|
It is noteworthy that the so called "sanctity" of marriage is constantly and rapaciously violated every day, day in and day out in our modern day society via the abhorrent and dreadful act of "divorce" - something the Judeo-Christian God "hates", according to the book of Malachi.
Yes, God "hates" it. Powerful words, IMO.
All the arguments about the supposed unassailable virtue of marriage, as solely an opposite sex institution, ignore the fact that the very same institution has been utterly and wholly debased for millennia via the rite of divorce, which is now so willfully and cheerily exercised by masses around the world on a constant basis.
Only once I start seeing the same degree of vim and vigor against the rite of divorce out of these same sex marriage opponents will I consider their railings against same sex marriage to be on solid footing.
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
Very good point, just look at the results of rampant divorce and cohabitation on our society in the last 40 years and its corresponding weakening of the institution of marriage.
And "watering down" or diminishing such an important societal concept as marriage IS a major concern.
How is it "watering down" or diminishing marriage?
|
|
And "watering down" or diminishing such an important societal concept as marriage IS a major concern.How is it "watering down" or diminishing marriage?
Whenever you expand a definition to incorporate more parameters, that is watering it down.
Whenever you change a definition to distance its original definiton from its original purpose, that diminishes it.
I use language as precisely as possible, so use the actual cognitive definitions of my words as opposed to any denotative aspects.
To CourtFool:
It is not about tradition, but definition. The IM issue wasn't about redefining marriage, it was about allowing anyone to marry regardless of race. SSM is about redefining marriage to mean something different than it is now (i.e. the union of a man and a woman). And "watering down" or diminishing such an important societal concept as marriage IS a major concern. Our recent history in the US is replete with examples of bad consequences of logical sounding policies. Sex education and criminal rehabilitation are two that come to mind immediaitely. In the late 50s when the push for standardized sex education became active, it sounded so logical that it would be good if there was such a thing in public schools. The result? Teen pregnancies rose by 900% in 8 years, teen STDs increased 350% in 10 years (those are rate increases that take into account the increase in population). Criminal rehabilitation and rights vs. punishment was the big focus of the Warren Supreme Court. When he started the murder rate in the US was 4.9 per 100,000 and had been declining for 30 years. Ten years later, the murder rate had doubled to 9.8 per 100,000 with a like increase in other violent crimes as well.To Bitter Thorn:
Yes, the distinction being that "society" is a cultural concept , while "the State" is a governmental one. The first is an aggragate collection of shared morals and beliefs. The second is totally dependent on what kind of government is in place and how much power there is in ratio of the people vs that said government.
I realize your reply to CF is a brief one, but I take issue with your conclusion of causality. I'm sure you are aware that coincidence is not causality, but you conclude X is the "result" of Y, and it's by no means such a straight line. For example, I would attribute more of the cause for increases in violent crime and incarceration to the war on drugs than to criminal rehabilitation policy.
Accepting your definitions of society and state for the moment, I would point out that the issue at hand is what the state does. I'm not particularly concerned with what society accepts or doesn't. I care very much about the states use of force.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Let's assume that allowing same-sex marriage is the 'right' thing to do. If I understand your concerns, Matthew, you do not think a minority should force its 'right' thing on the majority. Instead, we would attempt to convince the majority to see the validity of the 'right' thing.
That assumes people are generally 'good' and are interested in doing the 'right' thing. I am not that optimistic.
Just wanted to hit this point. I'm not optimistic on humanity either, part of why I'm conservative :P
But Dan Blatt cites a recurrent theme, that civil unions have more support, and crossed the favor/oppose gap 7 years ago. To me, that's just more support for 'Fred' Everyone (well not everyone) wins. Gays get the structure and recognition that 'they' apparently crave, and 'we' get to keep Marriage.
People often ask why it's so important to keep Marriage a union between a man and a woman. I guess the rebuttal is, why is it so important to change it, when Fred seems to be the best result?
Edit: forgot to add, if you go poking around the GP blog, I'm in the comments under The_Livewire. Remember how I said I try to be nice and civil here? There not so much.
Very good point, just look at the results of rampant divorce and cohabitation on our society in the last 40 years and its corresponding weakening of the institution of marriage.
Divorce, however, has genuine temporal / state ramifications as well. Consider taxes, visitation rights, inheretence, etc. The state simply and impartially views the rite of divorce as a severing of ties and the elimination of all these benefits. The state does not "hate" divorce, it is simply and merely the dissolution of a contract.
Therefore, the only viable resolution to the problem is to relegate the appropriate considerations to their provinces of influence.
State view on Marriage: Contract between two persons.
