Should the government drop the word "marriage"

[iNow]

Here comes Scrappy's response. Will it be relevant or on topic? Let's find out...

[scrappy]

Now I'm going to provide my own counterpoint here, because while I think that is a legitimate perspective, I think it's flawed, and I think it's a lesson we've learned before. Because everything I've pointed out above can be said about perfectly identical drinking fountains, one labeled "white" and the other "colored". And yet this was (and still is) seen as a form of discrimination. Why? Assuming they're identical, it shouldn't make any difference.

For me to agree with your drinking-fountain/marriage analogy, I would have to agree that a black man marrying a white woman is somehow identical to a black man marrying a white man. How is that identical? An answer in the context of reality would be very helpful here.

 

But it does. Just as it will matter if gays can't call it "marriage". It really is that simple. It's not a matter of what GAYS think, nor it is a matter of what opponents think. It implies a difference, therefore it is discrimination.

No less so than discriminating against sibling marriages, polygamous marriages, pedophilic marriages, and inter-species marriages. Discrimination is not limited to "gay marriages," you know.

 

You can rant all you want about the legitimacy of those "marriages," but please remember that those who might prefer such outlandish marriages have their OPINIONS, too. (And they're just a wrong as yours.)

 

When does it become discriminatory to hold an opinion against a small minority that is supported by the vast majority? Or are we back to deciding between "the tyranny of the majority" v. "the tyranny of a minority"?

 

But that having been said, people need to respect the opinions of people who hold the one I've outlined above. You can't browbeat that opinion into submission. You have to treat it with education. So be nicer. Say your peace, and don't get so carried away about it. It's just a discussion, folks.

Would that also include the opinions I've outlined above? Or are my opinions unworthy of respect? (And how would you decide that without invoking your own opinions?)

[iNow]

Would that also include the opinions I've outlined above? Or are my opinions unworthy of respect? (And how would you decide that without invoking your own opinions?)

Repetition is not a valid argument. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, the laws and privileges here are significantly more tangible than a mere opinion, which is all you've got going for you and your only argument.

 

Also, you've still not addressed the question posed to you about the difference in rights between "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and "marriages."

 

I respect your right to have an opinion, but the opinion you hold deserves no respect at all.

[scrappy]

1) Who gets harmed if we don't call gay DPs "marriages"?[/b]

 

It's errant regulation, imposing a limitation without any merit being established that the limitation is necessary. Who gets harmed if we keep marriage for only non-interracial marriages and let interracial marriages be called domestic partnerships?

But those are real marriages—CU's between one man and one woman. You're mixing your fruit in this comparison. Please keep the apples and the oranges separate.

 

You could argue it does no harm, but it is still discriminatory.

I do. But discrimination is not uncommon to discriminating people. Aren't you discriminating against the DOMA people by way of your opinions?

 

2) Who gets harmed if we do?

No one gets harmed, though the religious folks that believe that the legal definition of marriage should have as much "Sanctity" as their religious definition may have their egos bruised. The facts already support this though, and it's only a matter of denial: Atheists and drunks in Las Vegas have long since taken any "Sanctity" out of the legal term.

Define "harm." If someone's pride gets abused, is that "harmful"? There's pride all over the place like germs at a daycare center. Whose pride matters more?

 

3) And whose opinion counts most here on this broad landscape of political reality?

 

The rule is, if you are at a stalemate regarding "no one can demonstrate harm" on either side, then you always rule in favor of more freedom. Our freedoms and liberties are only to be regulated as needed to prevent depriving others of their liberties and freedoms (such as harm, demonstrated by studies and statistics) and if that cannot be done, then less is more.

But you don't care about that. If you did you'd be just as fervent about granting polygamists their "rights,' along with every other minority that holds a self-righteous opinion about its validity.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Here comes Scrappy's response. Will it be relevant or on topic? Let's find out...

And this isn't trolling?

Edited March 24, 2009 by scrappy

[iNow]

You've still not addressed the question posed to you about the difference in rights between "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and "marriages." That is an obvious case of harm, whereas you have no measurable harm to the "DOMA people." Notice the discrepancy?

