in the relationship we call “pet ownership”, or between people and their pets, or, for heaven’s sake, the relationship we call “algebraic equations”, or between numbers, is human sexuality.
I’ll say it again, for emphasis: human sexuality. It is not a factor in friendship (again, necessarily), or pet ownership, or algebra. Thus, any attempt to draw an analogy between marriage and any of the aformentioned relationships is faulty, because they all lack the critical commonality with marriage that is human sexuality (especially the numbers one), just as PETA’s analogy is faulty because Jewish people and farm animals lack the critical commonality of both being human.
Understand?
*[sub]GODWIN ALERT! GODWIN ALERT![/sub]
So, what you’re saying, is basically marriage is fundamentally about sex of a particular variety? And here I thought it was about love, commitment, faithfullness, etc. Silly me.
It does boggle the mind, however, that you think my definition of marriage cheapens and dilutes it…
But you see, my initial use of those analogies was directed toward kanicbird, because he implied that it was impossible to have the same relationship with members of different groups, where he defined males and females as separate groups.
Then you came along and stated that, since I have a preference as to what gender I want to have sexual relationships with, then unions between opposite genders must be different than unions between the same genders. I countered by showing several instances where the members in a relationship could not be interchanged, yet the relationships were all equivalent.
Now you’re starting to read way too much into my analogies. I invoked them for a specific purpose, and they have fulfilled that purpose.
At this point, I really have to question your ability to understand analogies. never once did I form an analogy between friendship and marriage. Not once. My analogy was between the relationship between male and female friendship and the relationship between same-sex and opposite-sex unions.
I mean, I even wrote it out in the form that you’d see on a standardized test:
Male Friend : Female Friend :: Gay Lover : Straight Lover
Have you ever taken one of those tests with analogies like that? Here’s a simpler one:
Tree : Seed :: Chicken : Egg
You’re insistence that my analogies are invalid is exactly the same as saying “You can’t compare trees to chickens! Chickens are animals and trees are plants!” about the above analogy. The Tree/Chicken analogy doesn’t compare trees to chickens; It compares the relationship between trees and seeds to the relationship between chickens and eggs.
Likewise, my analogy compares the relationship between same-sex and opposite-sex friends to the relationship between same-sex and opposite-sex lovers.
I understand that you are completely misrepresenting my analogies. I never compared friendship nor pet ownership to marriage, just as my above example was not comparing trees to chickens.
Ack! I changed my sentence structure there, and neglected to put in the correct “your”, and that’s one of the English mistakes that I really hate.
Now I feel dirty.