|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:51 am Post subject: 81 |
 |
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| (a) Sometimes it is correct for the government to "side" with one particular view over another, despite the claims of some that a particular marriage is invalid and/or inferior. |
Apples, oranges. Today homosexuals can get "married" ... they can find a church that will do the ceremony, they can call themselves "married", and live together, sleep together, etc. There are no laws against that. They just don't have the government issued license, and they don't get the equal rights unequal special privileges that we all seem to be OK with government granting certain couples (different taxation, etc.)
In the Loving case, two people were arrested for being married, and their marriage license was even used as evidence against them.
| Mackay wrote: |
| (Worth noting in that article is that if you follow the link to the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", you will find that scientific/eugenic arguments were made against the validity of interracial marriage, too.) |
Nobody has raised anything remotely eugenic, and I hardly think that observation invalidates all that's scientific.
| Mackay wrote: |
| You are perfectly happy for the government to "side" with people who think marriage is man/woman by not allowing homosexuals to use the title, no? |
NO. I (and Pablo, and Zag) suggested the government grant civil unions to all couples. They would not treat homosexuals any differently than heterosexuals - not disallow anything to one and not the other. As they can today, homosexuals could find a church or whatever to "marry" them, say they're married, live as they please, etc. John could even claim to be Frank's wife. And the rest of society could either wholly accept that, or they could snicker, and government won't take either side.
| Mackay wrote: |
| (b) Representing the views of such people as "traditionalists" is misleading and incorrect. Traditional marriage, in the Christian biblical sense, is polygynous and is a transference of ownership of a woman rather than a bond of affection/love. |
I mean tradition today. If it changes, it changes, but don't drag government in to make it change.
| Mackay wrote: |
| (c) If you do not feel that the relationships are equal, why do you support giving them identical titles (provided the title isn't marriage)? |
They are entitled to equal rights may as well have the same unequal special privileges that other couples have, if any should have such (though I can't say why any should have such), and for this there needs to be some government designation of a legal status. The law shouldn't treat them differently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:34 am Post subject: 82 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Pablo wrote: |
| Zag, did you see my post #58? |
#20:
|
Zag apparently missed my post. I, on the other hand, will play the age card and plead "forgetfulness".
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:41 pm Post subject: 83 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| ... John could even claim to be Frank's wife. And the rest of society could either wholly accept that, or they could snicker, and government won't take either side. ... |
Maybe all I'm saying is that the right to snicker shall not be infringed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:17 pm Post subject: 84 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
Apples, oranges. Today homosexuals can get "married" ... they can find a church that will do the ceremony, they can call themselves "married", and live together, sleep together, etc. There are no laws against that. They just don't have the government issued license, and they don't get the equal rights unequal special privileges that we all seem to be OK with government granting certain couples (different taxation, etc.)
In the Loving case, two people were arrested for being married, and their marriage license was even used as evidence against them. |
You're blurring the line between marriage and "marriage", I suspect intentionally.
The fact that institutionalised racial discrimination was worse doesn't make anti-gay institutionalised discrimination not institutionalised discrimination. Less "apples, oranges" than "apples, slightly smaller apples".
| Quote: |
| Nobody has raised anything remotely eugenic, and I hardly think that observation invalidates all that's scientific. |
I think that arguing the evolutionary superiority of heterosexuals falls within the range of "remotely eugenic", actually, but I'll admit I was more addressing your use of an article about the dangers of anal sex (wtf?) as an argument that homosexual sex is inferior (you kinda missed a rather significant subsection of the homosexual community in listing that as a "scientific" basis for the superiority of PIV sex, by the way). The emphasis was meant to be on the "scientific" rather than the "eugenic".
Your other arguments also used reasoning such as "Men and women think differently to one another, and therefore the love they feel for their partner depends upon the gender of that partner" and "The sex I have is more profound than theirs, man!" Forgive me if I continue to be dismissive of your "scientific argument". (Protip: something needs to be valid before it can be invalidated.)
| Quote: |
| NO. I (and Pablo, and Zag) suggested the government grant civil unions to all couples. They would not treat homosexuals any differently than heterosexuals - not disallow anything to one and not the other. As they can today, homosexuals could find a church or whatever to "marry" them, say they're married, live as they please, etc. John could even claim to be Frank's wife. And the rest of society could either wholly accept that, or they could snicker, and government won't take either side. |
True or false: you believe it is wrong for homosexuals to be able to use the word "marriage" to describe their union?
| Quote: |
| I mean tradition today. If it changes, it changes, but don't drag government in to make it change. |
"Tradition today"? Do you approve of the state of "tradition today" in Virginia in the 1920s? Should the government have refused to step in to avoid the appearance of "taking sides"?
