Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you building up to a lecture on the Allegory of the Cave and Plato's Forms Theory?
Again, I find the title of the law irrelevant. I don't give two ****s whether the law is titled Marriage, Civil Union, Domestic Partnership, Shacking-Up, or laskjdoiaj. Hell, if the law were titled "A Contract Only for Midget, Heterosexual, Muslim Couples" I'd sill demand that tall, atheist, gay couples be able to get a Contract Only for Midget, Heterosexual, Muslim Couples.
I don't care what conservative Christians consider marriage to be, I don't care what liberal Christians consider marriage to be, I don't care what the ancient Norse considered marriage to be, I don't care what Atheists consider marriage to be, and I don't care what you consider marriage to be. I care about the substance of the law and about gay couples being able to access it. We have a law inconveniently titled "Marriage," therefore I want gay marriage. I don't see why an inconvenient title should override the Constitutional promise of equal access to the law.
And as to what marriage is outside of a legal context, I'll say this. In my culture, marriage absolutely can be between two men or two women - and that's independent of any legal definitions or constructs of marriage. I've been to many private, often religious, gay marriage ceremonies. I totally reject your assertion that "marriage can only be between one man and one woman." You keep saying I'm interjection religion, but I'd like to know if not from religion, upon what do you base your assertion that "marriage is what it is" and that "marriage can only be between one man and one woman"?
This is a dialogue, so you don't get to ask questions unless you also respond to them. I can only assume that you didn't respond to my hypothetical questions because they would have revealed the absurdity of your position. Thank you for the clarification.
This is a dialogue, so you don't get to ask questions unless you also respond to them. I can only assume that you didn't respond to my hypothetical questions because they would have revealed the absurdity of your position. Thank you for the clarification.
No, I didn't specifically address them because they are silly.
First off, things like cats and humans and doors and chairs are substantial, physical things. I would agree with you that each has its own intrinsic reality and can be easily distinguished and categorized by a collection of physical characteristics. Concepts like marriage are very, very different. They don't have intrinsic physical realities, so I find the analogy you are trying to draw to be utterly absurd.
And by looking at my answer with regard to marriage law, it's pretty easy to see what I think. I care about the substance, not the title or titlings. If we, for some reason, defined in the law cats to be dogs, I would scoff at the silliness of it, and then I would look at the substance of the law. If it didn't do anything - like I image it wouldn't - then I wouldn't care. If the law somehow discriminated against a class of people or led to something I viewed as a negative outcome, then I'd advocate we stop defining cats as dogs within the law.
But back to my question, if not religion, upon what do you base your assertion that "marriage is what it is" and that "marriage can only be between one man and one woman"? In my culture, that is not the reality of marriage.
Last edited by hammertime33; 03-10-2013 at 04:32 PM..
Reason: changed it's to its
... They may be married in the eyes of the law, and in the views of many of the citizens, but they will never truly be married because not matter what we call the formalization of their relationship, marriage can only be between one man and one woman. They will consider themselves to be married as will many of you, and that's fine as far as it goes. But just because you call something by a name, that doesn't mean you change the intrinsic nature of that thing ...
... I know this is a very hard concept for many of you, likely because you do not want to accept it. But if I call my cat a dog, does she become a dog? What if everyone decides that cats are now dogs? We could all agree on that, but would my cat BE a dog? Some of you may say, yes, cat and dog are man made terms, and the differences between the species are man made constructs which we devised for our own convenience, but I think she would remain different from a dog no matter what we called her.So it is with "gay" marriage ...
Your arguments are fatuous and nonsensical to me.
As a person with a degree in anthropology and someone who have travelled to nearly 90 countries on six continents, I recognize that "marriage" means different things in different cultures and societies.
In our country civil marriage is a legal partnership that implies certain rights and responsibilities. Nothing more and nothing less.
You flatter yourself if you think any of the hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian couples out there care if you approve of their relationship, or consider them legitimately married. They care about treated equally under law the same as heterosexual married couples.
You flatter yourself if you think any of the hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian couples out there care if you approve of their relationship, or consider them legitimately married. They care about treated equally under law the same as heterosexual married couples.
I never said they cared what I think. As an anthropologist, you should recognize that really doesn't affect the validity of my arguments one way or the other.
Last edited by Glenfield; 03-10-2013 at 07:10 PM..
No, I didn't specifically address them because they are silly.
First off, things like cats and humans and doors and chairs are substantial, physical things. I would agree with you that each has its own intrinsic reality and can be easily distinguished and categorized by a collection of physical characteristics. Concepts like marriage are very, very different. They don't have intrinsic physical realities, so I find the analogy you are trying to draw to be utterly absurd.
There are intentionally absurd in order to argue a point. It is a form of reasoning. Read up.
I think it's safe to assume that 99% of the people who are against same-sex marriage at this point are just bigots, plain and simple.
Marriage or civil unions ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
