|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:01 am Post subject: 41 |
 |
|
| wikipedia wrote: |
| While still a medical resident during the 1960s, Paul was influenced by Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, which caused him to read many publications by Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. He came to know economists Hans Sennholz and Murray Rothbard well, and credits to them his interest in the study of economics. He came to believe that what the Austrian school economists wrote was becoming true on August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon "closed the gold window" by implementing the U.S. dollar's complete departure from the gold standard.[19] That same day, the young physician decided to enter politics, saying later, "After that day, all money would be political money rather than money of real value. I was astounded."[20] |
I still wonder.
I also wonder about his son, Rand. He was an ophthalmologist, and gave that up. One of my best friends is an ophthalmologist, and it's a wonderful profession. You really help almost all your patients, and you rarely deal with the most heartbreaking parts of medicine....death, etc. Regular hours, high pay.....and to give that up for politics? You have to wonder. I frankly question the motives of anyone who goes into politics, let alone someone who would give up one of the most rewarding and respectable professions there is.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:36 am Post subject: 42 |
|
|
Split this off the Amused thread because people were complaining. Plus I think it's been like 3 or 4 years since I did a mod thing  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:44 am Post subject: 43 |
|
|
I find that very amusing!
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:46 am Post subject: 44 |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:55 am Post subject: 45 |
|
|
| If it were 3 or 4 years since I did something, I don't think I'd remember how. But then, I don't think it's been 3 or 4 years since I've done anything. Least not that I can recall. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:13 am Post subject: 46 |
|
|
Trying to work my way up to posting with effort again, I'd like to iterate part of an earlier post to which you didn't respond, extro:
| Mackay wrote: |
| I don't think you'll find that I said anywhere that marriage is "merely" a contract, and I'd like to know in what way you think a man-woman relationship is different to a man-man or woman-woman relationship other than physical mechanics. |
To expand on that, now that I'm not half-asleep, I used the word "contract" and you took that to mean that I see marriage as "merely" the legal contract. My earlier post was a mild objection, but having given it more thought, I think that "the legal contract" is closer to the *actual* definition than the lifelong-love-bond we've been talking about. There is no question, for instance, that a marriage of convenience between a man and a woman is considered a real marriage. Political marriages, arranged marriages, marriages to get a green card, mail-order brides - these are all considered valid and legal marriages.
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".
I'd also like to repeat the question "in what way does a man-woman relationship differ from a man-man or woman-woman relationship other than physical mechanics"?
This is all pretty knotty, because I think each of us believes that the other is arguing for the government to impose peoples' views at the expense of another group. My contention is that the difference is that allowing gays to be "married" in no way threatens or diminishes the rights of the religious, nor does it force churches to perform the marriages. Imposing a separation, on the other hand, institutionalises the other-isation of homosexuals and is an actual and deliberate restriction of their right to equal treatment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:44 am Post subject: 47 |
|
|
| Quote: |
I'd also like to repeat the question "in what way does a man-woman relationship differ from a man-man or woman-woman relationship other than physical mechanics"?
|
The bible mentions man-woman,unlike the other combinations.
| Quote: |
| I have a proposal: that we call all humans "people" except for those of African descent, who will be called "blacks". Blacks will have all of the same legal and civil rights as people, so there's no harm done. It's not racist, I'm totally in favour of blacks' rights - I just don't think they should expect to be called "people". What's the difference anyway? They're exactly the same - they're just not people. |
I'm with you on that, as my earlier post tried to convey. People can be racist no matter what you give them to work with. In fact, I think the current state of things in the US where you can't describe a person as "black" for fear of being labeled a racist, is ridiculous. I think it's very naive to think the difference between a Caucasian and a Negroid will only occur to a human observer if they had previously been instilled with different words to describe them.
| Quote: |
| This is where we keep disconnecting, I think - my aim is not to end discrimination. My aim is to prevent institutionalising discrimination. When you have the government of a country enforcing a different set of words for a minority group, that group is always going to be marked as "different". |
I think we can safely say neither of us is in favour of discrimination, institutionalized or otherwise. That being said, I don't think the thing that marks a gay couple as "different" is how their union is called by the state law. I could be wrong on this, but it seems it's more apparent that a couple is of the same sex, than it is easy to find out exactly what their marital state is written as in the census. I'm fairly certain people who oppose gays don't do so because they have a amusingly-named lifetime bond. Rereading your posts, it seems like there's an underlying assumption that as long as there are two names to what you consider the same thing, one of these names must be discriminated against. I really don't see why this would be the situation, or how having both called "marriage" stops anyone from passing a law that discriminates against "same-sex marriage". The distinction is already there, unimportant as it may be objectively.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lexprod
NOT not a title
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:52 am Post subject: 48 |
|
|
adding a tally to the "Government should only sanction any individuals deciding to live their lives together until further notice as civil unions and marriage stays cultural in nature" side.
