|
On June 24 2013 06:37 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:25 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote:
Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. I think I've made it quite clear that a man and woman who do not have children should not receive the benefits that it entails, I don't think anyone has not supported that notion in this thread in fact. You keep using this phrase we're "denying them the right to marry" as if it's some evil thing or something. We're not proposing deny anyone the right to anything. They're getting the same exact rights as the rest of us -- their individual freedoms are completely protected. Them not being able to legally call it "marriage" is not a natural fucking right though that ought to be protected. No, you don't think the benefits from marriage should be reserved to couple with children. Please. Those includes Rights of visits in hospital, funeral arrengement and so a number of other thing I'm 100% sure you don't want to be only for couple with children. There is a word that design a "civil union" with all the advantage of marriage. It's called marriage. Why, by extending those rights to same sex couples, should we use another world ? If you do that, you're hurting their feelings, and yes, I believe it would be unequal treatment, words do matter. What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? My argument is that it can't be the unability to bear children, because you allow infertile couple to marry. So what is it ?
What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ?
The difference between same sex couples and hetero couples is this: the former consists of two people of the same sex, and the latter consists of two people of the opposite sex. The word should be different because the word "marriage" includes a variety of connotations that it is sapped of when it is applied to same sex unions. Calling gay unions "marriages" would amount to nothing less than an intentional destruction of tradition, an eradication of the fundamental sources the institution is based upon. A marriage is simply not the same thing as a contract entered between two people that entitles them to this that and the other thing. The legal appropriation of the term marriage is not the definition of that term. Gay people can (theoretically) do the thing that the state recognizes as marriage, but what the state recognizes as marriage is in no way what is in truth a marriage.
Consider another legal definition of something, say "drunk driving." Now in many states, "drunk driving" is defined as: "Operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of over 0.08." This definition serves to inform all legal processes that surround drunk driving: arrest, prosecution, whatever. But does that mean that all behavior about drunk driving is based on this definition? Well, of course not! I can be upset at someone who was driving by a school in midday with a BAC of 0.07 and rightly say he was driving drunk, and I can say that someone sitting in a car in neutral with the engine on with a BAC of .10 was not really driving drunk.
And it's similar with marriage. Legally, a marriage is a kind of contract that entitles you to certain benefits and gives you certain obligations. But does this mean that that's all a marriage is? Of course not. People can say they are "pretty much married" even though no contract is in sight, and they can refer to people with whom they still have a binding legal contract as their ex-wife (as many people do in the processes of divorce).
So how does this turn out in the case of same sex marriage? It makes it clear that a capacity to enter into the same kind of legal contract does not amount to a general equality of the term. That is, even if gay people could enter civil unions, this doesn't mean they are married. Now the argument that the natural usage of the term is separated from the legal usage in such a way that same sex unions would not count is separate, but it isn't terribly hard to construct a plausible version. I'll construct a couple for you now.
Marriages have historically been between men and women, and this fact was integral to their nature. That is to say, what was essential to a marriage (in the history and tradition of the term) was tied up with the participants being of the two opposite genders. What is essential to a marriage could be variously interpreted (union of two families, production of children, a commanding husband and an obeying wife), but surely the historical notion of a same sex marriage is strange. I cannot, for instance, imagine what a medieval marriage between two men would even mean.
Marriages have historically been between men and women, and the differences between the two sexes and the real contour of the relationship have come to be integral in defining what a marriage really is. That is, a marriage plays out differently than just a legal contract to the same effect between two men does. And this is easy to establish as long as you think there are defining behavioral differences between men and women (note that these differences don't have to be inborn).
I personally don't see why we should call what homosexuals do when they enter a civil union together marriage, nor why we should call what similar-minded heterosexuals do marriage. Modern day homosexuals (and fancy-pants liberals, I'd like to say) simply aren't doing anything similar to what e.g. Henry VII was doing.
|
You're a cool dude haji and I always enjoy your blogs. That's all
|
Kinda describes my opinions on it. Gay people definitely deserve their right to marriage, doesn't mean I don't think its creepy as fuck.
