Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

04/16/2009 09:58:48 PM · #2301

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I suppose that in the eyes of Christianity two atheiests are not "married". I suppose I would consider that a civil union as well. I suppose it is harder to undo something than to keep it from being done.

That lends some credence to the resistance toward gay marriage. I don't see it the same way, but that makes a certain kind of sense.

04/16/2009 10:04:03 PM · #2302

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Whoa. You mean to tell me that the morality of a situation can depend on a third party's consent who is not directly involved in the act in question?

Bitch!

ROFLMSOAO!!!!!!

I wanna see the answer to this! LOL!!!

ETA: Oops.....wrote this before I read further. I still liked the abrupt turn, and path this forced the discussion to take.

Nice turn of phrase, Doc.

Message edited by author 2009-04-16 22:11:00.

yanko

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

04/16/2009 10:15:52 PM · #2303

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Why not take a nutural term and apply it all and leave the controversional term to "those" people. Then it's a non-issue. To the state, there is a civil union that carries all the rights and responsibilies of that union. "Marriage" no longer has any legal status, so churches, glee clubs, bird watching societies can perform ceremonial marriages to the ones they see fit. and also refuse to perfrom for those they don't.

Makes the most sense to me. I would go further and say that a civil union (or civil contract) is simply a binding agreement between two or more persons. The terms and purpose of the civil union can be whatever is agreed upon by the parties entering the contract. In other words, it wouldn't necessary mean those entering a civil union are even romantically involved.

Message edited by author 2009-04-16 22:17:47.

04/16/2009 10:29:30 PM · #2304

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by yanko:

That'd be a pretty good idea.....I know of men and women who lived together in their declining years who set up those kind of arrangements so that they don't have to live alone and so that the one who survives can take care of the details of the other's estate, and it also affords them the comfort of knowing the the other will be there to make necessary decisions when the time arises. It's usually then problematic for the survivor, but in a manner similar to anyone who loses a life partner.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/16/2009 11:09:25 PM · #2305

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Whoa. You mean to tell me that the morality of a situation can depend on a third party's consent who is not directly involved in the act in question?

I still liked the abrupt turn, and path this forced the discussion to take.

How so? A third party IS directly involved in matters of adultery (as the victim). You're involved in a car accident even if you were stopped at a light when hit and didn't participate in the offense itself. I've contended all along that morality is relative, and morality often hinges upon the "victim's" perspective. If you intentionally ram your car into mine, that could be an immoral act or all in good fun at an amusement park or crash derby. It's relative. The difference is that thus far I have not seen anything at all to suggest Christians would actually be victims of gay marriage; only that it conflicts with their values (they don't approve)â�� a situation no different than atheist or Hindu marriages. A Catholic's consumption of bacon may be in direct conflict with kosher Jewish values, but the latter isn't actually wronged by the former and consequently has no right to impose general restrictions on pork consumption.

04/16/2009 11:52:01 PM · #2306

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
Obviously a degree is not the same as a marriage, its simply to illustrate the power of words.

The battle over the word is silly to me.

Go for equal rights. Semantics will take care of itself.

Words change meaning over time and in different contexts. For example, "gay"

I think it's silly too. It should be a non-issue. If a civil union will be the same as a marriage, why not let it be called a marriage? Words do change meaning. If the laws change to allow for gay marriage (as a concept) then the word should follow suit, not stay behind in the past. Unless it is to be completely gotten rid of but it wouldn't be. There would still be a fight if a gay couple wanted to call their union a marriage. And Christians would still want to call their unions marriages too. And what of the words husband and wife? Should those be weeded out too?

To use an example: What if when women were granted the vote, they only got it under the condition that it would be called something else? Sure all the legal rights would be in place, but there would still be inequality, which breeds discrimination on another level. Like "I'm a man! I get to vote. Those women they think they are voting but they are only ____".

Equality isn't JUST about laws. There is so much more involved. My words are not serving me well so I hope I got that point across.

04/16/2009 11:54:41 PM · #2307

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by scarbrd:
Why not take a nutural term and apply it all and leave the controversional term to "those" people. Then it's a non-issue. To the state, there is a civil union that carries all the rights and responsibilies of that union. "Marriage" no longer has any legal status, so churches, glee clubs, bird watching societies can perform ceremonial marriages to the ones they see fit. and also refuse to perfrom for those they don't.

