Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?

[mooeypoo]

Guys, please avoid getting too personal here. We all seem to care about this subject, so let's keep it civil and on point.

[Mr Skeptic]

I am definitely open minded to hearing of reasons that might show they stem from a rational explanation about gay marriage; so far, I've heard none, but worse than that, it seems that even those who argue "just about the definition of the word" seem to neglect the issue of practical equality by themselves.

 

But being impractical doesn't make it irrelevant, just impractical.

 

I know posts disappear in long threads, but this is an important issue, and for those who claim they have rational positions against gay marriage, I believe you're still missing an answer to these two basic questions:

 

Regardless of definitions (that is, lets say that we all agree that gay marriage should have a different name, whatever it may be), do you support *total* equality in the eyes of the law?

Take into account this equality does not currently exist.

 

I do, but there are lots of different ways to be equal.

 

Would you support invent a new name for the marriage of blacks, jews, biracial couples, small people, mentally retarded couples, asian couples or any other "different" couples?

 

I'm not sure why you think these wouldn't fall under the definition of marriage -- none of these affect any of the fundamental aspects of marriage (though I suppose the retards depending on their sevarity might be unable to fulfill the relationship/commitment aspect). Yes, there is very little evidence of the definition of marriage explicitly excluding same sex couples until very recently, but then there's not much evidence that anyone considered a same sex relationship to be a marriage either. Likewise, having sex together seems to be considered a fundamental aspect of marriage, but is also not included in the definition.

[Dudde]

Instead whenever presented with a relevant secular reason, you are claiming that it is irrelevant because there are better (in your opinion) reasons on the other side

 

While relevent or not, I haven't seen any reasons I, personally, have accepted as even remotely something to consider when holding back rights to gay marriages. Because that's how it's always been, because it's traditional, because someone wants to marry two of his sisters and a couch? Just because someone else is being held back - no matter how ridiculous what they're being held back from - it's no excuse to want to hold someone else back.

 

So to address this part of your statement, I haven't seen any secular or sound arguments against it either. I'd love to have a real reason to actually debate against however, I think I'll search for some reasons against it today.

[JillSwift]

To refute the definitional argument, again:

 

1. Definitions are arbitrary.
   
2. Words carry different definitions depending on context.
   
3. Definitions change over time.
   
4. Marriage has had significantly different definition in the past.
   
5. Contemporary popular definitions of marriage have recently been modified with the sole purpose of excluding homosexuals.
   

 

Regarding #2 especially: Legally, a "marriage" is a social contract recognized by the state, and conferring special privileges upon the couple that make their union practical within the structure of society. Restricting this privileged state to any "class" of person is inequitable treatment under the law, something that has already has been struck down legally:

 

Refuting "separate but equal", essentially another definitional argument:

 

It has already been historically demonstrated and made a precedent that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional. (Supreme Court of the United states; Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, KS)

[jackson33]

mooeypoo quotes;

 

I don't think iNow's claim is that there are better claims on the other side, I think his claim is that the reasonings are either not secular (they are superstitious, or religious in origin) or not rational (are inconsistent, for instance).[/Quote]

 

I almost hope you have not read my limited post on this thread; Let me ask you...If a religious person states an opinion on Rocket Science, regardless of the content is that statement automatically based on superstition or must display religious overtones?

 

There have been several secular opinions given, questioning the idea same sex and color are NOT equal arguments, or in what be a hundred other threads.

 

 

Your two questions;

 

1- Regardless of definitions (that is, lets say that we all agree that gay marriage should have a different name, whatever it may be), do you support *total* equality in the eyes of the law?

 

2-Take into account this equality does not currently exist. Would you support invent a new name for the marriage of blacks, jews, biracial couples, small people, mentally retarded couples, asian couples or any other "different" couples?

If so, then surely you acknowledge that the debate is shifting towards a much deeper issue here.

