Gay Marriage

This is in slight correlation to what Iago said the German word for marriage is, just an interesting little tidbit. The Swedish word for "married" is the same as the word for "poison". One might wonder what kind of references the ancient norse had, and if they might have some hidden point we are blind to nowadays, if so perhaps gays are being granted a favour when they are not allowed to get married, or with the same word: poisoned.

 

I don’t know that we are ever going to come to agreement on this (big surprise for the Alley). But I wanted to add my two cents and delude myself into thinking that I’m capable of debating at the same high level as Grey, Laches and dmc.

Basically, the religious objection to gay marriage seems to be as follows (correct me if I’m wrong): Western society’s modern day marriage started out as a religious concept, which unites a man and a woman under God. Homosexuality is a sin, so gay marriage is a no-no. And to allow homosexuals to marry would therefore “cheapen” the institution of marriage and diminish the significance of “legitimate” marriages.

Those of us who have no objections to gay marriage basically say that heterosexual marriage has evolved beyond that of just religious significance, and the focus should therefore be not on the religious basis (which doesn’t exist in many of today’s marriages anyway), but on love, commitment, etc., and whether that entitles homosexual couples to the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples.

These are pretty fundamental differences, but it seems to me that the religious version of marriage, although first to be established, is now simply a subset of a larger institution. Although I don’t think we’re just talking about semantics here, part of the problem is that they’re all called “marriages”, but mean different things. Perhaps it’s unfortunate that we don’t have different names for each, but short of coming up with a different word for one of them, I’m not sure what the answer is.

 

@Splunge


I think you hit the nail on the head there as far as marriage now being a secular institution. I think it is similar to Christmas in that, while some will no doubt continue to observe Dec. 25th as the birth of Christ(rightly or wrongly), it is now a secular holiday which means different things to different people but ALL citizens, including atheists get to take that day off(unless you work some type of job where, for whatever reason SOMEONE must report to work that day. I used to be a C-store cashier who invariably worked every christmas).
Marriage I think, is the same deal. As soon as they started doling out benefits for married people, in my mind, the institution became a secular one that should have been an option for ALL citizens.

 

How is it that this post just keeps rolling? Is a moderator surreptitiously casting "Animate Dead" on it?

Anyway, as dmc wrote:

In the spirit of the civil-union candidate, YEAAAGGHHH!!! That was exactly my point in my last few posts. If an institution is no more than the sum of its parts - its incidental attributes and its attendant legal rights - then what's to stop us from mixing and matching everything? We can make companies into nations and privatize states; we can have police and vigilante justice side-by-side; we can marry anyone and everyone anytime in any way by any standard for however long.

Look, I'm not saying that homosexual marriage is the first horse of the Apocalypse. Far from it - it wouldn't do near so much damage to marriage as careless heterosexuals have wreaked over the past several millennia. And how much worse can married homosexuals be than socially-acceptable swingin' single homosexuals? But the principle behind our arguments is scary indeed - for both our sides.

I'm arguing that maybe, just maybe, there really is something deeper than just the incidental attributes. And that should be scary for those who believe that ours is a hollow, materialistic, individualist world - it's absolute beliefs like these that can wreak absolute havoc in our delicate china shop societies, where love and lust have been carefully secularized and democratized, and whose definitions can be auctioned off to public opinion's highest bidders.

But I'll take the hallowed over the hollowed any day.

 

OK, if we're being nasty, be it. I've already sobered up, but have not yet cured my atomic hangover, so I'm in perfect capacity to get nasty. You know, I just love discussing semantics, fallacies, strawmen and self-fulfilling prophecies in such moments. Back ad rem, though. Suffer.

Well, I must agree I feel very uneasy even thinking about the possibility of being hit on or chatted up by a man, while I generally welcome that on the part of ladies. And no, I'm not just imagining strange things. I was taken for a woman once, guess the rest. But I was bigger I don't want my sons hit on by males, I don't want my daughters and my wife hit on by females. Accepting gay relationship as marriage and as equal to heterosexual marriage will lead to total equality, which will eventually make my sombre predictions facts of everyday life.

