| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/11/2008 10:00:09 PM · #701 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Plenty of cultures have had polygamous marriages, marriages with separate loving relationships, homosexual loving relationships, and/or no marriage at all. The point is that marriage changes to fit the culture. |
OK, 'humous. I'm going to hold you to it. Name three cultures that had homosexual marriage more than, say, fifty years ago. (I'm half wondering if you were sneaky with your wording and included the word "marriage" in all phrases above except the homosexual one on purpose)
EDIT to add: Just to make sure, I'm not talking about homosexuality alone. I'm well aware this has been described for millenia. I'm talking marriage. |
I don't have any such examples, that's why I didn't put them in my list. Look at my argument. I'm not citing a need for historical precedent. I'm saying that "marriage" and even "love" are fluid concepts dependent on culture. There is no coherent tradition throughout history that gay marriage would flout. Culture is radically different across geography and history.
I've already stated the reason you have so much trouble understanding this. You feel a categorical difference between "straight" and "gay" marriage. They are as different to you as ducks and bears. This assumption underlies all of your arguments. I see no such difference. Even single gay men have demonstrated this to me. I can think of one in particular who was mortified by the Gay Pride parade and wanted nothing more than to be a normal functioning citizen, and that includes marrying the person he loves. He's simply not wired to love a woman that way. Believe me, a duck is a duck. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 10:20:22 PM · #702 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ambaker:
50 years ago, in many states the laws did not allow persons of one race to marry another. While there may be the occasional biggot who still feels that way, most people are long since past that. So it will evenually be, with gay marriage. I see it coming, as much as integration, as much as interracial marriage, or any other discrimination from the past. Slavery was practiced from the beginning. Is there any defense for continuing with that in modern times? |
You're only "preaching to the choir" with the ad-nauseam repetition of the history of interracial marriage and slavery. Such arguments are irrelevant. Gender and skin color have been scientifically proven to be 100% nature (genetic), 0% nurture; sexual orientation has not been scientifically proven to be 100% nature (genetic). For those arguments to have real application you will have to wait until science provides proof that sexual orientation is genetic.
P.S. unless you are willing to embrace folks with sexual orientations other than heterosexual/homosexual, you probably shouldn't counter with a rebuttal that "sexual orientation really is 100% genetic, it just hasn't been proven yet". If the I-word upsets you, how much more upsetting would the P-word be?
|
I'll counter your tired old "standard of proof" argument. It's just one of your tactics you use when your position becomes otherwise indefensible. You simply claim that a higher and higher standard of proof is needed to convince you. It's the same argument that the tobacco companies trotted out for years to counter studies that said smoking causes cancer. Maybe you should try a diversion instead, perhaps a discussion on the inner workings of clocks or some other random topic. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 10:27:23 PM · #703 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I ended up just going and reading a description of the Golden rule (The DrAchoo first told me about a few months ago as a term in its own right) and also the general ethics of reciprocity. I'm not sure how you can hold one of these fundamental and want to go out of your way to impose the sorts of pain described earlier. I just plain don't understand. |
If you are speaking to me directly you'll have to remember that I'm not against rights for gays and I am all for either a parallel form of union with equal rights (say domestic partnership) or even just calling everybody "civil union" and leaving the term "marriage" to the churches. |
Why should the word "marriage" be the domain of the religious?
Would a wedding of a homosexual couple performed in a church that held as its core belief the right of homosexuals to marry result in a marriage or a "civil union" or whatever "separate but equal" terminology you would designate? |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 10:29:47 PM · #704 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ambaker:
50 years ago, in many states the laws did not allow persons of one race to marry another. While there may be the occasional biggot who still feels that way, most people are long since past that. So it will evenually be, with gay marriage. I see it coming, as much as integration, as much as interracial marriage, or any other discrimination from the past. Slavery was practiced from the beginning. Is there any defense for continuing with that in modern times? |
You're only "preaching to the choir" with the ad-nauseam repetition of the history of interracial marriage and slavery. Such arguments are irrelevant. Gender and skin color have been scientifically proven to be 100% nature (genetic), 0% nurture; sexual orientation has not been scientifically proven to be 100% nature (genetic). For those arguments to have real application you will have to wait until science provides proof that sexual orientation is genetic.