Religion view on Marriage: Lifebond between man and a woman.
State view on Divorce: Severing contract between two persons.
Religion view on Divorce: Abhorrent act that God "hates".
If you're personally religious, and devout, and pay heed to Judeo-Christian philosophy, then you should act in the manner most befitting your teachings. Follow this for yourself and you'll be okay.
Just as it's laughable and unthinkable to eliminate the rite of divorce for everyone based on your own personal faith or religious belief, eliminating the rights to marriage for those who don't share your faith or belief isn't a solution either.
|
|
To Bitter Thorn:
Oh, I agree completely that casuality vs coincidence is many times misused. Yes, my answer was as brief as possible, but on those two examples there are reams of data and comparative studies that show the direct influence of those policies on the corresponding consequences.
On your second point, I'm not sure what force you are talking about.
It is not about tradition, but definition. The IM issue wasn't about redefining marriage, it was about allowing anyone to marry regardless of race. SSM is about redefining marriage to mean something different than it is now (i.e. the union of a man and a woman).
It was redefining marriage at the time in the US. As far as I am concerned, " mean something different than it is now" is the antithesis of tradition. If you want to call it something else, I am cool with that. It is still not a good enough reason.
Our recent history in the US is replete with examples of bad consequences of logical sounding policies.
Surely you are not suggesting we stop proposing logical sounding policies.
Whenever you expand a definition to incorporate more parameters, that is watering it down.
Are we talking about the word or the concept. If you are talking about the word, words change all the time. To put in your wording, they get watered down all the time. In my opinion, this is the strength of the English language. It offers more options. Regardless, it is hardly damaging to society.
If you are talking about the concept, I ask for something more substantial than an entry in Websters.
|
|
It is not about tradition, but definition. The IM issue wasn't about redefining marriage, it was about allowing anyone to marry regardless of race. SSM is about redefining marriage to mean something different than it is now (i.e. the union of a man and a woman).It was redefining marriage at the time in the US. As far as I am concerned, " mean something different than it is now" is the antithesis of tradition. If you want to call it something else, I am cool with that. It is still not a good enough reason.
Our recent history in the US is replete with examples of bad consequences of logical sounding policies.Surely you are not suggesting we stop proposing logical sounding policies.
Whenever you expand a definition to incorporate more parameters, that is watering it down.Are we talking about the word or the concept. If you are talking about the word, words change all the time. To put in your wording, they get watered down all the time. In my opinion, this is the strength of the English language. It offers more options. Regardless, it is hardly damaging to society.
If you are talking about the concept, I ask for something more substantial than an entry in Websters.
If you are going to just use spot quotes out of context to change the meaning of my post then I can't really answer (i.e. the logical sounding policies quote). As to words changing all the time you are incorrect. New words appear and a small percentage (less than 1%) of old words GRADUALLY change meaning. What is more common is the change in spelling, in that way our written language is more fluid, but the cognitive meaning is much less so.
To Bitter Thorn:
Oh, I agree completely that casuality vs coincidence is many times misused. Yes, my answer was as brief as possible, but on those two examples there are reams of data and comparative studies that show the direct influence of those policies on the corresponding consequences.
On your second point, I'm not sure what force you are talking about.
Regarding force, I'm coming from a minarchist/libertarian position. State power is force or the threat thereof. I want government to be minimally intrusive, coercive, and harmful. Therefore my default position is always for maximum individual adult liberty limited by the equal rights of others.
From my point of view there is a vast gulf between societal norms (which I tend to associate with reason and/or social pressure) and government laws, regulations, mandates and so forth which are force or the threat thereof. I'm basically using the libertarian construct of force versus reason.
Does that clarify how I'm using the term force in respect to the government?
If you are going to just use spot quotes out of context to change the meaning of my post then I can't really answer (i.e. the logical sounding policies quote). As to words changing all the time you are incorrect. New words appear and a small percentage (less than 1%) of old words GRADUALLY change meaning. What is more common is the change in spelling, in that way our written language is more fluid, but the cognitive meaning is much less so.It is not about tradition, but definition. The IM issue wasn't about redefining marriage, it was about allowing anyone to marry regardless of race. SSM is about redefining marriage to mean something different than it is now (i.e. the union of a man and a woman).It was redefining marriage at the time in the US. As far as I am concerned, " mean something different than it is now" is the antithesis of tradition. If you want to call it something else, I am cool with that. It is still not a good enough reason.
Our recent history in the US is replete with examples of bad consequences of logical sounding policies.Surely you are not suggesting we stop proposing logical sounding policies.
