Gay marriage question

[iNow]

It seems to me that given that marriage has been one thing for over 1000 years the people who are saying, wait a minute, you can't all of a sudden change what this thing means have more of a leg to stand on.

It seems your bigotry is only surpassed by your lack of understanding of history.

 

If we really want to argue "traditional marriage," perhaps you should know that back in the 800s-1200s through the middle ages and before, Christian leaders both performed and sanctioned same sex marriage. There was also gay marriage back in 100 AD.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/us/beliefs-study-medieval-rituals-same-sex-unions-raises-question-what-were-they.html

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-06-08/news/ls-1848_1_roman-catholic-church

http://io9.com/gay-marriage-in-the-year-100-ad-951140108

 

More from me here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/37083-evidence-for-a-definition-of-marriage/?p=469155

 

You seem to not have understood what my argument is. My argument is that the definition of marriage is a union btw a man and a woman.

I understand your argument perfectly. I just find it ignorant, unconvincing, and (whether consciously or not) rooted it bigotry.

 

You mention tradition, but tradition allowed children under the age of 10 to marry. We changed that. Tradition allowed daughters to be forced by their parents to marry others simply to pay off debts. We changed that. Tradition prevented biracial couples from marrying. We changed that, too, and rightly so. Traditions are different across cultures and traditions change. All of the time.

 

Now, just out of curiosity... how many head of cattle or acres of land did you offer your wife's father as her bride price? Was your marriage prearranged?

 

They are not identical. One applies to same sex couples, other opposite sex.

Yes, you keep repeating this, yet continue failing to address my actual question. What relevant difference is there?

 

Because some people care about tradition and see the application of this name to a same sex couple union as a perversion of something they care about.

Now you're saying it's a perversion? Please, do tell us all again how this is about "tradition" and not naked bigotry.

 

My question is why do the SS couples care? Its a label that was never applied to SS unions, why do they want it applied to them.

Because separate but equal is inherently unequal. Also, you keep saying "never." I do not think that word means what you think it means.

 

I'm with you all the way on them having to have the same legal rights, but what claim do they have on a label that's never been applied to them?

I refer you once more to your ignorance of history and selective blindness to what the church itself has sanctioned in the past.

 

But MY question would be: Who cares?

Once more, it seems only you do. Why is that? Edited March 6, 2017 by iNow

[Ten oz]

For those arguing tradition i have two questions: whoms specifically are you arguing on behalf of? All human history doesn't share a singular tradition related to marriage. And why should that specific tradition universally apply to everyone? Additionally, as a married man I can say that gay marriage in no way shape or form has diminished, interfered, or otherwise impacted my marriage to my wife. Our traditions (mine and my wife's) are free to be exercised 24/7.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Ten oz

[MigL]

Funny how people who 'label' themselves progressive and tolerant are always the first to start tossing around words like clueless, bigoted and ignorant. Not to mention implying a person who holds dissimilar views buys women, is ignorant of history, has selective blindness and thinks gay marriage is a perversion.

 

Give it a rest, iNow. and try to have a civil discussion.

This is after all, a discussion forum; should we not be discussing these topics ?

Or is parroting your world view only allowed.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Funny how people who 'label' themselves progressive and tolerant are always the first to start tossing around words like clueless, bigoted and ignorant. Not to mention implying a person who holds dissimilar views buys women, is ignorant of history, has selective blindness and thinks gay marriage is a perversion.

 

Give it a rest, iNow. and try to have a civil discussion.

This is after all, a discussion forum; should we not be discussing these topics ?

Or is parroting your world view only allowed.

 

 

I don't see how iNow's comments to you were uncivil. Regardless, I don't think your response is appropriate. iNow brought up some excellent points in response to your post; the least you could do is actually respond to them.

[Strange]

It seems to me that given that marriage has been one thing for over 1000 years the people who are saying, wait a minute, you can't all of a sudden change what this thing means have more of a leg to stand on.

 

I don't think marriage has had a legal definition for anywhere neat that long.

 

But also, your claim that it is a "union between a man and a woman" is very naive. They also have to be above a certain age, not be too closely related (the definition of which is culturally dependent), in some places/times they have to be of the same colour/caste/tribe, and so on.

 

 

 

 

Why does it matter that you call a union between opposite sex couples X and you call a union between same sex couples Y? Why is that something to get upset over?

 

It seems to be universal that labels matter. Just look at the changing use and acceptability of words like negro, coloured, black, Afro-Carribean, etc. over the years. Or, more relevantly, words like homosexual, queer, gay, etc.

 

That is a different and much more general question than the one you started this thread with.

 

But as it bothers you so much, perhaps you could say why it matters.

 

 

 

You seem to not have understood what my argument is. My argument is that the definition of marriage is a union btw a man and a woman. That's why the argument doesn't apply to people of mixed race or certain hair color etc.

 

As the word has excluded people of certain races in the past, the point is very relevant.

So why should your preferred definition have precedence when the word has had different meanings at different times?

 

 

It's like me who's not an American insisting that Americans must refer to me as an American.

 

That is a terrible analogy. It could be more like Canadians saying that they are Americans, not just people from the USA. (Or vice-versa.)

