|
thedeadhaji
39472 Posts
Last fall, as election season raged on, I was thinking about the candidates and California State Propositions I would vote for. Same sex marriage was not on the ballot this year for California. Prop 8 had reached the Supreme Court earlier in the year. However, the issue was front and center in several other states.
I started thinking in earnest about what my views were regarding same sex relationships and same sex marriage, and how I should best make my voice heard (through votes and other actions) given my beliefs. I decided to throw out my incumbent positions from my mind and construct a belief and decision framework from scratch.
Previously, my position was that I was is favor of providing all the rights afforded to "married couples" (tax benefits, visitation rights, etc) but in an ideal world I preferred this to manifest itself through a civil union rather than "marriage". Having had gay friends in college for the first time in my life, I definitely wanted them to enjoy all the rights and privileges that heterosexual couples have access to. Growing up in a fairly conservative family and attending a prep school founded by a Mormon family, I unfortunately can't confidently say that I held these beliefs prior to college. But once I had personal relationships with friends who, at that time, wouldn't have the same rights and privileges as I would, I knew for sure that they deserved all the nice things I had access to.
But at this time, I wasn't quite comfortable with gay "marriage". This was certainly due to my conservative upbringing with the undertones of a Christian values. While I myself am agnostic, the values and positions of those around me had permeated into me over the years. While I wasn't "against" gay marriage, I definitely wasn't comfortable with it either. When every image of marriage I'd had in my life had been between a man and a woman, same sex marriage instinctively felt somewhat awkward.
As I sat there in the fall of 2012, I was adamant about throwing all these preconceptions and existing beliefs out the window. I was going to start from scratch, start from the very basic building blocks of my attitudes and wishes for my gay friends as well as my assessment of the political situation, and construct a position anew.
What was the most important thing in all of this? Until now the most important factor was myself and what I was comfortable with. Since I wasn't quite at ease with "gay marriage" itself, I had wanted to see a civil union with full rights. But when I really thought hard that day in my kitchen, feet on the counter with an absentee ballot in front of me, I realized that the most important thing in all of this wasn't me and what I ideally wanted. What mattered most were my friends who still didn't have all the rights they deserved. It became clear to me then that a future where they'd enjoy all the benefits I had access to, currently kept away from them owing to the random whim of genetics, was infinitely more important than my nit picky discomfort.
The political situation is very polarized. The choices are either "yes gay marriage" or "no gay marriage". The choices presented to me as a voter doesn't include "civil unions with full rights". So there are only two possible futures. Yes or No. No middle ground. Faced with a choice, Yes or No, I could no longer say No in good conscience, now that my values and priorities were made anew. I had to say Yes. Even if I still wasn't 100% comfortable with what the Yes would bring, the Yes world would be much better than the No world for me. It's not the best world for my selfish soul, but it is easily the better choice and the only good choice that had a chance of becoming a reality.
And so finally, after all these years, I am a supporter of gay "marriage". I still feel a little bit uneasy when thinking about it. But this isn't about me. This is about the people who are affected directly by this. This is about the people, friends, who should have every right I have and yet don't.
In closing, I should mention that while I have "come around", I don't think everyone needs to do the same. Whatever decision we make by examining our own beliefs deeply is fine by me, whatever that decision and position may be.
But I do hope that the decision is yours and yours only. I hope that we all think hard for ourselves, looking back at who we know and what we value, and come up with our own choice, rather than hazily following the lead of others. It's not our community's choice or our parents' choice or our religion's choice. It's our own choice as independent, introspective, incisive individuals.
----
Crossposted from http://www.hkmurakami.com/blog/
|
They need to think of a better word than marriage for same sex couples. Marriage for me will always mean man and woman.
The stereotypes need to fall though, probably the biggest hurdle LGBT faces.
|
reading
I am a supporter of gay "marriage"
doesn't fully convince me that you are in fact a supporter but it's good to see you reflecting on this and be willing to change your viewpoint (lot of people don't so kudos) Do you thinks you would have come to this conclusion without meeting gay friends as well?
also
On June 23 2013 18:23 iTzSnypah wrote: They need to think of a better word than marriage for same sex couples. Marriage for me will always mean man and woman.
The stereotypes need to fall though, probably the biggest hurdle LGBT faces. reads like a contradiction to me somehow, stereotypes should fall but marriage is always man&woman ... ?
|
you finally woke up. congratulations but most of us have been awake for some time now. marriage itself is a ridiculous notion. if you want to get married thats fine by me, but humans are one of the rare species that partner for life. and since half of people who start partnering for life dont end up that way, maybe we are incorrect on that too. since it is impossible to know for sure, the best situation is to let people choose what they want as long as they have the same rights. call it what you want, but semantics is not really the issue here
|
I've always had the opinion that legally, all partnerships of the sort, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should be treated as a civil union. The term marriage should not be recognized by law or used anywhere in an official context.
If people want to feel that they're married, or engage in related customs and rituals of any culture or religion, that is entirely up to them, it's their own private thing.
|
On June 23 2013 18:41 balls516 wrote: you finally woke up. congratulations but most of us have been awake for some time now. marriage itself is a ridiculous notion. if you want to get married thats fine by me, but humans are one of the rare species that partner for life. and since half of people who start partnering for life dont end up that way, maybe we are incorrect on that too. since it is impossible to know for sure, the best situation is to let people choose what they want as long as they have the same rights. call it what you want, but semantics is not really the issue here
yeah people turn this into semantic bullshit so they think they have no moral implication when denying another human beeing of the basic rights
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On June 23 2013 18:23 iTzSnypah wrote: They need to think of a better word than marriage for same sex couples. Marriage for me will always mean man and woman.
They need a new word to describe it because you have a limited view of what a union is? That seems like a pretty roundabout solution, no?
|
On June 23 2013 18:51 Talin wrote: I've always had the opinion that legally, all partnerships of the sort, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should be treated as a civil union. The term marriage should not be recognized by law or used anywhere in an official context.
If people want to feel that they're married, or engage in related customs and rituals of any culture or religion, that is entirely up to them, it's their own private thing.
i feel like you said what i was trying to say much more clearly and fluently. thank you.
|
I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud.
So I would actually object the definition of marriage is very far away from the perverted and distorted version of the catholic/jewish/muslim books, and we should ban any religious group from using the term !
edit : it's also always fun to see the same arguments used against gay marriage are pretty much word for word the same arguments people used that were against the end of segregation and apartheid.
You people sayin this shouldn't be called "marriage" are basically the new avatars of these people saying whites shouldn't marry blacks..
edit 2 : and haji, really wtf ? what you wrote sounds so much like a little arrogant and ignorant saxon shit.
|
I don't have the energy to write the several pages that would if I were to discuss my journey from conservative to liberal but in short:
It's semantics about "marriage"- it's either a religious/traditional term or a LEGAL term (pick 1). It's not about "sex" - opposing the same legal rights and terms doesn't hinder homosexuality. Laws should not be about religious beliefs, morals or traditions - they are about rights and equality. Finally, my belief is to LOVE.
Sadly, I might not have taken the time to consider those things if not for some of the friends I made that weren't all like me.
|
On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote: I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud.
Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion.
It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue).
|
Isn't it part of the american separation of church and state that the state cannot FORCE the church to redefine marriage? If the church has one definition, which is that it is between a man and a woman, can the US state legislate to force the church to accept gay marriage? Or does a state allowing gay marriage still require a non mainstream church to marry the couple?
I guess you have a bunch of churches tho', not a state one like we do
|
On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote: I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue).
wait what ?
how do you know humans are religious since dawn of time ? that's a very big historical misconception, that was introduce by catholic church
"priest hood" for all i know is a very very very recent thing
edit : and don't come an say "egyptians had priests"
|
On June 23 2013 19:28 Catch]22 wrote:Isn't it part of the american separation of church and state that the state cannot FORCE the church to redefine marriage? If the church has one definition, which is that it is between a man and a woman, can the US state legislate to force the church to accept gay marriage? Or does a state allowing gay marriage still require a non mainstream church to marry the couple? I guess you have a bunch of churches tho', not a state one like we do
The state wouldn't NEED to force Church to redefine marriage if the term marriage was never in the state legislation to begin with. The religions can just do whatever they like, their opinion wouldn't matter.
If what we know as "marriage" was simply defined as something like an union between two consenting adult citizens with a set of benefits and specific treatment, there would never have been any obstacles to homosexual couples.
However, if you borrow the term and definition of marriage, you not only have an archaic term and definition that can't stand the test of time, but you also empower the religion to be the moral authority on the subject and judge what can and can't be a marriage in the future.
|
hinduism has been around way longer than catholicism. so have other religions. the greeks hve been trying to describe things they didnt understand using gods well b4 the catholics. where are u getting your information? religion has existed for as long as humans have been trying to explain things they cant understand at the time.
edit: o and Egyptians had priests.
|
On June 23 2013 19:48 balls516 wrote: hinduism has been around way longer than catholicism. so have other religions. the greeks hve been trying to describe things they didnt understand using gods well b4 the catholics. where are u getting your information? religion has existed for as long as humans have been trying to explain things they cant understand at the time.
edit: o and Egyptians had priests.
haha
okay
fyi : you don't "describe" things with symbols. Maybe you don't exactly understand the word "religion". And greeks certainly did not comprehend their world through religion I'm tired of ignorant biggots. Bye.
edit : you guys really think we're the shit and the smartest civilization all around history we're prolly close to mentally degenerated beings compared to a noblesman of pericles time so to say they understood their world through superstious bielefs and funny symbols they theirselves designed for the slave masses is pretty fun to say the least
edit 2 : and that big lie about "religionS" beeing present since dawn of time was introduced by the catholic church around the time of the first modern archeological searches at the end of the XIX century.
edit 3: A cult isn't a religion.
|
On June 23 2013 19:54 Boonbag wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2013 19:48 balls516 wrote: hinduism has been around way longer than catholicism. so have other religions. the greeks hve been trying to describe things they didnt understand using gods well b4 the catholics. where are u getting your information? religion has existed for as long as humans have been trying to explain things they cant understand at the time.
edit: o and Egyptians had priests. haha okay fyi : you don't "describe" things with symbols. Maybe you don't exactly understand the word "religion". And greeks certainly did not comprehend their world through religion I'm tired of ignorant biggots. Bye.
lol is it me? how do you define religion? because even the catholicism you describe was quite casual, looking more like an ancient religion, until the 5th and 6th centuries.
|
On June 23 2013 19:58 balls516 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2013 19:54 Boonbag wrote:On June 23 2013 19:48 balls516 wrote: hinduism has been around way longer than catholicism. so have other religions. the greeks hve been trying to describe things they didnt understand using gods well b4 the catholics. where are u getting your information? religion has existed for as long as humans have been trying to explain things they cant understand at the time.
edit: o and Egyptians had priests. haha okay fyi : you don't "describe" things with symbols. Maybe you don't exactly understand the word "religion". And greeks certainly did not comprehend their world through religion I'm tired of ignorant biggots. Bye. lol is it me? how do you define religion? because even the catholicism you describe was quite casual, looking more like an ancient religion, until the 5th and 6th centuries.
you have pretty bad history books ! christianity beeing an ancient religion ? erm ? christianity is the fusion of jewish and greek litterature. Won't be older than these two =(
|
ok obviously something is being lost in translation here and you are not very strong in the english language. my apologies. someone get this thread back on topic.
|
On June 23 2013 20:10 balls516 wrote: ok obviously something is being lost in translation here and you are not very strong in the english language. my apologies. someone get this thread back on topic.
nothing beeing lost and I'm not gonna take any time to phrase myself properly when I'm answering poorly educated persons over the internetz
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Even if I still wasn't 100% comfortable with what the Yes would bring, the Yes world would be much better than the No world for me. It's not the best world for my selfish soul, but it is easily the better choice and the only good choice that had a chance of becoming a reality. I think you might like this short story Was it Heaven? Or Hell? - by Mark Twain. It asks the question of how selfish we should be willing to be to secure our place in Heaven, and if we are selfish enough to do so if that would really impress God.
|
Do you support adoption by same-sex couples? Many people will vote no because of that matter - they agree with marriage but not adoption, so to stop this being even a problem, they stop the idea before it is even born in mind of politicians/the people. Personally, I don't care what people do between each other and see no problem with same-sex pairs adopting kids. I see a problem with people abandoning kids though.
|
I never understood why people make (political/moral) decisions based on "what they're comfortable with". Question is what's right and what's wrong, isn't it?
|
On June 23 2013 20:57 Monsen wrote: I never understood why people make (political/moral) decisions based on "what they're comfortable with". Question is what's right and what's wrong, isn't it?
If your not confortable with something, most of the times it means that you are not sure if its rigth or wrong. Rigth adn wrong are not objective facts ( imho, you could discuss for hours on this i feel :p). Hopefully, in several years/decades it will be obvious for everyone that gay marriage is the 'rigth' thing, but for now it certainly isnt.
@OP : Congratz! It's not aways easy to put you initial belief aside and give a new look on something.
|
On June 23 2013 20:57 Monsen wrote: I never understood why people make (political/moral) decisions based on "what they're comfortable with". Question is what's right and what's wrong, isn't it? Most people link 'what I like' to 'what's right' to validate themselves, and can't conceive of 'something I'm not comfortable with personally but is acceptable for those who do.'
|
On June 23 2013 19:01 Heyoka wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2013 18:23 iTzSnypah wrote: They need to think of a better word than marriage for same sex couples. Marriage for me will always mean man and woman. They need a new word to describe it because you have a limited view of what a union is? That seems like a pretty roundabout solution, no?
I feel like many homosexuals don't care about the rights at all and merely care about the word, which is an incredibly petty thing to do but I've seen it plenty of times. I completely agree that this is a civil rights issue and that they deserve the same natural rights as the rest of us in terms of being couples. It has a lot more relevancy than just tax exemption. Here is a great resource that concisely lists off everything that a legal marriage today entails between a straight couple and a gay couple in a few States.
However, I don't think a word should be redefined for that. Marriage was not written into law with the intent to persecute gays, it was written into law because that's what the damn definition is. A civic union between a man and a woman. I see a lot of people going on about how it won't affect heterosexual marriages or "family values", but that doesn't provide an argument that the definition of marriage should be changed. We shouldn't be obliged to change definitions based on the assertion that the majority will not be affected.
More pro-gay marriage folk like to bring up the fact that marriage has changed before. Interracial marriages used to be illegal and polygamy used to be legal (and still is in many countries in Northern Africa/Middle East). The fact that something has changed in the past does not mean that it SHOULD have been changed or more importantly that it should be changed further.
Interracial marriage did happen as far back as the Bible -- the one I think of instantly is Samson who falls in love with a Philistine woman -- it's not as drastic of a policy change as you might think. If we wish to change the marriage definitions again we should do it with something a bit more substantial than "it hurts my feelings". Because that's all this is as far as I can see, feelings being hurt that they can't be called the same thing as straight couples even if it means having the same exact rights. Also, a man marrying a man can hardly be compared to a white male marrying an asian female or a man having multiple wives. In both of these cases a union is created between a man and woman.
Something I'll never understand is that no one will call me bigoted or discriminatory or whatever other horrible things for opposing polygamy and drawing a line at gay marriage. Why do those labels apply to those who draw the line at straight marriage?
Change is not always positive, and I don't think we should be going around just changing the definition of words like this every time a group gains some movement and whines about their feelings being hurt. I hate using a slippery slope fallacy but I feel like it's appropriate here when I say if we give in and change the definition now, what else will be changed in the future?
I support their natural right to the benefits of being a couple, but why does the word need to be changed?
|
I don't see how a new word is needed:
1. a legally, religiously, or socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond: Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every society, past and present. 2. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender, as in gay marriage; same-sex marriage . 3. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: They have a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness. 4. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment. 5. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
I feel dictionary.com defines the term very well without ever putting any emphasis on it having to be between a man and a woman, except for 2:a, which is immediately followed by 2:b which fixes that issue. That part of the "definition" just comes from Christians etc who feel the need to force their view of what's a good marriage on everyone else, we can all safely ignore that. Christians didn't invent the concept of marriage.
|
I don't know the history of the phrase civil union, but demanding that gay people not get marriage, which should be reserved for straight couples, but should only get a cold legal term strikes me as perfectly bigoted. When faced with one's discomfort with gay couples, there are two main options to take, while still clinging to discomfort: 1. don't allow them anything, and 2. give them everything except for a few selected items deemed off-limits. I think that option #2 in practice can turn out okay and it's certainly the path of least resistance and will eventually lead to full cultural acceptance of gay people, but I think it's still a position based on intolerance, so therefore I can't support it.
|
On June 24 2013 00:25 Grumbels wrote: I don't know the history of the phrase civil union, but demanding that gay people not get marriage, which should be reserved for straight couples, but should only get a cold legal term strikes me as perfectly bigoted. When faced with one's discomfort with gay couples, there are two main options to take, while still clinging to discomfort: 1. don't allow them anything, and 2. give them everything except for a few selected items deemed off-limits. I think that option #2 in practice can turn out okay and it's certainly the path of least resistance and will eventually lead to full cultural acceptance of gay people, but I think it's still a position based on intolerance, so therefore I can't support it.
I'm not uncomfortable around gays at all or about their sexuality. I think they should be given the same exact rights of everyone else who wants to married, straight or not from top to bottom. Being called "married" is not a natural right however. Being able to see your loved one in an ICU is, but I don't quite understand how it's bigoted to give them the exact same rights but call it something different, because it is different from what the word has traditionally meant and has meant in the entire history of our country.
They can call it whatever they want and could even call it marriage to themselves for all I care, but we shouldn't legally change the definition of these words because a few people get their feelings hurt over having the same exact rights but getting a different name to it because the government doesn't feel like it's appropriate to change a 225 year old legal definition.
This is just another prime example of caring more about the word than the rights, which is beyond petty. Maybe I just have a very simplistic view of the world, but I don't see why we couldn't call it "Purple Elephanting" instead of "Marriage" if they got the same exact rights. I feel like the term itself should be the least relevant part of this discussion.
|
It has to be called marriage because that is what the state calls it when a man and woman get married. You don't sign a civil union certificate at your wedding, you sign a marriage certificate. Having a separate term for homosexual marriage can be argued as discriminatory since they're being treated differently due to their sexual orientation.
Imagine the fuss if men got degrees from university and women got purple elephants. It would be a big deal even if the documents were identical in every way but name.
|
On June 24 2013 01:08 SnipedSoul wrote: It has to be called marriage because that is what the state calls it when a man and woman get married. You don't sign a civil union certificate at your wedding, you sign a marriage certificate. Having a separate term for homosexual marriage can be argued as discriminatory since they're being treated differently due to their sexual orientation.
Imagine the fuss if men got degrees from university and women got purple elephants. It would be a big deal even if the documents were identical in every way but name.
How are they being treated differently if they get the same exact rights? That's what I'm not getting here from your reasoning. Why change the definition of the word from what it has meant for the past 225 years of our countries legal history? There is not a single argument other than "you're hurting my feelings" if gay couples get precisely the same rights as straight couples. The governments job is not to regulate hurt feelings, their job is to make sure everyone is being treated the same under the law and each person is reserved their individual rights granted by the Constitution. No one is being treated differently at all, their union is just being called a different term.
It's kind of pointless to create analogies because this is a completely unique situation, but I can do the same to you. If a hotel barred access to women, you wouldn't petition the government to change the definition of a woman to be the same as a man so the hotel lets them in you'd petition the hotel to change their policy so that men and women are treated equally. That doesn't mean you'd suddenly start calling men and women the same thing though, because they clearly aren't.
|
On June 24 2013 00:43 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 00:25 Grumbels wrote: I don't know the history of the phrase civil union, but demanding that gay people not get marriage, which should be reserved for straight couples, but should only get a cold legal term strikes me as perfectly bigoted. When faced with one's discomfort with gay couples, there are two main options to take, while still clinging to discomfort: 1. don't allow them anything, and 2. give them everything except for a few selected items deemed off-limits. I think that option #2 in practice can turn out okay and it's certainly the path of least resistance and will eventually lead to full cultural acceptance of gay people, but I think it's still a position based on intolerance, so therefore I can't support it. I'm not uncomfortable around gays at all or about their sexuality. I think they should be given the same exact rights of everyone else who wants to married, straight or not from top to bottom. Being called "married" is not a natural right however. Being able to see your loved one in an ICU is, but I don't quite understand how it's bigoted to give them the exact same rights but call it something different, because it is different from what the word has traditionally meant and has meant in the entire history of our country. They can call it whatever they want and could even call it marriage to themselves for all I care, but we shouldn't legally change the definition of these words because a few people get their feelings hurt over having the same exact rights but getting a different name to it because the government doesn't feel like it's appropriate to change a 225 year old legal definition. This is just another prime example of caring more about the word than the rights, which is beyond petty. Maybe I just have a very simplistic view of the world, but I don't see why we couldn't call it "Purple Elephanting" instead of "Marriage" if they got the same exact rights. I feel like the term itself should be the least relevant part of this discussion. You do have a very simplistic view of the world. Marriage traditionally being defined as a union between man and a woman is not at all a good argument to not open your mind and be more accepting. I'll admit that expanding the definition of marriage to be more inclusive is more radical than inventing a new term with the same rights attached, but it's the right thing to do based on any sensible moral vision of the world. You can't be bothered to get over gay people existing, yet you will expend huge effort to deny them the ability to marry. I would suggest you rethink your priorities.
|
On June 24 2013 01:19 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 00:43 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 00:25 Grumbels wrote: I don't know the history of the phrase civil union, but demanding that gay people not get marriage, which should be reserved for straight couples, but should only get a cold legal term strikes me as perfectly bigoted. When faced with one's discomfort with gay couples, there are two main options to take, while still clinging to discomfort: 1. don't allow them anything, and 2. give them everything except for a few selected items deemed off-limits. I think that option #2 in practice can turn out okay and it's certainly the path of least resistance and will eventually lead to full cultural acceptance of gay people, but I think it's still a position based on intolerance, so therefore I can't support it. I'm not uncomfortable around gays at all or about their sexuality. I think they should be given the same exact rights of everyone else who wants to married, straight or not from top to bottom. Being called "married" is not a natural right however. Being able to see your loved one in an ICU is, but I don't quite understand how it's bigoted to give them the exact same rights but call it something different, because it is different from what the word has traditionally meant and has meant in the entire history of our country. They can call it whatever they want and could even call it marriage to themselves for all I care, but we shouldn't legally change the definition of these words because a few people get their feelings hurt over having the same exact rights but getting a different name to it because the government doesn't feel like it's appropriate to change a 225 year old legal definition. This is just another prime example of caring more about the word than the rights, which is beyond petty. Maybe I just have a very simplistic view of the world, but I don't see why we couldn't call it "Purple Elephanting" instead of "Marriage" if they got the same exact rights. I feel like the term itself should be the least relevant part of this discussion. You do have a very simplistic view of the world. Marriage traditionally being defined as a union between man and a woman is not at all a good argument to not open your mind and be more accepting.
Who says I'm not accepting? Where is this coming from. Just because I'm against calling a civil union between a man and a man marriage doesn't mean I hate gay people. Jesus guys, come on. Also, saying something has been legally defined something for 225 years of our countries legal history is a perfectly legitimate reason to oppose changing the definition when there is not a single argument against it other than "it hurts my feelings"
I'll admit that expanding the definition of marriage to be more inclusive is more radical than inventing a new term with the same rights attached, but it's the right thing to do based on any sensible moral vision of the world.
Why? Where is this morality coming from? Why is it suddenly moral to change definitions? I thought we had one duty under our Constitution and that is to make sure every single person has their individual freedoms protected under any circumstance. I propose gay couples get the same individual freedoms straight couples get, but I don't see the point of changing the 225 year old legal definition of a word.
You can't be bothered to get over gay people existing, yet you will expend huge effort to deny them the ability to marry. I would suggest you rethink your priorities.
Holy fucking Christ stop this. I've been in a gay relationship before for almost a year and a half and trust me we did a lot more than play minigolf and hold hands. I don't hate gay people. Please, for once, try and think of the possibility that someone might be opposed to radically changing legal definitions of words because of some hurt feelings without hating the mere existence of the group wanting the definition changed.
|
..you are gay? So if you had a partner that you love and you would want to spend the rest of your life with him, you would be okay if people told you: "you can not get married, because your kind of love is not what marriage is about. it is only for man and woman, which you are not, so you can't get that title." , and then you'd simply acquiesce and confirm that indeed, you are not worthy? (omg what about the sanctity of a legal definition!)
|
On June 24 2013 01:35 Grumbels wrote: So if you have a partner that you love and you would want to spend the rest of your life with him, you would be okay if people told you: "you can not get married, because your kind of love is not what marriage is about. it is only for man and woman, which you are not, so you can't get that title." , you simply acquiesce and confirm that indeed, you are not worthy?