Seriously, "tradition today"?
| Quote: |
They are entitled to equal rights may as well have the same unequal special privileges that other couples have, if any should have such (though I can't say why any should have such), and for this there needs to be some government designation of a legal status. The law shouldn't treat them differently. |
Why shouldn't they be treated differently, if they are different? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:30 pm Post subject: 85 |
|
|
An argument could be made that government should not be involved with marriage OR civil unions. I'm not making that argument, but I believe it's valid. Perhaps laws should apply only to individuals and a marriage would only be what the partners wanted it to be and what the designated institution (if any) agreed to.
It is possible for a healthy society to exist under this system.It would not automatically lead to bigamy or other aberrations that you sick people are thinking right now. 
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:01 pm Post subject: 86 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
They are entitled to equal rights may as well have the same unequal special privileges that other couples have, if any should have such (though I can't say why any should have such), and for this there needs to be some government designation of a legal status. The law shouldn't treat them differently. |
You can be snide about the legal ramifications. I'm even willing to agree with you on tax differences of married vs. not married status. However, the much more important rights, IMO, are the resolution of these conflicts:
Fred, a self-made millionaire, has been in a loving relationship with another man for 25 years, and hasn't spoken to his parents for the same amount of time, because they disowned him for being "a pervert" (their words). He dies intestate. Who inherits his estate?
OK, that problem could have been solved by Fred getting a good lawyer and writing a will.
Instead, Fred falls comatose to a rare illness. There is a risky, experimental treatment that might cure him. Without it, he will certainly live longer, but most likely in a comatose state forever. (Of course, possibly a new, less dangerous treatment could come along before he dies. There's nothing on the horizon, however.) Who decides if he would want to take the risk?
Even if Fred had a living will made, it's unlikely that he foresaw this circumstance. So his oh-so-loving parents get to make this decision for him, not his partner of 25 years.
These aren't unequal special privileges. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:29 pm Post subject: 87 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
They are entitled to equal rights may as well have the same unequal special privileges that other couples have, if any should have such (though I can't say why any should have such), and for this there needs to be some government designation of a legal status. The law shouldn't treat them differently. |
You can be snide about the legal ramifications. I'm even willing to agree with you on tax differences of married vs. not married status. However, the much more important rights, IMO, are the resolution of these conflicts:
Fred, a self-made millionaire, has been in a loving relationship with another man for 25 years, and hasn't spoken to his parents for the same amount of time, because they disowned him for being "a pervert" (their words). He dies intestate. Who inherits his estate?
OK, that problem could have been solved by Fred getting a good lawyer and writing a will.
Instead, Fred falls comatose to a rare illness. There is a risky, experimental treatment that might cure him. Without it, he will certainly live longer, but most likely in a comatose state forever. (Of course, possibly a new, less dangerous treatment could come along before he dies. There's nothing on the horizon, however.) Who decides if he would want to take the risk?
Even if Fred had a living will made, it's unlikely that he foresaw this circumstance. So his oh-so-loving parents get to make this decision for him, not his partner of 25 years.
These aren't unequal special privileges. |
You obviously misunderstood. I'm suggesting NO difference in legal status or legal ramifications between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples. Nothing snide. They ARE unequal special privileges, because they treat couples with some sort of government granted status radically differently than couples without that status (and that's the case when restricting consideration only to heterosexual couples). If it's a right that a lifelong partner can make the decision, then it shouldn't be denied because of a lack of a government issued license to exercise the right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:33 pm Post subject: 88 |
|
|
| I apologize if I misunderstood. It sounded as if you were saying that there shouldn't be any kind of governmentally-recognized union. However, there does need to be one in order to distinguish between the 25-year loving relationship and the 2-week shacking up relationship when a government body (i.e. the courts) has to decide who gets to make a medical decision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:39 pm Post subject: 89 |
|
|
| Furthermore, it shouldn't require a "loving relationship" or anything even remotely like a marriage, nor should it require a good lawyer, for me to designate someone to make such a decision for me, if it's a right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:41 pm Post subject: 90 |
|
|
| I agree -- it should only require entering the proper paperwork somewhere official. My point, though, it that it does have to be a centralized agency that is recognized by the courts. I don't see any good option for that centralized agency other than the government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:43 pm Post subject: 91 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| ... there does need to be one in order to distinguish between the 25-year loving relationship and the 2-week shacking up relationship when a government body (i.e. the courts) has to decide who gets to make a medical decision. |
I'll grant that for practical purposes courts can't investigate the nature of every relationship.
