marriage equality in California - Page 17 - 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, 09:58 PM   #241
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Wryly amusing to see you state all men as equals then stipulating the importance of differing genders.
"all men" can of coarse be taken as neutral. Would you prefer "all men, and womyn"?

The argument must be made by those that would change marriage from between members of the opposite sex to now include those of the same sex.
A debate that must take place in public forums such as this and in legislatures -- not behind closed doors in front of judges.
Quote:
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.
I see no reference to quantity in this definition. I say that knowing that, as long as it's consensual, a marriage scrum is perfectly acceptable to you.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 10:04 PM   #242
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:27 AM
I think that polygamy or polygyny, while with a suite of problems such as consensually, could in principle be acceptable if they were sorted. I wouldn't presume that a definition I make today couldn't be changed or adapted.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 10:06 PM   #243
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,273
Local Time: 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
"all men" can of coarse be taken as neutral. Would you prefer "all men, and womyn"?

The argument must be made by those that would change marriage from between members of the opposite sex to now include those of the same sex.
A debate that must take place in public forums such as this and in legislatures -- not behind closed doors in front of judges.
If the legislatures pass laws which are unconstitutional, then it is up to the judiciary to declare it so, short of the legislature making the sufficient changes or amendments or repealing the law.

How much of the civil rights movement was progress by the judiciary because the debate in the public forums was useless? A public debate does not mean that the end result is going to be a state of affairs that is based on equality and constitutional rights. Had the judiciary not interfered, would we still have segregation? Would women still be precluded from getting birth control prescriptions?
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 11:39 PM   #244
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post

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).
Obviously I don't agree with all of that but it's a reasoned out answer from your point of view. You do, however, prove that social policy cannot be made solely on the basis of "fairness" or else you wouldn't exclude anyone for any reason.

You didn't start it I realize, but make the above arguments and don't play on the guilt our country still posses over the morally indefensible treatment of black Americans in our past. That discrimination had far more financial and social ramifications as well as going to the very dignity of their worth as humans. That was a discrimination based on bigotry. Is bigotry alone the reason no religious or secular moral system has ever advocated same-sex marriage until this generation?

Is it that we now know something that they never learned, or is it the other way around. They knew something we may have forgotten?
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 11:42 PM   #245
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:27 AM
The appeal to tradition is the most unfounded and stifling of arguments.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 12:01 AM   #246
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
The appeal to tradition is the most unfounded and stifling of arguments.

And one used by segregationists.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 12:43 AM   #247
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Obviously I don't agree with all of that but it's a reasoned out answer from your point of view. You do, however, prove that social policy cannot be made solely on the basis of "fairness" or else you wouldn't exclude anyone for any reason.
My philosophical interests have, frankly, shifted wildly over the last year or so, which is why modern fuzzy liberal arguments about "fairness" and "equality" (not to be confused with classical liberal arguments on the same topics) aren't generally in my vocabulary any longer. By some definitions, as I've read, that would make me a "conservative," but I'm not a fan of conforming to ideology as it is. And I also have a very strong interest in the philosophy of morality, which I could probably write a book on, of which gay issues would only form a single chapter.

Quote:
Is it that we now know something that they never learned, or is it the other way around. They knew something we may have forgotten?
To me, this seems like a very romantic view of the past. In reality, most of our ancestors generally lived one day at a time and didn't have a larger perspective beyond the culture they lived in any more than we do now. They made many mistakes, just as we are bound to make them and just as our descendants will make them too. Some will argue that, because we are bound to make mistakes and change our minds, so to say, that it means that "absolute truth" does not exist, and, as an extension, not even try to pursue it. Looking through my past writings here, I know I had argued that repeatedly, but nowadays, I think that that central tenet of postmodernism is wrong. Such ideals as freedom and liberty, for instance, may be modern constructions, but it is hard to argue that both ideals were only "right" in modern times; they would, of course, have been right all along.

From a theological point of view, too, there is the idea of "divine revelation," where new divine truths can be newly revealed in modern times, presumably for reasons only divinely known. Admittedly, of course, such a concept can be tremendously abused, which is probably why it was grounded somewhat with more worldly, rational Aristotelian philosophy in Thomism.

Overall, though, I think we need not fear progress or a departure from tradition necessarily, as long as the arguments are sound. In the case of gay marriage, I believe that the arguments in favor of it are overwhelmingly better constructed than arguments against it, which often are unable to pass an even cursory philosophical examination, due to them often being built on tremendously flimsy assumptions that don't pass logical muster.

