quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: There are other things that are considered sins by groups that the state condones. Working on the Sabbath (Jewish/Christian), Eating Pork(Jewish/Muslim)
You are misstating the Jewish position rather drastically.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: There are other things that are considered sins by groups that the state condones. Working on the Sabbath (Jewish/Christian), Eating Pork(Jewish/Muslim)
You are misstating the Jewish position rather drastically.
And the Hindu one. But either way, I think it's pretty safe to say that most religions have rules that they say no human ought to break, according to that religion, but that we all agree should not be the law in a secular society. Which is basically the point being made by DM.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But either way, I think it's pretty safe to say that most religions have rules that they say no human ought to break, according to that religion, but that we all agree should not be the law in a secular society.
It is not safe at all to say that we all agree on that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a little bit ridiculous for you to reduce my arguments to what they "actually mean" and then claim they support your viewpoint when that's not what they mean at all, Paul. I do not think that straights are better than gays - nor do the vast majority of the people who opposed legalizing gay marriage. We do think that heterosexual behavior is acceptable (within the bounds of marriage) but that homosexual behavior is a sin. You can't automatically reduce that down and tell us how we feel.
I might as well claim that all of your well-articulated arguments mean that you hate religious people. And see? Your arguments are supporting my claims now. Wasn't that an easy way for me to dismiss you and your legitimate concerns?
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But either way, I think it's pretty safe to say that most religions have rules that they say no human ought to break, according to that religion, but that we all agree should not be the law in a secular society.
It is not safe at all to say that we all agree on that.
quote:But either way, I think it's pretty safe to say that most religions have rules that they say no human ought to break, according to that religion, but that we all agree should not be the law in a secular society.
It is not safe at all to say that we all agree on that.
I meant everyone on this thread. For example, as far as I know, all three Abrahamic religions require that all humans recognize their god as the one true god. Does anyone disagree with my understanding of this rule of these religions or feel that this rule should be a law in a secular society?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But either way, I think it's pretty safe to say that most religions have rules that they say no human ought to break, according to that religion, but that we all agree should not be the law in a secular society.
It is not safe at all to say that we all agree on that.
I think to disagree with that one would have to say that the religious laws of all religions should be law. I think that is pretty safe.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Annie: It's a little bit ridiculous for you to reduce my arguments to what they "actually mean" and then claim they support your viewpoint when that's not what they mean at all, Paul. I do not think that straights are better than gays - nor do the vast majority of the people who opposed legalizing gay marriage. We do think that heterosexual behavior is acceptable (within the bounds of marriage) but that homosexual behavior is a sin. You can't automatically reduce that down and tell us how we feel.
So, if two paraplegic lesbians wanted to marry each other legally, you would not oppose that, because there's no homosexual behavior going on there?
Or is the mere fact of two gay people living together as a loving couple "homosexual behavior"?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's a little bit ridiculous for you to reduce my arguments to what they "actually mean" and then claim they support your viewpoint when that's not what they mean at all, Paul."
I'm sorry, its EXACTLY what they mean.
Lets look at them more closely, shall we?
"They believe that gays being legally "married" will cause their religious organizations to be nailed with anti-discrimination policies for continuing to practice and teach what they've practiced and taught for years."
This isn't actually a reason to exclude gays from being married... its a RESULT of excluding gays from being married. That is, the reason to exclude gays from marriage came prior to the possible anti-discrimination lawsuits. As I said about tresopax' arguments later, it is a conclusion, not a premise. To this person I would ask "So why did your church decide not to marry gays in the first place?" And then we might get into the actual reasons for preventing gays from getting married.
"They believe that adoption agencies will be forced to place children with gay families. They have a corollary belief that being raised without a father and a mother is psychologically damaging to children."
This is EXPLICITLY "straights are better than gays." There's more to the sentence, of course, but it reads "at not screwing up children." You don't to claim that this argument is not "straights are better than gays."
"They believe that public schools will teach their children that homosexual lifestyles are acceptable and that people who teach them otherwise (even their own parents) are hateful bigots."
And why should they have a problem with schools teaching their children that homosexual lifestyles are acceptable? Unless they think that straights are better than gays? Again, this is pretty explicit.
"They believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and that people are not happy when they are living sinful lives. Therefore, it should not be the state's place to condone it."
