Over on Family Scholar’s Blog, Elizabeth writes:
If the state says marriage is just between two people that’s a fundamentally different understanding of marriage, one that affirms loud and clear that children do not necessarily need their mother and father. […] then the idea that children need their mother and father becomes not something supported and affirmed by the state, but instead a marginalized idea, declared off-sides from secular debate. The result? More children growing up without their own mother and father, and exposed to the risks and losses that come with it.
The truth is, our society regularly and routinely accepts that not every child needs their own mother and father. Divorce is legal even for parents with young children. Single parenthood is legal; no law forces heterosexual parents to marry, and no law forces parents to live with or even know their child, so long as its physical needs are provided for. There used to be laws and traditions punishing single mothers and their bastard children, but I assume you’re not wanting those punitive measures reinstated. Sperm donation is legal, and so is egg donation (Elizabeth may want these procedures banned). There is absolutely no legal barrier preventing capable parents from giving up their kids for adoption, if the parents want to.
In short, under our current system, there is barely any legal practice implying that “children do not necessarily need their [biological] mother and father” that is not legal and acceptable – except, of course, for same-sex marriage. Why is it acceptable to single out same-sex couples and punish them, and them only, in order to send a pro-mom-and-dad message?
No matter how you sugar-coat it, your arguments imply that it’s acceptable to consider same-sex couples and their children tools used to benefit heterosexuals. The idea that the well-being and legal equalities of queers and their children are worth supporting in their own right – rather than just garbage to be thrown away whenever, in some dubious and unproven theory, denying them equality assists heterosexual families – is completely absent from your arguments.
Children of same-sex couples are not tools used to benefit heterosexual families.
Lesbians are not tools to be used to benefit heterosexual families.
Gays are not tools to be used to benefit heterosexual families.
How many times do we have to repeat this before SSM opponents get the message? Get it so completely so that they don’t just agree in words, but so that they stop making arguments based on the unspoken premise that any amount of harm to queers and their families, however extreme, is justified by the prevention of any theoretical harm to a heterosexual, however small?
If the state says marriage is just between two people that’s a fundamentally different understanding of marriage, one that affirms loud and clear that children do not necessarily need their mother and father.
I’m skeptical of the “hey, kids, let’s send a message!” approach to lawmaking. The idea that equality matters so little that it should be circular-filed so that Elizabeth and her allies can send a pro-mom-and-dad telegram is not persuasive to me.
But let’s accept for a moment that laws send a message. What message is sent by keeping marriage cross-sex only? Refusing to allow same-sex marriages “affirms loud and clear” that heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals as human beings, and that the children raised by same-sex couples are bastards, low things who deserve lesser rights and lesser protections. What effect will that message have on children raised in same-sex households? (Judging by what they write, when Elizabeth and her allies say “think about the best interests of children,” they are refering only to children raised by heterosexuals).
Elizabeth, I don’t oppose your goal of seeing more children raised by their own mom and dad. I don’t have any emotional attachment to that model, but I think social science indicates that for most children it’s probably the best way to be raised (assuming that the parents are loving, that there’s no abuse, etc). But there are so many ways to support and encourage mom-dad families that don’t involve making common cause with the worse, most hateful homophobes in the nation, and attacking the civil rights of a group of people who have already been under attack for decades and decades.
The fact that divorce rates nationwide have gone down even as homosexuals have reached a level of acceptance never before seen in the USA, is clear evidence that the goal of equality and the goals of the marriage movement do not have to be in opposition.
You wouldn’t support bringing back the traditional marriage in which husbands are the owners and controllers of all their wives’s property – even though such a change might lower the divorce rate, and thus raise the odds of children raised by mom and dad. You wouldn’t support benning cross-racial or cross-religion marriage – even though such laws might reduce the divorce rate and thus raise the odds of children raised by mom and dads.
Why is it that only same-sex parents’ rights are disposable in this battle of yours? When are you going to put your own rights on the chopping block, rather than demanding that families that already have so much less privilege than your own be the ones sacrificed to benefit families that look like your own?
…that affirms loud and clear that children do not necessarily need their mother and father.
And that should be affirmed loud and clear, because it is the truth. Children do not necessarily need their own mothers and fathers.
The vast majority of individual children do need their moms and dads, of course; and I’m happy to support non-bigoted policies to encourage and support such households.
But some children get along just fine with a mom and a mom, or a dad and a dad. There are plenty of well-adjusted children of same-sex couples who are no more neurotic or suffering from angst than the rest of us are, and you constantly try to make them invisible in your approach to discussing these issues. What’s best for “most” is not what’s best for “all.” Why is admitting that not all households are, or should be, identical so threatening to you?
I agree completely, myth, and I agree her arguments fall flat.
The reason, I think, that we’re debating her homophobia is that she’s not an ignorant person or one unused to debate. So when her arguments not only fall flat, but rely on bad data and are self-contradictory despite her access to (and being presented with) good information, it raises more than a little inference of bad faith.
Kim,
marriage (the legal variety) is something that has had a fluid definition to adjust to the progress and enlightenment of society at large
Me thinks you have misreferenced “cultural protocol” as definition, as the law deals with the protocol of marriage/state interaction almost entirely.
where exactly do you get the right to define marriage for all others outside of the legal constrict?
Oddly, this argument appears to be wielded to gain authority rather than argue that no such authority exists. This is a trick teenagers use frequently and it works for them just as poorly as it does for you here.
It [the marriage contract] did not define what sort of sex I could have within my marriage, whether or not I was obligated to have children, or whether or not I needed any religious approval.
Fantastic argument that marriage is not the sole property of religions. In fact marriage though it has significant religious value has significant secular value also. I appreciate you pointing that out.
As far as any chastity requirement in marriage I believe the marriage contract can be dissolved when sex outside of the marriage proves one of the members infidelity. Yes you are limited in the sex you can have. The limitations of the partner usually provides the boundaries. One could continue to argue how this interpersonal relationship or compromise and limits between two sexes provides benefits to household governance as well as sex, but I digress.
The argument about obligation for children is an interesting one. However, it happens to be that many contracts are never actuated because the conditions predicated in the contract do not materialize. For instance I have a contract that someone will pay for a new car should I crash mine. One needn’t require me to crash my car before the contract is valid however. Same for having children in marriage. It isn’t a contract to have children, and not having children doesn’t invalidate it. However, should I demand that the insurance company replace my car and they find that I never had one in the first place that would subject me to charges of fraud.
—
VK,
The only parent is a biological parent, and those who adopt a child and raising it are just deluding themselves that they can ever be a parent to the child.
Just what do you suggest proves they could never be a parent to the child?
I don’t see F.Rottles or anyone here suggesting that only biological parents can raise children. I’m not sure how this is supposed to answer the point about impersonating marriage is a false-flag benefit for children either. Please clarify.
—
noodles,
Plus gays and lesbians can already adopt as singles and/or have access to IVF, as well, as, obviously!, having their own children in the good old pre-technology fashion, and even if you believe oh the horror oh the poor children, you can’t stop it, so the reason to deny official married status to those seeking it is even less convincing.
Poor children is right. I’m not a fan of the “unwanted baby industry” being cheered for in your post. Creating unwanted children just to feed the consumer need of those desperate to accessorize their impersonations of marriage? That’s just not right.
Methinks I didn’t misreference it at all. The legal definition of marriage is the one that matters. The way you define your marriage, or I define mine is completely unique to our own circumstances and I can no more impose my definition on you, than you on me.
Many cultures have protocol for marriage, and more specifically religious cultures seem to thrive on marriage protocol. This does not mean, however, that religion or individual cultures can define for the larger group of married folks what model their marriage needs to use.
So in essence, someone denying you access to determining the nature and expectations of their own marriage, outside of the legal confines is acting sophmoric and like a trick-wielding teenager? That’s not really a great response, and I’d have to pretty much reflect the same sentiment of tsk-ing in your direction. This isn’t a good debunk of what I was saying, nor is it anywhere near solid enough to have any chastising merit on its own.
Err, no-fault divorce, anyone? Dissolution of a marriage can be done because Martha didn’t like how Ralph ate his peanut butter crackers in bed. As you and I have now both pointed out, the definition of a marriage outside of the legal expectations are soley at the discretion of the married couple.
Since sodomy laws have been overturned, pretty much any consentual ‘gay’ sex that might occur in same sex marriages is just as legal as any consentual straight sex. As for limitations, well, I realise that at no point soon will my husband and I engage in sex while swinging from a trapeze, however, that’s not exactly what the fight is about – and again, that’s limited not by the law, but by us. So what exactly is your point?
Beyond that, your whole insurance argument is just flat out goofy. I really don’t understand what you’re getting at here other than trying to make some convoluted argument against SSM that is attempting to seem academic. If I’m wrong or misreading, feel free to enlighten me, but your post really came off as ever-so-much posturing discriminatory bullshit.
I believe the marriage contract can be dissolved when sex outside of the marriage proves one of the members infidelity
I believe you need to learn a little bit about what marriage law actually says.
For example, that it varies by state. In most states, divorce is no-fault. You do not have to prove adultery to get a divorce. Yes, you can divorce if your spouse has sex outside of marriage. You can also divorce because you can’t stand the way your spouse hangs the toilet paper.
You don’t *have* to divorce because of infidelity. Unless you’re in one of the few states where adultery is a crime, sex outside of the marriage is entirely between the spouses.
Kim (basement variety!) said: “In being that marriage (the legal variety) is something that has had a fluid definition to adjust to the progress and enlightenment of society at large, where exactly do you get the right to define marriage for all others outside of the legal constrict?”
It would be helpful if you would please unpack that sentence for the sake of clarity.
Kim (basement variety!) said: “[My marriage contract] did not define what sort of sex I could have within my marriage, whether or not I was obligated to have children, or whether or not I needed any religious approval.”
The marital contract is not the entirety of the social institution. Neither are legal incidents, various government supplied benefits, and the like.
Kim (basement variety!) said: “As for Elizabeth’s arguments, they aren’t reasonable or well researched, they are misappropriated studies applied in a nonsensical way to a situation that is not a requirement of legal marriage to begin with (child rearing).”
Perhaps you have discussed the arguments and have come to some undisputable conclusions about it all. This is probably not the place to rehash what has convinced you, however, could you please provide a link to a fair exchange (pro and con) of the various sides of these arguments? Thanks.
Kim (basement variety!) said: “And to the ‘they choose to be in same sex relationships’, that’s right. That is their right to do, and our obligation to accomodate in regards to their civil rights – to do otherwise is unfair discrimination – period/full-stop/end of story.”
If it is a societal obligation, as you say, it can be expected that the rest of society outside of your own circle of friends and acquaintenances will have some say in the matter. Outside of my circle, as well, of course.
It is highly questionable that enactment of SSM is a civil rights issue for the non-marriagable combinations. You are convinced but your sayso does not make it so.
>> Kim (basement variety!): “Bottom line – you are a bigot, Elizabeth is a bigot and if you don’t like that characterization, my advice to you is to stop with the bigotry.”
That is not the bottom line, but it is very nearly the end of the line. I respect that a person takes the time, makes the effort, to contribute to the “progress and enlightenment” of society, however, hurling ad hominem attacks does not touch me nor, I would hope, Elizabeth M. Sadly, it degrades you and the contribution you aspire to make.
Place good grace above low blows and you’ll discover there is more to the bottomline than the periods, full-stops, and declarations that the story is at an end.
I’ll not comment further in this thread but I will look for your response (hopefully not a vitriolic reaction, but a response) and promise to look into the link (or references) or valid points you might offer.
Okay, point by point:
The definition of marriage in the context of this question is the legal definition, since all other definitions are based purely on individual (or community based but not legally binding) interpretation. It’s your right to dislike and not approve of whomever you choose, however, it is not your right to legislate to the exclusion of law abiding tax paying citizens.
But it isn’t the social institution we are talking about here. Again, you can only define the social institution on a personal level. I’m a straight, married woman. My marriage to my husband and our approach to it outside of our legal obligations is based on our beliefs, not yours. You don’t have to approve of our marriage and your church does not have to marry us, but your feelings on our marriage has no bearing on anything other than you.
First, this was in answer to my stating that Elizabeth misused research in an attempt to bolster her argument. She used studies based not on children coming from gay households, but instead children coming from single parent households. Besides this inappropriate use of information, this argument (as usual) neglects to address the undeniable fact that marriage and child rearing are seperate issues. Do you deny this?
Further, I have yet to come across a fair argument that was against same sex marriage. I cannot provide a link to something that I have yet to see. I simply do not see any argument as fair that bolsters the legislation of bigotry against others.
You’re welcome to try to provide me with such an argument. Include how it would personally affect your family and those around you to include SSM into the definition of marriage; tangible things outside of religious ideas – not speculative or moral arguments about being gay. I can provide tangible benefits to SSM, now the onus is on you to provide reasons that will show how not discriminating will cause tangible detriments.
Society as a general rule attempts to progress and learn as we are confronted by past mistakes. It’s a generally accepted notion (I should hope!) that civil rights be granted to all law abiding tax paying citizens. Being gay isn’t a crime. Gays, like straights generally are law abiding tax paying citizens. Marriage is a civil union between two consenting adults that have chosen to commit to each other in the eyes of the law, taking on responsiblities to one another in return for the benefits it provides.
I’m sorry you feel that way, yet there is no way that I cannot look at anti-SSM arguments and not see bigotry. I have yet to read any valid justification for denial. I’ve read TONS of justifications, but none are able to move away from the notion that people either fear or dislike/disapprove of gays to the point that they are willing to legislate rules around them to the extent of denying them the same protections for their families as straight people. You then get the argument ‘well why can’t they just get civil unions’ – but the fact is, all marriages are civil unions. Only some are religious. If your argument was ‘they should not be able to force religions to accept them’, I’d be right there with you, shouting ‘amen’, because I feel your right to religious freedom is absolute and shouldn’t be defined by my own religious beliefs or expectations.
Of late on this blog, I’ve seen a few people try to invoke the ‘you’re using ad hominem’ inappropriately. This is one of those cases. Ad hominem attacks are based around fallacies and do not address the issue in dispute, but instead the people in the dispute. The problem with this situation is that the issue is the people in the dispute and the bigotry they are attempting to enforce upon society at large. I know it’s hard to be called a bigot. It’s an ugly word, but to me, the sentiment is even uglier, and it’s downright dangerous when people are trying to obfuscate it in faux academics.