[scrappy]

You've still not addressed the question posed to you about the difference in rights between "civil unions/domestic partnerships" and "marriages." That is an obvious case of harm, whereas you have no measurable harm to the "DOMA people." Notice the discrepancy?

How can I answer this post without being accused again of repeating myself?

[padren]

But those are real marriages—CU's between one man and one woman. You're mixing your fruit in this comparison. Please keep the apples and the oranges separate.

Real marriages? Depends on who you ask. Lets say the majority now support interracial marriage (unlike say, when this country was founded and the first marriages were performed here) and look at all the others. What about atheists getting married? If marriage is a Sacrament how the heck can atheists enter into real marriages? Or Hindus for that matter? Or if you go back far enough, Protestants?

 

I do. But discrimination is not uncommon to discriminating people. Aren't you discriminating against the DOMA people by way of your opinions?

As I have said many times I am not discriminating against DOMA people. I am not desiring to interfere with their beliefs or opinions at all. They get to do whatever they want with their lives. I am pointing out that they simply need to accept or ignore (either way, I don't care) other people who are living their own lives their own way.

 

Can you not see how this works - the inclusive vs exclusive thing?

 

Define "harm." If someone's pride gets abused, is that "harmful"? There's pride all over the place like germs at a daycare center. Whose pride matters more?

Pride doesn't matter at all. It's a non-issue. To define harm, threat to public or individual health, undo interference, etc.

 

But you don't care about that. If you did you'd be just as fervent about granting polygamists their "rights,' along with every other minority that holds a self-righteous opinion about its validity.

 

Are you serious? Of course I am as fervent regarding everyone's rights. Polygamists have a bit of an uphill battle for a number of reasons, and the issue is actually pretty complex due to secondary aspects that are often tacked onto polygamy through the practitioners' secondary beliefs... but any time someone's way of life is interfered with despite the fact their way of life does no harm I consider it a miscarriage of justice most certainly. The main reason I am not fervent about other minority issues is this is not a thread about other minority issues. Don't take my absence of an opinion here as evidence of no opinion at all.

[scrappy]

Real marriages? Depends on who you ask.

Of course it does. It's all about opinions.

 

Lets say the majority now support interracial marriage (unlike say, when this country was founded and the first marriages were performed here) and look at all the others. What about atheists getting married? If marriage is a Sacrament how the heck can atheists enter into real marriages? Or Hindus for that matter? Or if you go back far enough, Protestants?

But atheists have just as much access to the marriage institution as the Christians and gays do. Otherwise, we'd be propagating bigotry.

 

As I have said many times I am not discriminating against DOMA people. I am not desiring to interfere with their beliefs or opinions at all. They get to do whatever they want with their lives. I am pointing out that they simply need to accept or ignore (either way, I don't care) other people who are living their own lives their own way.

 

Can you not see how this works - the inclusive vs exclusive thing?

The DOMA people have always welcomed those "other people" into their marriage institution.

 

Pride doesn't matter at all. It's a non-issue. To define harm, threat to public or individual health, undo interference, etc.

If that were true then the gays will be satisfied when they get the fully legalized DPs.

 

Are you serious? Of course I am as fervent regarding everyone's rights. Polygamists have a bit of an uphill battle for a number of reasons, and the issue is actually pretty complex due to secondary aspects that are often tacked onto polygamy through the practitioners' secondary beliefs... but any time someone's way of life is interfered with despite the fact their way of life does no harm I consider it a miscarriage of justice most certainly. The main reason I am not fervent about other minority issues is this is not a thread about other minority issues. Don't take my absence of an opinion here as evidence of no opinion at all.

Once again, is abused pride (on either side of this issue) a measure of harm?

[padren]

Of course it does. It's all about opinions.

Scrappy man, I was quoting you:

 

But those are real marriages[/b']—CU's between one man and one woman.

How can you draw a distinction citing like there is some objective "Real Marriage" to try to pick apart my argument, and then say it's all about opinions when I challenge that?

 

 

 

But atheists have just as much access to the marriage institution as the Christians and gays do. Otherwise, we'd be propagating bigotry.