P.S. unless you are willing to embrace folks with sexual orientations other than heterosexual/homosexual, you probably shouldn't counter with a rebuttal that "sexual orientation really is 100% genetic, it just hasn't been proven yet". If the I-word upsets you, how much more upsetting would the P-word be?
|
I'll counter your tired old "standard of proof" argument. It's just one of your tactics you use when your position becomes otherwise indefensible. You simply claim that a higher and higher standard of proof is needed to convince you. It's the same argument that the tobacco companies trotted out for years to counter studies that said smoking causes cancer. Maybe you should try a diversion instead, perhaps a discussion on the inner workings of clocks or some other random topic. |
Besides, the "standard of proof" argument, too, would extend both ways. It is quite clear which would be the compassionate one.
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 22:44:33. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 10:30:21 PM · #705 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I don't have any such examples, that's why I didn't put them in my list. Look at my argument. I'm not citing a need for historical precedent. I'm saying that "marriage" and even "love" are fluid concepts dependent on culture. There is no coherent tradition throughout history that gay marriage would flout. Culture is radically different across geography and history. |
With due respect Don, this wouldn't make it out of high school debate. On one hand you say marriage is fluid and on the other you say you don't have any examples where it was fluid enough to include gay marriage (which you asserted in the post previous). I can't just let you tell me marriage is fluid. Perhaps the reality is marriage is much less fluid over cultures than you think. More or less unanimously marriage across culture and time has been between sexes. If you assert differently, you are going to have to back it up. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 10:33:15 PM · #706 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Why should the word "marriage" be the domain of the religious? |
Why can't a secular population define the word as they see fit? |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 10:38:52 PM · #707 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Why should the word "marriage" be the domain of the religious? |
Why can't a secular population define the word as they see fit? |
You seem to be the one claiming that the term "marriage" should be restricted to the religious.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2008 11:26:18 PM · #708 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Why should the word "marriage" be the domain of the religious? |
Why can't a secular population define the word as they see fit? |
You seem to be the one claiming that the term "marriage" should be restricted to the religious. |
Well, I've claimed religion seems to have the origins of the word, so if someone "owns" it, it's them. I've been trying hard to keep religion out of my arguments though. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 11:42:48 PM · #709 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I've claimed religion seems to have the origins of the word, so if someone "owns" it, it's them. I've been trying hard to keep religion out of my arguments though. |
If anything is changeable, it's the meaning and scope of words. A semantic argument is going to fail pretty quickly in the face of the pragmatic reality. The word 'gay' would be a good starting point.
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 23:44:48. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 12:24:51 AM · #710 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
On one hand you say marriage is fluid and on the other you say you don't have any examples where it was fluid enough to include gay marriage... |
Aboriginal North Americans had same sex "marriage" ceremonies long before the Europeans "conquered" them. Pre third century BCE Spartans had same sex marriage. Yeah yeah proof citations etc. Take my word for once. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:45:04 AM · #711 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Take my word for once. |
Heh, that's rich Louis! :) |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 01:51:12 AM · #712 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In other words, people who are for defining marriage as "man and woman" do not need to show standing in order to pass the law. Am I correct? |
I believe you are. The folks who will have to show standing are those who will seek to overturn this new amendment. Frankly I give them little chance to overturn short of another amendment. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 05:03:15 AM · #713 |
Which is more important, Eric and my vows to be together until death do us part, or the government's final ruling on this issue, no matter what that may be?
If the vows are less important than the law, how does it make you feel that your own vows are prostrate to what other people have defined about how you should live?
If we wind up unmarried by decision of law, will our vows still be valid? Does law trump their sanctity? Am I no longer obligated to have and to hold? Can I just walk away, without responsibility? If not, what responsibility do I still have, and why?
I thought those vows were super important, and were somehow truer and more immediate than the laws of man, almost magical in their transformative power. Two into one. Apparently they're just breath on the wind.
Can the law of man split one flesh into two?