So why do you feel you aren’t a bigot, being that you find the term vitriolic and ad hominem, and how do you feel that it isn’t bigotry that is at the core of these issues? Before you answer that, please leave children out of the argument, because first, marriage as I noted above is not about child rearing – that is only an aspect of some marriages, and unless you speak as the child of a gay person, as a gay person with children or have some unknown studies that the rest of us are not privy to that accurately addresses parenting and SSM households, you aren’t in a position to moralize over their well being or ultimate adjustment to life at large.
I find that appealing to my sense of good grace as if there under the notion that there is some hidden argument out there that I’m missing or unaware of is invalid without revealing your hand. So you feel you’ve been dealt low blows by my use of the word bigot, and general unwillingness to coddle you with charitable interpretations of things that can really only be read one way – that’s unfortunate, but as I have stated prior you leave me with no other choice. Now, if you are able to come back with some genuinely real reason that SSM is detrimental to society at large (IE: A way this will affect your family directly as part of society other than the concern that it affirms being gay as being okay) then bring it on – I’m ripe for a new perspective, as this one is particularly distressing and depressing. Otherwise, I’m afraid you’re bringing and have brought nothing to the debate but more discrimination based moralizing with the agenda of keeping the rights of gays lesser than that of the rest of ‘normal’ society.
Now, if you are able to come back with some genuinely real reason that SSM is detrimental to society at large (IE: A way this will affect your family directly as part of society other than the concern that it affirms being gay as being okay) then bring it on
As you just finished eloquently explaining, these are two different things. “Society at large” and my family directly are two different entities; it’s easy for something to be good for one, bad for the other.
Which arguments do you want, the ones about society at large, or the ones about my own little cell?
Hmm, to get at it more specifically, what I’m suggesting is that the argument is that society at large is affected (explain how), and in that, currently married families will be affected.
As I’ve explained prior, my family is directly affected by the legalization, in a positive manner. Many families being impacted positively can be seen as a benefit to society, I would think (feel free to disagree).
So what I’m asking for is conclusive non-religious reasoning as to why society, and in effect, families are affected. How do you see this negatively impacting your family or my family?
OK, I’ll put together some arguments for you and re-comment in the next day or 2.
Kim,
The legal definition of marriage is the one that matters. The way you define your marriage, or I define mine is completely unique to our own circumstances
Agreed. The legal definition provides what the state views marriage to be and that is the one that matters. We shouldn’t get wrapped into conflating protocol with definition, or who else finds interest in the definition of marriage. As this is discussed as a political issue, it is the legal definition that we should consider.
This does not mean, however, that religion or individual cultures can define for the larger group
One would have expected you to support your claim of a fluid definition of marriage. I suppose I was expecting examples, timelines, etc… It wouldn’t be hard to do I’ve seen people try to before. Unfortunately the changes I’ve seen suggested in marriage have all been protocols and in no wise changes in definition.
So perhaps though it is dissapointing it is not suprising to see you instead of supporting the claim resort to re-iterating your ipse dixit. Repetition does not validate claims, Kim. But at least it protects them from scrutiny, no?
So in essence, someone denying you access to determining the nature and expectations of their own marriage, outside of the legal confines is acting sophmoric and like a trick-wielding teenager?
Generalizations are fun crevaces for cock-roaches to hide in when their views are subjected to the light of day. However, I did not make a generalization, you did. I said what I said about a specific argument you weilded. But I can say like the above that it is at least a formidable attempt you have made. Lets look at that argument again and see for ourselves just how sophmoric it sounds…
where exactly do you get the right to define marriage for all others outside of the legal constrict?
I rest.
This isn’t a good debunk of what I was saying
Hmm, interesting. True, maybe teenagers are correct in demanding accredidation of every imposition. And besides, who also weilds an argument in no wise discredits your use of it. For instance, if religions find marriage important that in no wise means that the man-woman relationship that is the foundation of society is a “religious” argument.
Lucky for me that it was the self-contradiction of the argument that provides its discredidation:
Perhaps it would have been simpler to point out …
Err, no-fault divorce, anyone?
There are states that recognize no-fault divorce. One wonders just how a no-fault divorce can be construed as license to re-define marriage however. Let alone become a counter point to the chastity requirements that are commonly placed on marriage that you seem to have insinuated don’t exist:
Indeed the requirement (as I mentioned) to not violate the other member’s chastity is a protection and enforcement on the marriage that can bring dissolution.
your whole insurance argument is just flat out goofy
Hmm, I’ll leave you to re-reading it in order to find its relevance to your argument that there needs to be an obligation to have children for marriage to be recognized for its procreative potential. Judging by your reply, I’m not too sure there is much I can do to help you understand. I’ll leave it then to your personal study on this issue.
Perhaps these two articles will be of benefit, they speak quite a bit about procreation requirements in marriage:
Homosexuality is not a Handicap and its sister article, part 2
But you are not the first to hold up your own inability to comprehend as a counter-argument :)
—
mythago,
In most states, divorce is no-fault.
Again, poor children.
You don’t *have* to divorce because of infidelity.
Agreed.
__
Kim, back to you;
it is not your right to legislate to the exclusion of law abiding tax paying citizens.
If I have it right, it would be a logical not physical or constitutional inability to write any legislation that excludes anything but “law abiding” citizens. Those that don’t obey the law are never excluded by the law.
Perhaps I’m trying to hard to make a point for you, and I should just let you keep working that argument on your own until it passes even the most basic scrutiny of reason.
You don’t have to approve of our marriage and your church does not have to marry us
Hmm, this is tantamount to excusing the attack on the WTC because “you don’t have to watch it and you don’t have to approve of it”. Perhaps I will again just leave you to study the issue out better so that you can develop a more salient point on the issue of marriage. Certainly “approval” is not what is asked for or intended in recognizing marriages.
If anything the only approval being asked for by same-sex couples impersonating marriages is the kind that a Science-Fiction writer or Magician might ask of their audience, only that is better called “willful suspension of disbelief” than approval.
Again, you can only define the social institution on a personal level.
Agreed. The protocols, behaviours and cultural aspects of marriage are for personal interpretation and discovery. But how you get from that point to demanding that the state impose acceptance of marriage impersonation is another (perhaps self-conficting) point entirely.
Again you seem to be arguing that others don’t have authority over a matter, but to then assume it gives you or another authority is a teenager’s trick and not an argument.
Further, I have yet to come across a fair argument that was against same sex marriage.
Judging by the arguments you’ve posited here, I would conclude that you have no argument for or against legally conflating same-sex impersonation of marriage with marriage. Why you are for it then in absense of argument for or against, I can only conclude, is a matter of your personal bias and bigotry.
Why your ignorance on a subject is considered reasoning to convince people to share your ignorance is beyond me.
—
Robert,
As you [Kim] just finished eloquently explaining, these are two different things. “Society at large”? and my family directly are two different entities; it’s easy for something to be good for one, bad for the other.
Agreed, that is a good way to put it. I’ve seen this debate as one framed against a grander question myself,
I feel at the heart we are discussing not what is important, but what is more important. Like discussing with a teenager that while it is important for them to have fun with their friends, it is is no excuse to neglect household chores. I see advocates screaming that if we don’t pander to their ideas of importance than we no longer love then, we hate them, and we are bigots.
—
Kim, back to you;
Many families being impacted positively can be seen as a benefit to society, I would think (feel free to disagree).
While the overall sentiment can be accepted, its application is messy. Very messy. Such logic was used by Sharky in subjecting the Shire to oppressive leadership in “The Return of the King”. Litterary and historical investigations of that ideology have produced a wealth if wisdom on the matter.
You may wish to read at least the first part of this.
On Lawn wrote:
On Lawn, I know you’re used to posting at Galios’ blog, where you’re free to make obnoxious and insulting comments like the above. That’s not the case here. Either learn to address others with respect, and without snarky personal insults, or you’ll quickly be banned from posting on my threads here.
On Lawn (in reponse to Kim)
Kim: You don’t have to approve of our marriage and your church does not have to marry us
On LawnHmm, this is tantamount to excusing the attack on the WTC because “you don’t have to watch it and you don’t have to approve of it”?.
Could you possibly crank up your level of vile, insulting metaphors a bit more? I think some gay couples in Tierra Del Fuego were only mildly offended by that
Look, I lost someone I knew to the WTC attacks. I also have friends who’re legaly married, and are same sex couples.
You’re claiming my friends getting married is somehow the moral or social equivilant to the destruction of the Twin Towers? Same sex marriage is NOT causing anyone any harm that’s even vaguley comprable to a mass terrorist attack. The level of insult in the analogy is enormous.
But thanks for making the anti-SSM crowd look like they’re about to have hysterics and explode every time a queer couple gets a few more legal rights. There are days I wish it were true.
Again, poor children.
How do children benefit when, to divorce, Mommy has to prove in a court of law, in the public eye, that Daddy was an adulterer (or vice versa)? Is it supposed to help children if the kind of expensive, ugly battles we see in custody matters spread to divorce proceedings?
legally conflating same-sex impersonation of marriage with marriage
If barriers to same-sex marriage are removed, there’s no “conflation” of anything. It’s all marriage. Why that terrifies you into an excess of pointless verbal runaround, I can’t fathom.
Ampersand,
I know you’re used to posting at Galios’ blog, where you’re free to make obnoxious and insulting comments like the above.
Is that how you run things here?
Or is that how you run things here?
So just to get things straight, the inability to comprehend the argument is Kim’s self admission. Is her lack of comprehension then the offending remark or my supposition that she intends it to be a counter argument?
Obnoxious is in the eye of the beholder, it would seem.
Addressing the argument from ignorance fallacy in Kim’s reply is a “snarky personal insult,” but if I’d have called her a bigot and a homophobe that counts for legitimate debate?
I don’t know if anyone would consider “civilized debate” to be what you are cultivating here with your rebuke. If you have a beef with Galois, you can take it there.
—
Josh,
The point was not an establishment of moral equivalence. Your determination to find some homosexual shibboleth of victimization in my writings has caused you to miss the point entirely. The point remains that “approval” and recognition are secondary considerations to the damage caused.
You’re claiming my friends getting married is somehow the moral or social equivilant to the destruction of the Twin Towers?
They would be orthogonal to each other in reality, perhaps an apples to oranges comparison if you will.
But I’m not into making comparisons. The impersonation of marriage is fraud on the individual scale and on a social scale a demand of sufferance of children and the handicapped for the forwarding of gender segregationist ideals.
Look, I lost someone I knew to the WTC attacks.
As do I, a few actually. I also know many more people who are the products of being raised in households that tried to call themselves marriages but really weren’t marriage in form or intent, let alone contradictory to marriage as same-sex couplings are.
There are victims to these actions that we should not demean or ignore. The children and the handicapped are two such groups beyond themselves.
Same sex marriage is NOT causing anyone any harm
Ibid.
But thanks for making the anti-SSM crowd look like they’re about to have hysterics
Not that the self-absorbed can-we-call-her-a-homophobe-now debate over Elizabeth wasn’t scintillating ;)
While you perceive hysterical weakness in those you consider ideological adversaries, perhaps it is your own insensitivity and crudeness that you should be contemplating. As Mirage from The Incredibles points out, “Valuing life is not weakness … and disregarding it is not strength”.
Because when it comes down to it, I’m as moderate and dispassionate person as the next. At first the ridicule would get to me, but these days the evidence is so great that to submit to your ridicule would be at the detrement of reality.
How do children benefit when, to divorce, Mommy has to prove in a court of law, in the public eye, that Daddy was an adulterer
This is all a very interesting but orthogonal debate about no-fault divorce. A debate which I have judged for myself that no-fault divorce is harder on the children than anyone else. A number of sites have taken up this debate, and you are welcome to peruse them at your leisure, Google is your friend.
Essentially what you point at is not news, but also has no impact on the discussion.
If barriers to same-sex marriage are removed, there’s no “conflation”? of anything. It’s all marriage.
Wow! I’m not sure how to reply to that especially amidst the sensitive feelings being nurtured here. I’ll defer to m-w.com for this one…
Verbal run-around could describe what is going on here, perhaps I would say you attempted a verbal end-around.
No, she didn’t admit anything of the sort, either in the bit you quoted or elsewhere. But your inability to comprehend that – or, if you did comprehend it, your willingness to lie about what Kim said – is strike two.
And no, I don’t think calling people bigots and homophobes is legitimate debate – not even when the person so addressed is, in fact, a bigot and a homophobe. I’d rather that people didn’t make such comments, and I’ve said so time and time again. So what? This blog isn’t an open debate forum. And yes, there definitely is a double-standard. I don’t generally ban feminists and allies for being insulting (although there have been a few exceptions); I do ban people who are anti-equality and anti-feminist for being insulting.
(On the other hand, people who are polite – even if they’re people who are hated by virtually 90% of the people who post here – get to post here a long, long time, even if they disagree with me. If you read “Alas” for a while, you’ll notice some examples.)
If you can’t deal with that double-standard, then by all means, don’t post on my threads. There are folks who are anti-SSM who I want to post on my threads, because they’re serious people with terrific intellects who can put together good arguments; but in my opinion you’re not one of those people.
My threads, my rules. If you can’t learn to leave out the insults and the lies, then just leave.
On Lawn, perhaps you need to refresh you knowledge of the social contract.
On Lawn:
This is telling. You insist on letting us know that you’ve seen people grow up in dysfunctional households, and then compare those to same sex households.
So how, other than in terms of chromosomes, are same sex couples so deficient as parents? bBecause EVERY same sex household with children I know tries harder than regular households that have heterosexual parents. And I know quite a few children being raised in SSM situations.
You’re talking as if there were some platonic “marriage” that existed in the sky, and that it’s an unchanging ideal. Of course, that’s not true.
And finally,
Bull. The comparison was so blatantly insulting that I didn’t have to look for offense. It was obvious.
Think about it for a second. If you had wandered into an African American civil rights discussion, conducted by African Americans , and made some minstrel show reference, or mentioned “The Bell Curve”, people would have been calling you a bigot in about ten seconds.
