Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

04/17/2009 02:57:23 PM · #2327

You don't need to offer more examples Monica, I very much get your point of commonality between the separate examples. However, there are still people who consider the union to be different in a fundamental way in same-sex unions compared to others. In their mind, that union is not "marriage". (We're purely talking definitions and words here.) "Dog" refers to all sorts of different looking critters (big, small, black, white), but we don't use the word to talk about cats. On the other hand, all those animals can be called "pets".

It does seem that I hear people wanting it both ways. On one hand words are just words. They change meaning and are just designations. It is silly to argue about the word "marriage" because it's just a word and it's really the concept that is so much more important. Then two seconds later they say, "but it's unacceptable to not use the word marriage for this union" because words are important and by not using it we are encouraging discrimination. It seems it should be one way or the other. Either the word is important, in which case the opposition can at least be understood as fighting for something important, or it is unimportant, in which case we should all be just as happy with any term used as long as equal legal protections are encouraged. You cannot argue the word is unimportant for one side and important for the other. (And I realize that last sentence works both ways, hence impasse.)

FireBird

04/17/2009 03:07:41 PM · #2328

Originally posted by escapetooz:

the issue is when its a government law that the SAME RIGHT has to be given a different name to different people. That goes against the very idea of equality. IE: This group gets a marriage, this group only gets a union.

I guess you missed my post a few back where I posited that one possible solution would be to remove marriage as a governmentally
recognized rite. Then make civil unions the pact that covers all cohabitation possibilities.

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

04/17/2009 03:09:30 PM · #2329

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I see your point but the issue is this, its not about the word really. Its about what it represents. So on the "gay" side, winning the word would mean we are seen as equal, on the Christian side, winning the word means things remain unequal. Or simply put, you still have the word either way, there is no loss for your side, there is a loss for our side. Or how bout I put it this way... didn't you learn to share? Candy for everyone or candy for no one. The people that already have candy are fighting so that others dont get it, even if they still get to keep theirs. So in that I see the point in making EVERYTHING called a civil union. That is fine with me. I do not agree with having separate names. I think that was my point and if it seemed I was fighting for the word marriage I was simply fighting one group getting it over another.

Your dog cat example is still a faulty analogy in the way that you are using it. In fact it further proves my point. A dog is always a dog, a cat is still a cat, a contract is still a contract. It's like looking at a green cat and saying... that's not a cat any more! No... its just green. Its still a cat.

Edited for clarity.

Message edited by author 2009-04-17 15:13:43.

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

04/17/2009 03:10:00 PM · #2330

Originally posted by FireBird:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
the issue is when its a government law that the SAME RIGHT has to be given a different name to different people. That goes against the very idea of equality. IE: This group gets a marriage, this group only gets a union.

I guess you missed my post a few back where I posited that one possible solution would be to remove marriage as a governmentally
recognized rite. Then make civil unions the pact that covers all cohabitation possibilities.

I would agree with that.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

04/17/2009 03:10:40 PM · #2331

Originally posted by FireBird:

A possible solution and one I'd be in favor of. Your intelligence is only exceeded by you perpicacity. ;)

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/17/2009 04:27:39 PM · #2332

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

However, there are still people who consider the union to be different in a fundamental way in same-sex unions compared to others. In their mind, that union is not "marriage". (We're purely talking definitions and words here.) "Dog" refers to all sorts of different looking critters (big, small, black, white), but we don't use the word to talk about cats.

But to many people, it looks an awful lot like you're trying to claim a chihuahua isn't a dog because it's fundamentally different from a german shepherd. Again, in 1967, 17 Southern states still enforced laws prohibiting marriage between whites and non-whites. Marriage was a union between two whites or two blacks. Gasp... it's completely different from the traditionally acceptable!!! You are (metaphorically) a 2009 "interracial marriage objector" pretending to relate by permitting limited measures of equality, but still thinking, "It's really not the same." No, it's not. An interracial marriage is not the same as yours, a Hindu marriage is not the same as yours, a marriage of divorcees is not the same as yours, and yet they're all still marriages. Your approval is not required, and their marriage does not diminish yours in any way. Their chihuahua doesn't have to look like your german shepherd to be the same, and calling the chihuahua an "almost dog" with the same scientific status because only "german shepherds are really dogs" is a cop-out designed to put a pretty face on prejudice against chihuahuas.