Sorry, deviation is not an alternative but still valid and healthy option.

Neither do I, and I don't want an are-conservatives-phobic one.

OK, sufficiently explained. I withdraw the reference of Law of Religion to you. Not like the rest of tolerance champions doesn't follow it.

DMC has said it better than I possibly could, as I haven't had much to do with US laws. Essentially, I believe they would at best be not persecuted for religious marital ceremonies and sexual acts following.

Essentially also, that's why homosexuality has got scratched out of the list of deviations and disorders. A large and powerful enough group. Which doesn't mean I believe they're planning an invasion of Vatican, in case someone would feel an urge to write that.

I know it's not insulting per se, but contrfactual information about a person may well be considered insulting, no matter the moral value of acts, words of beliefs attributed. I do not fear homosexuals. I am not paranoid when it comes to them. I'm closer paranoid when it comes to tolerance champions. I'm beginning to sense fallacies, strawmen etc before they even appear.

Phobia is fear in translation. Take my word or a Greek dictionary, you choose. I don't like the idea of attributing to concepts a meaning exclusive with the meaning of words used to describe them. Imagine such interpretation of law in courts.

Who says they're not on equal footing? You can feel sexual attraction exclusively to empty Habana cigar boxes and still be free to marry whomever woman agrees.

Encouraged to marry? In the era of free love? By some churches, sure. That would be it.

Nah, just a sarcastic proof similar to ones Shura got. It means, a believer's views are likely to be dismissed as religion-driven. Technically, I could do the same with tolerance championhood or gay right activistship.

Your interpretation of pattern of behaviour escapes me, then.

"There is nothing inherently immoral" isn't a claim, I hope? Well, I disagree. One of us would have to right and the other wrong. Imagine any way of finding out who is which?

My use of "pattern of behaviour" implies a pattern in behaviour.

Doesn't work when reversed and presented as a causational tie.

The danger of quoting in general is that if you hit too close to home, you'll be accused of misquoting and interpreting contra litteram.

By accident, I seemed to fit well in your generalisation, at least if prerequisites were concerned. However, I seemed to myself to fit the whole thing a bit less. Therefore, I applied Chevalier's Universal Antigeneralisational Syllogism to shoot down the generalisation. Strawman?

Thanks for sharing A la guerre come a la guerre, the same is done to whatever I could possibly post with lack of truly paranoid carefulness. Well, that's what debates are for, anyway.

Good, I'm beginning to see your point when it comes to my being an exception from general rule. Anyway, I still maintain that gender difference is of a different kind than skin colour or nose shape difference.

Oh well, to much particularising. I went for a largely abstract general rule.

"but what does that have to do with your opposition to gays" hit in the centre. You compared opposition to interracial marriages to opposition to gay marriages, to which I replied with a massive blow to the first part of the analogy.

Does that include black Christians?

I sense... straw

The right to do what you damn well please? Come on. I've already adressed the "rights" part many times. Marriage isn't a right per se, neither is adoption of children. Gay people can marry opposite sex people and have children with them if they want. Some even do.

Another false analogy. Or do you attribute a moral value to thinking that Hawaiian shirts look cool? People in Hawaiian shirts marrying don't necessarily have to involve a form of marriage specifically created for them, either.

Indeed! That's what it's all about. Let's call things by names and don't pretend they are what they are not. Deep down, Jane and John are a marriage, and Jack and Tom are a homosexual couple. Nice enough?

Oh well, and I should probably explain again the ties homosexual act allowance and paedophiles campaign, as I see them. Name one debauchery normality and another will follow. The borders will be stretched. Photoes may be of real children of below consent age, but what about drawings of no specific models? Like the hentai pics of children? Should they be allowed if we're being so generous?