People here in Amp’s blog have been remarkably tolerant (out of respect to the blogmeister,) and you’ve been overbearingly smug, insulting, and demeaning after being reminded of the civility rules.
Amp,
No, she didn’t admit anything of the sort, either in the bit you quoted or elsewhere.
Allow me to quote then post #104:
The understanding was provided with articles that better explain the position forwarded. She continued in a reply to F.Rottles (post #107) and pointed out how her lack of understanding supports her conclusions:
Perhaps if she understood them (reading is as much comprehension and understanding as it is recognizing words) she would see that such a simplistic and absolutist stance is unwarranted.
If you can’t deal with that double-standard, then by all means, don’t post on my threads.
Very telling. Far be it from me to tell you what standards to apply whether fairly or asymmetrically. But consistency from you makes not stepping on your toes that much easier.
—
Q,
perhaps you need to refresh you knowledge of the social contract.
Social contract, hmmm. Is there something in particular you wish to reference?
—
Josh,
You insist on letting us know that you’ve seen people grow up in dysfunctional households, and then compare those to same sex households.
Hmm, this is telling indeed.
EVERY same sex household with children I know tries harder than regular households that have heterosexual parents.
I wonder if that is the bigotry showing that I always expected to lurk under the surface here.
When a child asks their mother why they don’t have a father there are stories about abuse, death, and other heinous acts that one can point to that are beyond the mother’s control. What prey-tell is the reason Rosey O’Donnell points to when her child misses having a Dad?
You’re talking as if there were some platonic “marriage”? that existed in the sky
Platonic? In the sky?
How do you see that from what I’m talking about?
Bull. The comparison was so blatantly insulting that I didn’t have to look for offense. It was obvious.
Do tell.
you’ve been overbearingly smug, insulting, and demeaning after being reminded of the civility rules
According to Amp, they are a double standard based on what he agrees with, and I applaud him for his honesty. I respect him for it, and harbor no resentment of his actions.
It truly is entirely okay, people have their own websites to enact their own set of guidelines. But don’t be deluded that they are “civility” rules any more than group think-enforcement.
But having said that, I’m not sure what you mean by “smug” et. all. I feel strongly about my beliefs, forward them with adequate example and reasoning always and I am attentive to positive feedback that requests specific clarifications.
But I can’t help but notice that without substantial debate people will often turn to discussing people. I am left, without any real retort to my arguments, to discussing myself and others.
Is this really how y’all want to run a debate? I have many salient points being ignored to chase after personalities and attitudes. If you want peace don’t talk about war. If you want war don’t talk about peace. And if you don’t want to discuss reason then discuss people, I suppose.
Okay, I considered really digging in and trying to decipher all of the comments you’ve made since my last post, but find myself exhausted at the prospect of decoding and then debunking your posts.
What I can say is this;
I read your ‘article’ where you attempted to show authority towards ‘procreation requirements’ in marriage. My husband and I both kind of went back and forth between being amused and amazed at what you’ve stated.
First;
I wanted to point out your use of letting in the riff raff when you referred to opening the doors for SSM. You then applied the ‘we’ll be forced to possibly keep the doors open to let in even more riff raff’ and used the example of polygamy. I’ve got to hand it to you, at least you didn’t use golden retrievers.
Second;
Your argument based on why children are a requirement in marriage is really funny. I almost mean that as a compliment, because wow….
So lets break it down a bit – first of all, gay couples are attempting to con their way into hetero rights, and if they get them, it will be nothing short of ‘pulling a fast one’, as if the marital benefits gained are all spoils of some big elaborate con rather than just the byproducts of, well, marriage.
Second, you draw the comparison that is often made between gay couples and infertile couples and go on to define infertile couples as handicapped, and then go even more off the deep end as you attempt to make the case that gay couples are trying to gain access to marriage by pretending they are handicapped, and therefore commandeering the rights of handicapped people. You then compare it to people taking handicapped parking spaces and imply that marriage benefits are finite, and we have to be careful lest we give out too many marriage benefit goody bags.
But wow. I’ll close with one of my favorite bits from your post that you linked me to:
No, you’re right, you don’t harbor any malice or bigotry towards gay people. Wow, wow, just wow.
Oh, I forgot to ask in my post, via my husband:
“So does this mean infertile couples should get handicapped parking spots too?”
You’re expecting this to be some horrible traumatic event in a child’s life. It’s not. It’s a myth perpetrated by the right wing. Every same sex household I know of deals with this, and every time I’ve heard of it, the child’s response has been something along the lines of “It’s no big deal”.
I’m here talking about actual children raised by same sex parents, and you’re dealing with some hypothetical trauma you seem to think must exist, but have no evidence for.
This is a wonderful metaphor for the majority of the alleged ‘polite’ detractors from SSM. You claim you’re polite, but really, you’re just not. All of you I’ve ever encoutered keep having some underlying bigotry, which I’ve pointed out in detail. I’m not just slinging the word bigot around. I’m always careful to point out the behavior that makes someone a bigot.
I pointed out exactly where you were being insulting. Were you not paying attention? Or do you somehow think “Do tell” is an apropriate response to, as I pointed out, the equivialnt of making racist comments in a forum run by African Americans? There’s your smugness. It’s also in the assumption that you’re still the privelaged one, that you deserve it by virtue of who you care to fuck, and that you’re allowed to make dispariging remarks about same sex households raising kids without referncing any real examples.
Smug, condescending, and insulting. Those aren’t personal insults, they’re descriptions of the way you’ve been acting. And if you’re attempting an actual debate, your tone is so insulting that what you’re saying is mostly getting lost.
But for the msot part, people here have been debating your points AND calling you on your insults. It’s just that I’m not content to sit around and let you get your ya-yas off by fag bashing.
Onlawn, just finished another of your blog entries on SSM. Since you’re busy debating word semantics and whether people are smart or stupid, I figured I’d take the liberty of posting an excerpt for you:
I’ll defer to m-w.com for this one…
The legal system is grounded in the Constitution, not the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I don’t suppose you noticed that your posted entry says nothing about same-sex marriage.
No-fault divorce is ‘orthogonal’ only in that you sensed you were losing the argument and so ran away from it. No-fault divorce is an enormous change from ‘traditional’ marriage.
“The very act seizing the right to define marriage (or make it purposefully ambiguously defined) for everyone else is oppressive. ”
Wow, what an example of doublethink!
“The assumption of priveleged entitlement from government at the expense of others is oppressive. Many wish to frame this debate as “I want to marry whomever I want”?. That maybe in and of itself that is a noble cause, but when sexual preference is the very core marriage it is vanity and selfishness.”
But isn’t sexual preference (het) the core value conservatives are using in order to define marriage as “between a man and a woman”??? Or is a sexual preference only a sexual preference if it’s same-sex?
“And what is painted as disadvantage is a barricade built into our anatomies to protect children from those who wish the government to privilege gender discrimination. ”
Ehhhh????? Run that one by me again? How the bloody hell is that in any way “gender” discrimination? Which gender is being discriminated against in this scenario?
One question, On Lawn: what about straights who marry and have zero intention of having or raising children? Would we, under your fantasy regime, be stripped of our married status?
Also, and I admit this is a nitpick, but it’s driving me nuts:
it’s “V-A-U-D-E-V-I-L-L-E”.
Kim,
you attempted to show authority towards ‘procreation requirements’ in marriage
There are a great many things to consider about “procreation requirements” but the “authority” towards them is not one of them.
If anything the point was that requiring a test for fertility steps on a great many liberties and graces the lack of a test is in no wise to be construed that marriage is not a procreative institution. None of these concerns did you disagree with, except to say at one point they were “off the wall”.
As I pointed out previously in quoting a movie character, valuing life is not “hysteria” or a weakness. Yet your portrayal of it makes one wonder at your basic ability to be humane. Invectives don’t make an argument, yet your use of ridicule and cajoling as an argument makes me question it further.
I wanted to point out your use of letting in the riff raff when you referred to opening the doors for SSM.
Alas, there is so much you could have written on that article as the posting is open. But then that would mean you’re readership read it also. So allow me to rectify that for you. I quote from this article.
Clicking on those links finds three articles on Slate Magazine written by two different authors. A search on Google for “slippery slope marriage” finds many many more. Should your feigned compliment mean anything I would expect you to have at least attributed it correctly.
But this brings up a question, the slippery slope argument is a common one. Surely you have an opinion on polygamy, do you think that the arguments in favor of your position do or do not apply to polygamy? In other words, do you consider them riff-raff amongst your cause or do you exclude them logically also?
as if the marital benefits gained are all spoils of some big elaborate con rather than just the byproducts of, well, marriage.
Ahh yes, another great argument of the teen-ager, “As if”. Should such language be employed it would be to point out how same-sex couples act “as if” they are married expecting the byproducts of marriage. And just how elaborate the con is, well, is only a measure of your own simple mindedness. But again lets find the direct quote:
However much that resembles your commentary is something for the reader to answer for themselves. But answer also just how good you feel about conflating homosexuality with the handicapped.
Second, you draw the comparison that is often made between gay couples and infertile couples
A comparison that we find in your writings no less. However I note that for the most part that whether or not you really understand what I wrote, you do not disagree. “Off the deep end” is a great colloquialism, but one that you seem to through in just in case the reader mistakes even your re-quoting of my position as endorsement. Honestly, even with the invective you sound at a loss to disagree.
you don’t harbor any malice or bigotry towards gay people.
This is another interesting statement. Previously you stated that, “there is no way that I cannot look at anti-SSM arguments and not see bigotry.” The reason for this is your simplistic metric for judging bigotry, “I’ve read TONS of justifications, but none are able to move away from the notion that people either fear or dislike/disapprove of gays to the point that they are willing to legislate rules around them to the extent of denying them”.
So, according to you the results justify the claim. If in any way the outcome doesn’t meat your preconceived notion of reality, then it is bigoted. Oddly enough, demanding the outcome to meet preconceived notions is not just bigotry, it is the definition of “prejudice”.
And the fact that your sole metric of prejudice is some line drawn in the sand where you believe homosexual benefits should be then, handicapped be damned. Perhaps you feel the same way Amp does then and include children in this grist for your oh-so-noble mill?
Indeed, if it doesn’t fit the outcome you wish then why support a balanced test?
So does this mean infertile couples should get handicapped parking spots too?
Folks, there you have it. Even the infertile are the brunt of bad jokes by gay-advocates. It is a wonder and a shame the extent people will strike at the infirmities of others for such petty gain.
I’ll answer the question, “No”. The deaf don’t get handicapped parking spots either. Neither do people who have a number of cognitive disorders that provide unique testing techniques, etc… I’m not sure what point your husband is trying to make other than showing just how simplistic his mind is in conflating every handicap as needing privileged parking.
Josh,
You’re expecting this to be some horrible traumatic event in a child’s life. It’s not.
Rosie has noted that she feels for her child’s plight in wanting a father. It was the reason she related the story in the first place. I appreciate Rosie’s honesty.
It’s a myth perpetrated by the right wing.
Chalk another dismissal up to the VRWC. It is wrong because the ever elusive and terrible “they” want you to think that way. Unfortunately my mind doesn’t respond to such cajoling.
However the self-contradiction of you calling it a “myth” in the same paragraph that you say “Every same sex household I know of deals with this” is not lost on me. Not that absolutism should be taken that seriously from you as you also stated the transparently bigoted statement, “EVERY same sex household with children I know tries harder than regular households that have heterosexual parents”. But I digress…
Children raised without a father and mother do take a hit in development. It becomes an obstacle to overcome in every household it happens in. You would obviously like to marginalize it, and have done so in your anecdotal experience. But I warn against such willful blindness. The studies that are the core of this article point to the problems faced when a child is deficient of equal gender representation. Amp, and apparently yourself, find this easily dismissed as not applying to homosexual couplings because, after all, there are two of them (although the jury is apparently out whether there should be more than two or not, according to Kim). But numbers don’t replace gender. It is “alas, a non-sequitor” to suggest otherwise.
All of you I’ve ever encountered keep having some underlying bigotry, which I’ve pointed out in detail… I pointed out exactly where you were being insulting.
Applying the same conclusory logic we’ve seen from Kim and Amp no doubt. If Homosexuals don’t wind up ahead of children and the handicapped, then it is an example of bigotry. You know, not only does marriage mean less when applied ignorantly, but so does bigotry.
Unfortunately in lieu of specific reference I am left to watch you vaguely wave your hand to substantiate a very malicious accusation.
And if you’re attempting an actual debate, your tone is so insulting that what you’re saying is mostly getting lost.
Oh my, now you accuse me of feigning actual debate because you can’t handle the truth.
It’s just that I’m not content to sit around and let you get your ya-yas off by fag bashing.
Its a shame that you take an objective and reasonable look at the harm done by policies you are advocating as “fag bashing”. It doesn’t come to the conclusion you wish, it doesn’t pat you on the back for its oppression of people who are already at the mercy of the state, and you take it as an insult.
If my points are being “lost” I submit it is done with intellectual dishonesty of those that wish to marginalize, dismiss, and otherwise deflect criticism.
Kim, back to you;
I figured I’d take the liberty of posting an excerpt for you:
I appreciate it. For anyone interested the whole post can be found (starting at page 1) here
As with all articles comments are open to everyone who wishes to disagree with any points raised.
mythago,
The legal system is grounded in the Constitution, not the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Unfortunately with an effort to let you find the argument yourself you missed it. True, the legal system is grounded in the Constitution. You will find that the dictionary is rooted in reality.
You stated:
Perhaps you can show me then in the constitution how removing barriers and lumping everything under one name is not conflation, because as noted the dictionary calls that conflation. If you wish to point to the constitution in defense then by all means show me where the constitution takes on the dictionary on the use of that term.
I’ll be specific here, and do some landholding. I didn’t want to point out how yet another gay-advocate has once again held up the blindness of their own lack of comprehension as a light for others to follow. Kim did it and you did to, you ended that paragraph with, “Why that terrifies you into an excess of pointless verbal runaround, I can’t fathom.” Well technically the ignorance was just a way to sluff off yet another invective as an argument, but the tactic is still one of referencing your own ignorance.
