Actually, I could understand someone having such a moral conviction (though of course I wouldn’t agree with it) and it would as unassailable as any such conviction. The problem here is that he won’t admit it’s a moral conviction; he’s pretending to have some rational basis for his position and we’re just not getting it, either through lack of imagination or stubbornness and despite his infinite kindness and patience in trying to explain it over and over.
I don’t think that’s right. Marriage does have specialness, why else would people choose to enter into it? Why would ardent gay rights advocates be so hell-bent on SS couples be able to enter into it. Perhaps you have a hard time viewing it as special because of the sheer numbers who do enter into it. And how badly a good portion of them handle it. I would agree that it does lessen the “goodness” of it, but it is still a unique institution due largely to it referring to 1) a special type of relationship entered into by 2) one man and one woman.
It becomes less of a special domain reserved for a man and woman who would like to make a statement (to each other and the society) about how they feel about each other.
Sorry, I’m not understanding your analogy. And by that I’m not saying it is inapt or I don’t agree with it, only that I’m not getting what you’re saying in B.
If it helps, in any analogy, one of the scenarios must be a subset included in the other. But like I said, I’m not understaning what you wrote, so I’m not sure if that is the case with what you put forth or not.
I don’t think so. I think those block people from entering into marriage for reasons that have nothing to do with the meaning of the word marriage. So while it may be correct to say that by arbitrarily adding criteria to the meaning that you make the people who meet all the criteria more unique (special), you are changing the meaning of the word in a way that is, well, arbitrary.
You forgot to explain why.
I advocate that all people be able to enjoy all the same rights and privileges under the law. So, we’re good. What a relief.
See Post 161.
Nope. Because race has nothing to do with what the word “marriage” meant. Blacks associating with whites was viewed extremely odd, so the two races mixing in something as intimate as marriage might have been viewed with shock and dismay, but there was no confusion introduced about the word’s core definition. It was akin to people from two different strata of society getting married in some circles. SHOCKING! UNSPEAKABLE! IMPOSSIBLE! But it didn’t change the understanding of the relationship the word described on iota.
Not understanding what you’re asking here. It is special in that the word describes a specific relationship that can be entered into by a man and a woman. And I assume that people will normally pick from the small pool of people who appeal to them. But maybe I’m not understanding your point.
Since marriage isn’t awarded by others to people based on some accomplishment but entered into voluntarily, the analogy doesn’t hold. Nor do I see how two strange women on the other side of the planet getting married would affect my marriage, however special I may or may not deem it to be.
While there is no accomplishment necessary, there are criteria. One of which is: one man, one woman.
So now you DO think that all people should be able to get legally married?
Nope. I want them to all be able to enjoy the rights and privileges currently enjoyed by men/women who have been able to get married. But the mechanism by which those rights and privileges would be different. Hetero couples can, as they have been, get married. SS couples can enter into Civil Unions. Or whatever else they choose to call their union, other than “marriage”.
Because you said so?
What you’re not getting is that you’re not arguing something rational. You’re simply asserting your preference. There is a difference.
Separate but equal being inherently equal (Mr. Justice Warren, 1954) you thus admit contempt for the Fourteenth Amendment and the dignity of a class of human beings, while bizarrely insisting that you hold no such view. Again, this only reflects on you as a debater and a person.
I don’t think the value of my parents’ marriage comes from the fact that they can enter into and gays can’t. I think the value of my parents’ marriage comes from the fact that they’ve been married for 39 years, raised 3 kids, shared their personal triumphs and tragedies with each other, nursed and prayed for each other when the other was ill, sometimes seriously ill, developed a whole collection of shared experiences and references that people who aren’t them can’t fully understand, know what the other likes, the other hates, and how the other thinks, have come to understand the other’s flaws, even the ones that they would normally find intolerable, but tolerate them anyway because the sheer comfort they find in each other’s company makes them overlook the flaws. That’s what makes it special, not because gays can’t get married.
Maybe you could try building a less flawed analogy that actually reflects the situation accurately. Something like:
Scenario A) the best ballplayers, except for a small minority of amazing ballplayers who have red hair who may never become Hall of Famers under any circumstances, are allowed into the Hall of Fame.
Scenario B) all the best ballplayers are allowed into the Hall of Fame.
To echo the Captain–biological children don’t make marriages special, nor does excluding people from the club. Abiding care and commitment make marriages special, and that’s all. My own marriage is only and solely special because I love my wife deeply (and vice versa) not because we happened to pop out the cutest kid in the universe somewhere along the way.
To be honest, I find my marriage is LESS special when I think about my friends and relatives in equally-long-term and equally-caring relationships who can’t get married solely based on arbitrary societal bigotry about the equipment between their legs. If your (cruel) plan is ever implemented, I’m opting for a Civil Union–and I damn well will get divorced and re-attached to do it, solely to spite the people who think such a distinction is useful.
Since my cousin and her wife have been happily married for some years, you’re obviously wrong.
Again, I agree that marriage is special. Our disagreement is that in your analogy, it is special and meaningful because who can do it is restricted, so much so that when those restrictions are lifted, it becomes less special and less meaningful.
I believe you’re equivocating. “Special” has multiple definitions, only one of which implies rarity. You’re using one definition (meaning “meaningful” or “important”) to get us to agree that marriage is special, then another definition (meaning “rare”) to get us to agree that allowing SSM would make marriage less special.
What makes marriage special, IMO, is that it sets up some criteria for the people entering it, for their behavior. The relevant behaviors include loving one another, maintaining a home together, acting as a social unit together, generally having a sexual relationship with one another, possibly raising one or more children together, etc.
Marriage might be made less special if it were also to refer to my relationship to the guy selling me a burger at the drive-thru as “marriage.” Expanding the behaviors that are called marriage might make the word less special. But calling same-sex couples’ relationships “marriage” doesn’t make it any less special. It just makes sense.
I can’t believe we have people arguing for separate but equal in 2012…