|
On June 24 2013 12:03 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 06:37 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 06:25 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote:
Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. I think I've made it quite clear that a man and woman who do not have children should not receive the benefits that it entails, I don't think anyone has not supported that notion in this thread in fact. You keep using this phrase we're "denying them the right to marry" as if it's some evil thing or something. We're not proposing deny anyone the right to anything. They're getting the same exact rights as the rest of us -- their individual freedoms are completely protected. Them not being able to legally call it "marriage" is not a natural fucking right though that ought to be protected. No, you don't think the benefits from marriage should be reserved to couple with children. Please. Those includes Rights of visits in hospital, funeral arrengement and so a number of other thing I'm 100% sure you don't want to be only for couple with children. There is a word that design a "civil union" with all the advantage of marriage. It's called marriage. Why, by extending those rights to same sex couples, should we use another world ? If you do that, you're hurting their feelings, and yes, I believe it would be unequal treatment, words do matter. What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? My argument is that it can't be the unability to bear children, because you allow infertile couple to marry. So what is it ? Show nested quote +What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? The difference between same sex couples and hetero couples is this: the former consists of two people of the same sex, and the latter consists of two people of the opposite sex. The word should be different because the word "marriage" includes a variety of connotations that it is sapped of when it is applied to same sex unions. Calling gay unions "marriages" would amount to nothing less than an intentional destruction of tradition, an eradication of the fundamental sources the institution is based upon. A marriage is simply not the same thing as a contract entered between two people that entitles them to this that and the other thing. The legal appropriation of the term marriage is not the definition of that term. Gay people can (theoretically) do the thing that the state recognizes as marriage, but what the state recognizes as marriage is in no way what is in truth a marriage. Consider another legal definition of something, say "drunk driving." Now in many states, "drunk driving" is defined as: "Operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of over 0.08." This definition serves to inform all legal processes that surround drunk driving: arrest, prosecution, whatever. But does that mean that all behavior about drunk driving is based on this definition? Well, of course not! I can be upset at someone who was driving by a school in midday with a BAC of 0.07 and rightly say he was driving drunk, and I can say that someone sitting in a car in neutral with the engine on with a BAC of .10 was not really driving drunk. And it's similar with marriage. Legally, a marriage is a kind of contract that entitles you to certain benefits and gives you certain obligations. But does this mean that that's all a marriage is? Of course not. People can say they are "pretty much married" even though no contract is in sight, and they can refer to people with whom they still have a binding legal contract as their ex-wife (as many people do in the processes of divorce). So how does this turn out in the case of same sex marriage? It makes it clear that a capacity to enter into the same kind of legal contract does not amount to a general equality of the term. That is, even if gay people could enter civil unions, this doesn't mean they are married. Now the argument that the natural usage of the term is separated from the legal usage in such a way that same sex unions would not count is separate, but it isn't terribly hard to construct a plausible version. I'll construct a couple for you now. Marriages have historically been between men and women, and this fact was integral to their nature. That is to say, what was essential to a marriage (in the history and tradition of the term) was tied up with the participants being of the two opposite genders. What is essential to a marriage could be variously interpreted (union of two families, production of children, a commanding husband and an obeying wife), but surely the historical notion of a same sex marriage is strange. I cannot, for instance, imagine what a medieval marriage between two men would even mean. Marriages have historically been between men and women, and the differences between the two sexes and the real contour of the relationship have come to be integral in defining what a marriage really is. That is, a marriage plays out differently than just a legal contract to the same effect between two men does. And this is easy to establish as long as you think there are defining behavioral differences between men and women (note that these differences don't have to be inborn). I personally don't see why we should call what homosexuals do when they enter a civil union together marriage, nor why we should call what similar-minded heterosexuals do marriage. Modern day homosexuals (and fancy-pants liberals, I'd like to say) simply aren't doing anything similar to what e.g. Henry VII was doing.
The counter argument is pretty simple :
-the world has historically been homophobic, hence why gay couldn't marry, now that we're doing better, why should we forbid them this access ? Especially, as you will note, the notion of marriage and what it entails has evolved a lot since we started to use the word.
-you claim that same sex marriage would undermine what marriage mean. My opinion is that the only thing that would change would be that same-sex couple could marry. Mind telling me what else is undermined ?
Finally, it's pretty clear you believe marriage is an important word with strong connotations. Good. It's exactly why (some-most) homosexuals want to be able to use the term, so that their union means exactly the same as the union of a man and a woman. Why do you deny them this right ? Because historically we have been bigoted, and we wouldn't want the world to change ?
|
On June 24 2013 12:50 Coriolis wrote:
Kinda describes my opinions on it. Gay people definitely deserve their right to marriage, doesn't mean I don't think its creepy as fuck.
You and I share similar thoughts lol. I support their right to marry and adopt children, I actually support anyone trying to adopt a child because they choose to do it. Many people are "stuck" with raising a child and it's just sad  Although gay anything is just weird to me only because it's not familiar.
Even really young I was never opposed to it. I always saw it as "why the fuck can't they....?"
|
I think people need to stop using the term marriage. Marriage generally is a two part deal.
1 - civil union - family in front of the law
2 - religious ceremony - family in front of god
The second part is impossible to enforce by law. State cannot force the church to perform one of their most sacred rites for something they don't want to.
The first part on the other hand ... It's beneficial for a state and there's nothing objective preventing it. Maybe losing votes. But apparently nobody wants to make the distinction between the two above because some of the people opposing would lose reasons to oppose.
|
On June 24 2013 12:03 Lixler wrote:The difference between same sex couples and hetero couples is this: the former consists of two people of the same sex, and the latter consists of two people of the opposite sex. + Show Spoiler [arguing semantics] + The word should be different because the word "marriage" includes a variety of connotations that it is sapped of when it is applied to same sex unions. Calling gay unions "marriages" would amount to nothing less than an intentional destruction of tradition, an eradication of the fundamental sources the institution is based upon. A marriage is simply not the same thing as a contract entered between two people that entitles them to this that and the other thing. The legal appropriation of the term marriage is not the definition of that term. Gay people can (theoretically) do the thing that the state recognizes as marriage, but what the state recognizes as marriage is in no way what is in truth a marriage.
Consider another legal definition of something, say "drunk driving." Now in many states, "drunk driving" is defined as: "Operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of over 0.08." This definition serves to inform all legal processes that surround drunk driving: arrest, prosecution, whatever. But does that mean that all behavior about drunk driving is based on this definition? Well, of course not! I can be upset at someone who was driving by a school in midday with a BAC of 0.07 and rightly say he was driving drunk, and I can say that someone sitting in a car in neutral with the engine on with a BAC of .10 was not really driving drunk.
