marriage equality in California - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-16-2008, 08:29 PM   #226
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
So opposition to gay marriage = segregated lunch counters?

I know you don't want to believe this, I know it's just easier label opinions you don't agree with as bigotry, but it is quite possible to intellectually and morally oppose same-sex marriage while affirming the equal humanity of homosexuals.
Only as an exercise in doublethink if you are taking liberal democratic principles into account.

Produce the arguments, what are the intellectual arguments against it.

What are the moral arguments against it.

Why don't those arguments extend to the sodomy rights? If it's intellectually and morally wrong for them to marry why isn't it wrong for them to gratify themselves?

Produce the bloody brilliant retort that shows how gay marriage as an extension of equal rights to taxpaying citizens is wrong.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 08:30 PM   #227
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
I don't know what you mean?
If you click on the link and scroll around 2/3rds of the way down the page, there's an article by an out gay man setting out his reservations about legalised gay marriage.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 08:36 PM   #228
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Only as an exercise in doublethink if you are taking liberal democratic principles into account.

Produce the arguments, what are the intellectual arguments against it.

What are the moral arguments against it.

Why don't those arguments extend to the sodomy rights? If it's intellectually and morally wrong for them to marry why isn't it wrong for them to gratify themselves?

Produce the bloody brilliant retort that shows how gay marriage as an extension of equal rights to taxpaying citizens is wrong.
Personally, I'm in favour of gay marriage, on balance.

I see no great disadvantages. Many of the opponents of gay marriage do appear to exaggerate the perceived disadvantages, and, yes, SOME of them do appear to be motivated by homophobia.

On the other hand, if we look at the advantages of gay marriage, it does appear to annoy many homosexuals that they can't get married, and some view it as denying them their rights. As someone who has no great interest in getting married, I can't say I identify with this, but I am happy to take them at their word. So I say, legalise it.

What I somewhat resent is being told that if you listen to the words of a gay person who DISAGREES with gay marriage, you're listening to a self-hating gay person, and what's more, you're probably a bigot yourself for even listening to his arguments!

Bluntly, it strikes me as a case of liberal bigotry, or at the very least, double standard.

That's my 2c, take it or leave it.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 08:37 PM   #229
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I know you don't want to believe this, I know it's just easier label opinions you don't agree with as bigotry, but it is quite possible to intellectually and morally oppose same-sex marriage while affirming the equal humanity of homosexuals.
Sure, it is possible to say it, but it is quite another thing to actually back it up with a substantive and consistent philosophical basis.

Barring that, applying inconsistent double standards to different categories of people is, by definition, bigotry.
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 08:37 PM   #230
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
If you click on the link and scroll around 2/3rds of the way down the page, there's an article by an out gay man setting out his reservations about legalised gay marriage.
I could probably find thousands of blogs by straight men and straight women who think straight marriage is a waste of time, a trap, a legal quagmire, a anti-male or anti-female patriarchal/matriarchal construct designed to enslave (insert gender here). That doesn't mean straight marriage should be made illegal, does it?

A few posts by wary gay men or downright frightened gay men does not mean that all gay men and lesbians think second-class citizenship is acceptable.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 08:41 PM   #231
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
I could probably find thousands of blogs by straight men and straight women who think straight marriage is a waste of time, a trap, a legal quagmire, a anti-male or anti-female patriarchal/matriarchal construct designed to enslave (insert gender here). That doesn't mean straight marriage should be made illegal, does it?
That is actually a very good point - BUT straight men or women who adopt those arguments aren't automatically accused of being 'self-hating', whereas gay people who express reservations about gay marriage frequently are - by their own community.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 08:46 PM   #232
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
What I somewhat resent is being told that if you listen to the words of a gay person who DISAGREES with gay marriage, you're listening to a self-hating gay person, and what's more, you're probably a bigot yourself for even listening to his arguments!

Bluntly, it strikes me as a case of liberal bigotry, or at the very least, double standard.
The problem here is that it is a form of the argumentum ad verecundiam--"argument from authority"--logical fallacy. That is, rather than evaluating the substance of these arguments or the lack thereof, you're attributing added credence to them based solely on the source of them. This is no different than when medieval philosophers used to make dogmatic references to Aristotle to win arguments, and it would have been unthinkable to question whether the logic of Ille Philosophus was wrong.

Likewise, what makes the words of any "gay person" on "gay marriage" infallible? Frankly, I note their opinions, and rip apart their logic completely, because, like that of heterosexuals who argue against gay marriage, the logic of gay people against gay marriage is equally illogical.
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 08:46 PM   #233
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Personally, I'm in favour of gay marriage, on balance.

I see no great disadvantages. Many of the opponents of gay marriage do appear to exaggerate the perceived disadvantages, and, yes, SOME of them do appear to be motivated by homophobia.

On the other hand, if we look at the advantages of gay marriage, it does appear to annoy many homosexuals that they can't get married, and some view it as denying them their rights. As someone who has no great interest in getting married, I can't say I identify with this, but I am happy to take them at their word. So I say, legalise it.

What I somewhat resent is being told that if you listen to the words of a gay person who DISAGREES with gay marriage, you're listening to a self-hating gay person, and what's more, you're probably a bigot yourself for even listening to his arguments!

Bluntly, it strikes me as a case of liberal bigotry, or at the very least, double standard.

That's my 2c, take it or leave it.
I think that we can both agree on liberal bigotry, or totalitarianism towards a perceived good end, being a bad thing for freedom.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 08:47 PM   #234
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
BUT straight men or women who adopt those arguments aren't automatically accused of being 'self-hating', whereas gay people who express reservations about gay marriage frequently are - by their own community.

