The costs of gay marriage

[Zombie]

So One Brow has thrown out some actual hate speech in here, without justification, while apparently not even understanding what he's talking about.

I've been gone a day or more, so it's several pages back, but since he is the self-appointed hall monitor in here to find all bigots and call them out on it, here is what he said:
IO
(post 207). .. . . easy to get lost in his ramblings. . . .

.

here is what I said:

(post 204)



In my statement the clause "while degrading the meaning of marriage" refers to a centuries-old meaning that has, in virtually all human language, referred specifically to a man-woman relation. It has carried concepts of a great variety on nuance about the union of the two human sexes in a societally-recognized relation across all that time, while there has been homosexuality going on sometimes even openly and with in some places and times less stigma than in America today, whose relations were not considered "marriage" because of the necessary ingredient in the concept being the union of two people, a man and a woman. I am saying that the traditional meaning of "marriage" is degraded by the use of the term in other applications.

Words are often degraded, and experience a loss of meaning in human language, when people begin to use them to mean something quite distinctly different. or even opposite to a traditional usage. It happens faster in places/languages with no written language, and it happens faster among illiterate speakers of languages generally. Sometimes some folks will get educated and begin to use finer or more specific words to convey their meanings, and when the word they need is now being used quite loosely, it makes it more difficult for others to pick up the meaning intended.

And like I said, it appears to me in the case of the subject of this thread, that there are people who mean to just be divisive. It's a tactic much-used in politics, and has been advocated by thinkers like Machiavelli. Others have posited some sociological and political theories based on setting up two ideological camps and pitting them one against the other as a tool for change, control, or raw power.

Throwing out hate-loaded terminologies for people's who opinions or characteristics you detest is pretty much the definition of bigotr

People who use the term as One Brow does may be degrading the meaning of "bigotry" by using it in reference to people who actually can speak and understand English.

Funny that when a words meaning changes to something that you don't like it has somehow been degraded. To me extending marriage to others actually adds meaning to the word rather than the opposite. I find your choice of words awfully telling. I also think it's pretty hilarious that the guy arguing against equal rights for others is accusing the other side of divisiveness. It shows a complete lack of self awareness.

 

[babe]

My Mormon lawyer buddy put it best:

Again, if you don't like state sponsored marriage, no one is forcing you to do it.

If you think it is a good idea for the government to butt out of marriage completely, that would be extremely problematic for several reasons. Just proving the existence of a marriage would be a huge issue. Imagine a wife who works full time to support her husband getting his degree only to be dumped once he's done. How does she prove she's entitled to alimony? Inheritance, child custody, health care, etc... Marriage touches so many areas, it is wholly impractical for government to say, "you guys just figure it out."

As for existing laws, you can't just "repeal" the discriminatory ones. It's not that simple. There aren't any laws that say "gays can't visit their spouses in the hospital." The relevant law is HIPAA that precludes non family members from getting your health info. If a gay guy wants to visit his spouse, the relevant concern is whether he can be a spouse or not, not whether HIPAA has an anti gay provision, because it doesn't.

I guess you could also ask the government to say "you guys figure it out" when it comes to HIPAA and every other law that touches on marital relationships, but again, it's not practical.

paternity issues are regularly settled in courts, with child support judgments and such, including visitation and custody arrangements, for unmarried heterosexual couples. The existence of the "marriage" is not the issue when a child is the main concern.

A lot of unmarried heterosexual "partners" actually choose not to have the legal responsibilities they'd encounter if they got married. . . .

probably some GLBT folks might feel the same. Benefits? hell yeah. Responsibilities? hell no.

The critically significant thing about traditional marriage is it's meaning, and the expectations of support and total commitment which follow the traditional family scenarios. A woman or a man might choose to reserve their sexual experience to the person they marry precisely because it is far more than a thing defined by the sex act.

Some gays may be thinking in similar terms, and I see no reason they shouldn't be treated as a legal partnership with equal standing in matters like probate or estate, or any other purely legal aspect. It would only take a contract being legally enforceable. . . . on the same terms as a "marriage" is with heterosexual folks. I would suggest a name for it: "household partners" and I wouldn't dream of saying anyone actually has to be sexually-involved to be able to be recognized as a legal, financial, and/or caregiving team.

But this discussion, and the general issue in our public political debate, is not really about that. It is about regulating personal beliefs and enforcing compliance to a belief set that some people feel is superior, or desirable. As such it is in fact an imposition upon personal liberty.