Whenever you expand a definition to incorporate more parameters, that is watering it down.Are we talking about the word or the concept. If you are talking about the word, words change all the time. To put in your wording, they get watered down all the time. In my opinion, this is the strength of the English language. It offers more options. Regardless, it is hardly damaging to society.
If you are talking about the concept, I ask for something more substantial than an entry in Websters.
FYI, CF is in the habit of breaking replys up in this manner to address specific points. I'm pretty sure he doesn't intend to manipulate the context.
|
Ok, lets look at countries that have gay marriage. Canada has had gay marriage since 2005 countrywide, only one major thing has occurred differently since it's legalization, and that is gays got married. Nothing bad happened we didn't force ministers to perform said unions, and even government employees who felt uncomfortable officiating said unions get to delegate them to other employees.
Denmark legalized same sex marriage in 1995, again no major social collapse. In fact Denmark has given us our first viable study on children raised by same sex families, the results being these children had no increased chances of being gay themselves. Both Canada and Denmark have had no social collapse or degredation for it. So whats all this claptrap about it ruining society?
@ Jeremy Mcgillan
Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more.
I'm heterosexual, but I think it takes a LOT of gall to tell someone else that they can't marry the person they love.
Polygamy and homosexual marriage are so dissimilar that any comparison between the two is laughable.
Marriage is NOT a religious institution... it lost the ability to hide behind that the second any legal rights become involved in any manner.
The only obvious fix to it, in my eyes, is to completely divorce "religious" and "civil" marriage. Frankly, Civil Unions should be required for EVERYBODY, and any religious ceremonies we want to attach to that should be completely personal.
As an american, and a proud member of the U.S. Military, I'm horrified that other americans would honestly attempt to bar any responsible, adult person from marrying another responsible, adult person.
Freedom for all, damn it.
|
|
To Bitter Thorn:
Oh, I agree completely that casuality vs coincidence is many times misused. Yes, my answer was as brief as possible, but on those two examples there are reams of data and comparative studies that show the direct influence of those policies on the corresponding consequences.
On your second point, I'm not sure what force you are talking about.
Regarding force, I'm coming from a minarchist/libertarian position. State power is force or the threat thereof. I want government to be minimally intrusive, coercive, and harmful. Therefore my default position is always for maximum individual adult liberty limited by the equal rights of others.
From my point of view there is a vast gulf between societal norms (which I tend to associate with reason and/or social pressure) and government laws, regulations, mandates and so forth which are force or the threat thereof. I'm basically using the libertarian construct of force versus reason.
Does that clarify how I'm using the term force in respect to the government?
I agree basically with your view of governement (at least at the Federal level). I do believe that local governements attend to the needs of their communities much better. My question was really in what way is Prop 8 using force or the threat thereof? It is only defining a legal term (marriage) as meaning a certain thing. It does not prevent anyone from getting married, it just defines what marriage is in that State.
Ok, lets look at countries that have gay marriage. Canada has had gay marriage since 2005 countrywide, only one major has occurred differently since it's legalization, and that is gays got married. Nothing bad happened we didn't force ministers to perform said unions, and even government employees who felt uncomfortable officiating said unions get to delegate them to other employees.
Denmark legalized same sex marriage in 1995, again no major social collapse. In fact Denmark has given us our first viable study on children raised by same sex families, the results being these children had no increased chances of being gay themselves. Both Canada and Denmark have had no social collapse or degredation for it. So whats all this claptrap about it ruining society?
It's the bigoted, small minded, OFFENSIVE thought that homosexuality is wrong, vile, disgusting and infectious.
People often ask why it's so important to keep Marriage a union between a man and a woman. I guess the rebuttal is, why is it so important to change it, when Fred seems to be the best result?
Because separate but equal isn't. It is just a way to institutionalize that a minority is not worthy of the same thing.
Aside from that, do we really need all that paperwork for two different things that are exactly the same?
If you are going to just use spot quotes out of context to change the meaning of my post then I can't really answer (i.e. the logical sounding policies quote).
Ninjaed by BT, but to expound, I do not honestly try to take anyone out of context. It is a pet peeve of mine for people to quote paragraphs of text. It is my own issue, so I do not try to force it on anyone else other than by example.
In addition, I find it easier to address specific points brought up and demonstrate where exactly my own post are in context to.
I apologize if you felt I was trying to take you out of context and I agree that my response could be seen as rather snide. To elaborate on my reply, we do not stop proposing new policies because some past policies failed. We do not stop proposing new policies because they might fail. Any policy has the capacity for failure. We rightly demand demonstration that any given policy will result any other given negative impact. You can not just say something bad might happen.
