Ah, Pedantry. So awesome and so irritatingly dense at the same time, depending on whether you're using it or on the receiving end. :D
No, I'm pretty sure it's annoying when one is a neutral observer as well.
:)
It's particularly irritating when the pedantry accusation is used keep a bad argument from being used.
Unhealthy risks don't always have unhealthy consequences. Some risks are in fact worth it.
Since you were so vague about, well practically everything in that post, I'm not at all sure what you think is wrong with the idea of "consenting adults", or what that has to do with changes in the definition of marriage in the pipeline or how that's going to adults who don't consent or non-adults.
I'm afraid you failed to be clear and have no idea what your concern is "with what constitutes an adult making an informed consent."
Ah, Pedantry. So awesome and so irritatingly dense at the same time, depending on whether you're using it or on the receiving end. :D
No, I'm pretty sure it's annoying when one is a neutral observer as well.
:)
It's particularly irritating when the pedantry accusation is used keep a bad argument from being used.
Unhealthy risks don't always have unhealthy consequences. Some risks are in fact worth it.
Since you were so vague about, well practically everything in that post, I'm not at all sure what you think is wrong with the idea of "consenting adults", or what that has to do with changes in the definition of marriage in the pipeline or how that's going to adults who don't consent or non-adults.
I'm afraid you failed to be clear and have no idea what your concern is "with what constitutes an adult making an informed consent."
Well that helps.
First on unhealthy risks. In what way are they "unhealthy" if the risk they pose isn't also unhealthy? I don't see a need to redefine unhealthy for some unspecified reasons of "clarity".
Furthermore, people are more willing to take risks if someone else has to pick up the pieces. Conversely people are generally unwilling to take responsibility for their unhealthy risks - see any episode of COPS. Unhealthy risks are in that way more likely to produce collateral damage.
Second on consenting adults. The consenting adults in Big Love all seem consenting and generally happy but to claim that is the norm, and something the state can/should promote by bringing it under the umbrella of tax incentive status, is counter to the evidence of what usually goes on in these types of household living arrangements. See LINK
Ah, Pedantry. So awesome and so irritatingly dense at the same time, depending on whether you're using it or on the receiving end. :D
No, I'm pretty sure it's annoying when one is a neutral observer as well.
:)
It's particularly irritating when the pedantry accusation is used keep a bad argument from being used.
Unhealthy risks don't always have unhealthy consequences. Some risks are in fact worth it.
Since you were so vague about, well practically everything in that post, I'm not at all sure what you think is wrong with the idea of "consenting adults", or what that has to do with changes in the definition of marriage in the pipeline or how that's going to adults who don't consent or non-adults.
I'm afraid you failed to be clear and have no idea what your concern is "with what constitutes an adult making an informed consent."
Well that helps.
First on unhealthy risks. In what way are they "unhealthy" if the risk they pose isn't also unhealthy? I don't see a need to redefine unhealthy for some unspecified reasons of "clarity".
Furthermore, people are more willing to take risks if someone else has to pick up the pieces. Conversely people are generally unwilling to take responsibility for their unhealthy risks - see any episode of COPS. Unhealthy risks are in that way more likely to produce collateral damage.
Second on consenting adults. The consenting adults in Big Love all seem consenting and generally happy but to claim that is the norm, and something the state can/should promote by bringing it under the umbrella of tax incentive status, is counter to the evidence of what usually goes on in these types of household living arrangements. See LINK
Ok, so you think legalized polygamy is in the pipeline. I really had no idea that was what you were talking about. I don't see any evidence of it. Is that a slippery slope from same sex marriage or is there some other evidence you're basing it on?
As for "unhealthy" and risk, as I said before, some risks actually pay off. If the upside is high enough and the downside unlikely enough, risk can easily be worth it. Since we're not talking specifics, I can't really say much more than that.
As-is you're just spouting off some nebulous concept that doesn't seem to relate to anything that actually EXISTS, and certainly doesn't have anything to do with the current conversation.