That's a great strawman you've set up there buddy. No one is saying our love "isnt what marriage is about", it's about the freaking definition of a word. It's not about a "title", it's about the god damn rights.
I would have no problem if our natural right to become one under the eyes of the law was protected and would receive all the benefits that straight couples received. We'd still probably call it marriage unofficially because it's convenient but I am not so selfish that I expect a legal definition to be radically rewritten to suit my needs because my feelings might be hurt.
You don't rewrite law over hurt feelings. You rewrite it if peoples legal and natural rights are being infringed upon. Not being given the "title" of marriage is not a natural or individual right being infringed upon anymore than the right of someone who can't call themselves "married" to 20 different women under our current legal definition. Why can't I marry a dog? That's highly offensive for you to say my love is not what marriage is about and is only for a human to human, which a dog is not, so we can't get that title.
|
I can hardly believe that someone who is gay would be so dumb as to use the line "if we allow teh gayz to marry, next you can marry cats and dogs".
|
On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote: I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue).
Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years.
|
On June 24 2013 02:07 Grumbels wrote: I can hardly believe that someone who is gay would be so dumb as to use the line "if we allow teh gayz to marry, next you can marry cats and dogs".
What a mature and thought out post that doesn't have any logical fallacies in it at all.
I'm just using your same reasoning. Who are you to say that my love with more than one woman is not genuine? "you can not get married to three women, because your kind of love is not what marriage is about. it is only for ONE man and ONE woman, which you are not, so you can't get that title." Am I supposed to bow my head and accept that I am not worthy to love three women at the same time?
The entire point is that the logic is faulty because it can be appropriately applied to bestiality and polygamy. It's not about a slippery slope, I'm not saying we'll soon be able to fuck dogs legally if we allow gay marriage. It's about showing that what you posted is incredibly inane and a complete strawman because I can easily substitute gay marriage for bestiality or polygamy and it's just as a legitimate argument as before.
P.S. - I don't appreciate you insulting me. Please try and act like an adult. I haven't insulted you or your intelligence, so I hope you can have the same courtesy towards me.
|
For me my support of same sex marriage came around when I was 12, just before I hit puberty. My first real contact with the conception and the actual existence of homosexuality was through a detailed book on sexuality that was aimed at informing teenagers. It was a pretty old book from the 70s I think, and it had an entire chapter dedicated to talking about homosexuality. No one ever talked about homosexuality when I was little, regardless of whether I was in South Carolina or Boston, and especially not in the extremely homophobic South Korea. But I guess that book made me think rather simply, "I like girls, but I have no real reason for liking them and not boys. I like girls because I like girls, and who is to say that I don't?" With the simplest application of empathy you can realize that such a thing could be used to understand when a boy likes a boy or a girl like a girl. That alone was enough, I think, and I didn't think the Christianity I was brought up on was contradictory to it.
This support of same sex marriage stayed alive through my leaving Christianity, my anti-Christian agnosticism, and my return to Christianity. I think I am becoming more and more orthodox in my Chrisianity as time goes (Protestant and Lutheran leaning) and along with that my support for same sex marriage becomes more enchrenched. I don't want to go into any detailed theology since it's all a complete waste of time to really get into things on this forum, but from my studies it appears that there really is an opening within the concepts of the orthodoxy to make room for same sex relationships. Supporting same sex marriage using the language of leftist political language is such a bore and it's pretty much powerless to actually move a social or religious conservative from their enchrenhed positions. I want to use the language of Christian orthodoxy to fight for a space within the conservatives and I think it's more than possible to do so.
But I think we also have to remember that the Western societies that have or are seeking to give credence to same sex marriage and expression of homosexuality in the midst of society, the West still does impose a particularly Christian conception of love and marriage upon it (in the enshrinement of monogamy and marriage as an expression of a love that is an absolute giving of mind and body, etc.). I personally think this Western Christian sense of love is important and something worth being conservative about, but I think one has to always be mindful of it and question whether or not we actually are fully supporting same sex relationships and expression or if we are only inviting homosexuals as far as they conform to our own ideals that are still essentially Christian - Christian, just secularized.
|
On June 24 2013 02:14 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:07 Grumbels wrote: I can hardly believe that someone who is gay would be so dumb as to use the line "if we allow teh gayz to marry, next you can marry cats and dogs". What a mature and thought out post that doesn't have any logical fallacies in it at all. I'm just using your same reasoning. Who are you to say that my love with more than one woman is not genuine? "you can not get married to three women, because your kind of love is not what marriage is about. it is only for ONE man and ONE woman, which you are not, so you can't get that title." Am I supposed to bow my head and accept that I am not worthy to love three women at the same time? The entire point is that the logic is faulty because it can be appropriately applied to bestiality and polygamy. It's not about a slippery slope, I'm not saying we'll soon be able to fuck dogs legally if we allow gay marriage. It's about showing that what you posted is incredibly inane and a complete strawman because I can easily substitute gay marriage for bestiality or polygamy and it's just as a legitimate argument as before. P.S. - I don't appreciate you insulting me. Please try and act like an adult. I haven't insulted you or your intelligence, so I hope you can have the same courtesy towards me. Your argument kinda deserves that you have your intelligence questioned.
I take it that you also opposed counting black people as 'people'? After all, there was already an existing legal framework that deemed them subhuman. And perhaps we should have been so considerate as to give them rights, that would only be fair, so perhaps we could invent a new class called "people2", since after all, they wanted to be called people too. (it could be a funny nation wide joke)
This obsession with the sanctity of a legal definition someone arbitrarily made in an era where homosexuality was repressed is just bizarre. I literally don't see why you would care. Especially since you would directly benefit from a more inclusive definition. Do you feel like not fighting for your rights because you don't want to be a burden or something? I can come up with some psychoanalytic theories, but best to let you explain yourself. (since obviously you can't seriously believe your own arguments, so there has to be a deeper reason)
|
On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote: I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment.
If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community.
|
On June 24 2013 02:28 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:14 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 02:07 Grumbels wrote: I can hardly believe that someone who is gay would be so dumb as to use the line "if we allow teh gayz to marry, next you can marry cats and dogs". What a mature and thought out post that doesn't have any logical fallacies in it at all. I'm just using your same reasoning. Who are you to say that my love with more than one woman is not genuine? "you can not get married to three women, because your kind of love is not what marriage is about. it is only for ONE man and ONE woman, which you are not, so you can't get that title." Am I supposed to bow my head and accept that I am not worthy to love three women at the same time? The entire point is that the logic is faulty because it can be appropriately applied to bestiality and polygamy. It's not about a slippery slope, I'm not saying we'll soon be able to fuck dogs legally if we allow gay marriage. It's about showing that what you posted is incredibly inane and a complete strawman because I can easily substitute gay marriage for bestiality or polygamy and it's just as a legitimate argument as before. P.S. - I don't appreciate you insulting me. Please try and act like an adult. I haven't insulted you or your intelligence, so I hope you can have the same courtesy towards me. Your argument kinda deserves that you have your intelligence questioned. I take it that you also opposed counting black people as 'people'? After all, there was already an existing legal framework that deemed them subhuman. And perhaps we should have been so considerate as to give them rights, that would only be fair, so perhaps we could invent a new class called "people2", since after all, they wanted to be called people too. (it could be a funny nation wide joke) This obsession with the sanctity of a legal definition someone arbitrarily made in an era where homosexuality was repressed is just bizarre. I literally don't see why you would care. Especially since you would directly benefit from a more inclusive definition. Do you feel like not fighting for your rights because you don't want to be a burden or something? I can come up with some psychoanalytic theories, but best to let you explain yourself. (since obviously you can't seriously believe your own arguments, so there has to be a deeper reason)
If you're already resorting to calling me a racist, dumb, and mentally disabled, I'm done here. I've already responded to every single one of your arguments in previous posts and it's astounding that you're still bringing them up.
Please try and do some self inflection and learn how to have discussions with people like adults do.
(since obviously you can't seriously believe your own arguments, so there has to be a deeper reason)
I mean fucking really?
EDIT: You also never responded to one of my posts, instead conveniently ignored it just to cherrypick something out of one of my other posts and derail the discussion into me being mentally disabled. Here, I'll link it again for your convenience:
How are they being treated differently if they get the same exact rights? That's what I'm not getting here from your reasoning. Why change the definition of the word from what it has meant for the past 225 years of our countries legal history? There is not a single argument other than "you're hurting my feelings" if gay couples get precisely the same rights as straight couples. The governments job is not to regulate hurt feelings, their job is to make sure everyone is being treated the same under the law and each person is reserved their individual rights granted by the Constitution. No one is being treated differently at all, their union is just being called a different term.
It's kind of pointless to create analogies because this is a completely unique situation, but I can do the same to you. If a hotel barred access to women, you wouldn't petition the government to change the definition of a woman to be the same as a man so the hotel lets them in you'd petition the hotel to change their policy so that men and women are treated equally. That doesn't mean you'd suddenly start calling men and women the same thing though, because they clearly aren't.
|
On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote: I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community.
My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term.
|
On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote: I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one.
Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"?
|
On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote: I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one. Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"? I fail to understand how you can say that marriage is not a legal term. There are laws defining marriage, seems like a pretty big clue if you see what I mean...
|
On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote: I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one. Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"? Not as opposed to, in addition to. Marriage involves society, culture, government, and religion. The hierarchy of those influences is another question entirely.
|
On June 24 2013 02:42 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote: I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one. Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"? I fail to understand how you can say that marriage is not a legal term. There are laws defining marriage, seems like a pretty big clue if you see what I mean... From my POV, the existence of those laws is more a demonstration of legal inertia than any sort of rationality. It's the government attempting to regulate/define something that it lost the mandate to do so when it gave up authority over religious affairs.
|
On June 24 2013 02:44 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:42 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote: I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one. Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"? I fail to understand how you can say that marriage is not a legal term. There are laws defining marriage, seems like a pretty big clue if you see what I mean... From my POV, the existence of those laws is more a demonstration of legal inertia than any sort of rationality. It's the government attempting to regulate/define something that it lost the mandate to do so when it gave up authority over religious affairs. Is every marriage a religious marriage in the US ??
|
There as always been laws involving marriage and things relating to it. Imagine how much more headache there would have been through history without the various laws that have dealt with the problems divorce and inheritance, for example.
|
On June 24 2013 02:34 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:28 Grumbels wrote:On June 24 2013 02:14 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 02:07 Grumbels wrote: I can hardly believe that someone who is gay would be so dumb as to use the line "if we allow teh gayz to marry, next you can marry cats and dogs". What a mature and thought out post that doesn't have any logical fallacies in it at all. I'm just using your same reasoning. Who are you to say that my love with more than one woman is not genuine? "you can not get married to three women, because your kind of love is not what marriage is about. it is only for ONE man and ONE woman, which you are not, so you can't get that title." Am I supposed to bow my head and accept that I am not worthy to love three women at the same time? The entire point is that the logic is faulty because it can be appropriately applied to bestiality and polygamy. It's not about a slippery slope, I'm not saying we'll soon be able to fuck dogs legally if we allow gay marriage. It's about showing that what you posted is incredibly inane and a complete strawman because I can easily substitute gay marriage for bestiality or polygamy and it's just as a legitimate argument as before. P.S. - I don't appreciate you insulting me. Please try and act like an adult. I haven't insulted you or your intelligence, so I hope you can have the same courtesy towards me. Your argument kinda deserves that you have your intelligence questioned. I take it that you also opposed counting black people as 'people'? After all, there was already an existing legal framework that deemed them subhuman. And perhaps we should have been so considerate as to give them rights, that would only be fair, so perhaps we could invent a new class called "people2", since after all, they wanted to be called people too. (it could be a funny nation wide joke) This obsession with the sanctity of a legal definition someone arbitrarily made in an era where homosexuality was repressed is just bizarre. I literally don't see why you would care. Especially since you would directly benefit from a more inclusive definition. Do you feel like not fighting for your rights because you don't want to be a burden or something? I can come up with some psychoanalytic theories, but best to let you explain yourself. (since obviously you can't seriously believe your own arguments, so there has to be a deeper reason) If you're already resorting to calling me a racist, dumb, and mentally disabled, I'm done here. I've already responded to every single one of your arguments in previous posts and it's astounding that you're still bringing them up. Please try and do some self inflection and learn how to have discussions with people like adults do. Show nested quote + (since obviously you can't seriously believe your own arguments, so there has to be a deeper reason) I mean fucking really? EDIT: You also never responded to one of my posts, instead conveniently ignored it just to cherrypick something out of one of my other posts and derail the discussion into me being mentally disabled. Here, I'll link it again for your convenience: Show nested quote +How are they being treated differently if they get the same exact rights? That's what I'm not getting here from your reasoning. Why change the definition of the word from what it has meant for the past 225 years of our countries legal history? There is not a single argument other than "you're hurting my feelings" if gay couples get precisely the same rights as straight couples. The governments job is not to regulate hurt feelings, their job is to make sure everyone is being treated the same under the law and each person is reserved their individual rights granted by the Constitution. No one is being treated differently at all, their union is just being called a different term.
It's kind of pointless to create analogies because this is a completely unique situation, but I can do the same to you. If a hotel barred access to women, you wouldn't petition the government to change the definition of a woman to be the same as a man so the hotel lets them in you'd petition the hotel to change their policy so that men and women are treated equally. That doesn't mean you'd suddenly start calling men and women the same thing though, because they clearly aren't. There really is nothing to discuss, your opinion is beyond childish and barely deserves consideration. If some law says "marriage is only for the straight peoples" then you change the law since it's bigoted. You instead want to create a new law with new terminology that you invented specifically for gay people, specifically because you don't want to allow them to get married. Then you have the nerve to accuse others of obsessing about words, when you are the one that deemed it offensive that gay people are allowed to have marriages, so you are obsessed about wanting to have a new word with the exact same meaning. But if it really is arbitrary then you didn't need to have come up with the new word to begin with, this betrays your intentions and shows that your position is inconsistent. And since it's inconsistent I think it's only a small step to ask you to perhaps look inward about what it is about yourself that makes you have such a bizarre point of view, one that directly harms yourself.
|
On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote: I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one.Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"?
The problem is that you have no hard evidence to make this statement. Where is the evidence that marriage was once simply a cultural/religious concept and then big government came in and imposed their will on it? Because as far as I know, marriage (or very similar concepts) have had legal connotations for as far back as we can tell. You're working under the assumption that marriage was cultural/religious first, then legal later. I'm asking you to prove that this is actually the case, because if it isn't, then religion has no place telling government to get out of the marriage issue.
|
On June 24 2013 02:46 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:44 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:42 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote: I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one. Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"? I fail to understand how you can say that marriage is not a legal term. There are laws defining marriage, seems like a pretty big clue if you see what I mean... From my POV, the existence of those laws is more a demonstration of legal inertia than any sort of rationality. It's the government attempting to regulate/define something that it lost the mandate to do so when it gave up authority over religious affairs. Is every marriage a religious marriage in the US ?? If you define marriage as a religious concept, then yes, every marriage to you will be religious.
If you don't, then no, no marriages are religious.
What I'm saying is that the government has no right to define marriage, since it's inherently a subjective concept
|
On June 24 2013 01:17 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 01:08 SnipedSoul wrote: It has to be called marriage because that is what the state calls it when a man and woman get married. You don't sign a civil union certificate at your wedding, you sign a marriage certificate. Having a separate term for homosexual marriage can be argued as discriminatory since they're being treated differently due to their sexual orientation.
Imagine the fuss if men got degrees from university and women got purple elephants. It would be a big deal even if the documents were identical in every way but name. How are they being treated differently if they get the same exact rights? That's what I'm not getting here from your reasoning. Why change the definition of the word from what it has meant for the past 225 years of our countries legal history? There is not a single argument other than "you're hurting my feelings" if gay couples get precisely the same rights as straight couples. The governments job is not to regulate hurt feelings, their job is to make sure everyone is being treated the same under the law and each person is reserved their individual rights granted by the Constitution. No one is being treated differently at all, their union is just being called a different term. It's kind of pointless to create analogies because this is a completely unique situation, but I can do the same to you. If a hotel barred access to women, you wouldn't petition the government to change the definition of a woman to be the same as a man so the hotel lets them in you'd petition the hotel to change their policy so that men and women are treated equally. That doesn't mean you'd suddenly start calling men and women the same thing though, because they clearly aren't.
So if a man got a degree in physics and a woman got a purple elephant in physics you'd have no problem with it as long as the underlying details are the same?
|
On June 24 2013 02:51 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:46 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:44 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:42 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote: I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one. Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"? I fail to understand how you can say that marriage is not a legal term. There are laws defining marriage, seems like a pretty big clue if you see what I mean... From my POV, the existence of those laws is more a demonstration of legal inertia than any sort of rationality. It's the government attempting to regulate/define something that it lost the mandate to do so when it gave up authority over religious affairs. Is every marriage a religious marriage in the US ?? If you define marriage as a religious concept, then yes, every marriage to you will be religious. If you don't, then no, no marriages are religious. What I'm saying is that the government has no right to define marriage, since it's inherently a subjective concept Is there something such as a civil marriage yes or no ? Does marriage in the US have legal consequences yes or no ? If yes to any of those questions, then I'm sorry for you, but marriage is already a legal term, and you can't do anything about it.
|
On June 24 2013 02:51 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 01:17 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 01:08 SnipedSoul wrote: It has to be called marriage because that is what the state calls it when a man and woman get married. You don't sign a civil union certificate at your wedding, you sign a marriage certificate. Having a separate term for homosexual marriage can be argued as discriminatory since they're being treated differently due to their sexual orientation.
Imagine the fuss if men got degrees from university and women got purple elephants. It would be a big deal even if the documents were identical in every way but name. How are they being treated differently if they get the same exact rights? That's what I'm not getting here from your reasoning. Why change the definition of the word from what it has meant for the past 225 years of our countries legal history? There is not a single argument other than "you're hurting my feelings" if gay couples get precisely the same rights as straight couples. The governments job is not to regulate hurt feelings, their job is to make sure everyone is being treated the same under the law and each person is reserved their individual rights granted by the Constitution. No one is being treated differently at all, their union is just being called a different term. It's kind of pointless to create analogies because this is a completely unique situation, but I can do the same to you. If a hotel barred access to women, you wouldn't petition the government to change the definition of a woman to be the same as a man so the hotel lets them in you'd petition the hotel to change their policy so that men and women are treated equally. That doesn't mean you'd suddenly start calling men and women the same thing though, because they clearly aren't. So if a man got a degree in physics and a woman got a purple elephant in physics you'd have no problem with it as long as the underlying details are the same? He clearly is not a happy person, read this post here: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=414446¤tpage=3#44 (I took the privilege of reading some of his post history).
|
So explain again why you are allowed to draw the line at gay marriage but I'm not allowed to draw the line at polygamy or bestiality or straight marriage? How is it not also bigoted to say that I can't love multiple women and I shouldn't be able to marry them all? Also, it is not a word with the exact same meaning. Gay marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That is not the same as a man and a woman. Would you like me to explain the biology behind that?
My point from the beginning that focusing on the word is fucking pointless. If gay unions get the same exact rights from top to bottom as straight unions do, who the fuck cares what they decide to call it? The rights are what should matter, not what you're being called. I'm saying it's the bottom of the totem pole. But that doesn't mean it's justified to go around wantonly changing 225 year old legal definitions because of some hurt feelings.
I love how every single post you post has subtle insults towards me by the way. You're very mature.
On June 24 2013 02:53 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:51 SnipedSoul wrote:On June 24 2013 01:17 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 01:08 SnipedSoul wrote: It has to be called marriage because that is what the state calls it when a man and woman get married. You don't sign a civil union certificate at your wedding, you sign a marriage certificate. Having a separate term for homosexual marriage can be argued as discriminatory since they're being treated differently due to their sexual orientation.
Imagine the fuss if men got degrees from university and women got purple elephants. It would be a big deal even if the documents were identical in every way but name. How are they being treated differently if they get the same exact rights? That's what I'm not getting here from your reasoning. Why change the definition of the word from what it has meant for the past 225 years of our countries legal history? There is not a single argument other than "you're hurting my feelings" if gay couples get precisely the same rights as straight couples. The governments job is not to regulate hurt feelings, their job is to make sure everyone is being treated the same under the law and each person is reserved their individual rights granted by the Constitution. No one is being treated differently at all, their union is just being called a different term. It's kind of pointless to create analogies because this is a completely unique situation, but I can do the same to you. If a hotel barred access to women, you wouldn't petition the government to change the definition of a woman to be the same as a man so the hotel lets them in you'd petition the hotel to change their policy so that men and women are treated equally. That doesn't mean you'd suddenly start calling men and women the same thing though, because they clearly aren't. So if a man got a degree in physics and a woman got a purple elephant in physics you'd have no problem with it as long as the underlying details are the same? He clearly is not a happy person, read this post here: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=414446¤tpage=3#44 (I took the privilege of reading some of his post history).
Are you honestly taking this discussion this personally? Jesus dude, chill out.
|
On June 24 2013 02:44 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:42 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote: I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one. Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"? I fail to understand how you can say that marriage is not a legal term. There are laws defining marriage, seems like a pretty big clue if you see what I mean... From my POV, the existence of those laws is more a demonstration of legal inertia than any sort of rationality. It's the government attempting to regulate/define something that it lost the mandate to do so when it gave up authority over religious affairs. ?
See this is the kind of North American conservative nonsense that makes absolutely no sense to me as someone that's lived outside of it and in a very nonreligious nation in the Far East. Marriage isn't fundamentally a religious event and it really hasn't been for most people not just in modernity but through history. Marriage is always ritualistic, but even in the West there's various social rituals within the secular sphere. In the Far East the notion of "religion" and "secular" didn't even really exist until Western imperialism reached the area, and even now in Japan the notion of religious and nonreligious doesn't exist as it does in the West. Of course there's marriage rituals in every religion but that's because religions are all-encompassing for an individual's life, not because marriage was born out of religion. Unless you wish to say that the state has no right to regulate clothing because it has no authority over religious affairs since many religions have their own rules on clothing.
|
On June 24 2013 02:55 Fruscainte wrote:So explain again why you are allowed to draw the line at gay marriage but I'm not allowed to draw the line at polygamy or bestiality or straight marriage? How is it not also bigoted to say that I can't love multiple women and I shouldn't be able to marry them all? Also, it is not a word with the exact same meaning. Gay marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That is not the same as a man and a woman. Would you like me to explain the biology behind that? My point from the beginning that focusing on the word is fucking pointless. If gay unions get the same exact rights from top to bottom as straight unions do, who the fuck cares what they decide to call it? The rights are what should matter, not what you're being called. I'm saying it's the bottom of the totem pole. But that doesn't mean it's justified to go around wantonly changing 225 year old legal definitions because of some hurt feelings. I love how every single post you post has subtle insults towards me by the way. You're very mature. Visibly, you do, and a lot. But I guess people who disagree with you shouldn't care... probably because they disagree with you. You're the one who needs to grow up.
|
On June 24 2013 02:55 Fruscainte wrote:So explain again why you are allowed to draw the line at gay marriage but I'm not allowed to draw the line at polygamy or bestiality or straight marriage? How is it not also bigoted to say that I can't love multiple women and I shouldn't be able to marry them all? Also, it is not a word with the exact same meaning. Gay marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That is not the same as a man and a woman. Would you like me to explain the biology behind that? My point from the beginning that focusing on the word is fucking pointless. If gay unions get the same exact rights from top to bottom as straight unions do, who the fuck cares what they decide to call it? The rights are what should matter, not what you're being called. I'm saying it's the bottom of the totem pole. But that doesn't mean it's justified to go around wantonly changing 225 year old legal definitions because of some hurt feelings. I love how every single post you post has subtle insults towards me by the way. You're very mature. Specifics of this debate aside, historical precedent tells us that "separate but equal" in theory is almost always "separate and inequal" in practice.
|
On June 24 2013 02:51 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 01:17 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 01:08 SnipedSoul wrote: It has to be called marriage because that is what the state calls it when a man and woman get married. You don't sign a civil union certificate at your wedding, you sign a marriage certificate. Having a separate term for homosexual marriage can be argued as discriminatory since they're being treated differently due to their sexual orientation.