Besides, being married or wed should be done with family and friends that support the bond there, as a way of showing commitment. And you get presents!
If you want to claim that there are dynamics different between hetero and homo couples, then I think you mean based on typical personality differences between men and women. In which case lesbian marriage is different from gaymen (there's really no good strictly gay male noun that's not offense in mixed company) marriage, and any combo of being wed to someone between genders. It's fine to say marriages are different depending on the people, I think the stress on "there's marriage and then there's gay marriage" as the only divide is causing feathers (including mine) to be ruffled. No one wants to be Diet Coke. But being one of many flavors of Fanta is fine.
_________________
I'll have a P please... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:22 am Post subject: 49 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| The bible mentions man-woman,unlike the other combinations. |
I don't believe that what the Bible says should be the basis for government policy.
| Quote: |
I'm with you on that, as my earlier post tried to convey. People can be racist no matter what you give them to work with. In fact, I think the current state of things in the US where you can't describe a person as "black" for fear of being labeled a racist, is ridiculous. I think it's very naive to think the difference between a Caucasian and a Negroid will only occur to a human observer if they had previously been instilled with different words to describe them.
...
I think we can safely say neither of us is in favour of discrimination, institutionalized or otherwise. That being said, I don't think the thing that marks a gay couple as "different" is how their union is called by the state law. I could be wrong on this, but it seems it's more apparent that a couple is of the same sex, than it is easy to find out exactly what their marital state is written as in the census. I'm fairly certain people who oppose gays don't do so because they have a amusingly-named lifetime bond. Rereading your posts, it seems like there's an underlying assumption that as long as there are two names to what you consider the same thing, one of these names must be discriminated against. I really don't see why this would be the situation, or how having both called "marriage" stops anyone from passing a law that discriminates against "same-sex marriage". The distinction is already there, unimportant as it may be objectively. |
Of course I don't think you are pro-discrimination, by the way.  I do think that you are interpreting my argument as "this will end discrimination". What my actual argument is is that giving the same thing two different names is discrimination, not that giving them the same name will stop it.
People will still discriminate if the government calls gay marriage "marriage". However, this discrimination will not be being implicitly endorsed by the government.
The reason I assume that one of the names will be discriminated against is because not only are they currently discriminated against, but also because wanting to give the same union a different name IS discrimination in itself. The effect isn't even really relevant (though I believe it would be significant) when it comes down to the basic principle that I am against institutionalised discrimination by the government - much as I would be if the government refused to call black people "people". There is no legal reason to make that distinction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:41 am Post subject: 50 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| The bible mentions man-woman,unlike the other combinations. |
So when you say "bible", you mean the one in which the People of God are all descended from the man Israel, who bought not one, but two, wives from his father-in-law by managing sheep for 7 years each, right? That's the source we're going with for the definition of marriage?
So how much did you pay your father-in-law for your wife?
When are you expecting to buy your next?
Is your wife ready to bone your dad to give you a son if you die early?
Are you prepared to put her to death if she commits adultery against you?
I respectfully suggest that you do not actually get your definition of marriage from your Bible.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:04 am Post subject: 51 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I don't believe that what the Bible says should be the basis for government policy. |
Neither do I, but you've asked how it's different beyond which part goes in where, so I gave an answer.
| Quote: |
| What my actual argument is is that giving the same thing two different names is discrimination, not that giving them the same name will stop it. |
Which is where this ties back to my earlier post where "you're arguing against distinction". If you already assume gay marriage and straight marriage are the same, then clearly calling them different names is silly (and possible discriminatory?). If you don't, then the argument above doesn't make sense, since it means all distinctions are evil.
CP, see the first quote above. I don't know if you read my thread about being married, but I in fact jumped through several hoops so as to not let the central Jewish authority in Israel any say regarding my marriage. But it's irrelevant, since this discussion was sparked from my question "why do gays care what it's called as long as they get the same rights", to which I still don't have an answer.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:22 am Post subject: 52 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| CP, see the first quote above. |
My post discussed your marriage, rather than the argument over the "real" definition of marriage, because I thought it read better. But my point extends quite naturally to cover Biblical mention as a difference, too. I'm quite sure divorce is very serious among groups who take the Bible seriously in Israel, but I'm almost as sure that, nonetheless, they do not actually kill people for adultury. I am also pretty confident that they no longer practice Levirate law. Am I wrong?