 

And if not, then what logical reasoning would you offer to disagree with #2 but still push for the same statements only regarding LGBT couples? [/Quote]

 

1- Yes, I support total equality of all people, to the limits of law. This includes the idea of a society establishing those limits and the right of those people to enact and enforce those laws accordingly. While not opposing the right of SS advocates to state their views, it's the equal right of those that may disagree and NOT all disagreement is coming from religious folks.

 

Why does 'one man and one woman' even exist in the definition of marriage? Simple, it's the ultimate term of a religious community (society) to express a secular definition to a very old and honored tradition, which in no way could be said superstitious. There are many religiously based morals and law, that we all follow daily.

 

If you would rather not just eliminate all obligation/benefits from the Federal for other than individuals (could be done) then your going to have to restate the meaning of couple to what grants those obligations and benefits. How would you reword a meaning to include other than 1m/1f.

 

Example; The US from this day forward will OBLIGATE/GRANT BENEFITS, according to any two persons, under their State Law that constitutes a legal obligation to those two individuals to each other or what would constitute a dependency on the two.

 

If iNow, would give an example, it would be constructive, even leaving marriage in the equation, rather than this continuous striving to make himself the issue, when answers are hard to find. Those that oppose SSM (not myself) have every right to argue and defend their position with or with out their religious belief's.

 

2- To my knowledge two anything human, in the US that are of different sexes with or without the medical conversion, according to States be a certain age w/w-o parental consent or a judge ruling, can apply for and receive total recognition by both the State and Federal Government, if they choose to. Trying to tie in sexual conduct, to that of race or other human differences in neither important or relevant.

 

Note; If any of my comments are seen argumentative by you, to you personally, please accept my apologies in advance, in NO way is this the intent...

[mooeypoo]

I almost hope you have not read my limited post on this thread; Let me ask you...If a religious person states an opinion on Rocket Science, regardless of the content is that statement automatically based on superstition or must display religious overtones?

If you make a statement and your reasoning is based on religious reasons, which, as a whole, are not rationally deduced (by definition; they do not follow objective nature, they follow a subjective belief, however strongly one may support it), then your claim is not secular.

 

Whether the person who makes the claim is secular or religious is besides the point. We're not "judging" people, we're judging claims.

 

There have been several secular opinions given, questioning the idea same sex and color are NOT equal arguments, or in what be a hundred other threads.

And they were shown, at least the absolute majority, to either have no logical sense (are irrelevant, are a red herring, are inconsistent) or are not based on logic but rather on reasons of tradition, which is not a secular reason.

 

Don't get me wrong - I think people have a right to their opinion. However, people should also know where their opinions come from. If your opinion is based on logic, you should be able to show and support it. If your opinion is based on belief or tradition, you should be able to say that.

 

But if you claim to have a logical reason when, in fact, your reason is religious or tradition, then you're being insincere to yourself as well as the argument at hand.

 

 

1- Yes, I support total equality of all people, to the limits of law. This includes the idea of a society establishing those limits and the right of those people to enact and enforce those laws accordingly. While not opposing the right of SS advocates to state their views, it's the equal right of those that may disagree and NOT all disagreement is coming from religious folks.

No one here claims people have no right to state their opinion. Religious people have a right to state their opinion, too, and so are secular people who speak out of a religious subconscious reasoning, but others also have an equal right to call those out on their double-standards when they see it.

 

That said, I think you are evading the question a bit. My question was quite clear, and simple, and I didn't quite understand if, in the bottom line, you would support those equal rights to LGBT couples or not.

That is, you claim that those who oppose also have equal rights to speak- which I agree - but does that say that their "equal right" means that the LGBT couples lose theirs?

 

So, please clarify - if instead of "wedding" we would call it "shmoonzipoo", a term that would otherwise be identical in terms of the law to the benefits given by marriage, would you fight against it, or would you support it?

 

Why does 'one man and one woman' even exist in the definition of marriage?

Because its original meaning came, historically, from the bible.