And it's similar with marriage. Legally, a marriage is a kind of contract that entitles you to certain benefits and gives you certain obligations. But does this mean that that's all a marriage is? Of course not. People can say they are "pretty much married" even though no contract is in sight, and they can refer to people with whom they still have a binding legal contract as their ex-wife (as many people do in the processes of divorce).
So how does this turn out in the case of same sex marriage? It makes it clear that a capacity to enter into the same kind of legal contract does not amount to a general equality of the term. That is, even if gay people could enter civil unions, this doesn't mean they are married. Now the argument that the natural usage of the term is separated from the legal usage in such a way that same sex unions would not count is separate, but it isn't terribly hard to construct a plausible version. I'll construct a couple for you now.
Marriages have historically been between men and women, and this fact was integral to their nature. That is to say, what was essential to a marriage (in the history and tradition of the term) was tied up with the participants being of the two opposite genders. What is essential to a marriage could be variously interpreted (union of two families, production of children, a commanding husband and an obeying wife), but surely the historical notion of a same sex marriage is strange. I cannot, for instance, imagine what a medieval marriage between two men would even mean.
Marriages have historically been between men and women, and the differences between the two sexes and the real contour of the relationship have come to be integral in defining what a marriage really is. That is, a marriage plays out differently than just a legal contract to the same effect between two men does. And this is easy to establish as long as you think there are defining behavioral differences between men and women (note that these differences don't have to be inborn).
I personally don't see why we should call what homosexuals do when they enter a civil union together marriage, nor why we should call what similar-minded heterosexuals do marriage. Modern day homosexuals (and fancy-pants liberals, I'd like to say) simply aren't doing anything similar to what e.g. Henry VII was doing.
Mind = blown!
+ Show Spoiler [semantics] +This isn't the first time the legal and traditional ideas of marriage have butted heads. Marriage was once a life long committment...
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
Maybe we should get rid of the term 'marriage' altogether if people are so hung up on terms with outdated connotations. Or, we could just accept that definitions change with the times, just like how religious institutions adopted marriage and brought it under their umbrella, and move on without all the fuss.
|
On June 24 2013 15:26 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 12:03 Lixler wrote:On June 24 2013 06:37 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 06:25 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote:
Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. I think I've made it quite clear that a man and woman who do not have children should not receive the benefits that it entails, I don't think anyone has not supported that notion in this thread in fact. You keep using this phrase we're "denying them the right to marry" as if it's some evil thing or something. We're not proposing deny anyone the right to anything. They're getting the same exact rights as the rest of us -- their individual freedoms are completely protected. Them not being able to legally call it "marriage" is not a natural fucking right though that ought to be protected. No, you don't think the benefits from marriage should be reserved to couple with children. Please. Those includes Rights of visits in hospital, funeral arrengement and so a number of other thing I'm 100% sure you don't want to be only for couple with children. There is a word that design a "civil union" with all the advantage of marriage. It's called marriage. Why, by extending those rights to same sex couples, should we use another world ? If you do that, you're hurting their feelings, and yes, I believe it would be unequal treatment, words do matter. What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? My argument is that it can't be the unability to bear children, because you allow infertile couple to marry. So what is it ? What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? The difference between same sex couples and hetero couples is this: the former consists of two people of the same sex, and the latter consists of two people of the opposite sex. The word should be different because the word "marriage" includes a variety of connotations that it is sapped of when it is applied to same sex unions. Calling gay unions "marriages" would amount to nothing less than an intentional destruction of tradition, an eradication of the fundamental sources the institution is based upon. A marriage is simply not the same thing as a contract entered between two people that entitles them to this that and the other thing. The legal appropriation of the term marriage is not the definition of that term. Gay people can (theoretically) do the thing that the state recognizes as marriage, but what the state recognizes as marriage is in no way what is in truth a marriage. Consider another legal definition of something, say "drunk driving." Now in many states, "drunk driving" is defined as: "Operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of over 0.08." This definition serves to inform all legal processes that surround drunk driving: arrest, prosecution, whatever. But does that mean that all behavior about drunk driving is based on this definition? Well, of course not! I can be upset at someone who was driving by a school in midday with a BAC of 0.07 and rightly say he was driving drunk, and I can say that someone sitting in a car in neutral with the engine on with a BAC of .10 was not really driving drunk. And it's similar with marriage. Legally, a marriage is a kind of contract that entitles you to certain benefits and gives you certain obligations. But does this mean that that's all a marriage is? Of course not. People can say they are "pretty much married" even though no contract is in sight, and they can refer to people with whom they still have a binding legal contract as their ex-wife (as many people do in the processes of divorce). So how does this turn out in the case of same sex marriage? It makes it clear that a capacity to enter into the same kind of legal contract does not amount to a general equality of the term. That is, even if gay people could enter civil unions, this doesn't mean they are married. Now the argument that the natural usage of the term is separated from the legal usage in such a way that same sex unions would not count is separate, but it isn't terribly hard to construct a plausible version. I'll construct a couple for you now. Marriages have historically been between men and women, and this fact was integral to their nature. That is to say, what was essential to a marriage (in the history and tradition of the term) was tied up with the participants being of the two opposite genders. What is essential to a marriage could be variously interpreted (union of two families, production of children, a commanding husband and an obeying wife), but surely the historical notion of a same sex marriage is strange. I cannot, for instance, imagine what a medieval marriage between two men would even mean. Marriages have historically been between men and women, and the differences between the two sexes and the real contour of the relationship have come to be integral in defining what a marriage really is. That is, a marriage plays out differently than just a legal contract to the same effect between two men does. And this is easy to establish as long as you think there are defining behavioral differences between men and women (note that these differences don't have to be inborn). I personally don't see why we should call what homosexuals do when they enter a civil union together marriage, nor why we should call what similar-minded heterosexuals do marriage. Modern day homosexuals (and fancy-pants liberals, I'd like to say) simply aren't doing anything similar to what e.g. Henry VII was doing. The counter argument is pretty simple : -the world has historically been homophobic, hence why gay couldn't marry, now that we're doing better, why should we forbid them this access ? Especially, as you will note, the notion of marriage and what it entails has evolved a lot since we started to use the word. -you claim that same sex marriage would undermine what marriage mean. My opinion is that the only thing that would change would be that same-sex couple could marry. Mind telling me what else is undermined ? Finally, it's pretty clear you believe marriage is an important word with strong connotations. Good. It's exactly why (some-most) homosexuals want to be able to use the term, so that their union means exactly the same as the union of a man and a woman. Why do you deny them this right ? Because historically we have been bigoted, and we wouldn't want the world to change ?