As for the inevitable larger questions regarding the state of marriage and the modern family, they are concerns that I share, as well. However, it is my view that tying the decline of marriage and family to gays and gay marriage is overtly fallacious. The gay couples trying to get married are the ones more likely to live conservatively than that of the general population, and most certainly will make far better married couples than the archetypal heterosexual Hollywood "marriages" we see every day. I think those are probably far more influential on the American psyche than gays ever were or could hope to be.
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 12:49 AM   #248
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:27 AM
Quote:
My philosophical interests have, frankly, shifted wildly over the last year or so, which is why modern fuzzy liberal arguments about "fairness" and "equality" (not to be confused with classical liberal arguments on the same topics) aren't generally in my vocabulary any longer. By some definitions, as I've read, that would make me a "conservative," but I'm not a fan of conforming to ideology as it is. And I also have a very strong interest in the philosophy of morality, which I could probably write a book on, of which gay issues would only form a single chapter.
Are you and I suffering convergence?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 01:28 AM   #249
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Is bigotry alone the reason no religious or secular moral system has ever advocated same-sex marriage until this generation?
Intentionally childless marriages are a fairly new thing too; I think the change in attitude towards what marriage is 'good for' reflected by their becoming commonplace has at least as much to do with it. If intending to produce children together were universally assumed to be intrinsic to what marriage is, then at the very least this debate would look quite different. Women's access to financial independence (also fairly new) is relevant too, as it affects both sexes' perceptions of what a spouse is 'good for'--less about supporting or being supported, more about love and companionship.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 01:52 AM   #250
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

it is quite possible to intellectually and morally oppose same-sex marriage while affirming the equal humanity of homosexuals.
The thing is, I've heard this same argument made about interracial marriage. There are still people who "like black people" and "have nothing against them" and "count some among their 'best friends'" but "wouldn't want their daughter marrying one." These people would bristle at the idea that they might be bigots and would eagerly "affirm the equal humanity of all races). So I do think the comparison is fair.

"well as long as you don't have children. . ." one pastor told me when he found out I was marrying my wife back in 1997. **sigh**
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 02:01 AM   #251
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:27 PM
Perhaps the most honest anti-gay marriage argument is:

"I believe that it is immorally wrong based on my understanding of the Bible and if our society gives it's approval to such an egregious wrong, there will be all kinds of horrible consequences, including but not limited to the collapse of the family--which is the foundation of society. It's fine for people to live immorally as long as society doesn't actively condone or reward it. Society doesn't have to punish it, but to make it socially and legally acceptable would be disastorous"

Granted, this argument won't stand up very well but I think it's whats underlying most opposition to gay marriage and it's very difficult to argue someone out of that point of view.
Melon, as you may recall, your explanation of some the other interpretations of the Scriptures regarding homosexuality were very helpful in me changing my views on the issue, but even those might not have been as effective if it weren't for knowing and caring deeply for people who are gay--one student in particular really impacted me. In the face of this real person, my old point of view was already on shaky ground.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 02:17 AM   #252
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
"I believe that it is immorally wrong based on my understanding of the Bible and if our society gives it's approval to such an egregious wrong, there will be all kinds of horrible consequences, including but not limited to the collapse of the family--which is the foundation of society."
Assuming you're saying this used to be your view (or perhaps at least that you're very familiar with it), what exactly is someone who says this picturing when they speak of "the collapse of the family," and how do they see gay marriage unleashing that scenario? Straight couples would then be more likely to get divorced (why?), more straight women would then have children outside of marriage (why?), more straight couples would elect not to have children at all (why?), or what?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 03:21 AM   #253
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 12:27 PM
Josh Holloway made me gay.
I mean, c'mon. That's got to be the sexist man who ever swung some pipe. We redstaters can't handle that kind of manly sexiness.

So, I think he should be prosecuted or something.

For giving me 'gay'

You fags better stay in line.

Do you guys like Bears?
__________________
U2DMfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 10:10 AM   #254
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
They're not "intimidated into silence." They have no arguments against it except religious hysteria. If that's all they got, they get shouted down in a discussion about civil rights.


so i haven't read all the thread yet, but i find this whole "intimidation" sob-story thing little more than an excuse for not being able to put up an actual argument.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 10:13 AM   #255
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 01:27 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.


except that it isn't.

by denying me marriage rights you are saying that my relationship is by definition inferior to yours. you could emotionally abuse your wife, she could have multiple unprotected affairs with many anonymous partners, but because you're opposite sexed, such a relationship is legal and valid and protected.

truly, it is judging a relationship by it's form, and not by the content if it's character.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 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 01:27 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