 

Simple, it's the ultimate term of a religious community (society) to express a secular definition to a very old and honored tradition, which in no way could be said superstitious. There are many religiously based morals and law, that we all follow daily.

Indeed. The problem, however, is that the law goes by that word now to define a set of lawful benefits those couples are getting. The bible define marriage with a Rabbi, by the way, not with a priest, and defines the way in which the bride is bought from her father and the symbolic breaking of the glass by the groom.

It seems religious cultures had no problem adapting the meaning when it suited them, and screamed against adapting the meaning when it doesn't.

 

Regardless, the religious meaning is irrelevant, because the US is supposed to have a separation of church and state. That means that whatever definition you use, *all citizens must receive the same benefits regardless of what religion dictates*.

 

See the multiple problems here?

 

You can't really play this both ways. You either use religion to explain why you disagree with gay marriage (and hence, your reasoning is religious, or at least its basis is in religion/tradition) *OR* you claim that your reasoning is secular. It cannot be both.

 

 

If you would rather not just eliminate all obligation/benefits from the Federal for other than individuals (could be done) then your going to have to restate the meaning of couple to what grants those obligations and benefits. How would you reword a meaning to include other than 1m/1f.

You don't change anything other than drop the "man" / "woman". As long as its a couple that want to be bound by law and PROTECTED by law, who the hell cares. What's the problem?

 

If there was a "white man" / "white woman" in front of the definition, would you be asking how to change that, as well? Besides, with law-linguistics the way they are, adding a sentence like "1 man, 1 woman, or 2 women, or 2 men" is REALLY not what is going to destroy your constitution. I have a feeling there's room on the page.

 

 

Example; The US from this day forward will OBLIGATE/GRANT BENEFITS, according to any two persons, under their State Law that constitutes a legal obligation to those two individuals to each other or what would constitute a dependency on the two.

Excellent.

 

If iNow, would give an example, it would be constructive, even leaving marriage in the equation, rather than this continuous striving to make himself the issue, when answers are hard to find. Those that oppose SSM (not myself) have every right to argue and defend their position with or with out their religious belief's.

Example for what, though? iNow made a claim that the reasonings that exist so far in terms of opposing gay marriage are not secular, even if told by secular people, because when you delve into those reasonings, you find traditional/religious origins that are inconsistent with logic.

So far, the members debating in the thread did a good job demonstrating some of the examples, while some did a good job refuting some of the examples. I don't see what iNow needs to deliver here.

 

 

2- To my knowledge two anything human, in the US that are of different sexes with or without the medical conversion, according to States be a certain age w/w-o parental consent or a judge ruling, can apply for and receive total recognition by both the State and Federal Government, if they choose to. Trying to tie in sexual conduct, to that of race or other human differences in neither important or relevant.

You are wrong.

 

Immigrants who marry citizens get citizenship. ONLY IF THEY ARE STRAIGHT.

 

LGBT couples do not enjoy the above. There are other examples, but this is the biggest one I can think of because it's relatively close to my heart (I know a few of those in this predicament).

 

Also, workplaces are free to decide for themselves whether or not they give benefits to LGBT couples, while straight couples enjoy benefits automatically. There are more where this comes from.

 

CORRECTION: Excuse me, I seem to have misread what you wrote. I am not sure I understand that part.. can you clarify what you mean?

 

At the moment, equality does not exist. The questions are simple: Do you care to change the situation so equality exists, AND if so, how do you plan to do that.

 

Note; If any of my comments are seen argumentative by you, to you personally, please accept my apologies in advance, in NO way is this the intent...

Yeah I don't take anything personally, I suggest others won't either. I take this as a debate for the sake of sharing opinions and refutations. I hope others won't take anything I say personally as well, since that's really not the way I mean it either.

 

~moo

Edited September 16, 2009 by mooeypoo

[The Bear's Key]

To refute the definitional argument, again:

 

1. Definitions are arbitrary.
   
2. Words carry different definitions depending on context.
   
3. Definitions change over time.
   
4. Marriage has had significantly different definition in the past.
   
5. Contemporary popular definitions of marriage have recently been modified with the sole purpose of excluding homosexuals.
   