Next is polygamy. Why is it worse than homosexualism? And if polygamy, there's also poliandria.

Now, I could marry twelve women, of which two share with my best friend and one with a cousin. They would also share one or two with me in exchange, you know. Why don't call this marriage?

 

Y'know, not that it's connected, but all this talk about love and marriage helped inspire me to write a short story. But be warned, it's heterosexual...

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000398

 

Yay!! Another Grey Magistrate story! (And I haven't even read it yet.)

*rushes off to read the new story*

 

There is definetly going to be a raised eyebrow on the face of Johny Archeo-of-the-Future when he reaches the part of the Constitution that says "We do not recognize life-long homosexual relationships as legally binding."

Slavery is illegal...
Freedom of religion...
Homosexuality is wrong...
Freedom of the press...

It doesn't take the 20-20 vision of hindsight to see which one doesn't fit...

 

???

What if your kids WANT to be hit on by persons of the same sex(I mean what if they turn out to be gay, hypothetically speaking)? I would also prefer not to be ever hit upon by someone I am not sexually attracted to but I do not see how I can enforce this and still call myself human("Hey lardo! Didn't I say when I walked into this bar...'NO UGLY CHICKS!'?"). In any case banning gay marriage will only increase the likelihood of you and your offspring being hit upon I would think.

"Sombre predictions"? LOL...okay, sounds a bit melodramatic to me. I think the more likely explanation is that you don't want gays to have equal rights because that would effectively move them from coach to first class with the rest of us and some people NEED to be able to turn to SOMEONE and look down their noses or color them subversive enemies of righteousness.





Anyone here know of a game designer/programmer named Cleve Blakemore? Worked on the Wizardry series and had a vaporware game called "Grimoire" that was about 8 years overdue when he finally cowed to pressure not to release it(I would like to think my boycott efforts had some influence).
Anyways this guy also happens to be a MAJOR right-wing extremist nutjob. He used to post on Usenet and all over the net calling blacks "mudpeople" and jews all sorts of nasty things. He would always refer to the civil rights activists as "the cultural enrichment crowd" with more than a note of sarcasm.
Again, I am not calling you a racist or anything so ridiculous CHev' but you display the same attitude, deliver the same arguments in the same exact way as Cleve only you stop short of calloing gays anything analogous to "mud people".
You refer to those of us on the side of civil liberties as "The tolerance champions" and whatnot(with more than a note of sarcasm). As if the only things wrong in the world are that Strom Thurmond is not president and the damned civil liberties activists won't quit trying to drag you, kicking and screaming into the twenty first century.
I know that is not a logical argument in itself but it does go, again to supporting my earlier position that the gay rights opponents are not signifigantly different than any other minority rights opponents of yesteryear.
Same attitude, same tactics, same language and same arguments.

Essentially, the reason why blacks are now allowed to vote is because the racists were outnumbered by "a large and powerful group". The reason why being non-white is no longer consideted a disorder that will lead one to criminal and savage behavior is because "a large and powerful group" those minorities became.

I know you resnet the comparison but until you can show me that the comparison is invalid...

I think you are holding a very narrow definition of "fear". One does not have to be physically intimidated by a group or class of people to fear them. Being worried about their kind becoming (more) widespread and unavoidable as you go about your daily routines is a type of fear also.

You have told me nothing to indicate you are not fearful in some way of homosexuals. You can assert such and tell me I am wrong but without telling me anything else I must analyse your statements, arguments, etc. and try to determine what seems likely.

Thus far I cannot exclude the "fear" hypothesis.

False analogy and ridiculous argument to boot. Are you arguing that marriage is to be defined as a union between a havana cigar box and an empty Marlboro pack but NOT two cigar boxes?

If gay marriage were not prohibited then hetero's would be free to marry same sex partners as well! Even MORE equality!

I take it(by your evasive maneuver above) you concede this point then?