As to words changing all the time you are incorrect. New words appear and a small percentage (less than 1%) of old words GRADUALLY change meaning. What is more common is the change in spelling, in that way our written language is more fluid, but the cognitive meaning is much less so.
Maybe in Websters. Obviously, our experiences can be greatly different. I see new words and drastic changes to meanings all the time used in all walks of society. I concede most of it is slang and not 'proper' English, but society uses it with no negative impact I can see.
And we are not really arguing so passionately about how a word appears in the dictionary, are we? This is about the concept of marriage. I can concede that the concept of marriage in America has been between one man and one woman (ignoring polygamy for now). But why? Is there good reason beyond that is just the way it has been? And to take a cue from Matthew, let's play Devil's Advocate. Is there good reason to change it? I believe there is. We allow people to marry the person they love.
It may be easy to dismiss this point if you do not want to marry someone of the same sex. But put yourself in their place. Would you feel the same if the majority of people were telling you that you could not marry the person you love because that is just the way it has always been?
|
The main problem is with the word "marriage". Marriage is a social construct that societies for thousands of years have established for stability. The main purpose of this is to create an enviroment for the raising of children. There is no doubt that children from unbroken traditional families fare far better than children that aren't raised in that enviroment. Scholastic achievement, crime, substance abuse, etc. are all significantly affected by this.
I have no problem with civil unions or any such equivalent, but I do have a problem with the attempt to redefine the meaning of a word that has such a strong impact on the fabric of our society. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is their business, but societies have every right to decide the moral and ethical standards for themselves. What we have here is an attempt to thwart that decision by a minority through the courts.
Comparing this issue to that of interracial marriage is of course ridiculous as marriage was never defined by race, just by sex. The IM issue was about racism therefore making it a civil rights issue. SSM however, is about redefining the meaning of a traditional social construct. No one is being denied the ability to get married, they are just being forced to accept what the definition of marriage is. And again, societies have every right to decide what that definition is.
I'm a bit puzzled, honestly. Most of your arguments have focused on preserving the integrity of the English language. Is this honestly the reason that you oppose same-sex marriage?
My question was really in what way is Prop 8 using force or the threat thereof? It is only defining a legal term (marriage) as meaning a certain thing. It does not prevent anyone from getting married, it just defines what marriage is in that State.
It does prevent people from getting married by making the definition exclude a minority group. If it is not preventing anyone from getting married, why are same-sex marriages illegal?
|
|
No, my argument is not about preserving the language, but about preserving the concept. I was saying that altering the concept has societal ramifications that are substantial. A previous post mentioned Canada and Denmark, but those instances are statitically small and the time period is much to small for substantive analysis.
|
|
My question was really in what way is Prop 8 using force or the threat thereof? It is only defining a legal term (marriage) as meaning a certain thing. It does not prevent anyone from getting married, it just defines what marriage is in that State.It does prevent people from getting married by making the definition exclude a minority group. If it is not preventing anyone from getting married, why are same-sex marriages illegal?
Again, it does not exclude a miniority group. They are free to marry, they just choose not to. They want to redefine marriage.
|
|
No, my argument is not about preserving the language, but about preserving the concept. I was saying that altering the concept has societal ramifications that are substantial. A previous post mentioned Canada and Denmark, but those instances are statitically small and the time period is much to small for substantive analysis.
To which societal ramifications do you refer?
Again, it does not exclude a miniority group. They are free to marry, they just choose not to. They want to redefine marriage.My question was really in what way is Prop 8 using force or the threat thereof? It is only defining a legal term (marriage) as meaning a certain thing. It does not prevent anyone from getting married, it just defines what marriage is in that State.It does prevent people from getting married by making the definition exclude a minority group. If it is not preventing anyone from getting married, why are same-sex marriages illegal?
No, What happened is that a religious ceremony was allowed, mistakenly, to have legal ramifications.
I still feel that a BETTER solution is to require ALL to get a civil union which contains the legal rights associated with marriage, then pursue whatever religious ceremony they want.
|
|
Again, it does not exclude a miniority group. They are free to marry, they just choose not to. They want to redefine marriage.
You know I've always found that argument insanely dismissive and stupid. Marriage is supposed to be between people in love, even if it is between a man and a woman it's supposed to be a man and a woman in love. So no they can't get married because they can't marry someone they love. If they chose to get married it would be with someone they didn't love which redefines the definition of marriage as not an institution based off of love. Saying marriage is between a man and a woman without the love qualifier is like saying anything with four wheels is an automobile, it's not true and anyone saying it knows its not true but can't come up with something to actually argue against.