Message edited by author 2009-04-17 17:10:03.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

04/17/2009 05:32:33 PM · #2333

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
However, there are still people who consider the union to be different in a fundamental way in same-sex unions compared to others. In their mind, that union is not "marriage". (We're purely talking definitions and words here.) "Dog" refers to all sorts of different looking critters (big, small, black, white), but we don't use the word to talk about cats.

But to many people, it looks an awful lot like you're trying to claim a chihuahua isn't a dog because it's fundamentally different from a german shepherd. Again, in 1967, 17 Southern states still enforced laws prohibiting marriage between whites and non-whites. Marriage was a union between two whites or two blacks. Gasp... it's completely different from the traditionally acceptable!!! You are (metaphorically) a 2009 "interracial marriage objector" pretending to relate by permitting limited measures of equality, but still thinking, "It's really not the same." No, it's not. An interracial marriage is not the same as yours, a Hindu marriage is not the same as yours, a marriage of divorcees is not the same as yours, and yet they're all still marriages. Your approval is not required, and their marriage does not diminish yours in any way. Their chihuahua doesn't have to look like your german shepherd to be the same, and calling the chihuahua an "almost dog" with the same scientific status because only "german shepherds are really dogs" is a cop-out designed to put a pretty face on prejudice against chihuahuas.

From a semantic point of view I don't think the interracial example fits. Back then nobody said it wasn't a union termed "marriage". They just considered it a marriage that was wrong. In fact Loving was guilty of the law because he/she (I forgot which one was Loving) was, in fact, married. Here, from a semantic view again, we have a new idea. Nobody has really called same sex-unions "marriage" before (or if they did, it was highly unusual). So I see it differently. Again, interracial marriage was marriage, but a wrong one (in the eyes of whomever). Same-sex marriage is just a new use of the term.

EDIT: The point may also be made by asking if anybody has been prosecuted for being part of a gay marriage like Loving? I'm unaware of such a case. The reason that's the case is it's never been done before. "Gay marraige" was simply a non sequitur. I'm still making a semantics argument here.

Message edited by author 2009-04-17 17:50:41.

04/17/2009 05:50:40 PM · #2334

Originally posted by scalvert:

Their chihuahua doesn't have to look like your german shepherd to be the same, and calling the chihuahua an "almost dog" with the same scientific status because only "german shepherds are really dogs" is a cop-out designed to put a pretty face on prejudice against chihuahuas.

Yeah.....that'd be like saying that film is the only "Real" photography and digital manipulation just isn't even worthy of consideration.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/17/2009 07:09:52 PM · #2335

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I wanted to ask Matthew to expand just a bit on his bit about definitions of words because it didn't make sense to me or even seemed to potentially support the traditional view of the term marriage. If the definition reflects the "true" meaning of the word (like Plato's forms?) then wouldn't the fact that 47 states define marriage as "man and woman" play a role? It seems that same sex unions would be more of a redefinition than the traditional sense. And certainly we can talk about marrying two gears, but is this relevant? Nobody is looking to dispense marriage licenses to machinery. Part of me just wanted to let this lie, but I'll give you the opportunity for rebutal and then maybe we can drop it. This is more in the spirit of intellectual debate rather than a crucial point.

There are three things that I find odd about this statement.

I think that it is very odd to imbue any word with "essential" meaning in the fashion of Plato's forms. It is quite obvious that there is more than one word in the world for any meaning, that many words have more than one meaning, that both words and meanings change over time, and that the meaning of words changes according to context.

I think that it is also very odd to suggest by defining a word in a legal document its generally accepted meaning may be determined. In fact the position is just the opposite: words in legal documents are defined because they don't have just one accepted meaning. Broadly, where certainty is required in respect of a term that has more than one meaning then it may be defined so that it will be interpreted consistently with the intended meaning.