I'm not sure though that government should be involved in judging what love is, or whether it exists between two people. If two people who love each other can get a license, and then one of them gain citizenship, or together pay less taxes, then I think any two people should be able to do that, regardless of love or intimacy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Silverfire
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:51 pm Post subject: 92 |
|
|
| Frankly, I think the first question is why governments should be providing special benefits to people just because they have decided to quasi-permanently associate themselves with other people. How is a romantic contract between two (or any number, really) people any of the government's business? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lexprod
NOT not a title
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:10 pm Post subject: 93 |
|
|
Seconding Pablo's and Silverfire's "government discriminates against the lonely" argument. Then again, it makes me sound like a hippy. "People can just be people mannnnn and who cares who lives in whose house." Then again how many people get the rights to a baby? adoptions prove we're ok with someone else at the helm, but what about 10 people who all have legal guardianship over a child. Dun dun DUN.
_________________
I'll have a P please... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ralphmerridew
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:30 pm Post subject: 94 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
Apples, oranges. Today homosexuals can get "married" ... they can find a church that will do the ceremony, they can call themselves "married", and live together, sleep together, etc. There are no laws against that. They just don't have the government issued license, and they don't get the equal rights unequal special privileges that we all seem to be OK with government granting certain couples (different taxation, etc.) |
Only since 2003: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
| Quote: |
In the Loving case, two people were arrested for being married, and their marriage license was even used as evidence against them.
|
Lawrence and Garner were arrested. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:43 am Post subject: 95 |
|
|
Oh wow, I'd just assumed extro knew what he was talking about. Old habits die hard, I guess 
Thanks for the link, ralphmerridew.
Pablo, silverfire, lex - You're right, there is no actual reason for married couples to get tax benefits etc. Do you think any benefits/breaks should be granted for having/adopting/raising a child? This seems like a different, but very interesting, discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ralphmerridew
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:01 am Post subject: 96 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| So I'd like to amend my earlier response to instead ask you: in what way is "marriage" not just the legal contract? A heterosexual couple might live together in a loving relationship for 40 years without having the ceremony - and they would not be considered "married". |
Depends on where they live. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:02 am Post subject: 97 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| Do you think any benefits/breaks should be granted for having/adopting/raising a child? |
I don't want government involved in such social issues, so my answer is no.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:34 am Post subject: 98 |
|
|
On the "Ron Paul" side of the topic, here is a drunk Ron Paul supporter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FzJfxyugek
Just so you know, I think it's funny because of his drunken sense of righteous outrage, not the fact that he supports Paul.
"What's the First Amendment? What's the First Amendment? What's the First Amendment? YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW! HA!!!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:38 am Post subject: 99 |
|
|
| Silverfire wrote: |
| Frankly, I think the first question is why governments should be providing special benefits to people just because they have decided to quasi-permanently associate themselves with other people. How is a romantic contract between two (or any number, really) people any of the government's business? |
It depends on the country in question, but many countries want to encourage their citizens to form such bonds and/or to have kids.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:59 am Post subject: 100 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
Oh wow, I'd just assumed extro knew what he was talking about. Old habits die hard, I guess
Thanks for the link, ralphmerridew. |
I said "today" (2011, no?), he said "only since 2003". Did I get it wrong? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:27 am Post subject: 101 |
|
|
My bad, I thought you meant traditionally today.
edit to add something of substance: do I take that comment to mean that the two situations are "apples and oranges" because our current situation is eight years after the arrest and subsequent court case? Would a more apt comparison be racial relations in 1932? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lexprod
NOT not a title
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:38 am Post subject: 102 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| Mackay wrote: |
| Do you think any benefits/breaks should be granted for having/adopting/raising a child? |
I don't want government involved in such social issues, so my answer is no. |
This is were I'd disagree and say that government assistance can help things that benefit society, and one is making sure children have a chance at growing up in a stable household, and tax breaks are a minor way of doing that. Until the depressing reality of overpopulation takes hold 
_________________
I'll have a P please... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:31 am Post subject: 103 |
|
|
So - if we have a tax cut and that tax cut can somehow be linked to children growing up in more stable households....you think that is in disagreement with my wanting government less involved in social issues?