And speaking of redefining marriage we have done it as a society several times, Marriage used to be about breeding and an exchange of goods, marriages were arranged and only with the inclusion of dowries etc., Sorry, but my parents didn't arrange my wife and I's marriage and no dowry was exchanged, oh yeah and we believe that marriage is about love, and lots of times in history marriage and love had nothing to do with one another. Unless you believe all those cousins who happened to be royalty loved each other.
|
|
Again, it does not exclude a miniority group. They are free to marry, they just choose not to. They want to redefine marriage.
It does prevent people from getting married by making the definition exclude a minority group. If it is not preventing anyone from getting married, why are same-sex marriages illegal?
No, What happened is that a religious ceremony was allowed, mistakenly, to have legal ramifications.
I still feel that a BETTER solution is to require ALL to get a civil union which contains the legal rights associated with marriage, then pursue whatever religious ceremony they want.
Almost correct, marriage is not just religious, but also cultural. I agree completely that there should be a seperation between the religious/cultural institution of marriage and the legal/governmental concepts of civil unions.
I was saying that altering the concept has societal ramifications that are substantial.
What are they?
A previous post mentioned Canada and Denmark, but those instances are statitically small and the time period is much to small for substantive analysis.
O.k. Can you provide more substantive analysis against?
|
|
Again, it does not exclude a miniority group. They are free to marry, they just choose not to. They want to redefine marriage.You know I've always found that argument insanely dismissive and stupid. Marriage is supposed to be between people in love, even if it is between a man and a woman it's supposed to be a man and a woman in love. So no they can't get married because they can't marry someone they love. If they chose to get married it would be with someone they didn't love which redefines the definition of marriage as not an institution based off of love. Saying marriage is between a man and a woman without the love qualifier is like saying anything with four wheels is an automobile, it's not true and anyone saying it knows its not true but can't come up with something to actually argue against.
And speaking of redefining marriage we have done it as a society several times, Marriage used to be about breeding and an exchange of goods, marriages were arranged and only with the inclusion of dowries etc., Sorry, but my parents didn't arrange my wife and I's marriage and no dowry was exchanged, oh yeah and we believe that marriage is about love, and lots of times in history marriage and love had nothing to do with one another. Unless you believe all those cousins who happened to be royalty loved each other.
Thank you for the insults. BTW, marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. You are bringing up societal habits, not changes to the definition.
Again, it does not exclude a miniority group. They are free to marry, they just choose not to. They want to redefine marriage.
If you were only allowed to marry someone of your own sex, would that be a choice?
BTW, marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman.
Why and is there good enough reason to keep it so?
Sure they can marry, just not who they want to. The option to marry someone you don't want to really isn't an option.
Again, it does not exclude a miniority group. They are free to marry, they just choose not to. They want to redefine marriage.
+1
This sounds an awful lot like, "You are absolutely free to do anything you want as long as the government permits it.".
I know my definitions of rights and individual liberty are comparatively very broad, but this doesn't sound like freedom to me.
Again, it does not exclude a miniority group. They are free to marry, they just choose not to. They want to redefine marriage.My question was really in what way is Prop 8 using force or the threat thereof? It is only defining a legal term (marriage) as meaning a certain thing. It does not prevent anyone from getting married, it just defines what marriage is in that State.It does prevent people from getting married by making the definition exclude a minority group. If it is not preventing anyone from getting married, why are same-sex marriages illegal?
No, What happened is that a religious ceremony was allowed, mistakenly, to have legal ramifications.
I still feel that a BETTER solution is to require ALL to get a civil union which contains the legal rights associated with marriage, then pursue whatever religious ceremony they want.
+1
|
Thank you for the insults. BTW, marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. You are bringing up societal habits, not changes to the definition.
Again, it does not exclude a miniority group. They are free to marry, they just choose not to. They want to redefine marriage.You know I've always found that argument insanely dismissive and stupid. Marriage is supposed to be between people in love, even if it is between a man and a woman it's supposed to be a man and a woman in love. So no they can't get married because they can't marry someone they love. If they chose to get married it would be with someone they didn't love which redefines the definition of marriage as not an institution based off of love. Saying marriage is between a man and a woman without the love qualifier is like saying anything with four wheels is an automobile, it's not true and anyone saying it knows its not true but can't come up with something to actually argue against.
And speaking of redefining marriage we have done it as a society several times, Marriage used to be about breeding and an exchange of goods, marriages were arranged and only with the inclusion of dowries etc., Sorry, but my parents didn't arrange my wife and I's marriage and no dowry was exchanged, oh yeah and we believe that marriage is about love, and lots of times in history marriage and love had nothing to do with one another. Unless you believe all those cousins who happened to be royalty loved each other.