Same sex unions were not called marriage in the past not because we were homophobic (even though we were), but rather because two members of the same sex could not play the same roles, so to speak, as two members of the opposite sex. A marriage depended on being a union of two different sorts of people, namely one man and one woman, because of a variety of surrounding social factors (the dowry is attached to the female, the woman becomes a member of the other family, etc). Just because we're less homophobic (which, by the way, you have not proven) doesn't mean that we need think that men and women serve the exact same functions socially.
Same sex marriage would not undermine what marriage means. Using the word "marriage" to describe same sex unions would do that, because same sex unions are of a qualitatively different sort than opposite sex ones. For instance, same sex unions cannot produce children through sexual intercourse. For better or worse, reproductive sexual intercourse has been historically tied up with marriage (blah blah). This would have to be ruled out as an essential feature of marriage if same sex unions were called marriage. In fact, most features except for the stark legal ones would no longer play in. (Note, by the way, that this has already happened. Everyone uses the term gay marriage as if it was a real thing, and so marriage has been sapped of its better qualities)
I don't want to deny homosexuals the right to call their unions marriage. I don't want them to do so, but I don't want to make it illegal or anything for them to do that. I don't want them to do it because it contributes to a leveling down of Western tradition into a set of practices that aim at nothing but maximization of pleasure (and pleasure poorly conceived, at that).
On June 24 2013 20:41 DusTerr wrote:Mind = blown! + Show Spoiler [semantics] +This isn't the first time the legal and traditional ideas of marriage have butted heads. Marriage was once a life long committment...
You're right, the definitions are often in conflict with each other. I favor the traditional idea in this conflict for a variety of reasons. What are you trying to say?
|
On June 24 2013 22:28 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 15:26 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 12:03 Lixler wrote:On June 24 2013 06:37 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 06:25 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote:
Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. I think I've made it quite clear that a man and woman who do not have children should not receive the benefits that it entails, I don't think anyone has not supported that notion in this thread in fact. You keep using this phrase we're "denying them the right to marry" as if it's some evil thing or something. We're not proposing deny anyone the right to anything. They're getting the same exact rights as the rest of us -- their individual freedoms are completely protected. Them not being able to legally call it "marriage" is not a natural fucking right though that ought to be protected. No, you don't think the benefits from marriage should be reserved to couple with children. Please. Those includes Rights of visits in hospital, funeral arrengement and so a number of other thing I'm 100% sure you don't want to be only for couple with children. There is a word that design a "civil union" with all the advantage of marriage. It's called marriage. Why, by extending those rights to same sex couples, should we use another world ? If you do that, you're hurting their feelings, and yes, I believe it would be unequal treatment, words do matter. What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? My argument is that it can't be the unability to bear children, because you allow infertile couple to marry. So what is it ? What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? The difference between same sex couples and hetero couples is this: the former consists of two people of the same sex, and the latter consists of two people of the opposite sex. The word should be different because the word "marriage" includes a variety of connotations that it is sapped of when it is applied to same sex unions. Calling gay unions "marriages" would amount to nothing less than an intentional destruction of tradition, an eradication of the fundamental sources the institution is based upon. A marriage is simply not the same thing as a contract entered between two people that entitles them to this that and the other thing. The legal appropriation of the term marriage is not the definition of that term. Gay people can (theoretically) do the thing that the state recognizes as marriage, but what the state recognizes as marriage is in no way what is in truth a marriage. Consider another legal definition of something, say "drunk driving." Now in many states, "drunk driving" is defined as: "Operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of over 0.08." This definition serves to inform all legal processes that surround drunk driving: arrest, prosecution, whatever. But does that mean that all behavior about drunk driving is based on this definition? Well, of course not! I can be upset at someone who was driving by a school in midday with a BAC of 0.07 and rightly say he was driving drunk, and I can say that someone sitting in a car in neutral with the engine on with a BAC of .10 was not really driving drunk. And it's similar with marriage. Legally, a marriage is a kind of contract that entitles you to certain benefits and gives you certain obligations. But does this mean that that's all a marriage is? Of course not. People can say they are "pretty much married" even though no contract is in sight, and they can refer to people with whom they still have a binding legal contract as their ex-wife (as many people do in the processes of divorce). So how does this turn out in the case of same sex marriage? It makes it clear that a capacity to enter into the same kind of legal contract does not amount to a general equality of the term. That is, even if gay people could enter civil unions, this doesn't mean they are married. Now the argument that the natural usage of the term is separated from the legal usage in such a way that same sex unions would not count is separate, but it isn't terribly hard to construct a plausible version. I'll construct a couple for you now. Marriages have historically been between men and women, and this fact was integral to their nature. That is to say, what was