|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JDTAY
obseletes now
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Poisonium
annoyed by the old
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:44 am Post subject: 2 |
 |
|
| JDTAY wrote: |
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/211681/20110910/why-do-liberals-love-ron-paul-jon-stewart-daily-show.htm
Nice to see the media investigating the truly puzzling questions. Up next: Why isn't toilet paper made out of fiberglass, and why do people like orgasms? |
Even I, a socialist by American standards, like him.
It's a damn good questions why people like orgasms though. It does take a lot of social drama, effort, time and money just for those few seconds.
_________________
I tried apt-get install lifebut it only returned E: Couldn't find package life |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:33 am Post subject: 3 |
|
|
I, a socialist by objective standards, don't like him. At a very shallow level he seems awesome to liberals - his foreign policy and his opposition to the drug war are both extremely appealing.
Then you watch him debate and he speaks out against gay marriage with the stock line that it's supposed to be between a man and a woman, and it's like, "but you're a libertarian! Why would you deny homosexuals the right to get married?" and there is no good answer.
And then there are the newsletters that went out under his name, which he has since repudiated, with the racist rants. And he says he didn't write them, which I believe. What I don't necessarily believe is that he had any objection to their content until called out on it. According to this article, he actually defended the contents of the newsletters in 1996, and only spoke out against them in 2001. That seems to me like an attempt to fix public image/adjust to societal shifts regarding the acceptability of such statements, rather than a change of opinion.
This kind of stuff makes me think that maybe he is just a bigot, or at least playing one for the Republicans. I don't like that.
But politically, he is principled and consistent! The only one who actually stays true to the principles he espouses, like reduced government spending!
Wait... no. He inserts pork into government bills for his own district, to be used for projects such as renovating old movie theatres. He then votes against the bills, ostensibly to maintain his persona of being strongly principled in his opposition to government spending.
The more I read about Ron Paul, the more I think "meh". However, this probably still makes him my #1 Republican candidate.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:30 am Post subject: 4 |
|
|
What's wrong with defining a marriage as being between a man and a woman? I never really understood why gay couples care if it's called marriage or marriaqe, as long as the state doesn't discriminate based on what it's called.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neo
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:48 am Post subject: 5 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| What's wrong with defining a marriage as being between a man and a woman? I never really understood why gay couples care if it's called marriage or marriaqe, as long as the state doesn't discriminate based on what it's called. |
Because people opposed to same-sex marriage are using the distinction of different names to continue to deny benefits or rights. Basically it becomes a matter of "Well, the law says you are entitled to these benefits if married, but you're just in a civil union, which isn't marriage, otherwise it would be called marriage."
_________________
Ad Astra
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:03 am Post subject: 6 |
|
|
| Neo wrote: |
| Antrax wrote: |
| What's wrong with defining a marriage as being between a man and a woman? I never really understood why gay couples care if it's called marriage or marriaqe, as long as the state doesn't discriminate based on what it's called. |
Because people opposed to same-sex marriage are using the distinction of different names to continue to deny benefits or rights. |
Perhaps a few. I think far more would support equal rights with different labels. There are also some who feel equal rights with different labels is not enough - that the label must be the same.
The real problem is that "marriage" has meaning to people far beyond the legal contract, and government shouldn't be redefining it. Redefining it will change how people think. Changing how people think is fine, but it shouldn't be done by government manipulation of language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Poisonium
annoyed by the old
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:51 am Post subject: 7 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| The more I read about Ron Paul, the more I think "meh". However, this probably still makes him my #1 Republican candidate. |
Don't forget Jon Huntsman, who mainly seems to differentiate him from the other candidates by not being "anti-science" (i.e. he believes in evolution and stem cell research).
Disclaimer: I haven't followed it quite enough to know more about Jon Huntsman than that.