Finally I think that it is very odd to try and imbue a word (and a translated word at that) with an exclusive, holy and static meaning. It obviously makes sense to you if I use the phrase gay marriage - in that you understand what I mean. So the word already encompasses the concept of union without being exclusive to one man one woman. You may not like it, but you understand it, dictionaries reference the fact that it is used in this way, and so I think that your horse has already bolted.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/17/2009 08:15:46 PM · #2336

This thread's antecedent began 5 years ago, and eventually got locked. It was resurrected to the current thread in November 2008 and has been posted to 2300+ times. It's fascinating how what began as an exploration of a civil rights issue has devolved into a highly self-referential semantic debate. More than anything I can imagine, this thread is pointing out how the anti-gay marriage group really has nothing to fall back on *except* semantics, and that, more than anything else, underscores how our attitudes have collectively evolved.

I mean, really: NOBODY is continuing to argue that gays should be deprived of certain civil rights *because* they are gay; instead, the holdouts are arguing that they want to keep the *word* marriage as they currently define it, nothing more.

Amazing...

R.

04/17/2009 08:46:22 PM · #2337

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

As someone who cooks, I've heard the term marriage to reference a melding of flavors.....in the case of something like wine, lemon, and dill in a light sauce for seafood pasta......it's a taste that's much more than the sum of its parts, ergo, a marriage.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

04/17/2009 08:48:01 PM · #2338

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I mean, really: NOBODY is continuing to argue that gays should be deprived of certain civil rights *because* they are gay; instead, the holdouts are arguing that they want to keep the *word* marriage as they currently define it, nothing more.

Amazing...

R.

That's a good thing, right?......8>)

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

04/17/2009 09:04:03 PM · #2339

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I think we scared those folks off though they are unfortunately still out there.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/17/2009 09:59:34 PM · #2340

Originally posted by escapetooz:

I think we scared those folks off though they are unfortunately still out there.

Well, yeah, but "scaring 'em off" is a victory in and of itself, and it sort of mirrors what's happening out in the real world too. I mean, "gay marriage" is still an issue on the cusp (see prop 8, CA) but the battle seems to be won in the relatively short-term future, basically, and the folks that ARE keeping "gay marriage" off the books are doing so by arguing the semantics, essentially, just as we're doing in here. Because "defense of marriage" is exactly that, an argument based on a narrow definition of what "marriage" is, or "ought" to be.

It used to be that it was OK, more-or-less, to stand up and be outright anti-gay: "These people are immoral, unnatural, and dangerous and we need to quash them!" But you don't see anywhere near so much of that anymore; it's not something you wanna go on record as believing anymore, it's political sujicide.

So to answer the original titular question of this thread: "Yes, they are!" We've proved that :-)

R.

FireBird

04/18/2009 12:19:45 AM · #2341

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

perpicacity. ;)

perspicacity

If I've got to look it up, at least spell it right.
Reminds me of one of my high school English teachers. :)

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

04/18/2009 12:33:43 AM · #2342

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
I think we scared those folks off though they are unfortunately still out there.

Well, yeah, but "scaring 'em off" is a victory in and of itself, and it sort of mirrors what's happening out in the real world too. I mean, "gay marriage" is still an issue on the cusp (see prop 8, CA) but the battle seems to be won in the relatively short-term future, basically, and the folks that ARE keeping "gay marriage" off the books are doing so by arguing the semantics, essentially, just as we're doing in here. Because "defense of marriage" is exactly that, an argument based on a narrow definition of what "marriage" is, or "ought" to be.

It used to be that it was OK, more-or-less, to stand up and be outright anti-gay: "These people are immoral, unnatural, and dangerous and we need to quash them!" But you don't see anywhere near so much of that anymore; it's not something you wanna go on record as believing anymore, it's political sujicide.

So to answer the original titular question of this thread: "Yes, they are!" We've proved that :-)

R.

Yeah but it's still kosher to say whatever you want about atheists. Hell, didn't our last president question whether or not they should even be U.S. citizens?

[/off topic]

Message edited by author 2009-04-18 00:34:16.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/18/2009 01:37:51 AM · #2343

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It seems that same sex unions would be more of a redefinition than the traditional sense. And certainly we can talk about marrying two gears, but is this relevant? Nobody is looking to dispense marriage licenses to machinery.