So to hold your hand and show you what others saw, you are directly contradicting the dictionary. Its such a glaring error that words fail me to describe it. And to compound the problem you apparently grandstanding on it with constitutional rhetoric.
So lets make this simple, do you realize your error in saying “If barriers to same-sex marriage are removed, there’s no “conflation”? of anything. It’s all marriage.”
No-fault divorce is ‘orthogonal’ only in that you sensed you were losing the argument and so ran away from it.
As a potential for a vastly more limiting requirement to limiting types of sexual activity the reference to “no-fault-divorce” made my argument stronger as previously noted. Why would I run away from it? As with the previous contradiction of yours, I was flaberghasted that you referenced it at all. And what the constitution has to do with “no-fault-divorce” is yet to be seen, but then it was only a reference made as recently as your last post.
Either way, you wanted to debate how no-fault-divorce impacted children. Fine, there are plenty of venues to do that. But I see it as orthogonal at the moment.
Oops, forgot a closing tag after the quote from mythiago. My appologies for the confusion. The blockquote should have ended at the end of the italics.
An interesting note about how abuse of other’s priveledges is harmful can be found from, coincidentally, San Francisco. The issue? Handicapped parking spots…
Though by no means is a trend being inferred here, as an analogy of the gay-advocacy of conflating their relationships with marriage, this is excellent commentary.
But look folks, I’m not here to bash gays. I’m not here to rob them of anything. I’m only here to protect the children, the handicapped and marriage as an institution in itself. Unfortunately, though we all wish it were not so, the honest among us will recognize that you can’t have it both ways.
That’s because there is no harm being done. You’re making shit up, and everyone here knows it. The whole “children do better with a mother and father then they do in with same sex parents” line is crap. There’s no proof for it. Bringing in a media quote by Rosie O’Donnel is crap too. I *personaly* know several same sex couples who’re parnets. They don’t regret thier child not having a father, and the children don’t regret who their parents are.
Of course, if I were a parent in a same sex relationship, I’d never let you near my kid. Your ideas are too poisonous, and it’s obvious you’ve got no real respect for GLBT people.
As I said, I’m responding to your points *and* your condescending tone. And yeah, I think your points are phony, and you’re just here to exercise your bigotry. But I’m still responding to them, if only to display the sort of contempt anti-SSM activists have, and how phony the respect they pretend to have for GLBT people is.
I’m not here to rob them of anything. I’m only here to protect the children, the handicapped and marriage as an institution in itself.
If you really cared about protecting children, you’d care about the children right now being raised by same sex parents, and you’d address the truth that they’re doing just fine, but would be helped by society being accepting enough of the parents relationship to grant them the same *protections* as a heterosexual couple gets. Perhaps someone here has been fooled by the idea that you’re not really here to gay bash, but as far as I’m concerned, your contempt is obvious.
As for protecting the handicapped? Does this absurd red-herring actually need commentary? This alone should be evidence of how disingenuous you really are.
On Lawn: women routinely have children. Women routinely have children outside of heterosexual marriage. Lesbians have children. Lesbians routinely have children outside of heterosexual marriage.
Marriage is not the deal maker or breaker when it comes to women having children, or have you missed this basic biological fact?
Children are also a lot smarter, perceptive, and non-judgemental than the picture you paint of them as victims and pawns. Perhaps you are too invested in an innocence that only exists through your objectification.
On Lawn, if you got rid of every condescending and snarky comment in your posts, I bet you could cut them down by at least half.
So if you are ready to grant same sex couples a marriage license based on their similarity to infertile married couples then a fast one has been pulled on you. You’ve just decided to give healthy individuals access to the resources designated for the handicapped.
This argument is easily dismantled: We already give “healthy individuals” access to the “resources” designated for the “handicapped” by allowing fertile (i.e. healthy) heterosexual couples to get married.
And, speaking for myself, I do not support SSM “based on [same-sex couples’] similarity to infertile married couples.” In fact, I support SSM based on the similarity between same-sex romantic relationships and opposite-sex romantic relationships. There’s a much smaller difference here than in the same-sex/infertile couples comparison: It all comes down to one chromosome.
Here’s a problem: What if two infertile women who are only friends decide one day, “Hey, let’s get married”? They’re both clearly “handicapped,” and their interest in marriage has nothing to do with sexual preference, so…
And I don’t quite understand this:
The very act seizing the right to define marriage (or make it purposefully ambiguously defined) for everyone else is oppressive. The assumption of priveleged entitlement from government at the expense of others is oppressive.
Now, to me this sounds a heck of a lot like a pro-SSM argument, and a pretty radical one at that. Defining marriage for everyone is oppressive! which is why we should open it up to everyone who wants it. The assumption of entitlement is also oppressive! which is why hetero couples shouldn’t be the only ones to benefit from it.
And this:
[W]hen sexual preference is the very core marriage it is vanity and selfishness.
Vanity and selfishness have never ever been obstacles to marriage. People have always gotten married for vain and selfish reasons. Why does it suddenly matter only when it comes to same-sex relationships? And sexual preference is sort of the crux of romantic love–if it wasn’t, then we’d fall in love with others regardless of their gender–so I don’t understand how it can possibly be considered “vanity and selfishness.”
Besides which, the very act of marriage is itself vain and selfish! Really, if we want to eliminate vanity and selfishness from our relationships, we shouldn’t choose our own partners at all. In fact, we should marry only mean and horrible people, as a sacrifice to…something. Maybe to stop some other nicer person from marrying a jerk. I don’t know. It’s your argument, On Lawn; can you explain it?
True, the legal system is grounded in the Constitution. You will find that the dictionary is rooted in reality.
In other words, you believe that the Constitution is not rooted in reality. Do you also advocate replacing the Constitution (and all fifty state Constitutions) with the online version of Merriam-Webster? And can you get around to explaining what your excerpt has to do with same-sex marriage?
As a potential for a vastly more limiting requirement to limiting types of sexual activity the reference to “no-fault-divorce”? made my argument stronger as previously noted.
No, it actually contradicts your argument. Flatly asserting otherwise doesn’t make it so. In fact, you might want to apply “needs more than ‘I say so’ as evidence” to pretty much every argument you’ve made.
Neoplatonist nonsesnse. The dictionary is rooted in whatever dicitonary authors decide it’s rooted in.
That’s because there is no harm being done.
Your ability to have strong beliefs is noted.
There’s no proof for it
The scientific body of reasoning that points to the benefits of having equal gender representation in the home is substantial. While one may wonder just what you will do to raise the bar of “proof”, I won’t even go that far. You’ve shown yourself to me to be a very off-balanced and aggressive, leaning strongly toward personal biases. One wonders what “proof” can overcome willful blindness to begin with.
That, I will note is a personal comment. Unfortunately as his assertion left nothing but his own ability to judge reality as substantiation, and that ability is entirely suspect, it is a warranted reply along with the search results for scientific research (referenced directly in at least the first five articles I cared to click on). However as such research started this thread, I don’t expect your ability to see or not see to influence me much.
Bringing in a media quote by Rosie O’Donnell is crap too.
Just another case in point at just how ‘facts’ that get in the way are disregarded.
Your ideas are too poisonous, and it’s obvious you’ve got no real respect for GLBT people.
Again, one would suspect the true height of the bar at which you place “real respect” on.
And yeah, I think your points are phony
Just another case in point at just how ‘facts’ and reason that get in the way are disregarded.
Just how representative of gay-advocacy can I put you down as being here?
If you really cared about protecting children, you’d care about the children right now being raised by same sex parents
How concerns about subjugating children’s needs under the private gender biases of the heads of household are not “really caring about protecting children” is not apparent in your remarks. To me you are simply kicking and screaming that the children-as-bait routine exposes your prejudicial attitude.
Does this absurd red-herring actually need commentary?
Even your most absurd assertions have been met with commentary. Should you feel that assertion is also absurd you should feel free to produce commentary. The “ease” with which you insinuate the composing the retort, the obviousness of it, should be an invitation for you to do so.
As of yet, no such retort has been lodged at those articles. And I’m not one to play along with parading emperors with no clothes.
—
Q,
If by this you mean that lack of marriage doesn’t preclude procreation, then I agree. However if you mean that marriage and its equal-gender-representation requirement doesn’t provide a great structure and benefit to a child “making or breaking” their own lives, then I’m afraid I cannot go that far. It is counter to biology.
Children are also a lot smarter, perceptive, and non-judgmental than the picture you paint of them as victims and pawns.
I can assure you that any “picture” painted on the intelligence and perception of children is entirely your own coloring of the issue. None was intended by my authorship of it.
Children are very bright, very very perceptive. Rosie’s child is an example I’ve put across. Luckily they have their own ability to heal from their upbringing which is good as no upbringing is perfect. However, relying on their resiliency to satisfy petty personal biases where someone claims they cannot love anyone of the opposite sex and subjects their child to be without that parent is wrong.
“However if you mean that marriage and its equal-gender-representation requirement doesn’t provide a great structure and benefit to a child “making or breaking”? their own lives, then I’m afraid I cannot go that far. It is counter to biology.”
Marriage is not biological… it is a social construct. I would think that given a chance to communally raise children, children exposed to the greatest amount of variance and similarity would be healthier than those raised in a nuclear and socially incestuous two-gendered “family”. Oh, wait. You’re conflating marriage with family with biology, no?
My point was that it does not take either marriage or family for a woman to procreate. So I don’t see why you are hung up on having a man around. Biologically speaking, men are almost superfluous after any given woman is impregnated.
Now, if what you really are trying to say is that in **our** specific, modern society children that are socialized to be good citizens within our specific, modern society are those that are raised in a tailor made fashion to do so, well, yeah, you’d be right. But that is neither biological or essential. You could just as easily argue that children raised in a two-gender nuclear family are far more likely to be rabid, wasteful consumers because they lack a fundamental sense of connection to both their human communities and their environmental communities.
Hestia,
On Lawn, if you got rid of every condescending and snarky comment in your posts, I bet you could cut them down by at least half.
You are generous. Others here consider everything I’ve written to be “snarky” and condescending ;)
We already give “healthy individuals”? access to the “resources”? designated for the “handicapped”? by allowing fertile (i.e. healthy) heterosexual couples to get married.
Well done, but one problem. Though a beneficiary the “healthy individual” is not the one to whom the resources are devoted.
I support SSM based on the similarity between same-sex romantic relationships and opposite-sex romantic relationships.
At best, however, that is a fallacy of division. Unfortunately, even though you intend it not to, it really does conflate homosexuality with a handicap. It may not be your goal, but you should be more aware of the dangers of those policies you advocate.
There’s a much smaller difference here than in the same-sex/infertile couples comparison: It all comes down to one chromosome.
I suppose it does. And why that one chromosome precludes same-sex procreation, and why homosexuals cannot love someone because of it is something to ponder. However, I doubt that a microscope will bring many answers to those questions.
They’re both clearly “handicapped,”?
Interesting commentary! I wish you had posted this on that site, there are others who would be interested in seeing it as well.
To answer I’ll note that a handicap is an inability to do something that they would naturally or commonly be able to do. That they are enable to procreate heterosexually does not make the inability to homosexually procreate a handicap because they still can’t normally procreate homosexually.
Defining marriage for everyone is oppressive!
While a good point, it derives its punch from a fallacy if the basis is my phraseology. Seizing the right to define marriage for everyone else is oppressive, and that is a select case of defining marriage. It is not an extrapolation I’ve made to jump from the specific to the general, and I do not see where you support doing such an extrapolation.
Vanity and selfishness have never ever been obstacles to marriage. People have always gotten married for vain and selfish reasons.
Vanity and selfishness are obstacles to marriage. The more vain and selfish the more likely that marriage is to fail.
What I believe you are trying to say is that vanity and selfishness are not something the government scrutinizes when people apply for marriage. This is true. Op-Ed explains why this is in this article.
You might also check out the last three paragraphs of this essay for reasoning on how gender segregation is a legal test that can be and should be applied.
Besides which, the very act of marriage is itself vain and selfish!
Life has a number of paradoxical orders to it. Often they are exploited for political rhetoric, but I digress.
One such paradox is that for you and me to achieve our fullest individual expression, we need other people. For that to be procreation (which is to me the greatest impact we will have on society) we need someone of the opposite sex. So to truly express individuality, we find we must compromise with someone else. Not coincidentally that compromise is with someone who tells us to clean our socks off the floor, or leaves the toilet seat down, etc…
Whether the benefit of such cooperation and charity (to children) is vain and selfish is left for the reader to hammer out for themselves. As for myself, I consider the benefits of cooperation and charity to be secondary to the requirements of selflessness in determining the magnanimous nature of the endeavor.
—
mythiago,
In other words, you believe that the Constitution is not rooted in reality.
How so?
Do you also advocate replacing the Constitution (and all fifty state Constitutions) with the online version of Merriam-Webster?
Oh wait, I see what is going on here. You have failed to find any constitutional basis to support such a flagrant contradiction as was pointed out previously. So now I suppose I am to endure twenty questions in hopes that I forget your error.
Look, just own up to it. If you have a point make it, if you erred just say so.
By the way, the answer to the question of replacement is “no”. Which, fortunately doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said.
And can you get around to explaining what your excerpt has to do with same-sex marriage?
Great, now for intellectual argument mythiago wants to fire off loaded questions.
Look mythiago, this whole constitutional red-herring is your own. I find it funny how I entertained it enough (because, well, it was entertaining ;) to discredit it, and now you make a whole meal out of it.
As I said before, your assertion conflicts with reality. The reconciliation of which is not up to me.
/random aside
The title of this thread keeps bugging me. Queer rights are not on the chopping block. There are no queer rights. As a class we are disenfranchised and do not have full citizen rights.
You can’t chop something that isn’t there!
This is a link to a googling for the phrase “children need a mother and father research”
And at this point, you’ve reached the limits of my respect for Amp’s civility rules in your insulting tone, so I’m bowing out out of consideration for not trying to find ways around it and tell you what I really think of you.
Josh,
This is a link to a googling for the phrase “children need a mother and father research”?