_________________
I tried apt-get install lifebut it only returned E: Couldn't find package life |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:14 pm Post subject: 8 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| The real problem is that "marriage" has meaning to people far beyond the legal contract, and government shouldn't be redefining it. Redefining it will change how people think. Changing how people think is fine, but it shouldn't be done by government manipulation of language. |
Surely you can see how this works in exactly the opposite way, though. By not allowing gay people to use the term "marriage", a distinction is being imposed by the government's manipulation of language. Even if the unions were equivalent in every way to a heterosexual marriage, they would still be being told "no matter what, you are of a lesser status than heterosexuals". Using different language for the same relationship is government-imposed discrimination.
There is nothing wrong with evolving the term "marriage". It has already evolved. Cp didn't work for my dad for seven years to buy me, nor does he own either of my sisters. Just because some people have a rigidly defined idea of what marriage should be doesn't mean that they are right or should be catered to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:47 pm Post subject: 9 |
|
|
How is that not an argument against any distinction in general? Why assume non-marriages will be considered "lesser"?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:09 pm Post subject: 10 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
The more I read about Ron Paul, the more I think "meh". However, this probably still makes him my #1 Republican candidate. |
I still wonder why someone would give up the practice of medicine in favor of politics.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:23 pm Post subject: 11 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| How is that not an argument against any distinction in general? Why assume non-marriages will be considered "lesser"? |
 It's not an argument against any distinction, it's an argument against making distinctions between things which are identical.
My assumption that they will be considered lesser is based upon both current discrimination against homosexuals, and the fact that people are arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to share the word "marriage". I think it is a pretty reasonable assumption to make. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:17 pm Post subject: 12 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| Cp didn't work for my dad for seven years to buy me. |
Oh My God!
What was your father thinking? I assume that his family paid an appropriate dowry, then. I mean, your father should just be GIVING his property away.
Seriously, I totally agree with you.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:30 pm Post subject: 13 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| Antrax wrote: |
| How is that not an argument against any distinction in general? Why assume non-marriages will be considered "lesser"? |
It's not an argument against any distinction, it's an argument against making distinctions between things which are identical.
My assumption that they will be considered lesser is based upon both current discrimination against homosexuals, and the fact that people are arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to share the word "marriage". I think it is a pretty reasonable assumption to make. |
Do you think people won't discriminate against same-sex couples of their union used the same word as the one used by hetero couples?
I think I just disagree with you regarding what causes what. The problem is discrimination, not the title one chooses to grant a couple's declaration of mutual commitment.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:35 pm Post subject: 14 |
|
|
| But continuing to keep them "different" helps to perpetuate the discrimination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:37 pm Post subject: 15 |
|
|
Of course I don't think that calling it marriage will stop discrimination. I'm arguing that making a legal distinction between "marriage" and "marriaqe" (to use your example) perpetuates the discrimination.
I really think you must be misunderstanding my argument or something, because it seems like you're coming to some really weird conclusions about what I think.
edit to add: that last part sounded harsher than I intended. What I mean is, I am arguing very specifically against government-endorsed discrimination, and it sounds like you think I'm arguing that it will cause discrimination to stop. It's an unusually obtuse interpretation from you, particularly as I'm pretty sure you give me more credit than that. 
Last edited by Mackay on Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:43 pm Post subject: 16 |
|
|
Who supported a legal distinction? I was pretty sure my first post specifically mentioned that the state should not consider them differently.
Otherwise, I have to wonder what Zag would do if people make up a new name for hetero-marriage, and bigots starts discriminating against gay couples because they're married and not super-married.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:50 pm Post subject: 17 |
|
|
If the state should not consider them differently, why would/should they call an identical legal contract something different?
The government requiring one union to be called "marriage" and another "marriaqe" is a legal distinction, no matter how petty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:04 pm Post subject: 18 |
|
|
Because that's the state of the language today?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:06 pm Post subject: 19 |
|
|
I'm... not entirely sure what you mean.
Do you mean "the state of language is such that different words are required for a union between heterosexuals and a union between homosexuals"?
If so, why?
