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?
Based on On Lawn’s article at http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2005/05/is-marriage-discriminatory.html
the argument being put forward is that marriage is opposite sex only because only that combination ensures “the capacity or capabilities of the union to meet the responsibilities society expects from marriage.” In other words, marriage is OS only because it’s linked to procreation.
Incidentally, the correct definition of discrimination, not neccessarily the dictionary one, but the one widely used in human rights literature, is that discrimination occurs when people are treated differently on the basis of an irrelevant distinction, such as race, or when people are treated the same when they should be treated differently, as when no accommodation is made for the needs of the disabled. In the case of marriage, calling SSM discriminatory or segregationist represents either a failure to adequately recognise the sexuality of the individual involved or more perniciously to regard that distinction as immaterial or undeserving of respect.
Unless you can substantiate the argument that marriage is essentially connected to procreation, then your suggestion that one man one woman is the essence of marriage and all else is protocol simply doesn’t make sense. There are a whole load of problems with the procreative understanding of marriage (not least issues around infertility,) but perhaps most important is the instrumental conception of marriage you seem to be upholding- the idea that marriage is a device to fulfil certain social needs.
On Lawn:
Now I’m going to play rope and dope by answering your absolutist questions…
Just a note… The correct term is “rope-a-dope”. Coined by Muhammad Ali to describe his strategy in his victory over George Foreman.
Is equality between spouses vital?
Equal representation from both sexes is crucial.
Nice try. Is equality in rights, privileges & power between spouses vital? But you knew that is what the question referred to. But, in your attempt to cleverly play with words, you tripped yourself up – both between comments and in this last comment of yours.
On Lawn:
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.
You have no problem with polygamy, yet you define it as “many marriages” – as opposed to a single marriage. Yet this is not the way the word is commonly understood, nor does your precious M-W agree with you.
From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
Main Entry: po·lyg·a·my
Pronunciation: -mE
Function: noun
1 : marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time — compare POLYANDRY, POLYGYNY
2 : the state of being polygamous
Please note that the first definition is “marriage.” Singular, not plural. It does not say “many concurrent marriages by a single spouse.”
I also notice that you still do not answer the question simply or clearly. What is your definition of marriage? What parts of your definition cannot be changed if you still wish to call it a marriage?
I would also like to take this opportunity to point out something to you:
From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: ‘mer-ij, ‘ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
Look!!! There in the M-W dictionary. An accepted definition of marriage is the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.
Huh? How do you like that?
But seriously. Answer this question. What is your definition of marriage? What parts of your definition cannot be changed if you still wish to call it a marriage?
Must it be consensual to be a marriage? Must it be contractual?
As I see it, the definition that you are trying to foist on us is merely one half of one of 3 accepted definitions in M-W. And the other half of that definition includes SSM. Also, the half of a definition that you go by consists of 3 things – 1man1woman, consensual, contractual. Is that all that cannot be changed in the definition?
But, really. The source you’ve been quoting defines marriage as including SSM. Geeze.
Tarn,
the argument being put forward is that marriage is opposite sex only because only that combination ensures “the capacity or capabilities of the union to meet the responsibilities society expects from marriage.”? In other words, marriage is OS only because it’s linked to procreation.
Only? Don’t be daft.
As an aside. What about oversimplification is so attractive to Alasian’s, I wonder?
Incidentally, the correct definition of discrimination, not neccessarily the dictionary one
You’ll find that definition in the dictionary and addressed in the article. Indeed it supports establishes a key support in the basis of that commentary.
Unless you can substantiate
Agreed.
There are a whole load of problems with the procreative understanding of marriage (not least issues around infertility,)
There are a whole load of problems with the “infertility is an exeption that disproves the rule” reasoning of marriage. (see: Homosexuality is not a handicap, and part 2.)
Probably better put, and definately more succint is this gem from The 800lb Gorilla
Hey, what happened to the ordered list tags?
To see it properly formatted, one should follow the link. Sorry about that folks.
Is equality in rights, privileges & power between spouses vital?
No.
You have no problem with polygamy, yet you define it as “many marriages”? – as opposed to a single marriage.
No problem with polygamy? You are assuming much. I have a problem with people being married more than once, but I don’t consider it as violating what a marriage is.
Yet this is not the way the word is commonly understood, nor does your precious M-W agree with you.
It sounds like you are interpretating “marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time” to be one marriage. If that were the case then M-W disagrees with itself when it says marriage is “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law” [emphasis mine].
As I pointed out previously, poly means “many” or “more than one” and “gamy” means marraige (which coincidentally comes from gamete, the same term that we use in biology to describe egg and sperm). If you really want to get technical, gamete means “mate” or a pair brought together to procreate.
Legally you will find that there is a licence or record of each seperate marriage in a polygamous family. Divorces do happen, and the whole family is not disolved, just the individual marriage.
Huh? How do you like that?
Sorry that makes me laugh. The irony of it being identified as a seperate usage is lost on you apparently. The fact that it has to be a seperate usage speaks more to what marriage is understood as than anything else. They really want to say marriage is just two people together, but not even the etymologists can stomach that. But since people call it marriage they have to include it as an anomoly of the last few miliseconds of history. I count it as an outlier.
So it seems suprising to you that I already acknowledged that definition? Go ahead, read comment #154 again.
Along a simular note, you’ll notice that I’ve been saying all along that the 1-man and 1-woman requirement is not the “only requirement”. Now you seem suprised to find that when I say there are three-four requirements (re: comment #200) that there really are. And somehow expect that I didn’t know that?
You’ve been so hell-bent on over-simplifying what I say that you have now cought yourself in guile.
I just keep laughing as you Alasians keep trying to bring up old things as if they are new. “Ha ha, gotcha!” you say. “No?” then “Ha ha Gotcha!”. Rinse repeat. Repetatively bringing up these things as if they are new speaks more to your intellect than any thing else that I’m aware of. In fact, repeating the same thing over and over again hoping for different results is a definition some people forward for, hmmm, what was that again? ;)
Jake you just have to keep up better.
But seriously. Answer this question. What is your definition of marriage?
Are you assuming my definition is different from what I quoted from M-W? No it is not.
Must it be consensual to be a marriage? Must it be contractual?
The consensual nature of marriage is very important. “Of your own free will and choice” is a part of marriage ceremonies throughout history. Does that mean non-consensual marriages are not marriages in my eyes?
Yes it does, but that doesn’t mean that courtship and absolute selection is required. Arranged marriages have the consent of the married, and where they do not I feel they are a violation of marriage.
Perhaps that is my liberal western eyes judging the situation though.
Contractual? Yes. Many people will write their own “vows”. Historically contracts would even divy up the expected labor and spoils. It looked much like a business contract. Thats just a historical note.
What the contract says is only important to the people involved, which is why your first question about “equity” is off-the-mark. The contract determines what both parties feel is equitable. That is a “free will and choice” expression of individualism. Any coersion that violates that, or subjugates someone (as in “against their will”) to terms of the contract are to me violations of marriage.
If you want to know better what my marriage means to me, and just how crucial the equal gender representation is, you can read Opine. As I’ve seen in so many other situations, what I say winds up being far more reasonable than what people say I say. But then ridicule and lies are how the malificent always try to discredit the truth.
Your conception of marriage is a functionalist one- in the schema you propose marriage is a contract between an OS couple and the state premised on the state’s interest in the continuance of a particular vision of society and the social good. As your quote indicates, marriage is to be understood as primarily reproductively focused- it’s not a question of the desires of the couple, but what they can bring to the bargaining table in order to extract concessions\recognition from the state. In your model, SS couples can’t ante up the ability to reproduce (ignoring for a moment the existing children of SS couples) and so can’t cut the same deals as OS couples. Thus the salient characteristic that allows OS marriage but not SS marriage is the ability to reproduce (incidentally, the first paragraph of your quote illustrates this delightfully well.)
Further to my point above- On Lawn said:
“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.”
Which demonstrates that the institution of marriage in your model is essentially a reproductive one- marriage is recognised by the state because there is the potential that the couple will reproduce. In effect marriage exists as an incentive scheme to ensure the creation of OS couples and maximise the chance of procreation and adequate child rearing. The state may have other interests in encouraging marriage, but the definitive one is reproductive.
There are myriad objections to the model of marriage as essentially procreative, but I’m only going to address one for the moment:
Why, given that there are so many children being raised by SS couples, does the state not have an interest in promoting the welfare of those children in the same manner as it promotes the welfare of OS couple’s children? In other words, why doesn’t the state allow SS couples to marry, given that the reality of the situation is that SS couples are carrying out the activity that the state is supposedly so invested in encouraging?
On Lawn, I just re-read post #154, and it does not validate your argument. Many words in the dictionary have multiple meanings or multiple nuances to their meanings, so for you to declare that only one of the definitions to be the valid is disingenuous at best.
Amp, can we have the Troll Song now?
Equal gender representation being crucial is hardly a reality, it’s an opinion.
Dance, dance, dance!
On Lawn, do you want to respond to the allegation that the definition you “quoted” from m-w was deceitful? Remember, what you keep quoting is merely the first half of the first definition of marriage in m-w.
Do you want to respond to the argument that if, as you have insisted, we take the dictionary (m-w in particular) as the one true definer of marriage, that we must accept SSM?
Why can’t you just admit that you have a definition of marriage that is far from universal and nothing else is acceptable to you?
You can’t have it both ways – insisting that the first 1/2 of the first definition of marriage is the only definition of marriage (it’s in the dictionary after all!) while insisting that the dictionary is wrong about the definition of polygamy. But that is a perfect example of what your comments on this thread have been – two-faced, full of double standards, murky, obfuscating, bizarrely condescending, dissembling and outright deceitful.
As I’ve seen in so many other situations, what I say winds up being far more reasonable than what people say I say.
You’ve had ample opportunity to answer simple and direct questions on this thread. You have refused to do so. That leaves us to interpret your attempts to slyly sidestep the questions you have been asked. The fault for this, if it is true, is squarely on you.
Be a decent human being and debate your side on the (questionable) merits of your argument as correctly identified by Tarn. You know – marriage is about reproduction. Do you refuse to do that because you can’t marshall logic and facts to back up your opinion? Do you refuse to argue your case because all the points you have have been amply refuted? Or do you refuse to do that because you would prefer to troll?
Tarn,
I appreciate your genuine attempt to understand my position. It displays maturity and a sense of confidence that is most refreshing here.
As your quote indicates, marriage is to be understood as primarily reproductively focused- it’s not a question of the desires of the couple
Only, I don’t see reproductive resonsibility and the desires of the couple as a dillema of opposing forces. They work together, and if they work apart, no amount of marriage or ceremony will fix that.
but what they can bring to the bargaining table in order to extract concessions\recognition from the state
Oh, I see. You must be getting that from where I say that romantic desires are something that the state shouldn’t regulate, although encouraging responsible conjugation by encouraging marriage is socially wise. It is the state’s responsibility for citizens (which are created in heterosexual relationships exclusively) that the state takes interest in.
I don’t know if that fits your re-telling or not. I can see where it does and I can see where it doesn’t.
Thus the salient characteristic that allows OS marriage but not SS marriage is the ability to reproduce
I’ll add a correction to that also, it is the ability to foster responsibility in procreation. People outside of marriage can procreate, and without the commitment and recognition of roles (i.e. consent and contract) it is in no wise responsible.
Same Sex couples do not have a means of responsible procreation available to them. At best they can play a shell game that has many dangerous elements to both children in encouraging an “unwanted baby” industry and the handicapped who’s resources are now pillaged to pander the aformentioned gender segregationism. Not to mention how their practice of gender segregation not only robs children of a mother or father for selfish bigoted reasons.
Again, I can see where what I say matches and doesn’t match which is why I provide a more specific quote.
Why, given that there are so many children being raised by SS couples, does the state not have an interest in promoting the welfare of those children in the same manner as it promotes the welfare of OS couple’s children?
Oddly enough, research bears out that marriage is a fragile thing. Once a family is shattered it is not put back together — not even by re-marriage. A single-parent family statistically looks pretty identical to step-parenting when viewing the social viability of children. Only the step-parent model increases dramatically a childs risk of molestation by either step-siblings or step-parents. Add to that the increased occurance of molestation among homosexuals.