Edited March 6, 2017 by Strange

[iNow]

Funny how people who 'label' themselves progressive and tolerant

It sure is a good thing that I don't label myself that way. In fact, I openly admit that I'm quite intolerant of and rather passionately against ignorance, bigotry, and poor arguments that seek little more than to perpetuate a "separate but equal" style discrimination in our society.

 

Give it a rest, iNow. and try to have a civil discussion.

This is after all, a discussion forum; should we not be discussing these topics ?

Or is parroting your world view only allowed.

I'm still waiting to hear what your point is. Perhaps you'd like to respond to the substance of my replies? Surely, you have something more to offer in response than merely telling me I've hurt your feelings?

[Ten oz]

Funny how people who 'label' themselves progressive and tolerant are always the first to start tossing around words like clueless, bigoted and ignorant. Not to mention implying a person who holds dissimilar views buys women, is ignorant of history, has selective blindness and thinks gay marriage is a perversion.

 

Give it a rest, iNow. and try to have a civil discussion.

This is after all, a discussion forum; should we not be discussing these topics ?

Or is parroting your world view only allowed.

You can call gay marriage a perversion and support interfering with the private and financial (marriage has financial implications) lives of millions projecting your personal sense of tradition upon them yet iNow can't call you ignorant? iNow isn't pushing the notion that you don't have the right to marry, post in this form, or etc. It is you who are promoting overt oppression while putting yourself on a cross claiming people are being civil enough toward your ideas.

[Alfred001]

It seems your bigotry is only surpassed by your lack of understanding of history.

 

???

 

Why would you call me a bigot?

 

I'd appreciate it if you would not baselessly insult me as I have been nothing but civil to you.

 

If we really want to argue "traditional marriage," perhaps you should know that back in the 800s-1200s through the middle ages and before, Christian leaders both performed and sanctioned same sex marriage. There was also gay marriage back in 100 AD.

 

http://www.nytimes.c...-were-they.html

http://articles.lati...catholic-church

http://io9.com/gay-m...00-ad-951140108

 

More from me here: http://www.sciencefo...riage/?p=469155

 

Unless I'm missing something, at no point do your sources refer to these gay unions as marriage.

 

There's this

 

 

One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union"

 

this

 

 

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union"

 

and this

 

 

in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

 

No gay marriage.

 

There's also this:

 

 

There is no question that Professor Boswell has found records of ceremonies consecrating a pairing of men, ceremonies often marked by similar prayers and, over time, by standardized symbolic gestures: the clasping of hands, the binding of hands with a stole, kisses, receiving holy communion, a feast after the ceremony.Some of these ritual actions also marked heterosexual marriages, but there remained differences in both actions and words between the two ceremonies.

 

this

 

 

Boswell admits that some of the documents he found may refer simply to non-sexual joining of two men's fortunes — but many also referred to what today we would call gay marriage.

 

and this

 

 

Not only do skeptics about Professor Boswell's thesis worry, but so does Professor Hexter. "There's going to be a flurry of reports, and people who will never read the book will repeat that it claims there were gay marriages,"

 

Now, to other points

 

 

You mention tradition, but tradition allowed children under the age of 10 to marry. We changed that. Tradition allowed daughters to be forced by their parents to marry others simply to pay off debts. We changed that. Tradition prevented biracial couples from marrying. We changed that, too, and rightly so. Traditions are different across cultures and traditions change. All of the time.

 

The fact that some aspects of a tradition have changed does not mean that people do not have the right to cling to other parts of it that they wish to cling to.

 

 

Yes, you keep repeating this, yet continue failing to address my actual question. What relevant difference is there?

 

That one is SS other OS. Can you understand that the fact that that is irrelevant to you doesn't mean it is irrelevant to others?

 

Can you comprehend that someone can feel differently about something than you and that maybe you should be tolerant of that.

 

 

Now you're saying it's a perversion? Please, do tell us all again how this is about "tradition" and not naked bigotry.

 

Because traditionally a marriage has been a union btw a man and a woman.

 

Please stop insulting me with the bigotry accusation.

 

 

Unequal in the sense that they are referred to by different names, so?

 

 

I don't see how iNow's comments to you were uncivil.

 

Really, calling someone a bigot is not uncivil?

 

 

I don't think marriage has had a legal definition for anywhere neat that long.

 

I'm not talking about law I'm talking about tradition.

 

 

But also, your claim that it is a "union between a man and a woman" is very naive. They also have to be above a certain age, not be too closely related (the definition of which is culturally dependent), in some places/times they have to be of the same colour/caste/tribe, and so on.

 

???

 

None of those things refute that it is a union between a man and a woman.

 

 

It seems to be universal that labels matter. Just look at the changing use and acceptability of words like negro, coloured, black, Afro-Carribean, etc. over the years. Or, more relevantly, words like homosexual, queer, gay, etc.

 

So can't you then appreciate why people who oppose gay marriage care about the label "marriage?"

 

 

But as it bothers you so much, perhaps you could say why it matters.

 

As I've said REPEATEDLY and had it ignored AND been called a bigot, I don't care. I'm merely arguing the case.