Originally posted by yanko:
Makes the most sense to me. I would go further and say that a civil union (or civil contract) is simply a binding agreement between two or more persons. The terms and purpose of the civil union can be whatever is agreed upon by the parties entering the contract. In other words, it wouldn't necessary mean those entering a civil union are even romantically involved.

That'd be a pretty good idea.....I know of men and women who lived together in their declining years who set up those kind of arrangements so that they don't have to live alone and so that the one who survives can take care of the details of the other's estate, and it also affords them the comfort of knowing the the other will be there to make necessary decisions when the time arises. It's usually then problematic for the survivor, but in a manner similar to anyone who loses a life partner.

I can see that making sense. Though for those that are in love it doesn't seem as romantic. "Guess what everyone I'm engaged. That's right we're going to get... civilly unionized?"

Doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

How bout we brainstorm on a more romantic sounding name team?

;)

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

04/17/2009 12:28:19 AM · #2308

Originally posted by escapetooz:

How bout we brainstorm on a more romantic sounding name team?

Snuggleized?
Deathdousparted?
sausagelinked?

It's probably time we start to wrap this thread up with a few light jokes, some shaking of hands all around, and go to our corners to think over the few things the other side said that are worth mulling. I am man enough to say I have some stuff to chew on, but I would hope that at the very least a few ideas in the probably 10,000 words I have written have made someone out there say, "hmmm, he may have a point" (don't worry, I excuse you Shannon. We know you are really a machine.)

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... ;)

04/17/2009 12:52:22 AM · #2309

how about...

Getting gayed? With the original definition of "happy". yeaaaa

"so gaaay togeeetthhhheerrr... I can't see me gayin nobody but you, for all my liiifffeee."

And you won? pshhh. Should we go on for another 300 pages on all the reasons I won? No? Then I guess I'll just leave it at that.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/17/2009 01:11:37 AM · #2310

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I would hope that at the very least a few ideas in the probably 10,000 words I have written have made someone out there say, "hmmm, he may have a point" (don't worry, I excuse you Shannon. We know you are really a machine.)

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. To hear snarky response, press 4. I'm going to sleep, so your wait time is approximately 7 hours.

;-P

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/17/2009 09:37:57 AM · #2311

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I would hope that at the very least a few ideas in the probably 10,000 words I have written have made someone out there say, "hmmm, he may have a point"

I have a better understanding of the mindset (even if I wholeheartedly disagree with it) and have explored and reinforced my own thinking through the discussion â�� for which I am grateful to you.

Incidentally, the substantive reasons for permitting or excluding full equality of rights for gay people are very dull and have little to do with morality. The political popularity contest is undoubtedly a factor but the big reasons tend to be motivated by money (as with most things). Actuaries have not taken into account the impact of gay marriage in pricing things like pensions and life assurance policies. Rebalancing this will take time and money. This is one of the reasons why we have civil union with a reduced set of rights for gay people in the UK (excluding e.g. spousal pension entitlements).

RayEthier

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

04/17/2009 09:41:04 AM · #2312

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't mean to change gears, but this one came to mind today and I'd love to hear from the Liberty people on it.

Is adultery morally wrong between two consenting adults?

Morally wrong to whom Doc?... the parties involved or the onlookers.

This type of situation is in my opinion wholly dependant on a variety of factors.

Let's say for argument's sake that I am a married person and that my wife suffers from some physical incapacity which renders her unable to participate in sexual activities. Let us assume that she happens to be a very open minded person and has no problems in my engaging (discretely) in sexual activities with another woman... are all the participants morally wrong?

The issue of morality is one that is not cut and dry. There are certain issues which are indeed governed by mores and laws, since they have a bearing on society as a whole.

However, issues such as those you allude to are more restrictive in nature and as such affect only the participants involved in the activity. In the latter case, the issue of morality is in my opinion one that is best left to the players involved.