In other words, marriage is not a bandaige. It works as a way to ensure people do it right the first time. It doesn’t seem to work very well at all as a way to mend the needs of the single parent.
Adoption works a bit differently, but has many of the same dangers.
You may wish to read this article. Its brief and too the point, but as far as pointing out marriage I think he does a top-notch job and addresses some of these points from a different perspective.
—
Lee,
Jake already graced us with a song and dance about his desires to be snarky.
Beyond that I’m not sure where you are getting what you are saying.
—
Jake,
Remember, what you keep quoting is merely the first half of the first definition of marriage in m-w.
I quoted definition “1” usage “a.1” in its entirety as it is the primal definition of “marriage”. Usage “a.2” is specifically denoted as a different usage to encompass “same-sex marriage” as (and I quote) “a relationship like that of a traditional marriage” or usage “1.a.1”. Usage “1.b” and usage “1.c” on definition one amount to different ways to reference marriage as either a specific union or the institution, and as such are self-referencial to the usages denoted in “1.a.1”.
So you want a troll song or a junior-high school teacher to help you understand how to read a dictionary (which is something you shouldn’t have left the 7th grade without.) The first will help console your ignorance, the second will cure it.
while insisting that the dictionary is wrong about the definition of polygamy
Inconsistency is the hobgoblin of the simple mind. The hogboglin is your own creating because you took polygamy to mean everyone is encompassed in one marriage (re: “1.a.1”). It is the definition and usage you say that the definition of polygamy directly contradicts, but that is a misaplication on your part. Marriage as denoted by usage “1.b” is the correct usage in the definition you cited and does not conflict with what I’ve been quoting. M-W is not contradicting itself.
Yes, all this confusion you have and these spurious allogations could have been avoided has you not been so simple-minded.
You’ve had ample opportunity to answer simple and direct questions on this thread. You have refused to do so.
You have me laughing again. Not every question is asked to gain understanding, and not every loaded question deserves an answer. Many questions are built on false premises and cannot be accurately answered. However if there is a question you feel I haven’t answered then feel free to point it out. We will discuss where I answered it or why I didn’t. But don’t just make accusations like that unsupported, its disengenious.
On Lawn, from the article you referenced in your post #210,
“America is big enough to play host to different ideologies. For example, US regulations define multiple categories of food, including “dolphin-safe,” “organic,” “halal,” “kosher,” and another kosher-like category for a different Jewish group whose rabbis defined Kosher differently. The idea is that when you create a different category, you give the category a different name. You don’t need to overwrite one set of criteria that has one purpose, with a different set of criteria with a different purpose. If some reform or renewal Jewish rabbis decide they want certain types of bacon cheesburgers to be “Kosher,” it would be wrong for them to pressure the courts to change an existing category. They should ask instead for a new category in order to protect food labeling for their own group.”
Do you disagree with this paragraph? You seem to feel this article expresses your views from a different angle.
If you agree with this paragraph, then what is your problem with mergerage?
If you agree with this paragraph, then what is your problem with mergerage?
That argument you reference is one of the dangers of conflation. It denotes the need for distinction so that accurate representation of the package is provided.
I can’t say for sure, but were “mergerage” to try to call a gender segregationist couple and a couple that practiced gender integration the same name, with all the differences between man-man and woman-woman (let alone the differences of those two with man-woman) it would be as bad as calling all tuna “dolphin safe” because not all the nets killed dolphins.
Ah, I stand corrected. On Lawn quoted only definition 1 usage a1, while leaving out definition 1 usage a2. Deceit by any little nitpick with being called on it is still deceit. Or do you only accept 1 usage a1 as valid for all other words defined in the dictionary?
Wait, I take it back. On Lawn is entirely wrong in his claim that we were quoting usages. The only usages in the m-w definition of marriage is in subsense 1a(2) and in sense 3 (as denoted by being enclosed in angle brackets).
Are you sure you understand how to read a dictionary? I went and looked at the m-w notes on how to read definitions & I find that your claim of quoting the usage is incorrect. What you quoted is, indeed, the first half of the first definition or sense. 1a(1) is not, in fact, a usage. It is a sense. I refer you to http://www.m-w.com/help/dictnotes/def.htm so that you can learn for yourself how to read a dictionary. So, 1a(2) is also a sense and not a usage. You may also want to note that senses are listed in historical order, not order of authority or commonness. So, sense 1a(2) is not lesser than or diminished in any way by sense 1a(1), it merely came into use later.
Your self-assumed mantle authority continues to diminish as you continue to dissemble, misdirect & lie. Next time you want to be an authority on a subject with which you are not intimately familiar, you may want to research it first to make sure that your understanding is correct.
Your response on your inconsistency with regards to polygamy consists of obfuscating wordplay that does nothing to support your assertion. That seems to be a defining trait of your comments.
Now do go on, please. You get more and more entertaining as you talk down to others while spouting your own silly brand of pseudo-authoritative nonsense.
On Lawn, just so I’m sure I’m understanding you correctly: if I were to come up with another word that would be used solely for same-sex unions consisting of 2 people, you would have no problem with that because it’s not called marriage?
OK, for the sake of continuing discussion, I will make up such a word: weddage. A weddage from henceforth shall be a union of 2 human beings of the same gender, in a relationship that would be called marriage if they were of the opposite sex.
Now we add this word to all the statutes and regulations covering marriage, and voila, we have secular and legal recognition of same-sex relationships.
I can even write to the good people at Mirriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary to suggest adding this word to their next editions.
On Lawn quoted only definition 1 usage a1, while leaving out definition 1 usage a2.
As a reading of comment #154 shows usage 1.a.2 was referenced. Its existance was never “hidden” or unacknowledged. You are simply suffering still from your simplemindedness to say that it was “left out”.
The reason for quoting just one usage was provided previously, and I will quote again because repetative argumentation seems all the rage on this site:
In essence, the other usages only referenced the first. The usage you are trying to play off of is acknowldeged specifically as an attempt to pass off same-sex couples as married.
So, 1a(2) is also a sense and not a usage
Hmmm interesting. Actually sense and usage denote the same thing in this case, but thanks for playing :)
Your self-assumed mantle authority continues to diminish as you continue to dissemble, misdirect & lie.
My my, your commentary waxes accusatorial. Big suprise. :)
Your response on your inconsistency with regards to polygamy consists of obfuscating wordplay that does nothing to support your assertion.
First you attempted to say M-W contradicted with myself. Then when I showed that it was your over-reaching interpretation that produced the conflict you tried to claim it was a self-contradiction.
Surely your attempts to re-write history expose where the lying and deciept actually are ;)
But we can all celebrate that you gave it an honest try.
—
Lee,
Actually I was thinking about this yesterday. I wrote this in the comments section of that article you quoted:
Be sure to include the GLBT in your campaign.
Hmmm interesting. Actually sense and usage denote the same thing in this case, but thanks for playing :)
Are you lying or just stupid? Oh, sorry. Loaded question. Sense and usage are not the same thing. Read the notes on how to read definitions. Sense (or subsense) is a definiton. Usage is an example.
I quoted definition “1”³ usage “a.1″³ in its entirety as it is the primal definition of “marriage”?.
Then you are using the dictionary incorrectly. Let me repeat this for you since you seem to have missed it last time around: You may also want to note that senses are listed in historical order, not order of authority or commonness. And I’ll add that the senses are listed in historical order and not in order of primacy as you are incorrectly stating is the case.
The usage you are trying to play off of is acknowldeged specifically as an attempt to pass off same-sex couples as married.
Ah, I see. The dictionary is trying to fool all of us by having SSM as part of the valid definition of SSM. Those sneaky bastards! But of course, you are lying here too. Nowhere in the definition does it say that SSM is “an attempt to pass off same-sex couples as married.”
Let’s read it again, shall we?
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
(Before we continue, please note that “(2)…” is a sense and “” is a usage. Can you tell the difference between the two? Can you tell why that difference is significant? Good. Let’s continue.)
This subsense, (2), does not acknowledge an attempt to pass off yada, yada, yada. It acknowledges the relationship to which it refers as marriage. What part of this are you not capable of comprehending? This is why you are rightfully identified as a troll.
But I do need to thank you for getting me to read the notes on how to read a dictionary. I learned something new. And if you’ve read what I’ve written about how to read a dictionary entry (sense, subsense, usage), you have learned something new, too.
But think of it, that meets the model of the idealic same-sex coupling who left marriages with their kids and are now hoping for some kind of government validation and assistance.
Damn. Ignorant and bigoted much? Do you actually know any same-sex couples? This is just translated from the whole, “lazy people on welfare taking our money,” nonsense. Oh, and the word for which you were so inexpertly groping in that quote is “idyllic.” Unless you mean “ideal.” In either case, that is an invention of your imagination.
To review a few of your more notable mistakes:
Rope-a-dope, not rope and dope
sense and usage are two entirely seperate things
SSM is a valid definition (or sense) of marriage according to m-w
idyllic or ideal, not idealic
The first sense listed in an entry in a dictionary does not have primacy over subsequent senses or subsenses according to the notes on how to read an entry over at m-w.
looks like I left some bolding open did that fix it?
Oooh, it lost my example of a usage because it was in angle brackets.
the words “same-sex marriage” should be in those empty quotes and should be surrounded by angle brackets in paragraph 9.
Sense and usage are not the same thing. Read the notes on how to read definitions. Sense (or subsense) is a definiton. Usage is an example.
Sure, feel free to substitute “usage” with “sense”. As I was pointing out, my use of “usage” denotes the same thing that they describe as a “sense”. They are still just different manifestations of the same concept, though you are correct in pointing out that is a dangerous conflation that may impede understanding.
To review a few of your more notable mistakes
Apparently you feel I need an editor for posting. I’m currently taking resume’s :)
Seriously though the past day or so I’ve been staving off some stomach virus.
But even then I like to fill my posts with gramatical errors so people who have nothing to complain about logically can show it by complaining about syntax ;)
You may also want to note that senses are listed in historical order, not order of authority or commonness.
Hence my use of the term “primal”. Also seemingly absent in your “epiphany” of dictionary scholarship is how the 1.a.2 references 1.a.1. That puts quite a bit of the heavy lifting on the first usage.
Its great that you are learning how to use the dictionary however.
And I’ll add that the senses are listed in historical order and not in order of primacy
Alright, you asked for it…
Just more hobgoblins for your simple mind I presume, but primal means *both* historic order and importance. Both are present in that definition, as pointed out previously how 1.a.2 references 1.a.1.
Your reaching for these false dillemas like so many straws is entertaining though. I wonder when you’ll get around to defending your position :)
This subsense, (2), does not acknowledge an attempt to pass off yada, yada, yada. It acknowledges the relationship to which it refers as marriage.
I’m sorry, but that aroused quite a bit of chuckling too. You are trying hard, really really hard here. But you are looking more like a slapstick comedy of errors.
So, you tell is that it does not acknowledge an attempt to pass off, what was that again? “Yada Yada Yada”? You can’t even put a real quote there for fear of directly exposing your fallacy. Lets do that and see what we have.
Like I said, a false dillema of a simple mind.
And if you’ve read what I’ve written about how to read a dictionary entry (sense, subsense, usage), you have learned something new, too.
It was interesting.
It is good to use the same words M-W uses for the same reason ;)
Jake –
Rather than spending your last several hundred lines of obtuse prose attempting to accuse On Lawn of deceipt, perhaps you should have spent the time reading what he originally said. I’ll bold the important part so you don’t miss it this time:
Nowhere did On Lawn attempt to portray his quote as the only definition included on m-w.com. Further, he even called out the fact that an alternate definition could be found there that covered same-sex marriage. Including every possible definition in every possible dictionary would not have answered the request for On Lawn‘s definition of marriage and so would have been a nonsensical reply. All you have spent your time doing is demonstrating that you lack either the cognitive skills or the integrity to be taken seriously in this debate.
Lee –
I have nothing against the state recognizing same-sex unions, so long as it does so on their own merits. Basing the treatment of group A on the needs of group B isn’t just or fair to either group. The state recognizes all kinds of institutions that are not procreative, but only recognizes one, marriage, by its procreative potential.
The state regulates and recognizes in addition to marriage all kinds of institutions, for example, hospitals and casinos. Neither is a procreative organization yet nobody who supports marriage has a problem with the state recognizing either. The state has its purpose in recognizing these institutions and it bases its treatment of them on that purpose. It makes no sense for a casino to say it should have ambulances to bring in customers just because hospitals do. Even more ridiculous would be for hospitals to call themselves marriages or to insist they be treated like them.