 

[babe]

Funny that when a words meaning changes to something that you don't like it has somehow been degraded. To me extending marriage to others actually adds meaning to the word rather than the opposite. I find your choice of words awfully telling. I also think it's pretty hilarious that the guy arguing against equal rights for others is accusing the other side of divisiveness. It shows a complete lack of self awareness.

oh I'm aware. I've been in a lot of arguments that degraded into semantics and name-calling and not-so-subtle put-downs. I do the best I can to defend actual ideas against intellectual thugs who are as lacking in self-awareness as you seem to be.

let me put it as simply as I can. It's a war on traditional values where the folks whose beliefs and sentiments are not acceptable to the ones who think they know better. You are about establishing your views as the legally-enforced, state-sanctioned norm and gaining the political power to proscribe other beliefs and lifestyle notions. You're not the nice guys who are actually compassionate and understanding, but you are not self-aware or honest enough to admit it.

 

[Zombie]

oh I'm aware. I've been in a lot of arguments that degraded into semantics and name-calling and not-so-subtle put-downs. I do the best I can to defend actual ideas against intellectual thugs who are as lacking in self-awareness as you seem to be.

let me put it as simply as I can. It's a war on traditional values where the folks whose beliefs and sentiments are not acceptable to the ones who think they know better. You are about establishing your views as the legally-enforced, state-sanctioned norm and gaining the political power to proscribe other beliefs and lifestyle notions. You're not the nice guys who are actually compassionate and understanding, but you are not self-aware or honest enough to admit it.

Hahaha yeah yeah you're right! You got me! I'm the one who is pushing my beliefs on others by believing the law should treat everyone equally regardless of who they prefer to spend their lives with. And you're right I don't do it because I have empathy for those around me but because I just like telling others how to live their lives, because that makes so much sense.
Look buddy, nobody is saying you can't go right on thinking whatever you want about gay marriage, it being legal will not impact your ability to think about it whatever you like. Nor will it impact your ability to get married to whomever you like. So spare me all the nonsense about it being a "war on traditional values." Your values, such as they are, must not be very firmly held if something that will impact your life in no material way is such a threat to them.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

But this discussion, and the general issue in our public political debate, is not really about that. It is about regulating personal beliefs and enforcing compliance to a belief set that some people feel is superior, or desirable. As such it in fact an imposition upon personal liberty.

As I said earlier, rights that are based on exclusion will lose out to rights based on inclusion. Your imposition based on the right to exclusivity is trumped when in direct opposition of imposition based on the right to inclusiveness.

The semantic argument is required, since it comes down to the definition of a word to those that wish to exclude, after all. Much in the same way the nuclear family isn't the "traditional" form of a family in human history, heterosexual monogamous marriage isn't really the "traditional" form of marriage.

When Bush wanted to ban gay marriage: https://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Statement-on-Marriage-and-the-family.cfm

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Even in the US history, the idea of marriage has changed. Think a 1950's marriage is the same as a 2010's marriage? https://users.rcn.com/bendesky/about/cbta/50swoman.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only four key arguments for the exclusive side: I don't like it, morally wrong, no kids/bad family structure, not traditional.

Traditional marriage is impossible to truly define, and certainly not universal in any way, since there is a bevy of research on what marriage has meant to humans across time, so that's not a valid argument. The foundation of marriage is not exclusive to sex and child rearing, since child bearing and rearing occur outside of marriage, and marriage occurs outside of sex and child bearing and rearing, making the child angel flimsy at best. Is the belief that banning two people from having the same legal (and not same but separate) status as two other people less of a moral? Do morals have a ranking scale? If not, than morals cancel each other out.

That leaves that you just don't like it. Not going to win much with that as your only strong argument.

Here's kind of an interesting read on reaction to the Supreme Court case.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-makes-us-human/201303/ask-anthropologist-about-marriage

 

[Zombie]

Jesus Christ dude persecution complex much? I don't think I am superior to you, I just think I am right and you are wrong about this particular issue an am telling you why. In fact the whole notion of me being the one trying to impose superiority is laughable after you just attempted to do the same by saying I'm 19 and thus, presumably, younger and less wise than yourself. So why don't you go ahead and put away the victim card and Don't pretend that by denying Gays the right to marriage you aren't deciding for others what words mean and how to use them. Once again those in favor of marriage equality aren't the ones telling others how to live their lives.
EDIT - This is a response to a post by babe which has since disappeared into the aether.

 

[babe]

Jesus Christ dude persecution complex much? I don't think I am superior to you, I just think I am right and you are wrong about this particular issue an am telling you why. In fact the whole notion of me being the one trying to impose superiority is laughable after you just attempted to do the same by saying I'm 19 and thus, presumably, younger and less wise than yourself. So why don't you go ahead and put away the victim card and Don't pretend that by denying Gays the right to marriage you aren't deciding for others what words mean and how to use them. Once again those in favor of marriage equality aren't the ones telling others how to live their lives.
EDIT - This is a response to a post by babe which has since disappeared into the aether.

yah I deleted the post. yah I still think you're 19, maybe. based on your arguments and style, which old dudes usually drift away from after a while. maybe.

I'm nobody's victim. I see you reaching deep to come up with some kind of psychobabble dismissive or marginalizing framework for misconstruing my comments. And hell yeah. Nobody's got the Superiority edge on today's crop of progressives.