Again, "straights are better than gays," and fairly explicitly so. Take two people. Absolutely identical. Now make one alteration so that one person performs a sin as a regular part of his life, that he is unrepentant of, and there is NO WAY that you can't be saying "The less sinful person is better then the more sinful person," in any meaningful way. Sin is a negative thing, after all.
"They believe that making marriage a "civil right" opens the door to other controversial, and in their view harmful, forms of marriage being legalized."
Again, assuming that a couple of the same sex being married is one of those controversial harmful forms of marriage, there's no way to parse this that isn't "straights are better than gays."
I'm trying to be clear about this, but perhaps I haven't been. I'm using that phrase broadly.
Not necessarily as "having more inherent worth," (though I think you get to that point in escapably if you chase the rabbit down the hole of these arugments), but as also including "better at doing important things without causing harm," or "more socially acceptable" or "more christlike," or "less sinful." And probably a lot of other comparative forms where something good is associated with straights and less so with gays.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If person A and person B are arguing about what person A means, person A is going to win every time.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, if you want to convey a broad meaning you should use a phrase suited for it. As it is, you've chosen a particularly incendiary and narrow phrase that, taken at face value, is self-evidently false. You're arguing we should endow your phraseology with a depth of meaning it doesn't inherently support. It would be better to adopt a phrase that exhibited the breadth of meaning you're trying to convey, rather than attempting to shoehorn the breadth of meaning into a phrase that is unsuited to it.
To quote Inigo Montoya, "I don't think it means what you think it means." And if lots of people don't think it means what you think it means, the phrase's expository value is limited. It's rhetorical value, on the other hand, cannot be denied. Like calling Vietnam-bound soldiers "baby killers." Great to score cheap rhetorical points, lousy for informed discussion.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Annie: It's a little bit ridiculous for you to reduce my arguments to what they "actually mean" and then claim they support your viewpoint when that's not what they mean at all, Paul. I do not think that straights are better than gays - nor do the vast majority of the people who opposed legalizing gay marriage. We do think that heterosexual behavior is acceptable (within the bounds of marriage) but that homosexual behavior is a sin. You can't automatically reduce that down and tell us how we feel.
I might as well claim that all of your well-articulated arguments mean that you hate religious people. And see? Your arguments are supporting my claims now. Wasn't that an easy way for me to dismiss you and your legitimate concerns?
Out of curiosity - why do you think God regards homosexual behavior as a sin?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If person A and person B are arguing about what person A means, person A is going to win every time.
I don't know if this is true. I'd believe that person B has little chance of convincing person A of anything, but I think person B has a good chance of demonstrating a meaning - an implication - of A's words that A was not fully conscious of.
That being said - re: the Annie/Paul disagreement here: It generally bugs the crap out of me when people insist on precision in the terms used in discussion, because generally it's very clear what people mean, but I think some more precision might help here.
quote:"They believe that adoption agencies will be forced to place children with gay families. They have a corollary belief that being raised without a father and a mother is psychologically damaging to children."
This is EXPLICITLY "straights are better than gays." There's more to the sentence, of course, but it reads "at not screwing up children." You don't to claim that this argument is not "straights are better than gays."
(first paragraph above is Annie, second is Paul) Paul, you're talking about same sex COUPLES, not gay individuals. Annie might think that a gay person makes an equally good parent as part of an opposite sex team. (In fact, some people - I don't know about Annie - do seem to think that the "right" thing for gay people to do is suck it up and act straight.)
quote:"They believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and that people are not happy when they are living sinful lives. Therefore, it should not be the state's place to condone it."
Again, "straights are better than gays," and fairly explicitly so. Take two people. Absolutely identical. Now make one alteration so that one person performs a sin as a regular part of his life, that he is unrepentant of, and there is NO WAY that you can't be saying "The less sinful person is better then the more sinful person," in any meaningful way. Sin is a negative thing, after all.
(again, 1st para Annie, 2nd Paul) Here Annie might argue that SIN does differentiate the goodness of people, but that being gay isn't a sin by itself. (You might find this a fairly useless distinction, as I do, but it might be there in her mind nonetheless.)
Reducing these down to "straights are better than gays" might give too little credit for nuance in the beliefs.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
On the "Pork/Beef" thing. Yes it was a bit broad and not defined correctly.
