Gay Marriage thread...

<p>
[quote]
I just explained how polygamy negates "marriage" as a system founded in practicality.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Someone arguing <em>FOR</em> homosexual marriage is invoking a marriage system as founded in practicaility? </p>

<p>...and now I've seen everything</p>

<p>Psst<em>nudge</em>hint: A marriage system founded in practicality (procreation/protection of offspring) wouldn't involve homosexuality!</p>

<p>I've now told you three times that "2 people = marriage" is by NO means an arbitrary requirement. Copying and pasting would be doing you too much of a favor. By the way, I have no doubt that Rick Santorum is composed of straw. Every thing he says in congress is vapid and full of air.</p>

<p>First of all, the argument that procreation ought to be the criterion for marriage is ludicrous. According to that logic, infertile people should be barred from marriage, and married couples would be disbanded once the woman hit menopause. Furthermore, that criterion is completely arbitrary, and not backed up by any argument--you just pulled it out of your ass (no pun intended).</p>

<p>"In contemporary days, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman"</p>

<p>So what? Marriage used to be defined as a union between two people of the same race. Obviously, the "definition" is bigoted and oppressive and needs to be changed.</p>

<p>"...if the definition of a non-sexual marriage can resolve the pro-creational defects of incest, why is it that gay marriages isn't considered an infringement upon the current idea of marriage."</p>

<p>Are you serious? You can't "infringe" on an abstract social institution. "Marriage" has no inherent value--it is not a sacred cow. When was the last time you violated the rights of slavery? Has anyone oppressed segregation recently? (Please, for the sake of productive discourse, do not extend the analogy to compare marriage to slavery).</p>

<p>As for the concept of civil unions, it's just another manifestation of "separate but equal," in my book. The very idea perpetuates the notion that gays are second-class citizens, not worthy of the prestigious title of "marriage." Separate is inherently unequal--just look to Brown v. Board of Education if there's any confusion.</p>

<p>Moreover, the fact that some people on this board have compared gay marriage to bestiality, incest, or sex with a computer desk is a not-so-subtle betrayal of their obvious bigotry and prejudice. This issue is a no-brainer, folks. You can hate gays is you want, just like the KKK can march on Skokie, IL, but your antiquated, ignorant views give you no right to impose your beliefs on others.</p>

<p>EDIT: It's actually the Nazis who marched on Skokie.</p>

<p>“Marriage used to be defined as a union between two people of the same race.”</p>

<p>This is historically untrue unless the point is viewed as an historical-political aberration. The Romans, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hebrews (with some caveats) etc. did not define marriage as a union of two people of the same race, neither did Western culture generally. That there were aberrations (American Economic slavery and property rights, Nazism etc.) proves the rule that it was not historically defined by race and was an infringement on the institution of marriage rather than an inherent view of marriage.</p>

<p>This is also untrue when viewed from the religious point of view. Neither Christian nor Muslim theology or historical practice (aside from secular aberrations) forbade marrying outside of your race, although it often did place sanctions against marrying out of your religion. Moreover, the term race as we define it did not even exist until modern (secular, legal) times (late 18th mid 19th cent.). </p>

<p>"Marriage" has no inherent value--it is not a sacred cow.”</p>

<p>This is well said, although untrue in the eyes of the billions of people who have lived and died as married couples and families throughout history and today. I viewed my parents marriage and our family as sacred growing up as a boy and I view the family I have raised with my wife as sacred and worthy of better than being referred to as having “no value,” and I believe most reasonable people agree that marriage has value and is sacred.</p>

<p>However, it does reveal the actual intent and spirit of those who believe they can make of marriage whatever they will.</p>

<p>"2 people = marriage" is by NO means an arbitrary requirement.”</p>

<p>Over a billion people alive today disagree with you. Many would even view such a comment as being insensitive to people of other and “different” cultures. There are over a billion Muslims in this world and millions in the United States…or do they not count.</p>

<p>I think the idea that the "rights" of a social institution ought to override those of actual human beings is just silly. It's like saying that we can't have the 13th Amendment because it would "infringe" on slavery. I don't really see how allowing gay marriage infringes on others. If you ask me, it's the other way around. Also, if you notice, I said that marriage has no inherent value, not no value at all. The difference is that the fact that the institution exists in its present form is not valuable in and of itself, but that doesn't mean that actual people benefiting from it can't be. My objection is that opponents of gay marriage somehow regard the present, arbitrary form of this social construct to have intrinsic value.</p>

