Pointless argument #726 thread

[TC]

Nov 6, 2008 13:46:57 GMT -5 afirth said:

I'm also tired of hearing straight people say that gay people shouldn't care so much about the word and it's just "semantics." Plenty of people have pointed out that words are more than just semantics. It's a measure of how we treat people in our society. Even if a "marriage" and a "civil union" had the legal same rights and benefits, we're still deeming and entire segment of our society as substandard, as not good enough to be able to use the word we do.

I was the one who called it semantics a few pages back, and I meant it in the context of "you can call it marriage or you can go back and revise every state document, redact the word marriage and insert civil union". I completely agree with your point.

[Cambridge]

Nov 6, 2008 13:46:57 GMT -5 afirth said:

Nov 6, 2008 13:41:08 GMT -5 Elvado said:

That is the problem right there. Hifi refers to "homosexual rights". They don't want "homosexual rights". They want American civil rights and damn well should have them.

Thank you thank you thank you thank you.

I'm also tired of hearing straight people say that gay people shouldn't care so much about the word and it's just "semantics." Plenty of people have pointed out that words are more than just semantics. It's a measure of how we treat people in our society. Even if a "marriage" and a "civil union" had the legal same rights and benefits, we're still deeming and entire segment of our society as substandard, as not good enough to be able to use the word we do.

See my posts above; I agree wholeheartedly.

When the state denies participation in a fundamental societal institution such as marriage based on a biological factor beyond their control, it implicitly says that the individual denied participation is not respected or protected by the rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

[afirth]

Nov 6, 2008 14:06:26 GMT -5 TC said:

I was the one who called it semantics a few pages back, and I meant it in the context of "you can call it marriage or you can go back and revise every state document, redact the word marriage and insert civil union". I completely agree with your point.

I guess my point (with that argument) is, it would be nice and convenient if that would ever actually happen. But does anyone really think that every single state is ever going to go change their constitution and redact the word marriage and insert civil union? It just seems highly, highly unlikely. The term "marriage" has special connotation and meaning to the states and civil society in general. I know I'm repeating myself, but it's not just a word with a religious meaning.

[Cambridge]

The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

John Stuart Mills, On Liberty

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Loving v. VA, Justice Warren writing for majority

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Mildred Loving on the 40th Anniversary of the landmark decision.

[EasyEd]

After reading this entire thread (except for a few sentences of hifi's), several comments.

First, the Catholic Church is not against homosexuality, it's against homosexual (and heterosexual) activity outside of marriage. Homosexuals are welcome in the Catholic Church.

Second, it's not certain that people are born as homosexuals and cannot be "cured". There are people who have been "cured", one of whom spoke for a group of them in a letter to the editor in the Washington Post about two weeks ago and who was irate at those who claimed otherwise. "To coin a phrase" just because some people say it is so does not make it so in light of evidence of some who have been "cured".

Third, if you believe people are born as homosexuals, are others also born as pedophiles?And, if so, are they entitled to the same marital rights as heterosexuals?

Fourth, if it is a violation of rights to forbid homosexuals from marrying is it also a violation to forbid a man from marrying two women simultaneously (or women marrying two men)? After all it's between consenting adults.

Fifth, it changes the nature of heterosexual marriages to extend this to homosexuals. To illustrate, if you are an attorney would it change the nature of being an attorney if the rules were changed to say, for instance, anyone could function as a lawyer whether or not they had a law degree or had passed the bar exam? Not a perfect example but an illustration of why changing the definition of something (marriage, attorney) changes the nature of it.

And, sixth, I find it amusing (or choose another word) that people object to the will of the people as expressed in a vote and try to find some other way (usually the courts) to overturn the will of the people - but only when they don't like the people's decision.

[mchoya]

Nov 6, 2008 14:13:10 GMT -5 Cambridge said:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Loving v. VA, Justice Warren writing for majority

That justification of marriage, that it is fundamental to our existence and survival, can be read make a statement not only for the existence and survival of our generation, but of future ones that are created through marriage. There are certain benefits conferred upon married couples in the tax code (joint-filing) and more for having kids (tax breaks), because it ensures the survival of the American society as a whole by incentivizing population growth.

So... what happens when gay marriage enters the equation? Gay couples cannot have children, so there go the benefits of the joint-filing and other tax breaks. So what is a government to do? I would advocate the end of incentivizing certain practices by the tax code. At that point, there is no difference between a homosexual marriage and a heterosexual marriage, and the government should have no problem recognizing either.

[hifigator]

Nevermind. I give up. You all win. The term marriage should be outlawed and criminalized. The use of such an egregious term is now punishable by death by hanging. Now, who still wants to be "married?"

[afirth]

Nov 6, 2008 14:30:41 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

After reading this entire thread (except for a few sentences of hifi's), several comments.