Imagine the fuss if men got degrees from university and women got purple elephants. It would be a big deal even if the documents were identical in every way but name. How are they being treated differently if they get the same exact rights? That's what I'm not getting here from your reasoning. Why change the definition of the word from what it has meant for the past 225 years of our countries legal history? There is not a single argument other than "you're hurting my feelings" if gay couples get precisely the same rights as straight couples. The governments job is not to regulate hurt feelings, their job is to make sure everyone is being treated the same under the law and each person is reserved their individual rights granted by the Constitution. No one is being treated differently at all, their union is just being called a different term. It's kind of pointless to create analogies because this is a completely unique situation, but I can do the same to you. If a hotel barred access to women, you wouldn't petition the government to change the definition of a woman to be the same as a man so the hotel lets them in you'd petition the hotel to change their policy so that men and women are treated equally. That doesn't mean you'd suddenly start calling men and women the same thing though, because they clearly aren't. So if a man got a degree in physics and a woman got a purple elephant in physics you'd have no problem with it as long as the underlying details are the same?
I don't think that's a fair analogy because it would include redefining what a degree was. I see your point though, and I guess I see where you're coming from. I guess what I've been meaning to say is that while the name is important, it shouldn't be the focus of the argument. The focus should be on the rights, not the name. The name can come later. It would be like if women already received inferior degrees to men de facto and instead of worrying about making the degrees equal, women were focusing on making sure they were called the same thing first which I would find incredibly pointless.
|
On June 24 2013 02:53 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:51 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:46 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:44 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:42 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote: [quote]
Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion.
It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one. Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"? I fail to understand how you can say that marriage is not a legal term. There are laws defining marriage, seems like a pretty big clue if you see what I mean... From my POV, the existence of those laws is more a demonstration of legal inertia than any sort of rationality. It's the government attempting to regulate/define something that it lost the mandate to do so when it gave up authority over religious affairs. Is every marriage a religious marriage in the US ?? If you define marriage as a religious concept, then yes, every marriage to you will be religious. If you don't, then no, no marriages are religious. What I'm saying is that the government has no right to define marriage, since it's inherently a subjective concept Is there something such as a civil marriage yes or no ? Does marriage in the US have legal consequences yes or no ? If yes to any of those questions, then I'm sorry for you, but marriage is already a legal term, and you can't do anything about it.
Actually, I'm sorry for you, since you seem to be confusing the difference between a normative and a positive question.
What I have been arguing for is a normative consideration - laws should adhere to some sort of ideal concept of the State, and should not exceed the legitimate powers of that State.
What you are arguing is a whole host of positive statements - that laws, as they are today, imply legal authority over the definition of marriage.
We are arguing two sides of the same coin here: yes, today, laws try to define marriage. We both agree on that. I'm simply going one step further and saying that no, in an ideal State, laws ought not to define marriage.
|
On June 24 2013 02:51 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:46 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:44 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:42 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote: I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one. Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"? I fail to understand how you can say that marriage is not a legal term. There are laws defining marriage, seems like a pretty big clue if you see what I mean... From my POV, the existence of those laws is more a demonstration of legal inertia than any sort of rationality. It's the government attempting to regulate/define something that it lost the mandate to do so when it gave up authority over religious affairs. Is every marriage a religious marriage in the US ?? If you define marriage as a religious concept, then yes, every marriage to you will be religious. If you don't, then no, no marriages are religious. What I'm saying is that the government has no right to define marriage, since it's inherently a subjective concept Yeah except it's never ever been like that ever in history. Whether you like it or not marriage as always been a legal concept with laws that regulate it because marriage has aways been a political affair, be it between the children of royalty and aristocrats or between farmers and fishermen.
|
On June 24 2013 02:59 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:51 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:46 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:44 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:42 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote: [quote]
Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion.
It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue). Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one. Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"? I fail to understand how you can say that marriage is not a legal term. There are laws defining marriage, seems like a pretty big clue if you see what I mean... From my POV, the existence of those laws is more a demonstration of legal inertia than any sort of rationality. It's the government attempting to regulate/define something that it lost the mandate to do so when it gave up authority over religious affairs. Is every marriage a religious marriage in the US ?? If you define marriage as a religious concept, then yes, every marriage to you will be religious. If you don't, then no, no marriages are religious. What I'm saying is that the government has no right to define marriage, since it's inherently a subjective concept Yeah except it's never ever been like that ever in history. Whether you like it or not marriage as always been a legal concept with laws that regulate it because marriage has aways been a political affair, be it between the children of royalty and aristocrats or between farmers and fishermen. What you said could be true for the concept of freedom of speech or separation of church and state or even the concept of absolute natural rights until the Enlightenment.
Just because something has not happened or is not happening does not make it undesirable from a normative perspective, nor does it make it impossible from a positive perspective.
|
On June 24 2013 02:59 Shady Sands wrote:
We are arguing two sides of the same coin here: yes, today, laws try to define marriage. We both agree on that. I'm simply going one step further and saying that no, in an ideal State, laws ought not to define marriage. So marriage shouldn't have any legal consequence ? You seem to have very interesting conception of marriage, one that has little to do with reality.
|
On June 24 2013 02:58 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:51 SnipedSoul wrote:On June 24 2013 01:17 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 01:08 SnipedSoul wrote: It has to be called marriage because that is what the state calls it when a man and woman get married. You don't sign a civil union certificate at your wedding, you sign a marriage certificate. Having a separate term for homosexual marriage can be argued as discriminatory since they're being treated differently due to their sexual orientation.
Imagine the fuss if men got degrees from university and women got purple elephants. It would be a big deal even if the documents were identical in every way but name. How are they being treated differently if they get the same exact rights? That's what I'm not getting here from your reasoning. Why change the definition of the word from what it has meant for the past 225 years of our countries legal history? There is not a single argument other than "you're hurting my feelings" if gay couples get precisely the same rights as straight couples. The governments job is not to regulate hurt feelings, their job is to make sure everyone is being treated the same under the law and each person is reserved their individual rights granted by the Constitution. No one is being treated differently at all, their union is just being called a different term. It's kind of pointless to create analogies because this is a completely unique situation, but I can do the same to you. If a hotel barred access to women, you wouldn't petition the government to change the definition of a woman to be the same as a man so the hotel lets them in you'd petition the hotel to change their policy so that men and women are treated equally. That doesn't mean you'd suddenly start calling men and women the same thing though, because they clearly aren't. So if a man got a degree in physics and a woman got a purple elephant in physics you'd have no problem with it as long as the underlying details are the same? I don't think that's a fair analogy because it would include redefining what a degree was. I see your point though, and I guess I see where you're coming from. I guess what I've been meaning to say is that while the name is important, it shouldn't be the focus of the argument. The focus should be on the rights, not the name. The name can come later. It would be like if women already received inferior degrees to men de facto and instead of worrying about making the degrees equal, women were focusing on making sure they were called the same thing first which I would find incredibly pointless.
If you convince someone that two things should have the same name then doesn't it naturally follow that they should be the same in other ways as well?
Arguing that gay marriage is the same as straight marriage automatically means that you want them to be identical in every way because you're calling them the same thing. If you thought they should be different then you would call them something different.
|
On June 24 2013 03:06 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:58 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 02:51 SnipedSoul wrote:On June 24 2013 01:17 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 01:08 SnipedSoul wrote: It has to be called marriage because that is what the state calls it when a man and woman get married. You don't sign a civil union certificate at your wedding, you sign a marriage certificate. Having a separate term for homosexual marriage can be argued as discriminatory since they're being treated differently due to their sexual orientation.
Imagine the fuss if men got degrees from university and women got purple elephants. It would be a big deal even if the documents were identical in every way but name. How are they being treated differently if they get the same exact rights? That's what I'm not getting here from your reasoning. Why change the definition of the word from what it has meant for the past 225 years of our countries legal history? There is not a single argument other than "you're hurting my feelings" if gay couples get precisely the same rights as straight couples. The governments job is not to regulate hurt feelings, their job is to make sure everyone is being treated the same under the law and each person is reserved their individual rights granted by the Constitution. No one is being treated differently at all, their union is just being called a different term. It's kind of pointless to create analogies because this is a completely unique situation, but I can do the same to you. If a hotel barred access to women, you wouldn't petition the government to change the definition of a woman to be the same as a man so the hotel lets them in you'd petition the hotel to change their policy so that men and women are treated equally. That doesn't mean you'd suddenly start calling men and women the same thing though, because they clearly aren't. So if a man got a degree in physics and a woman got a purple elephant in physics you'd have no problem with it as long as the underlying details are the same? I don't think that's a fair analogy because it would include redefining what a degree was. I see your point though, and I guess I see where you're coming from. I guess what I've been meaning to say is that while the name is important, it shouldn't be the focus of the argument. The focus should be on the rights, not the name. The name can come later. It would be like if women already received inferior degrees to men de facto and instead of worrying about making the degrees equal, women were focusing on making sure they were called the same thing first which I would find incredibly pointless. If you convince someone that two things should have the same name then doesn't it naturally follow that they should be the same in other ways as well? Arguing that gay marriage is the same as straight marriage automatically means that you want them to be identical in every way because you're calling them the same thing. If you thought they should be different then you would call them something different.
Gay marriage and straight marriage aren't the same thing. They deserve to be protected equally under the law and both should be granted the same natural rights that the other has but they are not the same. I think that is where our disagreement is stemming from and I dont' think that can really be reconciled on an internet forum, unfortunately.
|
You might be interested to learn that Maryland was the first state to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. That took place in the 1970s, not the 1790s like you keep saying. The definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman has only been around for 45 years, not 225.
|
On June 24 2013 03:04 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:59 Shady Sands wrote:
We are arguing two sides of the same coin here: yes, today, laws try to define marriage. We both agree on that. I'm simply going one step further and saying that no, in an ideal State, laws ought not to define marriage. So marriage shouldn't have any legal consequence ? You seem to have very interesting conception of marriage, one that has little to do with reality. Yep - I don't believe that marriage should have any legal consequences.
I believe civil unions, et al should, insofar as the State wishes to utilize them for census and tax purposes, but the concept of what marriage should and shouldn't be - why should the State have a right to care in what unit or units I structure my romantic life?
|
On June 24 2013 03:14 SnipedSoul wrote: You might be interested to learn that Maryland was the first state to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. That took place in the 1970s, not the 1790s like you keep saying. The definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman has only been around for 45 years, not 225.
We follow a system of common law, which is based off of precedence. The precedence of marriage only being allowed between man and woman for our 225 year history is what defines it as being legally defined as a man and a woman. It doesn't have to be explicitly defined.
Perhaps that's a bit of a stretch
|
On June 24 2013 03:15 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 03:04 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:59 Shady Sands wrote:
We are arguing two sides of the same coin here: yes, today, laws try to define marriage. We both agree on that. I'm simply going one step further and saying that no, in an ideal State, laws ought not to define marriage. So marriage shouldn't have any legal consequence ? You seem to have very interesting conception of marriage, one that has little to do with reality. Yep - I don't believe that marriage should have any legal consequences. I believe civil unions, et al should, insofar as the State wishes to utilize them for census and tax purposes, but the concept of what marriage should and shouldn't be - why should the State have a right to care in what unit or units I structure my romantic life? The state is in fact doing exactly what you want him to, just instead of calling something civil union, it calls it marriage, because it's been called like that for quite sometime. You just want marriage not have a meaning it has, and has had for a very very long time. Sorry, but your position is pretty fucking strange. Esit : also it would be pretty cool if you could start to consider there are countries that exists outside of the US. I've made a counscious effort to bridge that gap, but you seem to take it for granted.
|
On June 24 2013 03:04 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:59 koreasilver wrote:On June 24 2013 02:51 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:46 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:44 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:42 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:13 Stratos_speAr wrote: [quote]
Marriage has been a legal concept since the Code of Hammurabi, which is (I believe) the oldest legal record that exists. That's something like 3500 years. Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment. If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one. Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"? I fail to understand how you can say that marriage is not a legal term. There are laws defining marriage, seems like a pretty big clue if you see what I mean... From my POV, the existence of those laws is more a demonstration of legal inertia than any sort of rationality. It's the government attempting to regulate/define something that it lost the mandate to do so when it gave up authority over religious affairs. Is every marriage a religious marriage in the US ?? If you define marriage as a religious concept, then yes, every marriage to you will be religious. If you don't, then no, no marriages are religious. What I'm saying is that the government has no right to define marriage, since it's inherently a subjective concept Yeah except it's never ever been like that ever in history. Whether you like it or not marriage as always been a legal concept with laws that regulate it because marriage has aways been a political affair, be it between the children of royalty and aristocrats or between farmers and fishermen. What you said could be true for the concept of freedom of speech or separation of church and state or even the concept of absolute natural rights until the Enlightenment. Just because something has not happened or is not happening does not make it undesirable from a normative perspective, nor does it make it impossible from a positive perspective. Except given how freedom of speech has to be upheld through law, and that the separation of church and state was realized through the cooperation between the Protestant reformers and political leaders, and that the concept of universal human rights is upheld by law (modern Europe didn't begin with the Enlightenment either, it began with the Reformation). Given that all the examples you gave all survive artificially, which is why they are knocked over again and again in history and today, and the fact that these concepts actually were new when they developed in Europe from the Reformation through the Enlightenment to today and that marriage as a concept is much more ancient and has always been regulated by law, I don't even understand what in the world you are trying to say.
|
On June 24 2013 03:17 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 03:14 SnipedSoul wrote: You might be interested to learn that Maryland was the first state to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. That took place in the 1970s, not the 1790s like you keep saying. The definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman has only been around for 45 years, not 225. We follow a system of common law, which is based off of precedence. The precedence of marriage only being allowed between man and woman for our 225 year history is what defines it as being legally defined as a man and a woman. It doesn't have to be explicitly defined. Perhaps that's a bit of a stretch
They had to formally pass a law to prevent gay marriage from being recognized by the state. As far as the law is concerned, gay marriage only became illegal after those laws were passed.
|
On June 24 2013 02:57 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:55 Fruscainte wrote:So explain again why you are allowed to draw the line at gay marriage but I'm not allowed to draw the line at polygamy or bestiality or straight marriage? How is it not also bigoted to say that I can't love multiple women and I shouldn't be able to marry them all? Also, it is not a word with the exact same meaning. Gay marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That is not the same as a man and a woman. Would you like me to explain the biology behind that? My point from the beginning that focusing on the word is fucking pointless. If gay unions get the same exact rights from top to bottom as straight unions do, who the fuck cares what they decide to call it? The rights are what should matter, not what you're being called. I'm saying it's the bottom of the totem pole. But that doesn't mean it's justified to go around wantonly changing 225 year old legal definitions because of some hurt feelings. I love how every single post you post has subtle insults towards me by the way. You're very mature. Specifics of this debate aside, historical precedent tells us that "separate but equal" in theory is almost always "separate and inequal" in practice.
I can definitely see where you're coming from, and I think I'm really teetering on the edge of that abyss with where I'm going with this, but my logic is this: The difference here between this and say "separate but equal" in the case of blacks and whites is that here it's not about giving gay couples different bathrooms or different portions of the restaurant. I don't personally see how a gay couple could be given an 'inferior' service of being able to see their partners in ICU or be able to write wills for their partners or have burial rights and the like. I like to think I'm not unreasonable, so I'm curious precisely where you think unequal treatment could come from this if gay couples were given the same legal protection but different legal names for their unions?
|
On June 24 2013 03:26 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 03:04 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:59 koreasilver wrote:On June 24 2013 02:51 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:46 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:44 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:42 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 24 2013 02:31 Shady Sands wrote: [quote] Using legal history as an argument for state sanction of marriage is a spurious approach. Law hasn't been separate from religion for most of that 3500 years - the concept of separating church and state didn't occur until the Renaissance, and its execution didn't occur until the Enlightenment.
If you want to separate the Church from the State, then you drop state endorsement of marriage - instead, states can endorse civil unions for tax purposes; marriage becomes something that is privately defined, between either the people involved or them plus their social community. My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one. Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"? I fail to understand how you can say that marriage is not a legal term. There are laws defining marriage, seems like a pretty big clue if you see what I mean... From my POV, the existence of those laws is more a demonstration of legal inertia than any sort of rationality. It's the government attempting to regulate/define something that it lost the mandate to do so when it gave up authority over religious affairs. Is every marriage a religious marriage in the US ?? If you define marriage as a religious concept, then yes, every marriage to you will be religious. If you don't, then no, no marriages are religious. What I'm saying is that the government has no right to define marriage, since it's inherently a subjective concept Yeah except it's never ever been like that ever in history. Whether you like it or not marriage as always been a legal concept with laws that regulate it because marriage has aways been a political affair, be it between the children of royalty and aristocrats or between farmers and fishermen. What you said could be true for the concept of freedom of speech or separation of church and state or even the concept of absolute natural rights until the Enlightenment. Just because something has not happened or is not happening does not make it undesirable from a normative perspective, nor does it make it impossible from a positive perspective. Except given how freedom of speech has to be upheld through law, and that the separation of church and state was realized through the cooperation between the Protestant reformers and political leaders, and that the concept of universal human rights is upheld by law (modern Europe didn't begin with the Enlightenment either, it began with the Reformation). Given that all the examples you gave all survive artificially, which is why they are knocked over again and again in history and today, and the fact that these concepts actually were new when they developed in Europe from the Reformation through the Enlightenment to today and that marriage as a concept is much more ancient and has always been regulated by law, I don't even understand what in the world you are trying to say. My understanding is that he's trying to say something akin to "I wish moon did not mean moon, but cauliflower instead". Why not, after all.
|
On June 24 2013 03:28 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:57 farvacola wrote:On June 24 2013 02:55 Fruscainte wrote:So explain again why you are allowed to draw the line at gay marriage but I'm not allowed to draw the line at polygamy or bestiality or straight marriage? How is it not also bigoted to say that I can't love multiple women and I shouldn't be able to marry them all? Also, it is not a word with the exact same meaning. Gay marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That is not the same as a man and a woman. Would you like me to explain the biology behind that? My point from the beginning that focusing on the word is fucking pointless. If gay unions get the same exact rights from top to bottom as straight unions do, who the fuck cares what they decide to call it? The rights are what should matter, not what you're being called. I'm saying it's the bottom of the totem pole. But that doesn't mean it's justified to go around wantonly changing 225 year old legal definitions because of some hurt feelings. I love how every single post you post has subtle insults towards me by the way. You're very mature. Specifics of this debate aside, historical precedent tells us that "separate but equal" in theory is almost always "separate and inequal" in practice. I can definitely see where you're coming from, and I think I'm really teetering on the edge of that abyss with where I'm going with this, but my logic is this: The difference here between this and say "separate but equal" in the case of blacks and whites is that here it's not about giving gay couples different bathrooms or different portions of the restaurant. I don't personally see how a gay couple could be given an 'inferior' service of being able to see their partners in ICU or be able to write wills for their partners or have burial rights and the like. I like to think I'm not unreasonable, so I'm curious precisely where you think unequal treatment could come from this if gay couples were given the same legal protection but different legal names for their unions? don't you see how incredibly unreasonable it is to style yourself as being in favor of gay rights but then to turn around and tell gay couples that they can't get married? you can tell them: "I know you want to get married, but because of some obscure reason I'm against that, so how about if you get a civil union, it's basically the same?" -- what if they respond with: "thanks, but we'd like to get married all the same" ? are you going to call them stupid for not seeing how obviously civil union and marriage is the same thing and they should be happy with what they got? don't you think that's a position entirely rife with toxic privilege? (after all there are historic reasons having to do with oppression of homosexuality that are at the basis for the historic definition) and if it's so obviously the same thing why this resistance to simply allowing them to get married? your argument falls apart under any sort of scrutiny and it seems entirely based on an arbitrary wish to adhere to a traditional (bigoted) definition despite the costs to other people. do words have that much value to you?
|
My reason isn't obscure at all. I don't like redefining words over hurt feelings. It's not about being "basically" the same, it's about being "the same" at all. The point is that our Constitution is based around protecting the individual and natural rights of all people. I believe firmly that a gay couple and a straight couple should have the same rights protected under the law and the same rights ensured under the law. I also believe that to call them the same is the most wrong statement a person can make. A straight union is about procreation and love, a gay union is about love alone. Straight unions have another aspect to them that gay unions can never naturally have.
There is a distinct difference between being protected equally under the law, and being the same thing.
That's what I'm trying to get into your head here.
|
On June 24 2013 03:39 Fruscainte wrote: My reason isn't obscure at all. I don't like redefining words over hurt feelings. It's not about being "basically" the same, it's about being "the same" at all. The point is that our Constitution is based around protecting the individual and natural rights of all people. I believe firmly that a gay couple and a straight couple should have the same rights protected under the law and the same rights ensured under the law. I also believe that to call them the same is the most wrong statement a person can make. A straight union is about procreation and love, a gay union is about love alone. Straight unions have another aspect to them that gay unions can never naturally have.
There is a distinct difference between being protected equally under the law, and being the same thing.
That's what I'm trying to get into your head here. Gosh, you wrote an argument ! To which I'm going to retort : do you need to be married to have children ?
|
On June 24 2013 03:30 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 03:26 koreasilver wrote:On June 24 2013 03:04 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:59 koreasilver wrote:On June 24 2013 02:51 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:46 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:44 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:42 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote: [quote]
My point is that why is marriage a religious matter first instead of a legal matter first? Damn near every culture has/had some concept akin to marriage and it almost always has/had some kind of legal connotation. I'm failing to see why religions get to forcibly take the term. Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one. Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"? I fail to understand how you can say that marriage is not a legal term. There are laws defining marriage, seems like a pretty big clue if you see what I mean... From my POV, the existence of those laws is more a demonstration of legal inertia than any sort of rationality. It's the government attempting to regulate/define something that it lost the mandate to do so when it gave up authority over religious affairs. Is every marriage a religious marriage in the US ?? If you define marriage as a religious concept, then yes, every marriage to you will be religious. If you don't, then no, no marriages are religious. What I'm saying is that the government has no right to define marriage, since it's inherently a subjective concept Yeah except it's never ever been like that ever in history. Whether you like it or not marriage as always been a legal concept with laws that regulate it because marriage has aways been a political affair, be it between the children of royalty and aristocrats or between farmers and fishermen. What you said could be true for the concept of freedom of speech or separation of church and state or even the concept of absolute natural rights until the Enlightenment. Just because something has not happened or is not happening does not make it undesirable from a normative perspective, nor does it make it impossible from a positive perspective. Except given how freedom of speech has to be upheld through law, and that the separation of church and state was realized through the cooperation between the Protestant reformers and political leaders, and that the concept of universal human rights is upheld by law (modern Europe didn't begin with the Enlightenment either, it began with the Reformation). Given that all the examples you gave all survive artificially, which is why they are knocked over again and again in history and today, and the fact that these concepts actually were new when they developed in Europe from the Reformation through the Enlightenment to today and that marriage as a concept is much more ancient and has always been regulated by law, I don't even understand what in the world you are trying to say. My understanding is that he's trying to say something akin to "I wish moon did not mean moon, but cauliflower instead". Why not, after all. Except marriage has basically always been related to religion and the concept of a civil union, just for practical purposes, already exists. There's nothing so absurd about separating the religious and legal parts of marriage. Then everyone would be able to enjoy the same legal rights and "marriage" would be a completelly religious affair, so it would be up to each person and their religion to decide how that works out.
|
On June 24 2013 03:41 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 03:39 Fruscainte wrote: My reason isn't obscure at all. I don't like redefining words over hurt feelings. It's not about being "basically" the same, it's about being "the same" at all. The point is that our Constitution is based around protecting the individual and natural rights of all people. I believe firmly that a gay couple and a straight couple should have the same rights protected under the law and the same rights ensured under the law. I also believe that to call them the same is the most wrong statement a person can make. A straight union is about procreation and love, a gay union is about love alone. Straight unions have another aspect to them that gay unions can never naturally have.
There is a distinct difference between being protected equally under the law, and being the same thing.
That's what I'm trying to get into your head here. Gosh, you wrote an argument ! To which I'm going to retort : do you need to be married to have children ?
And how long can you be married without having children before your marriage is declared invalid?
Can a straight person who is infertile get married? What if you only find that out after you're already married? Are you obligated to get divorced since you can never procreate?
How does adoption fit into this? Is a straight couple adopting a child a valid reason for marriage? If so, why doesn't it apply to gay people?
|
On June 24 2013 03:41 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 03:39 Fruscainte wrote: My reason isn't obscure at all. I don't like redefining words over hurt feelings. It's not about being "basically" the same, it's about being "the same" at all. The point is that our Constitution is based around protecting the individual and natural rights of all people. I believe firmly that a gay couple and a straight couple should have the same rights protected under the law and the same rights ensured under the law. I also believe that to call them the same is the most wrong statement a person can make. A straight union is about procreation and love, a gay union is about love alone. Straight unions have another aspect to them that gay unions can never naturally have.