If not, what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:33 pm Post subject: 20 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| The real problem is that "marriage" has meaning to people far beyond the legal contract, and government shouldn't be redefining it. Redefining it will change how people think. Changing how people think is fine, but it shouldn't be done by government manipulation of language. |
Surely you can see how this works in exactly the opposite way, though. By not allowing gay people to use the term "marriage", a distinction is being imposed by the government's manipulation of language. |
I agree, 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).
| Quote: |
| Even if the unions were equivalent in every way to a heterosexual marriage, they would still be being told "no matter what, you are of a lesser status than heterosexuals". Using different language for the same relationship is government-imposed discrimination. |
Men and women may have equal rights, but we don't need to start calling women "men". We have to be precise what we mean by "discrimination". Different labels does not imply unequal rights. Equal rights does not imply equivalence, or sameness.
"Marriage" has a great deal of meaning to many people, far beyond the legal recognition of government. People have a right to believe that marriage, in the traditional husband and wife sense, deserves to have its own name. People even have an absolute right to believe that a same sex union is something less.
| Quote: |
| There is nothing wrong with evolving the term "marriage". It has already evolved. |
Language greatly influences or controls thought. In George Orwell's 1984, they had a government controlled language called "newspeak", designed to limit thought. It was written in 1984 that newspeak was the only language which got smaller each year (government eliminated words from the vocabulary). By taking things which many people consider to be significantly different and decreeing a single word be used for both, we make our language smaller, and it will indeed influence people to consider these different things to be the same. This is the reason many want the same label. It's not about rights, but about being accepted as the same. Should a man have a right to be a wife, or a woman to be a husband? Does the question even make sense? Should two men have a right to be married, when married means husband and wife?
Language should evolve naturally, by implicit consensus of the people who use the language.
| Zag wrote: |
| But continuing to keep them "different" helps to perpetuate the discrimination. |
They are different - there's no changing that. Blacks are different than whites, men are different than women, but laws can prohibit certain kinds of discrimination. Laws can't, and shouldn't, prohibit discrimination in thought. Same sex unions are fundamentally different than heterosexual unions. There's biology involved here, at a very deep level. It isn't wrong to fail to ignore that. I can tell you the evolutionary advantage of opposite sex attraction and bonding, i.e. its purpose. It isn't wrong to consider that same sex attraction is peculiar in that regard, and perhaps even some sort of disorder. It would be wrong to not afford same sex couples the same special privileges (and that's another thing: we're talking about special privileges here, not rights) as heterosexual couples, but it is not wrong to recognize they are different, nor to use different words or labels to talk or think about them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:36 pm Post subject: 21 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| Do you mean "the state of language is such that different words are required for a union between heterosexuals and a union between homosexuals"? |
Today people don't think of them as the same thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:40 pm Post subject: 22 |
|
|
I really didn't mean for this to develop into an argument, I was hoping for a concise answer. I'll try to be verbose:
a) Not being religious, I don't give any special weight to the word "marriage". Until my wife dropped a "subtle" hint, I had planned to get "the paperwork" done with sometime when we would take a mortgage or have kids.
b) Taking (a) into account, I don't think there's any way to decide what marriage "really" means. It means different things to different people, and I don't think it's possible for people to convince one other whether or not the sexual preferences of the people in question are relevant.
c) Thus, I see no reason to disagree with someone who says "marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman". I don't see any particular reason to agree with him, either. It just seems that an easy way to grant gays equal rights would be to disarm those who complain that "marriage" must involve a man and a woman, by defining an identical union with the same rights, with a different name. This works around all sorts of religious and/or traditional objections while still addressing the core issue, I thought. I know many gays disagree with this approach - they insist their union be called the exact same thing as the hetero version. I don't see how this can work in the long run - bigots don't stop being bigots if you force them to use neutral terms. One of the derogatory terms for Arabs in Hebrew is "cousins", you really don't need any special word to discriminate, you can easily overload the existing ones.
Hence, my question.