 

Regarding #2 especially: Legally, a "marriage" is a social contract recognized by the state, and conferring special privileges upon the couple that make their union practical within the structure of society. Restricting this privileged state to any "class" of person is inequitable treatment under the law, something that has already has been struck down legally

The thread's question needs a partial addendum: "Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage in a person's mind, and would their reason change once it were proven to be flawed and not secular or relevant?"

 

Perhaps that's what Mr Skeptic's attempting to get at?

 

That in an opposing person's mind, they have a "legitimately" secular reason but don't know it's flawed -- so they're not really bigots if the premise is flawed because the reason is still inwardly valid. However, someone (mooey?) correctly pointed out their actions are still bigoted (even if the person themselves aren't).

[Dudde]

I don't necessarily care one way or another what anyone thinks about gay marriage, as long as they keep their opinions from keeping someone else from doing what they want.

 

example: I don't want a lady to buy bananas at the store because I don't like bananas. We should abolish bananas from stores.

 

???

 

Anyway, I found a site that I felt was vaguely familiar, seeing as it was pretty much a reiteration of everything in this thread - just shorter.

 

Link to the page

 

for the record, I do like bananas

[Pangloss]

But if it gets the job done, whatever. Call it poopsieroll. Just give the same rights.

 

"The Senator from Ohio calls for a vote on the poopsieroll bill. All those in favor of poopsieroll say aye!"

[The Bear's Key]

for the record, I do like bananas

What???

 

You're ruining the institution of bananas.

[JillSwift]

The thread's question needs a partial addendum: "Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage in a person's mind, and would their reason change once it were proven to be flawed and not secular or relevant?"

 

Perhaps that's what Mr Skeptic's attempting to get at?

That would simply be moving the goalposts. All we're seeking is a relevant, secular and rational reason to disallow same sex marriage. Whether or not the existence of, or non-existence of, such a reason would change any minds is a second argument.

 

That in an opposing person's mind, they have a "legitimately" secular reason but don't know it's flawed -- so they're not really bigots if the premise is flawed because the reason is still inwardly valid. However, someone (mooey?) correctly pointed out their actions are still bigoted (even if the person themselves aren't).

Well, the question at hand has already been said by more than just Mooeypoo and myself that failing to have a secular, rational reason does not itself constitute bigotry.

 

And even if it were so, all such an argument constitutes is an "appeal to consequences", which is a fallacy.

[mooeypoo]

There's another point here, too -- even if a person has an opinion/belief that originates from some bigotry, it doesn't mean that person is bigoted.

 

It might just be that the person doesn't know enough about his/her own opinion to make the conscious choice to support a bigoted reason. The point, though, is that when you delve INTO those excuses, you see that a completely non-religious, rational reason is hard to find.

[The Bear's Key]

That would simply be moving the goalposts. All we're seeking is a relevant, secular and rational reason to disallow same sex marriage. Whether or not the existence of, or non-existence of, such a reason would change any minds is a second argument.

 

 

Well, the question at hand has already been said by more than just Mooeypoo and myself that failing to have a secular, rational reason does not itself constitute bigotry.

We know that, but let's clarify it exceedingly for others who might not. Could be the goalposts are in high weeds and need to be moved to a clearing

[JillSwift]

We know that, but let's clarify it exceedingly for others who might not. Could be the goalposts are in high weeds and need to be moved to a clearing

But the question is clear. It's "Are there any secular, rational reasons to prevent SSM?", it is not "Are there any secular, rational reasons to prevent SSM, and if there are none, then YOU ARE A BIGOT!! MWAHAHAHAHA!!!"

 

Even though iNow has made the assertion earlier, that assertion has already proven not to follow.