Speak to the topic. Don't pussyfoot around, state your claims.
Is same sex marriage an "unhealthy risk"? Pre-marital sex? Fetishes?
Put your money where your mouth is and actually commit to saying something or there's no point in you posting.
Ok, so you think legalized polygamy is in the pipeline. I really had no idea that was what you were talking about. I don't see any evidence of it. Is that a slippery slope from same sex marriage or is there some other evidence you're basing it on?
No slope needed. The fact that that marriage arrangement is technically illegal and yet the show ran for 5 seasons declaring the arrangement openly and intimately.
More importantly, the show (Big Love) also misrepresented the typical arrangement of adults who consent to that lifestyle.
And I take it that you didn't read the Slate link either?
How can we dialog if all you do is make broad assumptions about what I've posted.
Read the Slate post and get back to me.
Steve Geddes wrote:
What's an example of a healthy risk?
A healthy risk is one that, if the gamble fails, situation = status quo.
Wow. Martial-caster disparity is apparently less debate/complaint/argue-worthy than opinions about sex. I probably would not have guessed.
I understand all of your arguments and have enjoyed reading them (no, really).
What's coolest (to me) is the (possibly forced) civility. That meme, while too rare, really does not grind my gears. I've had some pretty opinion-heavy arguments with a few of you, and really, genuinely enjoyed the experience.
Ok, so you think legalized polygamy is in the pipeline. I really had no idea that was what you were talking about. I don't see any evidence of it. Is that a slippery slope from same sex marriage or is there some other evidence you're basing it on?
No slope needed. The fact that that marriage arrangement is technically illegal and yet the show ran for 5 seasons declaring the arrangement openly and intimately.
More importantly, the show (Big Love) also misrepresented the typical arrangement of adults who consent to that lifestyle.
And I take it that you didn't read the Slate link either?
How can we dialog if all you do is make broad assumptions about what I've posted.
Read the Slate post and get back to me.
Big Love was fiction. Lots of things that are illegal happen in fiction. Apparently on the show, hiding the relationships was one of the plot points.
I read the Slate post too. Yes, there's a poly community. It's incredibly tiny. There are also fundamental Mormon groups. They tend to be more like Jeffs than Big Love.
What did you want me to get from the article?
There are lots of problems with polygamy (and to a lesser extent polyamory) on any large scale.
I can only make broad assumptions because you're not giving me anything else to work with.
If you now think no slope is needed what did you mean by "One that's definitely coming down the pipeline in the legal system will be a definition of marriage that is just that"? Where are the bills? Where are the lawsuits? Where's the public pressure or anything behind this?
Why are we even talking about it?
Steve Geddes wrote:
What's an example of a healthy risk?
A healthy risk is one that, if the gamble fails, situation = status quo.
So that would not include, for example, driving to work, since if the gamble fails - major injuries or deaths.
You never hear about the scandalous whispers about how a perfectly good baptist got involved with those mormons and what not but I do. I have a friend who will probably never be married to his Indian girlfriend both because his father is a massive bigot and because her parents are hyper traditional.
The difference between two spinster crones gossiping in the back of the church and the law of the land forbidding your marriage is immeasurably large.
A healthy risk is one that, if the gamble fails, situation = status quo.
That's not a risk. A risk, by definition, includes the possibility of a negative consequence. If there is nothing to be lost, there is no risk.
A healthy risk is one where the possible gains outweigh the possible negatives. I believe instructing young people and making them feel comfortable talking about sex is a good thing. And a far more effective way to protect them from the possible negative consequences of sex than trying to pressure them into not having it.
The fact that that marriage arrangement is technically illegal and yet the show ran for 5 seasons declaring the arrangement openly and intimately.
You do know that show was a work of fiction, right? Not everything you see on TV is real.
@ thejeff too.
Nothing you see on TV is real. Because real = bad ratings, therefore everything is hyped.
However, when a woman goes grocery shopping in the middle of the day, as she does every week, and buys 5 carts heaped with stuff. Well, you know the relationship she's in really isn't a secret, right?