There is a distinct difference between being protected equally under the law, and being the same thing.
That's what I'm trying to get into your head here. Gosh, you wrote an argument ! To which I'm going to retort : do you need to be married to have children ?
But sir, I've written plenty of arguments already!
Of course not. However, why do you think straight couples get tax breaks? Because living together is such a horrible thing and the government feels sorry for them? No, it's because it's expected when you get married children are going to be on the way shortly after or are already there and you'll need financial assistance since the child can not work to pull his weight and one of the partners will need to stay home with the child likely to take care of it.
I can already feel the hate coming about how I think gays should get unequal tax breaks, I think that straight couples shouldn't get these tax breaks either if they dont have children and I think gay couples should get these tax breaks too if they adopt children.
It's not about the legality of it at this point though, it's just a logical one. A straight couple is biologically not even close to the same as a gay couple. That doesn't mean one is better than the other, it just means they are different and to call them the same is disingenuous imo.
|
On June 24 2013 03:41 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 03:30 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 03:26 koreasilver wrote:On June 24 2013 03:04 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:59 koreasilver wrote:On June 24 2013 02:51 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:46 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:44 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:42 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote: [quote] Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one.
Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"? I fail to understand how you can say that marriage is not a legal term. There are laws defining marriage, seems like a pretty big clue if you see what I mean... From my POV, the existence of those laws is more a demonstration of legal inertia than any sort of rationality. It's the government attempting to regulate/define something that it lost the mandate to do so when it gave up authority over religious affairs. Is every marriage a religious marriage in the US ?? If you define marriage as a religious concept, then yes, every marriage to you will be religious. If you don't, then no, no marriages are religious. What I'm saying is that the government has no right to define marriage, since it's inherently a subjective concept Yeah except it's never ever been like that ever in history. Whether you like it or not marriage as always been a legal concept with laws that regulate it because marriage has aways been a political affair, be it between the children of royalty and aristocrats or between farmers and fishermen. What you said could be true for the concept of freedom of speech or separation of church and state or even the concept of absolute natural rights until the Enlightenment. Just because something has not happened or is not happening does not make it undesirable from a normative perspective, nor does it make it impossible from a positive perspective. Except given how freedom of speech has to be upheld through law, and that the separation of church and state was realized through the cooperation between the Protestant reformers and political leaders, and that the concept of universal human rights is upheld by law (modern Europe didn't begin with the Enlightenment either, it began with the Reformation). Given that all the examples you gave all survive artificially, which is why they are knocked over again and again in history and today, and the fact that these concepts actually were new when they developed in Europe from the Reformation through the Enlightenment to today and that marriage as a concept is much more ancient and has always been regulated by law, I don't even understand what in the world you are trying to say. My understanding is that he's trying to say something akin to "I wish moon did not mean moon, but cauliflower instead". Why not, after all. Except marriage has basically always been related to religion and the concept of a civil union, just for practical purposes, already exists. There's nothing so absurd about separating the religious and legal parts of marriage. Then everyone would be able to enjoy the same legal rights and "marriage" would be a completelly religious affair, so it would be up to each person and their religion to decide how that works out. Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying, you want to change the definition of marriage. Wether you like it or not, marriage has a legal aspect, it englobes it. If you want to talk specifically about religious marriage, there is a word for it : religious marriage. Which is a completely religious affair. Reality ain't that bad, ain't it ?
|
On June 24 2013 03:28 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:57 farvacola wrote:On June 24 2013 02:55 Fruscainte wrote:So explain again why you are allowed to draw the line at gay marriage but I'm not allowed to draw the line at polygamy or bestiality or straight marriage? How is it not also bigoted to say that I can't love multiple women and I shouldn't be able to marry them all? Also, it is not a word with the exact same meaning. Gay marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That is not the same as a man and a woman. Would you like me to explain the biology behind that? My point from the beginning that focusing on the word is fucking pointless. If gay unions get the same exact rights from top to bottom as straight unions do, who the fuck cares what they decide to call it? The rights are what should matter, not what you're being called. I'm saying it's the bottom of the totem pole. But that doesn't mean it's justified to go around wantonly changing 225 year old legal definitions because of some hurt feelings. I love how every single post you post has subtle insults towards me by the way. You're very mature. Specifics of this debate aside, historical precedent tells us that "separate but equal" in theory is almost always "separate and inequal" in practice. I can definitely see where you're coming from, and I think I'm really teetering on the edge of that abyss with where I'm going with this, but my logic is this: The difference here between this and say "separate but equal" in the case of blacks and whites is that here it's not about giving gay couples different bathrooms or different portions of the restaurant. I don't personally see how a gay couple could be given an 'inferior' service of being able to see their partners in ICU or be able to write wills for their partners or have burial rights and the like. I like to think I'm not unreasonable, so I'm curious precisely where you think unequal treatment could come from this if gay couples were given the same legal protection but different legal names for their unions? Well, on some level, I do not think that the nominative difference between civil union and marriage would amount to a similar situation as that of the Jim Crow south. But, that is not important here. At the base of all this lies a respect for self-determination in title, or the ability for individuals in society to, within reason, dictate the manner in which they are addressed. Whether or not "separate but equal" applies to this debate is not for me to decide; if homosexuals are invested in appropriating the word marriage insofar as their unions are concerned, the case against this desire is weak enough to be put aside in my opinion. Having taken part in a few religious homosexual marriage ceremonies and being fairly invested in the study of Christianity, the religious arguments against gay marriage are inevitably denominational and hardly emblematic of Christianity as a whole. In other words, the notion that gays ought to stay away from the word marriage is unique to only some Christian sects/denominations, and an according governmental policy supporting that perspective tacitly endorses certain brands of Christianity in a manner I find wholly unacceptable.
|
On June 24 2013 03:45 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 03:41 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 03:39 Fruscainte wrote: My reason isn't obscure at all. I don't like redefining words over hurt feelings. It's not about being "basically" the same, it's about being "the same" at all. The point is that our Constitution is based around protecting the individual and natural rights of all people. I believe firmly that a gay couple and a straight couple should have the same rights protected under the law and the same rights ensured under the law. I also believe that to call them the same is the most wrong statement a person can make. A straight union is about procreation and love, a gay union is about love alone. Straight unions have another aspect to them that gay unions can never naturally have.
There is a distinct difference between being protected equally under the law, and being the same thing.
That's what I'm trying to get into your head here. Gosh, you wrote an argument ! To which I'm going to retort : do you need to be married to have children ? But sir, I've written plenty of arguments already! Of course not. However, why do you think straight couples get tax breaks? Because living together is such a horrible thing and the government feels sorry for them? No, it's because it's expected when you get married children are going to be on the way shortly after or are already there and you'll need financial assistance since the child can not work to pull his weight and one of the partners will need to stay home with the child likely to take care of it. I can already feel the hate coming about how I think gays should get unequal tax breaks, I think that straight couples shouldn't get these tax breaks either if they dont have children and I think gay couples should get these tax breaks too if they adopt children. It's not about the legality of it at this point though, it's just a logical one. A straight couple is biologically not even close to the same as a gay couple. That doesn't mean one is better than the other, it just means they are different and to call them the same is disingenuous imo. What you don't get is those two things : -marriage has a legal aspect, it's undeniable, it is therefore normal that the legal definition of marriage should be defined by law, and that it can be changed, like many other legal definition change. -your complaint that this definition shouldn't be changed over hurt feelings is self-contradicting. Either you think it's just a question of word, and then, does it really matter if we change the legal definition to please them ? Either you do care about the word, and you think it's important (which seems to be your position btw), and then I don't see how you can deny your opponents the right to care about the word too.
The tax break argument isn't very good either. In France for instance, married couple get some tax breaks, and then get other ones when they get children. So it seems that your personnaly interpretation of what those tax breaks means is not automatically true.
Finally I'm not arguing that same-sex couple and straight couples are the same things, I'm perfectly aware they are, thank you. I just don't see how the difference between them implies we need two words for their union. After all, you just need to use an adjective to differentiate them, if you need to.
|
Grumbels, you have to be aware but it's actually quite common within NA LGBT communities to actually not want to get married because they want to discard the entire conception of love, sex, and marriage of the Christian tradition that permeates the West. Much of what you two have been going off about is semantics, but I don't think many people know that the issue of same sex marriage is as much of a divisive question within gay communities as it is outside it. So this is one of the main failures of the NA liberals for me - they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face. And when they are met with members of the "oppressed" that don't agree with their liberal agenda to word by word they try to talk their ideology through the mess with hackneyed "psychonalysis". I've had the amusing opportunity of being the rather orthodox Christian arguing for same-sex marriage rights against members of a local LGBT group that wanted to disregard the concep of marriage altogether along with its underlying Christian morals on love and sexuality. It might be bewildering to you, but after my own experiences I just gotta say that anyone who can't understand why a gay individual might not care for gay marriage at all just haven't actually spent their time to become involved with LGBT communities in reality. This isn't to say that I agree with Fruscainte, but your derision to him and threat-mocking him with "psychoanalysis" as if he's a repressed gay man that has internalized oppression just because he disagrees with you like so many gay people would (not as conservatives either, but as radical leftists) shows that you're just like the typical Western liberal.
|
On June 24 2013 04:00 koreasilver wrote: Grumbels, you have to be aware but it's actually quite common within NA LGBT communities to actually not want to get married because they want to discard the entire conception of love, sex, and marriage of the Christian tradition that permeates the West. Much of what you two have been going off about is semantics, but I don't think many people know that the issue of same sex marriage is as much of a divisive question within gay communities as it is outside it. So this is one of the main failures of the NA liberals for me - they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face. And when they are met with members of the "oppressed" that don't agree with their liberal agenda to word by word they try to talk their ideology through the mess with hackneyed "psychonalysis". I've had the amusing opportunity of being the rather orthodox Christian arguing for same-sex marriage rights against members of a local LGBT group that wanted to disregard the concep of marriage altogether along with its underlying Christian morals on love and sexuality. It might be bewildering to you, but after my own experiences I just gotta say that anyone who can't understand why a gay individual might not care for gay marriage at all just haven't actually spent their time to become involved with LGBT communities in reality. This isn't to say that I agree with Fruscainte, but your derision to him and threat-mocking him with "psychoanalysis" as if he's a repressed gay man that has internalized oppression just because he disagrees with you like so many gay people would (not as conservatives either, but as radical leftists) shows that you're just like the typical Western liberal. How is this post anything other than psycho analyzing him? He never talked about anything like this. And I'm the 'typical liberal' for not seeing through all this?
|
United States37500 Posts
haji,
When you say "uneasy", what exactly are you referring to? Most opponents to gay marriage usually cite morality and how it is wrong. "marriage is between man and wife". I guess if your upbringing was based off (slightly) Christian values, I can understand. My own parents never emphasized much about marriage itself but sure, family was important. While I never really thought about homosexuality as a third party until high school, it never concerned me whether marriage/being together with someone for life/loving another individual was between man/woman, man/man or woman/woman. The crux of my analysis while growing up was that if two consenting adults love each other, that should suffice. If what other people are not harming themselves or the general public, why intervene? Why should they have fewer rights because of the gender of their partner? And as you've mentioned in your OP, the benefits of martial status is rather big in this day and age.
"Civil union" feels like such a cop out. It goes back entirely to the "separate but equal" concept, which in my opinion, is not all that equal if you have to rename something you're not comfortable with. ['you' here being a generalized 'you']
|
I never said that's Fruscainte's reasons. Given how common it is within LGBT communities to be apathetic, wary, and weary of the politics of gay marriage and the conception of marriage as a whole, your derision towards Fruscainte is incredibly annoying and your inability to give any room for conceptual space or the possibility of arguing against gay marriage due to not wanting a same sex relationship to fall under the rubric of the Christian forms of love, sexuality, and marriage regardless of how secularized it is reflects a real lack of understanding and is a trait that is very common among Western liberals.
|
On June 24 2013 04:23 koreasilver wrote: I never said that's Fruscainte's reasons. Given how common it is within LGBT communities to be apathetic, wary, and weary of the politics of gay marriage and the conception of marriage as a whole, your derision towards Fruscainte is incredibly annoying and your inability to give any room for conceptual space or the possibility of arguing against gay marriage due to not wanting a same sex relationship to fall under the rubric of the Christian forms of love, sexuality, and marriage regardless of how secularized it is reflects a real lack of understanding and is a trait that is very common among Western liberals. just cause the word marriage is spoiled by romantic movies doesn't mean you have to invent a new word. please don't pretend like the word civil union has anything to do with a more progressive view on marriage, a desire to reinvent the concept etc. nobody ever would have obsessed about the term civil union if homosexuality was a non-factor.
|
The traditional concept of marriage should just be abolished, and everyone could get a "civil union" (with any number of other people, or whatever). Religious people would then go and get "religious marriage" (that doesn't have any legal impact/doesn't actually do anything). Everyone has the same thing, and if someone wants something more for aesthetic reasons, they can get it, everyone is happy. It's the same thing as getting married in a church in the past, while now you just go sign some papers and say some words at the town hall, and ceremony in the church/mosque/deathstar is optional. No idea why separating the religion and state takes so long.
|
I don't agree with Fruscainte at all and you've completely missed the point. You can continue with your self-righteous indignation if you wish.
|
On June 24 2013 04:15 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 04:00 koreasilver wrote: Grumbels, you have to be aware but it's actually quite common within NA LGBT communities to actually not want to get married because they want to discard the entire conception of love, sex, and marriage of the Christian tradition that permeates the West. Much of what you two have been going off about is semantics, but I don't think many people know that the issue of same sex marriage is as much of a divisive question within gay communities as it is outside it. So this is one of the main failures of the NA liberals for me - they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face. And when they are met with members of the "oppressed" that don't agree with their liberal agenda to word by word they try to talk their ideology through the mess with hackneyed "psychonalysis". I've had the amusing opportunity of being the rather orthodox Christian arguing for same-sex marriage rights against members of a local LGBT group that wanted to disregard the concep of marriage altogether along with its underlying Christian morals on love and sexuality. It might be bewildering to you, but after my own experiences I just gotta say that anyone who can't understand why a gay individual might not care for gay marriage at all just haven't actually spent their time to become involved with LGBT communities in reality. This isn't to say that I agree with Fruscainte, but your derision to him and threat-mocking him with "psychoanalysis" as if he's a repressed gay man that has internalized oppression just because he disagrees with you like so many gay people would (not as conservatives either, but as radical leftists) shows that you're just like the typical Western liberal. How is this post anything other than psycho analyzing him? He never talked about anything like this. And I'm the 'typical liberal' for not seeing through all this?
The funny thing is he's completely right
I've never met a single gay male who feels "oppressed" or thinks very separate from me. In fact the only people I see freaking out about how oppressed and repressed we are are straight white male liberals who want to pidgeonhole everyone into their narrow worldview of how things should be.
Every single post Korea has made on this page has been 100% correct. Especially:
to not wanting a same sex relationship to fall under the rubric of the Christian forms of love, sexuality, and marriage regardless of how secularized it is
and
they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face
I can't tell you the amount of times in real life someone has acted just like Grumbels. A bunch of liberals talking about gay marriage or oppression or something of that nature and I or a friend of mine pipe up about how we're bisexual/gay/whatever and we don't really give a shit and they instantly turn around being really passive aggressive and patronizing talking about how sorry they feel for us that we're so repressed in our feelings and shit. It's fucking annoying.
|
On June 24 2013 05:16 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 04:15 Grumbels wrote:On June 24 2013 04:00 koreasilver wrote: Grumbels, you have to be aware but it's actually quite common within NA LGBT communities to actually not want to get married because they want to discard the entire conception of love, sex, and marriage of the Christian tradition that permeates the West. Much of what you two have been going off about is semantics, but I don't think many people know that the issue of same sex marriage is as much of a divisive question within gay communities as it is outside it. So this is one of the main failures of the NA liberals for me - they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face. And when they are met with members of the "oppressed" that don't agree with their liberal agenda to word by word they try to talk their ideology through the mess with hackneyed "psychonalysis". I've had the amusing opportunity of being the rather orthodox Christian arguing for same-sex marriage rights against members of a local LGBT group that wanted to disregard the concep of marriage altogether along with its underlying Christian morals on love and sexuality. It might be bewildering to you, but after my own experiences I just gotta say that anyone who can't understand why a gay individual might not care for gay marriage at all just haven't actually spent their time to become involved with LGBT communities in reality. This isn't to say that I agree with Fruscainte, but your derision to him and threat-mocking him with "psychoanalysis" as if he's a repressed gay man that has internalized oppression just because he disagrees with you like so many gay people would (not as conservatives either, but as radical leftists) shows that you're just like the typical Western liberal. How is this post anything other than psycho analyzing him? He never talked about anything like this. And I'm the 'typical liberal' for not seeing through all this? The funny thing is he's completely right I've never met a single gay male who feels "oppressed" or thinks very separate from me. In fact the only people I see freaking out about how oppressed and repressed we are are straight white male liberals who want to pidgeonhole everyone into their narrow worldview of how things should be. Every single post Korea has made on this page has been 100% correct. Especially: Show nested quote + to not wanting a same sex relationship to fall under the rubric of the Christian forms of love, sexuality, and marriage regardless of how secularized it is I'm all for rethinking the way we live our love life, our intimity, our sexuality etc etc. I'm very happy some people in the LGBT movement put those things under question, and as a heterosexual male, I also hope it will help heterosexual rethink the way they live. But it's so happens there are some gay people who want to get married. Now, the question is, why should we deny them this right ?
|
On June 24 2013 05:22 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 05:16 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 04:15 Grumbels wrote:On June 24 2013 04:00 koreasilver wrote: Grumbels, you have to be aware but it's actually quite common within NA LGBT communities to actually not want to get married because they want to discard the entire conception of love, sex, and marriage of the Christian tradition that permeates the West. Much of what you two have been going off about is semantics, but I don't think many people know that the issue of same sex marriage is as much of a divisive question within gay communities as it is outside it. So this is one of the main failures of the NA liberals for me - they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face. And when they are met with members of the "oppressed" that don't agree with their liberal agenda to word by word they try to talk their ideology through the mess with hackneyed "psychonalysis". I've had the amusing opportunity of being the rather orthodox Christian arguing for same-sex marriage rights against members of a local LGBT group that wanted to disregard the concep of marriage altogether along with its underlying Christian morals on love and sexuality. It might be bewildering to you, but after my own experiences I just gotta say that anyone who can't understand why a gay individual might not care for gay marriage at all just haven't actually spent their time to become involved with LGBT communities in reality. This isn't to say that I agree with Fruscainte, but your derision to him and threat-mocking him with "psychoanalysis" as if he's a repressed gay man that has internalized oppression just because he disagrees with you like so many gay people would (not as conservatives either, but as radical leftists) shows that you're just like the typical Western liberal. How is this post anything other than psycho analyzing him? He never talked about anything like this. And I'm the 'typical liberal' for not seeing through all this? The funny thing is he's completely right I've never met a single gay male who feels "oppressed" or thinks very separate from me. In fact the only people I see freaking out about how oppressed and repressed we are are straight white male liberals who want to pidgeonhole everyone into their narrow worldview of how things should be. Every single post Korea has made on this page has been 100% correct. Especially: to not wanting a same sex relationship to fall under the rubric of the Christian forms of love, sexuality, and marriage regardless of how secularized it is I'm all for rethinking the way we live our love life, our intimity, our sexuality etc etc. But it's so happens there are some gay people who want to get married. Now, the question is, why should we deny them this right ?
Like I said, we're being thrown into an everlasting circle here of semantics or clashing viewpoints.
I think "marriage" is a strictly religious term and the government should have no interference in that and that it has traditionally referred to a man and a woman. I think that the individual and natural right to be able to love anyone you want and to have a union with any man or woman you want should be protected and every union should be treated equal and be granted the same precise rights. Like I said in my analogy before, if a hotel refuses females to become patrons in their hotel a policy change would be in order. They'd have to be pressured into forcing women to be allowed to stay in their hotel under the same service and the same rooms. You wouldn't go to the government and demand that they change the definition of a woman to be that of a man so that women can stay in the hotel. Women and men are different and should be called different terms. They're both humans (they're both civil unions, in this case) but they're not the freaking same thing and they shouldn't be called the same.
This is me just freaking out about semantics though. Some take it as separate but equal, and that's their prerogative but I take it as a complete waste of time to focus the efforts on trying to redefine a term rather than focusing on the human rights aspect of it which I can assure you many Christian Conservatives could have a much better time getting behind.
|
On June 24 2013 05:27 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 05:22 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 05:16 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 04:15 Grumbels wrote:On June 24 2013 04:00 koreasilver wrote: Grumbels, you have to be aware but it's actually quite common within NA LGBT communities to actually not want to get married because they want to discard the entire conception of love, sex, and marriage of the Christian tradition that permeates the West. Much of what you two have been going off about is semantics, but I don't think many people know that the issue of same sex marriage is as much of a divisive question within gay communities as it is outside it. So this is one of the main failures of the NA liberals for me - they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face. And when they are met with members of the "oppressed" that don't agree with their liberal agenda to word by word they try to talk their ideology through the mess with hackneyed "psychonalysis". I've had the amusing opportunity of being the rather orthodox Christian arguing for same-sex marriage rights against members of a local LGBT group that wanted to disregard the concep of marriage altogether along with its underlying Christian morals on love and sexuality. It might be bewildering to you, but after my own experiences I just gotta say that anyone who can't understand why a gay individual might not care for gay marriage at all just haven't actually spent their time to become involved with LGBT communities in reality. This isn't to say that I agree with Fruscainte, but your derision to him and threat-mocking him with "psychoanalysis" as if he's a repressed gay man that has internalized oppression just because he disagrees with you like so many gay people would (not as conservatives either, but as radical leftists) shows that you're just like the typical Western liberal. How is this post anything other than psycho analyzing him? He never talked about anything like this. And I'm the 'typical liberal' for not seeing through all this? The funny thing is he's completely right I've never met a single gay male who feels "oppressed" or thinks very separate from me. In fact the only people I see freaking out about how oppressed and repressed we are are straight white male liberals who want to pidgeonhole everyone into their narrow worldview of how things should be. Every single post Korea has made on this page has been 100% correct. Especially: to not wanting a same sex relationship to fall under the rubric of the Christian forms of love, sexuality, and marriage regardless of how secularized it is I'm all for rethinking the way we live our love life, our intimity, our sexuality etc etc. But it's so happens there are some gay people who want to get married. Now, the question is, why should we deny them this right ? Like I said, we're being thrown into an everlasting circle here of semantics or clashing viewpoints. I think "marriage" is a strictly religious term See I don't even have to read what follows. You think that, but it's objectively not true. Marriage is not a purely religious word.
|
Yeah, that's the fundamental part where I disagree with Fuscainte and many of the LGBT people I've met over the years. I think that's a socio-cultural aspect where Christian social conservatives have won out I think, unfortunately. But looking back to Korea and the history of marriage in the Far East neighbours, I just don't buy it. While it may be true that all Western nations uphold a particularly Christian-influenced conception of love and marriage, I don't think one has to capitulate and say that marriage as a whole is intrinsically religious because of it.
|
On June 24 2013 05:30 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 05:27 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 05:22 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 05:16 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 04:15 Grumbels wrote:On June 24 2013 04:00 koreasilver wrote: Grumbels, you have to be aware but it's actually quite common within NA LGBT communities to actually not want to get married because they want to discard the entire conception of love, sex, and marriage of the Christian tradition that permeates the West. Much of what you two have been going off about is semantics, but I don't think many people know that the issue of same sex marriage is as much of a divisive question within gay communities as it is outside it. So this is one of the main failures of the NA liberals for me - they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face. And when they are met with members of the "oppressed" that don't agree with their liberal agenda to word by word they try to talk their ideology through the mess with hackneyed "psychonalysis". I've had the amusing opportunity of being the rather orthodox Christian arguing for same-sex marriage rights against members of a local LGBT group that wanted to disregard the concep of marriage altogether along with its underlying Christian morals on love and sexuality. It might be bewildering to you, but after my own experiences I just gotta say that anyone who can't understand why a gay individual might not care for gay marriage at all just haven't actually spent their time to become involved with LGBT communities in reality. This isn't to say that I agree with Fruscainte, but your derision to him and threat-mocking him with "psychoanalysis" as if he's a repressed gay man that has internalized oppression just because he disagrees with you like so many gay people would (not as conservatives either, but as radical leftists) shows that you're just like the typical Western liberal. How is this post anything other than psycho analyzing him? He never talked about anything like this. And I'm the 'typical liberal' for not seeing through all this? The funny thing is he's completely right I've never met a single gay male who feels "oppressed" or thinks very separate from me. In fact the only people I see freaking out about how oppressed and repressed we are are straight white male liberals who want to pidgeonhole everyone into their narrow worldview of how things should be. Every single post Korea has made on this page has been 100% correct. Especially: to not wanting a same sex relationship to fall under the rubric of the Christian forms of love, sexuality, and marriage regardless of how secularized it is I'm all for rethinking the way we live our love life, our intimity, our sexuality etc etc. But it's so happens there are some gay people who want to get married. Now, the question is, why should we deny them this right ? Like I said, we're being thrown into an everlasting circle here of semantics or clashing viewpoints. I think "marriage" is a strictly religious term See I don't even have to read what follows. You think that, but it's objectively not true. Marriage is not a purely religious word.