Actually, the Jewish rules are designed for Jews only. Only they need to eat Kosher, not everyone else. Actually, the Jewish religion gets lots of extra points for stating that only those of their faith must follow their rules, and never trying to force them on others.
Now lets look at:
8a) SSM just isn't what marriage IS, in the same way that a circle isn't what a square is.
Speaking of circles--this is circular argument. A is not B because we will define A as Not B. We define A as Not B because the definition of A is not the definition of B.
SSM is about two people in love promising to "love, honor, and cherish" each other till death they do part. Its about two people promising to share their lives burdens, joys, and trials together, to cling to each other when all else have failed them, and by working together, to bring a happy, productive family into this world.
To me that's what marriage is all about.
I speak from experience, as I am celebrating my 20th anniversary with my wife in just over a month.
8b) SSM is inconsistent with the tradition of marriage, and traditions are valuable simply for tradition's sake.
Some traditions are valuable for traditions sake. Some are not. Most bigotry was considered a tradition for a long time. A husband's right to beat his wife and children was considered a tradition.
However, we must even question what is "traditional" in the "traditional marriage." Prior to the 20th century most marriages were arranged affairs. Many of my contemporaries have grand parents that never met until their wedding nights. Tradition affords that the family of the bride should have a nice dowry to entice the good husband to wed.
Then there are the centuries of traditional multi-wife marriages.
I think the "traditional" marriage that is so hyped about is not eternal or universal, but it is what I call Memory Eternal. As long as any living person remembers, that was the way it was.
However, that memory is ok.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If person A and person B are arguing about what person A means, person A is going to win every time.
I'm not so sure. If I say that I believe X, but I constantly do actions A,B and C, which totally contradict X, I think you could make a fair argument that I don't really believe X.
For instance if I say that I'm pro-life because I believe that having a full set of human chromosomes, and only having that full, complete set, means that a life form a full human being, but I also respect the humanity of people with missing chromosomes and Robertsonian translocations, and I deny that tissue culture samples, cancers and wild Hela cells with full complements of human chromosomes are human beings, then I think you could make a fair argument that I really don't believe what I said about a full complement of human chromosomes being the one and only criterion for human beings.
Or, if I argues that I disapproved of gay marriage because the bible says that being gay is a sin, but I have no problem with all kinds of other Biblical abominations being legally respected, then I think it's fair to argue that it being a Biblical sin isn't really my motivation for disapproving at all.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Actually, the Jewish religion gets lots of extra points for stating that only those of their faith must follow their rules, and never trying to force them on others.
Closer, but still no.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's wrong, swbarnes. In the first case, you are not referring to only the meaning of stated words. In the second case, you are imposing your opinion of Bible doctrine onto someone else's, and it is stuff that has nothing to do with the original issue.
In neither case have you actually demonstrated a greater access to the meaning of A's words than A is capable of providing.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yup. You've only demonstrated that if you were the one saying those things, that's what they'd mean.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: [Marriage] is about two people in love promising to "love, honor, and cherish" each other till death they do part. Its about two people promising to share their lives burdens, joys, and trials together, to cling to each other when all else have failed them, and by working together, to bring a happy, productive family into this world.
This definition of marriage wonder how you feel about the Chuck and Larry (or, to be ever-so-slightly more high brow, Denny Crane and Alan Shore) issue?
If two people are willing to commit to each other, to share burdens, joys, etc. but aren't romantically/sexually interested in each other, is it "alright" for them to marry? Does the state have an interest in whether a relationship is romantic/sexual? Or do you think that such commitment is impossible absent romantic inclination? <edit>To be clear, I'm wondering why a state definition of marriage should require that two people be "in love"</edit>
Personally, I don't understand the logical support for SSM. I can see a valid state interest in regulating heterosexual behavior, inasmuch as it can generate new members of the state. As such, I can understand the state recognizing marriage (and laws prohibiting heterosexuality external to marriage) in order to regulate the production of new citizenry.