Exactly my point. A slight difference in the wording and - look at that - atheists do not have access to marriage, and we'd be propagating bigotry. A large number of people do define marriage as between a man, a woman, and God. It's just those people accept there are other people that define it a little differently, and if they ignored that fact they'd be bigots.

 

So really, is the only reason Atheists can get married is due to the luck of wording, that we are just lucky they "threw us the crumb" and we should be thankful for it? What if it happened to be "two people and God" instead? Would it no longer be bigoted to prevent atheists from marrying, yet acceptable for LGBTs that do believe in God to marry?

 

The DOMA people have always welcomed those "other people" into their marriage institution.

Really? How's that? And by the way, since when did it become their marriage institution?

 

If that were true then the gays will be satisfied when they get the fully legalized DPs.

So if every atheist was to loose the right to marry due to some DOMA 2.0 but could "technically" still have a DP, the only reason to oppose such an action would be pride? Legal precedent and the sort of dangerous laws that tend to come out of that sort of thinking would somehow not be relevant - it's all about pride? It has nothing to do with pride. I have no gay pride as I am not gay, I just have an idea of what individual rights are, and that matters to me regardless of whether I am part of that group. Please try to think from another perspective, I've made a point of trying to see arguments from your perspective - try the reverse. You can't look at the facts and continue to claim it's about pride simply by stating it.

 

Once again, is abused pride (on either side of this issue) a measure of harm?

 

Not pride, discrimination, as already stated repeatedly.

[Sayonara]

Once again, is abused pride (on either side of this issue) a measure of harm?

Give us a set of circumstances in which dented pride would not be considered self-inflicted harm.

[scrappy]

Give us a set of circumstances in which dented pride would not be considered self-inflicted harm.

All of the circumstances I can think of involving dented pride are existentially self-inflicted.

[Sayonara]

So would it be fair to rule in a court of law that gay people cannot be "married", because if they are so married then some prideful people will make themselves feel bad?

 

In other words, is the condition of gay people marrying the agent which causes the harm?

[scrappy]

How can you draw a distinction citing like there is some objective "Real Marriage" to try to pick apart my argument, and then say it's all about opinions when I challenge that?

Is anyone's position on this thread not oriented by opinion? And who differentiates real marriage from the other kind? Those who hold the persuasive opinions on the matter, that's who. All of the battles of this war are bebing fought on the landscape of opinion.

 

...So really, is the only reason Atheists can get married is due to the luck of wording, that we are just lucky they "threw us the crumb" and we should be thankful for it? What if it happened to be "two people and God" instead? Would it no longer be bigoted to prevent atheists from marrying, yet acceptable for LGBTs that do believe in God to marry?

Being an untheist I am not qualified to say. But I know that gays and atheists and blacks and short people are all welcome without discrimination into the marriage institution. If they weren't, then we'd have a really big problem.

 

Really? How's that? And by the way, since when did it become their marriage institution?

It's yours, too, such as it is. Should the gays own it instead of the straights? I think we all own it, and without discrimination, too.

 

 

So if every atheist was to loose the right to marry due to some DOMA 2.0 but could "technically" still have a DP, the only reason to oppose such an action would be pride?

Too much conjecture.

 

Legal precedent and the sort of dangerous laws that tend to come out of that sort of thinking would somehow not be relevant - it's all about pride? It has nothing to do with pride. I have no gay pride as I am not gay...

Then you would agree that DPs for gays should be enough for them.

 

...I just have an idea of what individual rights are, and that matters to me regardless of whether I am part of that group. Please try to think from another perspective, I've made a point of trying to see arguments from your perspective - try the reverse. You can't look at the facts and continue to claim it's about pride simply by stating it.

I haven't seen any facts yet that change my mind on the core issue. Is there a registry somewhere that separates the facts from the opinions?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So would it be fair to rule in a court of law that gay people cannot be "married", because if they are so married then some prideful people will make themselves feel bad?

But, as I have taken pains to point out above, gays can get married, just like straights, atheists, untheists, nerds, and geeks.

 

In other words, is the condition of gay people marrying the agent which causes the harm?

I'd say the agent that causes them harm is their pride.