Or is it just that my vows were never legitimate to begin with? I mean... heck... it was legal when I did it. The state accepted my vows. Were they simply mistaken about my qualifications to make them?
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 05:05:28. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:05:22 AM · #714 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I don't have any such examples, that's why I didn't put them in my list. Look at my argument. I'm not citing a need for historical precedent. I'm saying that "marriage" and even "love" are fluid concepts dependent on culture. There is no coherent tradition throughout history that gay marriage would flout. Culture is radically different across geography and history. |
With due respect Don, this wouldn't make it out of high school debate. On one hand you say marriage is fluid and on the other you say you don't have any examples where it was fluid enough to include gay marriage (which you asserted in the post previous). I can't just let you tell me marriage is fluid. Perhaps the reality is marriage is much less fluid over cultures than you think. More or less unanimously marriage across culture and time has been between sexes. If you assert differently, you are going to have to back it up. |
You're correct about one thing. This is not a high school debate, which means I don't have to do your research for you. I'm not going to be your anthropology teacher. It's not my fault you never studied the topic and therefore believe that Marriage Is Between One Man And One Woman.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:23:39 AM · #715 |
I want to say one more thing, Doc. You are ignoring half of my argument. I said that there has been a cultural shift. If the culture has shifted, why do I have to show historical precedents?
I'm not arguing fluidity to hint that there has been a precedent. I'm arguing fluidity to assert that no precedent is required. Interracial marriages were very rare before the twentieth century. Any examples you come up with were clearly exceptions to a well-established rule, which is probably what you'll say about Louis's examples of gay marriage.
Once again, you've ignored my argument about the perception of a categorical difference. I think you should take it as your Get Out Of Guilt Free card and move on. Let people be who they are. They are not flouting culture. The culture has changed and is waiting for certain people to realize it. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 09:42:13 AM · #716 |
Originally posted by RonB:
And that's my point. Incest should be no more stigmatized than gay marriage on either moral grounds or state's interest if one ( or both ) of the parties are sterile and both are consenting adults. Did I change your mind about certain incestuous relationships? If not, why not? The arguments are the same as for gay couples. |
I am just so astounded that someone could possibly take this stance.
As well as being radically flawed thinking, it just doesn't make sense.
There are documented genetic problems associated with incest!
It is NOT comparable on any level with homosexuality and the inference is completely reprehensible!
|
|
|
|
11/12/2008 09:47:22 AM · #717 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Why should the word "marriage" be the domain of the religious? |
Why can't a secular population define the word as they see fit? |
You seem to be the one claiming that the term "marriage" should be restricted to the religious. |
Well, I've claimed religion seems to have the origins of the word, so if someone "owns" it, it's them. I've been trying hard to keep religion out of my arguments though. |
Last time I checked, the only restriction that might apply would be trademark. But I don't think the word "marriage" is eligible for a trademark. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 09:53:11 AM · #718 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you are speaking to me directly you'll have to remember that I'm not against rights for gays and I am all for either a parallel form of union with equal rights (say domestic partnership) or even just calling everybody "civil union" and leaving the term "marriage" to the churches. |
I've been trying for quite a while to get my head around this attitude, to understand where it comes from. I am quoting you, Doc, not to single you out (it's a very common attitude, I hear it all the time) but because you have articulated it most clearly in this post.
Here's how I see it: people with this mindset will acknowledge that homosexuality is "legal" in the United States. They will acknowledge that homosexuality is (most of the time at least) a genetic trait, not a learned behavior. They will acknowledge that "homosexuals are people too" and absolutely deserve equal protection under the law. They will be as appalled as any of us at hate crimes and discrimination perpetrated against gay people. They will often have (or claim to have) "close friends" who are gay. In short, they are (or claim to be, publicly) perfectly tolerant, modern citizens who believe in a live-and-let-live philosophy.
And yet... And yet...
When it comes to "marriage" they dig in their heels. They'll even vociferously advocate the right of gay people to have "civil unions" with all the legal bells and whistles appertaining to them, and (apparently) pride themselves on how open-minded they are: but all the while, they resist with every fiber of their being the idea that gays can "legitimately" call these legal, civil unions "marriages". The distinction (which they can see and I am having a hard time seeing) is critically important to them.