 

As to why it matters to the people that it matters to, because it is a part of their culture's tradition and they perceive the application of the label "marriage" to a SS couple as desecrating this part of their culture.

 

 

As the word has excluded people of certain races in the past, the point is very relevant.

 

So why should your preferred definition have precedence when the word has had different meanings at different times?

 

Virtually no one cares any more about the restriction on mixed race marriages, that's why that aspect of the tradition is not important any more.

 

The opposite sex couples aspect of the tradition still matters to, I imagine, something like 50% of people in Western societies (I'm sure the exact % varies).

 

As far as I know, unless iNow has some sources that state the opposite, the tradition has never been applied to SS couples.

 

The people who care for this aspect of their culture have the right to demand that it be preserved and honored.

 

 

I have a question here for iNow (and anyone else who feels the same way can answer). I'm going to assume, perhaps I'm wrong, that you oppose cultural appropriation.

 

Seeing how your sources do not show that the term "marriage" ever applied to SS couples, do you then oppose SS couples appropriating the culture of OS couples?

 

 

That is a terrible analogy. It could be more like Canadians saying that they are Americans, not just people from the USA. (Or vice-versa.)

 

No, what I said IS analogous and, no, it doesn't need to be Canadians.

 

 

I openly admit that I'm quite intolerant of and rather passionately against ignorance, bigotry, and poor arguments that seek little more than to perpetuate a "separate but equal" style discrimination in our society.

 

Tolerance is a virtue and you shouldn't assume that everyone who disagrees with you is malicious.

 

 

You can call gay marriage a perversion and support interfering with the private and financial (marriage has financial implications) lives of millions projecting your personal sense of tradition upon them yet iNow can't call you ignorant? iNow isn't pushing the notion that you don't have the right to marry, post in this form, or etc. It is you who are promoting overt oppression while putting yourself on a cross claiming people are being civil enough toward your ideas.

 

Lets, please, stay within the premise otherwise we're gonna go hopelessly off topic.

 

The premise is what if civil unions had all the same legal rights as marriage, just weren't referred to as marriage.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Alfred001

[MigL]

Well, I was going to try to explain how iNow had been uncivil to Alfred00i1, but he did quite well on his own.

The fact that someone disagrees about some small aspect ( like a definition ) of gay marriage does no automatically make them a bigot.

That being said, I understand iNow is passionate about some topics, and I value his opinions, but not when they concern another member's character.

 

And Hyper, it would help if you read the posts ( #51 ) ; I never claimed iNow's response to me was uncivil.

I called him out for his response to Alfred001 in post #51.

So please tell me how that was inappropriate ?

[iNow]

The fact that someone disagrees about some small aspect ( like a definition ) of gay marriage does no automatically make them a bigot.

You're correct, but it's not the mere fact that he disagrees with me that renders his views bigoted. It's the nature of the views themselves.

 

 

[mp][/mp]

The fact that some aspects of a tradition have changed does not mean that people do not have the right to cling to other parts of it that they wish to cling to.

You can cling to any ignorant silly idea you want. Nobody here is trying to prevent you from clinging on to anything or to change your rights. The same cannot be said of you, however.

 

That one is SS other OS. Can you understand that the fact that that is irrelevant to you doesn't mean it is irrelevant to others?

It's irrelevant to the law and the equal protections guaranteed therein.

 

I'm not talking about law I'm talking about tradition.

Which is why your views are so easy to dismiss and ignore.

 

As I've said REPEATEDLY and had it ignored AND been called a bigot, I don't care. I'm merely arguing the case.

Not very well, apparently.

 

Virtually no one cares any more about the restriction on mixed race marriages, that's why that aspect of the tradition is not important any more.

Imagine how it was right when it was happening, though. People made the VERY SAME arguments you're here now making. Let us know when you're ready to rejoin the "right side of history" on this one. Edited March 6, 2017 by iNow

[StringJunky]

WRT to the use of the word 'marriage': I can't see any justification for only one group monopolising such a common word for their own use or for it to be used by people that fall within a definition of narrow scope.

[Strange]

So can't you then appreciate why people who oppose gay marriage care about the label "marriage?"

 

 

Of course. You think marriage should stick to your definition. Others think it should change.

 

The point is you can't really argue that marriage shouldn't change because it contradicts your preferred definition. That is just saying that it shouldn't change because you don't want it to change.

 

 

 

As I've said REPEATEDLY and had it ignored AND been called a bigot, I don't care. I'm merely arguing the case.

 

I assume you care because you are arguing the case.

 

 

 

As to why it matters to the people that it matters to, because it is a part of their culture's tradition and they perceive the application of the label "marriage" to a SS couple as desecrating this part of their culture.

 

And others disagree. Shrug.

 

 

 

Virtually no one cares any more about the restriction on mixed race marriages, that's why that aspect of the tradition is not important any more.

 

And in many places no one cares much about same sex marriages any more, that's why that aspect of the tradition is not important any more.

 

(Of course, there are still a few people who think mixed race marriages should not be allowed. And a few who think same sex marriages should not be allowed. Again, shrug.)