Hospitals and casinos don’t feel compelled to compare themselves to marriage or each other because they are confident in their own purpose to society. While I am willing to believe that you, Ampersand, and the other commentors in this blog are well intentioned, when you attempt to quash discussion about the purpose of same-sex couples with a transparently false equality argument, you convey the message that you doubt the ability of same-sex couples to stand on their own merits.
On Lawn Writes: Such Dred Scott appologism exposes your interest in the legality.
What on earth has Dred Scott to do with anything?
And how is it “apologism” to point out the simple fact that a same-sex couple who are married in the Netherlands or in Canada or in the State of Massachusetts – and soon, in Spain – remain legally married, whether or no you throw around big words like “counterfeit”??
However, his definition applied to the word “mergerage”? which he acknowledged was a better term to use than marriage.
This is just bewildering. “Mergerage” is not a word. The fact is, same-sex marriage exists – whether you like it or not.
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.
Exactly how has legislation in Europe, in Canada, or in Massachusetts, “caused” any of that? Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands, in Canada, in the State of Massachusetts, is not an “impersonation” of marriage: it is simply legal marriage. You may object to the fact that it exists, but to claim that it doesn’t is lunacy.
But, in the end does in no wise substantiate a impersonation that grinds the faces of the children and handicapped.
Now you’re just being silly. As previously stated, legal marriage is legal marriage, whether you like it or not: not an “impersonation”. And it’s impossible to see how legal marriage can be said to “grind the faces of the children” or “the handicapped”. Are you just being absurd for the sake of it?
Seriously, trying to argue that same-sex marriage shouldn’t exist is tough enough when it already exists in three countries, where the direct legal equivalent in the form of civil partnership or civil union exists in many more, and has done for years, without any noticeable detriment to any social institutions, including mixed-sex marriage.
But trying to argue that it doesn’t exist is definitely a losing wicket. Don’t even try.
Jesurgislac:
a same-sex couple who are married in the Netherlands or in Canada or in the State of Massachusetts – and soon, in Spain – remain legally married
You’re kidding. You’re really trotting out the “but everybody else is doing it” defense? I guess I shouldn’t really be surprised.
Exactly how has legislation in Europe, in Canada, or in Massachusetts, “caused”? any of that?
Legislation in Canada and Massachusetts. That’s rich. And the only nation in Europe that legislated same-sex marriage also legislated prostitution and recreational drugs. I suppose those behaviors have no noticeable negative impact on families, either. In contrast to your fictional “legislation,” On Lawn’s account of the illicit tactics that have been the hallmark of the ssm campaign is quite factual.
…and has done for years, without any noticeable detriment to any social institutions, including mixed-sex marriage.
No noticeable positive impact, you mean.
You’re really trotting out the “but everybody else is doing it”? defense?
Uh, no. He’s trotting out the “your definition is factually incorrect” defense.
Repeatedly posting op-ed pieces as evidence isn’t exactly persuasive.
Op-ed: I have nothing against the state recognizing same-sex unions, so long as it does so on their own merits . Basing the treatment of group A on the needs of group B isn’t just or fair to either group. The state recognizes all kinds of institutions that are not procreative, but only recognizes one, marriage, by its procreative potential.
By your argument, any man-woman marriage where at least one member of the couple is sterile would not be recognized by the state. And I’ve read some of the statutes where marriage is defined, and none of the ones I’ve read mention the potential for the partners to conceive and bear a child of their own as part of the definition. I guess it sounds kinda crazy to go back to basics like this, but it isn’t in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, or Magna Carta, either.
Bottom line, your procreative potential argument is a sneaky way of insinuating your religious views into the secular law. If permanent relationships between 2 consenting adult humans were silverware, you would be maintaining that only stainless steel spoons are legal, and while, sure, forks and knives exist, they can’t legally be recognized as silverware because they can’t scoop. Meanwhile, you ignore all the plastic and sterling silver spoons and ladles, because, well, they look like spoons even if they aren’t stainless steel.
Op-ed: You’re kidding. You’re really trotting out the “but everybody else is doing it”? defense? I guess I shouldn’t really be surprised.
No: pay attention. I am pointing out, contrary to On Lawn’s assertions, that same-sex marriage already exists. On Lawn seems to be playing with the notion that it doesn’t or it can’t.
On Lawn’s account of the illicit tactics that have been the hallmark of the ssm campaign is quite factual.
Hardly. On Lawn doesn’t seem to have the least idea of how same-sex marriage came to exist in the Netherlands, in Belgium (I’ve been looking it up – same-sex marriage exists in more countries than I realized), in Canada, and soon in Spain. None. On Lawn does seem to have a very fuzzy idea about Massachusetts, though the description of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts as a “kangaroo court” seems to be a little sour-grapesy.
I do recall the beautiful weeks of San Francisco when so many same-sex couples went there to be married, but your description of them as “illicit tactics” ignores the grand tradition in the US of non-violent civil protest. It was a very splendid demonstration of how much so many same-sex couples want to be married – and how unpleasant the anti-same-sex marriage bigots can make themselves when opposing this desire for equal civil rights. It is, of course, a civil rights matter, and must be finally decided in the courts or by the legislature: as seems usual in the US, with the courts determining that the discrimination against same-sex couples is not legal, and the legislature following through eventually.
No noticeable positive impact, you mean.
No. I meant what I said. Exactly what I said. Same-sex civil partnership as directly equivalent to marriage has been modernly recognised since 1989: same-sex marriage has been modernly recognised since 2000. The positive impact has, of course, simply been equality under the law: justice is in itself a positive thing. No negative impact has been noted.
In the long run, no one will understand why so many people in the US were so scared of same-sex marriage, just as even now people from other military forces find it hard to comprehend why the American military is so scared of having openly gay people serving. Just as once, people in the US protested the advent of “mixed race marriages”, and the first ever interracial kiss on TV was a big deal, and now no one can quite see what the fuss was about. So it will go with the US military, which can hardly afford to go on sacking good soldiers who happen to be gay, and so it will go with same-sex marriage: the US really can’t afford to consistently discriminate against lawfully-married couples just because they are a same-sex couple.
Lee –
By your argument, any man-woman marriage where at least one member of the couple is sterile would not be recognized by the state.
False. There is no requirement that the state adopt whatever test for procreative potential you happen to imagine. As I have dealt with this numerous times in the past I’ll just quote what I’ve already said:
Bottom line, your procreative potential argument is a sneaky way of insinuating your religious views into the secular law.
Exactly what are my religious views? You tilt at windmills. Deal with the arguments presented. As I have said before:
If permanent relationships between 2 consenting adult humans were silverware…
They are not, and neither are spoons knives. You accept by premise the notion that “marriage” is nothing more than a Hallmark greeting card from the state congratulating two people for being in love. That is begging the question. It is precisely this watering down of marriage that I am objecting to. Procreation and the responsible exercise thereof is of profound import to the state. You want the state to ignore the impact of irresponsible procreation, taking that capacity out of the definition of marriage so you can turn marriage into some sort of indication of approbation of feelings. Again, as I have said before:
It is precisely this watering down of marriage that I am objecting to.
You’re a few decades too late.
If you really want a solid foundation for preventing SSM, you’ll want states to change their laws back to a traditional definition of marriage: re-introducing laws requiring couples to affirm their ability to procreate, an irrebuttable presumption of paternity within marriage, criminalizing adultery, and so on.
Then SSM challenges will fail because you will be able to point to a rock-solid “goverment purpose” of marriage = procreation.
Op-ed, you are so eloquent, it makes me want to cry. But you’re chopping logic using the wrong tools.
Op-ed: Same-sex partners want to marginalize the commitment to my children with a definition of marriage as simply an acknowledgement that my wife and I love each other. Inviting government to take an interest in my feelings for my wife opens up a Pandora’s box of unprecedented government intrusiveness. The fact that government has had no interest in feelings to date is reflected by the fact that the word “love”? is not in current marriage law anywhere. Even when two people are divorcing they cannot use a lack of love as grounds.
I never said the word “love” was in marriage laws, or that it was missing from marriage laws. I said “procreation” was not in the state law definition of marriage in the statutes I have read. You are the one using procreative potential as the litmus test for whether or not a marriage is valid, now you’re claiming I’m trying to use love. NOT.
Go away, troll.
Gay marriage was made legal in all of Canada yesterday.
:)
Lee –
Op-ed, you are so eloquent, it makes me want to cry.
Thanks.
I said “procreation”? was not in the state law definition of marriage in the statutes I have read.
Nor need it be, as the laws are intended to delineate treatments, not purposes. Proscriptions on who may marry, such as preventing consanguine marriages, can be easily understood by referring to the procreative potential of marriage. They are not explainable at all given your redefinition of marriage as “permanent relationships between 2 consenting adult humans.” Consanguine relationships are every bit as permanent, every bit as consenting, and every bit as adult as same-sex relationships.
The state has a purpose in recognizing the procreative potential of a man-woman union, as I have pointed out and you have not contested that fact. In proposing the state discard its current institution of marriage and replace it with your “permanent relationships between 2 consenting adult humans,” you have a twofold burden of proof you cannot meet:
1) What purpose does it serve for the state to take notice of “permanent relationships between 2 consenting adult humans?”
2) Why must the state abandon its interest in responsible procreation?
There are lots of “permanent relationships between 2 consenting adult humans” that I participate in that the state has no need of recognizing, even relationships involving children. For example, my relationship between me and a godparent of my child is quite permanent, involves 2 consenting adults, and benefits my child. Yet I see no purpose in having the state recognize that relationship, regulate it, or substitute that relationship for marriage.
It is time you admit that your redefinition, “permanent relationships between 2 consenting adult humans,” is merely your attempt to seek the lowest common denominator between man-woman and same-sex pairings, and is not driven by some actual societal interest.
mythago –
You’re a few decades too late.
Whatever violence has been perpetrated on marriage in the past is no justification for further violence upon it now. Saying I must either accept SSM or onerous government intrusion into marriage is a false dilemma and simply an attempt by you to poison the well.
Op Ed: Proscriptions on who may marry, such as preventing consanguine marriages, can be easily understood by referring to the procreative potential of marriage.
Actually, they’re rather more easily understood by referring to the incest taboo. I think you will find that most people would regard the idea of two brothers having sex together as taboo as a brother and a sister having sex together – or father-son incest as taboo as father-daughter. It is sex itself that is taboo for close relatives, not procreation, and how “close” the relative is before it’s taboo varies considerably by culture and tradition.
Your introduction of incest and non-sexual relationships as an equivalent to same-sex marriage is a particularly bizarre red herring. Is there really nothing you won’t stoop to?
Sorry Jesu, same-sex impersonation of marriage exists. Its even recognized in many countries. But I can no more celebrate it than share the enthusiasm of plantation owners who convince the state to recognize other people as their property.
BTW, the incest taboo is the same thing. Calling something by a different name does not change what it is any more than trying to call something the same name.
In future years same-sex marriage will be seen with abortion and slavery as some of the most selfish attempts to subjugate another segment of the population every condoned by the state.
In the end its all a matter of the Emperor has no clothes, and you refuse to see that.
You said this to Lee, though I’m going to address it in a more general sense. Advocates of SSM aren’t advocating marriage as a Hallmark card acknowledging love. They are advocating for the stability that marriage provides among intentional communities of adults, and more specifically unions between adults. Creating a society that supports and bolsters actions which stabilize our communities is really a no-brainer, and as much as you’d like to include children as an inherent part of the mix, they are not inherent to the notion of or action of marriage. Laws addressing children are seperate from marriage laws with good reason.
Samantha;
On the canada gay marriage issue, I’m going to be blogging on that later today unless Amp beats me to it.
They are advocating for the stability that marriage provides among intentional communities of adults
Don’t be disengenious. Marriage no more provides stability to homosexuals than a bandaid provides stability to the WTC.
On Lawn: Sorry Jesu, same-sex impersonation of marriage exists. Its even recognized in many countries. But I can no more celebrate it than share the enthusiasm of plantation owners who convince the state to recognize other people as their property.
God, that’s disgusting. Truly, really, disgusting. Now you are comparing same-sex marriage to slavery? That is vile.