<p>As for your argument that marriage hasn't been viewed as a union between two people of the same race that often, I think you would do well to remember Bertrand Russell's maxim: "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd." The point of my argument is that the definition of marriage is not intrinsically valuable--its value depends on its adherence to actually valuable ideas, like justice, freedom, and equality. If the definition abuses these ideals, like the present form clearly does, then it ought to be changed--"tradition" holds no sway here.</p>

<p>As for the polygamy issue, my problem with it is that it undermines the idea of equality. If someone has two wives, then obviously, the marriage is not an equal partnership. Furthermore, a lot of (NOT ALL) polygamists tend to be older men who exploit young women and treat them as property. However, I do think that polygamy ought to be legal too, as long as it can be demonstrated that it's an equal, consenting partnership with no coercion or exploitation involved.</p>

<p>“I think the idea that the "rights" of a social institution ought to override those of actual human beings is just silly.”</p>

<p>There are individual rights and there are social rights. Significant individual rights are routinely trumped by social rights/restrictions. Take “hate-speech,” for instance. Marriage, whether we define it as exclusively for hetro or homo sexuals is by definition a social restriction on individual rights: divorce, income, debt, adultery, etc. Logically, using your above quoted axiom as a guide, marriage should be abolished in total as it is an absolute restriction on individual rights (of course, then there is that sticky issue of what legal protections will be granted to children and who will be responsible for them...perhaps the welfare system of the State?).</p>

<p>Why are justice, freedom and equality "ideals" when, say, marriage is not?
From what source do "justice, freedom, and equality" derive the OBJECTIVE value you assume for them or are they also as open to redefinition or extinction as marriage is? It doesn't seem to me that values can be relative and objective simultaneously. Can they?</p>

<p>“As for the polygamy issue, my problem with it is that it undermines the idea of equality.”</p>

<p>You do of course realize that “consenting adults” are an absolute given in any legal contract, marriage included--even homosexual marriage and polygamy. If what you are saying is true (and a lot of people in this world and country would say that it isn’t) will all people have to choose to be, as you say, “equal” according to your sense of equality, and does that then negate their own Will on the matter?
Does your idea of equality trump everyone else’s; how about masochistic and sadistic sexual practices between consenting adults, should they be criminalized because they would also offend your sense of “equality”? How liberal would that be in this brave new world of ours. </p>

<p>Either consenting adults are legally recognized to be in civil-union (marriage) in the manner in which they desire or they are not. If there are to be any restrictions, as in the case of polygamy, there are in fact restrictions per se. </p>

<p>“a lot of (NOT ALL) polygamists tend to be older men who exploit young women and treat them as property”</p>

<p>based upon your extensive research in the field, or a prejudice you have casually acquired? Similarly irrelevant and unfounded statements have been made regarding homosexual practices. I’m generally opposed to legalized polygamy (the ordinary, or casual kind exists on almost every college campus), as is most of the United States, but I will at least acknowledge that it is a tradition or sentiment I’m basing that opposition on, not objective knowledge or field work. The same goes for homosexual marriage. How about you?</p>

<p>How’s you objective notion of “equality” fairing?</p>

<p>I don't see how "marriage should be abolished" follows from the idea that individual rights shouldn't be sacrificed in order to preserve the present form of a social institution. A marriage is by no means a restriction on individual rights, as it is entered into by consent of both parties. The only rights that are violated are those of gay couples, who are systematically discriminated against by the arbitrary exclusiveness of the present form of marriage.</p>

<p>As for your argument regarding freedom, justice, equality, and all that good stuff, I can't really see how marriage fits in with all these ideals. Any chile who watches Sesame Street can tell you that--one of these things is not like the others! Your assignment of value to the rigid present definition of marriage is completely unsubstantiated. Furthermore, all values are subject to change. It is impossible to define, say, justice rigidly and immutably. It's an abstract concept that's always changing. For example, back when we assigned value to the institution of slavery, it was considered just to enslave millions of black people. The three-fifths compromise established a criterion for "equality"--a black person was equal to 3/5 of a white person. These things are not set in stone, and more often than not, they are represented as social constructs that have no bearing on the values themselves.</p>