"Hiding the relationships was one of the plot points", you say.
What Durngrun warned me about applies to your post too. Yeah, hiding the relationship snort!
Yes, they were. Thanks for pointing it out. Fixed.
A Paizo forum meme which grinds my gears is the fact that the forum interface makes it really easy to attributed quotes. Particularly the fact that people end up typing inside the quote box, attributing everything they wrote to the person they quoted.
Not really a pathfinder forum meme, since it doesn't seem to happen as much on pathfinder forums on other websites with different/better forum interfaces, but definitely a Paizo.com thing that Grinds my Gears.
Also, the forums have no multi-quote feature. PAIZO IS BIASED AGAINST QUOTE-POLYGAMY!
That can still be a risk. You can risk only having a small gain or a very large one vs a more sure thing middling gain. You can risk the amount you gain, where what you lose is the amount of potential gain.
It's particularly irritating when the pedantry accusation is used keep a bad argument from being used.
Did I do this?
(It might not be directed at me, but since I was the first to mention pedantry, I figured it may well be towards me.)
More accurately, I exclusively noted that pedantry was being used, and went no further. This is absolutely true. It's also worth noting that I have nothing against pedantry (obviously).
If I'd wanted to make an actual suggestion or take part in the argument, I would merely have requested that the pedantry be used, but that, instead of stopping there, the pedant in question then continue on to engage the actual points (even if the improper words were being used initially*), as simply being pedantic on its own does little for the conversation, instead, if it's engaged with at all, merely forcing a few rounds of "no, really, I mean <this>" possibly followed by more "that's not what that word means" (or mutual engagement of pedantry) which is interesting, but entirely different and entirely bypasses engaging in the actual topic. If the entire response is exclusively pedantry, one borders on making a mistake akin to the fallacy-fallacy (not that exact mistake, I don't believe, but I'm not thinking of any proper term at present). On the other hand, the pedant could note the error, and then note the fact that they have nothing else to add - this, then, does not make it appear that they are attempting to engage the argument (because they have not actually engaged the argument, only the word-choice of the one they are responding to).
Incidentally, there absolutely are such things as "unhealthy risks". Gambling, when part of an addiction, is entirely an unhealthy risk. Unprotected sex with unknown partners is entirely and unhealthy risk. These are innately unhealthy risks, not because they are risks, but because they are risks with comparatively little reward for what is risked, and a much larger chance of problems that come with them... even if they're successful, this time. Hence, "unhealthy". A healthy risk, at least in my opinion (as one must caveat in a charged environment like this), is when the likelihood of failure is less than the likelihood of success, or the risk in question is necessary (insofar as the term "necessary" carries in most normal usages, otherwise you end up with an argument that "nothing is necessary") for life in general to continue on (i.e. "going to your work is necessary; you must feed yourself and family" or "going outside is necessary; you must breath and get sunshine" etc.). Unhealthy risks, then, unbalance the relationship of risk v. reward in a manner that is unhealthy for the person engaging in them.
Quarks' argument may be poorly worded, or contain a deep underlying flaw, but most of what I'm seeing is pedantry to "prove" him wrong in a basis that doesn't actually do that, as annoying as it may be for him to use the wrong words to others.
And that's pretty much all I've got to add to the over-all argument. :)
An aside amusing to myself:
"Inconceivable!"
"You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means."
Perhaps, but it meant something to him, and communication could have been achieved if people actually cared to.
(Fortunately for the sake of the comedy and people enjoying it everywhere, Vizzini** was terrible and dumb and no one cared to make him happy about anything, hence the conversation stopped on a witty one-liner. I'm not too keen about people doing the same thing with fellow posters, regardless of whether I often agree with them.)
Asterisks:
* The pedant in question supplying a more accurate turn-of-phrase would probably help the conversation and all parties in the future.
** You know, I've been spelling it "Fezzini" for the longest time? Go figure.
That can still be a risk. You can risk only having a small gain or a very large one vs a more sure thing middling gain. You can risk the amount you gain, where what you lose is the amount of potential gain.