Well, I am sure this is the case but that does not make this "sarcastic proof" valid as a rebuttal against legitimate arguments.
I disagree with you about being able to dismiss equal rights activists as being religiously driven. This smacks of the ridiculous "atheism is a religion too!" fallacy where some will incorrectly assert that anything they disagree with can be labeled a "religion" and dismissed. Two of the biggest homophobes(or "homo-haters" if you prefer) were atheists.

I think I made it clear which usage of immoral I was employing here. The only things a rationalist will consider immoral to the point of requiring legislation are those acts which DIRECTLY harm or infringe upon another. Things which only offend your sensibilities(as opposed to picking your pocket or breaking your leg) cannot be mandated/legislated against. If we COULD do such then we would end up with laws prohibiting everything from wearing bad color schemes to speaking with a lisp and stuttering.

Again, can you tell us how a gay couple enjoying visitation rights adn such harms you?

Nonsensical. The term does not exist in a vacuum. If you are opposed to something and you cite "patterns of behavior" as a reason for opposition then the reasonable inference is that you think these "patterns" wrong/immoral.
In the context of your original quote, my reading/understanding was not unreasonable.

But that is not the case here. Go back and read for yourself. You misunderstood my point and responded to a misunderstanding. Understandable when you read the portion you quoted out of context as you quoted it.

There is a simpler way to show that you do not fit a certain generalisation. Explain YOUR reasoning adn show us how it is different than the analogous comparison I made. Thus far you have not done so. I agree that sweeping generalizations are a no-no which is why I am not saying that "all religious conservatives are *this*" or any such thing. I made an observation(and seemingly one that is right on the mark!) about the similarities of the anti-interracial coupling crowd and the anti-gay rights crowd's arguments.

How so? Prejudice and inequality directed towards people who are different than you and are readily identifiable as such. I see no difference. Whe n the racist sees a black family move in next door he becomes agitated and worried. When a homophobe/homo-hater/homo non-approver(or whatever PC term you would prefer) sees two effeminate males(or one effeminate and one biker or whathaveyou) moving in next door they become agitated and worried.
The racist does not want his daughter dating the black teen and the homophobe doesn't want his son in the same area code as the gay teen.

No...you merely demonstrated that you are not apt to be prejudice against asians adn perhaps others. I have known racists who did not hate chinese but did hate blacks. One of the biggest homophobes I ever knew was black (and atheist).
That your anti-gay stance is not (un)like the anti-minority stances of others is not established by your not being a racist.

Apologies. I should nhave specified "white christians" I guess(for those who could not figure that one out) but you would be surprised at just how many BLACK christians(*Cough*clarence Thomas*cough*) would feel uncomfortable around my siblings .

I do not follow your reasoning here. Is your argument then that, while it may be wrong to deny civil liberties based upon pigmentation, it is okay to do so based upon what two people may be doing in their own bedrooms or how they are having their orgasms?? Should we also deny the Miranda rights of persons who dress up as "furries" to engage in consensual sexual encounters? What about people who are WAYYY too into foreplay?

Not if it DIRECTLY harms or infringes upon YOUR right to live and work and pursue happiness yatta, yatta. Two men having sex in their nown bedroom does not equate to someone setting fire to the local Wal-Mart.

Yes it is. When you satrt granting priveledges such as hospital visitation, tax breaks etc. it becomes a right that everyone should enjoy as citizens. WHat if buddhists were granted a special tax break for preaching about enlightenment to kids? Would you simply nignore this as "their priveledge for being bguddhists"? No. I am afraid there would be threats of terrorism from certain other religious types demanding at least equal treatment.

OOOH! Lucky them! What was I thinking?!? Hey, come to think of it I believe there is no law barring the mentally retarded from being members of MENSA so they are never discriminated against unfairly either!

Yes I do. Morality is not objective. You think homosexuality is "wrong" though you cannot demonstrate this to be an objective truth. It seems to only be "wrong" because you think it is wrong.