This demonstrates that "modern man-woman marriage", as we all loosely understand it for this conversation, is also not discussed in the Bible. "Modern man-woman marriage" is not different from man-man marriage or woman-woman marriage in this way. Both are non-traditional
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:59 am Post subject: 53 |
|
|
I wasn't suggesting that you believe marriage is "merely a contract". For some (most? whatever) that is certainly one aspect of it.
| Quote: |
| I think that "the legal contract" is closer to the *actual* definition than the lifelong-love-bond we've been talking about. |
I don't believe so. If you discovered today that your marriage was not legally binding because of, for instance, some clerical error, would you consider yourself any less married? I wouldn't, and some informal surveys I've taken suggest a great majority of others feel the same way: A marriage is a marriage regardless of whether the government recognizes it as such.
| Quote: |
| 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". |
If a man and woman got married in a church (for instance), called and considered themselves married, and had no legal marriage license, I would still consider them married. Marriage predates government, and was no less marriage before government than since.
| Quote: |
| I'd also like to repeat the question "in what way does a man-woman relationship differ from a man-man or woman-woman relationship other than physical mechanics"? |
First of all, I believe that in a husband-wife relationship, the "physical mechanics" can be fairly profound, in a way that they can't be in a homosexual relationship. The parts were "designed" (so to speak) to be used a certain way.
Second, other than the purely physical, there are psychological differences between man and woman that give a relationship between the two something not possible in a same sex relationship.
| Quote: |
| My contention is that the difference is that allowing gays to be "married" in no way threatens or diminishes the rights of the religious, nor does it force churches to perform the marriages. |
Should we allow a man to be a "wife"? People think husband & wife marriage is different from these same sex things, and that it deserves to have a name.
There are wineries throughout the world that produce sparkling white wines that most would find indistinguishable from Champagne, yet throughout the world, the word "Champagne" is reserved, by law, for sparkling wines produced in the Champagne region of France. Why would it matter if other sparkling wines are called "Champagne"? Who cares? And are you telling me that Champagne is more important to most people than the institution of marriage?
| Quote: |
| Imposing a separation, on the other hand, institutionalises the other-isation of homosexuals and is an actual and deliberate restriction of their right to equal treatment. |
1) Again, I'd support government being out of the marriage business, and granting civil unions to all - thus not institutionalizing difference or sameness of heterosexual and homosexual unions.
2) Right to equal treatment isn't clear. They should have equal treatment regarding taxation,for instance. But equal treatment in social settings, equal acceptance of their relationships, is not at all a right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:26 am Post subject: 54 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| I don't believe so. If you discovered today that your marriage was not legally binding because of, for instance, some clerical error, would you consider yourself any less married? I wouldn't, and some informal surveys I've taken suggest a great majority of others feel the same way: A marriage is a marriage regardless of whether the government recognizes it as such. |
Okay, I'll scrap that definition if you don't agree. Do you consider arranged/political/convenient/purchased marriages to be marriages?
| Quote: |
| If a man and woman got married in a church (for instance), called and considered themselves married, and had no legal marriage license, I would still consider them married. Marriage predates government, and was no less marriage before government than since. |
...but if two homosexuals had a civil ceremony and called and considered themselves "married", you'd assume that they don't understand the meaning of the word "marriage"?
| Quote: |
First of all, I believe that in a husband-wife relationship, the "physical mechanics" can be fairly profound, in a way that they can't be in a homosexual relationship. The parts were "designed" (so to speak) to be used a certain way.
Second, other than the purely physical, there are psychological differences between man and woman that give a relationship between the two something not possible in a same sex relationship. |
um... this is the part of your post where I'm starting to realise that maybe reason and civil rights aren't as central to this discussion as I thought. I mean... really? You're basically saying that you believe gay sex is inferior to straight sex, and and then stating as fact that because men and women are different from one another, they are incapable of having the same relationship with a same sex member as with an opposite sex member? A man's love for his husband is somehow inherently different from a man's love for his wife?
If I had realised that you felt homosexual relationships were inherently inferior/different at the start of this discussion, I would have had a much easier time understanding why you were arguing such an anti-libertarian viewpoint. On what basis do you even make those claims?