Untrue. Polygamous marriage was marriage for ther Church fo the Latter Day Saints within the past 250 years. There are areas of Thailand where polyandrous marriage is legal. As noted, Canada and some European countries define marriage as between two consenting adults. Let's not forget the patriarchs of the old testament where they had a wife, concubines and slave girls as part of their marriage. Marriage has not 'always been between one man and one woman' by any stretch of the definition.
EDIt: And +1 on Nathan, even if he is stealing the idea I propose every time this comes up
Polygamy and homosexual marriage are so dissimilar that any comparison between the two is laughable.
*snip*
As an american, and a proud member of the U.S. Military, I'm horrified that other americans would honestly attempt to bar any responsible, adult person from marrying another responsible, adult person.
Freedom for all, damn it.
I would argue that the notion of consenting adults defining their own contractual relationships regardless of sex or number is not laughable, but I believe I've made my position clear up thread.
I concur, freedom for all.
BTW, what do you do in the service?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
My question was really in what way is Prop 8 using force or the threat thereof? It is only defining a legal term (marriage) as meaning a certain thing. It does not prevent anyone from getting married, it just defines what marriage is in that State.It does prevent people from getting married by making the definition exclude a minority group. If it is not preventing anyone from getting married, why are same-sex marriages illegal?
To be precise, they're not 'illegal' They're not recognized by the state. There's a difference. My mom and her partner got 'married' (I refer to it as a commitment ceremony, and won't get into all the things that bugged me, because they're not relevant.)
And here you run into the logical fallicy though CF. If SSM were to be recognized, then you're still 'excluding a minority group' the polygamists. If you allow plural marriage, then you're excluding the incest etc. You're always going to exclude someone. That's life.
As to seperate but equal, we have seperate licences for hunting and fishing, for auto drivers and motorcycle riders, for owning a shotgun or an uzi.
You're saying 'expand marriage to include X' and everything is fine. I'm saying create 'Fred' because marriage means 'between a man and a woman'. Bill and Steve can go fishing, I'll (and any woman crazy enough to marry me) go hunting.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Sure they can marry, just not who they want to. The option to marry someone you don't want to really isn't an option.
Again, it does not exclude a miniority group. They are free to marry, they just choose not to. They want to redefine marriage.
Which goes back to, we're always going to exclude someone. If the states can qualify who can be married (as they clearly can), then someone is always going to be excluded. I can't qualify for maternity leave, no matter how much I might want to. I live in a world that I constantly have to adjust myself to, and that can detrimentally lower my life span. Should I be allowed to change the road laws so I can drive on the opposite side?
Again, it does not exclude a miniority group. They are free to marry, they just choose not to. They want to redefine marriage.If you were only allowed to marry someone of your own sex, would that be a choice?
Are you suggesting that no homosexuals have ever married someone of the opposite sex? If people claim doing so is not an option, then it must therefore have never occurred, correct?
As for the word issue, I have to agree to a certain extent, that words mean things. Changing what words mean willy-nilly is not productive. To me, same-sex couples are not the same as mixed-sex couples, they are fundamentally different due to the biology involved. So describing a same-sex union as a marriage, when that term has traditionally (at least in our culture) been used to define a union between a man and woman seems ... awkward. Union is the best term for those relationships that "feels" correct, to me.
But I am willing to compromise on the use of words. People have pointed out the differences between gender and sex, and some have suggested words are extremely fluid, so I offer the following compromise. I will accept the term "marriage" for same-sex unions, if they accept the titles of "husband" and "wife" for their unions. I don't care how each couple decides how who is the husband and who is the wife, but one needs to be defined as the husband and one has to be defined as the wife. These are gender roles and not sex roles, and since words are fluid, there should not be any big issue with being labeled something.
@Paul. A question, were the concubines consider married to each other AND their husband, or was each individual considered to be married to their husband only. In that case, would this be a case where marriage is still defined by a male and female partner, even if there can be other partnerships as well?
|
|
Again, it does not exclude a miniority group. They are free to marry, they just choose not to. They want to redefine marriage.If you were only allowed to marry someone of your own sex, would that be a choice?Are you suggesting that no homosexuals have ever married someone of the opposite sex? If people claim doing so is not an option, then it must therefore have never occurred, correct?
As for the word issue, I have to agree to a certain extent, that words mean things. Changing what words mean willy-nilly is not productive. To me, same-sex couples are not the same as mixed-sex couples, they are fundamentally different due to the biology involved. So describing a same-sex union as a marriage, when that term has traditionally (at least in our culture) been used to define a union between a man and woman seems ... awkward. Union is the best term for those relationships that "feels" correct, to me.