 

 

 

The opposite sex couples aspect of the tradition still matters to, I imagine, something like 50% of people in Western societies (I'm sure the exact % varies).

 

And 37.2% of statistics are made up.

 

 

 

The people who care for this aspect of their culture have the right to demand that it be preserved and honored.

 

And others have the right to demand it should change.

 

You seem convinced that your view (*) should take precedence. But there isn't really any objective reason why that should.

 

Both the word marriage and the institution are defined by convention. As society changes, both of those may change as well.

 

(*) OK, you are pretending it isn't really your opinion. But it isn't very convincing.

[Ten oz]

Virtually no one cares any more about the restriction on mixed race marriages, that's why that aspect of the tradition is not important any more.

 

The opposite sex couples aspect of the tradition still matters to, I imagine, something like 50% of people in Western societies (I'm sure the exact % varies).

 

As far as I know, unless iNow has some sources that state the opposite, the tradition has never been applied to SS couples.

 

The people who care for this aspect of their culture have the right to demand that it be preserved and honored.

 

 

 

So because the majority of society no longer cares about mixed race marriages the bigoted traditions no longer apply? By that logic they should no longer apply to same sex marriage either since the majority support same sex marriage (see links below).

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183272/record-high-americans-support-sex-marriage.aspx

 

Pew Research also shows majority support for sam sex marriage.

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

[hypervalent_iodine]

Well, I was going to try to explain how iNow had been uncivil to Alfred00i1, but he did quite well on his own.

The fact that someone disagrees about some small aspect ( like a definition ) of gay marriage does no automatically make them a bigot.

That being said, I understand iNow is passionate about some topics, and I value his opinions, but not when they concern another member's character.

 

And Hyper, it would help if you read the posts ( #51 ) ; I never claimed iNow's response to me was uncivil.

I called him out for his response to Alfred001 in post #51.

So please tell me how that was inappropriate ?

Inappropriate in the sense that you dismissed his post, which contained some good and valid points, without actually responding to it. Inappropriate because that's hardly a way to hold intelligent discussion on a matter, and this is a discussion forum.

[iNow]

And before things get out of hand here or someone accuses Hypervalent of anything, I readily acknowledge that I am being a bit harsh.

 

You know what, though? Not all opinions deserve respect. Many deserve outright ridicule. I've not done that either, though.

 

My argument is firm and accurate. My points have gone unaddressed. Calling a spade a spade or a referring to a bigoted stance as bigoted is not in any way inappropriate nor is it an attack on the person.

[Arete]

Seeing how your sources do not show that the term "marriage" ever applied to SS couples, do you then oppose SS couples appropriating the culture of OS couples?

 

When my wife and I first immigrated to the US, I was listed as a J2 on her J1 visa. De facto relationships are not recognized by USCIS. As such, if we were a homosexual rather than a heterosexual couple, I would not have been allowed to accompany her into the country, as our country of citizenship - Australia, has not legalized gay marriage.

 

Seems like a straightforward example of homosexual couples being discriminated against because they cannot legally marry, don't you agree?

[MigL]

Where in the rules does it say I have to respond to every part of iNow's post, Hyper ?

I responded to the part that concerned me, his admitted 'harshness' to another member.

 

He sees it yet you double down and call my post inappropriate.

Maybe you should report me.

Maybe that's why I have a lot of respect for iNow's opinions and slowly losing respect for yours.

And if I've unknowingly done/said anything to offend you, PM me and we can discuss it like adults.

[iNow]

^I'm not sure you're helping your case. Probably best to drop it.

 

Key points are these:

 

- No relevant secular reasons to treat or name them differently

- Tradition is a poor argument as traditions change all of the time (child marriage, payment for brides, arranged marriages, no mixed race marriages, etc.)

- Procreation is not relevant since the infertile and those with zero desire to have kids marry all of the time and get to call theirs a marriage

- The "definition" also changes, and history shows same sex marriage is hardly some new phenomenon

- Unless better arguments can be put forth, it seems apparent this is about raw bigotry and ignorance (even if those who feel this way are otherwise good people)

[Alfred001]

You can cling to any ignorant silly idea you want.

What is the idea ignorant of?

 

Nobody here is trying to prevent you from clinging on to anything or to change your rights. The same cannot be said of you, however.

But you are. By insisting that the word marriage be applied to gay people you ARE preventing them from clinging to a tradition.

 

How is it that I'm changing anyone's rights? (obviously CURRENTLY in the US gay people have the right to apply the word marriage to their unions, but I'm arguing the point whether that should have been done)

 

It's irrelevant to the law and the equal protections guaranteed therein.

I don't care about the law, I care about what's right.

 

Which is why your views are so easy to dismiss and ignore.

Why is it that you think that the fact that you do not care about tradition makes you entitled to trample over what other people care about?

 

If you went to Japan and someone asked you to take your shoes off before entering their house, would you tell them that that's stupid because it's based on tradition and they are stupid to do something just because that's how it was done in the past. (btw, I don't know whether they actually do that in Japan, but let's say, for the sake of argument, that they do)

 

Imagine how it was right when it was happening, though. People made the VERY SAME arguments you're here now making.