In future years same-sex marriage will be seen with abortion and slavery as some of the most selfish attempts to subjugate another segment of the population every condoned by the state.
And that’s just bizarre. I mean, seriously surreal. To claim that granting equal civil rights to same-sex couples is “subjugating another segment of the popultation” doesn’t even make sense – it’s just… bizarre.
Here are a few ways that marriage provides stability to same-sex couples (not a complete list):
Inheritance law
All next-of-kin related privileges (medical decisions, etc.)
Access to health insurance
Access to retirement related funds
Legally recognized parenthood
Denying that marriage provides stability to couples of any gender combination is ridiculous on its face.
/agree Jake.
Jesurgislac –
On Lawn doesn’t seem to have the least idea of how same-sex marriage came to exist in the Netherlands, in Belgium (I’ve been looking it up – same-sex marriage exists in more countries than I realized), in Canada, and soon in Spain. None.
As On Lawn hasn’t said anything about Spain, Canada, the Netherlands, etc., your statement is based more on your own wishful thinking than on fact.
your description of them as “illicit tactics”? ignores the grand tradition in the US of non-violent civil protest.
Government officials ignoring the constitution and the law, becoming an authority unto themselves cannot be dismissed merely as “civil disobedience” any more than can a full military coup. It is, instead, a gross subversion of our very form of government, taking the power away from “we, the people” and bestowing it on a petty dictator. Your finding of petty dictatorship as “beautiful” simply exposes your morally bereft notion that the ends justify the means.
The positive impact has, of course, simply been equality under the law: justice is in itself a positive thing.
The negative impacts, by this standard, are manifold:
1) Redefinition of marriage in terms of the selfish interests of the adults, rather than in terms of the children they may produce.
2) Markedly increased mistrust of the courts.
3) Promulgation of the notion that same-sex couples are unworthy of government notice and they must therefore piggy-back onto an institution that is.
4) Translocation of the power to administer social change from the electorate to the courts.
5) Abuse of the term “equal” to include actual, pertinent differences.
Selfishness, mistrust, marginalization, dictatorship, and caprice may count as “positive” impacts in your book, but they were hardly the positive impacts promised by SSM advocates. These impacts will continue to reverberate through our society far beyond the time when you will be around to apologize for supporting them.
Jesu,
Truly, really, disgusting. Now you are comparing same-sex marriage to slavery? That is vile.
A real shame its true too.
To claim that granting equal civil rights to same-sex couples is “subjugating another segment of the popultation”? doesn’t even make sense – it’s just… bizarre.
Equal civil rights to same-sex couples? Thats like saying “equal civil rights to golf-courses that don’t allow blacks”.
You really are surreal. Same-sex marriage is institutionalizing gender discrimination. And you celebrate it as “equal rights”.
As Alexander Hamilton said, “[… A] dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter…”
—
Jake,
Here are a few ways that marriage provides stability to same-sex couples
And here comes Jake to prove just how dishonest Kim’s claim is. He doesn’t mention stability, he mentions a gravy-train of benefits.
Stability according to Jake and Kim is code-word for “money”.
op-ed: As On Lawn hasn’t said anything about Spain, Canada, the Netherlands, etc., your statement is based more on your own wishful thinking than on fact.
Ah, you obviously haven’t been following the thread. On Lawn falsely asserted that gay marriage did not exist. As this is flagrantly untrue – it exists in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, and soon in Spain – I pointed this out. On Lawn responded with a bunch of non-sequitur-ish tosh of no relevance to Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, or Spain – the four countries in which gay marriage exists, or will soon. You really need to read the previous posts in a thread before you jump into it with silly comments about other people’s “wishful thinking”. Gay marriage is a fact.
Government officials ignoring the constitution and the law, becoming an authority unto themselves cannot be dismissed merely as “civil disobedience”? any more than can a full military coup.
Now you’re just being silly. “We, the people” spoke in San Francisco, very emphatically – spoke, with the assistance of the Mayor, whose action harmed no one (unlike a military coup!) in favor of gay marriage. “Petty dictatorship”? No one took part who didn’t want to.
As for your list of negative impacts of gay marriage, I’m forced to conclude that, just like On Lawn, you’ve never looked at how gay marriage came to be in the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, or Spain.
The negative impacts, by this standard, are manifold:
1) Redefinition of marriage in terms of the selfish interests of the adults, rather than in terms of the children they may produce.
We’ve been over this before, in several other threads. You have admitted that procreation is not, and never has been, a requirement of marriage. Marriage law in the US has always been defined in terms of two adults who want to get married, and never in terms of the children they might produce. You know this, and indeed on another thread you got quite cross because I pointed out that On Lawn was falsely claiming that procreation was a requirement on marriage. As it’s not, this “negative impact” of yours has no weight.
2) Markedly increased mistrust of the courts.
Cite me examples in the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, or Spain where this is the case.
3) Promulgation of the notion that same-sex couples are unworthy of government notice and they must therefore piggy-back onto an institution that is.
Cite me evidence that giving same-sex couples equal civil rights is perceived as ” same-sex couples are unworthy of government notice”.
4) Translocation of the power to administer social change from the electorate to the courts.
How so? In all four countries where same-sex marriage is a fact, it was first campaigned for by the electorate, then legislated by the elected government.
5) Abuse of the term “equal”? to include actual, pertinent differences.
There are actual, pertinent differences between any one relationship and any other. No two married couples are identical. This does not, however, in and of itself, constitute a reason for discriminating against same-sex married couples.
On Lawn: A real shame its true too.
It’s too bizarre a comparison, I suppose, to be really insulting. It’s like saying “President Bush is a tuna sandwich!” It’s still vile, though. You should not take the horrors of slavery and apply them to same-sex marriage, however greatly you oppose it. That is like saying “President Bush is a Nazi!”
You really are surreal. Same-sex marriage is institutionalizing gender discrimination. And you celebrate it as “equal rights”?.
I think you have gone beyond bigoted, now, into outright lunacy.
So you feel marriage doesn’t provide stability, On Lawn?
Kim –
They are advocating for the stability that marriage provides…
That, in and of itself, is reason to oppose the movement, as they are looking in the wrong place. Do you really believe that marriage was some invention by early governments to stabilize man-woman relationships? Life pairing among male-female partners predates all known governments, and was practiced even among precursor species of homo-sapiens. Even assuming it was government involvement in marriage that induced this “stability,” that does not justify redefining marriage. Home-ownership purportedly “stabilizes” society. That’s no argument that marriage should be redefined to include home-ownership.
Jake/Kim-
Here are a few ways that marriage provides stability to same-sex couples
Thanks for the chuckle. So, not only do you see “health insurance” as providing “stability,” but you also think partners in same-sex relationships don’t have it. Inheritance, parenthood, retirement, insurance, medical decision making, all are available to same-sex relationships yet you somehow think they are still not stable. Clearly, these are not the stabilizing influences you are after.
Denying that marriage provides stability to couples of any gender combination is ridiculous on its face.
So same-sex couples aren’t “stable” because the government isn’t involved? Calling them a marriage will all of a sudden make them stable? That doesn’t strike you as a particularly condescending dismissal of same-sex couples, and “ridiculous on its face?” Fine. I’m sure you have statistics that show how “stabilizing” same-sex marriage is. Let’s see them.
On Lawn falsely asserted that gay marriage did not exist.
Where did I say that? You are off in the dishonest weeds again.
Its an oxymoron, a logical self-conflicting statement. Many such oxymorons exist.
See, Jesu, you have to realize that your game of “what can I twist what they say” is only discrediting yourself.
“We, the people”? spoke in San Francisco
No, you had a mayor flagrantly dishonoring the constitution and he is currently being tried for his actions. After filling the blog with dishonesty, it is not suprising to see you condoning illegal and undemocratic actions also.
just like On Lawn, you’ve never looked at how gay marriage came to be in the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, or Spain.
Haven’t looked at it? Don’t be daft.
You have admitted that procreation is not, and never has been, a requirement of marriage.
I laugh every time you say this. Your non-sequitor hoops and dishonest rewriting of the debate only discredits yourself.
It’s like saying “President Bush is a tuna sandwich!”?
Now your being cheeky :)
You should not take the horrors of slavery and apply them to same-sex marriage, however greatly you oppose it.
I know, its all about what you wish to blind people to. I’m sorry but your ignorance is by no means a reason to believe anything you say.
I think you have gone beyond bigoted, now, into outright lunacy.
Ridicule is always how the meleficent (and dishonest in your case) discredit the truth.
So you feel marriage doesn’t provide stability, On Lawn?
Wait, do you mean “stability” or the gravy train of benefits. Its so hard to tell with you “pander gender segregationism” types.
Now no one need fear that here we are making a moral equivalence between same-sex marriage and Nazi gas chambers. But just as the trail of logic in their plea lead to direct contradiction of the values they based that plea on, it is the intent here to display a similar trail in the same-sex marriage debate.
In the debate over the definition of marriage it can sometimes be difficult to discern the shift between equality and oppression. The activity in this game of capture the flag has made it tough to tell who is seeking to oppress and who is defending against oppression. This quote from a same-gender marriage proponent seemed to frame the debate succinctly…
Of course, at this point some revel in the perfect alignment of Nazi’s, Communists and Same-Sex marriage advocates this creates. One may recognize it as a trifecta alignment of bogey-men of the right-wing conspiracy.
There are two problems in dismissing the alignment as political convenience. The first is that this author’s personal problem with communism is not the goal of equality but that (as established in pattern already) it uses the platitude of equality as a guise for robbing their neighbor. The second problem is that the analogy — and alignment — is his own. Perhaps the alignment is far more intrinsic than mere rhetorical device can meter.
At the same time it is worthy of note how the quote about gays being communists in their thrust for same-sex marriage demonizes the opposition as religious (read self-righteous oppressive) zealots. One may recognize that as conjuring bogey-men, but there is even more behind the attempt. For the real crime behind the “Marriage Equality Now!” debate is that marriage is already equal, so from where does the claim of religious oppression have hold? Just how the equality flag is naturally in the marriage camp is worth an article by itself. As is a description of how the equality epitomized by the same-sex crowd is better described as ‘homogenization’. So for the scope of this work lets demonstrate the equality of marriage by pondering the question, “How more equal can one be than requiring the participation of both genders?”
Actually, I’m not a gender segregationalist, I’m a gender abolitionist. Gender roles are bunk that leads to discrimination (*ie: On Lawn types).
Some of us think that freedom of choice makes for individuals that are more self-confident, assured and comfortable with themselves, versus your Betty Crocker Utopia.
That isn’t to say I would abolish the notions of feminism or masculism, just that it’s up to the individual to choose which traits best apply to them, and in what mix.
Sooooo radical, huh? Betcha 10 bucks my kids are better adjusted and more self-confident than yours, when all is said and done.
And no, what I’m asking is whether you think marriage provides stability, not benefits. We all know it provides benefits, I believe it also acts as a stabilizing factor due to benefits and security, which leads to less stress and community isolation. You seem to feel it doesn’t.
Edit: Err gender-role abolitionist.
I’m not a gender segregationalist, I’m a gender abolitionist.
Which gender do you wish to abolish? Oh none. You can’t even keep your own position straight.
I think its funny though that you deny being one who wished to pander to gender segretationism. It shows me that even the most devout same-sex impersonation of marriage advocates won’t own up to who they are.
You gender segregationist types are all alike, and dishonesty runs rampent.
Tell me, On Lawn, are you planning to marry a black woman?
If not, then I should ask you: why do you believe in racial segregation?
If so, then you’re clearly not planning on marrying a vietnamese woman, so I’ll ask again: why do you believe in racial segregation?
The term gender segregation, in the sense you use it, is void of any meaning beyond sophistry. Every single time you use it, you’re arguing in bad faith, and deserve to be ignored (or, were this a public debate, pelted with old cabbage).
On Lawn, you’ve had nearly 50 posts to state your view, and you’ve had every chance to defend your statements. I really don’t think this conversation will be productive if allowed to continue.
Out of fairness, you can answer Myca’s post to you (the one immediately before this post). After that one and only post, I’m asking you to stop posting here. Please don’t post on any of my threads on this website again. Thanks.
Tell me, On Lawn, are you planning to marry a black woman?
I’m already married, and she happens to be of another race (mostly Native American).