True enough.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 09:04 PM   #235
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
Secondly, if we are to argue, for a moment, on the religious significance of marriage in Western civilization, let's remember that "religious freedom" has wide latitudes here. "Marriage" is defined any number of ways, depending on the religious faith or even specific denominations. If we are to argue the religious dimension of marriage and say that it should have bearing on the secular definition of it, then whose definition should be included? Islam allows for one man, three women and gives men wide latitude to divorce freely, while not granting women the same. The FLDS has a religious support for underage polygamy. If we are to determine who should and should not marry, based on conservative Christian views on marriage, then why shouldn't these perspectives be included?
All the above example are at least BASED on the notion of a man and a women coming together to produce and raise offspring. Eventually that partnership became one of equals just as we began to see all men as equals.
But differing gender is always in the formula.

Now. Must some definition of marriage exist for it to have any meaning? By defining marriage, will some people always be excluded? Are some of those definitions, while exclusionary, based on sound, proven principles and not just on bigotry.
Quote:
Instead, as I said before, marriage is defined in Western civilization according to secular values of mutual consent and equality, and has done so for decades. France, as an example, does not recognize religious marriages at all; you can have your ceremony at any church, synagogue, or mosque that you like, but you still won't have a legal marriage until you go to the courthouse. And, ultimately, U.S. marriage laws are equally secularly determined, and religions are free to recognize or deny any state-recognized marriage that they like. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, does not recognize any non-Catholic marriages; in their eyes, all married Protestant Christians are not married and, instead, are living in mass fornication. The state recognition of gay marriage, likewise, will not prevent the Catholic Church from refusing to recognize gay marriages, just as they refuse to recognize Protestant marriages that are performed daily, and nor will it prevent all conservative Christian churches from denying gay marriages, as well.

This is ultimately why opposition to gay marriage is equated with bigotry; from the point of view of freedom, logic, and reason, it is.
Then you define marriage for me (in 10 word or less) and explain why your very arguments couldn't be used by those you would see fit to exclude.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 09:13 PM   #236
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Produce the bloody brilliant retort that shows how gay marriage as an extension of equal rights to taxpaying citizens is wrong.
Under U.S law anyway, I would either eliminate marriage benefits in regards to insurance, taxes, etc or allow for civil unions. Unacceptable and far from bloody brilliant I know.

I must applaud Massachusetts in one regard. At least it's the elected legislature and not the courts taking action.

How would you answer my rhetorical question a few pages back?

Quote:
Suppose the law had been written 50 years earlier solely to prevent Mormons in neighboring states from traveling to Massachusetts to marry... and marry... and marry. THEN, in the early 1900's, it was enforced to prevent interracial couples from crossing state lines to marry.

Then opposition to polygamy in 2008 would be morally equivalent to racism as well wouldn't it?
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 09:17 PM   #237
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:29 AM
Wryly amusing to see you state all men as equals then stipulating the importance of differing genders.

You throw out procreation as a prime cause, but that falls apart for IVF lesbians and gay men who have had children (or adopt, or use reproductive technologies). And then there are childless couples, are the infertile denied marriage rights?

That post wasn't an answer, you dance around the issue and throw a question back without stating why gay marriage should be illegal, your not throwing out an opinion and battering down the hatches, your obfuscating.

Marriage: contractual recognition of consensual relationship that guarantees joint property rights.

Key word is consensual; it excludes bestiality, it excludes children and coerced parties. It protects individual liberties, I have yet to see a better line of argument than that equal treatment.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 09:28 PM   #238
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
All the above example are at least BASED on the notion of a man and a women coming together to produce and raise offspring. Eventually that partnership became one of equals just as we began to see all men as equals.
But differing gender is always in the formula.
But that basis has been irrelevant at least since the 19th century, when marriage became defined around love and mutual consent, rather than arranged marriages where love was optional and they were primarily about property alliances and creating heirs to such property.

The sheer fact remains that marriages performed over the last century or so have not been around children. We do not prohibit infertile heterosexual couples from marrying, nor do we sanction fertile heterosexual married couples that actively choose to not have any children at all, not to mention that gay couples can and do have children, in some cases biologically (where one of the partners acts as a "step-parent"--not unlike a large percentage of married heterosexuals) and adoptively, in other cases, as gay adoption is already legal in many jurisdictions, even if gay marriage is not.

In short, your primary argument about marriage being about children is de facto obsolete on point one, and inconsistent on point two.

Quote:
Then you define marriage for me (in 10 word or less) and explain why your very arguments couldn't be used by those you would see fit to exclude.
Simple. Based on current understandings of philosophy and the state of Western civilization....

"Marriage is an equal, non-endogamous union between two consenting adults."

Polygamy is excluded for two reasons:

1) As it is currently practiced, it is unequal and abusive.
2) There is no sufficient demand to the contrary.

Arguments on incest can equally be applied to the heterosexual institution of marriage, as first-cousin endogamy was widely practiced in Christianity until recently.

And, as for animals and other inanimate objects, just as they are incapable of entering a legal contract (like children), they are just as incapable of entering a marriage contract (like children).

As for whether this definition can change, the Aristotelian/Thomist "Great Books" philosopher, Mortimer Adler, argued that, "if theology and religion are living things, there is nothing intrinsically wrong about efforts to modernize them. They must be open to change and growth like everything else."
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 09:28 PM   #239
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Under U.S law anyway, I would either eliminate marriage benefits in regards to insurance, taxes, etc or allow for civil unions. Unacceptable and far from bloody brilliant I know.
How is that an intellectual/moral argument against gay marriage?
__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 09:44 PM   #240
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Under U.S law anyway, I would either eliminate marriage benefits in regards to insurance, taxes, etc or allow for civil unions.
So you would destroy the village in order to save it?
__________________

__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com