I doubt that even you know what your point is here.

 

 

Are you gonna adress my argument at all?

 

My argument is that the word marriage has never been applied to gay couples so what claim do they have on it?

 

The sources you yourself quote give different terms for their unions, why don't they use those?

 

Furthermored the people who care for marriage as part of their culture and tradition have the right to have it preserved in the original form which they care for. The fact that YOU don't care about tradition doesn't mean you get to do with it as you please when 37% of US does.

 

So, what, fuck them? They're not important?

 

Why don't you answer my cultural appropriation question?

 

Since the term marriage has never been applied to unions btw SS couples, does this constitute cultural appropriation?

 

 

Please adress my arguments.

 

You just cherrypick what you want and skip anything that doesn't suit you and then tell me I'm arguing my case poorly. Well, sure, if you're gonna gloss over everything that defeats your position, sure I'm arguing poorly.

 

Meanwhile you're the one who made a claim and then cited a series of sources pretending that they substantiate it, when, unless I'm missing something, they don't at all.

 

Don't debate like that. Let's leave the one upsmanship out of it and try to arrive at the proper position.

 

WRT to the use of the word 'marriage': I can't see any justification for only one group monopolising such a common word for their own use or for it to be used by people that fall within a definition of narrow scope.

The justification is that it has always ONLY been applied to them.

 

Would you play ball if someone suddenly decided that the word "chair" also applies to tables?

 

Of course. You think marriage should stick to your definition. Others think it should change.

 

The point is you can't really argue that marriage shouldn't change because it contradicts your preferred definition. That is just saying that it shouldn't change because you don't want it to change.

If I don't have the right to say that it shouldn't change because I don't want it to change, how do you have a right to change it because you want it to change?

 

The argument

 

And others disagree. Shrug.

But don't you think those people have the right to have their culture preserved and respected?

 

And in many places no one cares much about same sex marriages any more, that's why that aspect of the tradition is not important any more.

37% of Americans oppose gay marriage.

 

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

 

And others have the right to demand it should change.

 

 

 

You seem convinced that your view (*) should take precedence. But there isn't really any objective reason why that should.

 

 

 

Both the word marriage and the institution are defined by convention. As society changes, both of those may change as well.

There is a perfectly objective reason and I've stated it already.

 

The word marriage has NEVER referred to SS couples.

 

Since it has never referred to SS couples and never been part of their culture they have no claim on it and no grounds to demand that they have the right to appropriate it.

 

Do I have any grounds to demand that Japanese people change their culture?

 

 

(*) OK, you are pretending it isn't really your opinion. But it isn't very convincing.

???

 

Why IN THE WORLD do you think I would pretend not to hold views I hold?

 

So because the majority of society no longer cares about mixed race marriages the bigoted traditions no longer apply? By that logic they should no longer apply to same sex marriage either since the majority support same sex marriage

I did not say "majority" I said "virtually no one."

 

Furthermore, surely you would not say that the values and thoughts of those 37% of people don't matter simply because they are a minority and we should just trample over them because we can, we're the majority?

 

Inappropriate in the sense that you dismissed his post, which contained some good and valid points, without actually responding to it. Inappropriate because that's hardly a way to hold intelligent discussion on a matter, and this is a discussion forum.

Why are you not calling out iNow for not answering my questions and not adressing my arguments? Why are you not fair, but rather only policing the side you don't like?

 

My argument is firm and accurate.

Like the sources you quoted which turned out to not support your claim?

Name one argument you've made that I've not refuted.

 

My points have gone unaddressed.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, man?!!?! I've addressed EVERYTHING you've said meanwhile you've not even touched on my main argument except with inaccurate sources and then when I pointed it out you just glossed over it as if nothing happened.

 

Calling a spade a spade or a referring to a bigoted stance as bigoted is not in any way inappropriate nor is it an attack on the person.

My stance is not bigotted and your claiming that it is when it isn't is insulting.

 

I am arguing the conservatives' side on the basis that the term marriage has never applied to gay marriage and the people who care for the traditional definition of the term have the right to demand their culture be preserved and that the meaning of the word does not change because it matters to them and is part of their culture and tradition.

 

I'm NOT arguing on the basis that I hate gay people. THAT would be bigoted.

 

I'm not calling you a nasty word. I could say to you that you're a hateful person because you wish to destroy someone's culture and have no regard for the rights of a minority (as we saw, 37% oppose gay marraige), but I don't do that. That's what SJWs do. I only adress your arguments. I'd appreciate it if you'd extend me the same curtesy.

 

You know what, though? Not all opinions deserve respect. Many deserve outright ridicule. I've not done that either, though.

Ridicule my views and call them stupid, if you can find the basis for it and the arguments against them. I have no problem with that at all. If I make a stupid argument call it stupid and mock it, if you wish. But don't baselessly call me a bigot.

 

- No relevant secular reasons to treat or name them differently

- Tradition is a poor argument as traditions change all of the time (child marriage, payment for brides, arranged marriages, no mixed race marriages, etc.)