You've been a personal hero of mine for years. This is genuinely upsetting.
| Quote: |
| Should we allow a man to be a "wife"? People think husband & wife marriage is different from these same sex things, and that it deserves to have a name. |
"People", here, means " some religious people", who should not be in control of government policy.
| Quote: |
| There are wineries throughout the world that produce sparkling white wines that most would find indistinguishable from Champagne, yet throughout the world, the word "Champagne" is reserved, by law, for sparkling wines produced in the Champagne region of France. Why would it matter if other sparkling wines are called "Champagne"? Who cares? And are you telling me that Champagne is more important to most people than the institution of marriage? |
lol. Homosexuals should have all the civil rights of sparkling white wine, then? That conclusion makes about as much sense as whatever you were trying to say there. People are different from products. Yes, even gay ones.
| Quote: |
1) Again, I'd support government being out of the marriage business, and granting civil unions to all - thus not institutionalizing difference or sameness of heterosexual and homosexual unions.
2) Right to equal treatment isn't clear. They should have equal treatment regarding taxation,for instance. But equal treatment in social settings, equal acceptance of their relationships, is not at all a right. |
Calling it the same thing wouldn't grant or enforce equal acceptance. It would prevent government-endorsed discrimination. I know you understand this, because you support calling them the same thing - so long as it isn't "marriage".
Ugh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:47 am Post subject: 55 |
|
|
Whoops, I actually came into the thread to reply to Ant.
| Antrax wrote: |
| Which is where this ties back to my earlier post where "you're arguing against distinction". If you already assume gay marriage and straight marriage are the same, then clearly calling them different names is silly (and possible discriminatory?). If you don't, then the argument above doesn't make sense, since it means all distinctions are evil. |
I think I finally understand where my wires have been getting crossed re: figuring out what you are asking me.
Individually, there are many people who discriminate against homosexuals. They will continue to do so regardless of what my opinion is about marriage and regardless of what the government does about marriage. The aim is not to "convert" these people - they are (and should be) perfectly free to believe whatever they want. However, they should not be allowed to influence the government to enforce discrimination.
Legally/politically, if you grant gay marriages identical rights and it is an identical contract/legal process/whatever, then yes, it is silly to call them different names - all that it achieves is an institutionalisation of other-ism. It singles out homosexuals as having a different legal status from heterosexuals, even if identical rights are granted otherwise (much like not allowing black people to be called "people" while granting them all other human rights).
Because legally there would be no distinction, my argument is exactly the first part of what you said - that calling them different names is silly and discriminatory. Individually, religious people and homophobes are free to say that it's not a "real" marriage. Their churches don't have to marry gay people. They don't have to accept it on a personal level. The purpose is very simply not to have that discrimination institutionalised, not to convince people that homosexuality is OK. Society does that on its own, over time - so long as the group in question is not stigmatised with labels from the government designating them as "different".
| Quote: |
| But it's irrelevant, since this discussion was sparked from my question "why do gays care what it's called as long as they get the same rights", to which I still don't have an answer. |
I thought this was addressed by several people already, actually. If you are granting equal legal status, the only reason to give it a different name is out of prejudice. As extro has said, if "marriage" is that loaded a word use something else, but use it for everyone.
Additionally, while "marriage" and "marriaqe" may be granted equal legal rights, it might not always remain the case. A homophobic party could get into power and strip rights from the "marriqed" couples while leaving the "married" as is. It's kind of a legal insulation from discrimination on an institutional level, too. (if this sounds stupid, disregard - it only just occurred to me and I tacked it on) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raekuul
Lives under a bridge & tells stories.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:59 am Post subject: 56 |
|
|
Look, whichever way you look at it, you have to consider the following.
1) Our society is heavily influenced by Greco-Roman society.
2) Homosexuality of any kind was rare or even unheard of outside of those societies.
3) Until the 20th century, being "outed" was the single worst thing that could happen to a homosexual.
4) Even leaving religion out of it, Homosexuality is bad in the sense that it can keep perfectly good genes out of the gene pool. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:09 pm Post subject: 57 |
|
|
| I'm pretty sure being homosexual doesn't render you unable to conceive children, even if we were that hard up for genetic diversity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:32 pm Post subject: 58 |
|
|
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.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:19 pm Post subject: 59 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| A homophobic party could get into power and strip rights from the "marriqed" couples while leaving the "married" as is. |
Yes, or they could do it for "man-woman civil unions" and not for the "man-man" ones.
It looks like we've always been in agreement about the rest.
