His question was entirely appropriate given the statements made earlier on the thread (for example, see Hobbes' statements), and your answer to my question is just plain wrong - as you have already been told - due to the fact that straight couples who choose not to have children are allowed to use the term "marriage". Also, I didn't ask you to tell me why straight marriage is good for society, I asked you to tell me why gay marriage is bad and you simply haven't done that. I really am done with this now.
I have a question for you if you don't mind coming back into the discussion. several times in our discourse you mentioned how you don't understand how anyone could care what other people do that doesn't directly affect them. doesn't the same hold true, why would you care whether two people can get married if it doesn't directly effect you? both are the same thing, simply manifested through a different position -- concern for what a third party can or can't do despite it not directly effecting yourself. you can argue that directly effects freedoms, but that isn't any more valid than directly effecting morality, you simply deem one more important than the other. now, since your position was about a third parties concern about others behavior, the country's legal concepts are independent of that and a different discussion.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. You argue disinegenuously. As I said you mischaracterized devil's question because you knew it was irrelevant. And I did answer that most straight couples have children, and there are good reasons why the potential to have them is enough basis for society to recognize the importance of marriage for that reason. You just don't like the answer, but it was answered, and you are lying to say it wasn;t.
The problem is the argument on the opposing side is being framed in at least 3 very different ways: The outright "same sex couples are less valuable" bigot position, the "I pretend to support it as long as I can call it something to devalue it" undercover bigot position, and the "I haven't really stated my position, I'm more concerned with the process" position. My question has nothing to do with YOUR framing of the argument, but it has everything to do with the framing used by people like Hobbes and kbgreen who state that they could support civil unions with identical rights as long as the word marriage isn't used. So for them, the question of why it matters what they call it if they concede that the rights should be the same is completely appropriate, seeing as they directly stated that allowing same sex couples to use the word is offensive to their "sacrament" of marriage. I am simply asking how so, and so far no one has even attempted an answer. As I said, for YOUR framing, which I admit may not even be opposition seeing as you said you wouldn't rule out voting for it, the question really doesn't matter, I admit.
If it has to be explained to you, the reason is because you're outrightly bigoted against the religious people for whom that is a sacrament. The simple fact of the matter is the argument on the left at it's core, revolves around the verbiage, not the considerations. And it's not 'can support', it's 'do support'. I also feel otoh that there is no reason, in granting those considerations to stick the thumb in the eye of the majority of people that hold the religious implications of marriage in that context. (and do not even try to argue that, Gay Marriage has been voted down in 31 states. Clearly thats a fair majority.) And as long as those pursuing the considerations insist on insulting that large segment of society, they deserve to lose the argument. P.S. junior, we didn't invent the framing, that is the argument being pushed by the 'intellectual' left. They seek to deliberately offend a majority of the country, rather than take their rights and be done with it. I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!
Is adoption out of the question or surrogate mothers/sperm bank? With advancements in science, gay people could produce biological children so having children isn't exactly a reason to prevent gay people from marrying and using the word marriage.
of course gay people can reproduce. but same sex couples can't reproduce together. and until science figures out how to artificially create an egg out of a male's DNA so his male partner can impregnate it with his genetic sperm, or create artificial sperm from a woman's DNA to impregnate her female partner's egg, gay couples won't be able to reproduce in the same way that straight couples can -- within their sexual orientation with their partners. of course, that isn't criteria to prevent marriage, I just think your example didn't paint the picture you were claiming it did. of course a gay human that is not sterile or infertile can reproduce, that was never an issue, but they require someone of the opposite sex to do so, which hardly validates a claim of equality of ability between straight and homosexual human's abilities to reproduce.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but because that's been the definition for more than 5 millenia? (m+w=marriage) DOTHR: Exactly! So, logically..., JE: If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood. DOTHR: And therefore--? JE: A witch!
No, I understand this completely and have said several times that I have no problem with any church that doesn't want to perform same sex marriages refusing to do so. However, the government has no religion, and we are talking about the legal aspect of marriage, not the religious aspect. It is important not to infringe on a religion (for example forcing churches to perform same sex weddings), but merely "offending" religious people should be of absolutely no concern.
Just like if I went around claiming I was the son of god because my mother cheated on my father and needed a way to explain the pregnancy I'd be put away?
I think the car example explains it best. why confuse everyone as to what it is. It is not a traditional marriage so what harm is it in having a different name. One name means a union between a man and women and the other word means a union between same sex couples. Hobbes and Big Blocker do a very good job pointing out that the gay comunity is using the name as an "stick in the eye" to those who feel marriage is sacred. Why don't you have an issue with that but do with me because I just want a different name for it? And for the record I do not think a different name de-values anything why does it have to? As has been pointed out a marriage is what the couple make of it. So would a civil union or whatever the same sex union is called.
Bigot. :wink: Marriage =Civil Union with religious implications. Civil Union = Marriage, no religious implications. To make it fair, any ceremony performed in a civil setting should be referred to as the latter, regardless of the makeup of the couple. Mayor,Ship Captain,Elvis...whatever...
Almost what I want. I want the government to refer to EVERY union as a civil union. Leave marriage to the church.
The bottom line is I don't care what word the government uses, as long as it's the same word and devoid of religious meaning. Since the government continues to call it marriage, that's what it should be called for everyone.
you athiests are messed up! I actually like the final outcome in this option but only because it keeps and honors the word marriage. Eventually, only those that the title marraige means something to will pursue it.
How exactly is it messed up to want the government to not apply religious meaning to a contract/tax break?
Sooooooo, after months of waiting, a Federal Court in California is finally returning a verdict in the gay marriage trial. Tomorrow, midday, all of San Francisco will either be rejoicing or rioting. Or, wait, do gays riot?
