No offense, but I would kind of like to hear what Polycarp has to say.
You also said:
It’s not about the type of sex. I’m pretty sure I already addressed that.
You also said a whole bunch of stuff in between, which I read several times, but I stand no more enlightened as to what you are talking about, or as to what your analogy is, if not a comparison between pet ownership and marriage, which you stridently claim is not the case.
Let’s try this. Here is the definition of “Argument by Analogy” according to this site:
<marriage> and <petiage> share the properties: <has a traditional meaning>, <has some people, group P, who are unable to participate in traditional version>, and <has some members of P who wish to participate in a non-traditional version of the relationship while using the traditional name>.
<petiage> has the property <people of group P are allowed to participate in non-traditional versions of the relationship while using the traditional name> (i.e. people can own snakes and call it “pettiage”).
Therefore, <marriage> has the property <people of group P are allowed to participate in non-traditional versions of the relationship while using the traditional name> (i.e. people can have a same-sex SO and call it “marriage”).
Does that make any more sense? I’m not comparing spouses to animals or anything. I’m just pointing out that “marriage” and “petiage” share certain fundamental properties.
Every analogy is slippery, and has ramifications that make it not on all fours with that which it analogizes.
To me the key point is that marriage is a relationship entered into willingly by two people out of an emotional commitment in the other. There may be other reasons, to be sure, but they are not binding in this day and age.
When someone started the analogy to pet ownership, I thought that identifying the relation of human and pet in analogous terms seemed appropriate. There are obvious problems – “pettiage” is a relationship between a human being and a nonhuman animal (mammal in the traditional sense of the term). Marriage is a relationship of two human beings in a specific way. But the key point is that both are relationships.
Joe Random drew out my analogy in terms I would have if I had been posting. I stand by what he said as what I would have said if he had not said it first.
So here we have Timmie and Lassie, by and dog. Classic pet scenario. And here we have Patty and her boa Honeybun. Is the term “pet” appropriate for Honeybun? If you accept “pettiage” as a term for the relationship between Timmy and Lassie, are Patty and Honeybun engaged in “pettiage” in the same way as Timmie and Lassie? Why or why not?
Perhaps the ideal question to ask is, What is a marriage? What are its distinguishing characteristics? What purpose(s) does it serve? How does it differ from other human relationships? That may enable us to come to some agreement on the question under discussion.
This is true. There are good analogies and terrible analogies, and not much to divide the two.
Nah. I tend to be overly verbose. You would have said the same thing in fewer words.
I think this is probably one of the key points here. Many people seem feel that “being between members of the opposite sex” is implicit in the definition of marriage.
However, clinging to the traditional definition of marriage, to the detriment of a substantial minority group, doesn’t sit well with me. It seems very similar to saying, “Voting is something that white, male property owners do to elect government official. That’s the definition, so we have to call what women and racial minorities do to elect people something different.” The whole thing smacks of discrimination under a thin veneer of appearing to want to uphold tradition. I’m sure that not everyone is being discriminatory, but it still comes across that way to me.
Even if I accept that being between a man and a woman is part of the definition of marriage, why does it have to continue to be that way? The definitions of words are being modified all the time. Language is dynamic; If necessary, it should be modified to fit reality, rather than modifying reality fit it.
Is the term “pet” appropriate for Honeybun? If you accept “pettiage” as a term for the relationship between Timmy and Lassie, are Patty and Honeybun engaged in “pettiage” in the same way as Timmie and Lassie? Why or why not?