Presuming you're replying to me (?) I agree - I was speaking sloppily, in the interests of conciseness.
i still think quark blast is conflating risk and uncertainty, although maybe not - perhaps he indeed means that healthy risk is where you only risk potential gains for more desirable gains - never going backwards.
If so, I think that should definitely be spelled out, since it's quite an idiosyncratic view of "healthy" risk - it's essentially as conservative as one can be, whilst still entertaining some element of risk.
That can still be a risk. You can risk only having a small gain or a very large one vs a more sure thing middling gain. You can risk the amount you gain, where what you lose is the amount of potential gain.
Presuming you're replying to me (?) I agree - I was speaking sloppily, in the interests of conciseness.
i still think quark blast is conflating risk and uncertainty, although maybe not - perhaps he indeed means that healthy risk is where you only risk potential gains for more desirable gains - never going backwards.
If so, I think that should definitely be spelled out, since it's quite an idiosyncratic view of "healthy" risk - it's essentially as conservative as one can be, whilst still entertaining some element of risk.
Just pointing out an interpretation of that that could work, is all. Wasn't arguing.
I did not know sex before marriage as a bad thing was really being pushed all that hard. I know many consider it a sin, but nobody I have met, barring 1 or 2 people waited, or talk about it like you have done some great wrong. Yeah I realize I could have just met people that did not care that much, so to me it seems strange.
I did not know sex before marriage as a bad thing was really being pushed all that hard. I know many consider it a sin, but nobody I have met, barring 1 or 2 people waited, or talk about it like you have done some great wrong. Yeah I realize I could have just met people that did not care that much, so to me it seems strange.
It depends greatly upon where you are. Some regions are more traditional than others.
Threads that completely go off-topic several pages back, with no effort by anyone to bring them back on-topic or to split the derailing topic into it's own thread.
An opportunity can be defined as the value of the gain multiplied by the probability you will have it. A risk would be the opposite: The value of what you stand to lose, times the probability of losing it. Then, since these things do not happen in a vacuum, you can add or subtract them together. When you have a full reckoning of the risks and opportunities you can see, you COULD decide on yes or no by the simple check of whether you end up on plus or minus. Note that this depends on actually being able to put a value on the involved phenomena (can be difficult when it comes to HIV, for example). I am sure I am not using proper economic language for this, but I hope it's clear enough.
Saying a healthy risk is one where, if it happens, you remain at status quo, that is per definition not a risk at all.
Threads that completely go off-topic several pages back, with no effort by anyone to bring them back on-topic or to split the derailing topic into it's own thread.
An opportunity can be defined as the value of the gain multiplied by the probability you will have it. A risk would be the opposite: The value of what you stand to lose, times the probability of losing it. Then, since these things do not happen in a vacuum, you can add or subtract them together. When you have a full reckoning of the risks and opportunities you can see, you COULD decide on yes or no by the simple check of whether you end up on plus or minus. Note that this depends on actually being able to put a value on the involved phenomena (can be difficult when it comes to HIV, for example). I am sure I am not using proper economic language for this, but I hope it's clear enough.
Saying a healthy risk is one where, if it happens, you remain at status quo, that is per definition not a risk at all.
Actually, an economic definition of risk would better be stated as "the chance that an investment or activity will offer a lower than expected return. That lower than expected return could indeed be negative. It doesn't have to be. It just has to be lower than expected. If you have one activity that can gain you a million dollars or gain you nothing, it is more of a risk than one that gains you 500,000 either way. But in that case the worst case scenario is status quo. Gained nothing, lost nothing.
Logically then, they should be just as upset about non-Christians (and especially atheists) getting married, since that makes just as much mockery that pact between "you, your wife, and your god".
Or about divorce.
But there shouldn't have been any religious resistance to civil unions for homosexuals. There was. And still is - many of the legal bans on same sex marriage that passed over the last decade or so included bans on civil unions or anything giving the same rights.