I don't see a disagreement at all. In fact, that situation seems (to me) to be very supportive of my beliefs.
[edit] Just to keep this post on topic...... No, the term "marriage" does not need adjectives such as gay, Jewish, sexless, abusive, childless, mixed, arranged, or 'of convenience'. [/edit]
Oh wait, the question was "Should gay marriage be called marriage?"
Um.................. 
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:35 pm Post subject: 104 |
|
|
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
Primary definition:
| Quote: |
(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:58 pm Post subject: 106 |
|
|
OK, here's my official position:
I'm married to a hot blond who could pass for my daughter. THAT's what marriage ought to be.
However, if anyone else has a different idea of what it should be and wants to practice marriage a different way, they have my absolute blessing with no questions asked, if they give a damn what I think about it.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lexprod
NOT not a title
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:01 pm Post subject: 107 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| So - if we have a tax cut and that tax cut can somehow be linked to children growing up in more stable households....you think that is in disagreement with my wanting government less involved in social issues? |
Meant to imply they were tax breaks specific to people raising children.
_________________
I'll have a P please... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:02 pm Post subject: 108 |
|
|
I understand that.
I said I didn't want government involved in social issues. Government allowing people to keep what they earned is not government being involved in social issues. Again, I don't think you're disagreeing with me.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quailman
His Postmajesty
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:19 pm Post subject: 109 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
Here's what I would support:
The government would not distinguish. It would only acknowledge the legal concept of "civil unions". Gender would be irrelevant and the term marriage would be left out of all such unions.
If a couple and their family wanted more, they could, at their own discretion, have their civil union blessed by a church, synagogue, mosque, or whatever institution was meaningful to them, and deemed a "marriage". Various insurance rights and other such things would be based on the civil union contract.
For some of us, "civil union" would be enough. For others, it would not. It would be the choice of the couple. Government would have no involvement beyond "civil union" and the "marriage" part would be purely between the couple and the institution of their choice. |
Antrax was (I believe) the first to bring up the Biblical definition, which involves a man and a woman. To accept that as law in the US goes against the separation of church and state.
The state recognizes marriages performed by churches for all sorts of purposes - notably taxes, but also alien residency and parental rights. But marriage is a religious rite, even if a JP or Elvis impersonator performs the ceremony. The government chooses to accept what the church has ordained, as long as the proper paperwork is filed. That paperwork effectively creates a civil union.
I agree with everything Pablo said. From the government's perspective, I have a civil union with my wife, the same as Pablo has with his, even though our ceremonies were quite different. I didn't stomp on a glass at mine and Pablo probably didn't slaughter any chickens at his, but we both had the presiding cleric and witnesses sign a document to file with the state.
It doesn't matter to me whether that document has two people of the same gender or of different ones listed. Call me old-fashioned, but I draw the line at two. I think individuals in positions of authority (legislators, governors, presidential candidates) have no business imposing their own religious views on who can be listed on that document. Now a church, OTOH, is a different matter. Each one needs to make its own determination of who can or cannot get married. Since same-sex unions are unlikely to come about in most religions, those couples are limited to the state's civil union. Whether they like to call it that, well... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:27 pm Post subject: 110 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| I'm married to a hot blond who could pass for my daughter. |
Pics or it didn't happen.
I had never considered the tax deduction for having children to be social engineering. I always just thought that it was the recognition that the poverty line (i.e. the amount below which we don't expect you to pay taxes) is higher for a couple with kids than for a solitary person or a couple without kids.
This is like why there is a medical deduction if your medical bills exceed a certain percentage of your income. (Ours do only in years when we have to buy my wife a new van.)
I agree, however, that giving a deduction for mortgage interest, but none for rent, is just social engineering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lexprod
NOT not a title
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:31 pm Post subject: 111 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| Mackay wrote: |
| Do you think any benefits/breaks should be granted for having/adopting/raising a child? |
I don't want government involved in such social issues, so my answer is no. |
But....then I don't get this answer.