_________________
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: Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:55 pm Post subject: 23 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
I really didn't mean for this to develop into an argument, I was hoping for a concise answer. I'll try to be verbose:
a) Not being religious, I don't give any special weight to the word "marriage". Until my wife dropped a "subtle" hint, I had planned to get "the paperwork" done with sometime when we would take a mortgage or have kids.
b) Taking (a) into account, I don't think there's any way to decide what marriage "really" means. It means different things to different people, and I don't think it's possible for people to convince one other whether or not the sexual preferences of the people in question are relevant.
c) Thus, I see no reason to disagree with someone who says "marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman". I don't see any particular reason to agree with him, either. It just seems that an easy way to grant gays equal rights would be to disarm those who complain that "marriage" must involve a man and a woman, by defining an identical union with the same rights, with a different name. This works around all sorts of religious and/or traditional objections while still addressing the core issue, I thought. I know many gays disagree with this approach - they insist their union be called the exact same thing as the hetero version. I don't see how this can work in the long run - bigots don't stop being bigots if you force them to use neutral terms. One of the derogatory terms for Arabs in Hebrew is "cousins", you really don't need any special word to discriminate, you can easily overload the existing ones.
Hence, my question. |
I agree with all of that, but I do think that legislating the same word will lead future generations to see them as more the same. And it isn't just about bigotry. It isn't bigotry, for instance, to recognize the biological problems (see snopes, http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2858/what-are-the-risks-of-heterosexual-anal-sex ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JDTAY
obseletes now
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:57 pm Post subject: 24 |
|
|
Oh crap, it looks like I accidently messed up this thread. I need to find something amusing to post ASAP.
_________________
Prohibit nothing. Disclose everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:10 pm Post subject: 25 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Men and women may have equal rights, but we don't need to start calling women "men". We have to be precise what we mean by "discrimination". Different labels does not imply unequal rights. Equal rights does not imply equivalence, or sameness. |
As I said earlier to Antrax, my argument is against making distinctions between things that are the same, not between things which are different. I see no reason to think that the loving bond between two men or two women is inherently different to the loving bond between a man and a woman. A gay person is different from a straight person in their sexual orientation, but the relationship, the contract, is the same for either of them in a committed, lifelong union.
| Quote: |
| "Marriage" has a great deal of meaning to many people, far beyond the legal recognition of government. People have a right to believe that marriage, in the traditional husband and wife sense, deserves to have its own name. People even have an absolute right to believe that a same sex union is something less. |
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.
| Quote: |
| Language greatly influences or controls thought. |
,which is why it is important to not have a distinction forced into the language where there is no actual distinction.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'm pretty sure that no such distinction currently exists in language. If I say "John and Frank just got married", you know exactly what I mean, right?
| Quote: |
| In George Orwell's 1984, they had a government controlled language called "newspeak", designed to limit thought. It was written in 1984 that newspeak was the only language which got smaller each year (government eliminated words from the vocabulary). |
(I know you didn't mean it that way, but this is a little condescending. I'm familiar with the work. )
| Quote: |
| By taking things which many people consider to be significantly different and decreeing a single word be used for both, we make our language smaller, and it will indeed influence people to consider these different things to be the same. This is the reason many want the same label. It's not about rights, but about being accepted as the same. |
The last part is exactly what I was arguing, so you're not going to find any disagreement from me there. However, I have to disagree vigorously when you say that it's a "thing which many people consider to be significantly different". Again, I am talking specifically about the relationship, not the individuals involved therein. The lifelong commitment two individuals make to one another is a marriage, and I think that most people would accept that as the case even if the two people happen to share a gender. It's not a tough mental jump to make, and there is currently no word for it other than "marriage", so the word evokes exactly the correct bond immediately.
| Quote: |
| Should a man have a right to be a wife, or a woman to be a husband? Does the question even make sense? Should two men have a right to be married, when married means husband and wife? |
*shrug*, *shrug*, no, who says "married" means "husband and wife"?