Well I'm glad you have the intellectual honesty to give entire post context instead of cherry picking out the first half sentence and working off of that. :|
On June 24 2013 05:36 koreasilver wrote: Yeah, that's the fundamental part where I disagree with Fuscainte and many of the LGBT people I've met over the years. I think that's a socio-cultural aspect where Christian social conservatives have won out I think, unfortunately. But looking back to Korea and the history of marriage in the Far East neighbours, I just don't buy it. While it may be true that all Western nations uphold a particularly Christian-influenced conception of love and marriage, I don't think one has to capitulate and say that marriage as a whole is intrinsically religious because of it.
I suppose I can see where you're coming from. I don't really want to speak on that though as it's not really part of my culture and I have no exposure to that.
|
On June 24 2013 05:36 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 05:30 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 05:27 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 05:22 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 05:16 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 04:15 Grumbels wrote:On June 24 2013 04:00 koreasilver wrote: Grumbels, you have to be aware but it's actually quite common within NA LGBT communities to actually not want to get married because they want to discard the entire conception of love, sex, and marriage of the Christian tradition that permeates the West. Much of what you two have been going off about is semantics, but I don't think many people know that the issue of same sex marriage is as much of a divisive question within gay communities as it is outside it. So this is one of the main failures of the NA liberals for me - they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face. And when they are met with members of the "oppressed" that don't agree with their liberal agenda to word by word they try to talk their ideology through the mess with hackneyed "psychonalysis". I've had the amusing opportunity of being the rather orthodox Christian arguing for same-sex marriage rights against members of a local LGBT group that wanted to disregard the concep of marriage altogether along with its underlying Christian morals on love and sexuality. It might be bewildering to you, but after my own experiences I just gotta say that anyone who can't understand why a gay individual might not care for gay marriage at all just haven't actually spent their time to become involved with LGBT communities in reality. This isn't to say that I agree with Fruscainte, but your derision to him and threat-mocking him with "psychoanalysis" as if he's a repressed gay man that has internalized oppression just because he disagrees with you like so many gay people would (not as conservatives either, but as radical leftists) shows that you're just like the typical Western liberal. How is this post anything other than psycho analyzing him? He never talked about anything like this. And I'm the 'typical liberal' for not seeing through all this? The funny thing is he's completely right I've never met a single gay male who feels "oppressed" or thinks very separate from me. In fact the only people I see freaking out about how oppressed and repressed we are are straight white male liberals who want to pidgeonhole everyone into their narrow worldview of how things should be. Every single post Korea has made on this page has been 100% correct. Especially: to not wanting a same sex relationship to fall under the rubric of the Christian forms of love, sexuality, and marriage regardless of how secularized it is I'm all for rethinking the way we live our love life, our intimity, our sexuality etc etc. But it's so happens there are some gay people who want to get married. Now, the question is, why should we deny them this right ? Like I said, we're being thrown into an everlasting circle here of semantics or clashing viewpoints. I think "marriage" is a strictly religious term See I don't even have to read what follows. You think that, but it's objectively not true. Marriage is not a purely religious word. Well I'm glad you have the intellectual honesty to give entire post context instead of cherry picking out the first half sentence and working off of that. :| I read what followed, that's just rhetorical. But I think that's the crux of your argument. If just accept that you're wrong here (and I have no doubt that you are), and the rest should follow. So I'm arguing against what I think is the crux of your argument. Is that intellectually dishonest ? I also have developped my point of view in several posts above.
|
On June 24 2013 05:16 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 04:15 Grumbels wrote:On June 24 2013 04:00 koreasilver wrote: Grumbels, you have to be aware but it's actually quite common within NA LGBT communities to actually not want to get married because they want to discard the entire conception of love, sex, and marriage of the Christian tradition that permeates the West. Much of what you two have been going off about is semantics, but I don't think many people know that the issue of same sex marriage is as much of a divisive question within gay communities as it is outside it. So this is one of the main failures of the NA liberals for me - they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face. And when they are met with members of the "oppressed" that don't agree with their liberal agenda to word by word they try to talk their ideology through the mess with hackneyed "psychonalysis". I've had the amusing opportunity of being the rather orthodox Christian arguing for same-sex marriage rights against members of a local LGBT group that wanted to disregard the concep of marriage altogether along with its underlying Christian morals on love and sexuality. It might be bewildering to you, but after my own experiences I just gotta say that anyone who can't understand why a gay individual might not care for gay marriage at all just haven't actually spent their time to become involved with LGBT communities in reality. This isn't to say that I agree with Fruscainte, but your derision to him and threat-mocking him with "psychoanalysis" as if he's a repressed gay man that has internalized oppression just because he disagrees with you like so many gay people would (not as conservatives either, but as radical leftists) shows that you're just like the typical Western liberal. How is this post anything other than psycho analyzing him? He never talked about anything like this. And I'm the 'typical liberal' for not seeing through all this? The funny thing is he's completely right I've never met a single gay male who feels "oppressed" or thinks very separate from me. In fact the only people I see freaking out about how oppressed and repressed we are are straight white male liberals who want to pidgeonhole everyone into their narrow worldview of how things should be. Every single post Korea has made on this page has been 100% correct. Especially: Show nested quote + to not wanting a same sex relationship to fall under the rubric of the Christian forms of love, sexuality, and marriage regardless of how secularized it is and Show nested quote +they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face I can't tell you the amount of times in real life someone has acted just like Grumbels. A bunch of liberals talking about gay marriage or oppression or something of that nature and I or a friend of mine pipe up about how we're bisexual/gay/whatever and we don't really give a shit and they instantly turn around being really passive aggressive and patronizing talking about how sorry they feel for us that we're so repressed in our feelings and shit. It's fucking annoying. So you are a member of a minority who is apparently too hipster to really care about such a quaint thing as marriage and therefore you don't wish to spend any political capital on this and you feel okay throwing everyone from your group under the bus, and you justify this by saying 'me and my friends don't really care about this' as if that excuses it. The fact you make it so easy to have yourself be mistaken for someone that's anti-gay is quite telling in that regard.
|
Nice discussion. I enjoyed reading through the thread so far and agree with Fruscainte 100%.
I find all too often what gets lost in the debate of whether or not one supports gay marriage is the actual definition and concept of what marriage is and why the government or any form of legal system needs to acknowledge it in the first place. As Fruscainte has said, marriage for 225 years has been defined as a union between a man and a women, to demand a restructuring of this definition and demand everyone recognize and change their views of the issue purely off of a choice some people make with their personal life is wrong.
A marriage between a man and a women could result in children which is the primary reason the government is involved in marriage in the first place. Sure there are marriages between a man and a women that do not result in children, but a same sex marriage naturally can never result in children. I don't have anything against gay "marriage" as a concept but it is and never will be marriage in terms of ability to produce a child without external means. Changing the definition of marriage just to make a group of people feel better about their personal choices in life seems like it's doing a disrespect to what marriage is all about as it stands and is what I have a problem with, not the people or individuals at all.
I really hate how as soon as anyone stands up for defending the definition of marriage it suddenly gets construed into "How can you be such a hateful bigot? How can you not support gay marriage?" It's the same thing as somebody saying do you support a square circle? You don't because it naturally doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint, and yet when you try to say that you're questioned as to "But how can you be so close minded and hateful towards it?" I don't hate the object itself, I just don't believe in changing my viewpoints to fit in with something that doesn't make sense from a natural standpoint.
square circle argument shamelessly stolen from Ryan Anderson during a fairly recent exchange he had with Piers Morgan on gay marriage, really sums up my thoughts on the subject in a pretty clear and concise way. + Show Spoiler +
|
Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though.
|
On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote: Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though.
I think I've made it quite clear that a man and woman who do not have children should not receive the benefits that it entails, I don't think anyone has not supported that notion in this thread in fact. You keep using this phrase we're "denying them the right to marry" as if it's some evil thing or something. We're not proposing deny anyone the right to anything. They're getting the same exact rights as the rest of us -- their individual freedoms are completely protected. Them not being able to legally call it "marriage" though is not a natural fucking right though that ought to be protected.
The fact remains that a straight couple can bear children and a homosexual couple can not. Heterosexual couples have been for 200,000 years of human history for procreation + love, homosexual relations have been for love. Their definitions should therefore not be made the same.
|
On June 24 2013 06:25 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote: Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. I think I've made it quite clear that a man and woman who do not have children should not receive the benefits that it entails, I don't think anyone has not supported that notion in this thread in fact. You keep using this phrase we're "denying them the right to marry" as if it's some evil thing or something. We're not proposing deny anyone the right to anything. They're getting the same exact rights as the rest of us -- their individual freedoms are completely protected. Them not being able to legally call it "marriage" though is not a natural fucking right though that ought to be protected. The fact remains that a straight couple can bear children and a homosexual couple can not. Heterosexual couples have been for 200,000 years of human history for procreation + love, homosexual relations have been for love. Their definitions should therefore not be made the same. I didn't know gay people were unable to have children, I must have missed that biology class. Is it a gene?
|
United States37500 Posts
On June 24 2013 06:00 LuckyFool wrote:Nice discussion. I enjoyed reading through the thread so far and agree with Fruscainte 100%. I find all too often what gets lost in the debate of whether or not one supports gay marriage is the actual definition and concept of what marriage is and why the government or any form of legal system needs to acknowledge it in the first place. As Fruscainte has said, marriage for 225 years has been defined as a union between a man and a women, to demand a restructuring of this definition and demand everyone recognize and change their views of the issue purely off of a choice some people make with their personal life is wrong. A marriage between a man and a women could result in children which is the primary reason the government is involved in marriage in the first place. Sure there are marriages between a man and a women that do not result in children, but a same sex marriage naturally can never result in children. I don't have anything against gay "marriage" as a concept but it is and never will be marriage in terms of ability to produce a child without external means. Changing the definition of marriage just to make a group of people feel better about their personal choices in life seems like it's doing a disrespect to what marriage is all about as it stands and is what I have a problem with, not the people or individuals at all. I really hate how as soon as anyone stands up for defending the definition of marriage it suddenly gets construed into "How can you be such a hateful bigot? How can you not support gay marriage?" It's the same thing as somebody saying do you support a square circle? You don't because it naturally doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint, and yet when you try to say that you're questioned as to "But how can you be so close minded and hateful towards it?" I don't hate the object itself, I just don't believe in changing my viewpoints to fit in with something that doesn't make sense from a natural standpoint. square circle argument shamelessly stolen from Ryan Anderson during a fairly recent exchange he had with Piers Morgan on gay marriage, really sums up my thoughts on the subject in a pretty clear and concise way. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrk1R-3X9Hc That entire video, Ryan Anderson cannot answer a single direct question. Suze wants to know about all the legal/tax benefits given to a man/woman married couple but not given to a woman/woman union. Ryan goes off to talk about how marriage is important for the sake of children?
The square circle argument is for semantics. Conservatives can keep that term all they want if the same rights and benefits were applied to these so called "civil unions". It's not trying to make homosexual couples feel better about themselves. It's the inequality they suffer compare to heterosexual couples. You really think a gay couple getting married is going to disrespect a man/woman who is already married? "Our marriage is worth less now that that gay couple down the street got married".
|
On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote: Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though.
Just because values and society have changed over the past 60 years doesn't mean the nature of a man and women relationship has changed any on a fundamental or natural level. Children can still result from a marriage as it's currently defined, whether or not the parents choose to prevent having children doesn't change the fundamental principle of procreation and the definition of marriage in a legal sense.
Marriage needs to be clearly defined, otherwise you'll start having two widowed sisters demanding the government recognize their marriage, or someone marrying their dog etc.
|
On June 24 2013 06:25 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote: Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. I think I've made it quite clear that a man and woman who do not have children should not receive the benefits that it entails, I don't think anyone has not supported that notion in this thread in fact. You keep using this phrase we're "denying them the right to marry" as if it's some evil thing or something. We're not proposing deny anyone the right to anything. They're getting the same exact rights as the rest of us -- their individual freedoms are completely protected. Them not being able to legally call it "marriage" is not a natural fucking right though that ought to be protected. No, you don't think the benefits from marriage should be reserved to couple with children. Please. Those includes Rights of visits in hospital, funeral arrengement and so a number of other thing I'm 100% sure you don't want to be only for couple with children. There is a word that design a "civil union" with all the advantage of marriage. It's called marriage. Why, by extending those rights to same sex couples, should we use another world ? If you do that, you're hurting their feelings, and yes, I believe it would be unequal treatment, words do matter. What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? My argument is that it can't be the unability to bear children, because you allow infertile couple to marry. So what is it ?
|
On June 24 2013 06:33 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:25 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote: Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. I think I've made it quite clear that a man and woman who do not have children should not receive the benefits that it entails, I don't think anyone has not supported that notion in this thread in fact. You keep using this phrase we're "denying them the right to marry" as if it's some evil thing or something. We're not proposing deny anyone the right to anything. They're getting the same exact rights as the rest of us -- their individual freedoms are completely protected. Them not being able to legally call it "marriage" though is not a natural fucking right though that ought to be protected. The fact remains that a straight couple can bear children and a homosexual couple can not. Heterosexual couples have been for 200,000 years of human history for procreation + love, homosexual relations have been for love. Their definitions should therefore not be made the same. I didn't know gay people were unable to have children, I must have missed that biology class. Is it a gene?
I don't know why you're being so facetious :|
Also that video was amazing. Lesbian girl started out her argument with a complete insult and just went on a rant saying how ignorant the guy was and the crowd was clearly picked to be full of liberals who supported Piers. Glad we have unbiased reporting there, CNN. Literal Fox News tactics, put a person of opposing view in a crowded room of people on your side and shout them down and make them look stupid.
They just called him unamerican, untolerant, and ignorant and didn't allow him to speak at all and continued saying how he doesnt want gay people to be allowed to love each other. All the guy was saying was that it isn't a Constitutional issue and the Supreme Court has no business legislating it on that note and it should be put up to the democratic process' in each State. If it's such an overwhelming majority like this lady says, it should be cut and dry to vote it in.
|
United States37500 Posts
On June 24 2013 06:34 LuckyFool wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote: Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. Just because values and society have changed over the past 60 years doesn't mean the nature of a man and women relationship has changed any on a fundamental or natural level. Children can still result from a marriage as it's currently defined, whether or not the parents choose to prevent having children doesn't change the fundamental principle of procreation and the definition of marriage in a legal sense. Marriage needs to be clearly defined, otherwise you'll start having two widowed sisters demanding the government recognize their marriage, or someone marrying their dog etc. I never understood this jump of how supporting gay marriage is the gateway to widowed siblings getting married, bestiality, polygamy, etc.
|
frusciante. you keep claiming that the basis of your argument is that the word means nothing etc etc. but yet the only solution and "logic" that you offer is that we need separate words. it's very easy to see why no one here is taking you seriously. you really need to reexamine your life choices. or stop trolling, i cant quite tell for sure yet.
|
On June 24 2013 06:34 LuckyFool wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote: Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. Just because values and society have changed over the past 60 years doesn't mean the nature of a man and women relationship has changed any on a fundamental or natural level. Children can still result from a marriage as it's currently defined, whether or not the parents choose to prevent having children doesn't change the fundamental principle of procreation and the definition of marriage in a legal sense. Marriage needs to be clearly defined, otherwise you'll start having two widowed sisters demanding the government recognize their marriage, or someone marrying their dog etc. The nature of relationship between a man and a woman has changed a lot on a very fondamental level in the past sixty years, I suggest you open a history book. Yes mariage can result in children, but it does not need to, and you don't need it to get children, that's exactly what I'm saying. Yes the fact that a couple has children or not has no implication on their right to marry, that's precisely what I'm saying. That wouldn't change if we allowed gay couples to marry.
As for your second paragraph, it's disgusting. A change in the legal definition of marriage would not mean marriage would suddenly mean nothing, what ? And more importantly the rest is just a slippery slope argument, which not only is completely idiotic, but downright offensive. Gay marriage and bestiality in the same thread, you should be ashamed.
|
On June 24 2013 06:43 balls516 wrote: frusciante. you keep claiming that the basis of your argument is that the word means nothing etc etc. but yet the only solution and "logic" that you offer is that we need separate words. it's very easy to see why no one here is taking you seriously. you really need to reexamine your life choices. or stop trolling, i cant quite tell for sure yet.
The word doesn't mean nothing. The word has a very powerful meaning.
I think focusing on the word is a pointless effort and should be instead trying to make sure everyone has equal rights instead of trying to redefine a word. I can guarantee you Conservatives would be much more behind this if it was a civil rights issue and an equality issue rather than a we want to redefine this word to put gay marriage in there too issue. It's a bit nuanced but it's still a difference.
To the day I die I'll never understand why liberals are so prone to just outright insulting people who disagree with them.
@corum, why is it okay to draw the line at gay marriage but wrong to draw the line at polygamy and straight marriage?
|
On June 24 2013 06:39 NeoIllusions wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:34 LuckyFool wrote:On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote: Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. Just because values and society have changed over the past 60 years doesn't mean the nature of a man and women relationship has changed any on a fundamental or natural level. Children can still result from a marriage as it's currently defined, whether or not the parents choose to prevent having children doesn't change the fundamental principle of procreation and the definition of marriage in a legal sense. Marriage needs to be clearly defined, otherwise you'll start having two widowed sisters demanding the government recognize their marriage, or someone marrying their dog etc. I never understood this jump of how supporting gay marriage is the gateway to widowed siblings getting married, bestiality, polygamy, etc. all of it is arbitrary in some sense. people make that argument thinking it's somehow important to have consistent criteria for marriage, but it's just pick and choose what you like. the slippery slope argument starts from the premise that society has no control over the definition. if people really cared about poly-relationships then I'm all for having poly marriage, if we had intelligent humanoid dogs then yay bestiality. but that's not the case and so basically that will never be the definition of marriage, meanwhile we do have homosexuality which is for all intents and purposes an 'equal' sexual orientation to heterosexuality yet despite that is discriminated against so it makes sense to expand marriage this way.
|
On June 24 2013 06:46 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:43 balls516 wrote: frusciante. you keep claiming that the basis of your argument is that the word means nothing etc etc. but yet the only solution and "logic" that you offer is that we need separate words. it's very easy to see why no one here is taking you seriously. you really need to reexamine your life choices. or stop trolling, i cant quite tell for sure yet. The word doesn't mean nothing. The word has a very powerful meaning. I think focusing on the word is a pointless effort and should be instead trying to make sure everyone has equal rights instead of trying to redefine a word. I can guarantee you Conservatives would be much more behind this if it was a civil rights issue and an equality issue rather than a we want to redefine this word to put gay marriage in there too issue. It's a bit nuanced but it's still a difference. @corum, why is it okay to draw the line at gay marriage but wrong to draw the line at polygamy and straight marriage? Wrong at straight marriage because its a discrimination toward gay couples, wrong at polygamy (you should be ashamed of the argument btw) because polygamy tends to result in exploitive situation. If our society evolve in a way that renders respectuous polygamy possible yada yada yada, I'd probably argue for an extension of marriage. Such evolutions would probably mean the dispute around the world mariage would be senseless by then though. See, i'm not afraid to answer your questions, but it seems some of my aguments makes you uneasy. Easier to attack people with stupid arguments I suppose.
|
On June 24 2013 06:34 NeoIllusions wrote:
That entire video, Ryan Anderson cannot answer a single direct question. Suze wants to know about all the legal/tax benefits given to a man/woman married couple but not given to a woman/woman union. Ryan goes off to talk about how marriage is important for the sake of children?
The square circle argument is for semantics. Conservatives can keep that term all they want if the same rights and benefits were applied to these so called "civil unions". It's not trying to make homosexual couples feel better about themselves. It's the inequality they suffer compare to heterosexual couples. You really think a gay couple getting married is going to disrespect a man/woman who is already married? "Our marriage is worth less now that that gay couple down the street got married".
He can't answer a direct question because gay marriage isn't something you can say you support or don't support unless you change the definition of marriage.
It's really quite sad how liberal mainstream forces uneducated conservatives into a hole this way through such a seemingly simple question. As they say, the one who frames the debate wins the debate...
"Do you support gay marriage?" If the answer is yes you must change your personal definition of marriage, if the answer is no, you are a horrible bigot who hates Suze and isn't for equality. How can a conservative possibly respond to this question? It's important not to get bogged down in rhetoric on a superficial level and address the heart of the issue which really IS the redefinition of what marriage is.
|
On June 24 2013 06:53 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:46 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 06:43 balls516 wrote: frusciante. you keep claiming that the basis of your argument is that the word means nothing etc etc. but yet the only solution and "logic" that you offer is that we need separate words. it's very easy to see why no one here is taking you seriously. you really need to reexamine your life choices. or stop trolling, i cant quite tell for sure yet. The word doesn't mean nothing. The word has a very powerful meaning. I think focusing on the word is a pointless effort and should be instead trying to make sure everyone has equal rights instead of trying to redefine a word. I can guarantee you Conservatives would be much more behind this if it was a civil rights issue and an equality issue rather than a we want to redefine this word to put gay marriage in there too issue. It's a bit nuanced but it's still a difference. @corum, why is it okay to draw the line at gay marriage but wrong to draw the line at polygamy and straight marriage? Wrong at straight marriage because its a discrimination toward gay couples, wrong at polygamy (you should be ashamed of the argument btw) because polygamy tends to result in exploitive situation. If our society evolve in a way that renders respectuous polygamy possible yada yada yada, I'd probably argue for an extension of marriage. Such evolutions would probably mean the dispute around the world mariage would be senseless by then though. See, i'm not afraid to answer your questions, but it seems some of my aguments makes you uneasy. Easier to attack people with stupid arguments I suppose.
I like how you sneak in how I should be ashamed every post for holding an opinion different than you. Fantastic argumentative tactic of dehumanizing and putting yourself above your opponent, but unfortunately holds no weight.
How is saying gays can't be legally married discrimination? They can still get the same federally recognized rights as the rest of us for being in a civil union. The only argument I've seen in response to this in this thread is "union sounds so depressing" and "you should feel ashamed of yourself"
Curious, how many gay people/couples have you actually talked to face to face about these issues?
|
United States37500 Posts
Alright, after giving this some thought in the shower, this is what I've come up with. (damn you haji, I usually don't wallow on such issues, I just stick to my own beliefs.)
Gays want to be married because they love each other but also because there are a lot of legal benefits. From a few seconds on Google, I found that married couples benefit from: - filing joint income tax - social security and retirement benefits - health insurance - death benefits/funeral arrangements - etc
Now if your argument is solely on the sanctity of "marriage", you should be trying your damnedest to get gay couple the benefits listed above. It would be the quickest and essentially a surefire way to "protect marriage between man and woman" while not discriminating others in society. I'm sure not all gays would be happy with the semantics of "marriage" (they'd have to call their relationship a "civil union" as to not displease conservative parties), I strongly believe that is the main issue (the inequality). While they don't need a sheet of paper declaring their relationship valid, gays currently are at a disadvantage from a legal/social standpoint.
So ask yourself this, are you ok with gay couples getting the benefits I listed above? If you say yes and you still don't want them to get married, then ok. I actually trust that you're defending the conservative definition of marriage. If you don't want gays to get married and don't want to give them rights, then it's obviously nothing to do with marriage in the first place. You simply don't like homosexuality.