[Moontanman]

Being the Dad of a gay man and having watched his struggles to come to grips with the bigotry and constant belittling of himself and others like him, it is difficult for me to see the point of anyone who would use any reason to deny my son the same rights as any one else. It's easy to maintain your stance if you are ignorant of what it's like to be homosexual in our society. From the simple exclusion from mainstream life to actual violence and hatred a gay persons, male or female, life is not the same as straight people and if not for laws to make sure they are not constrained to the fringes of society it would still be defensible to beat up or even kill a gay person by saying "he came on to me". It is sad we need laws to insure gay people are not denied basic human rights. I can honestly see no reason what so ever why gay people should not marry, should not enjoy all the rights of marriage and I most definitely see no reason it should not be called marriage. I have four good friends who married recently, two of the most beautiful ceremonies I had ever attended, Both couples were same sex, both couples were obviously very much in love. Sadly neither wedding was legal in any way shape or form. All the expense and trouble of planning and executing these weddings was for no reason other than love. No legal perks went along with the weddings, no reason for them what so ever other than love. How many heterosexual weddings have you gone to that the individuals didn't care about any of the legal aspects and just wanted to say the words in the ceremony? Opposing gay marriage is indefensible, period....

[iNow]

If iNow, would give an example, it would be constructive, even leaving marriage in the equation, rather than this continuous striving to make himself the issue...

 

Zuh?!? I must admit that you make me laugh, Jackson, primarily because your posts are so often the exact polar opposite of what is actually happening in reality. I really don't think you've been reading the same thread I've been reading.

 

 

Again, please stop making your response some sort of personal attack against me, and focus on the central question. Your post only diverts the subject.

 

Listen. Quit making things personal with me and deflecting away from the topic. Answer the question.

 

I will say this yet again, in hopes that this time it will sink in. Please stop making your posts about me as a person, my skills, my character, or my motivations. It harms your debating position, has zero relevance to the question, and deflects the thread topic.

 

<...>

 

Please... again... I humbly request you focus on the topic, answer the question which has been put forth, and resist your urge to continue commenting about what you think about me, my thoughts, my intentions, or my skills. Thanks so much.

 

...this is like the seventh time I've asked that posters stop deflecting the conversation on to me, my qualities, or my contributions, and answer the root question of the thread, or adequately address the criticisms of their offerings.

 

 

Good grief. Just answer the question. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the reasons you provide may be challenged, and their relevance questioned, but that hardly means that I'm "continuously striving to make myself the issue."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Being the Dad of a gay man and having watched his struggles to come to grips with the bigotry and constant belittling of himself and others like him, it is difficult for me to see the point of anyone who would use any reason to deny my son the same rights as any one else. It's easy to maintain your stance if you are ignorant of what it's like to be homosexual in our society.

 

From the simple exclusion from mainstream life to actual violence and hatred a gay persons, male or female, life is not the same as straight people and if not for laws to make sure they are not constrained to the fringes of society it would still be defensible to beat up or even kill a gay person by saying "he came on to me".

 

It is sad we need laws to insure gay people are not denied basic human rights. I can honestly see no reason what so ever why gay people should not marry, should not enjoy all the rights of marriage and I most definitely see no reason it should not be called marriage.

 

I have four good friends who married recently, two of the most beautiful ceremonies I had ever attended, Both couples were same sex, both couples were obviously very much in love. Sadly neither wedding was legal in any way shape or form. All the expense and trouble of planning and executing these weddings was for no reason other than love. No legal perks went along with the weddings, no reason for them what so ever other than love. How many heterosexual weddings have you gone to that the individuals didn't care about any of the legal aspects and just wanted to say the words in the ceremony?

 

Opposing gay marriage is indefensible, period....

Thank you for this beautiful post, Moontanman. You've really helped to put a face on this otherwise academic discussion, and your words bring some much needed context.

 

I agree completely... Opposing gay marriage is simply indefensible, and this thread offers strong evidence in support of that claim.