essential to a marriage (in the history and tradition of the term) was tied up with the participants being of the two opposite genders. What is essential to a marriage could be variously interpreted (union of two families, production of children, a commanding husband and an obeying wife), but surely the historical notion of a same sex marriage is strange. I cannot, for instance, imagine what a medieval marriage between two men would even mean. Marriages have historically been between men and women, and the differences between the two sexes and the real contour of the relationship have come to be integral in defining what a marriage really is. That is, a marriage plays out differently than just a legal contract to the same effect between two men does. And this is easy to establish as long as you think there are defining behavioral differences between men and women (note that these differences don't have to be inborn). I personally don't see why we should call what homosexuals do when they enter a civil union together marriage, nor why we should call what similar-minded heterosexuals do marriage. Modern day homosexuals (and fancy-pants liberals, I'd like to say) simply aren't doing anything similar to what e.g. Henry VII was doing. The counter argument is pretty simple : -the world has historically been homophobic, hence why gay couldn't marry, now that we're doing better, why should we forbid them this access ? Especially, as you will note, the notion of marriage and what it entails has evolved a lot since we started to use the word. -you claim that same sex marriage would undermine what marriage mean. My opinion is that the only thing that would change would be that same-sex couple could marry. Mind telling me what else is undermined ? Finally, it's pretty clear you believe marriage is an important word with strong connotations. Good. It's exactly why (some-most) homosexuals want to be able to use the term, so that their union means exactly the same as the union of a man and a woman. Why do you deny them this right ? Because historically we have been bigoted, and we wouldn't want the world to change ? Same sex unions were not called marriage in the past not because we were homophobic (even though we were), but rather because two members of the same sex could not play the same roles, so to speak, as two members of the opposite sex. A marriage depended on being a union of two different sorts of people, namely one man and one woman, because of a variety of surrounding social factors (the dowry is attached to the female, the woman becomes a member of the other family, etc). Just because we're less homophobic (which, by the way, you have not proven) doesn't mean that we need think that men and women serve the exact same functions socially.
I don't get it, you're talking about an institution of marriage that has nothing to do with what marriage have been for many years. Dowry was very dependant on local tradition. Thank god, we're not saying woman change family when they marry anymore, as they're no longer under the authority of their husband. All those things have disappeared, how can they pose any problem toward gay marriage.
And do I need any proof that our western societies we are less homophobic now ? Maybe the fact that almost noone considers it a disease anymore is a little clue.
Same sex marriage would not undermine what marriage means. Using the word "marriage" to describe same sex unions would do that, because same sex unions are of a qualitatively different sort than opposite sex ones. For instance, same sex unions cannot produce children through sexual intercourse. For better or worse, reproductive sexual intercourse has been historically tied up with marriage (blah blah). This would have to be ruled out as an essential feature of marriage if same sex unions were called marriage. In fact, most features except for the stark legal ones would no longer play in. (Note, by the way, that this has already happened. Everyone uses the term gay marriage as if it was a real thing, and so marriage has been sapped of its better qualities)
I don't want to deny homosexuals the right to call their unions marriage. I don't want them to do so, but I don't want to make it illegal or anything for them to do that. I don't want them to do it because it contributes to a leveling down of Western tradition into a set of practices that aim at nothing but maximization of pleasure (and pleasure poorly conceived, at that).
So i have to ask once again, have we ever forbidden infertile couple to marry ?
And what are those qualities you're talking about that are being sapped by the use of the term gay marriage ? Name one, I need a good laugh.
Gay marriage is a real thing in 13 countries last I checked btw. No sign of the apocalypse from my window.
|
I just wish the religious would stop trying to own everyone's marriages and mind their own. If you don't think marriage is between same-sex couples, don't marry someone of the same sex. It's not tricky. I actually don't know a single married couple who're both religious amongst my friends and family and yet I know plenty of married people. Interesting, isn't it?
Leave secular marriage to everyone else, and stick to your own exclusion principles on your own time. The only constraint on gay marriage should be that no religious organisation should be forced to hold such a ceremony, but even then the marriage is the paper work (which isn't always done in a church already), the ceremony is just for show. There is, at least in the UK, already barely such a thing as a religious marriage.
|
if you allow for gay marriage, I don't really see the problem with allowing polygamy marriages and sex with animals either (as long as the animal is consenting. Might have to wait for your dog to hump you). It is not the small financial benefit that made marriage what it is, it is the religious/social aspect of it. I don't really care if religion "stole" marriage, over so many years it has formed what marriage is, and made it something special (and the legal side was mostly just a note for the government for the formal stuff such as family name). Take away the religion and you are left with a short work to a bureaucrat and some financial benefits (as long as you don't divorce). No vows in front of all friends, family and god, no holy ceremony. Maybe a short dinner to celebrate the paperwork being done, just like you do when divorce papers come in, but that's it. Might as well allow for a contract between three or more consenting adults then.