As advertised:
so I’m bowing out out [sic]
If you asked me, (and I’m not saying you did) it looked to me as if you bowed out long ago. I was unwilling to take your statements at face value, you were offended at the insolence, and now your fingers have caught up. Only now you try to use the same spurious accusation as a way to blame me for the problems in your argument. The old proverb “shoot the messenger” comes to mind.
—
Q,
Marriage is not biological… it is a social construct.
To get down to it it is a social construct of a biological phenomenon.
I would think that given a chance to communally raise children, children exposed to the greatest amount of variance and similarity would be healthier than those raised in a nuclear and socially incestuous two-gendered “family”?.
Ah yes, the platonic society, the brave new world, Hillary Clinton’s village. I don’t see that marriage and family restrict someones access to community. Rather it enriches the ability of the child to interact with the community. Studies that show jail rates of children raised outside of marriage would confirm that idea.
You’re conflating marriage with family with biology, no?
You can tell me. A family is the product of marriage which to bring in children does require biology. Also the formation of families is a biological instinct that is unique in its scale among nature. How these two concepts exist is not coincidental. The sociology and the biology are related, but I do not feel I am conflating them.
I mean at the bottom of the scale you have asexual reproduction, giving way to sexual reproduction. You have plants and some animals that are seed (or egg) scatterers. Moving up the chain of social species we find more and more responsibility and care being devoted to young. From nests to protecting nests to developing societies that last even beyond maturation of the progeny. On top of that humans more than any other species (that I am aware of) have helpless infants. Our societies are built on the ability to pass on learning from one generation to the next as this familial social order is enacted.
In other words it is interesting how much biology influences society.
Biologically speaking, men are almost superfluous after any given woman is impregnated.
Sexually speaking that is true, but in the grander picture of biologically it is not. (again re: studies that show a father active in the home helps dramatically to reduce chances of Crime, etc…)
The essential nature of the equation is cushioned much by the ability of a child to overcome their upbringing. It is important to know just what you are charging a debt against when dealing with such fundamental social orders. I for one cannot justify such a charge. As I asked before:
Only the child’s resilience is a much harsher social account to spend against making the balm even that much more trivial in comparison.
Either that or maybe there is only so much bigotry he can stomach before he loses his lunch.
Says you, marriage as I’ve stated before has been a fluid thing within society, progressing with society so as not to become an antiquated and -dare I say it- repressive institution that doesn’t benefit society as a whole, but instead only a few members that have manuevered themselves into having access to benefits that aren’t finite. Link to your blog all you want, but that doesn’t make people agree with you more, in fact it just makes you look kind of goofy, being that you seem to feel you and your buddies in the anti-SSM crusade are all such authorities on these subjects.
Actually, the passing on learning has been extended family and community, which kind of screws up your whole ‘ma & pa and baby makes three’ world view of what makes children thrive.
So is it the penis or the gender-role you’re so hung up on? These studies are hardly an end to a conversation as empirical proof, in fact they would tend to show that it’s more an absence of 1 parent, versus an absence of 1 parent of a specific gender. Doesn’t really even take rocket science to figure this one out – their are plenty of great single parents out there, but they don’t benefit from a partner in the same way that a duo of parents do. This whole conversation can and does go on and on.
The only thing my husband had to overcome in dealing with his mother being a lesbian was people like you. ‘Concerned’ people like you do far more damage with your actions than I suspect most queer parents do in their preferences. At any rate, if my husband were to kindly ask you to back the hell off of seeing to his welfare as the kid of a queer, would you? Yeah, I thought not, after all, it’s not really about him and other COLAGE.
Look mythiago, this whole constitutional red-herring is your own.
Now the Constitution isn’t merely inferior to the dictionary; it’s a red herring?
Talking in circles may be some kind of verbal masturbation for you, but it’s not making your point.
There is no Platonic Ideal of marriage, unchanged since the dawn of time, with which same-sex marriage will irrevocably tamper.
Hestia,
I thought your comments were fascinating, and apparently I’m not the only one. A friend who has been monitoring this debate found one exchange in particular worth of much more discussion. I believe you would be interested in joining the discussion where you were quoted.
—
Kim,
Either that or maybe there is only so much bigotry he can stomach before he loses his lunch.
I wouldn’t get too worked up about his claims. “Bigotry” appears to just be his word for “insolence” and “contempt”.
Says you
Sure I said it. When evidence points to something, I’ll say it. In this case the wealth of zoological science points to social factors as being influenced heavily by biological instinct, as presented previously.
Again, you seem to be using dismay and contrarianism where a counter-argument is expected.
as I’ve stated before has been a fluid thing
Returning to your ipse dixit? Please note that you were the one who left the discussion about marriage fluidity when you were pressed to show definition changes in marriage that were not the cultural protocols of the sociality of marriage.
Why did you leave the conversation? I don’t know, but I can speculate it has something to do with the same reason I’m so confident you can’t. I’ve been around that block enough to know that the more things change the more they stay the same, and the definition of marriage has been universal throughout historic documentation.
Actually, the passing on learning has been extended family and community
Are you saying that the family does not pass on learning any more?
kind of screws up your whole ‘ma & pa and baby makes three’ world view of what makes children thrive
Apparently you are saying that. Am I saying that the family excludes extra-familial society? I’ll leave that up to the reader to see if they can understand a basic concept that seems so elusive to Kim,
So is it the penis or the gender-role you’re so hung up on?
This is just another of those, “have you stopped beating your wife” style questions, isn’t it…
Look, I’m all for civilized and rational debate. But Kim, I’m just not seeing from you the intellectual honesty required to have such a discussion.
they would tend to show that it’s more an absence of 1 parent, versus an absence of 1 parent of a specific gender.
Actually studies show that the absence of each gender in fostering has a different impact on children. Fathers have a different impact on the IQ of children than mothers do, etc… which indicates that gender has an impact above and beyond numbers. Clicking on the search link above shows a wealth of information on the subject (or you can just google “children need a mother and father research” yourself).
The only thing my husband had to overcome in dealing with his mother being a lesbian was people like you.
Those poor souls who’s parents are addicted to drugs, child molesters, criminals, abusive or neglectful. Think that is a moral equivalence? Fine, what about Gilbert Grape? What about children who’s parents died in the war? What about children who have some medical condition and have to deal with their parents lamenting how much a drain the medical costs are on the family?
I’m personally insulted that with all the problems children face in the world you are so wrapped up in your husband’s “scars” for having a lesbian mother. If you are trying to “guilt” me into taking back what I said about the selfishness of those trying to make marriage an institution of gender segregation, you have barked up the wrong tree. No, not even that, you’ve re-enforced the believe that what you are advocating is selfishness. And no selfishness that deprives a child of a mother or father can or should be sugar coated, and lying to the children is no way to fix the problem.
—
mythiago,
the Constitution isn’t merely inferior to the dictionary
I think it is rather quaint that you continue to posit that the constitution and dictionary are conflicting. You’ve demonstrated no conflict, but you sure keep acting like there is :-D
it’s a red herring
Absolutely right! Is that all you were worried about? You can rest assured that the constitution isn’t a red-herring, it is a legal document. And probably the best document of its kind.
However, pitting the constitution against the dictionary is yet to be determined in its impact to this debate. Especially when “conflate” is not found or defined in the constitution, let alone conflicting with the dictionary.
Yet you have conflicted with the dictionary, haven’t you? Lets look at the statements again…
but it’s not making your point.
You are saying that I haven’t made a point yet?
There is no Platonic Ideal of marriage
Wow, once again you amaze me with your absolutism. Nowhere does this ideal exist?
Actually, where you are getting this “platonic ideal of marriage” from in the first place is not found at this time in your writings.
same-sex marriage will irrevocably tamper
That isn’t a marriage, it is an impersonation of marriage’s attributes. A marriage is a union of two different things, while a same-sex coupling is more like a bundling or clustering.
On Lawn writes, “…the definition of marriage has been universal throughout historic documentation.”
This claim right here pretty much disqualifies all that you have to say on the matter. It seems that you are either horrifyingly ignorant of the facts or grossly dishonest.
The definition of marriage isn’t even been universal today. Please note that there are countries where polygamous marriage exists, that there are countries where same sex marriage exists, countries where the wife is owned by the husband. Less than 200 years ago the wife was the property of the husband in the USA. Less than 50 years ago miscegenation was illegal in much of the USA.
Simply put, there is no universal definition of marriage now and there has never at any time (never mind in historical documentation) been a universal definition of marriage.
On Lawn: gender segregation is what we live under as women. It has nothing to do with homosexuality.
In fact, the nuclear family **is** one of the primary check points/gates of gender segregation. Especially when you add in the historical forced childbearing that the nuclear family has created for most women.
Please address this before you go on with you cock-i-many horse shit about gay men and lesbians.
So far the only convincing argument that On Lawn has made is that he would greatly benefit from being whacked up the side of the head with a copy of “Elements of Style” (softcover version, I’m not cruel).
<slight thread drift>For one subculture’s very different concept of marriage and family, read the book, “Leaving Mother Lake : a girlhood at the edge of the world” by Yang Erche Namu and Christine Mathieu.</slight thread drift>
Jake,
This claim right here pretty much disqualifies all that you have to say on the matter.
Sure, posture your post however you would like. Just make sure you support your accusations.
I’m sure people are looking for any excuse to dismiss just about anything I’ve said. You do yourself and others a disservice when that dismissal is based on its dissagreement more than its validity.
Please note that there are countries where polygamous marriage exists
Noted. In fact in the world (at least historically) there are women with more than one husband also.
that there are countries where same sex marriage exists
Alright, you have me there. It was universally constant until (relatively speaking historically) a few milliseconds ago.
countries where the wife is owned by the husband.
And countries (at least historically) where the husband was owned by the wife. We have matriarchal and patriarchal families in history.
Now having said that, only one of those conditions was a change in the definition of marriage. It is like the old Sesame Street game, “one of these is not like the others”.
But Jake, i recognize that you have run into the territory Kim was fearful to tread. I appreciate that.
—
Q,
gender segregation is what we live under as women
And men too. Men and women have seperate bathrooms that are not equal.
Especially when you add in the historical forced childbearing that the nuclear family has created for most women.
As in the men don’t share in childbearing? I would venture that is an imposition made not by human hands.
Please address this before you go on
I’m always happy to address points that need further clarification, and I hope I have done so here. To surrender what I talk about when someone else feels something else should be more important is folly.
Andif,
So far the only convincing argument that On Lawn has made is
I won’t commentate on my own arguments. People are free to be convinced on their own. Convincing is a function of what people value, and to watch so many people here trash concepts in order to preserve their sense of identity has been like watching a bull in a china closet.
But I will tell you what is an unconvincing argument, one that assumes I haven’t read or known something you do know. Especially when it is presented through the most impenetrably vague hand waving, and threat of violence.
Relevant to Jake Squid’s post: a good book on the history of Western marriage is “The Knight, the Lady, and the Priest,” by Georges Duby. It shows the evolution of marriage over hundreds of years and discusses the reasons for the changes.
Isn’t a lot of the acrimony over SSM over the loaded word “marriage”? I know this was brought up earlier, but I think we need a etymological separation of church and state on this. Maybe we should just make up a whole new word for the legal arrangement between two members of the species Homo sapiens as currently understood by the word “marriage”, and that word would be globally substituted for “marriage” in all the statutes and regulations across the board – federal, state, local, what have you. Then all of the teeming hordes whose idea of marriage is based on their religion could keep that word for their religious commitment to their life partner, and everybody could go off and live their lives.
In Italy (I think), couples get married at City Hall for government recognition of their union and then again wherever they worship so the union is recognized by their religious leadership. We in the US have mixed the two by letting clergy serve a double role. That’s a huge part of the problem, but it’s fixable with a lot of work. And if you want to have a religious ceremony to celebrate your commitment to a cultural institution :), you can have it – but you also have to go through the government loop to get the tax deductions and so on.
I realize I’m discriminating against polygamists and that segment of the population who really love their pets, but I decided that’s where I wanted to draw the line. C’mon, let’s hear it for “mergerage”!
“And men too. Men and women have seperate bathrooms that are not equal.”
This if fucking rich. Both men and women have access to public restrooms that afford both sex the ability to urinate and deficate in public if necessary. How is this not equal?
… and surely you don’t think that men are getting the same short end of the social stick that women are? If so, then bugger off.
OnLawn: “Now having said that, only one of those conditions was a change in the definition of marriage.”
Perhaps you can grace us with the definition of marriage?
I like the way that you skip around the fact that there is not now, nor has there ever been, a “universal definition” of marriage. You admit that all of these different forms of marriage exist, both now and in the past, and then try to wiggle out of it by saying the bit that I quoted.
To claim that the change from wife as property to wife as equal is not a change in the definition of marriage is a classic one for anti-marriage equality people. It seems that the anti-marriage equality people’s definition of marriage is “One man & one woman, except when there is one man and many women, formally announcing their marriage. There is nothing else that defines marriage.” To this, you have added, “except for when there is one woman and many men.” And we all, even you, know that that is just not true.
So let’s have it. Tell us, oh wise one, what is the definition of marriage?
QGrrl, we have equal access to the facilities (now – ask Barbara Mikulski sometime about the Senate restrooms), but the facilities themselves are usually not equal. On Lawn’s use of it in the context of the discussion on this thread was totally irrelevant, but I have to admit that I am frequently frustrated by the whole women-have-two-stalls-but-guys-have-two-stalls-and-5-urinals thing in public areas.
Lee,
I think we need a etymological separation of church and state on this.
I don’t find the definition of marriage to be the intellectual property of religions to define or re-define. As Op-Ed mentioned in his essay, The 800lb Gorilla the whole religion thing is irrelevant.
In fact when you think of it there is no one religion that we draw our definition of marriage from. Likewise there is no one culture we derive our definition of marriage from. Every atheist state no matter how severe their enforced atheism performed and recognized marriage.
C’mon, let’s hear it for “mergerage”?!
I have to say, you do have style :)
How is this not equal?
In that way it is equal, and I’m glad you put it that way. It was the discussion I was hoping to develop. Are bathrooms segregated? Sure. Do women’s bathrooms cost more to make and take up more space? Sure. But the equality is measured accurately when measured by purpose.
So it is with marriage vs. same-sex couplings.
Perhaps you can grace us with the definition of marriage?