_________________
I'll have a P please... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:43 pm Post subject: 112 |
|
|
OK, I see your dilemma.
I don't want a tax structure that allows government to pick winners and losers or to decide what is moral or immoral. I just don't want them in that business.
Specifically addressing your example, my view of that situation is that government gets no credit. All they would be doing is allowing people to keep the money they've earned. If those people use some of that money to adopt a child, hats off to them......not hats off to government.
Just my take on it.
But ok, now I'll admit that you disagree with me a little.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:10 pm Post subject: 113 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
Primary definition:
| Quote: |
(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> |
|
You realise that if we're using Merriam-Webster's definitions as the overriding authority in this conversation, you must accept that homosexual marriages are, in fact, defined as marriages?
I have less of a problem with "traditional marriage" used colloquially to define current "marriage", and more of a problem with your characterisation of bigots as "traditionalists". It is assigning an unjustified legitimacy to their bigotry. The attitude is one of a resistance to/discomfort with change, rather than an adherence to any particular tradition.
I'm unsure of the purpose of your second link, as the marriage of a gay man to a lesbian would not count as a marriage by your stated criteria.
I am still interested in your answer to the following:
| I wrote: |
| True or false: you believe it is wrong for homosexuals to be able to use the word "marriage" to describe their union? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:38 am Post subject: 114 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
Primary definition:
| Quote: |
(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> |
|
You realise that if we're using Merriam-Webster's definitions as the overriding authority in this conversation, you must accept that homosexual marriages are, in fact, defined as marriages? |
I'm not suggesting it as an overriding authority, but merely as gentle persuasion, which you're free to refuse, that "traditional marriage" has meaning, today (is today a problem?), other than where it "in the Christian biblical sense, is polygynous and is a transference of ownership of a woman".
| Quote: |
| I have less of a problem with "traditional marriage" used colloquially to define current "marriage", and more of a problem with your characterisation of bigots as "traditionalists". |
Understandable. Clearly if I'd just refer to them as "bigots", it would bolster some side of your argument a bit.
In any case, all I'm saying is government ought not be taking a side on whether they're "traditionalists" or "bigots", as long as they're not violating anyone's civil rights, if only (though not only, but that alone is sufficient) from a fiscal perspective, where it's a waste of my tax money for them to be involved in this bickering.
And also in any case, while there may be some traditionalists who are bigots, those were not the traditionalists I was referring to.
And while Merriam-Webster is no final authority, if they got it right in describing how the word "marriage" is understood by most speakers of the language, yes, the phrase "same-sex marriage" is in use, to refer to something like marriage, marriage being primarily understood as between husband and wife.
I don't know how Merriam-Webster gathers their concordances of usages, but a google news search on just the word "marriage" is highly biased toward the word being preceded by "same-sex", "gay" or "homosexual". [edit: Brad Pitt changed that while I was writing this - life with Jennifer Aniston is "uninteresting" comes up top] Clearly this has more to do with the controversy than a general consensus as to what "marriage" means.
| Quote: |
| It is assigning an unjustified legitimacy to their bigotry. |
I'm not referring to bigots as "traditionalists", and I hope you're not referring to all traditionalists as "bigots".
| Quote: |
| The attitude is one of a resistance to/discomfort with change, rather than an adherence to any particular tradition. |
If you're watering down the meaning of "bigot" to anyone with "a resistance to/discomfort with change" of any particular kind, then I'd have to defend the rights of "bigots". (Boy, how 'bout those Amish?)
| Quote: |
| I'm unsure of the purpose of your second link, as the marriage of a gay man to a lesbian would not count as a marriage by your stated criteria. |
It was more just because I found it in current news and thought it was amusingly almost relevant. But why would it not count? (I haven't given it much thought)
| Quote: |
I am still interested in your answer to the following:
| I wrote: |
| True or false: you believe it is wrong for homosexuals to be able to use the word "marriage" to describe their union? |
|
Depends on what you mean by "believe it is wrong", and what that entails, but I'd have to say by what I expect you mean, absolutely false. People have a right to freedom of expression, and can use language any way they like. It isn't morally wrong for them to do so (in my opinion), and it isn't morally wrong to attempt to change people's minds about what marriage is through expression of ideas. It would be morally wrong to have laws preventing them from doing so. I'm also surprised you'd even ask, but probably shouldn't be if you genuinely have the misconception that "traditionalist" must mean "bigot". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 1:03 am Post subject: 115 |
|
|
Got called in to work early, so I've gotta keep this quick, but
| Quote: |
| I'm not referring to bigots as "traditionalists" |
I disagree.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
I believe the "people" you are describing are intolerantly devoted to their own prejudices, such as the assumption of the inherent inferiority of homosexual relationships.