- Procreation is not relevant since the infertile and those with zero desire to have kids marry all of the time and get to call theirs a marriage

- The "definition" also changes, and history shows same sex marriage is hardly some new phenomenon

- Unless better arguments can be put forth, it seems apparent this is about raw bigotry and ignorance (even if those who feel this way are otherwise good people)

See, there you go. I refuted EVERY SINGLE ONE of these points and you simply glossed over the refutations and didn't answer, but continue to claim your arguments are valid.

 

So, lets do this over again now, and no ducking this time. I want you to answer all the counter arguments I'm gonna give or concede that your argument is invalid. Please state for each point your counter argument or state that you're conceding, play fair, don't just skip over things as if nothing happened.

 

Also I want you to answer my question about cultural appropriation.

 

- No relevant secular reasons to treat or name them differently

The relevant secular reason is that one is SS the other is OS, the definition of marriage has always been SS.

 

I appreciate you don't care about tradition, other people do and you should respect their desire to preserve their tradition.

 

Could the term marriage be redefined to apply to ANY two people, regardless of gender? Sure, the term african american could be redefined to apply to all people, too. But the people who care about tradition and who come from the community which originated the term, heteros, want to preserve their culture and I think they have a right to it.

 

The point you're making is tantamount to me saying there's no reason the word Japanese couldn't apply to me, so if I start insisting that the word Japanese be exapnded to include me Japanese people should simply have to accept that and they are bigots if they don't, they simply hate white people.

 

- Tradition is a poor argument as traditions change all of the time (child marriage, payment for brides, arranged marriages, no mixed race marriages, etc.)

This is completely irrelevant.

 

The fact that tradition changes and that this one may change in the future in no way renders the desires of people to preserve those traditions in the current moment irrelevant.

 

- Procreation is not relevant since the infertile and those with zero desire to have kids marry all of the time and get to call theirs a marriage

Never claimed this was relevant.

 

- The "definition" also changes, and history shows same sex marriage is hardly some new phenomenon

Once again, the fact that the definition changes is irrelevant.

 

For the third time, your sources, unless I missed something, do not show the term marriage ever applied to these unions between men. Different terms were used. Please don't gloss over this point for the third time. Do you have some counter evidence or do you concede this point?

 

- Unless better arguments can be put forth, it seems apparent this is about raw bigotry and ignorance (even if those who feel this way are otherwise good people

I ask you again, ignorance of what? Please don't skip over this question.

 

And I'm going to again ask you to stop calling me a bigot.

 

 

Please answer all of these counter arguments and either give a good counter argument or concede the point. Don't just gloss over them, state whether you have a counter argument or state that you are conceding. Don't skip over anything.

 

Furthermore, if there is indeed no evidence of the term marriage having been frequently and consistently used in SS ceremonies (if you have any evidence for this, I'd be interested in seeing it), does the demand on the part of SS couples to have the term marriage be applied to their unions constitute cultural appropriation?

 

 

Also, my main argument (and I'd like you to address it finally) is this:

 

Tthe term marriage has never applied to gay marriage (I understand this is still up in the air, if you have evidence for consistent and frequent use I'll reconsider my position) and the people who care for the traditional definition of the term have the right to demand their culture be preserved and that the meaning of the word does not change because it matters to them and is part of their culture and tradition.

 

These people should not simply be trampled over by a majority that disagrees with them, but should have their culture respected.

 

Since the the term marriage has never applied to the gay community, they have no claim to the term and cannot dictate to the community which originated the term and from whose culture it comes that the term be changed, no more than I have the right to tell Japanese people in what way Japanese culture oughtta be changed.

 

I understand that YOU don't care about what this custom has traditionally been, but you can understand that not everyone feels the way you do and that this is immensely important to some people who care a great deal about their culture and tradition.

 

When my wife and I first immigrated to the US, I was listed as a J2 on her J1 visa. De facto relationships are not recognized by USCIS. As such, if we were a homosexual rather than a heterosexual couple, I would not have been allowed to accompany her into the country, as our country of citizenship - Australia, has not legalized gay marriage.

 

Seems like a straightforward example of homosexual couples being discriminated against because they cannot legally marry, don't you agree?

Folks, please read the preceeding pages before posting, because things will become too hectic and we won't be able to keep the discussion focused if people just start dropping in posts without knowing what the premise of the argument we're having is.

 

The argument we are having is what if gay couples had all the same legal rights as straight couples, only you didn't call it marriage, you called it a civil union. That's what we are arguing, whether that is acceptable or not. Not whether gay couples have the same rights as straight couples right now.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Alfred001

[Strange]

If you went to Japan and someone asked you to take your shoes off before entering their house, would you tell them that that's stupid because it's based on tradition and they are stupid to do something just because that's how it was done in the past. (btw, I don't know whether they actually do that in Japan, but let's say, for the sake of argument, that they do)

 

 

They do.

 

But say you had visited Japan a long time ago and got used to the (very sensible) tradition of removing your shoes. Then you go back and they say, "oh no, we don't do that any more. You come into the house with your shoes on."

 

According to you, that should no longer be called "coming into the house" because that requires you to take your shoes off. It needs to have anew name for people who are not sticking by the old tradition.