The problem with trying to equate this with marriage is you can’t marry every race out there.
Also, not matter how many times people get married the children still wind up being a boy or girl.
So, while you figure out just how racial segregation should be dealt with in marriage, I’ll continue to point out just how gender-segregationist same-sex impersonation of marriage is.
Please don’t post on any of my threads on this website again. Thanks.
Lest the gender discrimination you are condoning come home to roost eh?
Amp, face it. You want a silly little website full of people wanting to claim the emperor has clothes. Your logical errors are resplendant (e.g. you can prove a negative) and your double-standard egregious.
Thats fine, you have your website where you can stroke each other until doomsday. But that you need to enforce your ill-gotten views by excluding people is nothing more than a chief indicator of your problematic opinions.
[Deleted by Ampersand]
Please don’t post on any of my threads on this website again. Thanks.
This is Ampersand’s forum, and if she feels its purpose threatened by On Lawn, that is her call to make. I encourage anyone interested in discussing the topic further to visit Opine Editorials, rather than continuing to burden Ampersand. Opposing points of view are always welcome at Opine, which is intended not as an echo chamber or reality distortion field, but as a place for legitimate debate.
Ampersand is a man, Op-Ed.
Op Ed: Opposing points of view are always welcome at Opine, which is intended not as an echo chamber or reality distortion field, but as a place for legitimate debate.
Then I trust you don’t allow people anywhere near it who do anything so surrealistically offensive as compare same-sex marriage to slavery.
George W. Bush is a tuna sandwich.
Kim:
I guess you’re not really about gender equality, then?
Jesurgislac –
Censorship is Alas’s game, not Opine’s. I have no intention of turning Opine over to the forces of Political Correctness nor of making it a contest of who is the most easily offended. Such demagoguery is an attempt to shut down debate rather than engage it and is far from legitimate.
I’m about equality of people, Op-ed. While I acknowledge certain aspects that differentiate men and women (breastfeeding coming immediatly to mind), I am definitely a proponent of much of letting people choose their own path, and their own behavior as it comes naturally, barring that which would aggressively hurt others (not passively hurt, but substantiated pain or trauma inflicted upon other people due to their actions).
If a woman chooses to be into make-up and looking pretty because it pleases her, well great, that’s wonderful. But by no means, do I feel that gender-roles are crucial or integral to people in anything but a harmful manner. My marriage is one of equality. My husband and I love each other as partners in a life-long commitment. We don’t limit ourselves to gender-roles that you might feel are necessary within your relationship. And while it might surprise you, the majority of our friends take the same approach to marriage, and collectively, we all do great in said approach. I hear more agonizing and grumbling coming from marriages that incorporate gender-roles, to be quite frank.
In the case of our daughter (and the daughter on the way), we approach gendered things as optional. Do you like that toy? Great, who cares if it was intended for boys or girls. We attempt to use words that are both non-gendered, or use words that are gendered in a way that allows room to be whatever. ‘What a strong, big girl you are!’ is just as common as ‘You’re so pretty!’. We will not indoctrinate our daughter’s into a mindset of delicacy over strength. Any feminine or masculine choices will be chosen by her, not by us. It’s not really rocket science.
Any feminine or masculine choices will be chosen by her, not by us.
What will you do if she turns out to be a person whose strength of will is not such that she can comfortably live without defined roles?
Robert, are you really saying that people who need strong gender roles are weak-willed?
The problem with trying to equate this with marriage is you can’t marry every race out there.
Well, sure, if you’re a racial segregationist at heart. Otherwise, embrace polyamory, and get with the marryin’.
—Myca
I doubt that will be an issue, Robert. Having choices and options is empowering, even to small children. She’s already beginning to ‘define’ herself and her tastes, at least for now, with her love of dancing and music as the most desireable playtime activities. You can effectively support your child making choices and beginning in the process of self-defining without incorporating ‘because you have a vagina, you must like this, or behave like this’ or ‘because you have a penis, you must like this, or behave like this’ – her genitalia need not be a factor in her deciding whether she likes to play with Tonka Trucks, Barbies, or neither. Nor should it need to define whether she’s into playing house and dress-up or building treeforts and crafting model airplanes. It always amuses and astounds me when I see parents (especially male parents) getting all worked up about their sons gravitating towards pretty pink dolls – oh no’s, 4 year old Jimmy likes the doll, quick, make sure he knows it’s off limits and a little girls toy!
Op-Ed; I have no intention of turning Opine over to the forces of Political Correctness nor of making it a contest of who is the most easily offended
So, you claim you want it t0 be “a place for legitimate debate” but you don’t plan to stop people being abusive, no matter how ridiculously surreal the abuse gets? I think I’ll stick to somewhere people can express their opinions freely, but abuse is discouraged. Here, or Obsidian Wings. Abuse does nothing for legitimate debate.
[deleted by Ampersand]
Kim: We don’t limit ourselves to gender-roles that you might feel are necessary within your relationship.
Exactly what “relationship” do I have and exactly what “gender-roles” have I said are necessary within it? I think our interaction would be more productive if you adopted a different debate strategy than “Demonize, demonize! Shout down dissent with endless lies!” I have not mentioned any specific “gender-role,” let alone advocated for any. If you feel I have, present the quote and we’ll discuss.
Jesurgislac:
That you see open debate as only occuring within the context of your ability to cast value judgments on others shows you have no concept of what open debate really is. That you consider Alas to be an open debate forum only proves how utterly you misunderstand the concept. As Ampersand himself points out:
Op-ed: That you see open debate as only occuring within the context of your ability to cast value judgments on others shows you have no concept of what open debate really is.
That you think open debate means being abusive to others shows you have no concept of what open debate really is, and I have no interest in taking part in any debate you moderate.
You asked a question about how I felt about gender equality. I responded with a you ‘might’, might being the operative word that offers plenty of wiggle room to clarify your position.
If you feel I’m treating you unfairly, for that I apologise, though it is tending to stem from your attempting to go to bat for OnLawn whom, in my opinion, has been an exceptionally dishonest debate participant, and whom has shown very evidently that he is both discriminatory and adamant about gender-roles being crucial to society (which is evidenced from the thing that got the gender-role issue going).
Then again, in this quote you state that I have ‘lied’, which is bologne, which shows me a certain amount of dishonesty to the notion of innocent bystander, or a person with charitable intentions in the debate. I know it’s probably hard to follow, but I’ve debated enough people, and seen enough failure of evidence coupled with discriminatory beliefs to feel that I can pretty much take the tact of swatting at vipers in pretty clothing without so much as an ounce of guilt. So while I might be willing to be a bit more charitable with you if your intent is a genuine discussion, I’m unwilling to give any ground on the fact that you are hurting my family directly with the advocacy you partake in, and I’m not hurting you, or any family you might have with my advocacy.
Kim:
I responded with a you ‘might’, might being the operative word that offers plenty of wiggle room to clarify your position.
Well, in that case, you might want to roast babies live on a spit and then eat them, but I find the practice deplorable. Using the word “might” doesn’t make a false accusation right.
which is evidenced from the thing that got the gender-role issue going
A quick review of the comments shows that you were the one that first started discussing “gender roles,” and it was specifically in response to a reference OnLawn made to studies that controlled specifically for the presence of a father. That these studies raise more questions may be a fair statement, but your interpretation that the studies actually dealt with 1 parent vs. 2 is obviously wrong since there was no reference to any control in the study for the number of adults present.
Further, your attempt to turn that into a discussion on gender roles was also a reach since no specific gender-role was discussed. You have used fathers not letting boys play with dolls is an example of a “gender-role,” yet the studies did not control for whether the mothers in the family fulfilled this or any other gender role or not. In short, while you may be enamored of your own discoveries vis-a-vis gender roles and individual expression, there was nothing provacative of that particular tangent in OnLawn’s comment, let alone indicative of whether his understanding is different than your own.
Then again, in this quote you state that I have ‘lied’, which is bologne,
I will take you at your word that you thought hiding a falsehood behind the word “might” meant the falsehood wasn’t deliberate.
I can pretty much take the tact of swatting at vipers in pretty clothing without so much as an ounce of guilt.
That is certainly a much softer way of calling me a bigot and a homophobe than the footing you started out with in addressing me, but it makes the charge no more true nor useful than when you originally applied it. In fact, it makes it every bit as demonizing and false as ever.
I’m unwilling to give any ground on the fact that you are hurting my family directly with the advocacy you partake in, and I’m not hurting you, or any family you might have with my advocacy.
Specifically what “advocacy” am I partaking in that hurts your family? While I am willing to take you at your word that you intended no harm to any particular family with your sweeping redefinition of marriage, you have already stated, however, that you did intend to hurt me, specifically, by calling me names for simply considering the issue thoughtfully.
Believe me when I tell you I have no intention of doing any harm to you or any member of your family.
I understand your emotional ties to this issue. Nobody wants to see any member of society hated or mistreated. You have experience that homosexuals and children of homosexuals experience this kind of abuse and of course you want to stop it. I am with you in that struggle. Most of us have experienced taunting and ridicule over one thing or another in our lives and believe nobody should have to go through that. However, you err, and in fact do great damage by dragging marriage into this.
Marriage is not an expression of animus toward homosexuality, but rather, a social manifestation of a biological reality. Marriage was created to control the procreative potential of the man-woman relationship and deal with the consequences. Because society has an interest in that as well, society, whether religious or secular, takes notice of marriage as an institution.*
Your effort to broadly redefine marriage, while I trust you when you say you are motivated by the best of intentions, hurts everybody. First of all, it inhibits society from directly addressing the procreative potential in which it has an interest since it would not have a way of doing so without affecting homosexual couples as well. It also inhibits society from directly addressing the unique concerns of homosexual couples without also impacting married couples everywhere.*
It also hurts homosexuals by telling them they need to ape heterosexuals in order to be accepted, since marriage, they are told, is the true hallmark of acceptance. That is clearly a very chilling and xenophobic message to ask society to present. Heterosexuality has its own issues and concerns. Some are the same as homosexuality, but many are different. Not the least of these differences is the potential for unintended pregnancies. Each group should be left free to persue its own interests and issues and not forced to live as if they had a different set of interests or issues. As John McKellar, a homosexual whom you have deemed a homophobe, puts it:
Frankly, it is your xenophobic stance that strikes me as much more “homophobic” than John’s.
Further, dragging marriage into a debate about homosexuality only polarizes the two sides. There are lots of reasons why marriage, as presently constituted, is important to a vital society. Anyone who accepts any of those reasons, by your dragging marriage into the debate, is forced to take the side of those opposing homosexuality. This only serves to empower and embolden the truly bigotted and encourage the kind of abuse your husband has already suffered. It hurts families without homosexual members, too, that want their children to be raised in a less abusive world.
So, you have your ground you are unwilling to give, but I am unwilling to give any ground on the fact that marriage is very important to society, and that attacking it in the name of homosexual rights is at least completely wrong-headed, if not mean spirited.
Marriage was created to control the procreative potential of the man-woman relationship and deal with the consequences.
Heterosexual marriage as it now exists has strayed very far from that purpose.
I thought On Lawn wasn’t supposed to post under a pseudonym either?
Op-ed, are you still falsely claiming that marriage is required to be procreative? How bizarre.
It also hurts homosexuals by telling them they need to ape heterosexuals in order to be accepted, since marriage, they are told, is the true hallmark of acceptance.
What a completely wrong-headed statement. I do not need to be married to be accepted, and I do not consider being married to be the hallmark of acceptance. You are coming at this from the wrong direction.
When a culture ceases to discriminate against gay people just because they’re gay, then unnecessary barriers to civil equality will go down. One of those unnecessary barriers is the legal discrimination against same-sex couples marrying.
So, you have your ground you are unwilling to give, but I am unwilling to give any ground on the fact that marriage is very important to society
…which is a good reason not to bar same-sex couples from it.
and that attacking it in the name of homosexual rights is at least completely wrong-headed, if not mean spirited.
The only person who is attacking marriage in this thread is you, now that On Lawn has been banned for being abusive. The only reason you have given for attacking marriage is that you think it must be restricted to interfertile couples only, which has never been the case in the US.
Your attack on marriage as it presently exists in the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, and Spain is noted. I am glad that you have no power to do anything more than verbally assault it.
Mythago –
Heterosexual marriage as it now exists has strayed very far from that purpose.