| Quote: |
| Language should evolve naturally, by implicit consensus of the people who use the language. |
Why? If there exists a chance to hasten acceptance and tolerance of minorities, on what principle should we not take that opportunity? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JDTAY
obseletes now
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:14 pm Post subject: 26 |
|
|
Hopefully the power of YouTube can help me restore this thread to its original purpose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnagRjxp7v4
_________________
Prohibit nothing. Disclose everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:17 pm Post subject: 27 |
|
|
Mackay, do you really not see that you're arguing exactly that your definition of marriage encompasses the correct meaning for it? Do you expect you'll be able to convince a Rabbi, holding to the belief that because the bible explicitly says so ("...and a man stuck to his woman and they became one flesh" is the literal translation), a marriage is necessarily between a man and a woman?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:20 pm Post subject: 28 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Thus, I see no reason to disagree with someone who says "marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman". I don't see any particular reason to agree with him, either. It just seems that an easy way to grant gays equal rights would be to disarm those who complain that "marriage" must involve a man and a woman, by defining an identical union with the same rights, with a different name. This works around all sorts of religious and/or traditional objections while still addressing the core issue, I thought. |
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.
| Quote: |
I know many gays disagree with this approach - they insist their union be called the exact same thing as the hetero version. I don't see how this can work in the long run - bigots don't stop being bigots if you force them to use neutral terms. One of the derogatory terms for Arabs in Hebrew is "cousins", you really don't need any special word to discriminate, you can easily overload the existing ones.
Hence, my question. |
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". In addition, it empowers the bigots to act more freely discriminatory. Bigotry should be marginalised, not institutionalised - of course the bigots will come up with their own words, but they won't make it so pervasively into the mainstream consciousness - thus speeding public acceptance of an oppressed minority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:30 pm Post subject: 29 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Mackay, do you really not see that you're arguing exactly that your definition of marriage encompasses the correct meaning for it? Do you expect you'll be able to convince a Rabbi, holding to the belief that because the bible explicitly says so ("...and a man stuck to his woman and they became one flesh" is the literal translation), a marriage is necessarily between a man and a woman? |
This is getting frustrating, as you keep assigning me an agenda which I do not hold.
I'm not trying to convince anyone that I have the definitive definition of "marriage". What I am saying is that the loving, lifelong bond which is largely understood by society to be 'marriage' is experienced by both heterosexual and homosexual couples, and imposing a difference between them is institutionalised bigotry - even if that difference is just a word.
There is absolutely zero need for the hypothetical rabbi ever to marry a gay couple. Accepting gay marriages as marriages on a civil level does not force religious leaders to perform ceremonies that fall outside of their spiritual beliefs. The rabbi doesn't HAVE to be convinced, it doesn't matter in the slightest! And homosexuals can still marry each other and not be forced to adopt an alternate title which marks them societally as "different". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:38 pm Post subject: 30 |
|
|
| Mackay wrote: |
| A gay person is different from a straight person in their sexual orientation, but the relationship, the contract, is the same for either of them in a committed, lifelong union. |
Not everyone agrees that the relationship is the same, or that a marriage is merely a contract.
| 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. |
Which is why I said it's unfortunate government got in the marriage business. Let government call them all "civil unions", and leave marriage to the churches or whatever the people want it to mean.
We're in a position now that whether government uses different terms, or recognizes same sex marriage, in either case they are endorsing the beliefs of some.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Language greatly influences or controls thought. |
,which is why it is important to not have a distinction forced into the language where there is no actual distinction.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'm pretty sure that no such distinction currently exists in language. If I say "John and Frank just got married", you know exactly what I mean, right? |
Yes, you mean two things:
1) That you don't recognize the distinction between marriage and this thing between two guys.
2) That John and Frank made official their ... whatever.
| Quote: |
| However, I have to disagree vigorously when you say that it's a "thing which many people consider to be significantly different". Again, I am talking specifically about the relationship, not the individuals involved therein. The lifelong commitment two individuals make to one another is a marriage, and I think that most people would accept that as the case even if the two people happen to share a gender. It's not a tough mental jump to make, and there is currently no word for it other than "marriage", so the word evokes exactly the correct bond immediately. |
There is a fundamental difference in character between the relationship between a husband and wife, man and woman, versus between two of the same.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Should a man have a right to be a wife, or a woman to be a husband? Does the question even make sense? Should two men have a right to be married, when married means husband and wife? |
*shrug*, *shrug*, no, who says "married" means "husband and wife"? |
Him:
| Mackay wrote: |
| Then you watch him debate and he speaks out against gay marriage with the stock line that it's supposed to be between a man and a woman ... |
... and all who made it a "stock line".