 

 

 

The word marriage has NEVER referred to SS couples.

 

Since it has never referred to SS couples and never been part of their culture they have no claim on it and no grounds to demand that they have the right to appropriate it.

 

But is has referred to things other than just "a man and a woman". By your "tradition" argument, it was wrong for those places that used to allow child marriages to now prevent them. Or those that used to ban interracial/intercaste marriages should not allow them now.

 

Things change. Get over it.

 

 

 

But don't you think those people have the right to have their culture preserved and respected?

 

No more than other people. As you say, the majority of Americans accept gay marriage. So the "tradition" has changed to keep pace with public opinion. That is culture, society, language and the law work.

 

 

 

Why IN THE WORLD do you think I would pretend not to hold views I hold?

 

I have no idea. I assume it is the same as the rather dishonest "I'm just asking" tactic used by creationists, for example.

 

As to why you are not very convincing; perhaps because you keep switching between "some people think" and "it is wrong".

 

Plus look at how emotional you have got about something that you don't care about at all...

 

 

The argument we are having is what if gay couples had all the same legal rights as straight couples, only you didn't call it marriage, you called it a civil union. That's what we are arguing, whether that is acceptable or not.

 

And, very clearly, it isn't acceptable to a lot of the people who are affect by it. Many people in the UK held off having a civil partnership because they wanted a "marriage".

 

I can't tell you why that is. But, like you, many people think the name is important.

[StringJunky]

 

 

They do.

 

But say you had visited Japan a long time ago and got used to the (very sensible) tradition of removing your shoes. Then you go back and they say, "oh no, we don't do that any more. You come into the house with your shoes on."

 

According to you, that should no longer be called "coming into the house" because that requires you to take your shoes off. It needs to have anew name for people who are not sticking by the old tradition.

 

 

But is has referred to things other than just "a man and a woman". By your "tradition" argument, it was wrong for those places that used to allow child marriages to now prevent them. Or those that used to ban interracial/intercaste marriages should not allow them now.

 

Things change. Get over it.

 

 

No more than other people. As you say, the majority of Americans accept gay marriage. So the "tradition" has changed to keep pace with public opinion. That is culture, society, language and the law work.

 

 

I have no idea. I assume it is the same as the rather dishonest "I'm just asking" tactic used by creationists, for example.

 

As to why you are not very convincing; perhaps because you keep switching between "some people think" and "it is wrong".

 

Plus look at how emotional you have got about something that you don't care about at all...

 

And, very clearly, it isn't acceptable to a lot of the people who are affect by it. Many people in the UK held off having a civil partnership because they wanted a "marriage".

 

I can't tell you why that is. But, like you, many people think the name is important.

"We are civil unioned", "When did you get civil unioned?" and "Will you civil union with me?" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

Edited March 8, 2017 by StringJunky

[ecoli]

"We are civil unioned", "When did you get civil unioned?" and "Will you civil union with me?" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

civilians of the world, unite!

[iNow]

I don't care about the law, I care about what's right.

I suppose that's all the more reason to change your silly misguided stance on this issue.

 

I doubt that even you know what your point is here.

Happy to explain. I referenced similarities between your position against same sex marriages and the position others took a few decades against mixed race marriages.

 

You replied: "Virtually no one cares any more about the restriction on mixed race marriages, that's why that aspect of the tradition is not important any more."

 

What you seem confused about is that, at one point in time, people very much DID care about mixed race marriages and the arguments used today by those opposed to same sex marriage are directly parallel to the arguments used decades ago against mixed race marriage (whether referring solely to use of the word or to the broader issue of rights which you've conceded).

 

You argue that your opposition to same sex marriage is based on tradition. They argued that their opposition to mixed race marriages was based on tradition.

You argue that your opposition to same sex marriage is because some people feel it's wrong. They argued that their opposition to mixed race marriages was because some people feel it's wrong.

The parallels are many, and this remains true whether or not you acknowledge or see it. Give your focus on tradition, you should more thoughtfully consider the tradition of those opposing mixed race marriage and recognize how they were on the wrong side of history (very much as you are here on this issue).

 

The tradition argument is garbage no matter how you slice it, yet that's the entirety of your position. I hope this has helped clarify what you missed in my previous post. I'll gladly walk through it or articulate it another way if you still me to do so.

 

people who care for marriage as part of their culture and tradition have the right to have it preserved in the original form which they care for. The fact that YOU don't care about tradition doesn't mean you get to do with it as you please when 37% of US does.

 

So, what, fuck them? They're not important?

See? You DO understand! Glad you're finally catching on.

 

I'm going to again ask you to stop calling me a bigot.

I haven't called you a bigot. I have, however, accurately described your stance and position on this specific topic as being itself bigoted.

 

The argument we are having is what if gay couples had all the same legal rights as straight couples, only you didn't call it marriage, you called it a civil union.

Simple. It's not.

 

Separate but equal is inherently UNequal.

Edited March 8, 2017 by iNow

[Alfred001]

They do.