And the question is "why"?
I have come to this conclusion, for whatever it is worth: Doc, and other like him, believe at some level (consciously or otherwise) that their own marriages, which they take very seriously and which have sacred or totemic status in their lives, would somehow be cheapened or otherwise lessened if these "gay marriages" were to be legitimized. I'm not sure I'm stating this clearly, but that's the best I've been able to come up with.
If I'm correct about the underlying motivations here, it sort of puts the lie to the whole tolerance or acceptance pose; it's one thing to SAY "I'm for this, that, and the other thing" but talk is cheap and walking's hard. I'd submit that if one REALLY believes in the right of homosexuals to be who they are, one's obligated, at a deep moral level, to drop one's objections to the concept of "gay marriage" even if (ESPECIALLY if) the idea of it makes one uncomfortable.
It's part of growing to be the best human one can be...
R.
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 09:54:44. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 10:00:36 AM · #719 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I have come to this conclusion, for whatever it is worth: Doc, and other like him, believe at some level (consciously or otherwise) that their own marriages, which they take very seriously and which have sacred or totemic status in their lives, would somehow be cheapened or otherwise lessened if these "gay marriages" were to be legitimized. |
But why??? Or how???
That's where I'm lost.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2008 11:04:38 AM · #720 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by RonB:
And that's my point. Incest should be no more stigmatized than gay marriage on either moral grounds or state's interest if one ( or both ) of the parties are sterile and both are consenting adults. Did I change your mind about certain incestuous relationships? If not, why not? The arguments are the same as for gay couples. |
I am just so astounded that someone could possibly take this stance.
As well as being radically flawed thinking, it just doesn't make sense.
There are documented genetic problems associated with incest!
It is NOT comparable on any level with homosexuality and the inference is completely reprehensible! |
Jeb, put your emotional hat aside for a moment and don your logical hat instead - then please re-read the post of mine that you quoted just above. I have bolded the part that you are obviously ignoring, as can be seen from your bolded reply.
My post specifically stipulates the requirement that one or both of the parties are sterile. If one or both of them are sterile, there can be NO genetic problem associated with incest between the two, period.
It is NOT radically flawed thinking. It is completely logical.
As for the remark about the inference being "reprehensible", please consider that not that many years ago, a majority of people in the Americas also considered homosexuality to be reprehensible. Many cultures still do. Take India, for example. On Oct 21, The Hindu newspaper reported that "The Centre on Monday concluded its submission on the petition for legalisation of homosexuality, saying that it was a disease and morally reprehensible." On Nov 8th, the Delhi High Court entertained arguments from The Centre, and others, on the legalization of homosexuality and reserved judgment. A decision is expected soon.
Culture changes - with your approval or without it - and the same for mine. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 11:10:04 AM · #721 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I have come to this conclusion, for whatever it is worth: Doc, and other like him, believe at some level (consciously or otherwise) that their own marriages, which they take very seriously and which have sacred or totemic status in their lives, would somehow be cheapened or otherwise lessened if these "gay marriages" were to be legitimized. |
But why??? Or how??? |
By the same exact reasoning that gays use when they object to having "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" instead of "marriages". THEY feel that having to use those terms instead of "marriage" would make their unions somehow cheapened or otherwise lessened.
And, they're right.
And so are those who oppose gay "marriage". |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 11:14:23 AM · #722 |
How does a posi-track rear end work? It Just Does.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I have come to this conclusion, for whatever it is worth: Doc, and other like him, believe at some level (consciously or otherwise) that their own marriages, which they take very seriously and which have sacred or totemic status in their lives, would somehow be cheapened or otherwise lessened if these "gay marriages" were to be legitimized. |
But why??? Or how???
That's where I'm lost. |
|
|
|
|
11/12/2008 11:20:08 AM · #723 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I have come to this conclusion, for whatever it is worth: Doc, and other like him, believe at some level (consciously or otherwise) that their own marriages, which they take very seriously and which have sacred or totemic status in their lives, would somehow be cheapened or otherwise lessened if these "gay marriages" were to be legitimized. |
But why??? Or how???