Edited September 17, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Dudde]

I've spent a good chunk of time looking for reasons against gay marriage, I got at least three that I thought forum-appropriate and didn't have crazy claims. (and one that was amusing to at least myself.) This is merely doing as I said earlier and looking for reasons against gay marriage, this is the best I could come up with in a day's time - if you can do better, I certainly encourage you to do so.

 

An Interview with Rick Santorum

 

Do you feel confident that if same-sex marriage became the norm in our society that we would get less traditional marriage?

 

The answer is yes, because marriage then becomes, to some degree, meaningless. I mean, if anybody can get married for any reason, then it loses its special place. And, you know, it's already lost its special place, in many respects, because of divorce. The institution of marriage is already under assault. So why should we do more to discredit it and harm it?

 

actually the most interested sounding individual stating that it doesn't matter if we legalize gay marriage, but that the onus is on the supporters, since it's not currently legal and we're wanting to change the process

Waters of Mormon

 

I'll post a part of a longer segment, it was really long though, so I didn't want to paste it all. An argument that's never held water with most on this board, but seems a rather popular one I've found

 

Equal rights:

 

Gay marriage is not an equal rights issue. Saying gays have fewer rights than non-gays is like saying marijuana being illegal is an ‘equal rights' issue because people who like smoking tobacco can do so legally, but people who like smoking marijuana can’t. Smoking tobacco is legal for everyone, and smoking marijuana is illegal for everyone across the board—it doesn’t make a difference if you happen to only prefer one or the other.

 

No Gay Marriage.com says pretty much the same thing about destroying marriage and families, though I haven't heard this before:

 

Argument #3

An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

 

and finally, reasons against gay marriage from a gay guy made me laugh, so I thought I'd link anyway

 

EDIT: it should be known that these are not my views, merely the strongest objections I was able to find online. I disagree with all of them and will be happy to explain why

[iNow]

The link you shared earlier today does a fine job at rebutting those particular points.

 

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

[Mr Skeptic]

To refute the definitional argument, again:

 

1. Definitions are arbitrary.

 
Only upon creation; once defined they more or less have to be followed.
 
If the arbitrariness of definitions were enough to refute a case for an argument by definition, then it also follows that there would be no reason at all to be in favor of gay marriage (as opposed to gay rights regardless of the name) since the definition is arbitrary. But you know that is not true.
 

Words carry different definitions depending on context.

 
Which is why people can talk of two companies being married and no one gets upset. But the GLBT community want their definition to be used in exactly the same context as for married people, ie, they want theirs to be the accepted definition in that context not in a new context. People tend to get upset when others want them to change their definition, and bigotry has nothing to do with that in general.
 

Definitions change over time.
Marriage has had significantly different definition in the past.

 
However changing definitions is not done on a whim nor by the will of a minority. Any reasons to change definitions are immaterial for this discussion, since the reasons to keep them still exist so remain a valid counterexample.
 

Contemporary popular definitions of marriage have recently been modified with the sole purpose of excluding homosexuals.

 

It is unclear whether the definition has been modified or made explicit. Regardless, various definitions from before gay marriage became an issue include the concept of husband and wife, which are defined by sex as well as relationship.

 

Regarding #2 especially: Legally, a "marriage" is a social contract recognized by the state, and conferring special privileges upon the couple that make their union practical within the structure of society. Restricting this privileged state to any "class" of person is inequitable treatment under the law, something that has already has been struck down legally:

 

The definitional argument does not say that same sex couples should not be allowed to be married, it says they logically cannot since the definition excludes them. Much like I can't marry my computer because it wouldn't be a marriage not because it's illegal.

 

Refuting "separate but equal", essentially another definitional argument:

 

It has already been historically demonstrated and made a precedent that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional. (Supreme Court of the United states; Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, KS)

 

Nevertheless, the government could restrict the word marriage to only male/female couples and use a new word for same sex couples. It could call both a civil union and give them the same rights, getting rid of the separate but equal problem while excluding same sex couples from the word marriage. Much like the government can call men men and women women, but uses the word person for the both of them.