It's not about marriage. It's about icky gay people. Marriage is just the current fallback position, because it's easier to justify with "religious rights" than some of the other prejudice.
And yet there is a significant percentage of religious people who believe wholeheartedly in the separation of church and state—that while the very concept of homosexual "marriage" is, to them, a contradiction in terms (and, yes, for some, an abomination and offensive in the eyes of God, if you must hear that so as to categorize them as religious nuts) and should be utterly opposed, the idea of legal unions between the same two people should not only be allowed, but encouraged in a free society. An intelligent religious person of good will can, believe it or not, distinguish between that which should be always be illegal (such as murder or rape) and that which should be legal according to the state, but condemned as immoral and/or ungodly from the privacy of the pulpit (such as, for many Christians, homosexual "marriage," abortion as a form of birth control, et al.).
Ultimately, in my opinion, the argument that states "what two consenting adults choose to do, whether have sex, form a legal union, or play Pathfinder in a wrongbadfun style, is their own business and no one should be able to gainsay them legally" is irrefutable for any person of conscience and common sense.
Most people, though, are so enamored with their own perspective they forget that the guy next door might believe in his just as fervently ... and perhaps with even more logical justification.
It's funny ... I'm a staunch Roman Catholic, and have been derided here as a conservative, zealous lamebrain (despite the fact that a few who did launched little more than ad hominem attacks and withering scorn). Yet at certain Catholic sites I frequent, it's yours truly who's the "diabolical relativist who insidiously undermines all that is holy," because I abhor the idea of a theocracy in which Holy Mother Church plays Big Brother, and think that if the Church's stance on certain matters doesn't move people with its logic and compassion, then it shouldn't be allowed to move them with force, either physical or legal.
Some things are just relative, you know?
Even if you think homosexuality is icky, you're not as a Christian allowed to think homosexuals are icky. That's a distinction that too many pseudo-Christians are unwilling to make ... and it irritates me because the same people who'll say, "God hates gays" are the ones who'll embezzle funds, sneak Sally down the alley, and beat someone up because they're not fond of their skin tone.
To me, that's a lamebrain ... and a brutish, dangerous one at that.
Logically then, they should be just as upset about non-Christians (and especially atheists) getting married, since that makes just as much mockery that pact between "you, your wife, and your god".
Or about divorce.
But there shouldn't have been any religious resistance to civil unions for homosexuals. There was. And still is - many of the legal bans on same sex marriage that passed over the last decade or so included bans on civil unions or anything giving the same rights.
It's not about marriage. It's about icky gay people. Marriage is just the current fallback position, because it's easier to justify with "religious rights" than some of the other prejudice.
And yet there is a significant percentage of religious people who believe wholeheartedly in the separation of church and state—that while the very concept of homosexual "marriage" is, to them, a contradiction in terms (and, yes, for some, an abomination and offensive in the eyes of God, if you must hear that so as to categorize them as religious nuts) and should be utterly opposed, the idea of legal unions between the same two people should not only be allowed, but encouraged in a free society. An intelligent religious person of good will can, believe it or not, distinguish between that which should be always be illegal (such as murder or rape) and that which should be legal according to the state, but condemned as immoral and/or ungodly from the privacy of the pulpit (such as, for many Christians, homosexual "marriage," abortion as a form of birth control, et al.).
Ultimately, in my opinion, the argument that states "what two consenting adults choose to do, whether have sex, form a legal union, or play Pathfinder in a wrongbadfun style, is their own business and no one should be able to gainsay them legally" is irrefutable for any person of conscience and common sense.
Most people, though, are so enamored with their own perspective they forget that the guy next door might believe in his just as fervently ... and perhaps with even more logical justification.
It's funny ... I'm a staunch Roman Catholic, and have been derided here as a conservative, zealous lamebrain (despite the fact that a few who did launched little more than ad hominem attacks and withering scorn). Yet at certain Catholic sites I frequent, it's yours truly who's the "diabolical relativist who insidiously undermines all that is holy," because I abhor the idea of a theocracy in which Holy Mother Church plays Big Brother, and think that if the Church's stance on certain matters doesn't move people with its logic and compassion, then it shouldn't be allowed to move them with force, either physical or legal.