Same with my dislike of Hawaiian shirts. I cannot make a case that wearing such tacky clothing harms me or inhibits my ability to work or some such.

Not at all a false analogy.

The analogy was of denying them a right that non-shirt wearing people enjoy without good reason for denying them such.

Now THAT is a false anaology! What does a consensual adult relationship have to do with exploiting children?

Because it is not a contract between two people in regards to tending an immediate family(an immediate family being two or more people who care for one another, care for children(if any) etc.
Homosexual marriage is not analogous to a swingers party.

Thanks for playing though.

[ January 25, 2004, 07:50: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

 

Doesn't pertain to my quote, but I'll reply. So long as they're no longer under my custody, it's their thing. When they want it is different to when they don't explicitly want.

No, I'd rather say accepting homosexual behaviour as a valid alternative will lead to such situations. At present, it's not normal for gay people to hit on same sex members who aren't openly gay. If we give gay people more "rights", we won't be able to deny them that right without being unegalitarian or labelled as such.

Oh well, Vatican hasn't been mentioned. Or a secret AntiHomoKlan.

Hardly, that guy apparently cares more than I could possibly do. I oppose gay marriage, I don't want it to be normal for people to hit on same sex people on the street or in public places, or any places not intended specifically for that. Which if means gettos, I don't care. Doesn't make me equal to a guy who desperately needs to feel better than someone, takes pleasure in calling people names like a kid and generally doesn't see anything but fun in insulting people around.

Homophobes, tolerance champions. Who cares.

I have ever heard about the guy only because he's so old.

Very melodramatic. Melocomediodramatic, I'd say.

Come on, I've heard of various theories on how blacks are between apes and whites, but such theories originated in times when even accusation of homosexual orientation on its won would bring doom to you, unlike now. Progress works all ways.

What you are referring to is a special, rhetoric meaning of the word "fear", used in such phrases as "I fear we might be late.". More of convinient and polite way of describing a combination of more or less rational predictions. There's not really much fear left when it comes to rational predictions. I'm not willing to adopt a special kind of English for the purpose of this debate.

Please feel free to consider me fearful of pink rabbits, ham sandwiches and supernovas, not necessarily in this order.

Feel free to call it hypothesis, theory or even logical truth at your best convinience.

Sure Unless one of the boxes is male and the other is female. I don't know how to tell the gender of a cigar box, though.

Liberty yes, equality no. Too much liberty breeds anarchy, which brings terror. Which negates liberty. And voila, another revolution needed. And here we go again.

Take it as it suits you, not like I necessarily agree. Guess reading the whole paragraph might help.

It is. Translates into common as: "when a religious person speaks about morality-related issues, his views tend to be dismissed as bias(religion)-driven at convinience.

Indeed. Atheism is faith no less, there being no proof either way. Who dismisses my arguments as bias-driven is apparently too biased himself to grasp any sense, whereby is he utterly dismissable.

Thanks for contributing to my cause.

Does corruption count?

I don't care about hospital rights. Tax breaks for marital couples have a certain specific reason and goal, which does not apply to homosexual couples. Taxpayers could be made free to decide where they money goes, I don't care.

I care much about the noun "marriage", though.

No term does. When making your way out of a lost battle, at least have the kindness not to throw mud around. Nonsensical apparently is what doesn't suit your vision.

I'm sorry, but you're hallucinating. Pattern of behaviour is a pattern that appears in someone's behaviour. Or a way in which a person habitually behaves. Any negative conotation is pulled out of thin air and serves as a misbegotten fallacy in the debate.

In so much as no interpretation ever can be held totally unreasonable if we adopt a certain degree of relativism.

Essentially proving my point. A good defensive tactic, I have used it myself on occasions, but it doesn't work against veterans.

When I shoot down your generalisation, I am in no way obligated to present any alternative option. This is in accordance with your rationale behind your view on claims, non-claims and burden of proof. A strong claim needs proof, lack of assent to a claim doesn't. Neither does it need a contrary strong claim. That is why people who don't believe in something don't have to believe that the something doesn't exist. Well, but I'm repeating you now.