As Matthew pointed out if someone uses the term "gay marriage," you know exactly what it means: a union of two gay folks declaring their commitment to one another. If someone talks about marrying gears or marrying flavors or words, you know what that means, too. There is no confusion, and the definitions already apply. Leaving out the descriptor doesn't change that, either. A "marriage" by itself is a union of two things, and the adjective is no more relevant to that part than requiring a descriptor for black marriage, interfaith marriage, or any other distinction. It's purely an effort to declare a difference for personal comfort.

04/18/2009 12:48:19 PM · #2344

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

When the history of DPC is looked back upon, people will understand, naturally, that I won, but we don't need to get into that... ;)

You might think you've won, but I'm married.

Pardon the coming onslaught of short comments, but I have some catching up to do!

04/18/2009 12:49:26 PM · #2345

Originally posted by scalvert:

Thank you for replying. Your kind's opinion is important to us and the next semi-conscious DPC jester will be with you as soon as possible.

How DARE you!

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/18/2009 12:52:08 PM · #2346

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think this has been done to death on this thread, but herein lies the impasse. To you, it is a union between two loving, consenting adults and thus it is obviously "the same". It makes sense when you look at it like this. To the opposition they say it isn't "the same" because on one side we have a union between man and woman and on the other side between two men or two women. Not the same. Something new. That also makes sense when you look at it like this. And it does not further the conversation to simply say, "no, you need to look at it MY way." Both sides can say that. Impasse.

Something new. As if gay relationships haven't been around since the dawn of history.

What is actually new is the demand for equal legal and social recognition of such relationships.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/18/2009 01:01:08 PM · #2347

Originally posted by Mousie:

Something new. As if gay relationships haven't been around since the dawn of history.

What is actually new is the demand for equal legal and social recognition of such relationships.

You're missing his point; it's not "new" in the sense of "21st-century phenomenon", it's new in the *context* of the category, in the sense that "marriage" is a heterosexual union (he says), and the coupling of same-sex partnerships is, in that context, a "new" or "different" sort of thing.

I'm NOT defending Doc's attempts to say that gay marriages are not dogs, no matter what you choose to call them, but just pointing out that you're reading the word rather narrowly. You're spot-on in pointing out that the demand for legal/social recognition is a "new", in the sense of very recent, development.

R.

04/18/2009 01:02:02 PM · #2348

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Yes, yes, and yes! It's really pleasing to see this analysis in black and white!

This is exactly what I was trying to point out a few posts back... It's no longer socially acceptable to personally attack gays for being gay. Increased exposure/communication has presented overwhelming evidence pointing to us being humans like any other, with the corresponding foibles and charms, and not immoral monsters that prey on your children. Unable to vilify us as individuals, conservatives have had to fall back on attacking social recognition and institutional respect for homosexuality. That's the realm of semantics.

04/18/2009 01:28:24 PM · #2349

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It used to be that it was OK, more-or-less, to stand up and be outright anti-gay: "These people are immoral, unnatural, and dangerous and we need to quash them!" But you don't see anywhere near so much of that anymore; it's not something you wanna go on record as believing anymore, it's political sujicide.

So to answer the original titular question of this thread: "Yes, they are!" We've proved that :-)

R.

Again, it's good to hear someone else express this.

It's too bad that "don't see anywhere near so much" isn't "don't see", though! I regularly hold back posting links to the worst of the media that's constantly put online to battle homosexuality since, despite appearances, I don't want to take the conservatives here to task over the worst that their compatriots can come up with. I try not to post links to Ray Comfort on evolution debates for the same reason... nobody should have to justify the idiocy of every last member of their culture, though I do think they bear some responsibility to stand up against it.

Unfortunately, as far as we've come, this sort of rhetoric is still regularly heard in every part of the US, on TV, on radio, in print, in schools, and on the internet. If there's one demographic that you can often get away with trashing in public without real repercussions, that'd have to be homosexuals.

Followed closely by ~~rednecks~~ lower-income rural whites, of course.