I am all for introducing a non-religious marriage, for BOTH same-sex and hetero marriages. You would still be able to marry via the church, but also without the church, and it would be called different. Make a difference between a legal union and a religious union in how it is called. This would be much more fair than just to rob the church of what they formed for the sake of being flavour of the decade intolerant tolerant. You might not know them, but there are still many people out there who hold religion and its rituals in high regards, and you would be screwing them by overruling one of their most sacred rituals. Even if it might maybe have been stolend a couple thousand years ago.
|
On June 24 2013 21:39 Telcontar wrote:
Maybe we should get rid of the term 'marriage' altogether if people are so hung up on terms with outdated connotations. Or, we could just accept that definitions change with the times, just like how religious institutions adopted marriage and brought it under their umbrella, and move on without all the fuss.
If this were possible... I long thought this would the simple solution. Unfortunately if we try to take away "marriage" as a legal term the same people that have such a strong traditional feel for the word will still be upset.
e: On June 24 2013 23:30 Cirqueenflex wrote:
if you allow for gay marriage, I don't really see the problem with allowing polygamy marriages and sex with animals either (as long as the animal is consenting. Might have to wait for your dog to hump you). It is not the small financial benefit that made marriage what it is, it is the religious/social aspect of it. I don't really care if religion "stole" marriage, over so many years it has formed what marriage is, and made it something special (and the legal side was mostly just a note for the government for the formal stuff such as family name). Take away the religion and you are left with a short work to a bureaucrat and some financial benefits (as long as you don't divorce). No vows in front of all friends, family and god, no holy ceremony. Maybe a short dinner to celebrate the paperwork being done, just like you do when divorce papers come in, but that's it. Might as well allow for a contract between three or more consenting adults then.
I am all for introducing a non-religious marriage, for BOTH same-sex and hetero marriages. You would still be able to marry via the church, but also without the church, and it would be called different. Make a difference between a legal union and a religious union in how it is called. This would be much more fair than just to rob the church of what they formed for the sake of being flavour of the decade intolerant tolerant. You might not know them, but there are still many people out there who hold religion and its rituals in high regards, and you would be screwing them by overruling one of their most sacred rituals. Even if it might maybe have been stolend a couple thousand years ago.
I also don't see an issue with allowing polygamist marriages. It would probably get tricky with paperwork with each additional spouse...
Why are you taking about sex with animals and marriage? Again, homosexuality (or sex with multiple partners) is NOT the issue being questioned so bestiality doesn't really come into the discussion.
|
On June 24 2013 23:38 y0su wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 21:39 Telcontar wrote:
Maybe we should get rid of the term 'marriage' altogether if people are so hung up on terms with outdated connotations. Or, we could just accept that definitions change with the times, just like how religious institutions adopted marriage and brought it under their umbrella, and move on without all the fuss. If this were possible... I long thought this would the simple solution. Unfortunately if we try to take away "marriage" as a legal term the same people that have such a strong traditional feel for the word will still be upset. e: Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 23:30 Cirqueenflex wrote:
if you allow for gay marriage, I don't really see the problem with allowing polygamy marriages and sex with animals either (as long as the animal is consenting. Might have to wait for your dog to hump you). It is not the small financial benefit that made marriage what it is, it is the religious/social aspect of it. I don't really care if religion "stole" marriage, over so many years it has formed what marriage is, and made it something special (and the legal side was mostly just a note for the government for the formal stuff such as family name). Take away the religion and you are left with a short work to a bureaucrat and some financial benefits (as long as you don't divorce). No vows in front of all friends, family and god, no holy ceremony. Maybe a short dinner to celebrate the paperwork being done, just like you do when divorce papers come in, but that's it. Might as well allow for a contract between three or more consenting adults then.
I am all for introducing a non-religious marriage, for BOTH same-sex and hetero marriages. You would still be able to marry via the church, but also without the church, and it would be called different. Make a difference between a legal union and a religious union in how it is called. This would be much more fair than just to rob the church of what they formed for the sake of being flavour of the decade intolerant tolerant. You might not know them, but there are still many people out there who hold religion and its rituals in high regards, and you would be screwing them by overruling one of their most sacred rituals. Even if it might maybe have been stolend a couple thousand years ago. I also don't see an issue with allowing polygamist marriages. It would probably get tricky with paperwork with each additional person... Why are you taking about sex with animals and marriage? Again, homosexuality (or sex with multiple partners) is NOT the issue being questioned so bestiality doesn't really come into the equation.
the first part of my post was questioning the general ruling on what is acceptable and what not. Our society (at least the western culture) is pretty much based on christianity, our rules, our understanding of morale, more than most people acknowledge, including the one-woman-one-man-marriage. I understand that people want to change that rule, but where do you draw the line? At marriage between two people? At marriage between people? At marriage between consenting living beings? What about marrying consenting children with their parents approval? What if I wanted to marry my bank account? As long as I have some money elsewhere we could provide for each other in case one of us is not feeling well, and we could both get some reduced taxes. And if we want to, I'm sure my bank account would be a loving husband/wife for an adopted child. Yeah, it does sound silly now, but there is no real harm done to anyone, so I am sure there will be eventually enough people in favour of it.
All I'm saying (with that part of my post) is be careful, it might open a can of worms.
|
On June 24 2013 18:15 dakalro wrote:
I think people need to stop using the term marriage. Marriage generally is a two part deal.