First, the Catholic Church is not against homosexuality, it's against homosexual (and heterosexual) activity outside of marriage. Homosexuals are welcome in the Catholic Church.

Second, it's not certain that people are born as homosexuals and cannot be "cured". There are people who have been "cured", one of whom spoke for a group of them in a letter to the editor in the Washington Post about two weeks ago and who was irate at those who claimed otherwise. "To coin a phrase" just because some people say it is so does not make it so in light of evidence of some who have been "cured".

Third, if you believe people are born as homosexuals, are others also born as pedophiles?And, if so, are they entitled to the same marital rights as heterosexuals?

Fourth, if it is a violation of rights to forbid homosexuals from marrying is it also a violation to forbid a man from marrying two women simultaneously (or women marrying two men)? After all it's between consenting adults.

Fifth, it changes the nature of heterosexual marriages to extend this to homosexuals. To illustrate, if you are an attorney would it change the nature of being an attorney if the rules were changed to say, for instance, anyone could function as a lawyer whether or not they had a law degree or had passed the bar exam? Not a perfect example but an illustration of why changing the definition of something (marriage, attorney) changes the nature of it.

And, sixth, I find it amusing (or choose another word) that people object to the will of the people as expressed in a vote and try to find some other way (usually the courts) to overturn the will of the people - but only when they don't like the people's decision.

I'm not even going to bother addressing all of those points, but...

1. Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is ridiculous. Homosexuals choose to be in loving, caring, relationships together. Children who are preyed upon by pedophiles do not make that choice. They are abused. I don't know if people are born with pedophile instincts or not, but no one would argue that the right of people who sexually abuse others against their will should be protected.

2. It does not change the nature of heterosexual marriages to allow homosexuals to have marriages. For the brief period that California was issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, most heterosexual married couples reported feeling no differently about their own personal marriage. A marriage has whatever meaning two people choose to make of it. I know that when I get married, in my church, it will have a personal significance to me which will not be impacted at all by what state governments are legally granting. If a state wants to grant civil marriage licenses to gay couples it will in NO WAY change the nature of my marriage.

3. Thinking like this would have allowed for segregation in public schools to have gone on way longer than the Brown v. Board of Education holding. The majority of Americans, in the north AND south, wished for schools and everything else to remain segregated when this decision came out. Courts play a role in our society - protection of minority rights against the tyranny of the majority. There are plenty of times in our history where the majority was not right (wanting to keep slavery, segregation, not letting women vote, etc).

[Cambridge]

Ed, while I respect your opinion, homosexuality is not akin to bigamy or pedophilia. Those are simply bogeymen made out of straw you are simultaneously employing to scare us and expand the dubious logic of your argument. At the root of your argument, despite your protestations, is that homosexuals should not be granted equal treatment under the laws and the Constitution.

Your aversion to the courts is understandable, but the third branch was created by our wise and prescient founding fathers in the knowledge that the will of the majority would occasionally be out of step with the fundamental tenets of our democracy and our nation would require a body who could give voice to the minorities oppressed by the majority. The courts, despite your protestation, serve an important and vital function in our democracy. Without them, there is no check against the majority, there is no voice for the downtrodden.

[hifigator]

Cambridge, while I agree that pedophilia isn't a fair analogy, I think that bigomy is a valid comparison. We, as a society, recognize the union of people. Given that we are of the opinion that people should be free to choose exactly what their union is to be, and furthermore that as a society we should recognize such unions equally, then who are we to say that the union must only be between 2 people? I think that if you are of the opinion that two men, two women or one man and one women must be recognized and "called" the same thing, then what logic dictates that 3 people can't have that same priviledge?

[hoyatables]

Nov 6, 2008 14:41:47 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Nevermind. I give up. You all win. The term marriage should be outlawed and criminalized. The use of such an egregious term is now punishable by death by hanging. Now, who still wants to be "married?"

This doesn't even make sense. None of us are arguing that marriage is a bad thing or should be outlawed. Quite the opposite -- we're saying it is something fantastic that should be available to all.

[Cambridge]

Nov 6, 2008 15:02:17 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Cambridge, while I agree that pedophilia isn't a fair analogy, I think that bigamy is a valid comparison. We, as a society, recognize the union of people. Given that we are of the opinion that people should be free to choose exactly what their union is to be, and furthermore that as a society we should recognize such unions equally, then who are we to say that the union must only be between 2 people? I think that if you are of the opinion that two men, two women or one man and one women must be recognized and "called" the same thing, then what logic dictates that 3 people can't have that same privilege?

First of all, I couldn't careless whether bigamy was legal or not. It honestly doesn't effect me if the Sultan of Brunei has 100 wives and it wouldn't effect me or my marriage if my neighbor had 10. That being said, the difference between bigamy and homosexuality is that nobody is born bigamous.