[Sayonara]

But, as I have taken pains to point out above, gays can get married, just like straights, atheists, untheists, nerds, and geeks.

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I mean "gay couples marrying each other and being 'allowed' to call their unions marriages".

 

I'd say the agent that causes them harm is their pride.

I concur. IOW the gay couple are not the problem.

Edited March 24, 2009 by Sayonara³

[padren]

Is anyone's position on this thread not oriented by opinion? And who differentiates real marriage from the other kind? Those who hold the persuasive opinions on the matter, that's who. All of the battles of this war are bebing fought on the landscape of opinion.

First, let me say that is equivalent to the claim that one person's opinion is that slavery is wrong, and another that it is not, so a discussion on the topic is a matter of opinion. Technically everything is a matter of opinion in that case.

 

The whole basis of this argument though, is to distill common ideas we share - to come to say, a similar opinion on "discrimination" that we can agree on, and one side tries to make the case DOMA is discriminatory, and the other side makes the case that DOMA is not. The elements on both sides are about facts and logic and at times opinions that can then be challenged until they can be buttressed with facts and logic that demonstrates those opinions are sound.

 

You can't just dismiss it all as opinion though. Challenge specific things you find to be a matter of unsubstantiated opinion and then those elements can be debated, but don't use generalized blanket dismissals that "it is all" just opinion.

 

Being an untheist I am not qualified to say. But I know that gays and atheists and blacks and short people are all welcome without discrimination into the marriage institution. If they weren't, then we'd have a really big problem.

This was argued over, and the point was conceded that gays are discriminated in the institution of marriage, was it not? Isn't that why we started discussing whether DPs with full marriage style rights would be an adequate means to address that discrimination?

 

This seems like backpedaling to me, but I'll reiterate the main points as to why it's discriminatory:

The union of marriage addresses the common occurrence of two humans to pair-bond and which to be considered unified in the eyes of the law. Not all pair-bonds last and some don't even involve love - after the institution was established many even engaged in marriage with no pair-bonding at all for other legal reasons, but the primary issue that marriage addresses is that humans form pair-bonds and wish to share all property and debts as a single unit.

Since Marriage only recognizes pair-bonds between opposite sexes and homosexuals pair-bond with the same sex it is blatant discrimination. That's why we moved on to further explore the sub-topics is it not?

 

 

It's yours, too, such as it is. Should the gays own it instead of the straights? I think we all own it, and without discrimination, too.

As I said before, and will say a thousand times over: No one should own it. Not gays. Not straights. Not the Chinese. Not the Scientologists. No one. The term should be legally open enough so that no one owns it. Have I not made this clear? I've gone to great lengths to explain why I feel no one should own it, so why are you asking me if the gays should own it instead of DOMAers? That's a false dichotomy and you should already know by now my answer to that question so please stop asking it. Ask me why no one should own it if you are unclear as to my reasoning, but I've already made clear who I feel should own it - no one.

Too much conjecture.

I find this flippantly brief and uncommunicative. If you wrote a large explanation to something and I simply commented "Too illogical" you'd want to know why I thought it was illogical, because it's not exactly a stretch for me to realize you wouldn't have posted it if you yourself saw it as illogical. I'd say that I found it illogical, then explain why I did, so you could understand too. I don't see how my statement has "Too much conjecture" so please illuminate me as to the err in my comment. As far as I am concerned I was pointing out how if the wording was slightly different and happened to discriminate against a different, larger social group it would never stand. I did this to demonstrate that the "original definition" of marriage is irrelevant, as if it discriminated against atheists, or protestants, or other races the wording would be challenged and changed. It should not be any different because it "only" discriminates against gays. Please demonstrate why this is too convoluted.

Then you would agree that DPs for gays should be enough for them.

How do you draw that conclusion at all from what I wrote? Why would my stating that "making a sweeping law that limits the freedoms of people you do not in any way even associate with is a dangerous legal precedent and should be opposed on principle with pride being no factor whatsoever" become "DPs should be 'enough' for the gays then" exactly? You didn't exactly draw a straight line between A and B there, in fact, I am not sure how you managed to get to B at all. Can you please explain?