_________________
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: Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:09 pm Post subject: 60 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| Do you consider arranged/political/convenient/purchased marriages to be marriages? |
Hmmm ... it depends. There are certainly many arranged marriages that end up just like healthy non-arranged marriages. A legal "marriage", along with whatever kind of ceremonies, that is purely for convenience, on paper only, I wouldn't call a "real" marriage.
| Quote: |
| ... if two homosexuals had a civil ceremony and called and considered themselves "married", you'd assume that they don't understand the meaning of the word "marriage"? |
More likely they understand, but are trying to redefine it.
| Quote: |
| um... this is the part of your post where I'm starting to realise that maybe reason and civil rights aren't as central to this discussion as I thought. I mean... really? You're basically saying that you believe gay sex is inferior to straight sex ... |
Yes. I'm sure I don't need to explain the evolutionary selective advantage of heterosexual attraction and sex. I believe homosexual attraction is a selectively non-advantageous (evolutionarily) sort of accidental byproduct of the development of other advantageous characteristics, and it has to make due with using anatomy in unintended ways that really don't work out so well.
| Quote: |
| ... and and then stating as fact that because men and women are different from one another, they are incapable of having the same relationship with a same sex member as with an opposite sex member? |
Yes, it's a plain fact, when you consider the totality of the relationship, physical included. But ...
| Quote: |
| A man's love for his husband is somehow inherently different from a man's love for his wife? |
Perhaps, perhaps not. Love is difficult to define, certainly means many things. How do we compare a father's love for his son to his love for his daughter to his love for his wife? What is the point? Not all are the same in character.
| Quote: |
| If I had realised that you felt homosexual relationships were inherently inferior/different at the start of this discussion, I would have had a much easier time understanding why you were arguing such an anti-libertarian viewpoint. |
First, it certainly isn't in the least anti-libertarian. I'm advocating government not redefining a word that has great meaning to many outside of its legal meaning. I said I'd support government changing over to deal in "civil unions" for legal purposes all, and staying out of the marriage business.
Second, what you're saying is somewhat ad hominem, in dismissing what is said by ascribing motive, rather than addressing the validity of what is said.
| Quote: |
| On what basis do you even make those claims? |
For starters, read what's written here: What are the risks of heterosexual anal sex?. And the "heterosexual" in the above is irrelevant to most of it.
| Quote: |
| You've been a personal hero of mine for years. This is genuinely upsetting. |
I don't deserve it, but thanks. I had to bust that bubble sooner or later dear. 
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Should we allow a man to be a "wife"? People think husband & wife marriage is different from these same sex things, and that it deserves to have a name. |
"People", here, means " some religious people", who should not be in control of government policy.
|
People there means a majority, I think, and in any case, people as a whole, and not their government, should be in control of their everyday language.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| There are wineries throughout the world that produce sparkling white wines that most would find indistinguishable from Champagne, yet throughout the world, the word "Champagne" is reserved, by law, for sparkling wines produced in the Champagne region of France. Why would it matter if other sparkling wines are called "Champagne"? Who cares? And are you telling me that Champagne is more important to most people than the institution of marriage? |
lol. Homosexuals should have all the civil rights of sparkling white wine, then? That conclusion makes about as much sense as whatever you were trying to say there. People are different from products. Yes, even gay ones. |
Again, to have social acceptance of your union as a marriage is not a civil rights issue. Having the same special privileges, like joint tax filings, etc., is a civil rights issue.
The point is that people care about language and labels and if a majority of people consider marriage to mean husband and wife, and to mean something sacred, it is reasonable that they should want the word to retain its meaning and not be used for something different with the intention of suggesting there is no difference.
| Quote: |
| Calling it the same thing wouldn't grant or enforce equal acceptance. |
It would certainly over time influence people to think of them as the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:41 pm Post subject: 61 |
|
|
Sorry I was a dick. You are classier than me in being kind enough to say "ad hominem" instead of "being a dick".
That said, your prior post caused me to realise that we are operating off separate and incompatible premises - not just regarding the validity of homosexual relationships, but the majority of the people who would object to the use of the word, and the fact that what you see as "government not redefining a word that has great meaning to many outside of its legal meaning", I see as "denying a particular status to an oppressed class". Even now you just represented my stance as wanting to force(? somehow?) social acceptance, when all I want is for the government not to force a distinction.
I'm pretty sure further discussion will be unfruitful and possibly make me mad. It's been fun though. At least up until I was a dick.