Actually, that is easier than you might think. I’ll just choose m-w.com again…
Note: they have a separate usage for so-called ‘same sex marriage’.
I like the way that you skip around the fact
I wouldn’t call it skipping. Now, skipping around dodging the need to substantiate your “fact” is what I’ve been seeing from the beginning here.
You were the first to try to lay down actual changes. Unfortunately only one was a change in definition. Thats not my fault, I just pointed it out.
To claim that the change from wife as property to wife as equal is not a change in the definition of marriage is a classic one for anti-marriage equality people.
Thank you, it is a very good argument indeed!
It seems that the anti-marriage equality people’s definition of marriage is “One man & one woman, except when there is one man and many women, formally announcing their marriage.
Even this sarcastic definition doesn’t address “who is property to whom” as a definition, does it. To date I’ve not seen a definition that required one person to be the property of another.
Polygamy is not a change in the definition of marriage, however. Polygamy means literally “many marriages”. The existence of many wives is a result of there being more than one marriage.
I’m not aware of a case in history where one man and two women (for example) were all married to each other. Perhaps you can provide one. Certainly if it happened it was short-lasted, denoting yet again that re-defining marriage doesn’t work.
I predicted that no change in the definition of marriage would be found, just alterations in the protocols and sociality of marriage. Each marriage may have had a different contract, a different devision of labor, but what a marriage is has not changed. Just like what a franchise is hasn’t changed even though everything from movie-sequels to McDonalds (and more) are called franchises.
So, Jake (and anyone else out there who would care to try), if you have real differences in the definition of marriage then by all means present it. But don’t expect me to fall for your inability to know the difference between protocol and definition.
Oh, one more note.
Marriage is equal and I am a marriage equalist. I am also for marriage remaining an institution of gender integration. I find the idea that marriage is better off adopting gender segretation is contradictory to the equity that marriage is.
Do you think marriage is discriminatory in its requirement for equal gender representation? I’d like to hear about it after you read the article addressing that subject…
Is Marriage Discriminatory?
But I will tell you what is an unconvincing argument, one that assumes I haven’t read or known something you do know. Especially when it is presented through the most impenetrably vague hand waving, and threat of violence.
Thanks for the laugh.
Thanks for the laugh.
No, thank you. I can’t take credit for that one :)
Well, On Lawn, I am thankful that your definition of marriage is not, by any means, universal. But I can see how your various arguments are convincing to one who holds your extremely limited view of a marriage is.
Thanks for giving your definition, though. It matches exactly my “sarcastic” explanation of the anti-marriage equality definition of marriage (as you so clearly spell out in your definition of polygamous). Given that our definitions of marriage are so different, there is no common ground for debate between us. I believe that your definition is wrong and you believe that my definition is wrong. Thankfully, changes to marriage continue to move in the right direction despite people like you.
Whoops.
“…of what a marriage is.”
Thanks for giving your definition, though. It matches exactly my “sarcastic”? explanation of the anti-marriage equality definition of marriage
Heh, I was about to suggest that similarity meant Merriam and Webster were “anti-marriage equilists”. But it was the difference that counted, so that is what I addressed.
Thankfully, changes to marriage continue to move in the right direction despite people like you.
I am thankful for that every day as I see marriage amendments passing, and judges upholding marriage definitions. I hope I am not hindering that progress. I appreciate you looking into a different point of view.
Perhaps progress has been made in understanding. Or perhaps all I’ve done is set someone else on the aloof plane of ridicule, no longer willing to let what they believe to be fact to be scrutinized by others. I hope it is the former.
To the tune of “One Last Kiss” from Bye-Bye Birdie
Oh, one last snark
Just give me one last snark
I need to feel so smart
Oh, oh, oh, oh
Just give me one last snark
On Lawn, you clearly are ignoring the fact that our modern legal definition of marriage (one man, one woman) is based at least in part on ancient Roman law, reinforced by Christian religious leaders back when the church had a great deal of power and influence on the state. The Romans recognized homosexual relationships but didn’t grant them automatic inheritance rights because their whole orientation for property rights was towards the family, the continuance of family lines that (in the case of the aristocracy, anyway) descended from the gods (see, religion again).
Therefore, if we separate the religious aspect of marriage from the legal aspect of marriage, which can be done the most simply linguistically, there is no logical reason why SSM would not be allowed the same property rights and personal rights as ISM.
On Lawn, you clearly are ignoring the fact
Whoa there. Lets not be hasty.
I get this kind of accusation a lot, and here’s the typical reason why. Someone believes a fact (lets call it fact “A”) and then concludes that statement “C” is also a fact. When I don’t share that conclusion, usually because of points B, D, and E, they accuse me of ignoring fact “A”.
our modern legal definition of marriage (one man, one woman) is based at least in part on ancient Roman law
Thats a tough call. The definition of marriage dates back far before the Romans. The Romans based much of their religion on the Greeks. In an interview with NPR, Daniel Mendelsohn who is a lecturer on the classics at Princeton University discussed Greco-Roman marital relations and same-sex couplings…
Which mirrors pretty closely what you said, only it points to secular (for the time) reasoning and points to it existing before any catholic influence.
What this really shows is that even extremely homosexual societies recognized marriage. Even societies where homosexuality was endorsed by the major religions of the day. If I were to conclude anything, it would be that the notion that marriage needs to be a referendum on homosexuality is bunk.
But the Greeks probably got their notions of religion (etc…) from the Phoenicians who used to have groves of orgy between any sexuality. Priests and Priestesses were essentially religious prostitution. But thats about as far as I can go back personally, yet the Shibaku stone (the oldest known written record that I am aware of) describes a marriage between one man and one woman. This shows that Egypt somehow paralleled the definition of marriage as the Phoenicians. Similarly civilizations far to the east (even Jakarta which practiced lesbianism as a religious rite) and west (as in Native Americans) practiced marriage.
I believe you realize this when you qualified your remark with “our modern legal definition of marriage (one man, one woman) is based at least in part“. But all that was mentioned previously.
if we separate the religious aspect of marriage from the legal aspect of marriage
This was dealt with previously also. Kim had pointed out:
To which I remarked:
Later I specified the fallacy:
If I were to name the fallacy it would be “guilt by association“.
You’ll note that in my framing of the culture war present, that it makes no appeal to religion whatsoever:
And so finally, with all that I’ve pointed out and seen you can understand that I come to this conclusion not by excluding points but by taking them in with a much broader view than the greco-roman influence on western society (even though such a narrow view still doesn’t support the “guilt by association” castigation that makes the re-definition of marriage so popular):
There are many, many concepts that we accept secularly that have a religions base. Probably no more important ideal has influenced the peculiarness of our society more than the truism that comes from the Declaration of Independence:
Onlawn, you really do like to pontificate and make noises around the idea that you think are wonderfully clever. However, in your attempt yet again to pretend as if you debunked my argument, you selected one portion of it, failing to address the fact that religion was not the basis, but part of the larger idea of marriage being ultimately fluid in nature. The implication was that I accused you of having only religious motivations, when believe me fella, I think your issues go far deeper than that.
Beyond that, nearly every society, dating all the way back to the code of hammurabi (approx 1780’s BCE) have marriage laws. Possibly even, earlier societies, but the CoH is a definitive piece of evidence. You’ve asked me again and again to get into this whole conversation (clearly you’re of the mind that you’ve got some wonderful historical perspective on marriages that justifies lack of progress and discrimination in modern society), and yet it still seems like a wild tail chase for you to have yet another opportunity to spout ideas that are in no way fluid, but instead this whole system of discrimination that you’ve created this vast argument of justifications that only works in the minds of bigots and homphobes. Am I calling you out? You betcha, I think you’re an ass, a bigot, a liar and a danger to social progress attempting to masquerade as an academic. You also seem like a bit of a one-trick pony when it comes to issues, and have created as I said a rather well scripted, yet still complete bullshit rationale for your bigotry.
And finally – while you’d like to think that I’m pulling my own thoughts on children of gays straight from one source (my husband), I did happen to mention COLAGE, which you had zero inkling about. This went on to show me how incredibly uneducated you are on the subject outside of your own justifications. COLAGE is an acronym of Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere and is a nationwide organization created for and by children of lesbians and gays everywhere, with the goal of spreading the truth about their own lives and upbringings. My husband is a member of COLAGE.
Like Josh, I’ll go ahead and bow out of this debate at this point, since really all I want to do at this point is slip further into a complete lack of civility and that doesn’t do anyone any good.
but part of the larger idea of marriage being ultimately fluid in nature.
Back to your ipse dixit. I was impressed that Jake tried to substantiate that comment where you have not. I note that you still have not, and seem to blame me for your inabilities once again. Jake at least acknowledged it was “consistent” among a few side-ways jabs of his own.
The implication was that I accused you of having only religious motivations
How can I have “only” religious motivations when the vast majority of reasoning I present here and elsewhere is secular? Is this secular reasoning just a ruse? Is that what you are accusing me through implication? I thought I detected intellectual dishonesty, and you seem to have cooperated it.
clearly you’re of the mind that you’ve got some wonderful historical perspective on marriages that justifies lack of progress and discrimination in modern society
I’ll leave it up to others to describe my historical perspective as wonderful :)
However, as pointed out there is nothing progressive about including gender segregationist. You think that is progress? I’ll leave it up to the reader to determine your real motivations behind adopting gender segregation.
Beyond that, nearly every society, dating all the way back to the code of hammurabi (approx 1780’s BCE) have marriage laws.
Exactly my point. And that law centered around the same definition I posted from our contemporary dictionary.
but instead this whole system of discrimination that you’ve created
No, the discrimination is not created by myself, again you mis-attribute. I’m not even endorsing gender discrimination. As pointed out previously marriage in its requirement for equal gender participation discriminates equally against no gender whatsoever. I’ve not seen you answer the points in that article, not here nor there. Instead I am subjected to all sorts of invective and slander:
I think you’re an ass, a bigot, a liar and a danger to social progress attempting to masquerade as an academic. You also seem like a bit of a one-trick pony when it comes to issues, and have created as I said a rather well scripted, yet still complete bullshit rationale for your bigotry.
So your inability to prevail is just due to “scripting”. Your ideas are left unsubstantiated, your arguments abandoned long ago, only invective and ridicule remain. Reading your tirade I continue to see attempts to condemn me for insubordinance to your personal views of “progress”. Well, someone has to stand up to that, might as well be me.
Another person pointed out what appears to be your script a few years back. I have it posted on this article.
you’d like to think that I’m pulling my own thoughts on children of gays straight from one source (my husband)
I never said anything of the kind. But as you’ve drug your husband in on particular matters, I’ve addressed the insensitivity and selfishness of his comments, as well as their inaccuracy.
And for you and Josh, incivility is your last resort then you are better off refraining.
However, as pointed out there is nothing progressive about including gender segregationist.
It’s dishonest (and that is charitable) to make the wild claim that SSM is in any way “gender segregationist.” That doesn’t even make sense.
And that law centered around the same definition I posted from our contemporary dictionary.
It is both convenient for you and dishonest of you to cherry pick one part of the definition of marriage as being the only definition of marriage and to exclude all other parts of the definition as being meaningless or unimportant.
The nature of marriage and its structure is not an ahistorical universal constant. Take a look at this Wikipedia article on Family, particularly the section on Kinship Terminology. My understanding is that Louis Henry Morgan’s work found that not only did different cultures have different kinship structures in the present, but that the language used to describe kinship didn’t quite match the real kinship structures — and on further research, this was evidence of those structures evolving over time.
The notions of “family” and “marriage” in current usage no longer fit the actual families and adult relations that we actually have. This calls for changes in law (and language) to better fit our lived reality. Reactionaries oppose this, and cling to ahistorical fantasies about unchanging family structures that never actually existed in their imaginary ideal form, and weren’t even the ideal form a few centuries ago.
Jake, glad to see you back.
It’s dishonest (and that is charitable) to make the wild claim that SSM is in any way “gender segregationist.”? That doesn’t even make sense.
Are pulling a “mythiago” on me here and ambivolently stating a word is not what it is defined as? You have either man-man or woman-woman as possible same-sex couplings, which to me is a segregation of gender. Hence the notion is gender segregationist.
Other than it not making sense to you, do you have a specific reason that it isn’t segregationist?
It is both convenient for you and dishonest of you to cherry pick one part of the definition of marriage
What part of the definition did I miss?
…do you have a specific reason that it isn’t segregationist?
Ummmm, because marrying somebody of the same gender is not a requirement. Allowing SSM means that a person can marry someone of either gender. To be gender segragation, you would need to prohibit OSM. That would keep men and women a lot more segregated than they are now. I’m pretty sure that you’re not a moron, so you’re probably being dishonest when you make this claim.
What part of the definition did I miss?
The parts that determine how many women a man may marry, whether the wife and her property becomes the property of the husband or not, whether consummation is required or not, whether children are required or not, just to name a few.
Take a look at this Wikipedia article
Yeah, I keep up on the Wikipedia pretty closely. I’ve even edited a few pages myself. Its not a perfect system, but its pretty good.
this was evidence of those structures evolving over time
Not a point of argument from me. Some cultures have the first son as the only one that gets inheritance, this idea was continued on in the feudal system as the crown always went to the eldest. These days inheritance gives more deference to the property owner as our culture values property ownership as a basic human right.
Terminologies change often to fit cultural distinctions in protocol like the above example of inheritance. In marriage there were historically “concubines” and “wives”. Wives handmaids were considered property to gain children with. But thats where it is important to make a distinction between a definition and the culture/protocol’s developed to integrate with that tradition. We treat deer and trees differently than many cultures. Some cultures even worship cows. But that doesn’t change the defninition.
The fact that the definition of marriage as a man-woman institution, describing the culmination of inter-gender capacity and relations (as far as that culture believed) is uniform. That is historic, not ahistoric.
The notions of “family”? and “marriage”? in current usage no longer fit the actual families and adult relations that we actually have.
Howso?
because marrying somebody of the same gender is not a requirement
You said, “It’s dishonest (and that is charitable) to make the wild claim that SSM is in any way ‘gender segregationist.'” Had you said “marriage” is not gender segregationist you would be correct and had no argument from me. But you didn’t, you said “SSM” is not segregationist and have tried to change the tables on me mistream. That would be tantamount to a shell game and I don’t appreciate it.