To what degree marriage has strayed is debatable, but whatever violence you feel has been perpetrated on marriage in the past is no excuse for further violence now.
What this long discussion has made abundantly clear is that the purpose of marriage is exactly as I have said, tied to the responsible exercise of its procreative potential. Here we are at comment 270+ and still nobody has come up with any reasonable alternate purpose nor argued rationally against it. Feel free to check. There have been some wild gyrations and some stunning illogic, but those only go to prove procreation really is the 800lb gorilla in the room SSM advocates wish to ignore.
To what degree marriage has strayed is debatable, but whatever violence you feel has been perpetrated on marriage in the past is no excuse for further violence now
Zero for two.
The degree to which marriage has made tectonic shifts is not ‘debatable,’ unless by ‘debatable’ you mean ‘somebody can make a half-assed argument to the contrary.’
What this long discussion has made abundantly clear is that the purpose of marriage is exactly as I have said, tied to the responsible exercise of its procreative potential.
Oh, my bad. Zero for three.
I very clearly threw down the gauntlet in that last comment:
If that statement were untrue, you’d have had no trouble producing a quote from the literally hundreds of responses to prove me wrong.
But you did not.
Look at your response again. Oh, you blustered. You fumed, and you stomped about. You were sure there was something “tectonic” around there somewhere. You did whatever you could to try and save face. But when the dust settled…not one quote did you provide. Nothing. Zero. Go ahead. Check for yourself.
Thanks, it’s been a pleasure.
Op-ed, patting yourself on the back because you’ve convinced yourself you’ve won, all the while making personal attacks on another poster, doesn’t make you look good, contrary to what you apparently imagine.
To address your point, there are plenty of reasonable purposes for marriage in addition to (not instead of) procreation, some of which have come up in this thread, both explicitly and implicitly (233 and 236 are two obvious examples). To quote from the Institute for American Values,
All of these are reasonable purposes of marriage; and procreative potential is only relevant to the sixth dimension, and even then the sixth dimension has more to it than just procreation.
SSM opponents tend to act as if there can only be one, single, exclusive function served by marriage for couples and for society. This assumption is rarely made explicit and is never justified logically, for it’s too ludicrous to be justified. Yes, encouraging heterosexual parents to procreate in circumstances that are, when it works out well, good for raising children is one function served by the institution of marriage. But as the list above makes clear, it’s not the exclusive function served by marriage.
By the way, we’re 270+ posts into this thread, and in my opinion no one has provided a reasonable answer to the question asked in the title of my post.
all the while making personal attacks on another poster
What personal attack. No, really. What personal attack? My comments were directed specifically at what was said. Falsely accusing another poster, would that be considered a personal attack? As for “patting myself on the back,” I apologize. Something had to be done to lift this debate out of the content-free zone Myth and Jes had spun into. I’m glad that it prompted your substantive reply, as now we can move forward.
Now, let’s deal with the actual substance of your reply.
there are plenty of reasonable purposes for marriage in addition to (not instead of) procreation
Claiming there can be multiple requirements does not argue that any one of those many should be deleted, which is what you are arguing for. That said, let’s look into the “dimensions” you offer to redefine to “purposes” of marriage.
Marriage is a legal contract.
First, let’s deal with the attempt to redefine “dimensions” to “purposes,” as that point will apply equally to all of your points, I will deal with it only once, here. Trying to change this dimension to a purpose you wind up having to say something like “Marriage exists to create legal contracts,” which is clearly absurd. Not only does society have lots of legal contracts already with which to occupy itself, each with their own purposes, I might add, but simply promoting an institution so society has something to regulate is not a legitimate interest. I realize you are not deliberately trying to say either of these things, but that is exactly why these “dimensions” aren’t the same thing as “purposes.” Gender, is a dimension of a human, but being that gender is not the person’s purpose in living.
Now, one more general point that applies to all of your “dimensions,” but that I will only deal with once. Let’s forget the problem of “dimensions” to “purposes” and deal only with dimensions. Saying marriage has multiple “dimensions” does not say that anything with a subset of those dimensions would qualify. So in this example, by looking at this one dimension and excluding the others, I could claim that any legal contract could legitimately be recognized as a marriage, which is ridiculous. Go ahead and play with your other “dimensions.” Choose some subset and see just exactly what kind of relationships would qualify.
Finally, this dimension in specific. Why is marriage, a contract, recognized by the state? Why are some “contracts” recognized as a marriage and not others? Not just “contracts” between same-sex couples, but contracts between friends buying a boat, contracts between enemies settling a dispute. Contracts are everywhere. Some of them the state recognizes and regulates, like employment contracts. Few of them does the state recognize as marriage. Why? You would like to say it is as an expression of animus toward homosexuals or homosexuality, but that does not explain why employment contracts aren’t recognized as marriages since employment contracts aren’t defined in terms of homosexuality.
Marriage is a sacred promise.
This again begs the question. Instead of asking why the state recognizes the marriage contract, this point simply asks why religion does. By recognizing the procreative nature of marriage, I have already answered both of these questions. What’s your answer?
Marriage is a financial partnership.
[Forgive my dealing with this one out of order as the above two points are clearly related and together they aptly demonstrate my point, quoted above.]
There are lots of financial relationships out there, and the state gets involved in some and not others. Landlords and tenants have a financial relationship the state regulates. It does so without defining that relationship as a marriage, and again not because it sees landlords and tenants as homosexuals it wishes to discriminate against. What is the state’s purpose in getting involved in the financial arrangement of married couples? Again, one need look no further than the procreative nature of marriage, as in this post:
Marriage is a sexual union.
Again, why is the state concerned with sexual unions? Not, as your quoted text says, to promote “love,” as you and your other commenters have already specifically denied government should be meddling in personal feelings.
There are lots relationships out there the state ignores. Why does it need to have an interest in sexual relationships? Godparents are utterly ignored by the state. They can’t make medical decisions for their godchildren. Friendships are ignored, they have no intestate standing, and employers don’t offer healthcare to “friends.” Why does the state care whether two people are having sex? I can explain this in terms of the state’s obligation to the result of that union, but that again points to marriage as being fundamentally procreative. What is your reason that does not?
Marriage is a personal bond.
This is just another attempt by the author to reintroduce “love” as a legitimate state interest, therefore the same argument applies as the previous.
Marriage is a family-making bond.
This clearly derives from marriage’s procreative potential. In fact, all family making derives from that potential. Making families, in fact, is important specifically because it addresses the state’s obligation to its new citizens.
But there are lots of family-like relationships out there, and only one is recognized as marriage. Why is that? Again, here you would like to say it is so marriages can be vessels of discrimination toward homosexuals, but that clearly is not the case. Most children that are being raised in families without marriage are not being raised by homosexuals. In fact, as you live in Oregon you are, I’m sure, well aware of the situation there where homosexuals themselves want these other arrangements specifically excluded from their definition of a “family making bond.” When they claim it is “demeaning” to be lumped with those other families is that only explainable as an expression of animus and bigotry toward those other families?
So why does the state acknowledge only one “family making relationship” as marriage? Again, it can be tied back to the purpose of marriage and its potential to procreate. Tying children to those who created them, whether you accept that as healthy for the child or not, at the very least establishes a first line of defense in the state’s and society’s obligation to the new child.
In summary, there is no reason to try and complicate things by looking at each of these dimensions in isolation. Just like our understanding of the physical world is enhanced not by viewing all physical constants in isolation, but rather by searching out the underlying principals that derive them, so too, by looking for the underlying principal driving the “dimensions of marriage” can we better understand its purpose. And the one underlying principal that unifies all six of your dimensions of marriage, is its potential to procreate. No other has been proffered.
By the way, we’re 270+ posts into this thread, and in my opinion no one has provided a reasonable answer to the question asked in the title of my post.
Actually, I answered this many times, most recently here:
If pointing out how marriage is orthogonal to “queer rights” does not address your point, then please elucidate. To what “rights” “only” denied to “queers” are you referring when you say “only queer rights [are] on the chopping block?”
op-ed says: Marriage is a family-making bond.
This clearly derives from marriage’s procreative potential. In fact, all family making derives from that potential… Again, it can be tied back to the purpose of marriage and its potential to procreate. Tying children to those who created them, whether you accept that as healthy for the child or not, at the very least establishes a first line of defense in the state’s and society’s obligation to the new child.
I don’t agree. Surely the point is that when marrying you agree to care for your partner, and your partner’s family (and your partner’s children, which need not be yours also) as if they were your blood. It’s a tying together and accepting of the other person as your family.
You do not need to be able to have children to make a family, just take the other person into your heart and your life. Marriage is a way of declaring this to the public, and gaining the rights and priviledges that society has afforded to married couples. I see no reason why SS couples should be excluded from this.
Op-Ed Said:
It’s terribly hypocritical of you to take umbridge to my use of the word ‘might’ with regards to whether or not you ‘might’ have a relationship that ‘might’ value the notion of gender-roles, claiming it is an attack on you akin to you saying I grilled babies and ate them for fun – and then turn around and deny that your use of the words ‘blustering’, ‘fuming’ and ‘stomping’ after someone responded to you taking a very caustic tone with a caustic tone of their own. While that isn’t to say that others aren’t taking caustic tones, for you to claim innocence to implying anything about your partners in debate here is just silly.
Op-Ed Said:
So to discuss this and attempt to debunk it, you take two words that are specifically different, and need to switch them, and it some how should be considered legitimate argument?
A dimension is a facet of something, a purpose is an intended outcome. Ultimately it’s pretty clear (at least to me) that Ampersand’s point was to state that procreation is simply one of the ‘facets’ of marriage that can exist, whereas since your whole debate seems to be centered on procreation being the purpose (which is not agreed with here), you seem to feel it’s fair and honest debate to take peoples arguments from the different perspective, plug them in to your own perspective, debunk them because suddenly they don’t make quite as much sense from said perspective, and call it good. If you had attempted to come at it from a perspective of the dimensions being ‘dimensional purposes for people wanting to get married’, that might be a more logical exercise, and definitely more conducive towards discussion rather than this semantic approach you’ve taken prior.
Beyond that, you’re attempting to generalize the dimensions in apple and orange comparisons. So here’s another example, that I’ll provide to make my point: “Just because I signed a contract to pay my babysitter doesn’t make me married to her!” – But, but, the contract states that she will care for my kids, and do some chores around the house. It’s not the function that changes in this particular example, but the relationship. The contractual ‘dimension’ that Ampersand’s article refers to is directly addressing the UNION of two people legally, taking legal accountability and responsibility for their spouse. Union not directly referring to two parents taking legal accountability and responsibility, but two people (presumably) in a romantic union, choosing each other as their next of kin and partner, as witnessed and endorsed by society.
The government has stated that such relationships hold merit and benefit to society at large, creating stability and productivity among its members that partake in it. It would seem to me, that the government’s goal in all of this is to foster behaviors and relationships that ultimately are of benefit to the communities that government serves. For many people, romantic next of kin relationships are a natural progression in life, where they desire the stability of a familial structure and it’s incorporated responsiblities and benefits around said relationship.
Next you go on to ask why one of the dimensions uses sacred, and then automatically replace dimensions with purpose, and sacred with religion. Dunno about you, but these two expressions don’t mean the same thing to me:
Sacred dimension
Religious Purpose
Point, yet again being, that the writer of Ampersand’s article essentially states that like procreation, the notion of marriage involving a sacred union can be a completely legitimate dimension of marriage.
The next few dimensions are more of the same types of arguments from you, so I’ll move on to the family one. Yet again, it in essence is saying that procreation stability is a ‘dimension’ of marriage. Not a PURPOSE, but a FACET. Not even a required one.
You then pointed out how gay folks are showing their cards in Oregon by focusing on the word marriage, and call it bigotry when they object to as the article that you linked to in your editorial states, “Aunt Tilly moving in with Aunt Milly” describing gays and other relationships outside of marriage as ‘reciprocal beneficiaries’, so as to keep the sacred cow of marriage unmarred by the kooties of gays. You then have the sheer audacity of attempting to pin the notion that people being offered seperate but equal drinking fountains should be happy that they get a drinking fountain at all, and are being bigoted against others that have specialized drinking fountains by not being grateful for the ones they have.