Edit:
On June 24 2013 06:58 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:53 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 06:46 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 06:43 balls516 wrote: frusciante. you keep claiming that the basis of your argument is that the word means nothing etc etc. but yet the only solution and "logic" that you offer is that we need separate words. it's very easy to see why no one here is taking you seriously. you really need to reexamine your life choices. or stop trolling, i cant quite tell for sure yet. The word doesn't mean nothing. The word has a very powerful meaning. I think focusing on the word is a pointless effort and should be instead trying to make sure everyone has equal rights instead of trying to redefine a word. I can guarantee you Conservatives would be much more behind this if it was a civil rights issue and an equality issue rather than a we want to redefine this word to put gay marriage in there too issue. It's a bit nuanced but it's still a difference. @corum, why is it okay to draw the line at gay marriage but wrong to draw the line at polygamy and straight marriage? Wrong at straight marriage because its a discrimination toward gay couples, wrong at polygamy (you should be ashamed of the argument btw) because polygamy tends to result in exploitive situation. If our society evolve in a way that renders respectuous polygamy possible yada yada yada, I'd probably argue for an extension of marriage. Such evolutions would probably mean the dispute around the world mariage would be senseless by then though. See, i'm not afraid to answer your questions, but it seems some of my aguments makes you uneasy. Easier to attack people with stupid arguments I suppose. I like how you sneak in how I should be ashamed every post for holding an opinion different than you. Fantastic argumentative tactic of dehumanizing and putting yourself above your opponent, but unfortunately holds no weight. How is saying gays can't be legally married discrimination? They can still get the same federally recognized rights as the rest of us for being in a civil union. The only argument I've seen in response to this in this thread is "union sounds so depressing" and "you should feel ashamed of yourself" Curious, how many gay people/couples have you actually talked to face to face about these issues? They don't get the same federally recognized rights... that's a big point.
|
Interesting how you take such careful consideration upon the political nature of this controversial topic. I say that because politicians, whether they support it or not, support it for their own motives and not nesecarily for the wellfare of the people. For example, someone who is opposed to gay marriage might simply trying to be seen as more popular upon their target voting group compared to someone tryign to reach out to the target groups that support gay marraige.
I am a humanitarian at heart, and I support gay marriage. I come from a conservative christian background too, but that background has just showed me how flawed those beliefs can truly be and that I can't take anything for granted
edit: There used to be a time when it was frowned upon when a black man married a white woman, and now a couple hundred years later, same sex marriage is now the topic in the spotlight, although same sex relationships have, although on a more secretive basis, have been around for centuries
|
It's funny how most of the supporters of gay marriage automatically assume that they are talking to ignorant bigots when someone says they are not in favor of gay marriage.
Im reading some good arguments from both sides and so think it is a debatable issue but one side is definitely more aggressive than the other
|
On June 24 2013 06:58 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:53 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 06:46 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 06:43 balls516 wrote: frusciante. you keep claiming that the basis of your argument is that the word means nothing etc etc. but yet the only solution and "logic" that you offer is that we need separate words. it's very easy to see why no one here is taking you seriously. you really need to reexamine your life choices. or stop trolling, i cant quite tell for sure yet. The word doesn't mean nothing. The word has a very powerful meaning. I think focusing on the word is a pointless effort and should be instead trying to make sure everyone has equal rights instead of trying to redefine a word. I can guarantee you Conservatives would be much more behind this if it was a civil rights issue and an equality issue rather than a we want to redefine this word to put gay marriage in there too issue. It's a bit nuanced but it's still a difference. @corum, why is it okay to draw the line at gay marriage but wrong to draw the line at polygamy and straight marriage? Wrong at straight marriage because its a discrimination toward gay couples, wrong at polygamy (you should be ashamed of the argument btw) because polygamy tends to result in exploitive situation. If our society evolve in a way that renders respectuous polygamy possible yada yada yada, I'd probably argue for an extension of marriage. Such evolutions would probably mean the dispute around the world mariage would be senseless by then though. See, i'm not afraid to answer your questions, but it seems some of my aguments makes you uneasy. Easier to attack people with stupid arguments I suppose. I like how you sneak in how I should be ashamed every post for holding an opinion different than you. Fantastic argumentative tactic of dehumanizing and putting yourself above your opponent, but unfortunately holds no weight. How is saying gays can't be legally married discrimination? They can still get the same federally recognized rights as the rest of us for being in a civil union. The only argument I've seen in response to this in this thread is "union sounds so depressing" and "you should feel ashamed of yourself" Curious, how many gay people/couples have you actually talked to face to face about these issues? The you should be ashamed of yourself was aimed at a very specific argument you used, which contrary to all your other ones was downright stupid. Personnally I can't think of a single argument why we shouldn't use the world marriage that has hold itself through this debate. I'd love you to answer this one question in particular :
What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? If you can't answer that, you're being discriminatory in my eyes.
And lol at the ad hominem. I don't know if you read the news, but France recently changed its law to allow same sex marriage, which resulted in a huge debate. Funnily enough, every gay I know (and I know quite a few) agreed with the law. On a larger scale, it was pretty clear from the debates that there were some gay that disagreed with the law, more or less for the same reasons as you do. They were also a clear minority. I live in a country were marriage's meaning has undergone the very change you're fighting. We're doing fine, thank you.
|
On June 23 2013 19:48 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2013 19:28 Catch]22 wrote:Isn't it part of the american separation of church and state that the state cannot FORCE the church to redefine marriage? If the church has one definition, which is that it is between a man and a woman, can the US state legislate to force the church to accept gay marriage? Or does a state allowing gay marriage still require a non mainstream church to marry the couple? I guess you have a bunch of churches tho', not a state one like we do The state wouldn't NEED to force Church to redefine marriage if the term marriage was never in the state legislation to begin with. The religions can just do whatever they like, their opinion wouldn't matter. If what we know as "marriage" was simply defined as something like an union between two consenting adult citizens with a set of benefits and specific treatment, there would never have been any obstacles to homosexual couples. However, if you borrow the term and definition of marriage, you not only have an archaic term and definition that can't stand the test of time, but you also empower the religion to be the moral authority on the subject and judge what can and can't be a marriage in the future. The government can't force the Church to marry gay couples anyway. The problem is that the Church has it's own definition of marriage, and the government has it's own one. The government wants to change their one to include gay couples. The church doesn't like it having the same name as their one while being different.
The problem is that we've come to adopt this religious term as the basis for what constitutes a complete "civil union" regardless of whether there is any religious aspect to it.
|
On June 23 2013 18:51 Talin wrote: I've always had the opinion that legally, all partnerships of the sort, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should be treated as a civil union. The term marriage should not be recognized by law or used anywhere in an official context.
If people want to feel that they're married, or engage in related customs and rituals of any culture or religion, that is entirely up to them, it's their own private thing.
I think this is pretty much correct.
|
On June 24 2013 06:37 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:25 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote: Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. I think I've made it quite clear that a man and woman who do not have children should not receive the benefits that it entails, I don't think anyone has not supported that notion in this thread in fact. You keep using this phrase we're "denying them the right to marry" as if it's some evil thing or something. We're not proposing deny anyone the right to anything. They're getting the same exact rights as the rest of us -- their individual freedoms are completely protected. Them not being able to legally call it "marriage" is not a natural fucking right though that ought to be protected. No, you don't think the benefits from marriage should be reserved to couple with children. Please. Those includes Rights of visits in hospital, funeral arrengement and so a number of other thing I'm 100% sure you don't want to be only for couple with children. There is a word that design a "civil union" with all the advantage of marriage. It's called marriage. Why, by extending those rights to same sex couples, should we use another world ? If you do that, you're hurting their feelings, and yes, I believe it would be unequal treatment, words do matter. What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? My argument is that it can't be the unability to bear children, because you allow infertile couple to marry. So what is it ?
What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? The difference between same sex couples and hetero couples is this: the former consists of two people of the same sex, and the latter consists of two people of the opposite sex. The word should be different because the word "marriage" includes a variety of connotations that it is sapped of when it is applied to same sex unions. Calling gay unions "marriages" would amount to nothing less than an intentional destruction of tradition, an eradication of the fundamental sources the institution is based upon. A marriage is simply not the same thing as a contract entered between two people that entitles them to this that and the other thing. The legal appropriation of the term marriage is not the definition of that term. Gay people can (theoretically) do the thing that the state recognizes as marriage, but what the state recognizes as marriage is in no way what is in truth a marriage.
Consider another legal definition of something, say "drunk driving." Now in many states, "drunk driving" is defined as: "Operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of over 0.08." This definition serves to inform all legal processes that surround drunk driving: arrest, prosecution, whatever. But does that mean that all behavior about drunk driving is based on this definition? Well, of course not! I can be upset at someone who was driving by a school in midday with a BAC of 0.07 and rightly say he was driving drunk, and I can say that someone sitting in a car in neutral with the engine on with a BAC of .10 was not really driving drunk.
And it's similar with marriage. Legally, a marriage is a kind of contract that entitles you to certain benefits and gives you certain obligations. But does this mean that that's all a marriage is? Of course not. People can say they are "pretty much married" even though no contract is in sight, and they can refer to people with whom they still have a binding legal contract as their ex-wife (as many people do in the processes of divorce).
So how does this turn out in the case of same sex marriage? It makes it clear that a capacity to enter into the same kind of legal contract does not amount to a general equality of the term. That is, even if gay people could enter civil unions, this doesn't mean they are married. Now the argument that the natural usage of the term is separated from the legal usage in such a way that same sex unions would not count is separate, but it isn't terribly hard to construct a plausible version. I'll construct a couple for you now.
Marriages have historically been between men and women, and this fact was integral to their nature. That is to say, what was essential to a marriage (in the history and tradition of the term) was tied up with the participants being of the two opposite genders. What is essential to a marriage could be variously interpreted (union of two families, production of children, a commanding husband and an obeying wife), but surely the historical notion of a same sex marriage is strange. I cannot, for instance, imagine what a medieval marriage between two men would even mean.
Marriages have historically been between men and women, and the differences between the two sexes and the real contour of the relationship have come to be integral in defining what a marriage really is. That is, a marriage plays out differently than just a legal contract to the same effect between two men does. And this is easy to establish as long as you think there are defining behavioral differences between men and women (note that these differences don't have to be inborn).
I personally don't see why we should call what homosexuals do when they enter a civil union together marriage, nor why we should call what similar-minded heterosexuals do marriage. Modern day homosexuals (and fancy-pants liberals, I'd like to say) simply aren't doing anything similar to what e.g. Henry VII was doing.
|
You're a cool dude haji and I always enjoy your blogs. That's all
|
Kinda describes my opinions on it. Gay people definitely deserve their right to marriage, doesn't mean I don't think its creepy as fuck.
|
On June 24 2013 12:03 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:37 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 06:25 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote: Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. I think I've made it quite clear that a man and woman who do not have children should not receive the benefits that it entails, I don't think anyone has not supported that notion in this thread in fact. You keep using this phrase we're "denying them the right to marry" as if it's some evil thing or something. We're not proposing deny anyone the right to anything. They're getting the same exact rights as the rest of us -- their individual freedoms are completely protected. Them not being able to legally call it "marriage" is not a natural fucking right though that ought to be protected. No, you don't think the benefits from marriage should be reserved to couple with children. Please. Those includes Rights of visits in hospital, funeral arrengement and so a number of other thing I'm 100% sure you don't want to be only for couple with children. There is a word that design a "civil union" with all the advantage of marriage. It's called marriage. Why, by extending those rights to same sex couples, should we use another world ? If you do that, you're hurting their feelings, and yes, I believe it would be unequal treatment, words do matter. What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? My argument is that it can't be the unability to bear children, because you allow infertile couple to marry. So what is it ? Show nested quote +What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? The difference between same sex couples and hetero couples is this: the former consists of two people of the same sex, and the latter consists of two people of the opposite sex. The word should be different because the word "marriage" includes a variety of connotations that it is sapped of when it is applied to same sex unions. Calling gay unions "marriages" would amount to nothing less than an intentional destruction of tradition, an eradication of the fundamental sources the institution is based upon. A marriage is simply not the same thing as a contract entered between two people that entitles them to this that and the other thing. The legal appropriation of the term marriage is not the definition of that term. Gay people can (theoretically) do the thing that the state recognizes as marriage, but what the state recognizes as marriage is in no way what is in truth a marriage. Consider another legal definition of something, say "drunk driving." Now in many states, "drunk driving" is defined as: "Operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of over 0.08." This definition serves to inform all legal processes that surround drunk driving: arrest, prosecution, whatever. But does that mean that all behavior about drunk driving is based on this definition? Well, of course not! I can be upset at someone who was driving by a school in midday with a BAC of 0.07 and rightly say he was driving drunk, and I can say that someone sitting in a car in neutral with the engine on with a BAC of .10 was not really driving drunk. And it's similar with marriage. Legally, a marriage is a kind of contract that entitles you to certain benefits and gives you certain obligations. But does this mean that that's all a marriage is? Of course not. People can say they are "pretty much married" even though no contract is in sight, and they can refer to people with whom they still have a binding legal contract as their ex-wife (as many people do in the processes of divorce). So how does this turn out in the case of same sex marriage? It makes it clear that a capacity to enter into the same kind of legal contract does not amount to a general equality of the term. That is, even if gay people could enter civil unions, this doesn't mean they are married. Now the argument that the natural usage of the term is separated from the legal usage in such a way that same sex unions would not count is separate, but it isn't terribly hard to construct a plausible version. I'll construct a couple for you now. Marriages have historically been between men and women, and this fact was integral to their nature. That is to say, what was essential to a marriage (in the history and tradition of the term) was tied up with the participants being of the two opposite genders. What is essential to a marriage could be variously interpreted (union of two families, production of children, a commanding husband and an obeying wife), but surely the historical notion of a same sex marriage is strange. I cannot, for instance, imagine what a medieval marriage between two men would even mean. Marriages have historically been between men and women, and the differences between the two sexes and the real contour of the relationship have come to be integral in defining what a marriage really is. That is, a marriage plays out differently than just a legal contract to the same effect between two men does. And this is easy to establish as long as you think there are defining behavioral differences between men and women (note that these differences don't have to be inborn). I personally don't see why we should call what homosexuals do when they enter a civil union together marriage, nor why we should call what similar-minded heterosexuals do marriage. Modern day homosexuals (and fancy-pants liberals, I'd like to say) simply aren't doing anything similar to what e.g. Henry VII was doing. The counter argument is pretty simple : -the world has historically been homophobic, hence why gay couldn't marry, now that we're doing better, why should we forbid them this access ? Especially, as you will note, the notion of marriage and what it entails has evolved a lot since we started to use the word. -you claim that same sex marriage would undermine what marriage mean. My opinion is that the only thing that would change would be that same-sex couple could marry. Mind telling me what else is undermined ? Finally, it's pretty clear you believe marriage is an important word with strong connotations. Good. It's exactly why (some-most) homosexuals want to be able to use the term, so that their union means exactly the same as the union of a man and a woman. Why do you deny them this right ? Because historically we have been bigoted, and we wouldn't want the world to change ?
|
On June 24 2013 12:50 Coriolis wrote: Kinda describes my opinions on it. Gay people definitely deserve their right to marriage, doesn't mean I don't think its creepy as fuck. You and I share similar thoughts lol. I support their right to marry and adopt children, I actually support anyone trying to adopt a child because they choose to do it. Many people are "stuck" with raising a child and it's just sad Although gay anything is just weird to me only because it's not familiar.
Even really young I was never opposed to it. I always saw it as "why the fuck can't they....?"
|
I think people need to stop using the term marriage. Marriage generally is a two part deal. 1 - civil union - family in front of the law 2 - religious ceremony - family in front of god
The second part is impossible to enforce by law. State cannot force the church to perform one of their most sacred rites for something they don't want to.
The first part on the other hand ... It's beneficial for a state and there's nothing objective preventing it. Maybe losing votes. But apparently nobody wants to make the distinction between the two above because some of the people opposing would lose reasons to oppose.
|
On June 24 2013 12:03 Lixler wrote:The difference between same sex couples and hetero couples is this: the former consists of two people of the same sex, and the latter consists of two people of the opposite sex. + Show Spoiler [arguing semantics] + The word should be different because the word "marriage" includes a variety of connotations that it is sapped of when it is applied to same sex unions. Calling gay unions "marriages" would amount to nothing less than an intentional destruction of tradition, an eradication of the fundamental sources the institution is based upon. A marriage is simply not the same thing as a contract entered between two people that entitles them to this that and the other thing. The legal appropriation of the term marriage is not the definition of that term. Gay people can (theoretically) do the thing that the state recognizes as marriage, but what the state recognizes as marriage is in no way what is in truth a marriage.
Consider another legal definition of something, say "drunk driving." Now in many states, "drunk driving" is defined as: "Operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of over 0.08." This definition serves to inform all legal processes that surround drunk driving: arrest, prosecution, whatever. But does that mean that all behavior about drunk driving is based on this definition? Well, of course not! I can be upset at someone who was driving by a school in midday with a BAC of 0.07 and rightly say he was driving drunk, and I can say that someone sitting in a car in neutral with the engine on with a BAC of .10 was not really driving drunk.
And it's similar with marriage. Legally, a marriage is a kind of contract that entitles you to certain benefits and gives you certain obligations. But does this mean that that's all a marriage is? Of course not. People can say they are "pretty much married" even though no contract is in sight, and they can refer to people with whom they still have a binding legal contract as their ex-wife (as many people do in the processes of divorce).
So how does this turn out in the case of same sex marriage? It makes it clear that a capacity to enter into the same kind of legal contract does not amount to a general equality of the term. That is, even if gay people could enter civil unions, this doesn't mean they are married. Now the argument that the natural usage of the term is separated from the legal usage in such a way that same sex unions would not count is separate, but it isn't terribly hard to construct a plausible version. I'll construct a couple for you now.
Marriages have historically been between men and women, and this fact was integral to their nature. That is to say, what was essential to a marriage (in the history and tradition of the term) was tied up with the participants being of the two opposite genders. What is essential to a marriage could be variously interpreted (union of two families, production of children, a commanding husband and an obeying wife), but surely the historical notion of a same sex marriage is strange. I cannot, for instance, imagine what a medieval marriage between two men would even mean.
Marriages have historically been between men and women, and the differences between the two sexes and the real contour of the relationship have come to be integral in defining what a marriage really is. That is, a marriage plays out differently than just a legal contract to the same effect between two men does. And this is easy to establish as long as you think there are defining behavioral differences between men and women (note that these differences don't have to be inborn).
I personally don't see why we should call what homosexuals do when they enter a civil union together marriage, nor why we should call what similar-minded heterosexuals do marriage. Modern day homosexuals (and fancy-pants liberals, I'd like to say) simply aren't doing anything similar to what e.g. Henry VII was doing.
Mind = blown! + Show Spoiler [semantics] +This isn't the first time the legal and traditional ideas of marriage have butted heads. Marriage was once a life long committment...
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
Maybe we should get rid of the term 'marriage' altogether if people are so hung up on terms with outdated connotations. Or, we could just accept that definitions change with the times, just like how religious institutions adopted marriage and brought it under their umbrella, and move on without all the fuss.
|
On June 24 2013 15:26 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 12:03 Lixler wrote:On June 24 2013 06:37 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 06:25 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote: Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. I think I've made it quite clear that a man and woman who do not have children should not receive the benefits that it entails, I don't think anyone has not supported that notion in this thread in fact. You keep using this phrase we're "denying them the right to marry" as if it's some evil thing or something. We're not proposing deny anyone the right to anything. They're getting the same exact rights as the rest of us -- their individual freedoms are completely protected. Them not being able to legally call it "marriage" is not a natural fucking right though that ought to be protected. No, you don't think the benefits from marriage should be reserved to couple with children. Please. Those includes Rights of visits in hospital, funeral arrengement and so a number of other thing I'm 100% sure you don't want to be only for couple with children. There is a word that design a "civil union" with all the advantage of marriage. It's called marriage. Why, by extending those rights to same sex couples, should we use another world ? If you do that, you're hurting their feelings, and yes, I believe it would be unequal treatment, words do matter. What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? My argument is that it can't be the unability to bear children, because you allow infertile couple to marry. So what is it ? What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? The difference between same sex couples and hetero couples is this: the former consists of two people of the same sex, and the latter consists of two people of the opposite sex. The word should be different because the word "marriage" includes a variety of connotations that it is sapped of when it is applied to same sex unions. Calling gay unions "marriages" would amount to nothing less than an intentional destruction of tradition, an eradication of the fundamental sources the institution is based upon. A marriage is simply not the same thing as a contract entered between two people that entitles them to this that and the other thing. The legal appropriation of the term marriage is not the definition of that term. Gay people can (theoretically) do the thing that the state recognizes as marriage, but what the state recognizes as marriage is in no way what is in truth a marriage. Consider another legal definition of something, say "drunk driving." Now in many states, "drunk driving" is defined as: "Operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of over 0.08." This definition serves to inform all legal processes that surround drunk driving: arrest, prosecution, whatever. But does that mean that all behavior about drunk driving is based on this definition? Well, of course not! I can be upset at someone who was driving by a school in midday with a BAC of 0.07 and rightly say he was driving drunk, and I can say that someone sitting in a car in neutral with the engine on with a BAC of .10 was not really driving drunk. And it's similar with marriage. Legally, a marriage is a kind of contract that entitles you to certain benefits and gives you certain obligations. But does this mean that that's all a marriage is? Of course not. People can say they are "pretty much married" even though no contract is in sight, and they can refer to people with whom they still have a binding legal contract as their ex-wife (as many people do in the processes of divorce). So how does this turn out in the case of same sex marriage? It makes it clear that a capacity to enter into the same kind of legal contract does not amount to a general equality of the term. That is, even if gay people could enter civil unions, this doesn't mean they are married. Now the argument that the natural usage of the term is separated from the legal usage in such a way that same sex unions would not count is separate, but it isn't terribly hard to construct a plausible version. I'll construct a couple for you now. Marriages have historically been between men and women, and this fact was integral to their nature. That is to say, what was essential to a marriage (in the history and tradition of the term) was tied up with the participants being of the two opposite genders. What is essential to a marriage could be variously interpreted (union of two families, production of children, a commanding husband and an obeying wife), but surely the historical notion of a same sex marriage is strange. I cannot, for instance, imagine what a medieval marriage between two men would even mean. Marriages have historically been between men and women, and the differences between the two sexes and the real contour of the relationship have come to be integral in defining what a marriage really is. That is, a marriage plays out differently than just a legal contract to the same effect between two men does. And this is easy to establish as long as you think there are defining behavioral differences between men and women (note that these differences don't have to be inborn). I personally don't see why we should call what homosexuals do when they enter a civil union together marriage, nor why we should call what similar-minded heterosexuals do marriage. Modern day homosexuals (and fancy-pants liberals, I'd like to say) simply aren't doing anything similar to what e.g. Henry VII was doing. The counter argument is pretty simple : -the world has historically been homophobic, hence why gay couldn't marry, now that we're doing better, why should we forbid them this access ? Especially, as you will note, the notion of marriage and what it entails has evolved a lot since we started to use the word. -you claim that same sex marriage would undermine what marriage mean. My opinion is that the only thing that would change would be that same-sex couple could marry. Mind telling me what else is undermined ? Finally, it's pretty clear you believe marriage is an important word with strong connotations. Good. It's exactly why (some-most) homosexuals want to be able to use the term, so that their union means exactly the same as the union of a man and a woman. Why do you deny them this right ? Because historically we have been bigoted, and we wouldn't want the world to change ? Same sex unions were not called marriage in the past not because we were homophobic (even though we were), but rather because two members of the same sex could not play the same roles, so to speak, as two members of the opposite sex. A marriage depended on being a union of two different sorts of people, namely one man and one woman, because of a variety of surrounding social factors (the dowry is attached to the female, the woman becomes a member of the other family, etc). Just because we're less homophobic (which, by the way, you have not proven) doesn't mean that we need think that men and women serve the exact same functions socially.
Same sex marriage would not undermine what marriage means. Using the word "marriage" to describe same sex unions would do that, because same sex unions are of a qualitatively different sort than opposite sex ones. For instance, same sex unions cannot produce children through sexual intercourse. For better or worse, reproductive sexual intercourse has been historically tied up with marriage (blah blah). This would have to be ruled out as an essential feature of marriage if same sex unions were called marriage. In fact, most features except for the stark legal ones would no longer play in. (Note, by the way, that this has already happened. Everyone uses the term gay marriage as if it was a real thing, and so marriage has been sapped of its better qualities)
I don't want to deny homosexuals the right to call their unions marriage. I don't want them to do so, but I don't want to make it illegal or anything for them to do that. I don't want them to do it because it contributes to a leveling down of Western tradition into a set of practices that aim at nothing but maximization of pleasure (and pleasure poorly conceived, at that).