 

But say you had visited Japan a long time ago and got used to the (very sensible) tradition of removing your shoes. Then you go back and they say, "oh no, we don't do that any more. You come into the house with your shoes on."

 

According to you, that should no longer be called "coming into the house" because that requires you to take your shoes off. It needs to have anew name for people who are not sticking by the old tradition.

 

No, the definition of "coming into the house" is moving from outsied the house's walls to within the house's walls. The taking off of shoes doesn't enter into it, its just a curtesy.

 

Just like the cutting of a ribbon is usually done with scissors, but if you do it with a stake knife, you're still cutting a ribbon.

 

 

But is has referred to things other than just "a man and a woman". By your "tradition" argument, it was wrong for those places that used to allow child marriages to now prevent them.

 

For chrissake, man, we just went through this in the previous post.

 

I said, if no one cares for a tradition any more (or almost no one) then it's ok to change it.

 

I'm beginning to think you're intentionally misrepresenting my argument. My argument is not it should be so because of tradition, my argument is it should be so because these people care for tradition.

 

 

Or those that used to ban interracial/intercaste marriages should not allow them now.

 

This is the EXACT example we used and in reference to which I explained the SAME position I explained AGAIN before this quote.

 

I can't keep explaining the same thing only for you to ignore it again as if I didn't say it.

 

 

Things change. Get over it.

 

Another argument (which isn't really an argument) that I've adressed already.

 

 

No more than other people.

 

It is NOT the culture of other people. Marriage is NOT the culture of gay people. Never has been.

 

 

As you say, the majority of Americans accept gay marriage.

 

And 35% don't. So is it your view (and I want an answer to this) that a majority should always be able to trample over a minority?

 

 

As to why you are not very convincing; perhaps because you keep switching between "some people think" and "it is wrong".

 

I'm not switching between anything. I think it is wrong to violate someone's rights even if it is not my rights that are being violated.

 

 

Plus look at how emotional you have got about something that you don't care about at all...

 

I get emotional over people calling me a bigot and attributing bigoted motivations to me.

 

 

Happy to explain. I referenced similarities between your position against same sex marriages and the position others took a few decades against mixed race marriages.

 

You replied: "Virtually no one cares any more about the restriction on mixed race marriages, that's why that aspect of the tradition is not important any more."

 

What you seem confused about is that, at one point in time, people very much DID care about mixed race marriages and the arguments used today by those opposed to same sex marriage are directly parallel to the arguments used decades ago against mixed race marriage (whether referring solely to use of the word or to the broader issue of rights which you've conceded).

 

You argue that your opposition to same sex marriage is based on tradition. They argued that their opposition to mixed race marriages was based on tradition.

You argue that your opposition to same sex marriage is because some people feel it's wrong. They argued that their opposition to mixed race marriages was because some people feel it's wrong.

The parallels are many, and this remains true whether or not you acknowledge or see it. Give your focus on tradition, you should more thoughtfully consider the tradition of those opposing mixed race marriage and recognize how they were on the wrong side of history (very much as you are here on this issue).

 

The tradition argument is garbage no matter how you slice it, yet that's the entirety of your position. I hope this has helped clarify what you missed in my previous post. I'll gladly walk through it or articulate it another way if you still me to do so.

 

I still don't understand what your point here is.

 

But my question was rhetorical to begin with. Let me help you out:

 

The possibility that public opinion on SS marriage will shift further, and it probably will, does not mean that the desires of people living today who DO attribute importance to that tradition do not matter.

 

 

See? You DO understand! Glad you're finally catching on.

 

Oh, so you're not only stupid, but a scumbag, too. Got it. Typical Marxist.

 

A mass of people standing in the way of the socialist utopia? Just crush them. Lovely people you lot are.

 

 

I haven't called you a bigot. I have, however, accurately described your stance and position on this specific topic as being itself bigoted.

 

And what how would you describe the position you expressed in the previous post, "fuck 35% of the population, they are not important?"

 

 

You haven't asnwered most of the questions I asked you. Go back and answer them.

 

You make claims and then cite sources that don't substantiate them, then you don't apologize for bullshitting, you make remarkably stupid arguments in a condescending tone (with your intellect you can't condescend to anybody) and you just duck what you can't answer and come with insults.

 

Go back and answer the questions, dummy.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Alfred001

[Strange]

No, the definition of "coming into the house" is moving from outsied the house's walls to within the house's walls. The taking off of shoes doesn't enter into it, its just a curtesy.

 

 

And I think a marriage is a legally sanctioned partnership between two people. Their sexual orientation doesn't come into it.

 

 

 

And 35% don't. So is it your view (and I want an answer to this) that a majority should always be able to trample over a minority?

 

It is called democracy.

 

And no one is being "trampled". No one is forcing people to enter same-sex marriages.

 

 

 

I said, if no one cares for a tradition any more (or almost no one) then it's ok to change it.

 

Therefore, it is OK to change it.

 

Seeing as the UK has chosen to cause havoc by leaving the EU based on a 52% majority, I don't think it is unreasonable to change a law when 65% approve.

 

 

 

I think it is wrong to violate someone's rights even if it is not my rights that are being violated.

 

No one's rights are being violated.