Oh my, I guess I shouldn't have replied at all then, since if it's crowd, it doesn't touch me.

Satanists and zoophiles are different too. The argument of sole difference (let's call it Sola Differentia in a fashion taken after Sola Fide soteriological doctrine ).

When a Hawaiian shirt non-approver sees a Hawaiian shirt wearing family move in next door he becomes agitated and worried. When a law-abiding citizen sees an ex-convict family move in next door he becomes agitated and worried. Do you see analogy? I fail to.

Nah, would have to be slightly phariseean here. It's not about areas or being seen with gay people. I don't care here. It's my choice with whom I talk and am seen in public and I don't give a damn that someone doesn't like the idea of seeing me in company of a person he doesn't particularly admire.

Sorry, I'm not going to prove my non-hate towards any and all minority ever conceived.

Again, thanks for contributing to my cause. Half-white half-black will not be fully white, nor fully black and some whites as well as some blacks will not like that. Screwed from both sides, colloquially speaking.

Having gay sex is not outlawed.

Are they not allowed to marry? Do they want a foremarriage? When is too much foreplay? As an unmarried Catholic, I'm not a practical expert, mostly theory here, so you must excuse my ignorance.

When did I claim contrary?

Everyone to everyone? I mean, you visiting me, I visiting Dubya, Pope visiting Dalai Lama etc? Same for jointly paid tax breaks?

Do I get a tax break for teaching sound moral doctrine on internet forums?

While I'm not really retarded, I qualify to MENSA
only in a half of tests I take, therefore there's only a very slim chance I would pass a real MENSA entry one taken under stress in a foreign place. for some reason, though, I don't think they should take me anyway And it's not law, it's MENSA statute, a bit different. IQ 130/148 required unconditionally, the number depending on the scale used.

In such much as it works for "you" and "right". As for proving, that's how my joyous career in this thread had started.

Do I say gay folks can't work? Again, your Hawaiian shirt analogy is at best as good as my Habana cigars one.

I beg to differ.

What do non-violent hentai drawings of nude children have to do with exploiting children?

You have as much rational backing for it as I have when I say a gay couple isn't analogous to a heterosexual marriage. You speak about family, I speak about family. And well, why not extended family? After all, polygamy and poliandria have worked in many societies. Why don't let us be open-minded? And why wouldn't a swinger marriage care for children? Not convinced.

 

Interesting. I remember while after running one time, I was stretching, and another guy running by said something like, 'hey, nice legs.' My reply was - 'thanks.'

It didn't occur to me until later that he may've been gay and chatting me up; indeed, when I think back, this seemed likely. My response was to brag to my girlfriend that I'd been complimented, and perhaps even hit on by a gay man, and we all know [insert stereotype] gay men have far better taste than straight men. When was the last time she had been hit on by a gay man - I asked?

Take it as a compliment and move on. Sorta' off topic story.

 

I didn't mean compliments, I meant something more active, the way hitting on is normally done, not just saying a compliment and waiting for the reaction. In that case, I bet I wouldn't really care enough, but still - I don't want to be hit on by men the way I hit on girls or girls hit on me, especially when it's something serious.

 

Probably literal - whack 'em over the head with a club (maybe a club +1, with something like a 10% chance to stun the opponent), drag 'em off to the cave - y'know, standard stuff.

 

I've had a guy grab my butt before... Dude... seriously its not that bad. His chin stubble rubbing the back of my neck was sorta uncomfortable but I guess he had a can of shaving gel in his pocket because there was a bulge and it looked some of the sticky white cream had spilled out.

 

Just when I thought this topic could get no worse, along comes an article like this. Don't say I didn't warn you!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109512,00.html

 

Just awful

 

Tsk tsk. What is this world coming to when masturbation could potentially become legal?

 

I shudder to think of the fines I may owe from my teenage years.