But I am willing to compromise on the use of words. People have pointed out the differences between gender and sex, and some have suggested words are extremely fluid, so I offer the following compromise. I will accept the term "marriage" for same-sex unions, if they accept the titles of "husband" and "wife" for their unions. I don't care how each couple decides how who is the husband and who is the wife, but one needs to be defined as the husband and one has to be defined as the wife. These are gender roles and not sex roles, and since words are fluid, there should not be any big issue with being labeled something.
@Paul. A question, were the concubines consider married to each other AND their husband, or was each individual considered to be married to their husband only. In that case, would this be a case where marriage is still defined by a male and female partner, even if there can be other partnerships as well?
I don't know, I'm not a religious scholar. The polygamous and polyandrous marriages in the real world still refute the statement.
As for 'husband' and 'wife' as soon as heterosexual people start conforming to those gender roles, you can impose them on homosexuals. I predict that might be a while off.
|
|
Which goes back to, we're always going to exclude someone. If the states can qualify who can be married (as they clearly can), then someone is always going to be excluded. I can't qualify for maternity leave, no matter how much I might want to. I live in a world that I constantly have to adjust myself to, and that can detrimentally lower my life span. Should I be allowed to change the road laws so I can drive on the opposite side?Sure they can marry, just not who they want to. The option to marry someone you don't want to really isn't an option.
Again, it does not exclude a miniority group. They are free to marry, they just choose not to. They want to redefine marriage.
Okay, then who else are we excluding? Polygamists. Alright, why aren't they allowed to marry anyone and everyone?
And here you run into the logical fallicy though CF. If SSM were to be recognized, then you're still 'excluding a minority group' the polygamists. If you allow plural marriage, then you're excluding the incest etc. You're always going to exclude someone. That's life.
If mixed-race marriages != same sex marriages, then same sex marriages != polygamy. Regardless, if all the parties involved in the plural marriage are consenting adults, I really do not have an issue with it.
Incest has biological reasons against it. I already conceded that we often exclude someone, but there has to be a good reason.
As to seperate but equal, we have seperate licences for hunting and fishing, for auto drivers and motorcycle riders, for owning a shotgun or an uzi.
This is a terrible analogy. The hunting license does not want to be a fishing license. You are talking about things, not people.
You're saying 'expand marriage to include X' and everything is fine. I'm saying create 'Fred' because marriage means 'between a man and a woman'.
Why the unnecessary duality? It is the same thing. Creating Fred still says to same-sex couples they are not worthy of marriage.
I agree basically with your view of governement (at least at the Federal level). I do believe that local governements attend to the needs of their communities much better. My question was really in what way is Prop 8 using force or the threat thereof? It is only defining a legal term (marriage) as meaning a certain thing. It does not prevent anyone from getting married, it just defines what marriage is in that State.To Bitter Thorn:
Oh, I agree completely that casuality vs coincidence is many times misused. Yes, my answer was as brief as possible, but on those two examples there are reams of data and comparative studies that show the direct influence of those policies on the corresponding consequences.
On your second point, I'm not sure what force you are talking about.
Regarding force, I'm coming from a minarchist/libertarian position. State power is force or the threat thereof. I want government to be minimally intrusive, coercive, and harmful. Therefore my default position is always for maximum individual adult liberty limited by the equal rights of others.
From my point of view there is a vast gulf between societal norms (which I tend to associate with reason and/or social pressure) and government laws, regulations, mandates and so forth which are force or the threat thereof. I'm basically using the libertarian construct of force versus reason.
Does that clarify how I'm using the term force in respect to the government?
Let me try to address this and Matthew's point that SSM isn't illegal just not recognized.
I would not limit the discussion to Prop 8, and I'm not certain that "not recognized" and illegal is a distinction with a difference.
That said, as I understand, Prop 8 wipes out all existing SSM and the various rights and benefits attached to said marriages. That is not just "not recognizing" something. That is the state actively using its power to take something away and cause real harm. To me this is an act of state theft by force.
IIRC, there are also state initiatives that prohibit civil unions in addition to SSM, and I believe some may carry civil or criminal penalties. I lack a citation to support this, so if someone has one handy I'd appreciate it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Okay, then who else are we excluding? Polygamists. Alright, why aren't they allowed to marry anyone and everyone?Which goes back to, we're always going to exclude someone. If the states can qualify who can be married (as they clearly can), then someone is always going to be excluded. I can't qualify for maternity leave, no matter how much I might want to. I live in a world that I constantly have to adjust myself to, and that can detrimentally lower my life span. Should I be allowed to change the road laws so I can drive on the opposite side?Sure they can marry, just not who they want to. The option to marry someone you don't want to really isn't an option.