Ray

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

04/17/2009 10:18:30 AM · #2313

Originally posted by escapetooz:

To use an example: What if when women were granted the vote, they only got it under the condition that it would be called something else? Sure all the legal rights would be in place, but there would still be inequality, which breeds discrimination on another level. Like "I'm a man! I get to vote. Those women they think they are voting but they are only ____".

Equality isn't JUST about laws. There is so much more involved. My words are not serving me well so I hope I got that point across.

Your point came across just fine, but you connection isn't there. By your "marriage" arguement, the only way women could really be seen as equal is to men is to no longer call them "women", since calling them something other than "men" underscores the institutionalized descrimination of females. The only way to truly be equal is to have both sexes called "men". That way there's no implied difference.

04/17/2009 12:06:13 PM · #2314

Originally posted by scarbrd:

What do you really want, the "word" or the same legal standing?

BINGO! Then I want all parties to STFU and enjoy themselves.

04/17/2009 12:22:52 PM · #2315

Originally posted by escapetooz:

That implies some sort of superiority does it not? We get to get married, you get to get union...ized? It doesn't follow.

Separate but equal is not true.. Unfortunately names mean a lot more than we realize.

Using your line of reasoning, (if I understand correctly)we'd have to do away with all religions. One might be perceived to be superior because of their particular belief in one or more supreme beings. Of course others might be perceived superior because of their lack of belief in one or more supreme beings. So I guess we can't have atheists either.

Personally I perceive no one to be superior. Even if they can demonstrate tangible intellectual skills in the top 1 percentile of the human race, no one is a better person than anyone else.
So in my version of the world, all religions and lack thereof are A-OK as long as you keep your IEDs out of my back yard. :)

04/17/2009 12:26:08 PM · #2316

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I would hope that at the very least a few ideas in the probably 10,000 words I have written have made someone out there say, "hmmm, he may have a point"

Originally posted by Matthew:

I too, feel that my eyes and thinking have been opened. As with Matthew, I still disagree, but I would also be pleased to call you a good person who thinks differently than I about some issues.

Since your stance is more from a commitment to your belief system, I don't find the stance distasteful in the same manner as the hatred, fear, and ignorance often purveyed by extremist homophobes.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Incidentally, the substantive reasons for permitting or excluding full equality of rights for gay people are very dull and have little to do with morality. The political popularity contest is undoubtedly a factor but the big reasons tend to be motivated by money (as with most things). Actuaries have not taken into account the impact of gay marriage in pricing things like pensions and life assurance policies. Rebalancing this will take time and money. This is one of the reasons why we have civil union with a reduced set of rights for gay people in the UK (excluding e.g. spousal pension entitlements).

I keep hoping for change.....

04/17/2009 12:29:24 PM · #2317

Originally posted by scalvert:

But if everyone was consenting, there's where's the harm?

Maybe we all should live with these folksfor a few months.

04/17/2009 12:32:33 PM · #2318

Originally posted by escapetooz:

How bout we brainstorm on a more romantic sounding name team?

;)

I'd go for the word "farked', but that is already taken. :)

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

04/17/2009 01:06:17 PM · #2319

Originally posted by FireBird:

Originally posted by scalvert:
But if everyone was consenting, there's where's the harm?

Maybe we all should live with these folksfor a few months.

"The PirahÃ£ are the "Show me!" tribe of the Brazilian Amazon. They don't bother with fiction or tall tales or even oral history. They have little art. They don't have a creation myth and don't want one. If they can't see it, hear it, touch it or taste it, they don't believe in it."

Holy moly. We've found Shannon's long lost relatives!

eqsite

Nikon D7100

04/17/2009 01:14:06 PM · #2320

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by FireBird:

Originally posted by scalvert:
But if everyone was consenting, there's where's the harm?

Maybe we all should live with these folksfor a few months.

"The PirahÃ£ are the "Show me!" tribe of the Brazilian Amazon. They don't bother with fiction or tall tales or even oral history. They have little art. They don't have a creation myth and don't want one. If they can't see it, hear it, touch it or taste it, they don't believe in it."

Holy moly. We've found Shannon's long lost relatives!

"Spirits live everywhere and may even caution or lecture them at times. But these spirits are visible to the PirahÃ£s, if not to Everett and his family, who spent 30 years, on and off, living with the tribe."