I think you'd have to re-think your own comments if you actually re-read mine.

 

[nightmare3983]

People against gay marriage aren't necessarily telling people how to live their lives either, although some are. But in a sense that goes both ways since people in support of gay marriage are telling other people what they should accept.

 

[babe]

As I said earlier, rights that are based on exclusion will lose out to rights based on inclusion. Your imposition based on the right to exclusivity is trumped when in direct opposition of imposition based on the right to inclusiveness.

The semantic argument is required, since it comes down to the definition of a word to those that wish to exclude, after all. Much in the same way the nuclear family isn't the "traditional" form of a family in human history, heterosexual monogamous marriage isn't really the "traditional" form of marriage.

When Bush wanted to ban gay marriage: https://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Statement-on-Marriage-and-the-family.cfm




Even in the US history, the idea of marriage has changed. Think a 1950's marriage is the same as a 2010's marriage? https://users.rcn.com/bendesky/about/cbta/50swoman.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only four key arguments for the exclusive side: I don't like it, morally wrong, no kids/bad family structure, not traditional.

Traditional marriage is impossible to truly define, and certainly not universal in any way, since there is a bevy of research on what marriage has meant to humans across time, so that's not a valid argument. The foundation of marriage is not exclusive to sex and child rearing, since child bearing and rearing occur outside of marriage, and marriage occurs outside of sex and child bearing and rearing, making the child angel flimsy at best. Is the belief that banning two people from having the same legal (and not same but separate) status as two other people less of a moral? Do morals have a ranking scale? If not, than morals cancel each other out.

That leaves that you just don't like it. Not going to win much with that as your only strong argument.

Here's kind of an interesting read on reaction to the Supreme Court case.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-makes-us-human/201303/ask-anthropologist-about-marriage

So I read the link. I was a regular reader of Psychology Today a while back.

I have been an opponent of every conservative law or effort to "protect the family" such as constitutional amendments or legally defining "marriage" as "one man and one woman". For many years. . .. when I was maybe 19 to 30, I was an advocate for gay marriage. I consider the issue hijacked and the hijackers to be statists who put government power as the objective of the debate.

A careful reading of my posts here will show someone who's willing to think about it, that what I am opposing is not equality under the law, but the loss of personal prerogatives.

We have lots of financial sorts of legal entities that people can choose to form to achieve specific objectives, and we have different names for all of them, and people can use those names in discussions to get a clear understanding of what is proposed, and what may be expected.

I consider the Prop 8 initiative and it advocates and counsel pretty stupid, but lovable human beings and my sympathies go out to them. . . . . simply because the change-agent pushers on the liberal side are even more statist and less attuned to tolerance.

I'm pretty sure that our statists will achieve their increment of state power, and I'm pretty sure almost everyone will be screwed.

We can have different social institutions, just like we have different financial institutions, keeping "marriage" as it is on it's changing trajectory as people do change in our changing times, and invent some other forms of quickly-understood contractual relations recognized and protected by appropriate law. We don't need to give the federal government the power to homogenize us---all right you gays, learn to laugh a little---according to some supposedly "progressive" vision of a new mankind.

It's a pretty good argument about the semantics and how the inclusive definition might win out, but it's not the relevant one. Look at the hate the GLBT advocates throw out. In Utah, there was a rally of gays in the state capitol building one day. No one came to harass them or disrupt their meeting. Another day the folks for "the family" did a rally. oh, about 500 rude and loud, taunting and disruptive and disrespectful opponents showed up with their banners. You really don't have the truth with that point about who has the "inclusive" definitions of human rights.

"Heretic, Rebel, a thing to flout, Hate drew a circle to keep me out. But wit and I had the wit to win, Love drew a circle that drew him in"

the question is, really about how to keep the government from telling us what to believe, what to say, who to associate with, and what to do. I say you don't do that by re-defining marriage or wiping away people's sense of personal choice. So if you want to draw more religious or otherwise skeptical folks in, do it in a way that shows respect for them and understanding if not sympathy for their ways and views. I'd like to convert some gays into my view about achieving personal rights through respecting others and finding mutually-satisfying solutions, rather than a divisive and demeaning endless argument.

 

[Stoked]

I have lost all interest in this debate when a bunch of you started throwing around insults and degrading terms. I won't call out names bu you all know who you are. For shame on every single one of you. Open minded and reasonable my ***.

 

[moevillini]

I have lost all interest in this debate when a bunch of you started throwing around insults and degrading terms. I won't call out names bu you all know who you are. For shame on every single one of you. Open minded and reasonable my ***.

wait, which side were you on?


j/k


hopefully the discussion will get back on track

 

[Stoked]

wait, which side were you on?


j/k


hopefully the discussion will get back on track

To be honest I am kind of in the middle.