On June 24 2013 20:41 DusTerr wrote:Mind = blown! + Show Spoiler [semantics] +This isn't the first time the legal and traditional ideas of marriage have butted heads. Marriage was once a life long committment... You're right, the definitions are often in conflict with each other. I favor the traditional idea in this conflict for a variety of reasons. What are you trying to say?
|
On June 24 2013 22:28 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 15:26 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 12:03 Lixler wrote:On June 24 2013 06:37 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 06:25 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote: Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. I think I've made it quite clear that a man and woman who do not have children should not receive the benefits that it entails, I don't think anyone has not supported that notion in this thread in fact. You keep using this phrase we're "denying them the right to marry" as if it's some evil thing or something. We're not proposing deny anyone the right to anything. They're getting the same exact rights as the rest of us -- their individual freedoms are completely protected. Them not being able to legally call it "marriage" is not a natural fucking right though that ought to be protected. No, you don't think the benefits from marriage should be reserved to couple with children. Please. Those includes Rights of visits in hospital, funeral arrengement and so a number of other thing I'm 100% sure you don't want to be only for couple with children. There is a word that design a "civil union" with all the advantage of marriage. It's called marriage. Why, by extending those rights to same sex couples, should we use another world ? If you do that, you're hurting their feelings, and yes, I believe it would be unequal treatment, words do matter. What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? My argument is that it can't be the unability to bear children, because you allow infertile couple to marry. So what is it ? What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? The difference between same sex couples and hetero couples is this: the former consists of two people of the same sex, and the latter consists of two people of the opposite sex. The word should be different because the word "marriage" includes a variety of connotations that it is sapped of when it is applied to same sex unions. Calling gay unions "marriages" would amount to nothing less than an intentional destruction of tradition, an eradication of the fundamental sources the institution is based upon. A marriage is simply not the same thing as a contract entered between two people that entitles them to this that and the other thing. The legal appropriation of the term marriage is not the definition of that term. Gay people can (theoretically) do the thing that the state recognizes as marriage, but what the state recognizes as marriage is in no way what is in truth a marriage. Consider another legal definition of something, say "drunk driving." Now in many states, "drunk driving" is defined as: "Operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of over 0.08." This definition serves to inform all legal processes that surround drunk driving: arrest, prosecution, whatever. But does that mean that all behavior about drunk driving is based on this definition? Well, of course not! I can be upset at someone who was driving by a school in midday with a BAC of 0.07 and rightly say he was driving drunk, and I can say that someone sitting in a car in neutral with the engine on with a BAC of .10 was not really driving drunk. And it's similar with marriage. Legally, a marriage is a kind of contract that entitles you to certain benefits and gives you certain obligations. But does this mean that that's all a marriage is? Of course not. People can say they are "pretty much married" even though no contract is in sight, and they can refer to people with whom they still have a binding legal contract as their ex-wife (as many people do in the processes of divorce). So how does this turn out in the case of same sex marriage? It makes it clear that a capacity to enter into the same kind of legal contract does not amount to a general equality of the term. That is, even if gay people could enter civil unions, this doesn't mean they are married. Now the argument that the natural usage of the term is separated from the legal usage in such a way that same sex unions would not count is separate, but it isn't terribly hard to construct a plausible version. I'll construct a couple for you now. Marriages have historically been between men and women, and this fact was integral to their nature. That is to say, what was essential to a marriage (in the history and tradition of the term) was tied up with the participants being of the two opposite genders. What is essential to a marriage could be variously interpreted (union of two families, production of children, a commanding husband and an obeying wife), but surely the historical notion of a same sex marriage is strange. I cannot, for instance, imagine what a medieval marriage between two men would even mean. Marriages have historically been between men and women, and the differences between the two sexes and the real contour of the relationship have come to be integral in defining what a marriage really is. That is, a marriage plays out differently than just a legal contract to the same effect between two men does. And this is easy to establish as long as you think there are defining behavioral differences between men and women (note that these differences don't have to be inborn). I personally don't see why we should call what homosexuals do when they enter a civil union together marriage, nor why we should call what similar-minded heterosexuals do marriage. Modern day homosexuals (and fancy-pants liberals, I'd like to say) simply aren't doing anything similar to what e.g. Henry VII was doing. The counter argument is pretty simple : -the world has historically been homophobic, hence why gay couldn't marry, now that we're doing better, why should we forbid them this access ? Especially, as you will note, the notion of marriage and what it entails has evolved a lot since we started to use the word. -you claim that same sex marriage would undermine what marriage mean. My opinion is that the only thing that would change would be that same-sex couple could marry. Mind telling me what else is undermined ? Finally, it's pretty clear you believe marriage is an important word with strong connotations. Good. It's exactly why (some-most) homosexuals want to be able to use the term, so that their union means exactly the same as the union of a man and a woman. Why do you deny them this right ? Because historically we have been bigoted, and we wouldn't want the world to change ? Same sex unions were not called marriage in the past not because we were homophobic (even though we were), but rather because two members of the same sex could not play the same roles, so to speak, as two members of the opposite sex. A marriage depended on being a union of two different sorts of people, namely one man and one woman, because of a variety of surrounding social factors (the dowry is attached to the female, the woman becomes a member of the other family, etc). Just because we're less homophobic (which, by the way, you have not proven) doesn't mean that we need think that men and women serve the exact same functions socially. I don't get it, you're talking about an institution of marriage that has nothing to do with what marriage have been for many years. Dowry was very dependant on local tradition. Thank god, we're not saying woman change family when they marry anymore, as they're no longer under the authority of their husband. All those things have disappeared, how can they pose any problem toward gay marriage. And do I need any proof that our western societies we are less homophobic now ? Maybe the fact that almost noone considers it a disease anymore is a little clue.
Same sex marriage would not undermine what marriage means. Using the word "marriage" to describe same sex unions would do that, because same sex unions are of a qualitatively different sort than opposite sex ones. For instance, same sex unions cannot produce children through sexual intercourse. For better or worse, reproductive sexual intercourse has been historically tied up with marriage (blah blah). This would have to be ruled out as an essential feature of marriage if same sex unions were called marriage. In fact, most features except for the stark legal ones would no longer play in. (Note, by the way, that this has already happened. Everyone uses the term gay marriage as if it was a real thing, and so marriage has been sapped of its better qualities)
I don't want to deny homosexuals the right to call their unions marriage. I don't want them to do so, but I don't want to make it illegal or anything for them to do that. I don't want them to do it because it contributes to a leveling down of Western tradition into a set of practices that aim at nothing but maximization of pleasure (and pleasure poorly conceived, at that).
So i have to ask once again, have we ever forbidden infertile couple to marry ? And what are those qualities you're talking about that are being sapped by the use of the term gay marriage ? Name one, I need a good laugh. Gay marriage is a real thing in 13 countries last I checked btw. No sign of the apocalypse from my window.
|
I just wish the religious would stop trying to own everyone's marriages and mind their own. If you don't think marriage is between same-sex couples, don't marry someone of the same sex. It's not tricky. I actually don't know a single married couple who're both religious amongst my friends and family and yet I know plenty of married people. Interesting, isn't it?
Leave secular marriage to everyone else, and stick to your own exclusion principles on your own time. The only constraint on gay marriage should be that no religious organisation should be forced to hold such a ceremony, but even then the marriage is the paper work (which isn't always done in a church already), the ceremony is just for show. There is, at least in the UK, already barely such a thing as a religious marriage.
|
if you allow for gay marriage, I don't really see the problem with allowing polygamy marriages and sex with animals either (as long as the animal is consenting. Might have to wait for your dog to hump you). It is not the small financial benefit that made marriage what it is, it is the religious/social aspect of it. I don't really care if religion "stole" marriage, over so many years it has formed what marriage is, and made it something special (and the legal side was mostly just a note for the government for the formal stuff such as family name). Take away the religion and you are left with a short work to a bureaucrat and some financial benefits (as long as you don't divorce). No vows in front of all friends, family and god, no holy ceremony. Maybe a short dinner to celebrate the paperwork being done, just like you do when divorce papers come in, but that's it. Might as well allow for a contract between three or more consenting adults then.
I am all for introducing a non-religious marriage, for BOTH same-sex and hetero marriages. You would still be able to marry via the church, but also without the church, and it would be called different. Make a difference between a legal union and a religious union in how it is called. This would be much more fair than just to rob the church of what they formed for the sake of being flavour of the decade intolerant tolerant. You might not know them, but there are still many people out there who hold religion and its rituals in high regards, and you would be screwing them by overruling one of their most sacred rituals. Even if it might maybe have been stolend a couple thousand years ago.
|
On June 24 2013 21:39 Telcontar wrote: Maybe we should get rid of the term 'marriage' altogether if people are so hung up on terms with outdated connotations. Or, we could just accept that definitions change with the times, just like how religious institutions adopted marriage and brought it under their umbrella, and move on without all the fuss. If this were possible... I long thought this would the simple solution. Unfortunately if we try to take away "marriage" as a legal term the same people that have such a strong traditional feel for the word will still be upset.
e: On June 24 2013 23:30 Cirqueenflex wrote: if you allow for gay marriage, I don't really see the problem with allowing polygamy marriages and sex with animals either (as long as the animal is consenting. Might have to wait for your dog to hump you). It is not the small financial benefit that made marriage what it is, it is the religious/social aspect of it. I don't really care if religion "stole" marriage, over so many years it has formed what marriage is, and made it something special (and the legal side was mostly just a note for the government for the formal stuff such as family name). Take away the religion and you are left with a short work to a bureaucrat and some financial benefits (as long as you don't divorce). No vows in front of all friends, family and god, no holy ceremony. Maybe a short dinner to celebrate the paperwork being done, just like you do when divorce papers come in, but that's it. Might as well allow for a contract between three or more consenting adults then.
I am all for introducing a non-religious marriage, for BOTH same-sex and hetero marriages. You would still be able to marry via the church, but also without the church, and it would be called different. Make a difference between a legal union and a religious union in how it is called. This would be much more fair than just to rob the church of what they formed for the sake of being flavour of the decade intolerant tolerant. You might not know them, but there are still many people out there who hold religion and its rituals in high regards, and you would be screwing them by overruling one of their most sacred rituals. Even if it might maybe have been stolend a couple thousand years ago.
I also don't see an issue with allowing polygamist marriages. It would probably get tricky with paperwork with each additional spouse...
Why are you taking about sex with animals and marriage? Again, homosexuality (or sex with multiple partners) is NOT the issue being questioned so bestiality doesn't really come into the discussion.
|
On June 24 2013 23:38 y0su wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 21:39 Telcontar wrote: Maybe we should get rid of the term 'marriage' altogether if people are so hung up on terms with outdated connotations. Or, we could just accept that definitions change with the times, just like how religious institutions adopted marriage and brought it under their umbrella, and move on without all the fuss. If this were possible... I long thought this would the simple solution. Unfortunately if we try to take away "marriage" as a legal term the same people that have such a strong traditional feel for the word will still be upset. e: Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 23:30 Cirqueenflex wrote: if you allow for gay marriage, I don't really see the problem with allowing polygamy marriages and sex with animals either (as long as the animal is consenting. Might have to wait for your dog to hump you). It is not the small financial benefit that made marriage what it is, it is the religious/social aspect of it. I don't really care if religion "stole" marriage, over so many years it has formed what marriage is, and made it something special (and the legal side was mostly just a note for the government for the formal stuff such as family name). Take away the religion and you are left with a short work to a bureaucrat and some financial benefits (as long as you don't divorce). No vows in front of all friends, family and god, no holy ceremony. Maybe a short dinner to celebrate the paperwork being done, just like you do when divorce papers come in, but that's it. Might as well allow for a contract between three or more consenting adults then.
I am all for introducing a non-religious marriage, for BOTH same-sex and hetero marriages. You would still be able to marry via the church, but also without the church, and it would be called different. Make a difference between a legal union and a religious union in how it is called. This would be much more fair than just to rob the church of what they formed for the sake of being flavour of the decade intolerant tolerant. You might not know them, but there are still many people out there who hold religion and its rituals in high regards, and you would be screwing them by overruling one of their most sacred rituals. Even if it might maybe have been stolend a couple thousand years ago. I also don't see an issue with allowing polygamist marriages. It would probably get tricky with paperwork with each additional person... Why are you taking about sex with animals and marriage? Again, homosexuality (or sex with multiple partners) is NOT the issue being questioned so bestiality doesn't really come into the equation.
the first part of my post was questioning the general ruling on what is acceptable and what not. Our society (at least the western culture) is pretty much based on christianity, our rules, our understanding of morale, more than most people acknowledge, including the one-woman-one-man-marriage. I understand that people want to change that rule, but where do you draw the line? At marriage between two people? At marriage between people? At marriage between consenting living beings? What about marrying consenting children with their parents approval? What if I wanted to marry my bank account? As long as I have some money elsewhere we could provide for each other in case one of us is not feeling well, and we could both get some reduced taxes. And if we want to, I'm sure my bank account would be a loving husband/wife for an adopted child. Yeah, it does sound silly now, but there is no real harm done to anyone, so I am sure there will be eventually enough people in favour of it. All I'm saying (with that part of my post) is be careful, it might open a can of worms.
|
On June 24 2013 18:15 dakalro wrote: I think people need to stop using the term marriage. Marriage generally is a two part deal. 1 - civil union - family in front of the law 2 - religious ceremony - family in front of god
The second part is impossible to enforce by law. State cannot force the church to perform one of their most sacred rites for something they don't want to.
The first part on the other hand ... It's beneficial for a state and there's nothing objective preventing it. Maybe losing votes. But apparently nobody wants to make the distinction between the two above because some of the people opposing would lose reasons to oppose. Few things that is wrong in assuming that the Church (ie. Catholic Church, not Protestant denominations) needs to bend.
1.) The Sacrament of Marriage isn't needed to be Catholic and the Church doesn't administer every marriage in the US. They may have a deacon, priest, or bishop at a marriage to recognize it, but the actual ministers of the sacrament are the married couple, not the priest, deacon, bishop, etc.
2.) The Church doesn't go to non-Catholic weddings anyway, and if they're gay they probably have severed ties with the church that they're affiliated with.
I personally support full marriage rights for them, just because there is no way for them to stop using the word marriage or give them civil union with full rights. I think that eventually the term marriage will either be replaced or changed, but for now I think that it's only fair to give them the rights they deserve.
|
See, I don't take the reproductive stuff as a primary part of marriage for the West anymore because from Augustine the Christian West began to heavily move away from that (if not earlier). Marriage was no longer hinged on this fact for a myriad of theological reasons and various conceptual changes to what marriage was about, and thus from a very early age the Catholic church no longer approved divorce over infertility. So given the intellectual and conceptual history of the West I just can't take the reproduction argument seriously as it has no place in the tradition of Christianity and the West that grew with it. If anything it's a very modern reactionary invention that is not Occidental given its past 1900 years of Christianity.
|
On June 24 2013 22:37 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 22:28 Lixler wrote:On June 24 2013 15:26 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 12:03 Lixler wrote:On June 24 2013 06:37 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 06:25 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote: Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. I think I've made it quite clear that a man and woman who do not have children should not receive the benefits that it entails, I don't think anyone has not supported that notion in this thread in fact. You keep using this phrase we're "denying them the right to marry" as if it's some evil thing or something. We're not proposing deny anyone the right to anything. They're getting the same exact rights as the rest of us -- their individual freedoms are completely protected. Them not being able to legally call it "marriage" is not a natural fucking right though that ought to be protected. No, you don't think the benefits from marriage should be reserved to couple with children. Please. Those includes Rights of visits in hospital, funeral arrengement and so a number of other thing I'm 100% sure you don't want to be only for couple with children. There is a word that design a "civil union" with all the advantage of marriage. It's called marriage. Why, by extending those rights to same sex couples, should we use another world ? If you do that, you're hurting their feelings, and yes, I believe it would be unequal treatment, words do matter. What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? My argument is that it can't be the unability to bear children, because you allow infertile couple to marry. So what is it ? What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? The difference between same sex couples and hetero couples is this: the former consists of two people of the same sex, and the latter consists of two people of the opposite sex. The word should be different because the word "marriage" includes a variety of connotations that it is sapped of when it is applied to same sex unions. Calling gay unions "marriages" would amount to nothing less than an intentional destruction of tradition, an eradication of the fundamental sources the institution is based upon. A marriage is simply not the same thing as a contract entered between two people that entitles them to this that and the other thing. The legal appropriation of the term marriage is not the definition of that term. Gay people can (theoretically) do the thing that the state recognizes as marriage, but what the state recognizes as marriage is in no way what is in truth a marriage. Consider another legal definition of something, say "drunk driving." Now in many states, "drunk driving" is defined as: "Operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of over 0.08." This definition serves to inform all legal processes that surround drunk driving: arrest, prosecution, whatever. But does that mean that all behavior about drunk driving is based on this definition? Well, of course not! I can be upset at someone who was driving by a school in midday with a BAC of 0.07 and rightly say he was driving drunk, and I can say that someone sitting in a car in neutral with the engine on with a BAC of .10 was not really driving drunk. And it's similar with marriage. Legally, a marriage is a kind of contract that entitles you to certain benefits and gives you certain obligations. But does this mean that that's all a marriage is? Of course not. People can say they are "pretty much married" even though no contract is in sight, and they can refer to people with whom they still have a binding legal contract as their ex-wife (as many people do in the processes of divorce). So how does this turn out in the case of same sex marriage? It makes it clear that a capacity to enter into the same kind of legal contract does not amount to a general equality of the term. That is, even if gay people could enter civil unions, this doesn't mean they are married. Now the argument that the natural usage of the term is separated from the legal usage in such a way that same sex unions would not count is separate, but it isn't terribly hard to construct a plausible version. I'll construct a couple for you now. Marriages have historically been between men and women, and this fact was integral to their nature. That is to say, what was essential to a marriage (in the history and tradition of the term) was tied up with the participants being of the two opposite genders. What is essential to a marriage could be variously interpreted (union of two families, production of children, a commanding husband and an obeying wife), but surely the historical notion of a same sex marriage is strange. I cannot, for instance, imagine what a medieval marriage between two men would even mean. Marriages have historically been between men and women, and the differences between the two sexes and the real contour of the relationship have come to be integral in defining what a marriage really is. That is, a marriage plays out differently than just a legal contract to the same effect between two men does. And this is easy to establish as long as you think there are defining behavioral differences between men and women (note that these differences don't have to be inborn). I personally don't see why we should call what homosexuals do when they enter a civil union together marriage, nor why we should call what similar-minded heterosexuals do marriage. Modern day homosexuals (and fancy-pants liberals, I'd like to say) simply aren't doing anything similar to what e.g. Henry VII was doing. The counter argument is pretty simple : -the world has historically been homophobic, hence why gay couldn't marry, now that we're doing better, why should we forbid them this access ? Especially, as you will note, the notion of marriage and what it entails has evolved a lot since we started to use the word. -you claim that same sex marriage would undermine what marriage mean. My opinion is that the only thing that would change would be that same-sex couple could marry. Mind telling me what else is undermined ? Finally, it's pretty clear you believe marriage is an important word with strong connotations. Good. It's exactly why (some-most) homosexuals want to be able to use the term, so that their union means exactly the same as the union of a man and a woman. Why do you deny them this right ? Because historically we have been bigoted, and we wouldn't want the world to change ? Same sex unions were not called marriage in the past not because we were homophobic (even though we were), but rather because two members of the same sex could not play the same roles, so to speak, as two members of the opposite sex. A marriage depended on being a union of two different sorts of people, namely one man and one woman, because of a variety of surrounding social factors (the dowry is attached to the female, the woman becomes a member of the other family, etc). Just because we're less homophobic (which, by the way, you have not proven) doesn't mean that we need think that men and women serve the exact same functions socially. I don't get it, you're talking about an institution of marriage that has nothing to do with what marriage have been for many years. Dowry was very dependant on local tradition. Thank god, we're not saying woman change family when they marry anymore, as they're no longer under the authority of their husband. All those things have disappeared, how can they pose any problem toward gay marriage. And do I need any proof that our western societies we are less homophobic now ? Maybe the fact that almost noone considers it a disease anymore is a little clue. Show nested quote + Same sex marriage would not undermine what marriage means. Using the word "marriage" to describe same sex unions would do that, because same sex unions are of a qualitatively different sort than opposite sex ones. For instance, same sex unions cannot produce children through sexual intercourse. For better or worse, reproductive sexual intercourse has been historically tied up with marriage (blah blah). This would have to be ruled out as an essential feature of marriage if same sex unions were called marriage. In fact, most features except for the stark legal ones would no longer play in. (Note, by the way, that this has already happened. Everyone uses the term gay marriage as if it was a real thing, and so marriage has been sapped of its better qualities)
I don't want to deny homosexuals the right to call their unions marriage. I don't want them to do so, but I don't want to make it illegal or anything for them to do that. I don't want them to do it because it contributes to a leveling down of Western tradition into a set of practices that aim at nothing but maximization of pleasure (and pleasure poorly conceived, at that).
So i have to ask once again, have we ever forbidden infertile couple to marry ? And what are those qualities you're talking about that are being sapped by the use of the term gay marriage ? Name one, I need a good laugh. Gay marriage is a real thing in 13 countries last I checked btw. No sign of the apocalypse from my window. It can be an essential feature of marriage that couples typically reproduce even if not every couple reproduces, but opening up marriage to couples that fundamentally and intrinsically cannot do so would make it no longer an essential feature.
Consider the following. It is an essential feature of humanity that humans are able to reason. But not every human can reason. Does this mean that reason is irrelevant to being a human? No; it's still one of the main things that separates us from e.g. bonobos, it's contained in most conceptions of human behavior, etc.
Similarly with marriage. Even though not every married couple does or can reproduce, this doesn't mean that reproduction is totally irrelevant to marriage. The notion of having children is intimately tied up with marriage, and if we allowed marriage between people who could by the very nature of their union not produce children, we would change what marriage is.
This doesn't establish that this change would be a bad thing, just that it would really change what marriage is. Right now, we associate marriage with mutual love. Does that mean every married couple loves each other? No, it doesn't; but it does mean that we wouldn't recognize a similar institution between people who could never love each other as marriage. Would disentangling the two concepts be good (ignoring questions of possibility)? This here is where arguments need to hinge.
Also, I don't think that not considering homosexuality a disease counts as a lack of homophobia. Conservatives who see homosexuality as a choice certainly don't see it as a disease, but they are often homophobic. You have not established that contemporary humans are less homophobic than their predecessors.
|
Canada13372 Posts
On June 23 2013 19:01 Heyoka wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2013 18:23 iTzSnypah wrote: They need to think of a better word than marriage for same sex couples. Marriage for me will always mean man and woman. They need a new word to describe it because you have a limited view of what a union is? That seems like a pretty roundabout solution, no?
Maybe we just need a new word for everyone. I call my Girlfriend my partner sometimes. Having a word that invokes single sex relationships and applying it to heterosexual relationships actually helps break down barriers as well. We should call it a marriage but we should also call all marriages unions.
|
On June 24 2013 12:50 Coriolis wrote: Kinda describes my opinions on it. Gay people definitely deserve their right to marriage, doesn't mean I don't think its creepy as fuck.
I think its beyond incredibly weird that there are others who share your opinion. Nothing they do effects you what so ever so how exactly could it be creepy?