Here’s a quote from that same article you linked to that explains why people don’t find the table scrap mentality acceptible:
Then again, seperate but equal notions shouldn’t really have to be explained to someone as intelligent as you. But please stop trying to insult everyone’s intelligence by calling seperate but equal clauses as some form of reverse bigotry against others that suffer under the yolk of oppressions caused by gate keepers such as yourself.
You then conclude with:
Well, Op-Ed, the state doesn’t acknowledge one “family making relationship” as marriage. In fact, the family making is not part of the acknowledgement, the union is. I know you’d like to have us all read in between the lines to support your point, but why, honestly, should we? In fact, I think it’s pretty evident, by the state allowing all of age hetero couples, sans sanguine relationships the ability to marry, without so much as ASKING if they intend to procreate, that procreation is simply one of many acceptible dimensions within marriage, not the defining factor by any means at all.
As an aside, you stated:
How in the hell has marriage’s statistical independence or dependence to “queer rights” even relate? What statistics are we even talking about that you supposedly argued upon?
VK –
Your interpretation is skewered by the situation I pointed to in Oregon. Even Kim finds it demeaning to take every effort to found a family and call them all the same thing.
Kim –
and then turn around and deny that your use of the words ‘blustering’, ‘fuming’ and ‘stomping’ after someone responded to you
It nevertheless deals with the response, not the person making it. Attributing presumed attitudes deals with the person, not the argument. The distinction is quite plain. Words have meanings, and personal attack requires, well, an attack on the person.
Just because I signed a contract to pay my babysitter doesn’t make me married to her!”?
Exactly. As I said:
Dunno about you, but these two expressions don’t mean the same thing to me
Take that up with the writer of the original article. He is the one calling out examples from specific religion.
…seperate but equal notions shouldn’t really have to be explained to someone as intelligent as you.
I don’t believe in separate but equal. “Separate” should result from not equal. Men and women are equal in many ways, but in the dressing room they are unequal and so should be separate.
In fact, the family making is not part of the acknowledgement, the union is. I know you’d like to have us all read in between the lines to support your point, but why, honestly, should we?
Don’t. But as I didn’t write that sixth purpose, don’t accuse me of any nefarious purpose you see in it. Look, if you don’t agree with all six dimensions, fine. Point out your five or two or twelve and we can discuss. But don’t say it’s my fault for bringing up these six as I did not.
I think it’s pretty evident, by the state allowing all of age hetero couples, sans sanguine relationships the ability to marry, without so much as ASKING if they intend to procreate, that procreation is simply one of many acceptible dimensions within marriage
There is no requirement that the state exhaustively investigate all possible requirements for procreation. Individuals may have any purpose they want in calling anything they want a marriage, and nobody is suggesting individuals can’t seek out their own “dimensions” in calling something a marriage. This discussion, though, is about what the state and not the individual recognizes as a marriage.
Saying the state must persue its interest as exhaustively as possible or not at all is like saying instead of seatbelts, passengers should be packed in styrofoam if the state is really trying to promote safety. True, the state could have done more to protect its interest than what it did, but possibly it had other limitations and other compromises to consider. Like the fact that a driver encased in styrofoam can’t see, or the fact that the passengers can’t breath or could have other health related problems with full immobilization. Or maybe we, the people, just don’t like being in styrofoam.
The lack of an upper age restriction on marriage accomplishes two purposes. Number one, the state has no interest in limiting the bond between a child and his parents only up to a certain age. Second, age is not a perfect predictor of procreative potential.
As far as limiting marriage to only those couples who intend to have children, that exactly contradicts the purpose of marriage as not all pregnancies are intentional. In fact it seems to be those unintended ones that get the state the most hung up.
The state recognizes marriage for a reason. There are a bunch of other relationships that are good and noble that the state does not recognize at all, let alone recognize as marriage. Relationships between neighbors, and the many friendships on which we base our lives are critical to our personal wellbeing, but they do not involve consequences to the state and so the state allows us to work out the individual details of those relationships ourselves.
As I have already pointed out, the potential obligation to the state explains the state’s involvement. It explains the involvement of the world’s religions. It explains the relationship to sex, family, finance, and every other “dimension” of marriage. It also explains why some family, financial, legal, etc., relationships are not treated as marriages where “homophobia” doesn’t, consanguine relationships, for example, godparents for another.
In short, the data supports the interpretation, and no alternate interpretation is proposed. Not by you. Not by Ampersand, not by anybody on this forum, nor in any forum or discussion I have witnessed. Instead I get answers of the kind that well, it’s big and its beutiful, and it can’t be comprehended. It is an unsearchable mystery and everybody has their own view.
But that interpretation is clearly not supported by the data as we have the nagging problem that marriage has always had at least one constant: man and woman.
Using great feats of sophistry SSM proponents tug and pull to remove procreation from marriage to replace it with some deep seated animus toward gays, but the data, again, simply does not support that conclusion. Different views of sexuality, in fact different views of homosexuality have existed throughout time, yet even in those societies with radically different understandings than ours, marriage has remained man-woman.
Look, I am always willing to accept some alternative explaination of marriage, so if you’ve got one, fire away. I’m willing to listen to a rational argument about how procreation cannot be the motivator behind marriage even despite all the evidence I have presented. If anyone has anything along either of these lines, then what are you waiting for?? Present your case! Why do you continue to let those with nothing more to say than that they have already made up their mind do your speaking for you?
Op-ed, you still haven’t managed to explain why, in your view, if procreation is the be-all and end-all of marriage, and same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to get marriage because they can’t procreate:
1. Mixed-sex couples who can’t procreate are allowed to get married
1b. indeed, marriage law does not mention procreation, anywhere
2. Sterility, or refusal to have children, is not a standard ground for divorce anywhere in the US.
Further, you have not managed to explain why, if the only reason the state supports marriage is because a couple can have children together, a same-sex couple who do have children together (from previous marriages, or adopted, or via AID) can’t, in your view, get married,
These two enormous great holes in your argument strongly suggest, and have suggested all along, that you don’t really think that gay couples can’t get married because they can’t have children: you really think that gay couples shouldn’t get married, and you’ve dreamed up “and they can’t have children”, fixing the evidence around your policy.
I think that op-ed should take a cue from the tail-end of mythago’s first post in this thread. Yeesh.
Jesurgislac,
I’m looking at this statement and it seems reasonable. I think you need to calm down a bit and realize OPED has a point.
I changed the “and” to “means” because that is what I think you meant. I hope you don’t mind.
If that doesn’t make sense then take my Computer Science degree and all the logical proofs I learned and throw them out the window. I tried.
You present what seem to be exceptions to the rule. I can understand this, a contradiction can mean many things and it can disprove a rule. But your contradictions don’t work, even if they were true.
I renumbered them, I hope you don’t mind. I have no idea why you had a “1” and “1b”.
Problem is “1” doesn’t disprove that rule. Mixed sex couples who can’t procreate get married and have burgeoned a billion dollar medical industry to help them procreate. Its absurd to say their efforts, and our efforts to help them have children disproves people get married to have children.
First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes Junior with in the baby carriage.
Funny. When I rearrange it, it sound more like a shotgun wedding ^_^
First comes love, then comes Junior, then comes Papa with a shotgun and a wedding license.
That sounds like what you were talking about, “a same-sex couple who do have children together”
Heh, I know I know. You were really just trying to make a pun out of the term “have children”, where OPED meant give birth to children and you meant simply possessing children. It was moderately funny though, the government is now our over-protective poppa here to force us together now that there is a kid we are fostering. Thats pretty funny.
Anyway.
We build handicapped ramps, offer social security for living wage and so forth. I for one think its a good thing that society tries to overlook and overcome handicaps, don’t you?
Number 2 (1b to you) is even more desperately over-reaching. If that were true you could not say love is the purpose of marriage because marriage law does not mention “love” either. In fact, thinking of your first point you mentioned all the marriages that don’t procreate that are still marriages. Well think of all the marriages where they don’t love each other any more (or even at the moment). Should they get divorced every time they feel like saying “I hate you”?
Besides, you are really getting absurd because I’m not sure if one could find a law where someone wrote the purpose into the law.
On point three, as MyThiago mentioned earlier, “I believe you need to learn a little bit about what marriage law actually says.” He/She said:
That means anything can be an excuse for divorce. Sterility, refusal to have children, etc. Funny enough I overheard someone just this week talking on their cell phone about some guy who wants to divorce his wife because she refuses to have children.
That means anything can be an excuse for divorce.
Anything could always be an excuse for divorce. It’s just that you no longer need to prove one of the ‘official’ reasons in court.
Op-ed, you still haven’t managed to explain why, in your view, if procreation is the be-all and end-all of marriage
That’s because Op-ed (or one of its pseudonyms) can’t. Heterosexuals have gutted marriage law of its ‘traditional’ aspects–sometimes quite explicitly. I am still waiting for somebody to give me a sound legal argument for why Baehr was incorrect or why Judge Kramer’s ruling in California was an incorrect interpretation of the California state Constitution.
They can’t. All they can do is prattle about the Original Purpose of Marriage, never mind how far we have strayed from that Platonic ideal, and pretend that they’ve left a legal leg for anti-SSM advocates to stand on.
MyThiago,
Two good reasons from this recent decision about SSM and DOMA this month in California,
— Smelt, et al., v. County of Orange, California
Theres a bunch more where that came from.
— O’Conner’s concurrence on Lawrence v. Texas
— Minnesota State Supreme Court, Baker v. Nelson
— Appellate court New Jersey, Lewis v. Harris
I have no idea how those are not correct interpretations of their constitutions either. I have no idea why they aren’t sound legal arguments.
And don’t try that whole “I don’t see it” or “its just absurd” thing on me people. Thats just rude. Ignoring the white elephant in the room won’t make it go away. I see how y’all like you try to make things just go away.
Out of curiousity, why are the anti-SSM crew all very clearly intentionally misspelling Mythago’s name?
At first I thought it was a typo, but it’s been all of them, and consistently. Is it some way of attempting to put Mythago in her place through the implication that her name is too unimportant to remember or used correctly?
Then they all cry about her being rude. So strange.
Caslim: I’m looking at this statement and it seems reasonable. I think you need to calm down a bit and realize OPED has a point.
if procreation is the be-all and end-all of marriage [means] same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to get marriage because they can’t procreate
I changed the “and”? to “means”? because that is what I think you meant. I hope you don’t mind.
I do mind, because it’s not what I meant. Op-ed is claiming (falsely) that “procreation is the be-all and end-all of marriage “. And claiming (falsely) that “same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to get marriage because they can’t procreate”.
Problem is “1”³[Mixed-sex couples who can’t procreate are allowed to get married] doesn’t disprove that rule. Mixed sex couples who can’t procreate get married and have burgeoned a billion dollar medical industry to help them procreate. Its absurd to say their efforts, and our efforts to help them have children disproves people get married to have children.
You are talking nonsense, I hope you realise. Yes, there is a very large medical industry helping women (and men) who can’t have children, have children. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. You do not have to be married to take advantage of the new medical techniques to help you have children. And you can marry even if none of the new medical techniques will ever help you have children. This is simply a madly irrelevant red herring. Now, move on.
Number 2 (1b to you) [indeed, marriage law does not mention procreation, anywhere] is even more desperately over-reaching. If that were true you could not say love is the purpose of marriage because marriage law does not mention “love”? either.
Indeed. I hate to break it to you, but people get married without loving each other. And those marriages are still legal and valid. (Indeed, some cultures believe that love comes rightfully after marriage.)
In fact, thinking of your first point you mentioned all the marriages that don’t procreate that are still marriages. Well think of all the marriages where they don’t love each other any more (or even at the moment). Should they get divorced every time they feel like saying “I hate you”??
Interesting. You raise a straw man “love is the purpose of marriage”, and then ask me a question as if this was a statement of my own. Why do you do this?
Besides, you are really getting absurd because I’m not sure if one could find a law where someone wrote the purpose into the law.
Certainly one can. The purpose of marriage law is to allow people to get married. That purpose is written into the law. You need look no further.
On point three, as MyThiago mentioned earlier
I second Kim’s wish to know why you keep mispelling Mythago’s name.
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.
Indeed you can. However, I doubt if you can find a single state in which inability or refusal to have children has been written in to divorce law. Of course it can be used as a reason to get divorced: if one of a couple wants children and the other one doesn’t, and this is something they cannot agree on and cannot compromise on, that might well be a reason to get divorced. Or you can divorce because you can’t stand the way your spouse hangs the toilet paper, but you won’t find that written into divorce law either.