<p>As I said, I think polygamy should be legal. I just think that there need to be some way to ensure that there really is consent involved, which could become rather difficult to determine when coercion or exploitation is involved, which seems more likely in a polygamous relationahip because of its inherent inequality. As a general principle, however, I have no problem with any relationship consenting adults enter into.</p>

<p>"I’m generally opposed to legalized polygamy...but I will at least acknowledge that it is a tradition or sentiment I’m basing that opposition on, not objective knowledge or field work."</p>

<p>You have no right to legislate your views based on "tradition" or "sentiment." I could just as well say that I'm opposed to interracial marriage based on tradition and sentiment, but that argument wouldn't hold any weight, obviously. A bigoted ideology is no excuse for bigoted laws.</p>

<p>For a more thorough assessment of the retarded "slippery slope" argument that brought up polygamy in the first place, this is a pretty good commentary:</p>

<p><a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2100824/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://slate.msn.com/id/2100824/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>“A bigoted ideology is no excuse for bigoted laws.”</p>

<p>Whatever happened to the civility associated with a liberal discourse? Now, when someone disagrees, even while maintaining a position held by a majority of humanity...by and large good people, they are nothing more or less than a bigot. It reminds me of the bad old days, when due to ignorance and incivility hateful people would describe homosexuals as “fagots”. Bigots…it even rhymes.
It turns out, Mother Theresa was a bigot. St Francis was a bigot; Moses, Jesus and Mohammad were bigots. John Paul II was a bigot. Martin Luther King Jr. was a bigot, and on and on.</p>

<p>They didn’t have reasonable, albeit different views, they had bigoted views and ideologies.</p>

<p>“I could just as well say that I'm opposed to interracial marriage based on tradition and sentiment”</p>

<p>No you could not, as that would not be based on tradition but historical aberrations, as I previously stated. For the record, my marriage is inter-racial (if one actually accepts the idea of race --I don’t). </p>

<p>Sentiment?</p>

<p>And your views are based on something other than sentiment…objective truth I would have supposed but I would doubt that you believe such a thing could exist.</p>

<p>I do not consider you or your views to be hateful or bigoted, but different from my own and therefore, more or less, wrong.</p>

<p>I do not even have a strong opinion, one way or another, over this issue. I prefer, along with most of the world, the current and historic definition of marriage, that is between a man and a woman to protect children, should they arise as they have the potential to do so, however, I do not oppose civil-unions because I do not presume to have discovered an absolute truth on this issue (as many others seem to).</p>

<p>
[Quote]
I do not consider you or your views to be hateful or bigoted, but different from my own and therefore, more or less, wrong.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>what kind of meaning full debate cannot yo have with a mindset like THAT O_o</p>

<p>"Tradition:
1. Past customs and usages that influence or govern present acts or practices."
-From Black's Law Dictionary, Second Pocket Edition</p>

<p>Clearly, a ban on interracial marriage would meet the definition of a tradition, or at least it would have a couple of decades ago. The same goes for slavery, segregation, apartheid, and all the other horrible institutions that have existed in the past. Moreover, the mere possibility that a tradition could endorse something terrible and discriminatory (like it currently does) disproves the notion that tradition is a rational basis for law.</p>

<p>I'm sorry, but if you don't support equal rights for homosexuals, it makes you a bigot, at least in that regard. I'm not going to sugar-coat it with some PC euphemism. Also, as far as I know, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed never came out against gay rights. As for St. Francis, I'm not familiar with him. And our beloved Pope JP2? Not a fan.</p>

<p>It seems that the only argument you have left is your continual insistence on being right because a majority of people support you. I have two responses:
1. I refer you back to Bertrand Russell: "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd." This is like saying "50 million smokers can't be wrong" or "33% of the world is Christian, so they must be right." Guess what? The majority can be wrong.
2. Your argument is circular. People by and large oppose gay marriage because it is traditionally considered wrong, but according to you, it should be considered wrong because a majority oppose it. The fact of the matter is, you have not given me a single legit reason why gay marriage shouldn't be legal--just weak rationalizations for your preconceived prejudices (hey, an alliteration).</p>