Even if they were born bigamous, and let's just argue that for a second, nobody is denying bigamous people from getting married, they are merely restricting the number of people they can marry.

In essence, even if it were possible for someone to be born bigamous, that person would still be allowed to stand up and declare their commitment to a person of their choice before witnesses and receive benefits and recognition from the state. They may not be able to do it twice, but they could do it once. A homosexual, cannot do it at all.

You could argue that the law doesn't stop homosexuals from getting married, only from getting married to someone of the same sex, but this makes marriage more of a mockery and strips it of the sanctity argument you are clinging to.

As for pedophiles, they are allowed to marry whoever they want as long as the object of their affection gives consent. If that person is under the age of consent of the local state, they can still marry them provided they can get the consent of the object of their affection and the parents and/or court in many states. This applies to as young as 13 in some states.

[hifigator]

In all seriousness, I am curious how those of you who are proponents of the "marriage" term applying to homosexual couples feel about bigamy. If the logic is to allow people to choose their union without restraint, then why must it be limited to two people? I understand from a moral point of view, obviously we will have our own ideas. But as a society, if we are of the opinion that people are and should be free to choose their union, then why must it be only between 2 people? I'm not being difficult, but I honestly don't see any logical reason other than "that's the way we've always done it," and that seems to largely be the opposite view of those who are advocating gay marriages to begin with.

[afirth]

First of all, there are far fewer people who are seeking to have polygamous marriages than homosexual marriages. I know it's been prevalent in places like Utah, and also in other parts of the globe, but I don't see millions of Americans rallying for it. If they someday do, maybe it would be different.

I'm sure that states could find other justifications for only wanting to keep it between two people. Probably mostly matters of convenience - tax reasons, inheritance reasons, etc.

Ultimately, like Cambridge said, no one is born bigamous. People are born with their race, their gender, and their sexual orientation. To discriminate based on how people are born is the fundamental flaw.

I don't really care if people want to be in polygamous relationships if that's their thing. However I think that most of the polygamy we've experienced in history has been an oppression of women. There's a reason you never see a woman with ten husbands. So I think that's more why people aren't as likely to get on board with polygamy - they see it as an oppression of women.

[hifigator]

afirth wrote:

First of all, there are far fewer people who are seeking to have polygamous marriages than homosexual marriages. I know it's been prevalent in places like Utah, and also in other parts of the globe, but I don't see millions of Americans rallying for it. If they someday do, maybe it would be different.


So what? Why does how many people want something matter if the argument is that they "should" have the right?

Ultimately, like Cambridge said, no one is born bigamous. People are born with their race, their gender, and their sexual orientation. To discriminate based on how people are born is the fundamental flaw.

Aside from the fact that there are lots of people with different opinions, so what? I understand the point of not discriminating against the way someone is, but why should that be the only determinant? Again, if the issue is fairness and freedoms, then I see no reason to limit it arbitrarily to 2 people.

I don't really care if people want to be in polygamous relationships if that's their thing. However I think that most of the polygamy we've experienced in history has been an oppression of women. There's a reason you never see a woman with ten husbands. So I think that's more why people aren't as likely to get on board with polygamy - they see it as an oppression of women.

Societies are different. Some societies have arranged weddings. That doesn't mean that in our society we should abide by their habits. Similarly, just because other cultures oppress women, why should one aspect of their culture be designated as a sin/crime?

Also, there are many who would probably argue with your premise that while men want multiple women, all women only want one man. There was a ruler of Russia named Catherine the Great once ...

[Boz]

Thread title fixed.

;D

[afirth]

I never said all women only want one man. I just said that, if you look at most polygamous societies, you more often see one men with many women, not the other way around. I'm sure there's some sociological reasons for that, though I certainly don't know enough about the matter to say definitively what they are.

I agree that the number of people who want a right doesn't really matter, I was just more trying to say that I don't think anyone or any group is putting any real pressure on states to allow polygamy. (Except maybe in Utah? I don't know.) What I meant is, it's not really going to become an issue until people begin to demand it as a right. Then legislatures and courts will deal with those demands accordingly.

People put arbitrary limits on things all the time. Why do you have to be 16 to get a license? 18 to vote? 21 to drink? People find reasons for these limits, even if they are inherently arbitrary.

[strummer8526]

Nov 6, 2008 16:00:23 GMT -5 Boz said:

Thread title fixed.

;D

Well done.

[Jack]

Nov 6, 2008 16:12:09 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Nov 6, 2008 16:00:23 GMT -5 Boz said:

Thread title fixed.

;D

Well done.

Now how will we distinguish it from all the other threads, though?

[hifigator]

Nov 6, 2008 16:14:27 GMT -5 Jack said:

Nov 6, 2008 16:12:09 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Well done.

Now how will we distinguish it from all the other threads, though?

Damn it! Beat me to it!