I haven't seen any facts yet that change my mind on the core issue. Is there a registry somewhere that separates the facts from the opinions?

 

Consider this:

 

"Legally limiting the freedoms of another group that you do not even associate with without demonstrating in any way how those freedoms of theirs would harm the public or any individual is a dangerous mindset for any constitutional republic."

 

If you, myself, and Joseph Stalin were having this conversation, I doubt he would agree with the above, and we'd end up arguing over that. However, in a conversation between us, if you disagree with the above we can probably argue over the details as to why it would be harmful or not harmful to indulge that mindset within our government, and come to some form of agreement that either A) it is harmful, or B) it is not harmful.

 

Once we agree on either A or B, if it happens to be A that we agree on, I would continue to argue that DOMA is an example of that mindset, therefore harmful, therefore wrong as should also agree we do not want to pass harmful laws.

Statistical facts are not going to be the key element in this debate.

Taking the things we disagree on, and deconstructing them into smaller units until we have units we can agree on, then analyzing and debating the process in which we rebuild those constructs to ensure we agree with each step until we track down the exact point of disagreement - then track that... that's really the only way we'll end up on the same page in the end.

 

Even then, someone that doesn't agree to the same basic constructs will take issue with it. A dictator that believes he has the right to tell every citizen in his nation what to do probably has no respect for many of the things we both find vital to a healthy government, but that's because we see a government as something different from what a dictator might.

 

I mention this because you seem to argue it's all about opinion - and on some level everything is yet we all make progress in legal debates despite that fact, and the key is everyone in the debate has some common ground. The trick is to deconstruct the disagreeable units until we have units we can agree on and build back up from there and debate as we go, using logic along the way.

[mooeypoo]

So should I be surprised my questions were (AGAIN) not answered?

[Pangloss]

For me to agree with your drinking-fountain/marriage analogy, I would have to agree that a black man marrying a white woman is somehow identical to a black man marrying a white man. How is that identical? An answer in the context of reality would be very helpful here.

 

It wasn't my intent to try and convince you. That's not my goal in posting my opinion. I think you know that because we've agreed to respect each other's opinions on this issue previously, but I mention it for the record.

 

In answer to your question, you say above that men marrying men is not an identical thing with a man marrying a woman. This is, I think, a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You've already stated that you have no problem with affording them the same rights, which means you don't see a man-and-man combination as inferior, you just see it as different. So your problem isn't with men marrying men, it's with the change in the definition of the word "marriage". Right?

 

To me that's what's really interesting here, and as far as not being able to convince you to change your mind goes, I don't particularly care about that one way or the other. Not because I don't think you count, but because I respect your right to disagree. My interest in political debate is the process itself, not achieving ideologically-preferable results. (My friends put it more succinctly -- they say I just like to argue.)

 

You can rant all you want about the legitimacy of those "marriages," but please remember that those who might prefer such outlandish marriages have their OPINIONS, too.

 

When does it become discriminatory to hold an opinion against a small minority that is supported by the vast majority? Or are we back to deciding between "the tyranny of the majority" v. "the tyranny of a minority"?

 

Would that also include the opinions I've outlined above? Or are my opinions unworthy of respect? (And how would you decide that without invoking your own opinions?)

 

Alas, I think this was aimed more at the other folks here than at me -- your frustration is understandable, and I'm doing my best to ensure proper balance in the discussion. For what it's worth, I agree with the above quote 100% and I support your right to express your opinion on this issue.

 

 

I respect your right to have an opinion, but the opinion you hold deserves no respect at all.

 

Non-sequitur. Does not compute.

 

Nor do you seem to understand what Scrappy is saying, iNow. I recommend a careful reading of my post #274, which generated two Reputation comments and a "good post" from Padren as well.

[iNow]

I understand what he's saying perfectly. It makes me nauseous, disheartened, and angry... and that's my opinion.

[Pangloss]

Much better, thanks.

[scrappy]

First, let me say that is equivalent to the claim that one person's opinion is that slavery is wrong, and another that it is not, so a discussion on the topic is a matter of opinion. Technically everything is a matter of opinion in that case.