Some things are just relative, you know?
Even if you think homosexuality is icky, you're not as a Christian allowed to think homosexuals are icky. That's a distinction that too many pseudo-Christians are unwilling to make ... and it irritates me because the same people who'll say, "God hates gays" are the ones who'll embezzle funds, sneak Sally down the alley, and beat someone up because they're not fond of their skin tone.
To me, that's a lamebrain ... and a brutish, dangerous one at that.
There is also a significant percentage of religious people who have no problem with LGBTQ people or acts or same sex marriage.
There are others who may preach "hate the sin, love the sinner", but don't even live up to that low standard.
I am not going to make any claims about what Christians are allowed to think or what qualifies as a "pseudo-Christian". I'm an outsider and besides that's perilously close to "No True Scotsman".
My main point in the previous post wasn't an attack on religions or a theological argument - it's that the fight against same-sex marriage shouldn't be seen as a separate theological argument or a matter of religious freedom, but just as the latest front in a long losing war against gay rights. The same groups who now oppose marriage equality, by and large, also opposed civil unions and gays in the military and still oppose ENDA and so on and so forth.
Religious beliefs combined with a fervent belief in separation of church and state does not lead to anti-gay marriage. That logic train leads to no state recognition of marriage at all.
Religious beliefs combined with a fervent belief in separation of church and state does not lead to anti-gay marriage. That logic train leads to no state recognition of marriage at all.
Or to an acknowledgment that marriage isn't a strictly religious concept.
There is also a significant percentage of religious people who have no problem with LGBTQ people or acts or same sex marriage.
I imagine there are. Some of them are doing so in conjunction with their beliefs, and some in direct opposition to them. "Religious people" is a pretty broad umbrella, after all.
Quote:
There are others who may preach "hate the sin, love the sinner", but don't even live up to that low standard.
That you consider it a "low standard" is noted.
Quote:
I am not going to make any claims about what Christians are allowed to think or what qualifies as a "pseudo-Christian". I'm an outsider and besides that's perilously close to "No True Scotsman".
Then you should perhaps just have stopped with "I'm an outsider" rather than taking the 'Scot pot-shot.'
It's actually not said fallacy, but ... that's off topic.
Quote:
My main point in the previous post wasn't an attack on religions or a theological argument - it's that the fight against same-sex marriage shouldn't be seen as a separate theological argument or a matter of religious freedom, but just as the latest front in a long losing war against gay rights. The same groups who now oppose marriage equality, by and large, also opposed civil unions and gays in the military and still oppose ENDA and so on and so forth.
In other words, they're using their religion to justify marginalizing that which they fear and abhor. We're both opposed to that, but are coming at it from different directions.
Religious beliefs combined with a fervent belief in separation of church and state does not lead to anti-gay marriage. That logic train leads to no state recognition of marriage at all.
Indeed. I would not take issue with a couple needing to get married in a church for the sanction of their faith, and then having to have a justice-of-the-peace arrange for a legal union.
"Render unto Caesar," after all.
Of course, that would create other problems if abused.
There is also a significant percentage of religious people who have no problem with LGBTQ people or acts or same sex marriage.
I imagine there are. Some of them are doing so in conjunction with their beliefs, and some in direct opposition to them. "Religious people" is a pretty broad umbrella, after all.
Quote:
There are others who may preach "hate the sin, love the sinner", but don't even live up to that low standard.
That you consider it a "low standard" is noted.
I do. It's still pretty damaging to gay kids growing up surrounded by such sentiments. It's a good attitude towards things that are actually bad and harmful - addictions, crimes, etc. It equates a gay person's sexual expression with such things, while leaving no possible avenue for acceptable expression, which heterosexuals theoretically find in marriage.
