- Joined
- May 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,058
- Reaction score
- 514
- Location
- San Diego
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I'd certainly vote for it. Marriage has always been a malleable institution. I see no reason for it to suddenly be set in stone.
Apples and oranges are both fruits.
Are they?
So there is agreement and conformity on the definition of "marriage"?
You sure about that?
So how is a debate about same sex marriage separable from the definition of marriage?But they can be handled separately. Similarity does not mean that things need to be handled as the same thing.
Note however that this does not mean that both issues need to be handled as one thing, nor should they. It is possible to handle gay marriage without ever touching on the topic of whether marriage should legally require an intent to have children.
So how is a debate about same sex marriage separable from the definition of marriage?
It is theoretically possible--if one wishes to exclude a broad brush consideration of procreative intent from the definition of marriage. Of course, that excludes a variety of perspectives from the debate by imposing an arbitrary definition of marriage.
Before anyone can discuss same sex marriage, some level of consensus on what marriage is, legally and philosophically, must be reached. Paradoxically, the same sex marriage debate is at its core a challenge to traditional conceptions of marriage and the definition of the term "marriage"; it cannot be any other way, for if all were to agree that marriage was a union between man and woman, the possibility of same sex marriage disappears completely.
The problem is you think too highly of your own arguments.
Every time you have gotten into the gay marriage debate, your arguments are something of a joke to others.
You have not actually ever successfully argued against gay marriage.
:mrgreen::mrgreen:First, stop replying to posts when I am replying to another of your posts dammit!
Not so far as I am aware.Second, is procreative intent(I like that term) required by law now?
The issue is the definition of marriage--legally as well as culturally. Bear in mind that if one defines marriage as the union of man and woman, then "same sex marriage" becomes a contradiction in terms and thus an absolute impossibility; whatever union or relationship a same sex couple might have, by definition it could not be considered marriage.If not, then from a legal standpoint it is a non issue for gay marriage. The couple examples I saw offered actually did not make that connection.
The challenge is to change the definition. By opening the door to that challenge, the door is opened for all potential definitions to be argued and discussed.Why is there a need to change everything about marriage, to change one aspect of it?
This can be done.Because there is no need to change everything about marriage to allow gay marriage. Children as a required part of marriage is an entirely separate aspect of marriage. You can allow gay marriage without changing how the law views marriage and children, and you can change laws about marriage and children without allowing gay marriage.
Force. When they do that, I will stand with you. But, I wonder if your and my definition of "force" are the same.
Because there was precedence in other laws. Using the discrimination tactic worked because of that. And they could not alter those things, originally without an amendment.
I don't want it called "marriage", because it isn't what marriage has been and meant in almost every culture for thousands of years.
This can be done.
Should it be done?
What fringe element group?That is the obvious question. However, there are two questions when you bring in procreative intent. Should same sex marriage be allowed, and should procreative intent be required. The two are not necessarily tied to each other, and I don't think it is in the best interest of those of us for same sex marriage to try and tie them together. It tends to tie us to what I see as a fringe element group, and only would cost us support.
What fringe element group?
Or are you arguing that gay marriage abhors children?
When one's only reason for opposing gay marriage is religious and one tries to stop gay marriage from being legalized on that basis, that is most certainly trying to force their personal religious views on the whole of society.
So marriage really is all about the children?No I do not think gay marriage abhors children, I think gay marriage would be good for children.
So marriage really is all about the children?
Gay-marriage doesn't have to be *only* about children because interracial/hetero-marriage certainly is not.
However, 'marriage' per-se is mainly about raising children. If gays can show Conservatives/blacks that their preferred flavor of marriage is also mainly about raising children, then we'll sign off on it and turn the same blind eye to all those other childless gay couples who marry as we do those childless heteros that marry.
He is not adding any condition. He is merely articulating a view of marriage that is larger than the two people who marry.You are adding extra conditions to gay marriage. I doubt very much that we will need to do this to get enough support in the near future to pass gay marriage.
Who cares? The meaning of words change all the time. What we use the word "gay" for today isn't what it meant just a few decades ago. What one culture uses a word for, such as "fag" may have an entirely different meaning in another.
The argument from tradition is logically fallacious. All that matters is what marriage means right this second and what it means right this second in most nations is entirely secular.
He is not adding any condition. He is merely articulating a view of marriage that is larger than the two people who marry.
It is not an uncommon view of marriage. Legalities aside, many if not most people marry to build families. In this view, marriage serves a purpose that moves an individual beyond his or her own desires and compels the consideration of others.
Understanding that also sheds light on why a good many people oppose the rationales put forward by same sex marriage advocates. Embedded in the arguments that proceed from "I want" is a subtle dismissal and even rejection of the idea of building families and moving beyond the individual "I want."
Jerry's point speaks to exactly that. If same sex marriage advocates would devote their energies to speaking of building families, of adopting children, of reaching beyond the individual desires, that argument will find a much more receptive audience than the current vapid crying "foul!" using a discrimination thesis that proceeds from a definition of marriage that stands at odds with the traditional understanding of the term.