Again, it does not exclude a miniority group. They are free to marry, they just choose not to. They want to redefine marriage.
After them, then you get into the less socially acceptable levels (ugh).
My point is, the argument of 'it's not fair to exclude X, let them in' isn't enough. To quote another blogger elsewhere...
"Many people ... insist that “gay marriage” absolutely does not open the door to plural marriage? Why? Because once gays have part ownership in the word ‘marriage’ they will lock the door?"
So the argument is we don't want to allow polygamy, so we won't allow same-sex marriage?
If mixed-race marriages != same sex marriages, then same sex marriages != polygamy. Regardless, if all the parties involved in the plural marriage are consenting adults, I really do not have an issue with it.
+1
I'm not seeing the slippery slope here.
It has less to do with the actual relationships, as I stated earlier polyamory has more in common with mixed-race unions than same-sex unions, and has more to do with the justifications being used. The justification that is primary used to support same-sex marriages is that competent adults should be able to form and get government support for any union they wish. If that justification is legitimate, then it would also be legitimate when it comes to polyamorous relationships as well. So it has more to do with the argument, then the unions themselves.
So the argument is we don't want to allow polygamy, so we won't allow same-sex marriage?
Or, that the argument is not convincing for polyamorous unions, and so why should it be so for same-sex unions?
|
|
Thank you for the insults. BTW, marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. You are bringing up societal habits, not changes to the definition.
Again, it does not exclude a miniority group. They are free to marry, they just choose not to. They want to redefine marriage.You know I've always found that argument insanely dismissive and stupid. Marriage is supposed to be between people in love, even if it is between a man and a woman it's supposed to be a man and a woman in love. So no they can't get married because they can't marry someone they love. If they chose to get married it would be with someone they didn't love which redefines the definition of marriage as not an institution based off of love. Saying marriage is between a man and a woman without the love qualifier is like saying anything with four wheels is an automobile, it's not true and anyone saying it knows its not true but can't come up with something to actually argue against.
And speaking of redefining marriage we have done it as a society several times, Marriage used to be about breeding and an exchange of goods, marriages were arranged and only with the inclusion of dowries etc., Sorry, but my parents didn't arrange my wife and I's marriage and no dowry was exchanged, oh yeah and we believe that marriage is about love, and lots of times in history marriage and love had nothing to do with one another. Unless you believe all those cousins who happened to be royalty loved each other.
To whom and where? There was never a society anywhere that defined marriage as a bond between to people in love, every society ever has been uberspecific and spelled out man and woman? I'm pretty sure you're talking about a societal habit as much as I am, you just say your societal habit is a definition whereas mine is a habit. And I didn't insult you I insulted the argument.
Again, this just feels like we are discriminating against Group A for something Group B might do. Granted, it seems likely Group B will do it. If that is really the reason though, shouldn't we be saying, "O.k. Same-Sex marriages, but only one person to one person because X, Y and Z."
If you can not produce good reasons why plural marriages should not be allowed, then maybe it needs to be re-evaluated too.
I want better reasons than fear of change and fear that something bad might happen.
|
|
Okay, then who else are we excluding? Polygamists. Alright, why aren't they allowed to marry anyone and everyone?Which goes back to, we're always going to exclude someone. If the states can qualify who can be married (as they clearly can), then someone is always going to be excluded. I can't qualify for maternity leave, no matter how much I might want to. I live in a world that I constantly have to adjust myself to, and that can detrimentally lower my life span. Should I be allowed to change the road laws so I can drive on the opposite side?Sure they can marry, just not who they want to. The option to marry someone you don't want to really isn't an option.
Again, it does not exclude a miniority group. They are free to marry, they just choose not to. They want to redefine marriage.After them, then you get into the less socially acceptable levels (ugh).
My point is, the argument of 'it's not fair to exclude X, let them in' isn't enough. To quote another blogger elsewhere...
"Many people ... insist that “gay marriage” absolutely does not open the door to plural marriage? Why? Because once gays have part ownership in the word ‘marriage’ they will lock the door?"
Less socially acceptible? I assume you mean things like marriage to objects or bestiality. These cannot fall under marriage definitions now since they're not between consenting adults, there is no plurality. It is a one way street and therefore couldn't be defined as marriage.
Unless you're referring to something else?
Or, that the argument is not convincing for polyamorous unions, and so why should it be so for same-sex unions?
Because we are not arguing for polyamorous unions. It is a separate issue which should be argued based on its own merit.