1 - civil union - family in front of the law
2 - religious ceremony - family in front of god
The second part is impossible to enforce by law. State cannot force the church to perform one of their most sacred rites for something they don't want to.
The first part on the other hand ... It's beneficial for a state and there's nothing objective preventing it. Maybe losing votes. But apparently nobody wants to make the distinction between the two above because some of the people opposing would lose reasons to oppose.
Few things that is wrong in assuming that the Church (ie. Catholic Church, not Protestant denominations) needs to bend.
1.) The Sacrament of Marriage isn't needed to be Catholic and the Church doesn't administer every marriage in the US. They may have a deacon, priest, or bishop at a marriage to recognize it, but the actual ministers of the sacrament are the married couple, not the priest, deacon, bishop, etc.
2.) The Church doesn't go to non-Catholic weddings anyway, and if they're gay they probably have severed ties with the church that they're affiliated with.
I personally support full marriage rights for them, just because there is no way for them to stop using the word marriage or give them civil union with full rights. I think that eventually the term marriage will either be replaced or changed, but for now I think that it's only fair to give them the rights they deserve.
|
See, I don't take the reproductive stuff as a primary part of marriage for the West anymore because from Augustine the Christian West began to heavily move away from that (if not earlier). Marriage was no longer hinged on this fact for a myriad of theological reasons and various conceptual changes to what marriage was about, and thus from a very early age the Catholic church no longer approved divorce over infertility. So given the intellectual and conceptual history of the West I just can't take the reproduction argument seriously as it has no place in the tradition of Christianity and the West that grew with it. If anything it's a very modern reactionary invention that is not Occidental given its past 1900 years of Christianity.
|
On June 24 2013 22:37 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 22:28 Lixler wrote:On June 24 2013 15:26 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 12:03 Lixler wrote:On June 24 2013 06:37 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 06:25 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 06:08 corumjhaelen wrote:
Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though. I think I've made it quite clear that a man and woman who do not have children should not receive the benefits that it entails, I don't think anyone has not supported that notion in this thread in fact. You keep using this phrase we're "denying them the right to marry" as if it's some evil thing or something. We're not proposing deny anyone the right to anything. They're getting the same exact rights as the rest of us -- their individual freedoms are completely protected. Them not being able to legally call it "marriage" is not a natural fucking right though that ought to be protected. No, you don't think the benefits from marriage should be reserved to couple with children. Please. Those includes Rights of visits in hospital, funeral arrengement and so a number of other thing I'm 100% sure you don't want to be only for couple with children. There is a word that design a "civil union" with all the advantage of marriage. It's called marriage. Why, by extending those rights to same sex couples, should we use another world ? If you do that, you're hurting their feelings, and yes, I believe it would be unequal treatment, words do matter. What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? My argument is that it can't be the unability to bear children, because you allow infertile couple to marry. So what is it ? What's the difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that makes you conclude the word should be different ? The difference between same sex couples and hetero couples is this: the former consists of two people of the same sex, and the latter consists of two people of the opposite sex. The word should be different because the word "marriage" includes a variety of connotations that it is sapped of when it is applied to same sex unions. Calling gay unions "marriages" would amount to nothing less than an intentional destruction of tradition, an eradication of the fundamental sources the institution is based upon. A marriage is simply not the same thing as a contract entered between two people that entitles them to this that and the other thing. The legal appropriation of the term marriage is not the definition of that term. Gay people can (theoretically) do the thing that the state recognizes as marriage, but what the state recognizes as marriage is in no way what is in truth a marriage. Consider another legal definition of something, say "drunk driving." Now in many states, "drunk driving" is defined as: "Operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of over 0.08." This definition serves to inform all legal processes that surround drunk driving: arrest, prosecution, whatever. But does that mean that all behavior about drunk driving is based on this definition? Well, of course not! I can be upset at someone who was driving by a school in midday with a BAC of 0.07 and rightly say he was driving drunk, and I can say that someone sitting in a car in neutral with the engine on with a BAC of .10 was not really driving drunk. And it's similar with marriage. Legally, a marriage is a kind of contract that entitles you to certain benefits and gives you certain obligations. But does this mean that that's all a marriage is? Of course not. People can say they are "pretty much married" even though no contract is in sight, and they can refer to people with whom they still have a binding legal contract as their ex-wife (as many people do in the processes of divorce). So how does this turn out in the case of same sex marriage? It makes it clear that a capacity to enter into the same kind of legal contract does not amount to a general equality of the term. That is, even if gay people could enter civil unions, this doesn't mean they are married. Now the argument that the natural usage of the term is separated from the legal usage in such a way that same sex unions would not count is separate, but it isn't terribly hard to construct a plausible version. I'll construct a couple for you now. Marriages have historically been between men and women, and this fact was integral to their nature. That is to say, what was essential to a marriage (in the history and tradition of the term) was tied up with the participants being of the two opposite genders. What is essential to a marriage could be variously interpreted (union of two families, production of children, a commanding husband and an obeying wife), but surely the historical notion of a same sex marriage is strange. I cannot, for instance, imagine what a medieval marriage between two men would even mean. Marriages have historically been between men and women, and the differences between the two sexes and the real contour of the relationship have come to be integral in defining what a marriage really is. That is, a marriage plays out