I can understand the state regulating the sort of committed relationships Dan's talking about, if we assume there's no romantic/sexual requirement. So if, say, a devoted grandson and his grandmother wanted to form a social unit, where each would be responsible for the other, would promise to stay with them, protect them, share their burdens, etc. and in response the state granted certain privileges; that I can understand. In this case, I think the relationship should be more appropriately named, since I think most people's definitions of marriage include romantic/sexual implications, and for the government to use such a title to apply to this contract would be to suppress (explicitly in the case of near relatives, implicitly in the case of non-sexual friends who wouldn't want to be mistaken for lovers) entrance into the contract by those that the state has no interest in excluding.
What I can't understand is the mangling of the two represented by the current push for SSM. It's unclear, from the pro-arguments I've seen, whether what is at issue is the right to enter into a particular government sanctioned contract (in which case I think their aims are prohibitively narrow, and misguided in the use of the term "marriage") or enforced social acceptance through state-enforced redefinition of a social construct (in which case I think the attempts run counter to liberal statism).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Personally, I don't understand the logical support for SSM. I can see a valid state interest in regulating heterosexual behavior, inasmuch as it can generate new members of the state. As such, I can understand the state recognizing marriage (and laws prohibiting heterosexuality external to marriage) in order to regulate the production of new citizenry.
Same sex couples are pair bonding and raising families.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Same sex couples are pair bonding and raising families.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
Snide comments aside, that doesn't clear anything up for me. Thanks, though.
<edit>To be less abrupt, why should two people raising kids who don't want the baggage of "marriage" not be able to receive the benefits of joint parents? Why should two people who have "pair bonded" but aren't married be required by the state to enter into a marriage in order to receive the benefits the state recognizes for "pair bonders"?</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Snide comments aside, that doesn't clear anything up for me. Thanks, though.
I don't see any state interest for OSM that wouldn't apply to SSM unless you want to start discriminating against OSM in cases where reproduction cannot occur absent technological assistence.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe this will help. Lesbians are able to 'generate new members of the state' through options like resorting to sperm banks. Homosexual couples of either sex are able to create positive environments for raising children, and raise children in them, in the same way many heterosexual couples do (particularly ones who with fertility problems).
edit: also, perhaps you are misunderstanding typical pro-SSM positions. It isn't, "the benefits of marriage should be expanded to SSM, but no further", it is, "there are very good reasons, including benefits not related to children as well as those related to children, to expand such benefits to SSM". So any attempt at a counterargument that depends on the idea that SSM supporters don't want such benefits extended to other sorts of pairings fails.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Personally, I don't understand the logical support for SSM. I can see a valid state interest in regulating heterosexual behavior, inasmuch as it can generate new members of the state. As such, I can understand the state recognizing marriage (and laws prohibiting heterosexuality external to marriage) in order to regulate the production of new citizenry.
Marriage is already permitted beyond the scope of simple generation of new members (e.g., no fertility testing prior to permitting the marriage, octogenarians allowed to marry etc.). Given this why not enlarge the scope further in such a way that a significant portion of society is not precluded from receiving the benefits?
quote: I can understand the state regulating the sort of committed relationships Dan's talking about, if we assume there's no romantic/sexual requirement. So if, say, a devoted grandson and his grandmother wanted to form a social unit, where each would be responsible for the other, would promise to stay with them, protect them, share their burdens, etc. and in response the state granted certain privileges; that I can understand.
These sorts of scenarios are just side-shows. Is there a movement for inclusion of such relationships? In principle I am open to considering any type of relationship; however to do so in the context of SSM discussions is just distracting.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Same sex couples are pair bonding and raising families.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
Snide comments aside, that doesn't clear anything up for me. Thanks, though.
<edit>To be less abrupt, why should two people raising kids who don't want the baggage of "marriage" not be able to receive the benefits of joint parents? Why should two people who have "pair bonded" but aren't married be required by the state to enter into a marriage in order to receive the benefits the state recognizes for "pair bonders"?</edit>
Could you be a bit more explicit in what you're asking here? I don't see how it follows from what came before.
My point is the state should take an interest in protecting children whether it is the result of "heterosexual activity" or not.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the state interest is in regulating the generation of citizenry, OSM is an imperfect vehicle. But enhancing it to include SSM makes an even less perfect vehicle.