Quote:
Quote:
I am not going to make any claims about what Christians are allowed to think or what qualifies as a "pseudo-Christian". I'm an outsider and besides that's perilously close to "No True Scotsman".
Then you should perhaps just have stopped with "I'm an outsider" rather than taking the 'Scot pot-shot.'
It's actually not said fallacy, but ... that's off topic.
No more than this whole discussion. "No True Scotsman" grinds my gears. There. On topic. :)
Quote:
Quote:
My main point in the previous post wasn't an attack on religions or a theological argument - it's that the fight against same-sex marriage shouldn't be seen as a separate theological argument or a matter of religious freedom, but just as the latest front in a long losing war against gay rights. The same groups who now oppose marriage equality, by and large, also opposed civil unions and gays in the military and still oppose ENDA and so on and so forth.
In other words, they're using their religion to justify marginalizing that which they fear and abhor. We're both opposed to that, but are coming at it from different directions.
Basically true. I think it's important to remember though. To keep from falling into the trap of thinking of the fight as a matter of religious freedom and not accept arguments for compromising on civil unions instead of marriage.
I do. It's still pretty damaging to gay kids growing up surrounded by such sentiments. It's a good attitude towards things that are actually bad and harmful - addictions, crimes, etc. It equates a gay person's sexual expression with such things, while leaving no possible avenue for acceptable expression, which heterosexuals theoretically find in marriage.
And that's based on your preconceptions of what is "actually bad and harmful," of course.
I'll politely but firmly disagree—noting that taking the conversation any farther in this direction will result only in entrenched opinions and, likely, ill will as others less polite and more agenda-driven intervene in our discussion.
Quote:
"No True Scotsman" grinds my gears. There. On topic. :)
Very good, then. :)
It's actually one of those that's logically questionable, but extremely valuable poetically and rhetorically speaking ... and as a true wordsmith, you should know that. ;)
(Off topic: One that annoys me is "Appeal to Authority" mistakenly labeled "Fallacious Appeal to Authority." That depends solely on how authoritative you think that authority is.)
Quote:
I think it's important to remember though. To keep from falling into the trap of thinking of the fight as a matter of religious freedom and not accept arguments for compromising on civil unions instead of marriage.
If marriage is to be considered solely or primarily a legal term, then it should be employed across the board. The battle over the word itself has become part of the issue. I tend to place the word marriage in quotation marks when it follows the word homosexual in a sentence, because I don't, as a Catholic, acknowledge such as having any spiritual validity whatsoever. But I certainly understand, and agree with, how such according to the law of the land may be legally binding and entitled to the respect rule of law is given.
I think it's important to remember though. To keep from falling into the trap of thinking of the fight as a matter of religious freedom and not accept arguments for compromising on civil unions instead of marriage.
If marriage is to be considered solely or primarily a legal term, then it should be employed across the board. The battle over the word itself has become part of the issue. I tend to place the word marriage in quotation marks when it follows the word homosexual in a sentence, because I don't, as a Catholic, acknowledge such as having any spiritual validity whatsoever. But I certainly understand, and agree with, how such according to the law of the land may be legally binding and entitled to the respect rule of law is given.
Trying to be helpful here and I must point out that the weight of law is behind divorce and not marriage already.
Look at it this way:
Getting married is a $10 to $120 tax for a license. It's a little bit of paperwork. There's another chunk of tax code behind it for annual filing.
Then look at what it takes to properly divorce and what it takes to maintain legal relations (for now broken families with kids). And don't forget all the profit there is in divorce (at least for the legal types and programs affiliated with the broken family stuff) and all the "helpful" laws that surround that part of the business.
You see that most of our cultural requirements around the marriage issue are already weighed against it. So, maybe letting more people in on the "let's get hitched" side will even out the current disparity.
Good mother of derails are we still talking about Sex?
Can we go back to passive aggressively sniping at one another by stating pet peeves we encounter in the other threads that annoy us?
When people are enjoying a derail and someone with a goblin avatar posts demanding that we return to passive-aggressively sniping each other, it really Grinds my Gears!