To be gender segregation, you would need to prohibit OSM.
For marriage in general that may be true. However I wasn’t the one to replace the shell of “SSM” and marriage in that conversation, you did.
Here’s how I put it:
Are you really arguing that conflating same-sex co-habitation with marriage doesn’t include gender segregationist in an institution that historically is exclusively gender integrationist? Because that is the logically contrary opinion to what I said.
As you are probably not a moron, I can only conclude that this shell game of “SSM” and marriage in trying to dispute that comment is your own dishonesty.
I also put it this way in comment #155:
To date I haven’t seen you address the points in that article either, not here nor there.
The parts that determine how many women a man may marry
This wasn’t missed at all. I addressed it in #148 and again in Comment #154 where I wrote:
That is clearly a protocol of how many marriages someone is allowed, not a change in definition.
whether the wife and her property becomes the property of the husband or not
That was also addressed in comment #148, and again in #154 where I said:
Ahhh, as relevant now as ever. Which probably indicates you are repeating yourself and ignoring what I’m saying rather than the opposite as you conjecture.
And so you repeat that the only important aspect of the definition of marriage is “1man1woman.” Everything else is just a “protocol” surrounding marriage. But you couch it in such eloquent pseudo-academic terms you hope it will be missed. Nice try. So, a marriage in which the wife is purchased and becomes property of the husband is not substantially different than the accepted form of marriage in the US today? They are both very much the same, and SSM is very much different? That speaks volumes.
Shell game, indeed. SSM falls under the umbrella of marriage, just as OSM does. Shift, shift, shift the conversation away from your wild claims. You excel at that. What you don’t appreciate is that, for most people, 1man1woman does not define or make a marriage. At best, it can be claimed that is a large part of what a marriage is (and the success of that claim depends entirely on one’s beliefs, not on objective reality).
You can blindly claim that the only definition of marriage is 1man1woman because mirriam-webster says so until the cows come home. The fact is that there are dictionaries that acknowledge that marriage can be other than 1man1woman. The fact is that marriage is not defined by any given dictionary, but by the law. Marriage is a legal term. Get it? Marriage is a legal term & laws change.
But go ahead, obfuscate on. Try to switch the focus of the debate.
No matter what your definition of marriage is, it isn’t universal. Constitutionally speaking, I don’t believe you have a leg to stand on – unless you get an ammendment through.
The fact that the definition of marriage as a man-woman institution, describing the culmination of inter-gender capacity and relations (as far as that culture believed) is uniform. That is historic, not ahistoric.
The point is, marriages have not always been between one man and one woman. Marriage has taken other forms.
The notions of “family”? and “marriage”? in current usage no longer fit the actual families and adult relations that we actually have.
Howso?
If you look at the actual domestic arrangements people have, you’ll find same sex couples in committed, permanent relationships, raising children together. You’ll also find a lot of other family structures. But the only legal form of marriage in most of the US is between one woman and one man — and that makes for enormous practical difficulties for people in families with different structures.
Out of curiosity, On Lawn, what is your position on an institution (let’s call it “civil union”) that confers all the rights and privileges of marriage on same-sex couples?
Jake,
And so you repeat that the only important aspect of the definition of marriage is “1man1woman.”?
Hmm, why is it the “only importanta aspect”? Its by far the most important, but I don’t see where from my writings you think it being described as the “only” important aspect. Me thinks you are moving into the straw with this one.
Nice try.
I don’t think you have much standing to compliment me until you are a little more honest about this discussion.
a marriage in which the wife is purchased and becomes property of the husband is not substantially different
Hmm, husband and wife. Check. Come on Jake, just how blind can you be? You are substantiating the very thing you are arguing against.
I can’t make your arguments for you Jake. And I am not going to pretend you have one until you do. You are going to have to come up with something that is a definition change sooner or later. Not a protocol change, not a change in the contract, a real bonafide historic change in definition.
Shell game, indeed. SSM falls under the umbrella of marriage
Lets look at the replay:
Yep, a shell game. Need the replay again?
Shift, shift, shift the conversation away from your wild claims.
Actually it was you who claimed that same-sex marriage was not in any way gender segregationist. No amounting of shifting will reconsile that direct contradiction. Nor *sigh* have you addressed the points on that article yet. Am I really supposed to take such blustering and spurious accusation as credible argument?
Apparently so. But as I said, I cannot.
You can blindly claim that the only definition of marriage is 1man1woman because mirriam-webster says so until the cows come home.
Apparently I can, because you have not found a definition of marriage that says otherwise. Perhaps it is time for you to realise that “blindness” is not what I’m suffering from, and perhaps the problem lies with yourself. Kim suggested I’m just too good at scripting, thats why she was having problems.
But don’t think its lost on me that you are so aggrivated at what the dictionary says, though you tried to pawn it off as a myth.
The fact is that marriage is not defined by any given dictionary
Wait, you just said I quoted the definition given by a dictionary. Now you say that marriage is not defined by any dictionary?
Why looking at your argument you even said mariage was defined in many dictionaries.
Jake, take a long breath. Relax. Try flying a kite or something. You are conflicting yourself far to much to take seriously. That you springboard from these fatuous claims to make asenin acusations about myself is laughable.
Marriage is a legal term.
Alright, you are pulling a “mythiago”. When he tried to say that a bringing down of walls and putting things under the same term wasn’t a conflation, he flew off the handle about the constitution over-riding the dictionary. Never did he show where the constitution defined “conflation” let alone conflicted.
And now you are doing the same thing. You are trying to say that the law and dictionary conflict. Fine, just show us how.
I’m finding that without any evidence to support your claim you are getting wackier than ever.
—
Brian,
The point is, marriages have not always been between one man and one woman. Marriage has taken other forms.
Such as?
If you look at the actual domestic arrangements people have, you’ll find same sex couples in committed, permanent relationships, raising children together.
The Roush argument. You seem like a sharp fellow, you would perhaps enjoy my commentary on that here. I’d appreciate your comments.
Jake back to you,
what is your position on an institution (let’s call it “civil union”?) that confers all the rights and privileges of marriage on same-sex couples?
Two things actually. I used to be all for them until I read this and this.
Now I believe that it has two problems to overcome
1) Romance is not something the state should regulate or even acknowledge.
2) It needs to independantly reference that reason (i.e. not be a verbal end-around of the DOMA legislation).
Reciprocal Beneficiaries seems to address both. I could go for that.
BTW, much better tone on the second post. Much appreciated. You’ll find that questions will give you better understanding (and expose flaws in my argument) than trying to re-shape what I already said to suit your purposes.
Err, are you familiar with the differences between an thing and a concept? Yeah….
As for my having ‘problems’, not so much. People have obliged your desire for more banter with regards to how marriage is fluid, but regardless of that you remain unconvinced – I think it’s pretty obvious you’re not here to do anything other than attempt to refine your script. Why should I, one who obviously dislikes what I know of you, and abhors your policies help you do that? It doesn’t matter who takes up the torch in debating with you, you’ll wiggle around any genuine acknowledgement of points that have destroyed your propoganda and damn near fall over yourself as you attempt to pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
Debate with me over semantics you implore, debate with me over the historical definition of marriage and let me define what is protocol and fluid, and what is constant within the contract. As Jake stated though, it all comes down to opinions, and you’re pretty sure that you and merriam webster have it all shored up, so refuse to acknowledge the truth to the fact that marriage is a term that defines a union, and the individual culture/society is what defines the nature of the union.
When one hears the term ‘a marriage of ideas’, must there be a female idea and a male idea? Noooooo, the gist of the message is that it is a union. Interesting that to you man and woman, as you put it, is the most important part of marriage. Not respect, not love…just an inny and an outty.
Ahh, also, you again attempted to play it like I’m accusing you of religious arguments alone, when I haven’t once simplified it down to religion. It’s just your tendency to cherry pick sentences a part to get into a semantic nitty gritty argument, because clearly logic and general correctness is not going to win it for you.
And finally, you ignored COLAGE again, and focused on my mentionining my husband, who is the son of a lesbian married to another lesbian residing in MA, subsequently part of COLAGE. I know you’d like to pretend that all the children are messed up and screwed for life, but the fact is, you aren’t even aware of their freaking organizations, let alone how they are doing as the offspring of gay parents. Your voice of concern is so fraudulent it’s laughable.
So yes, do go ahead and pull up studies on Denmark, single parenting and how kids need gender roles, and go right ahead with your ignoring any realities.
Okay, simple. Go back to Louis Henry Morgan, and the “Hawaiian” kinship structure — in which all children of a given generation were regarded as the children of all the parents of the previous generation. No nuclear families. Not 1man1woman.
I don’t see why it should matter how a child was conceived, or whether the adults that care for a child were its biological parents. And families don’t always involve children, as has been pointed out dozens of times in this thread already.
JakeSquid: You can blindly claim that the only definition of marriage is 1man1woman because mirriam-webster says so until the cows come home.
Any dictionary edited after 2000, if it is honest and non-political, must include a definition of marriage that does not tie it down to “one man, one woman”. No lexicographer worthy of the name would refuse to include a valid definition of a word simply because some religionists object to the fact of it.
On Lawn, work on the coherency. You stated that marriage is man/woman because the dictionary says so, and then posted a definition that says nothing of the sort.
As Jesurgislac correctly points out, dictionaries are not proscriptive. Since some countries and at least one U.S. state permit same-sex marriage, a dictionary definiton that ‘marriage is one man and woman woman’, full stop, would be factually incorrect.
You are trying to say that the law and dictionary conflict. Fine, just show us how.
“Us”? Is this like the royal We?
Please explain how the dictionary ‘conflicts.’ Then if you really need Equal Protection 101, I can give you the legal argument. I’m sure it won’t convince you, but who knows, somebody else in the home audience might find it informative.
Kim –
Your finding of bigotry and homophobia behind every opposition to same-sex marriage is easily debunked by pointing to any of the vast number of homosexual commentators who oppose same-sex marriage. As far as deflecting the value of responsible procreation by pointing to your husband, that cuts both ways. What improvement would you hope to find in him had his mother same-sex married?
Brian –
I suppose OnLawn should have asked you to point to a real kinship model, not a discredited 19th century interpretation of one. Hawaiian kinship was based on the extended family, and marriage was indeed practiced. While Hawaiians used the same word for father and uncle, for example, they did not treat them both the same. Morgan’s and your error does demonstrate the confusion caused by using the same word to describe two different types of relationships, however.
Jesurgislac –
Any dictionary edited after 2000…
Merely supports the notion that same-sex marriage is both a recent phenomenon and a redefinition of the term marriage, which is On Lawn’s point.
mythago –
You stated that marriage is man/woman because the dictionary says so…
That is not what On Lawn said and you either know that and are being dishonest, or you simply don’t have the reasoning capacity to be in this debate. In response to the illogic that because some treatments of marriage have changed that there is nothing constant about marriage, On Lawn pointed to a dictionary definition that has remained constant. Saying marriage itself can be destroyed and replaced with something else simply because some treatment of it has changed is like saying you can be shot and replaced in your everyday life simply because you have changed underwear.
“Us”?? Is this like the royal We?
“Us” would refer to anyone in the readership of this thread since so far, nobody, including yourself, has risen to the challenge of showing how the law and the dictionary conflict.
Then if you really need Equal Protection 101, I can give you the legal argument.
Feel free to make your case, but the “Equal Protection” claim is easily debunked by looking at the situation in Oregon where SSM advocates are fighting viciously to exclude the vast majority of same-sex households raising children from their version of same-sex marriage.
op-ed: Merely supports the notion that same-sex marriage is both a recent phenomenon and a redefinition of the term marriage, which is On Lawn’s point.
No. On Lawn called upon the dictionary to support their claim, and even insisted that they would “defer to the dictionary”. Which means that On Lawn must accept that marriage, as a word, includes same-sex marriage – that’s what the dictionary says.
Now, On Lawn can, if they like, retract that comment and declare that they will not defer to the dictionary. But so long as On Lawn is deferring to the dictionary for the definition of marriage, they have to accept that marriage can and does include same-sex and well as mixed-sex couples.
Kim,
People have obliged your desire for more banter with regards to how marriage is fluid
Hmm, perhaps that is your problem. I asked for examples where marriage definition changed so that you could adequately support your claim that marriage definition is fluid.
You seem to think that meant “banter” as if there is no reality just talk. Indeed that is the perspective one must come from to justify your views on this matter.
In fact, you tried to bow-out previously. Supposedly that was because you were so emotionally invested in the topic you couldn’t stand watching it get pummeled as the feminist and gender segregationist non-sense that it is. You tried to cajole me to thinking another way, and continue to. But you offer no evidence, no reality, and no sense of reason behind your position.
In short, you find reality to be in contempt of your high and mighty prejudice.
You probably put it best:
As Jake stated though, it all comes down to opinions
And you consider your opinion to be of more importance than what people have constantly over history identified as reality. Its selfishness, and you can no more persuade me with selfishness as you could demand everyone recognize you as the center of the universe.
What a selfish feminist you have turned out to be (though I’m being redundant when I say that).
According to you I am only getting more powerful as you argue with me (mwhahahaha!), and my thoughts are poison! Whatever kind of Hannibal Lecter type personality hiding under your bed keeps you awake at night, it seems you’ve decided to paint me as that monster.
Sorry, its probably a deep seeded psychological issue that I shouldn’t make light of, yet I find it quite funny to hear you villanize me that way.
—
Jesurgislac,
Any dictionary edited after 2000, if it is honest and non-political, must include a definition of marriage that does not tie it down to “one man, one woman”?.
This was already addressed where I first pointed out the definition. The M-W dictionary referenced does indeed carry a usage for same-sex marriage, as a marriage between people of the same sex. Some dictionaries will even qualify it as a colloquialism. But no dictionary that I’m aware of and no lexographer worth his salt will try say a marriage is just a relationship between two people. The “man-woman” definition is specifically there because is a unique usage for a unique institution.
