Hatrack River Forum: One reason we should not make a big deal about gay marriage

This is topic One reason we should not make a big deal about gay marriage in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=038886

Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :

Love is love. [Smile]

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :

Way to sidestep the issue, dude [Smile]

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :

So, wait, if love = love, does that mean that parental love = filial love = brotherly love = friendly love = romantic love = sexual love? Gross.

[ October 21, 2005, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

I love you, man!

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :

[Kiss]

*prances through the thread, passing out cut flowers*

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :

All you need is love!
Da, da, da-da-daaaa
All you need is love!
Da, da, da-da-daaaa
All you need is love, Love,
Love is all you need.

Posted by JaneX (Member # 2026) on :

"Love is not controlled by gender. It is larger than prejudice. It is larger than indifference. For the love of our community, and for the love of ourselves, we celebrate those who find joy and beauty in loving without boundaries."

That's what the back of my T-shirt says. [Smile]

The shirt is from last year's Celebration, the annual queer event at my school.

I'm aware that not everyone agrees with the sentiment it expresses. But personally, I like it quite a bit. [Smile]

~Jane~

Posted by KPhysicsGeek (Member # 8655) on :

quote:
Originally posted by johnsonweed:
Love is love.

While I probably agree with you about gay marriage, love is not always equivalent. I love many of my friends, but would not abvocate polygamy. I love my parents but would not advocate allowing parrents to marry their children, etc.

A better argument would be defining what is required for marriage and showing gay couples meet these requirements. As I've said before, I feel the ideal (modern) marriage is based on three things: Love, Partnership and Dedication. I feel these three things can exist just as strongly between an adult same-sex couple as my wife and I.

Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :

quote:
Originally posted by KPhysicsGeek:

quote:
Originally posted by johnsonweed:
Love is love.
While I probably agree with you about gay marriage, love is not always equivalent. I love many of my friends, but would not abvocate polygamy. I love my parents but would not advocate allowing parrents to marry their children, etc.

A better argument would be defining what is required for marriage and showing gay couples meet these requirements. As I've said before, I feel the ideal (modern) marriage is based on three things: Love, Partnership and Dedication. I feel these three things can exist just as strongly between an adult same-sex couple as my wife and I.

Maybe we should start imposing those requirements upon heterosexual couples, hm?

Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :

Question: since when has all marriage been about love? A man and a woman can love each other and not be married, as can a same sex couple. Lots of people marry, not for love, but because they are forced to by family or religion or a million other circumstances. Lots of people marry because they WANT to, but the reason they want to has nothing to do with loving each other.

I support SSM. Personally, I think that all the religions taking official stances against SSM *should* change thier views, but they don't have to. The government must, for justice's sake. So I do appreciate the sentiment behind your words, johnsonweed, but I don't think love has much to do with the SSM debate beyond establishing that homosexuality exists and is not a choice.

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :

Love is nice.

Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :

Love is a cruel, cruel thing.

*goes and walks in the rain weeping*

Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the weasels come."
--Matt Groening

Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :

quote:
Love is love.

However, sex is not love. Also, simply having love and a sexual relationship does not equate to marriage.

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :

d_h, using that side of the definition of marriage in order to counter homosexual marriage is a very, very shakey argument to go along...

Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :

Well, don't be shy. Free speech is guaranteed in Canada, I believe.

Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :

To quote one of my favorite bands,

quote:
Amor is to love you, amor is to care
Amor is two people with something to share
Amor for the Spanish, amour for the French
Love in any language always means the same

~Amor, Jorge Spiteri/Los Amigos Invisibles

Now just imagine that sung to some disco/funk/acid jazz/latin fusion music and you've got the right idea...

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :

If "Love is a battlefield"
And "Love is a Many Splendid Thing"
Then according to my algebra

A Battlefield is A Many Splendid Thing.

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by KPhysicsGeek:

quote:
Originally posted by johnsonweed:
Love is love.
While I probably agree with you about gay marriage, love is not always equivalent. I love many of my friends, but would not abvocate polygamy.

Do you think it's okay that the US government outlawed polygamy when a religion existed in which polygamy was not only permissible, but in certain cases praiseworthy?

I don't.

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dan_raven:
If "Love is a battlefield"
And "Love is a Many Splendid Thing"
Then according to my algebra

A Battlefield is A Many Splendid Thing.

And Socrates is a fish.

And Stevie Wonder is God.

Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :

Wait, I thought Ray Charles was God?

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

Nuh, uh.

God is Love
Love is blind
Stevie Wonder is blind

Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

(Edited: Oh. Yeah. That works for Ray Charles, too. Duh.)

Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :

^
|------------Points at starLisa.

[ROFL]

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :

Therefore Stevie Wonder is Ray Charles.

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :

Ah-ha!

It's a huge love-god-Stevie Wonder-Ray Charles conspiracy.

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :

Well, as the ancient prophets "The Captain and Tenile" said, Love Will Keep Us Together.

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Treason:
^
|------------Points at starLisa.

Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :

It's a fascinating rhetorical technique, though. On the face of it, "love is love" is indisputable ("a=a" is basic to logic) and trivial (in and of itself, it implies nothing). If we go into the interpretation, as people did here, it's very disputable (I don't love children the same way I love ice cream!), but it's got so many (false) implications built in:
* sex is love
* there is no wrong way to love, that is, to have sex
* all forms of love/sex have the same qualities, except for the kinds you aren't thinking about now
* gay people are loving people because they are gay

So we get the qualities of one interpretation (indisputability) mixed with the qualities of the other (lots of implications).

I don't know the official name for this fallacy, but "word switcheroo" would do it.

But it didn't work. Maybe because Hatrackers are too smart? Or maybe it needed more verbage around it. It's a lot easier to fuddle people with 10 sentences than 3 words.