differently than just a legal contract to the same effect between two men does. And this is easy to establish as long as you think there are defining behavioral differences between men and women (note that these differences don't have to be inborn). I personally don't see why we should call what homosexuals do when they enter a civil union together marriage, nor why we should call what similar-minded heterosexuals do marriage. Modern day homosexuals (and fancy-pants liberals, I'd like to say) simply aren't doing anything similar to what e.g. Henry VII was doing. The counter argument is pretty simple : -the world has historically been homophobic, hence why gay couldn't marry, now that we're doing better, why should we forbid them this access ? Especially, as you will note, the notion of marriage and what it entails has evolved a lot since we started to use the word. -you claim that same sex marriage would undermine what marriage mean. My opinion is that the only thing that would change would be that same-sex couple could marry. Mind telling me what else is undermined ? Finally, it's pretty clear you believe marriage is an important word with strong connotations. Good. It's exactly why (some-most) homosexuals want to be able to use the term, so that their union means exactly the same as the union of a man and a woman. Why do you deny them this right ? Because historically we have been bigoted, and we wouldn't want the world to change ? Same sex unions were not called marriage in the past not because we were homophobic (even though we were), but rather because two members of the same sex could not play the same roles, so to speak, as two members of the opposite sex. A marriage depended on being a union of two different sorts of people, namely one man and one woman, because of a variety of surrounding social factors (the dowry is attached to the female, the woman becomes a member of the other family, etc). Just because we're less homophobic (which, by the way, you have not proven) doesn't mean that we need think that men and women serve the exact same functions socially. I don't get it, you're talking about an institution of marriage that has nothing to do with what marriage have been for many years. Dowry was very dependant on local tradition. Thank god, we're not saying woman change family when they marry anymore, as they're no longer under the authority of their husband. All those things have disappeared, how can they pose any problem toward gay marriage. And do I need any proof that our western societies we are less homophobic now ? Maybe the fact that almost noone considers it a disease anymore is a little clue. Show nested quote +
Same sex marriage would not undermine what marriage means. Using the word "marriage" to describe same sex unions would do that, because same sex unions are of a qualitatively different sort than opposite sex ones. For instance, same sex unions cannot produce children through sexual intercourse. For better or worse, reproductive sexual intercourse has been historically tied up with marriage (blah blah). This would have to be ruled out as an essential feature of marriage if same sex unions were called marriage. In fact, most features except for the stark legal ones would no longer play in. (Note, by the way, that this has already happened. Everyone uses the term gay marriage as if it was a real thing, and so marriage has been sapped of its better qualities)
I don't want to deny homosexuals the right to call their unions marriage. I don't want them to do so, but I don't want to make it illegal or anything for them to do that. I don't want them to do it because it contributes to a leveling down of Western tradition into a set of practices that aim at nothing but maximization of pleasure (and pleasure poorly conceived, at that).
So i have to ask once again, have we ever forbidden infertile couple to marry ? And what are those qualities you're talking about that are being sapped by the use of the term gay marriage ? Name one, I need a good laugh. Gay marriage is a real thing in 13 countries last I checked btw. No sign of the apocalypse from my window.
It can be an essential feature of marriage that couples typically reproduce even if not every couple reproduces, but opening up marriage to couples that fundamentally and intrinsically cannot do so would make it no longer an essential feature.
Consider the following. It is an essential feature of humanity that humans are able to reason. But not every human can reason. Does this mean that reason is irrelevant to being a human? No; it's still one of the main things that separates us from e.g. bonobos, it's contained in most conceptions of human behavior, etc.
Similarly with marriage. Even though not every married couple does or can reproduce, this doesn't mean that reproduction is totally irrelevant to marriage. The notion of having children is intimately tied up with marriage, and if we allowed marriage between people who could by the very nature of their union not produce children, we would change what marriage is.
This doesn't establish that this change would be a bad thing, just that it would really change what marriage is. Right now, we associate marriage with mutual love. Does that mean every married couple loves each other? No, it doesn't; but it does mean that we wouldn't recognize a similar institution between people who could never love each other as marriage. Would disentangling the two concepts be good (ignoring questions of possibility)? This here is where arguments need to hinge.
Also, I don't think that not considering homosexuality a disease counts as a lack of homophobia. Conservatives who see homosexuality as a choice certainly don't see it as a disease, but they are often homophobic. You have not established that contemporary humans are less homophobic than their predecessors.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On June 23 2013 19:01 Heyoka wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2013 18:23 iTzSnypah wrote:
They need to think of a better word than marriage for same sex couples. Marriage for me will always mean man and woman. They need a new word to describe it because you have a limited view of what a union is? That seems like a pretty roundabout solution, no?
Maybe we just need a new word for everyone. I call my Girlfriend my partner sometimes. Having a word that invokes single sex relationships and applying it to heterosexual relationships actually helps break down barriers as well. We should call it a marriage but we should also call all marriages unions.
|
On June 24 2013 12:50 Coriolis wrote:
Kinda describes my opinions on it. Gay people definitely deserve their right to marriage, doesn't mean I don't think its creepy as fuck.
I think its beyond incredibly weird that there are others who share your opinion. Nothing they do effects you what so ever so how exactly could it be creepy?
As louis ck said, they're not touching dicks over your cereal bowl or something, they're just people in love.
|
My path was easy: my best friend came out when we were in seniors high school, and I was just like, "I can't believe how little I care. He's still my best friend." Then I just kind of applied that train of thought across the board from then onwards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