Or, perhaps, they are more of "your kind" :D
It looks like an interesting read.

04/17/2009 01:21:13 PM · #2321

Originally posted by FireBird:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
That implies some sort of superiority does it not? We get to get married, you get to get union...ized? It doesn't follow.

Separate but equal is not true.. Unfortunately names mean a lot more than we realize.

Using your line of reasoning, (if I understand correctly)we'd have to do away with all religions. One might be perceived to be superior because of their particular belief in one or more supreme beings. Of course others might be perceived superior because of their lack of belief in one or more supreme beings. So I guess we can't have atheists either.

Personally I perceive no one to be superior. Even if they can demonstrate tangible intellectual skills in the top 1 percentile of the human race, no one is a better person than anyone else.
So in my version of the world, all religions and lack thereof are A-OK as long as you keep your IEDs out of my back yard. :)

That is not the same thing at all. Slippery slope. I was not implying nothing should have a name. There are always going to be differences and groups feeling superior, 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. Like with my voting example: Men get the vote, women get ____ whatever. Or if we were to use a black example, what if a black couple marriage had to be called something else? Would there not be huge protests?

There need not be a different name for something that is the same. Giving a different name to the same thing implies that there is some sort of reason the 2nd group cannot be part of the first group. And again, that is NOT equality.

Again I say, separate is not equal.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

04/17/2009 01:33:09 PM · #2322

Originally posted by escapetooz:

There need not be a different name for something that is the same. Giving a different name to the same thing implies that there is some sort of reason the 2nd group cannot be part of the first group. And again, that is NOT equality.

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.

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.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/17/2009 02:07:39 PM · #2323

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

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.... 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.

In 1967, 17 Southern states (all the former slave states plus Oklahoma) still enforced laws prohibiting marriage between whites and non-whites. Marriage was a union between two whites or two blacks. Interracial marriage was something new. Must it therefore be an interracial civil union?

Message edited by author 2009-04-17 14:16:47.

04/17/2009 02:13:38 PM · #2324

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
There need not be a different name for something that is the same. Giving a different name to the same thing implies that there is some sort of reason the 2nd group cannot be part of the first group. And again, that is NOT equality.

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.

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.

Is this what you were talking about as far as Matthew goes?

"Words have meanings independently of any definition. A definition is an attempt at recording how a word *is* used, not one that sets rules on how it may be used. The word marriage is used in the context of all kinds of union - even mechanical objects can marry."

I see where you might think that the majority using the word marriage to mean between a man and a woman would support the definition but I think the point Matthew was trying to make (though correct me if I'm wrong) is that words often go beyond their set parameters. In other words, when the dictionary was first written, there just wasn't talk about gay marriage, there was no need to have that definition. That does not mean that it needs to stay the same, in fact it hasn't.

Or perhaps put this way: a definition is just that, an attempt to define the meaning of a word as it is currently used. Not a rule for how it MUST be used. And I think Matthew already stated this.

So to me, it supports having gay marriage be called marriage, because the word is changing with the times.

As far as the impasse you speak of. I get you but I think you are failing to realize a key point. The name is of the union. In other words, the name is for the legal state of being "married", independently of the 2 parties involved. A 20 year old person can marry a 80 year old person and its still a marriage. A black person can marry a white person and its still a marriage. A jew can marry a catholic and its still a marriage. A man can marry and man and its still a marriage. Every situation can be just as unique as the next and it is STILL a marriage. If we get into the game of giving each marriage a different name simply because of the 2 parties involved things get way too complicated. It just doesn't make sense. A couple is still a couple regardless of what the pair consists of.

It's not something new, its just allowing more people into an already established legal partnership.

Let me put it another way. A contract. A contract is always a contract regardless of who is signing it. Would we give it another name just because a black person is signing it? Same with the example I already gave, a vote is still a vote because that is what it is called, regardless of who is casting that vote. Clothes are still clothes regardless of who wears them.

An rhino wearing clothes would be something not often seen, it might even "confuse", but they would still be called clothes. ;)

Message edited by author 2009-04-17 14:15:11.

yanko