It was at one time, and it was just as wrong as opinions favoring cannibalism were in their time. Civilization has moved on, at least in America and Canuckistan. The problem now is that the analogy of prohibiting blacks from drinking at white drinking fountains, or of blacks marrying whites, to prohibing SSM cannot be convincingly demonstrated to enough people to make a legal difference. Whose problem is that? Who needs to get real? Whose reality matters?

 

The whole basis of this argument though, is to distill common ideas we share - to come to say, a similar opinion on "discrimination" that we can agree on, and one side tries to make the case DOMA is discriminatory, and the other side makes the case that DOMA is not. The elements on both sides are about facts and logic and at times opinions that can then be challenged until they can be buttressed with facts and logic that demonstrates those opinions are sound.

If gays got their full legal rights to DPs, and all “facts and logic” were equal, then who is right and who is wrong about the titular issue of “marriage.” The straights claim it as their own; the gays want them to share it. No facts or logic from either side can settle this matter; it can only be settled on the fearsome landscape of opinion.

 

You can't just dismiss it all as opinion though. Challenge specific things you find to be a matter of unsubstantiated opinion and then those elements can be debated, but don't use generalized blanket dismissals that "it is all" just opinion.

What‘s left but opinion if the gays are not in any way disadvantaged by the legality of their DPs?

 

Being an untheist I am not qualified to say. But I know that gays and atheists and blacks and short people are all welcome without discrimination into the marriage institution. If they weren't' date=' then we'd have a really big problem.[/quote']

This was argued over, and the point was conceded that gays are discriminated in the institution of marriage, was it not? Isn't that why we started discussing whether DPs with full marriage style rights would be an adequate means to address that discrimination?

 

This seems like backpedaling to me, but I'll reiterate the main points as to why it's discriminatory:

The union of marriage addresses the common occurrence of two humans to pair-bond and which to be considered unified in the eyes of the law. Not all pair-bonds last and some don't even involve love - after the institution was established many even engaged in marriage with no pair-bonding at all for other legal reasons, but the primary issue that marriage addresses is that humans form pair-bonds and wish to share all property and debts as a single unit.

Would you object if I decided to marry myself? And on what grounds? Would it be a “same-sex marriage”? Does this seem ridiculous to you? Why? Who is harmed by it?

 

Since Marriage only recognizes pair-bonds between opposite sexes and homosexuals pair-bond with the same sex it is blatant discrimination.

Would it be discriminatory if I decided to call myself a woman? Why not? Why can’t I call myself a pink unicorn if I want to? Well, I suppose I could do all that, but why?

 

Answer: Because prevailing opinion (forget about the facts and logic) would not allow either one to occur on the legal level where the rubber of opinions meet the road of political reality.

 

As I said before, and will say a thousand times over: No one should own it. Not gays. Not straights. Not the Chinese. Not the Scientologists. No one. The term should be legally open enough so that no one owns it.

 

Have I not made this clear? I've gone to great lengths to explain why I feel no one should own it, so why are you asking me if the gays should own it instead of DOMAers? That's a false dichotomy and you should already know by now my answer to that question so please stop asking it. Ask me why no one should own it if you are unclear as to my reasoning, but I've already made clear who I feel should own it - no one..

Then you agree that the government needs to get out of the business of marriage.

 

Too much conjecture.

I find this flippantly brief and uncommunicative. If you wrote a large explanation to something and I simply commented "Too illogical" you'd want to know why I thought it was illogical' date=' because it's not exactly a stretch for me to realize you wouldn't have posted it if you yourself saw it as illogical. I'd say that I found it illogical, then explain why I did, so you could understand too. I don't see how my statement has "Too much conjecture" so please illuminate me as to the err in my comment. As far as I am concerned I was pointing out how if the wording was slightly different and happened to discriminate against a different, larger social group it would never stand. I did this to demonstrate that the "original definition" of marriage is irrelevant, as if it discriminated against atheists, or protestants, or other races the wording would be challenged and changed. It should not be any different because it "only" discriminates against gays. Please demonstrate why this is too convoluted.[/quote']

I’m sorry about the conjecture remark. You are a sincere poster and I didn’t mean to blow you off. But “the original definition” of marriage is relevant here, because politics is relevant if SSM is to be actualized. So far, that “original definition” prevails in 96% of the states and DC. How are you going to lift your 4% up to something that has any meaning for your cause? You have to change opinions, however terrible they might seem to the 4% minority.