Ant: that's what I thought! I've been so confused and frustrated wondering why you were acting like you disagreed with me while not saying anything I disagreed with! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:51 pm Post subject: 62 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| Sorry I was a dick. You are classier than me in being kind enough to say "ad hominem" instead of "being a dick". |
I wasn't being classy, they're not the same, and I don't think that.
| Mackay wrote: |
| "denying a particular status to an oppressed class" |
The legal status should not be denied. The social status is not a question of denial to me, any more than a man is denied the status of being a wife. Two people of the same sex, to me, don't make a marriage.
| Mackay wrote: |
| Even now you just represented my stance as wanting to force(? somehow?) social acceptance, when all I want is for the government not to force a distinction. |
I'm not suggesting that's what you want, but I think change in language will result in change in thought, and that's why some want it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:07 pm Post subject: 63 |
|
|
| Well, when I wrote the ad hominem attack, I knew that it was a personal attack, thought about it, and wrote it anyway because I was annoyed. So I'm going to go ahead and say no, I was being a dick. I didn't mean to imply that you thought so, though - just that I'd calmed down and was prepared to try to no longer act that way |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:52 pm Post subject: 64 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
Sorry I was a dick.
|
In your case, wouldn't that be............um....... never mind.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hitchhiker
Finally got a ride.
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:40 am Post subject: 65 |
|
|
| "It’s very dear to me, the issue of gay marriage. Or as I like to call it: ‘marriage.’ You know, because I had lunch this afternoon, not gay lunch. I parked my car; I didn’t gay park it." -- Liz Feldman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:50 am Post subject: 66 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| Mackay wrote: |
Sorry I was a dick.
|
In your case, wouldn't that be............um....... never mind. |
In the spirit of not having different labels for different things ... ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lexprod
NOT not a title
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:01 pm Post subject: 67 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Love is difficult to define, certainly means many things. |
The same can be said about sex. For example assuming all homosexual sexual relations are worse because anal sex is less healthy in certain ways than vaginal sex is ruling out every single other intimate physical relationship people can have, including stuff that's totally gender neutral like kissing, holding, hugging, etc. And again, completely ignoring lesbian sex (usually ignored by various outlets because people don't understand what it would be, and isn't as scary).
I know this is bordering on the personal, and certainly skewing off of "why bother fighting over the word marriage," but I consider myself a supporter of broadly defining sex and acknowledging what variety there is rather than ignoring things that don't make babies.
Also the argument that reproductive intercourse is best because other sex is evolutionarily accidental doesn't hold water for me either (of course I'm biased). Couldn't you argue that smoking can't possibly be more fun than breathing, because breathing air is a dominant genetic survival instinct and putting smoke in your lungs flies in the face of that? Replace smoking with food/videogames/chocolate/watchingoprah.
I assume that you're naturally biased to say that heterosexual sex has a better "vibe" or purpose or sanctity to it that makes it seem on another level, and that's fine for your personal faith or beliefs but it doesn't mean there's a way to compare it to what others do with their loved ones and say "that's the wrong way."
I'm most likely overreacting, because I'm touchy with this stuff. Hearing heterosexual intercourse is the "prevalent" or "popular" choice is fine, even if it oversimplifies the options between men and women. Considering what millions of things people can do to excite each other, the things any couple can do might be close to the same as the things only a specific gendered combo could do.
Again, apologies for wedging open a small facet of the topic.
_________________
I'll have a P please... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:02 pm Post subject: 68 |
|
|
| lexprod wrote: |
| Again, apologies for wedging open a small facet of the topic. |
Not in the least necessary. It is food for thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Undercover Monk
Professor Chaos
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:02 pm Post subject: 69 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Yes, yes, people have the right to believe what they want. That doesn't mean everyone's beliefs should be endorsed and institutionalised by the government. |
except both groups are trying to get their beliefs endorsed and institutionalized by the govt. Those who support gay marriage are actively trying to get it approved in states that have banned it. And those who are anti-gay marriage are actively trying to get it banned.
In fact the whole idea of democracy is that of individuals getting the views and beliefs of the majority to be endorsed and institutionalized by the govt. And to prevent thr govenrment from becoming outdated as the views of the majority change, we have elections. Thats the beauty of the American system and why I support it despite its problems.
Macay aren't you being just as discriminatory as you say we conservatives are being by campaigning to keep our ideas of marriage out of view.
as to God's stance on the whole thing (I'm a christian) I don't know. If someone could prove to me that sexual orientation is genetic or biological then maybe I wouldn't feel its a sin. After all not everything in the bible (especially the old testament) is followed today. We don't stone adulterers, or banish lepers and the mentally handicapped, so I think I'm fairly open minded on the subject of is homosexuality sin? I don't know, cause I ain't God.