Besides, someone pointed out cleverly that what same-sex couples are doing we would better call it “mergerage”, and they don’t see marriage as any different. Well, as the polls close we see that the general experience of the populace finds otherwise. It isn’t mergerage that I support, its marriage. (see: If You Really Knew What Marriage Was (part 2): What is Marriage More?)
—
mythiago,
dictionaries are not proscriptive.
That dictionaries describe words and their common usages, and will adapt to language does not give you the license to directly conflict with the dictionary (as you did over the word “conflate”). Perhaps you were being proscriptive when you suggested that conflate really means its opposite?
Don’t feel so bad, you are in good company here on Alas. An echo-chamber of ignorance I’ve not seen its equal. Not even LGF or Kos can lay claim to such flagrant abuse of language as here.
For not only did you directly contradict standard usage of a word, but so did Jake when he suggested that SSM was not segregationist.
Y’all have been rolling in mud so much here that you simply make mud the standard.
You can keep trying to deflect with as many accusations as you wish. But I can’t say it will help your position any.
—
Brian,
I apologize for saving you for last. The accusatorial “banter” I have to wade through on this site for good discussion like yours is what makes it worth it.
I talked to my Hawaiian friends about your comment.
First, the wikipedia is resplendent with examples of pseudo-intellect passed off as credible with cool NPOV reciting. For instance they still have Saints Serge and Baccius up as an example of same-sex marriage because Boswell said they are. Only its always been known that their ceremony wasn’t a marriage at all, it was a sort of blood-brother ceremony called the Adelphopoiesis.
This appears to be such an example. They both said (as one put more succinctly) you knew who your parents were. The concept that was probably being described was the more common tribal concept of “elders”.
A more direct commentary on Morgan can be found here.
I have yet to see an argument that is not based in one of those things. The use of ‘for the children’ is a red herring. Marriage in the case of the US is a legalized union that does not require children. In the attempt to tangent marriage into more than what it is, SSM opponents are being extremely dishonest about the debate in its entirity.
I understand you want to seem like your views are purely academic, not based in any less noble intentions, but I’m sorry, you and your fellow bloggers on the Opine Editorials have yet to show this, and in fact leave blatant evidence to the contrary throughout your editorials. I can imagine being pointed out as a bigot (moreso than a homophobe) causes you pain and anger, but I have no solution to offer you other than to leave the bigotry behind. Your (or On Lawns in this case) hurt feelings don’t make this quacker any less of a duck.
As for what would have helped my husband as an adolescent, I’d have to say pretty firmly less bigotry. He suffered bigotry in Oklahoma because he grew up Jewish, and afterwards when his mother and father divorced and mother moved to MA for college, he dealt with people calling him a ‘fag’ and picking on him because his mother was a lesbian. My husband definitely feels also that his homelife due to having a single parent household would have been less stressful for his mom, him and his brother had her now wife come along earlier and become a part of their life at that point.
Yes folks, the Basement Variety(tm) school of debate.
1) Generally acknowledge the opposing argument. Don’t get into specifics, be as vague as possible, as this gives you room for the following steps.
2) Accuse*.
3) Accuse*.
4) Accuse*.
_______________
* The more incindiary the accusations the better, but once again try not to specifically address with points such as evidence or logic as they can be easily debunked.
Look, On Lawn, you’ve got google too. You know exactly what I’m saying and your attempt to drag the conversation into a semantic argument about the different marital structures throughout history and spanning different cultures is nothing more than an attempt to railroad the conversation to some destination that is irrelevant to the SSM debate.
I’ve taken the time to educate myself on these different historical perspectives and cultural shifts, and I expect you have done the same, so what you’re really doing is more of an attempt to bully the argument. I refuse to play that game, and accept that this will mean you tantruming and stomping your foot that I don’t get it and must be ignorant. Whatever.
As for what I’ve tried to do, really I think you’re missing the ball on that one. I’ve just been a voice consistently pointing out your bigotry and dishonest debate tactics. I don’t particularly see any reason to obfuscate the truth behind some faux academics in a structure that you find comfy, and instead prefer to point at the problem when I see it. That problem, OL, is bigots like you.
This is really rich coming from someone who uses Merriam Webster as their definitive historical source. Pfft.
Nice ad hominem with regards to the feminist angle though. Did you chuckle to yourself when you typed that?
According to you I am only getting more powerful as you argue with me (mwhahahaha!), and my thoughts are poison! Whatever kind of Hannibal Lecter type personality hiding under your bed keeps you awake at night, it seems you’ve decided to paint me as that monster.
Sorry, its probably a deep seeded psychological issue that I shouldn’t make light of, yet I find it quite funny to hear you villanize me that way.
Actually I think that most would be getting more ‘powerful’ (in regards to their arguments), but somehow that particular incorporation trick seems to be missing you, which is a humorous blessing through this thread. You’re so invested in your own ideals of discrimination that your script is pretty darn rigid.
Where you took a turn towards being a bogey man and me losing sleep over monsters – well, not sure on that one. Probably just that immense ego of yours yet again misconstruing what is said into what you want said. Either that or you hit your head when patting yourself on the back for last post and are hallucinating things said that weren’t.
On Lawn, no thanks for the misquote. You are deliberately twisting what I said in my first post on this thread.
On Lawn: Besides, someone pointed out cleverly that what same-sex couples are doing we would better call it “mergerage”?, and they don’t see marriage as any different
Lee: Maybe we should just make up a whole new word for the legal arrangement between two members of the species Homo sapiens as currently understood by the word “marriage”?, and that word would be globally substituted for “marriage”? in all the statutes and regulations across the board – federal, state, local, what have you. Then all of the teeming hordes whose idea of marriage is based on their religion could keep that word for their religious commitment to their life partner, and everybody could go off and live their lives.
I was clearly talking about 2 people, irrespective of gender, and you choose to apply it solely to SSM. I was also clearly only talking about the legal definition of marriage, and what marriage is IN LAW, by using a different word in laws and statutes and saving the use of the word marriage solely for the religious context.
Please refrain from using mergerage to refer to SSM only, because that is not what I defined it to be when I made it up.
On Lawn…even insisted that they would “defer to the dictionary”?.
You need to look up the purpose of quotation marks. When you put quotation marks around something you are attributing to someone else, it should actually be something that person said. On-Lawn’s actual quote was “I’ll defer to m-w.com for this one…” and that was in reference to the word “conflate.”
With regard to marriage and dictionaries, On Lawn said:
So you just wasted an entire post refuting a comment that On Lawn never made. Inventing quotes and attributing them to your opposition so you can then attack your own quotes is dishonest, and is properly referred to as a straw-man.
Now, On Lawn can, if they like, retract that comment and declare that they will not defer to the dictionary. But so long as On Lawn is deferring to the dictionary for the definition of marriage…
Since you made the comment, only you can retract it. Rather than a retraction, however, an apology would be more in order.
Kim –
I can imagine being pointed out as a bigot (moreso than a homophobe) causes you pain and anger…
Actually, while that may have been your intention, that is not the end result. All you have demonstrated is that your interest in SSM is more about causing hurt than in dealing rationally with the issue. You are so bent on hurting that you missed the oxy-moron I pointed to in your own stance, calling homosexuals homophobes, or saying they are bigoted against themselves.
As for what would have helped my husband as an adolescent, I’d have to say pretty firmly less bigotry.
It is unfortunate what your husband went through, and I truly wish people weren’t so bent on hurting others. This does not answer the question asked, however:
Lee,
I was clearly talking about 2 people, irrespective of gender, and you choose to apply it solely to SSM.
You chose to incorrectly apply it to marriage where it is an incomplete enumeration of attributes, a counterfeit.
However, as any imitation it shows two things; 1) what you think the real thing is, 2) what you are capable of immitating.
Or if it suits you better, it is the “common denominator” reasoning. The same reasoning used universally to hold back excellence in efforts to homogenize mediocrity.
op-ed: Ah, fair point. If On Lawn is not deferring to the dictionary, but rather picking the definition they want from the dictionary, my second comment was a mistake. It’s a long thread: no need to get aggressive when people get mixed up as to who said what when. I acknowledge the mistake was mine.
On Lawn: You chose to incorrectly apply it to marriage where it is an incomplete enumeration of attributes, a counterfeit.
You choose to incorrectly deny the word to legal marriage, where the definition of legal marriage does not suit you. That is your choice: but a couple who are married in the Netherlands or in Canada or in the State of Massachusetts remain legally married, whether or no you throw around big words like “counterfeit”.
Op-Ed;
Who specifically is SSM hurting and how?
As for the homophobe/homosexual connection, you’re being naive if you are attempting to portray a culture where homosexuals cannot be homophobic. Why do you think ex-gay’s occur? Homosexuals can be some of the most dangerous of the bigots and homophobes. If you need a context, see the editorial by P-A on the Josh, the homosexual young man forced into the Love Incorporated camp, led by an ex-gay militant christian that has proclaimed he’d rather see kids commit suicide than choose the path of homosexuality. While it may seem ironic, it’s certainly not an oxymoron. Discrimination knows no boundries.
That is your choice: but a couple who are married in the Netherlands or in Canada or in the State of Massachusetts remain legally married, whether or no you throw around big words like “counterfeit”?.
Such Dred Scott appologism exposes your interest in the legality.
However, his definition applied to the word “mergerage” which he acknowledged was a better term to use than marriage.
That same-sex impersonation of marriage has caused Mayors to violate the law and constitution, city counsils to meet in secret meetings to subvert the populace and judges to substantiate with kangaroo-courts (also subverting the populace) puts you in ver familiar company. But, in the end does in no wise substantiate a impersonation that grinds the faces of the children and handicapped.
On Lawn, no, I wasn’t incorrectly applying mergerage as a counterfeit for marriage. I was observing that most of the problems in this debate appear to be arising from the application of the religious attributes of marriage to the legal attributes of marriage. If you insist on the LEGAL definition of marriage including the religious attributes of marriage, you just proved my point.
As a religious person of the Calvinist persuasion, I believe that marriage is a sacrament that celebrates the union of a man and a woman. However, that is my religious stance. As I also strongly support the separation of church and state, I believe that the purely secular interests of property rights, support of households, and inheritance should not be based on the religious beliefs of one segment of the population. Logically, then, a purely secular definition of marriage should be called something else. That does not make it counterfeit. Using a different word keeps the government out of my religion, and vice versa.
On Lawn, no, I wasn’t incorrectly applying mergerage as a counterfeit for marriage.
Okay, you were correctly applying “mergerage” as a counterfiet for marriage.
By the dictionary definition of counterfeit (which I just looked up), you appear to be implying that any mergerage (even one between a consenting adult man and a consenting adult woman) is of fraudulent intent. Open the gates a little, On Lawn, and actually read the posts, not just the little snatches you seem to be getting through your arrowslits. I notice you totally ignored my separation of church and state argument. Are you a closet theocrat? That would definitely explain a lot!
you appear to be implying that any mergerage (even one between a consenting adult man and a consenting adult woman) is of fraudulent intent.
Correction: Mergerage passed off as the same as marriage is counterfeit.
You can sign my name to a document, that is counterfeiting my signature. I can sign my name and it is not.
It’s quite simple. On Lawn believes that the only vital part of any definition of marriage is that it be 1man1woman. Everything else surrounding that is merely protocol. Legal status of spouses as owner/property or not, restrictions based on consanguinity, age restrictions, children or not – all of that is, if not irrelevant, merely garnish on the public recognition of the 1man1woman relationship. On Lawn is, in essence, arguing only about the word “marriage,” and not the privileges conferred by legal recognition. Thus, to him, anything that is both not 1man1woman and not called “marriage” is a fraud.
If I’ve misinterpreted, please correct me.
On Lawn believes that the only vital part of any definition of marriage is that it be 1man1woman.
Only? Don’t be daft.
So you’re saying marriage defined is interpretive and fluid according to who is defining or interpreting?
Well, correct me instead of winging insults. Remember the sentence at the end that asked you to correct me if I misinterpreted you? Or did you not read that far?
What else is vital to your definition of marriage? Or, hey! assume I’m daft. Why not? Spell out, in simple terms, what you believe the vital components of marriage are.
Is equality between spouses vital?
Is there any age limit (upper or lower) that is vital?
Are children vital?
Are limits by consanguinity vital?
Are there limits to how many husbands or wives there can be that are vital?
What, precisely, other than 1man1woman is in your definition of marriage that cannot be changed if you are to still call it marriage?
Kim,
So you’re saying marriage defined is interpretive and fluid according to who is defining or interpreting?
Nice try.
Jake,
Remember the sentence at the end that asked you to correct me if I misinterpreted you?
And you were corrected. Its not the “only” important aspect of marriage. However, as a definition if incorporates the distinctiveness most relevant to expressing how same-sex couplings are simply imitations of the real thing.
To find those differences, you delve into the gender differences denoted by the definition. So, in other words, “Only? Don’t be daft”.
What else is vital to your definition of marriage?
Again, don’t be daft. I provided a definition from M-W. I am not Merriam, I am not Webster. Nor are they (as mythiago pointed out) politically motivated to prescribe what you mistakenly call “anti-equal” definitions.
One important aspect you will need to discover reality around you is to realize that its not a “he said, she said’ kind of world. There is much reality that is beyond interpretation.
Or, hey! assume I’m daft.
Or funnier yet, assume that you aren’t while reading your posts :)
—
Now I’m going to play rope and dope by answering your absolutist questions…
Is equality between spouses vital?
Equal representation from both sexes is crucial.
Is there any age limit (upper or lower) that is vital?
Lower age limit, definately. Often the lower limit addresses the procreative nature. Additionaly some places put a cognitive limit (maturity of mind) in their restrictions as being above just puberty.
Upper age limit? Our society is one that goes out of its way to overcome the infirmities of age. I for one agree to that.
Are children vital?
Nope, which is why they aren’t in the definition. However without the potential for creating children it is of no interest that I can tell of the state.
Are limits by consanguinity vital?
No, but for the sake of the children that could wind up deformed I believe such restrictions are warranted.
Are there limits to how many husbands or wives there can be that are vital?
This was already answered in post #148 and #154 (and quoted again later).
What, precisely, other than 1man1woman is in your definition of marriage that cannot be changed if you are to still call it marriage?
M-W.com definition lists three or four elements that distinguish a marriage from other institutions. I agreed with all of them.