 

"Legally limiting the freedoms of another group that you do not even associate with without demonstrating in any way how those freedoms of theirs would harm the public or any individual is a dangerous mindset for any constitutional republic."

 

If you, myself, and Joseph Stalin were having this conversation, I doubt he would agree with the above, and we'd end up arguing over that. However, in a conversation between us, if you disagree with the above we can probably argue over the details as to why it would be harmful or not harmful to indulge that mindset within our government, and come to some form of agreement that either A) it is harmful, or B) it is not harmful.

All that having been said, I still don’t know where the harm is if gays are granted their fully comprehensive and legal rights to DPs. Not being able to call it “marriage” would not harm even a child conceived from such a CU…oh, sorry, that’s biologically impossible, I forgot. Well, then where IS the harm?

 

Statistical facts are not going to be the key element in this debate.

Agreed, opinions are the element.

Even then, someone that doesn't agree to the same basic constructs will take issue with it. A dictator that believes he has the right to tell every citizen in his nation what to do probably has no respect for many of the things we both find vital to a healthy government, but that's because we see a government as something different from what a dictator might.

 

I mention this because you seem to argue it's all about opinion - and on some level everything is yet we all make progress in legal debates despite that fact, and the key is everyone in the debate has some common ground. The trick is to deconstruct the disagreeable units until we have units we can agree on and build back up from there and debate as we go, using logic along the way.

This debate is about pride, on both sides. If there are no legal differences between a marriage between one man and one woman and a DP between two gays then what else do we have but prideful opinion. That’s why we have courts, to interpret the Constitution.

 

The big question is this: If state supreme courts or the SCOTUS decide against your opinion, would you then be willing to change it?

Edited March 25, 2009 by scrappy

[Sayonara]

This debate is about pride, on both sides. If there are no legal differences between a marriage between one man and one woman and a DP between two gays then what else do we have but prideful opinion. That’s why we have courts, to interpret the Constitution.

Firstly, even if it were the case that there were no legal differences between a marriage between one man and one woman and a DP between two gay people, that is not the issue. The issue is that the gay couple (as in together as a couple, not as gay individuals who are legally entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex) should have the same choice between marriage and a civil union that straight people have.

 

Secondly, because this difference exists, it is not "about pride, on both sides". The arguments which have pride at their source come from those who object to gay marriage on the grounds that they don't want to share a word which they have their own exclusive definition for, despite the fact that everyone else uses the same word with a similar meaning. The arguments for gay marriage are based on the idea of legal equality.

 

I thought we'd been over this already?

[scrappy]

The arguments for gay marriage are based on the idea of legal equality.

I agree. Their legal equality matters. Gays and others of the GLBT community should NEVER be denied their constitutional rights. But how do we determine that? The courts have to make an interpretation of the Constitution, and we have to go along with it. If we don't we're bigots, because we'd be in an irrational minority of decent, demanding tyranny over the majority.

 

And I ask again: If state supreme courts or the SCOTUS decide against your opinion, would you then be willing to change it?

[Sayonara]

And I ask again: If state supreme courts or the SCOTUS decide against your opinion, would you then be willing to change it?

Well, that'll depend on if I agree with the wording of the ruling. As it would for any ruling about legislation.

[scrappy]

Well, that'll depend on if I agree with the wording of the ruling. As it would for any ruling about legislation.

Then that would make you a hypocrite, because you and others here have based your entire case for SSM on its constitutionality.

[Sayonara]

Then that would make you a hypocrite, because you and others here have based your entire case for SSM on its constitutionality.

Scrappy, that only works if you make staggering assumptions about the nature of the ruling.

 

You could have asked "if the ruling is fair and rational and constitutional then will you accept it", but you didn't. You asked "if state supreme courts or the SCOTUS decide against your opinion", which is pretty open-ended.

 

I knew something disingenuous like that was coming but I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. I don't much like being called a hypocrite without any kind of justification.