Besides if it is a sin....well join the club. We are all sinners anyway so what does it matter.
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:06 pm Post subject: 70 |
|
|
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
| as to God's stance on the whole thing (I'm a christian) I don't know. If someone could prove to me that sexual orientation is genetic or biological then maybe I wouldn't feel its a sin. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
This seems pretty compelling, pointing out several studies that show a link (also some that say that the earlier studies were non-representative, but there are later ones that do show a link and are not especially refuted). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:15 am Post subject: 71 |
|
|
| Undercover Monk wrote: |
except both groups are trying to get their beliefs endorsed and institutionalized by the govt. Those who support gay marriage are actively trying to get it approved in states that have banned it. And those who are anti-gay marriage are actively trying to get it banned.
In fact the whole idea of democracy is that of individuals getting the views and beliefs of the majority to be endorsed and institutionalized by the govt. And to prevent thr govenrment from becoming outdated as the views of the majority change, we have elections. Thats the beauty of the American system and why I support it despite its problems. |
I admit that I'm not an expert on the American system, but I googled "percentage of americans that support gay marriage" and it looks like the most recent polling shows that a majority are now in favour. (It also looks like this shift has just happened, so good timing by me, I guess!  )
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/21/us-gay-marriage-poll-idUSTRE74K0B520110521
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marriage-opponents-now-in-minority/
I'd just kind of assumed up until that point - in Australia a poll was done and basically every state showed support in either the high 60s or low 70s. But then, our politics isn't nearly as tied down to our religion.
| Quote: |
| Macay aren't you being just as discriminatory as you say we conservatives are being by campaigning to keep our ideas of marriage out of view. |
Allowing gay people to be married doesn't repress the conservative idea of marriage in any way - straight people will marry in exactly the same way as they did previously, and there will be no pressure on churches or any institutions which oppose gay marriage to either acknowledge or perform the ceremonies. The only difference is that all the laws and protections which currently apply to married people will apply universally to all couples who have legally solidified their loving bond in that way, protecting all of them from discrimination.
It might be discriminatory of me, but it is less discriminatory of the government.
| Quote: |
as to God's stance on the whole thing (I'm a christian) I don't know. If someone could prove to me that sexual orientation is genetic or biological then maybe I wouldn't feel its a sin. After all not everything in the bible (especially the old testament) is followed today. We don't stone adulterers, or banish lepers and the mentally handicapped, so I think I'm fairly open minded on the subject of is homosexuality sin? I don't know, cause I ain't God.
Besides if it is a sin....well join the club. We are all sinners anyway so what does it matter. |
I'm a Christian, too. I agree incredibly strongly with the last part of what you said, it's strange that people put so much more weight on homosexuality as a sin.
(Admittedly, though, I think every Christian is a little guilty of giving more weight to the parts of the Bible that they feel are most "right". For me it tends to fall a lot into "Judge not, or you too will be judged", with a dash of "Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice!" )
But I think the point is, it doesn't matter whether it is a sin or not. What our religion tells us, on a personal level, to do shouldn't necessarily be enforced on everyone by the government. In fact, it takes away a little of our spiritual autonomy to do so. If the government made a law that we were to pray every day or face a fine, we would pray every day, but it wouldn't be *good* in the same way as if we were praying every day because we wanted to, y'know? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:33 am Post subject: 72 |
|
|
| lexprod wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Love is difficult to define, certainly means many things. |
The same can be said about sex. For example assuming all homosexual sexual relations are worse because anal sex is less healthy in certain ways than vaginal sex is ruling out every single other intimate physical relationship people can have, including stuff that's totally gender neutral like kissing, holding, hugging, etc. And again, completely ignoring lesbian sex (usually ignored by various outlets because people don't understand what it would be, and isn't as scary).
I know this is bordering on the personal, and certainly skewing off of "why bother fighting over the word marriage," but I consider myself a supporter of broadly defining sex and acknowledging what variety there is rather than ignoring things that don't make babies.
Also the argument that reproductive intercourse is best because other sex is evolutionarily accidental doesn't hold water for me either (of course I'm biased). Couldn't you argue that smoking can't possibly be more fun than breathing, because breathing air is a dominant genetic survival instinct and putting smoke in your lungs flies in the face of that? Replace smoking with food/videogames/chocolate/watchingoprah.
I assume that you're naturally biased to say that heterosexual sex has a better "vibe" or purpose or sanctity to it that makes it seem on another level, and that's fine for your personal faith or beliefs but it doesn't mean there's a way to compare it to what others do with their loved ones and say "that's the wrong way."