If the state interest is the promotion of socially stable units, the right thing to do would be to exclude "marriage" as a whole from the discussion, and talk about "pairings" or "partnerships" or something that isn't burdened with sexual and romantic connotations. Unless we assume such pairings only happen when there are sexual/romantic desires.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: also, perhaps you are misunderstanding typical pro-SSM positions. It isn't, "the benefits of marriage should be expanded to SSM, but no further", it is, "there are very good reasons, including benefits not related to children as well as those related to children, to expand such benefits to SSM". So any attempt at a counterargument that depends on the idea that SSM supporters don't want such benefits extended to other sorts of pairings fails.
But my point is that by fighting over the word "marriage" amounts to cutting off that future avenue for a group of people who should be qualified for those benefits. If it's the first step in moving to a state that views socially stable pairings in equal light, it's a wrong step that will lead to institutionalization that will perpetuate an inequitable situation.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But enhancing it to include SSM makes an even less perfect vehicle.
Why? It creates more stable families able to raise healthy children. Many of those stable families are able to bear children directly, and children will enter many of the others through adoption, previous relationships, and the like. Why is it harming the ability of the state to support children to create more situations better equipped to raise healthy children?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How on earth does expanding the definition of marriage cut off further expansion in the future?
And many supporters of SSM are fine with the gov't calling everything civil unions and having done. This is being fought over marriage because that's what the law calls it right now.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: How on earth does expanding the definition of marriage cut off further expansion in the future?
Because it institutionalizes "marriages" as being equivalent with "socially stable pairings." So people who have a socially stable pairing but don't want a marriage will have to fight against a greater institutional inertia.
quote:And many supporters of SSM are fine with the gov't calling everything civil unions and having done. This is being fought over marriage because that's what the law calls it right now.
If they're fine with that, they should start advocating for that. I think they would garner significant support if they expanded the scope of who was allowed to form such unions. A good first step would be to retract the restrictions against near-relative unions that are present in the VT, CA and NJ union rules.
<edit>And, the union laws in VT, CA and NJ should be expanded to allow both opposite gender and same gender unions. I think this is a good policy step above and beyond its logical perferability. You'll get heterosexual supporters of "equitable" marriage essentially voting with their feet, by choosing the "version" of marriage open to everyone, over the one that isn't (although I personally reject the idea of "unions" as a "version" of "marriage").</edit>
quote:Snide comments aside, that doesn't clear anything up for me. Thanks, though.
I don't see any state interest for OSM that wouldn't apply to SSM unless you want to start discriminating against OSM in cases where reproduction cannot occur absent technological assistence.
It's why a number of the arguments crafted against SSM are either artificially selective, or necessarily discriminatory against sterile couples.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because it institutionalizes "marriages" as being equivalent with "socially stable pairings."
I don't think it does anything of the sort. I see nothing about expanding marriage to include SSM that would prevent other socially stable pairings from gaining benefits (as, I should note, in many places same sex couples are able to do to a limited extent without marriage) any more than they are prevented right now. After all, a number of states have passed laws preventing the extension of marriage-like benefits to same sex couples. I don't see how it would be any worse.
And you haven't answered the question in my first of the two posts above yours.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's wrong, swbarnes. In the first case, you are not referring to only the meaning of stated words. In the second case, you are imposing your opinion of Bible doctrine onto someone else's, and it is stuff that has nothing to do with the original issue.
I wasn't stating anyone's argument, I was making a hypothetical.
But you are taking my words too literally.
If person A makes an argument, and person B can show a bunch of places where A's other arguments and actions contradict that argument or its implications as it's stated, then I think it's fair for person B to argue that person A isn't really expressing their beliefs accurately.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: If person A makes an argument, and person B can show a bunch of places where A's other arguments and actions contradict that argument or its implications as it's stated, then I think it's fair for person B to argue that person A isn't really expressing their beliefs accurately.
Which is both understandable and likely when their beliefs are ugly when stated plainly.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is arrogant to assume that one can "state plainly" the beliefs and worldview of a sweepingly large and diverse group of people like "religious people" when one has devoted very little time and energy to studying and understanding those worldviews.
That is why so many of the Christians and Jews are having to step into this conversation and say "No, you've misrepresented us - that's not what we believe." We have spent our lives living and learning our religions, and we understand well the nuances of belief that we use to inform our worldview. Having read some cursory explanations of our beliefs, many of them written by our enemies, does not qualify you to re-state and clarify our position.