 

Not saying this would be the right thing to do, only that it would be legal.

[JillSwift]

Which is why people can talk of two companies being married and no one gets upset. But the GLBT community want their definition to be used in exactly the same context as for married people, ie, they want theirs to be the accepted definition in that context not in a new context. People tend to get upset when others want them to change their definition, and bigotry has nothing to do with that in general.

 

You misunderstand. There's marriage in the context of the sacrament, and marriage in the context of the social contract and set of privileges as provided and enforced by government. All the GBLT community is interested in is the latter. There is no definitional change.

 

And why are you trying to drag "bigotry" back into this? I thought that was settled.

 

The definitional argument does not say that same sex couples should not be allowed to be married, it says they logically cannot since the definition excludes them. Much like I can't marry my computer because it wouldn't be a marriage not because it's illegal.

Thank you for yet again equating my relationship with marrying furniture. Would you kindly stop making insulting equivocations, please? It's increasingly difficult not to rebut in kind.

 

The definitional argument as you have offered it is a fallacy of equivocation itself. It equates people's sense of marriage as rooted in religious institutions with the otherwise secular government backed social contract. As such, it's fallacious.

 

Nevertheless, the government could restrict the word marriage to only male/female couples and use a new word for same sex couples. It could call both a civil union and give them the same rights, getting rid of the separate but equal problem while excluding same sex couples from the word marriage. Much like the government can call men men and women women, but uses the word person for the both of them.

 

Not saying this would be the right thing to do, only that it would be legal.

This is nonsensical on its face. In essence you are saying that the separate-but-equal problem is solved by making a separate-but-equal social contract for the GBLTs.

Edited September 17, 2009 by JillSwift

[Mr Skeptic]

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the reasons you provide may be challenged, and their relevance questioned, but that hardly means that I'm "continuously striving to make myself the issue."

 

So challenge them then instead of ignoring them.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

EDIT: it should be known that these are not my views, merely the strongest objections I was able to find online. I disagree with all of them and will be happy to explain why

 

This is one of the things I was trying to get across, that there are relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage, but they don't have to be good ones to invalidate iNow's claim.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You misunderstand. There's marriage in the context of the sacrament, and marriage in the context of the social contract and set of privileges as provided and enforced by government. All the GBLT community is interested in is the latter. There is no definitional change.

 

And yet it would exactly be a definitional change to include them if they were previously excluded by definition.

 

And why are you trying to drag "bigotry" back into this? I thought that was settled.

 

My bad, I missed that part.

 

Thank you for yet again equating my relationship with marrying furniture. Would you kindly stop making insulting equivocations, please? It's increasingly difficult not to rebut in kind.

 

Exactly! You realize that it is impossible to marry furniture because that does not fit into the definition of marriage (as I said!). If you feel personally insulted by the idea that such be included in the definition of marriage, you probably realize that the same applies to people who think marriage applies to only husband and wife. Also, feeling insulted is not a counterargument, and in any case I don't see why you feel insulted at all since we are both in agreement that marriage is more than that.

 

The definitional argument as you have offered it is a fallacy of equivocation itself. It equates people's sense of marriage as rooted in religious institutions with the otherwise secular government backed social contract. As such, it's fallacious.

 

I have equivocated nothing. Remember, the government has to use definitions, and pointing out that people also use definitions is irrelevant.

 

This is nonsensical on its face. In essence you are saying that the separate-but-equal problem is solved by making a separate-but-equal social contract for the GBLTs.

 

Please re-read what I said. There is no reason that separate-but-equal must be avoided by using specifically the word "marriage", as opposed to any other word, for both groups. As such, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

[mooeypoo]

Guys, I remind everyone once again to be civil. Please remember that some of the debaters in the thread are daily affected by this issue, which makes it personal. Before you post a reply, check yourselves to make sure you are being properly civil and respectful. That goes for both sides, and all debaters.