| Quote: |
| If there exists a chance to hasten acceptance and tolerance of minorities, on what principle should we not take that opportunity? |
There are many who believe that homosexual relations are morally wrong. They are as much entitled to acceptance and tolerance ... which is perhaps not at all, in the sense that acceptance and tolerance is not a right. Again, we need to distinguish between equal legal rights, and acceptance and tolerance at a social level. Government shouldn't be involved in the latter. If a majority believe in acceptance and tolerance of homosexual relationships at a social level, there's no need for government involvement. But then why have gay marriage referendums so often failed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:45 pm Post subject: 31 |
|
|
Mackay: How about government staying out of "marriage", and calling them ALL "civil unions"?
Then when John and Frank say "We just got married, isn't that fabulous?", I can say "Congratulations!", or I can chuckle "Yeah, right", as I see fit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:50 pm Post subject: 32 |
|
|
I can certainly get behind the idea of calling them all "civil unions", too.
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.
| Quote: |
| There are many who believe that homosexual relations are morally wrong. They are as much entitled to acceptance and tolerance ... which is perhaps not at all, in the sense that acceptance and tolerance is not a right. |
And those people are free to keep believing that the relationships are wrong. There are people who believed mixed-race marriages were wrong (and probably still are today), but thankfully the government didn't decide to create a new phrase for those.
Tried to keep this short as it's almost 3am and I should've been in bed with my civil union partner hours ago |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:51 pm Post subject: 33 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
Mackay: How about government staying out of "marriage", and calling them ALL "civil unions"?
Then when John and Frank say "We just got married, isn't that fabulous?", I can say "Congratulations!", or I can chuckle "Yeah, right", as I see fit. |
Heh, you posted that as I was writing.
Amen, friend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:10 pm Post subject: 34 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Mackay: How about government staying out of "marriage", and calling them ALL "civil unions"? |
Government is needed to handle various bits of property allocation. Divorce is much, much messier without the courts as a final arbitrator, as is inheritance. And the government is the primary reason companies provide various types of insurance for your spouse and children even if they don't work for your company.
I'm OK with the government handling all of that legal stuff under the term civil union and then making the definition of a civil union vague enough to handle many types of relationships between people who can legally sign a contract. But we shouldn't ignore the legal stuff altogether.
(There's other bits of government interference that could be removed: I wouldn't care if we removed the ability to jointly file taxes with your spouse.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:57 pm Post subject: 35 |
|
|
If this was an opinion poll my vote would go with Mackay.
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wordcross
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:00 pm Post subject: 36 |
|
|
ah well, you tried. We may have to restart the amused thread.
_________________
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:59 pm Post subject: 37 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Mackay wrote: |
| Cp didn't work for my dad for seven years to buy me. |
Oh My God!
What was your father thinking? I assume that his family paid an appropriate dowry, then. I mean, your father should just be GIVING his property away. |
He wanted a measly hundred foreskins. I wanted to let him know I thought he was underestimating her value, though, so I paid two hundred.
_________________
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 |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:09 pm Post subject: 38 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| I still wonder why someone would give up the practice of medicine in favor of politics. |
I never would have thought of this on my own, but I completely agree.
If I had made a doctor of myself, I would never stop practicing medicine until I died or seriously burned out. And if I'd seriously burned out, I don't think I'd be right for politics, either.
_________________
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: Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:44 pm Post subject: 39 |
|
|
| casinopete wrote: |
| Pablo wrote: |
| I still wonder why someone would give up the practice of medicine in favor of politics. |
I never would have thought of this on my own, but I completely agree. |
One might reason that there are plenty enough doctors to take care of people, but not enough people taking care of the Constitution. Maybe he thinks he can do the latter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:46 am Post subject: 40 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| not enough people taking care of the Constitution. |
*gags*
_________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
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