You can argue your own beliefs as much as you like and as long as they are your beliefs, I can respect that. You cannot, however, tell me what my beliefs are. I speak for myself. I have read the teachings of my church and our holy scripture countless times; I've taught it to others; I've spent years of my life as a volunteer full-time missionary. I do NOT believe that straight people are inherently better than gay people. I am not afraid of gay people. I am allowed to disagree with certain actions without being painted as a bigot. Civil discourse is about being civil, and an inherent part of that is respecting the humanity of those who disagree with you.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Annie: Civil discourse is about being civil, and an inherent part of that is respecting the humanity of those who disagree with you.
And you respect the humanity of gay people as long as you don't have to recognize their families.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I respect their humanity. I disagree that they're allowed to change the definition of the word "family."
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Annie: I respect their humanity. I disagree that they're allowed to change the definition of the word "family."
They're going to have "families" whether you give your permission or not.
quote:I'm not going to take that bait.
I will refer you, though, to my church's view on the importance of the family.
Odd that you consider that to be "bait" since you introduced the notion that someone was trying (but should not be allowed) to change the definition of "family".
It's even odder that you refer to your church's position on the family. Is your opinion that your church has defined family in a way that same sex marriage supporters should not be allowed to contravene?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because it institutionalizes "marriages" as being equivalent with "socially stable pairings."
I don't think it does anything of the sort. I see nothing about expanding marriage to include SSM that would prevent other socially stable pairings from gaining benefits
It wouldn't preclude it, but it would (IMO) make it substantially more difficult. So supporting SSM for these ends (which I see as justifiable) is irrational, in my perspective. The pro-SSM community could generate more support (I believe) by abandoning marriage as a goal, and instead focusing on equitable unions that divorce the benefits from the sexual connotations. This is more than just pursuing unions as defined in VT, CA and other states; it means recognizing that there are lots of partnerships, unions or pairings that are even more obviously NOT marriages but that shouldn't be barred from teh benefits.
quote:And you haven't answered the question in my first of the two posts above yours.
I know. I tried twice, but felt both times that my response was incomplete or tonally incorrect. I was also balancing making dinner, watching the kids, and posting on Hatrack, which made crafting a reply more difficult. And now I'm off for family home evening, and the kids bedtime, and then probably some homework, so I doubt I'll write a sufficient reply before tomorrow. But I will try to do so then.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're going to keep insisting that I be called on the floor for believing what I don't, in fact, believe, I don't see much use in continuing this conversation.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You presented certain arguments as reasons why some people oppose SSM.
If you don't want to tell me how my analysis of those arguments are wrong, that's fine. That's your right.
But since, in several places, those arguments EXPLICITLY assert the superiority of straights over gays, or the abilities of straights over gays, or of a straight lifestyle over a homosexual lifestyle, or straight activity over gay activity...
Well, I think you're just hiding from the reality of what you said.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Edited because I made a pretty significant typo)
Annie, I do understand where you're coming from. I also understand where Paul is coming from and I think he's wording his argument poorly.
I realize that your argument isn't about any group of people being superior. However, regardless of what your own motivations and beliefs might be, it's impossible to separate a message of gay-inferiority from a ban on same sex marriage.
Our culture is inundated with messages about how important marriage is. As soon as we are old enough to understand anything at all, we are told stories about finding true love and living happily ever after. Getting married is quintessential to the American Dream.
Yes, there are some people for whom homosexuality is just a period of experimentation in college (or whenever). But there are other people for whom it is not a choice. Yes, you can teach them to repress their desires and marry someone of the opposite sex because that's what they're "supposed to do," but those people will often end up either cheating on their spouse or committing suicide because they seriously, honest to God cannot be happy living with your particular definition of family.
To tell millions of citizens that they cannot participate in the most potent dream our country shares is to tell them that they are Unamerican at best and subhuman at worst. No matter what your arguments or beliefs are, nothing can change that.
The definition of marriage and family have been changing for thousands of years. I understand why your definition is important to you, but people across the world use a thousand different definitions. If you think your definition will eventually lead to a better world, you are free to teach people about it. But it is not the government's place to enforce such a definition.
[ March 09, 2009, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just sorry to learn that at least two of the people on this board don't actually have families, despite having parents who love them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