 

We're having a good sharing of opinions so far, let's not ruin it.

[JillSwift]

And yet it would exactly be a definitional change to include them if they were previously excluded by definition.

If we were excluded by definition. Which we were not.

 

Exactly! You realize that it is impossible to marry furniture because that does not fit into the definition of marriage (as I said!). If you feel personally insulted by the idea that such be included in the definition of marriage, you probably realize that the same applies to people who think marriage applies to only husband and wife. Also, feeling insulted is not a counterargument, and in any case I don't see why you feel insulted at all since we are both in agreement that marriage is more than that.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. We, in fact, do not agree. It is my stance that the governmental, secular social contract "marriage" does in fact include any couple of any gender of mix of genders and the only requirement there has ever been to get these privileges is to agree to a long term relationship.

 

Your equivocation to something as insultingly absurd as marrying furniture belittles counter argument rather than faces it, is an appeal to emotion, and a gambit on your part.

 

Please re-read what I said. There is no reason that separate-but-equal must be avoided by using specifically the word "marriage", as opposed to any other word, for both groups. As such, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

I stand corrected. The proper responding argument should have been: Then the definitional argument is meaningless if we're going to leave "marriage" as a sacrament.

 

Which leads me to consider a second refutation of the definitional argument:

Given it has been established legally that equal treatment under the law is paramount in freedom of the citizenry, it follows that the definition of a given word that prevents this equitable treatment must be changed legally to guarantee equal treatment, as equal treatment trumps emotional response to new contextual definitions where these new definitions do not bring tangible hardship (i.e. changing the meaning of the phrase "medical doctor" to include those untrained in the medical sciences would bring harm and hardship to others).

[Mr Skeptic]

If we were excluded by definition. Which we were not.

 

Is this a statement of opinion, or of fact? I imagine you might have studied this issue more thoroughly than I have.

 

Now you're putting words in my mouth. We, in fact, do not agree. It is my stance that the governmental, secular social contract "marriage" does in fact include any couple of any gender of mix of genders and the only requirement there has ever been to get these privileges is to agree to a long term relationship.

 

Your equivocation to something as insultingly absurd as marrying furniture belittles counter argument rather than faces it, is an appeal to emotion, and a gambit on your part.

 

We agree on the aspects I said we did. While I remain unconvinced as to the historical and current legal definitions, I do also agree with you that it would be for the better if it were to include same sex couples.

 

I stand corrected. The proper responding argument should have been: Then the definitional argument is meaningless if we're going to leave "marriage" as a sacrament.

 

Which leads me to consider a second refutation of the definitional argument:

Given it has been established legally that equal treatment under the law is paramount in freedom of the citizenry, it follows that the definition of a given word that prevents this equitable treatment must be changed legally to guarantee equal treatment, as equal treatment trumps emotional response to new contextual definitions where these new definitions do not bring tangible hardship (i.e. changing the meaning of the phrase "medical doctor" to include those untrained in the medical sciences would bring harm and hardship to others).

 

But again, the government also has the option of complying with equal treatment by using a different word. In the case of marriage this may also be the better option, since "marriage" has so many religious connotations and in any case, the legal aspects of marriage are almost completely different than the religious ones.

[iNow]

And yet it would exactly be a definitional change to include them if they were previously excluded by definition.

That's a mighty big "if" in your sentence there, and I would challenge you to support your contention that there ever existed a previous definition in our laws which was exclusive. I contend that this "previous definition" you assert only existed in peoples minds, and hence is not itself a relevant nor compelling reason to maintain your current opposition.

 

Further, you suggest a previously existing exclusional definition, yet the very fact that DOMA was required at all shows unequivocally that your assertion about the previous existence of an exclusional definition is a complete fabrication.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

But again, the government also has the option of complying with equal treatment by using a different word.

This is logically fallacious. You imply that they will become equal if called by unequal words.

Edited September 17, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.