As louis ck said, they're not touching dicks over your cereal bowl or something, they're just people in love.
|
My path was easy: my best friend came out when we were in seniors high school, and I was just like, "I can't believe how little I care. He's still my best friend." Then I just kind of applied that train of thought across the board from then onwards.
|
The choices presented to me as a voter doesn't include "civil unions with full rights". THIS. All forms of current marriage should just be called "civil unions" in the eyes of the government; and just classify marriage as something people do in their religious institutions.
|
On June 25 2013 06:57 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 22:37 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 22:28 Lixler wrote:On June 24 2013 15:26 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 12:03 Lixler wrote:On June 24 2013 06:37 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 06:25 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote: Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. I think I've made it quite clear that a man and woman who do not have children should not receive the benefits that it entails, I don't think anyone has not supported that notion in this thread in fact. You keep using this phrase we're "denying them the right to marry" as if it's some evil thing or something. We're not proposing deny anyone the right to anything. They're getting the same exact rights as the rest of us -- their individual freedoms are completely protected. Them not being able to legally call it "marriage" is not a natural fucking right though that ought to be protected. No, you don't think the benefits from marriage should be reserved to couple with children. Please. Those includes Rights of visits in hospital, funeral arrengement and so a number of other thing I'm 100% sure you don't want to be only for couple with children. There is a word that design a "civil union" with all the advantage of marriage. It's called marriage. Why, by extending those rights to same sex couples, should we use another world ? If you do that, you're hurting their feelings, and yes, I believe it would be unequal treatment, words do matter. What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? My argument is that it can't be the unability to bear children, because you allow infertile couple to marry. So what is it ? What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? The difference between same sex couples and hetero couples is this: the former consists of two people of the same sex, and the latter consists of two people of the opposite sex. The word should be different because the word "marriage" includes a variety of connotations that it is sapped of when it is applied to same sex unions. Calling gay unions "marriages" would amount to nothing less than an intentional destruction of tradition, an eradication of the fundamental sources the institution is based upon. A marriage is simply not the same thing as a contract entered between two people that entitles them to this that and the other thing. The legal appropriation of the term marriage is not the definition of that term. Gay people can (theoretically) do the thing that the state recognizes as marriage, but what the state recognizes as marriage is in no way what is in truth a marriage. Consider another legal definition of something, say "drunk driving." Now in many states, "drunk driving" is defined as: "Operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of over 0.08." This definition serves to inform all legal processes that surround drunk driving: arrest, prosecution, whatever. But does that mean that all behavior about drunk driving is based on this definition? Well, of course not! I can be upset at someone who was driving by a school in midday with a BAC of 0.07 and rightly say he was driving drunk, and I can say that someone sitting in a car in neutral with the engine on with a BAC of .10 was not really driving drunk. And it's similar with marriage. Legally, a marriage is a kind of contract that entitles you to certain benefits and gives you certain obligations. But does this mean that that's all a marriage is? Of course not. People can say they are "pretty much married" even though no contract is in sight, and they can refer to people with whom they still have a binding legal contract as their ex-wife (as many people do in the processes of divorce). So how does this turn out in the case of same sex marriage? It makes it clear that a capacity to enter into the same kind of legal contract does not amount to a general equality of the term. That is, even if gay people could enter civil unions, this doesn't mean they are married. Now the argument that the natural usage of the term is separated from the legal usage in such a way that same sex unions would not count is separate, but it isn't terribly hard to construct a plausible version. I'll construct a couple for you now. Marriages have historically been between men and women, and this fact was integral to their nature. That is to say, what was essential to a marriage (in the history and tradition of the term) was tied up with the participants being of the two opposite genders. What is essential to a marriage could be variously interpreted (union of two families, production of children, a commanding husband and an obeying wife), but surely the historical notion of a same sex marriage is strange. I cannot, for instance, imagine what a medieval marriage between two men would even mean. Marriages have historically been between men and women, and the differences between the two sexes and the real contour of the relationship have come to be integral in defining what a marriage really is. That is, a marriage plays out differently than just a legal contract to the same effect between two men does. And this is easy to establish as long as you think there are defining behavioral differences between men and women (note that these differences don't have to be inborn). I personally don't see why we should call what homosexuals do when they enter a civil union together marriage, nor why we should call what similar-minded heterosexuals do marriage. Modern day homosexuals (and fancy-pants liberals, I'd like to say) simply aren't doing anything similar to what e.g. Henry VII was doing. The counter argument is pretty simple : -the world has historically been homophobic, hence why gay couldn't marry, now that we're doing better, why should we forbid them this access ? Especially, as you will note, the notion of marriage and what it entails has evolved a lot since we started to use the word. -you claim that same sex marriage would undermine what marriage mean. My opinion is that the only thing that would change would be that same-sex couple could marry. Mind telling me what else is undermined ? Finally, it's pretty clear you believe marriage is an important word with strong connotations. Good. It's exactly why (some-most) homosexuals want to be able to use the term, so that their union means exactly the same as the union of a man and a woman. Why do you deny them this right ? Because historically we have been bigoted, and we wouldn't want the world to change ? Same sex unions were not called marriage in the past not because we were homophobic (even though we were), but rather because two members of the same sex could not play the same roles, so to speak, as two members of the opposite sex. A marriage depended on being a union of two different sorts of people, namely one man and one woman, because of a variety of surrounding social factors (the dowry is attached to the female, the woman becomes a member of the other family, etc). Just because we're less homophobic (which, by the way, you have not proven) doesn't mean that we need think that men and women serve the exact same functions socially. I don't get it, you're talking about an institution of marriage that has nothing to do with what marriage have been for many years. Dowry was very dependant on local tradition. Thank god, we're not saying woman change family when they marry anymore, as they're no longer under the authority of their husband. All those things have disappeared, how can they pose any problem toward gay marriage. And do I need any proof that our western societies we are less homophobic now ? Maybe the fact that almost noone considers it a disease anymore is a little clue. Same sex marriage would not undermine what marriage means. Using the word "marriage" to describe same sex unions would do that, because same sex unions are of a qualitatively different sort than opposite sex ones. For instance, same sex unions cannot produce children through sexual intercourse. For better or worse, reproductive sexual intercourse has been historically tied up with marriage (blah blah). This would have to be ruled out as an essential feature of marriage if same sex unions were called marriage. In fact, most features except for the stark legal ones would no longer play in. (Note, by the way, that this has already happened. Everyone uses the term gay marriage as if it was a real thing, and so marriage has been sapped of its better qualities)
I don't want to deny homosexuals the right to call their unions marriage. I don't want them to do so, but I don't want to make it illegal or anything for them to do that. I don't want them to do it because it contributes to a leveling down of Western tradition into a set of practices that aim at nothing but maximization of pleasure (and pleasure poorly conceived, at that).
So i have to ask once again, have we ever forbidden infertile couple to marry ? And what are those qualities you're talking about that are being sapped by the use of the term gay marriage ? Name one, I need a good laugh. Gay marriage is a real thing in 13 countries last I checked btw. No sign of the apocalypse from my window. It can be an essential feature of marriage that couples typically reproduce even if not every couple reproduces, but opening up marriage to couples that fundamentally and intrinsically cannot do so would make it no longer an essential feature. Consider the following. It is an essential feature of humanity that humans are able to reason. But not every human can reason. Does this mean that reason is irrelevant to being a human? No; it's still one of the main things that separates us from e.g. bonobos, it's contained in most conceptions of human behavior, etc. Similarly with marriage. Even though not every married couple does or can reproduce, this doesn't mean that reproduction is totally irrelevant to marriage. The notion of having children is intimately tied up with marriage, and if we allowed marriage between people who could by the very nature of their union not produce children, we would change what marriage is. This doesn't establish that this change would be a bad thing, just that it would really change what marriage is. Right now, we associate marriage with mutual love. Does that mean every married couple loves each other? No, it doesn't; but it does mean that we wouldn't recognize a similar institution between people who could never love each other as marriage. Would disentangling the two concepts be good (ignoring questions of possibility)? This here is where arguments need to hinge. Also, I don't think that not considering homosexuality a disease counts as a lack of homophobia. Conservatives who see homosexuality as a choice certainly don't see it as a disease, but they are often homophobic. You have not established that contemporary humans are less homophobic than their predecessors.
I have never seen eye to eye on the "fundamentally non-reproductive" argument because old people are allowed to marry. Menopause is as fundamental to a woman's existence as her ability to bear children in the first place and yet these "fundamentally non-reproductive" marriages are both sanctioned and encouraged. I am not against evolving the definition of marriage, I just see no fundamental change with this progress.
At the end of the day, the only rational argument against gay marriage is an argument against all marriage and while i do not share such a view, even if I did I would pro gay marriage given our current situation.
|
Tell me one thing thedeadhaji...
Throughout the past years I've liberated myself from most of the conservative believes and non-truths that my parents brought on me through my upbringing(with religion and strict morals). However when we meet I'm not able to talk with my parents straight forward.. I know I can't convince them to change, but they are so judgemental and hipocrites... I find that annoying and I find annoying pretending to be ok with that.
How do you cope with your parents and their beliefs?
|
How could a married gay couple not be something unfamilar and strange when it is not allowed in the first place? Using that as an argument against calling it marriage when it is eventually allowed seems like circular logic.
|
On June 23 2013 17:36 thedeadhaji wrote:Last fall, as election season raged on, I was thinking about the candidates and California State Propositions I would vote for. Same sex marriage was not on the ballot this year for California. Prop 8 had reached the Supreme Court earlier in the year. However, the issue was front and center in several other states. I started thinking in earnest about what my views were regarding same sex relationships and same sex marriage, and how I should best make my voice heard (through votes and other actions) given my beliefs. I decided to throw out my incumbent positions from my mind and construct a belief and decision framework from scratch. Previously, my position was that I was is favor of providing all the rights afforded to "married couples" (tax benefits, visitation rights, etc) but in an ideal world I preferred this to manifest itself through a civil union rather than "marriage". Having had gay friends in college for the first time in my life, I definitely wanted them to enjoy all the rights and privileges that heterosexual couples have access to. Growing up in a fairly conservative family and attending a prep school founded by a Mormon family, I unfortunately can't confidently say that I held these beliefs prior to college. But once I had personal relationships with friends who, at that time, wouldn't have the same rights and privileges as I would, I knew for sure that they deserved all the nice things I had access to. But at this time, I wasn't quite comfortable with gay "marriage". This was certainly due to my conservative upbringing with the undertones of a Christian values. While I myself am agnostic, the values and positions of those around me had permeated into me over the years. While I wasn't "against" gay marriage, I definitely wasn't comfortable with it either. When every image of marriage I'd had in my life had been between a man and a woman, same sex marriage instinctively felt somewhat awkward. As I sat there in the fall of 2012, I was adamant about throwing all these preconceptions and existing beliefs out the window. I was going to start from scratch, start from the very basic building blocks of my attitudes and wishes for my gay friends as well as my assessment of the political situation, and construct a position anew. What was the most important thing in all of this? Until now the most important factor was myself and what I was comfortable with. Since I wasn't quite at ease with "gay marriage" itself, I had wanted to see a civil union with full rights. But when I really thought hard that day in my kitchen, feet on the counter with an absentee ballot in front of me, I realized that the most important thing in all of this wasn't me and what I ideally wanted. What mattered most were my friends who still didn't have all the rights they deserved. It became clear to me then that a future where they'd enjoy all the benefits I had access to, currently kept away from them owing to the random whim of genetics, was infinitely more important than my nit picky discomfort. The political situation is very polarized. The choices are either "yes gay marriage" or "no gay marriage". The choices presented to me as a voter doesn't include "civil unions with full rights". So there are only two possible futures. Yes or No. No middle ground. Faced with a choice, Yes or No, I could no longer say No in good conscience, now that my values and priorities were made anew. I had to say Yes. Even if I still wasn't 100% comfortable with what the Yes would bring, the Yes world would be much better than the No world for me. It's not the best world for my selfish soul, but it is easily the better choice and the only good choice that had a chance of becoming a reality. And so finally, after all these years, I am a supporter of gay "marriage". I still feel a little bit uneasy when thinking about it. But this isn't about me. This is about the people who are affected directly by this. This is about the people, friends, who should have every right I have and yet don't. In closing, I should mention that while I have "come around", I don't think everyone needs to do the same. Whatever decision we make by examining our own beliefs deeply is fine by me, whatever that decision and position may be. But I do hope that the decision is yours and yours only. I hope that we all think hard for ourselves, looking back at who we know and what we value, and come up with our own choice, rather than hazily following the lead of others. It's not our community's choice or our parents' choice or our religion's choice. It's our own choice as independent, introspective, incisive individuals. ---- Crossposted from http://www.hkmurakami.com/blog/
Starting with the rainbow-TL-logo thread and continuing on with your blog entry, I am so happy to finally see people that are actively involved in the community (what I am not) to speak out against all the hate and try to convey the message of equality using their own experience and thoughts. Thank you very much for your post!
|
In my own self examination, I didn't reject the idea that civil unions with all the contractual benefits wasn't still a denial of rights. None of us get the right to rename anything in the name of equality. I'm old enough to remember supporting the idea of civil unions when most of my religious brothers and sisters opposed it. I'm not against giving anyone in this country right of contract, wed by the same justices giving the other marriage licenses. I heard the protestation from gay couples that they could not legally cover each other and their children as insurers grant policies to married people. I also heard from gays in talking that they would be happy knowing that their love was the foundation for the relationship and the state would confer every governmental benefit upon them.
I was also raised in a Judeo-Christian home, and it was taught to me that marriage was one thing. I know that losing the language on a certain debate is nine tenths of the way to losing the debate. Now that we're talking "traditional marriage," "gay marriage," "hetero marriage," and others. The word has been surrendered. Oh well.
I think 13 states have passed laws allowing gay couples to enter into civil unions and file their taxes jointly. I praise groups looking to enjoy the rights of contract, including inheritance and hospital visitation and all the rest. That follows form my ideology. Every new group out there that wants to change the language in addition to changing the rights seems to want to label their opposition discriminatory "pejorative"-ists.
I'm still investigating how I stand on how my state views gay adoptions, and what state education should teach about transexuals, gay couples, and gender questioning. What about issues of child support, child custody, legal questions involving do not resuscitate? Are the states the one to determine if a civil union is dissolved and another is able to be formed (my libertarian friends argue with me on this re:ron paul)? I'm not a parent now, but supposing I were, would I be confortable with a public school at very young ages telling kids about two-mommy families and two-daddy families and trying to explain to him why I married mommy and not a second daddy? What kind of child education should be had on homosexuals so they (in the words of another) don't grow up to be homophobes?
I voted for Prop 8 in California and was pleased to see it pass in a very liberal state. It might've only passed with so many blacks turning up to vote for Obama and also voting ~3/4 in favor of Prop 8. That's been the extent of action upon my views in the government realm. I enjoyed reading how you arrived at your current stances; thanks for your sincere relation of your journey to discover.
|
thedeadhaji
39472 Posts
On June 25 2013 18:52 LastWish wrote: Tell me one thing thedeadhaji...
Throughout the past years I've liberated myself from most of the conservative believes and non-truths that my parents brought on me through my upbringing(with religion and strict morals). However when we meet I'm not able to talk with my parents straight forward.. I know I can't convince them to change, but they are so judgemental and hipocrites... I find that annoying and I find annoying pretending to be ok with that.
How do you cope with your parents and their beliefs?
I don't think there's any right answer. I live with my family and certainly don't talk to them about these things.
People have "come out of the closet" and have been disowned by their families. This can be such a sensitive subject that no outsider to your particular situation can prescribe a catch all solution.
|
There’s much discussion here about the definition of marriage and the role of government and church in such definitions. What I find missing, is a discussion on the moral implications of homosexuality. Let me add a bit of history, and philosophy.
Prior to the normalization of homosexuality in 1973, homosexuality was considered as a “disorder”, if you will, under the psychiatric manual. This meant that if your friend tells you that he/she is homosexual, then it would not be wrong for you to express concern on such tastes, and suggest that he/she seek counseling or treatment. Post-normalization, homosexuality officially became what we know today as a “preference” – that is we no longer view it as being “wrong” (wrong in the deviation-from-norm sense). From a moral standpoint, the cultural view of homosexuality also shifted from it being morally wrong (as in sexually immoral similar to cheating on your spouse you could say) to morally acceptable. Given these changes, it was inevitable that at some point, the same-sex-marriage debate would come up.
Why is this relevant?
Because today, in just the same way that homosexuality was normalized, there are researchers and interests groups out there who are looking to normalize pedophilia – perhaps based off of evidence that there are numerous/growing-number-of well-adjusted individuals in society who have pedophilic tastes but do not act out in ways that violate the rights of others. Consider the possible consequences of this? In 40 years, we could potentially have pedo-pride parades, debates on child-adult marriages, and child-adult couple adoptions, etc. Now I'm sure even to those who support same-sex-marriage, this must be a bit unsettling.
Thus, this whole issue hinges not just on definitions of marriage, but also one’s views on the morality of homosexuality itself. If you are one who believe that morality is a social construct that shifts with cultural paradigms, perhaps to maximize happiness or survival, then you might agree with same-sex marriage, or child-adult marriage, or whatever suits the shifting tastes of society as a whole. If you are one who believes that morality exists regardless of human affirmation/denial, then you might want to think a bit deeper about what that morality really is, why it exists, and its purpose.
|
A bit off topic, but same I am talking about same sex parenting.
Not to be anti-femine or sexist something but I can agree with gay( both men) but with butch lesbians? I just cant stand butch lesbians. They are too cocky and shit they would make a bad upbringing to a child. Gays are caring people so I have no issue with that but butch lesbians are just negative, manhaters who dont have really anything to give to the world.. I am speaking about the butch ones. Lipstick ones are fine as long as they are not cocky like they have bigger dicks than men. They are most often like that with that attitude they would be bad parents.
But shit I am for same sex marriage, hell they can marry each other and shit. This would not really affect out lives.
|
A slippery slope and a generalizing idiot. Fascinating.
|
On June 26 2013 19:58 xSNRx wrote: There’s much discussion here about the definition of marriage and the role of government and church in such definitions. What I find missing, is a discussion on the moral implications of homosexuality. Let me add a bit of history, and philosophy.
Prior to the normalization of homosexuality in 1973, homosexuality was considered as a “disorder”, if you will, under the psychiatric manual. This meant that if your friend tells you that he/she is homosexual, then it would not be wrong for you to express concern on such tastes, and suggest that he/she seek counseling or treatment. Post-normalization, homosexuality officially became what we know today as a “preference” – that is we no longer view it as being “wrong” (wrong in the deviation-from-norm sense). From a moral standpoint, the cultural view of homosexuality also shifted from it being morally wrong (as in sexually immoral similar to cheating on your spouse you could say) to morally acceptable. Given these changes, it was inevitable that at some point, the same-sex-marriage debate would come up.
Why is this relevant?
Because today, in just the same way that homosexuality was normalized, there are researchers and interests groups out there who are looking to normalize pedophilia – perhaps based off of evidence that there are numerous/growing-number-of well-adjusted individuals in society who have pedophilic tastes but do not act out in ways that violate the rights of others. Consider the possible consequences of this? In 40 years, we could potentially have pedo-pride parades, debates on child-adult marriages, and child-adult couple adoptions, etc. Now I'm sure even to those who support same-sex-marriage, this must be a bit unsettling.
Thus, this whole issue hinges not just on definitions of marriage, but also one’s views on the morality of homosexuality itself. If you are one who believe that morality is a social construct that shifts with cultural paradigms, perhaps to maximize happiness or survival, then you might agree with same-sex marriage, or child-adult marriage, or whatever suits the shifting tastes of society as a whole. If you are one who believes that morality exists regardless of human affirmation/denial, then you might want to think a bit deeper about what that morality really is, why it exists, and its purpose.
LOL what an amazing argument homo marriage equals pedo marriage. Hahahahahahahshsh There's a fundamental imbalance of power in a relationship in an adult child union. Homo relationships are victimless, aside from maybe your 15th century sensibilities
i mean, that's obviously a terrible troll, but why would you even assume that the old view of homosexuality as a disorder is correct? maybe the romans were right about homosexuality, gay sex is okay as long as you're on top and pederasty is cool
|
On June 27 2013 03:55 rauk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 19:58 xSNRx wrote: There’s much discussion here about the definition of marriage and the role of government and church in such definitions. What I find missing, is a discussion on the moral implications of homosexuality. Let me add a bit of history, and philosophy.
Prior to the normalization of homosexuality in 1973, homosexuality was considered as a “disorder”, if you will, under the psychiatric manual. This meant that if your friend tells you that he/she is homosexual, then it would not be wrong for you to express concern on such tastes, and suggest that he/she seek counseling or treatment. Post-normalization, homosexuality officially became what we know today as a “preference” – that is we no longer view it as being “wrong” (wrong in the deviation-from-norm sense). From a moral standpoint, the cultural view of homosexuality also shifted from it being morally wrong (as in sexually immoral similar to cheating on your spouse you could say) to morally acceptable. Given these changes, it was inevitable that at some point, the same-sex-marriage debate would come up.
Why is this relevant?
Because today, in just the same way that homosexuality was normalized, there are researchers and interests groups out there who are looking to normalize pedophilia – perhaps based off of evidence that there are numerous/growing-number-of well-adjusted individuals in society who have pedophilic tastes but do not act out in ways that violate the rights of others. Consider the possible consequences of this? In 40 years, we could potentially have pedo-pride parades, debates on child-adult marriages, and child-adult couple adoptions, etc. Now I'm sure even to those who support same-sex-marriage, this must be a bit unsettling.
Thus, this whole issue hinges not just on definitions of marriage, but also one’s views on the morality of homosexuality itself. If you are one who believe that morality is a social construct that shifts with cultural paradigms, perhaps to maximize happiness or survival, then you might agree with same-sex marriage, or child-adult marriage, or whatever suits the shifting tastes of society as a whole. If you are one who believes that morality exists regardless of human affirmation/denial, then you might want to think a bit deeper about what that morality really is, why it exists, and its purpose. LOL what an amazing argument homo marriage equals pedo marriage. Hahahahahahahshsh There's a fundamental imbalance of power in a relationship in an adult child union. Homo relationships are victimless, aside from maybe your 15th century sensibilities
This is the kind of reasoning that hurts my head a little bit. Why do people not see a difference between two things that are obviously very different in nature. To me it seems like a scrambled defense of a system that is not justified anymore. People fear change and will try to use anything to protect themselves from it I guess. As long as people have equal rights and one group doesn't get special rights I'm fine with it. That said I don't get my own parade or history month The Irish always get shafted!
|
On June 27 2013 03:55 rauk wrote: LOL what an amazing argument homo marriage equals pedo marriage. Hahahahahahahshsh There's a fundamental imbalance of power in a relationship in an adult child union. Homo relationships are victimless, aside from maybe your 15th century sensibilities
i mean, that's obviously a terrible troll, but why would you even assume that the old view of homosexuality as a disorder is correct? maybe the romans were right about homosexuality, gay sex is okay as long as you're on top and pederasty is cool
On June 27 2013 04:09 OmniEulogy wrote:This is the kind of reasoning that hurts my head a little bit. Why do people not see a difference between two things that are obviously very different in nature. To me it seems like a scrambled defense of a system that is not justified anymore. People fear change and will try to use anything to protect themselves from it I guess. As long as people have equal rights and one group doesn't get special rights I'm fine with it. That said I don't get my own parade or history month The Irish always get shafted! Yup would inclined to agree with you on the imbalance of power (difference in nature). The usual way that we defend against the slippery slope argument is indicating that that consent is a requirement (consent not just in the willing sense, but in the capacity/informed sense). So in many cases, people try to define marriage in a biological way between male and female, so the criterion could be said to be scientifically determinable. The argument is that this criterion should be removed because there is no actual basis for it. However, one might also ask what the basis for "consent" is. Why not remove that too? The answer to that is, it's unconstitutional - so you are very much right in that regard (there is a difference and the potential for exploitation is tremendous). But then, the questions remains why give the constitution, a piece of document created by men who had largely religious/Christian backgrounds, so much say on such matters? This one should be fairly obvious? So you see, the question does return to what you think morality is and how it is defined.
Also, why would I assume the old view is correct? I don't. Why do you assume the new view is correct? What about incest, polygamy; or as you said pederasty/pedophilia in ancient Greece? Do we assume that might be ok too? Is it based on personal or societal preference? What is your ontological grounding for these things? Perhaps we can work on refining your argument a bit together. Though I admit, that might be thinking too much in pre-1st century sensibilities ><
Apologies for trolling with my 15th century sensibilities - I was not aware that playing devil's advocate is classified as being ignorant, cognitively dissonant, and idiotic. =P
|
consent isn't just an arbitrary construction of the united states constitution. it relates to autonomy, moral agency, etc, and if you're a moral relativist in the sense that absolute moral truths don't exist then it's not possible to argue with you
|
On June 27 2013 09:41 rauk wrote: consent isn't just an arbitrary construction of the united states constitution. it relates to autonomy, moral agency, etc, and if you're a moral relativist in the sense that absolute moral truths don't exist then it's not possible to argue with you
Nice, some common ground. No I am not a moral relativist, and I do not see the constitution an arbitrary construction. You obviously believe that consent is an absolute moral truth. Regarding sexual activities, do you suppose there are any other moral truths? How did you come upon these truths?
|
On June 25 2013 16:55 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +The choices presented to me as a voter doesn't include "civil unions with full rights". THIS. All forms of current marriage should just be called "civil unions" in the eyes of the government; and just classify marriage as something people do in their religious institutions. But heterosexual athiests can get married. Shall we exclude them from marriage as well? If you say "no" then you are conceding that this is an issue of sexuality and not of "faith."
|
|
|
|