I'm most likely overreacting, because I'm touchy with this stuff. Hearing heterosexual intercourse is the "prevalent" or "popular" choice is fine, even if it oversimplifies the options between men and women. Considering what millions of things people can do to excite each other, the things any couple can do might be close to the same as the things only a specific gendered combo could do.
Again, apologies for wedging open a small facet of the topic. |
Pressing the imaginary "like" button over here
| Hitchhiker wrote: |
| "It’s very dear to me, the issue of gay marriage. Or as I like to call it: ‘marriage.’ You know, because I had lunch this afternoon, not gay lunch. I parked my car; I didn’t gay park it." -- Liz Feldman |
And again.
Last edited by Mackay on Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:36 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Undercover Monk
Professor Chaos
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:35 am Post subject: 73 |
|
|
I agree with most of what you said I guess what my point was that in America its supposedly a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. So the everyone is going to try and get their beliefs to be implimented by the govt. So I don't have a problem with either group trying. On the contrary I love a spirited debate.
I recently heard a pro-life group was trying to get some sort of anti-abortion proposal onto the ballot in Missouri. and when a pro-choice group tried to get a federal judge to throw out the proposal he wouldn't. It made me very happy not cause I'm a pro-lifer (that issue is even stickier for me than gay marriage.) but because issues like this should be decided by the people. Not by a judge, a politician, or any special interest groups.
As J.G.Wentworth says "It's your money, use it HOW you need it." 
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:47 am Post subject: 74 |
|
|
Mackay, I'm curious what you think of this alternative:
The government no longer recognizes "marriage" or any sort. They only recognize "legal unions" which can be between any two consenting adults. (Is 'two' an unnecessary limitation? I'm not sure.) The legal unions have tax, inheritance, medical, etc. ramifications.
People who enter into these "legal unions" are welcome to call them whatever they like. Churches are welcome to perform a ceremony, or refuse to, because nothing the church does is legally binding, anyway. The only thing that is legally binding is the paperwork which a couple needs to have notarized and registered with the appropriate government agency, much like a real estate title must be.
There is a legal process for the dissolution of these legal bindings, which we can probably continue to call divorce with no one objecting.
I like this solution, because it creates equality AND it takes some power away from the churches. I don't see it as particularly possible politically, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:10 am Post subject: 75 |
|
|
I think that any solution which grants identical legal status (including title) is acceptable. However, my ideal is the identical legal status you mentioned above, but using the title "marriage" instead of "civil union". Why? Because the above alternative involves amending all marriage laws to "civil union laws" specifically to prevent gay people from being able to use the term "marriage". And that's just mean. However, the most important part is equal status and equal name (if the name is separate, ostensibly there is a separate [though initially identical] set of laws, which is then still left wide open for discrimination in either direction).
The "two" is an interesting discussion in itself. I am, theoretically, in favour of recognising polygamous marriages. However, it would be much harder to implement than homosexual marriage. On a strictly legal level there are definitely tax implications (I'd need to read about American taxation law, but I assume that the status would be exploitable unless amended), and things like divorce and child custody become a lot knottier.
On the other hand, when bigots claim that their definition of marriage is the "traditional" one, it would be much easier to point to the Bible and disprove them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:38 am Post subject: 76 |
|
|
Zag, did you see my post #58?
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuie
Pablo's Boy Toy
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:03 am Post subject: 77 |
|
|
| when it comes to gay marriage, i would like pabs to examine my stance. it is a topic that needs to be considered long and hard, and i think his penetrating insight is what i would like in the end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:03 am Post subject: 78 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| Zag, did you see my post #58? |
Oh. No I hadn't. I'm only skimming this thread. I hadn't really thought that my idea was was original, but I thought it was a little more original than just copying an idea that was only a couple of screens up. 
Great minds... and all that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:54 am Post subject: 79 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| Zag, did you see my post #58? |
#20:
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| ... and I think it's unfortunate that government ever stuck its nose in the marriage business. I'd be fine with government granting "civil unions", as a legal contract, to any two (or more) people, of any combination of genders, and leaving what "marriage" means up to individuals (as with the meaning of any word). |
| Mackay wrote: |
| ... the above alternative involves amending all marriage laws to "civil union laws" specifically to prevent gay people from being able to use the term "marriage". |
Not to prevent them from using the term "marriage", but to prevent them, when traditionalists disagree, from saying "the government sides with me". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:18 am Post subject: 80 |
|
|
(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. (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.) 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?
(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.
(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)? |
|
| 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