| Quote: |
| and I hope you're not referring to all traditionalists as "bigots". |
I don't even know what you mean by "traditionalists", as your criteria for what makes a marriage appear to change from post to post. I oppose your using a 'soft' word for homophobia.
Again, you're moving the goalposts to try to make it a discussion about "traditionalism" rather than face the reality of your own prejudice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:05 am Post subject: 116 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance |
There is no treatment of anyone with hatred or intolerance in my belief that a husband and wife marriage has qualities not present in a same sex marriage, nor in my placing enough value on those qualities that I think it justifies a distinction in language between the two. So everything after "especially" does not apply. That leaves us with "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". Does that apply any more or less to you, me or the Amish? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:23 am Post subject: 117 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| I don't even know what you mean by "traditionalists", ... |
In the context of this discussion, people who think the word "marriage" means, and should continue to mean, husband and wife ... that the word "marriage" should be reserved for that.
| Mackay wrote: |
| ... as your criteria for what makes a marriage appear to change from post to post. |
Has it ever wavered from husband and wife? And where has it changed at all?
But really, my criteria for what makes a marriage is irrelevant. My point all along has been that I believe much of the opposition to granting legal marriage for same sex couples, and also much of the opposition (from same-sex marriage proponents) to the notion of government granting civil unions that have the same legal privileges accorded as currently accorded legal marriages ... much of that opposition is rooted in whether or not government should weigh in on whether they are equivalent, or the same, beyond in an equal rights sense ... and I think government must stay out of that.
| Mackay wrote: |
| I oppose your using a 'soft' word for homophobia. |
Yeah, yeah, I'm a homophobe and a bigot. I have gay friends who know otherwise.
| Mackay wrote: |
| Again, you're moving the goalposts to try to make it a discussion about "traditionalism" rather than face the reality of your own prejudice. |
Elaborate on the goalposts and their movements when you have the time. I think I've consistently repeated my position ad nauseum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:15 am Post subject: 118 |
|
|
I plan to respond to the rest of your post shortly, but I sort of wanted to put emphasis on my response to this part.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Yeah, yeah, I'm a homophobe and a bigot. I have gay friends who know otherwise. |
Perhaps you shouldn't be so dismissive of the fact that I believe this. I have gone in, what, a week? from perceiving you as one of my role models when it comes to Christian behaviour to believing that you are a homophobe and a bigot.
I have no doubt whatsover that your gay friends know you more intimately than I do, but my information might be better. Have you told them that you consider them your evolutionary inferiors, that their relationships are not as meaningful as yours and their sex not as profound? Have you told them that this will always be the case, merely by virtue of your being straight and their being gay?
(btw, I have a relative who is definitely racist - not in a hostile way, but he will happily draw conclusions about individuals based upon their race. One of his best friends is Fijian. Having a minority friend isn't some magical anti-bigotry card.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:24 am Post subject: 119 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
(btw, I have a relative who is definitely racist - not in a hostile way, but he will happily draw conclusions about individuals based upon their race. One of his best friends is Fijian. Having a minority friend isn't some magical anti-bigotry card.) |
Some people would judge your relative more by how he treats others than what conclusions he draws. They might not consider him a racist at all. Having one minority friend is not, as you say, a "magical anti-bigotry card". But it does say something. There is the possibility that you are judging him rather harshly, using your own definition of racism and yours may not be the appropriate measuring stick.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:38 am Post subject: 120 |
|
|
| He talks disparagingly about Indians and Australian Aboriginals on a regular basis. I hadn't wanted to go into detail, but there is certainly sufficient evidence to call him objectively racist, and I believe that words count as actions. I haven't noticed him say anything about Pacific Islanders since he made that particular friend, though |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