<p>According to your definition of marriage, infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, and neither should old people who can't have kids anymore. Clearly, your definition is lacking, as even our "historic" system allows for this.</p>

<p>I don't think you need to discover an "absolute truth" in order to support equal rights. Should we reinstitute Jim Crow laws because we don't have an "absolute truth" on the issue or because we shouldn't "legislate morality?" This isn't a matter or enforcing arbitrary moral values, it's about equal rights, which are anything but arbitrary. If you oppose equal rights on this ground, I don't think we have anything further to discuss.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Can I marry my computer desk?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ordinarily I'd be against that but perhaps in your case it would be for the best for all concerned.</p>

<p>Relax everone. Most people against gay marriages aren't against it for scientific reasons. Some are disgusted by it and others may be religious enough to thing of it as absurd. I personally am religious and so I am against it, but that is my opinion.</p>

<p>People are just confused by how fast societal customs are changing.</p>

<p>Collegefreak87, that's exactly what I DON'T want. Being disgusted by homosexuality is not a valid reason to deny gays rights, and being religious and thinking it's "absurd" is even worse, because that's not a reason at all, it's an excuse.</p>

<p>I respect other people's right to have an opinion that may differ from mine, but at least back your position up with something besides that it's absurd. If you accept that something is wrong just because your religion tells you it is, without thinking about WHY it might be wrong, then you're not even respecting yourself.</p>

<p>And TheDad: Somehow, I don't think that would work out. It'd be considered cruelty to furniture and PETF would protest.</p>

<p>It's funny how on board with "democracy" liberals are until you look closer and you see they need unchecked, activist courts to hand them their victories (from abortion to affirmative action to sodomizers' and other sexual deviants' rights). </p>

<p>Look all you want, but there just isn't a "guarantee to sodomy" in the constitution (unless you invent it - <em>nudge</em>). Although it is interesting that the same guarantee was found in an 18th century state constitution personally penned by John Adams - so I suppose anything is possible.</p>

<p>Majority rules, unless the majority disagrees with leftist dogma - then said dogma rules anyway, right?</p>

<p>Actually, I'm not a supporter of unfettered majoritarianism. If there's one thing that can be gleaned from history, it's that the majority can easily be wrong. That's the reason we have a Constitution, right? Some things are not up to majority rule--if a majority wanted to reinstitute Jim Crow laws, that wouldn't make it right. If the majority wanted to take away freedom of speech, that wouldn't make it right. The Constitution is designed specifically to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority--this inclues gay rights, which clearly fall under the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. If you ask me, pure majoritarian democracy really isn't all that, especially when it's used to oppress the minority.</p>

<p>
[quote]
this inclues gay rights, which clearly fall under the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment

[/quote]
</p>

<p>...gay marriage falls before affirmative action under equal protection?</p>

<p>"Fallacy: Red Herring</p>

<p>Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.
Description of Red Herring</p>

<p>A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:</p>

<ol>
<li>Topic A is under discussion.</li>
<li>Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).</li>
<li>Topic A is abandoned. </li>
</ol>

<p>This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
Examples of Red Herring</p>

<h1>"We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous."</h1>

<h1>"Argument" for a tax cut:</h1>

<p>"You know, I've begun to think that there is some merit in the Republican's tax cut plan. I suggest that you come up with something like it, because If we Democrats are going to survive as a party, we have got to show that we are as tough-minded as the Republicans, since that is what the public wants."</p>

<h1>"Argument" for making grad school requirements stricter:</h1>

<p>"I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected.""</p>

<p>From <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Good job trying to slip that one past me.</p>

<p>Since we have decided to refer to dictionary definitions of such things as "tradition" how about the main topic, Marriage:</p>

<p>Oxford English Dictionary:</p>

<p>marriage
• noun 1 the formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife. 2 a combination of two or more elements.
— PHRASES marriage of convenience a marriage concluded primarily to achieve a practical purpose. </p>

<p>Cambridge Dictionary:
Definition
marriage [Show phonetics]
noun [C or U]
a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this:
They had a long and happy marriage.
She went to live abroad after the break-up of her marriage.
She has two daughters by her first marriage.</p>

<p>American Heritage Dictionary:
Marry
INTRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To take a husband or wife; wed: They married in their twenties. 2. To combine or blend agreeably: Let the flavors marry overnight.</p>