In short, Op-ed still has those two massive holes in his/her argument, and for all your Computer Science degree (I have one too, by the way) you’ve still failed to answer them.
Out of curiousity, why are the anti-SSM crew all very clearly intentionally misspelling Mythago’s name?
There’s not a “crew”; same guy, different logins to create the illusion of supporters. (Though it is puzzling. Usually when wingnuts want to show how clever they are, they try to make some kind of lame joke out of the name instead of just a weird misspelling.)
Two good reasons from this recent decision about SSM and DOMA this month in California
Neither of which address Baehr or Judge Kramer’s decision. By the way, do you mind providing cites for those cases, or from where you extracted those comments? Because the way you present them makes your dodge especially lame:
O’Conner’s concurrence on Lawrence v. Texas
Which, interestingly, does not go on to cite those reasons. Nor does it say that the purpose of marriage is procreation, or that SSM should not exist because same-sex couples can’t procreate. This supported your point how, again?
Jes, Myth,
The two of you have spun back into the content-free zone and those with actual arguments have abandoned you. If you ever decide to propose an alternate purpose or actually make a logical refutation, you know where to find me.
Op-Ed.
http://www.opine-editorials.com/
and those with actual arguments have abandoned you
Shorter op-ed: I can’t think of any real counterargument, so I’ll declare myself the winner and post a link to my blog.
Mythago, I ordinarily don’t like that kind of comment – but it’s extremely appropriate here.
“Shorter op-ed” – ah, if only! ;-)
I’m not even sure what such a vague statement means.
Also, you put quotes around it, but you were the only one that’s said it that my search function can find on this page. When you say something and attribute it to someone else, well you know…
I mean, you complain that I changed what you said and then totally create a quote from someone else? Talk about straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
Worse yet you don’t even grace us with a clarification of what you are saying or how I my change altered its meaning. I took careful efforts to cordially make sure what you meant is what I said.
Why you treat people so rudely is beyond me. Its abusive and that is not a good way to conduct a discussion.
More abuse? You just call it “nonsense” and go on about how non-married couples get help too? Let me say it again…
“Mixed sex couples who can’t procreate get married and have burgeoned a billion dollar medical industry to help them procreate. Its absurd to say their efforts, and our efforts to help them have children disproves people get married to have children.”
You mentioned that is nonsense because people have children with help outside of marriage (we call this illegitimacy or bastardy in law). If that is nonsense then apparently to you the fact that some people who aren’t married get infertility treatments means that my friends who are getting infertility treatments must not be doing so to fulfill their goals in marriage.
Way to go, you just told people what their opinion is. I think that kind of abuse of yours was mentioned above also.
How was that a straw-man?
And now that you brought it up, do you really think marriage isn’t about love?
Thats a tautology. You’ve painted yourself into such a tiny corner with your legal fallacies that now all you can say the purpose of marriage law is ahem to allow people to get married. As Taranto says, what would we do without experts.
Please cite. Marriage is written in marriage law (duh). But where does it say the purpose is the trivial statement you presented, huh?
BTW, look up any debate about marriage legislation and you’ll find that behind the debate were people talking on and on about procreative responsibility. They saw it, but you don’t. And that is telling.
Okay, so you admit that its there just not explicitly stated and then say “I doubt you can find [it]”.
you’ve still failed to answer them.
More abuse?
I answered with about 13 points and quotes from justices who (thankfully) have a more basal understanding of law than you do. You replied to three and say because it that I haven’t answered something?
Lets review your replies and see why you feel I haven’t answered something…
1) “that’s nonsense” and created your own quote and attributed it to OP_ED.
2) “You raise a straw-man” (with no reason it is a straw man).
3) Agreed I was right, but in some vague inexplicable way that made me wrong somehow anyway.
I see how you are, thats all I need to say.
On to mytago, who has been enduring rather well the misspelling of his name that seems to have stared on post #128. I appreciate your patience, and apologize for cutting and pasting the wrong name.
Its funny, really. DOMA is passing with huge majorities in every state it is attempted. Perhaps that is just the same guy voting a couple billion times?
You realize Baehr was overruled by the people. Perhaps that chafes your sense of civic duty to our legal overlords, but its true because here in the USA its government of the people, for the people, by the people. Not of the judges, by the judges, for the plebes.
Perhaps you could provide us with the points in those decisions you felt were not addressed.
Then lets just ask, those legal arguments I quoted are or are not sound? If they are not, then why?
The only complaint you found was in the O’Connor concurrence didn’t enumerate just what “other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.” But simply that reasons exist is enough to undermine the legal theory behind Baehr. It seems all those other justices enumerated procreation responsibility to be a reason, how did you miss that?
Wait, there was another complaint. You said, “By the way, do you mind providing cites for those cases”. You’ll find they are direct quotes from the rulings themselves and are cited with a “– [yada yada]” following each quote. You can find the PDF’s online in a number of places.
I fail to see why quoting judges rulings about SSM is a dodge, or what problems there are in how I cited them. Please elucidate.
OP_ED,
I for one appologize for the rudeness everyone has been showing toward you. I for one appreciate that you’ve gone to such lenghts to explain your position here.
Thats because they just can’t do it.
All they can claim is that you haven’t, and thats not an argument that is a Monty Python routine.
I’m sorry they are just mocking and teasing. I wish they could provide sound arguments also.
Well gee, Caslim, thanks so much for apologizing on behalf of us. You’re holding pretty much the same position as him, you dipshit. You attempted to hold it up as ever-so-important because you have a computer science degree, and are clearly set in your belief that children are the basis of marriage in such a way that nobody is ever going to provide an argument that meets your narrow set of criteria.
You play passive aggressive games, and patronize your way through the whole schtick, and then compare our arguments as Monty Python-esque?
What’s the goal here? And don’t for a minute pretend that it’s to get some non-existent in your mind argument against a stance that is concrete in your brain. Plenty have been offered up and what is tossed back at us is talk of 800 pound gorilla’s and elephants, as if this says it all. Bullshit. Pretty a piece of turd up all you want, but at the end of the day, it’s still a piece of turd.
In the end, you’re just going to have to cope with the fact that this is bigotry, and regardless of any attempts, as valient as you might consider them to be to protect marriage from the faggots, it’s still discrimination against people and families. There’s your elephant and gorilla.
Jesus, Caslim, when Mythago said, “There’s not a “crew”?; same guy, different logins to create the illusion of supporters.
She said it in reference to the question from Kim (basement variety!), “Out of curiousity, why are the anti-SSM crew all very clearly intentionally misspelling Mythago’s name?”
This makes your subsequent response, “Its funny, really. DOMA is passing with huge majorities in every state it is attempted. . . ” either silly and pointless or deliberately obfuscationist.
When you consider additionally that even in your half-assed apology to Mythago for misspelling her name exactly like every other right-wing troll in this thread, you misspell her name again (although in a new and different way) and get her gender wrong, you might want to consider that adopting a tone of cool intellectual superiority is a pose you’re ill-prepared for.
—Myca
Oh, and I love that when Op-Ed is called on being little more than an internet sock-puppet with crappy spelling, that’s when he decides to declare victory and flee.
How very surprising.
—Myca
[deleted by Amp]
Caslim, all I can see is that you prefer insulting your opponents to addressing their arguments. That’s not a game I want to play.
Oh, Op-Ed, you’re back!
Excellent. Would you care now to explain why, if procreation is the be-all and end-all of marriage:
1. Mixed-sex couples who can’t procreate can get married.
2. Marriage law nowhere mentions procreation
3. Sterility, or refusal to have children, is not a standard ground for divorce anywhere in the US.
4. When a same-sex couple have children together, as many do, you still don’t support their getting married.
Your refusal to respond to this points (and Caslim’s inability to respond to them, though s/he tried) continues to suggest that you don’t really think that gay couples can’t get married because they can’t have children: you really think that gay couples shouldn’t get married, and you’ve dreamed up “and they can’t have children”?, fixing the evidence around your policy.
You can continue to refuse to respond, blare out a few insults, declare victory, and post a link to your blog for as long as you like, but it will be unconvincing to anyone except yourself and your sock-puppets.
That is just rude, Kim. Someone has to apologize for the rudeness and abuse here. Its really a shame it wasn’t you.
You won’t apologize and you are probably the most rude person here.
Calling someone a turd again. *sigh*
You can call people names all you want Kim. Apparently Ampersand likes it when you abuse people? Thats pretty much what he seems to mean by running a double standard here. But thats no way to run a blog. Its no way to do anything but harbor ignorant people.
If you want to do the mature thing and apologize though, I think that would be very appropriate.
Or a quote out of context ^_^
Really, what is it with you people?
Do you really think that some passerby is going to be impressed by calling people turds and quoting them out of context?
Jesurgilsac seemed to portray y’all as people interested in open and courteous debate. But all that gets someone here is a whole bunch of rudeness and abuse.
Y’all are kidding yourselves. There’s nothing polite or courteous from y’all here at all.
Op-Ed,
I still stand by apologizing for these people. Someone has to. I’m sure that somewhere there are courteous and honest people pushing for same-sex marriage that an honest discussion can happen with.
But all that remains here is invective and rudeness. Stick a fork in them, alas they are done.
Funny enough they pick some random think like pointing out spelling one of their crew’s name and claim victory over it. Any port in a storm I guess. If they can’t win over substance they can find something to nitpick.
If it makes them feel better about calling people turds, and otherwise being abusive and rude. Let alone not answering any points brought up.
So where did I insult you? I’ve been exceedingly courteous even though you have (along with people here) insulted me for no reason at all.
Apparently is the game you play.
Here is a list of your insults:
* I assume you know this and were just ignoring it.
* So, the “fundamentally different understanding of marriage”? is the fundamentally different understanding that you accepted yourself in the first sentence, only to contradict yourself in this sentence. Odd, that.
* wrong whenever her homophobia means she fails to do that
* So, mostly right: her homophobia is a problem, and one which I would hope she would strive to overcome.
* Clearly she is homophobic, and the only question is whether she can learn to overcome this aspect of her personality in order not to let it warp values that are more important to her.
* That’s a very straw man way of putting it. Simply, the only reasons for opposing same-sex marriage are homophobic ones.
* You may object to the fact that it exists, but to claim that it doesn’t is lunacy.
* Now you’re just being silly… Are you just being absurd for the sake of it?
* and how unpleasant the anti-same-sex marriage bigots can make themselves
* Your introduction of incest and non-sexual relationships as an equivalent to same-sex marriage is a particularly bizarre red herring. Is there really nothing you won’t stoop to?
* God, that’s disgusting. Truly, really, disgusting.
* doesn’t even make sense – it’s just… bizarre.
* you obviously haven’t been following the thread.
* What a completely wrong-headed statement.
And that is by no means a complete list. Nor is it even a list of where Jesurgilsac deliberately misrepresented, even through direct quotes at times, what other’s said.
No you called people silly, absurd, bizzare, wrong-headed, disgusting, homophobe (multiple times), and ignoring evidence (when they didn’t) which means you called them ignorant.
But you can apologize and turn a new leaf and say you won’t play that game any more.
But you still have the problem of the ten points you left unanswered, the three you answered without really pointing out any counter arguments, and a whole bunch more piled on after that.
And you can continue to not respond and hurl insults but that is just continuing to be rude.
Just admit it, the reason you haven’t discredited the case against SSM is because you, Jesurgilsac, cannot. Maybe we should keep you from trying to pass off “thats absurd” as intelligent commentary so that you can get down to trying to argue and not insult.
Jesurgilsac seemed to portray y’all as people interested in open and courteous debate.
The only problem is…
(1) Op-ed’s insulting and abusive.
(2) You’re just not very good at it.
But do try again. Four points were posted earlier that blow holes through the theory that marriage is only for the interfertile. If you want to argue against same-sex marriage, you need to come up with a new theory why it’s wrong: we’ve really torn the idea that it’s wrong because same-sex couples aren’t interfertile to shreds, and even Op-ed has given up on defending it in favor of (a) declaring victory (b) spitting insults (c) running back to his/her own blog.
So. If you oppose same-sex marriage, explain why, without any reference to the tired and discredited “because same-sex couples can’t have children” meme.