That's where I'm lost. |
Well, that's hard to answer. Let me try to come at it obliquely. As many of you know, I'm somewhat of a stickler for "correct usage" in language, so I've often had a bit of a problem with some modern trends in the vernacular. I remember, in particular, a couple decades ago when the young people (including my kids) embraced the word "awesome" as a synonym of what OUR generation used to call "cool" or "bitchin'" — and this really bothered me, more than most changes in word usage do.
Why did it bother me so? Because, to me, "awesome" is an extremely valuable word, denoting as it does that the subject to which it is appended has the trait of inspiring awe in those who behold it. And 'awe". of course, is a very powerful thing; one's in "awe" of one's God, or perhaps in "awe" of something of incredible complexity and beauty, you get the drift. So "awesome" is a word to be used sparingly, in my mind. I want it to maintain its sense of power and grace. And therefore it bothered me no end that the very word itself was being denatured into a cliché, a cartoon, by a younger generation, and I felt that, collectively, they none of them understood what they were losing by doing this, that never again would this wonderful, powerful adjective be able to hold its intended meaning because they had thoughtlessly trashed it. "Awesome ride, dude!" "Awesome salsa on these nachos!" Gimme a break....
Words are important to us, we often don't separate words from the concepts they indicate very easily. For example, one person, entirely agnostic, may casually swear "Oh, Jesus! Gimme a break, for christ's sake!" and this literally doesn't mean anything to him, it's just words he says a hundred or more times a day, they have been denatured. But if he says this in front of a devout Christian, he causes great offense, because he has taken the Lord's name in vain, and this of course is a Vry Bad Thing to do. In fact, for Christians in general, we're in a pretty sad state as a secular society right now, when the "average man" think's it's OK to trash people's gods with impunity in casual, even licentious, speech ("Jesus, baby, that feels so good!")...
Now Doc, and a whole lot of other people, a whole LOT of them, place this particular concept of "marriage" that they have up on a pedestal that elevates it beyond ordinary, everyday affairs. They have a concept of marriage that is essentially sacred to them, and it bothers them at a visceral level to see this concept watered down, denatured. They can't "help" it, in a way, it's kind of wired into them. It juts plain feels WRONG tot hem that gays might marry, as if the institution they hold in such high esteem is being mocked in some way.
And I can understand this, I really can, because it's just an extension of how I felt about the word "awesome"...
I'm not sure I'm still making sense. And I feel like maybe I'm putting words into Doc's mouth that he would not agree with, so I'll stop here. It's just that, like you, I'm trying to make sense of this, to understand why it's such a hot-button issue for these folks. I mean, I have no problem "understanding" why homophobes of various stripes are rabidly against gay marriage, even against gay rights in general. It's pretty obvious. The ones that confuse me are the (relatively) liberal, rational people who "accept" the idea of gay-hood and accept the idea that gays have the same rights as the rest of us, and support the idea of civil unions with all the bells and whistles appended to them that marriages have, but resist so stubbornly the idea of allowing gays to CALL this a "marriage"...
R. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 11:20:51 AM · #724 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
How does a posi-track rear end work? It Just Does.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I have come to this conclusion, for whatever it is worth: Doc, and other like him, believe at some level (consciously or otherwise) that their own marriages, which they take very seriously and which have sacred or totemic status in their lives, would somehow be cheapened or otherwise lessened if these "gay marriages" were to be legitimized. |
But why??? Or how???
That's where I'm lost. |
|
True enough... but one is not limited to that specific type of traction... there are alternatives and surprisingly, they are all legal.
Ray
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 11:36:51. |
|
|
|
11/12/2008 11:31:17 AM · #725 |
No, it works like it does because it was designed and built that way.
Originally posted by David Ey:
How does a posi-track rear end work? It Just Does.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I have come to this conclusion, for whatever it is worth: Doc, and other like him, believe at some level (consciously or otherwise) that their own marriages, which they take very seriously and which have sacred or totemic status in their lives, would somehow be cheapened or otherwise lessened if these "gay marriages" were to be legitimized. |
But why??? Or how???
That's where I'm lost. |
|
|
|
