| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Do I hear Wedding Bells for Kenny? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 15 2008, 10:11 AM (1,675 Views) | |
| jon-nyc | May 16 2008, 01:44 PM Post #76 |
|
Cheers
|
Right, his point was about gay couples, not menage-a-beaucoup groups.
Again, its an excellent question, like I said he has a point. I'm personally in favor of gay marriage, however, I think agitating for it as opposed to civil unions is a strategic error, in that it leads to backlash legislation (and even constitutional amendments) that will set back progress by 20 years or so. They should stick with civil unions for now, and adopt marriage later. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 16 2008, 01:59 PM Post #77 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
It is not a strawman, Jon. It is a test of terms of the discussion. Conventionally marriage has been reserved to a particular type of relationship with certain characteristics: 1) heterosexual 2) monogamous 3) permanent 4) exclusive 5) publicly committed, 6) sexually mature, 7) mentally capable, 8) between human persons, etc. So Sullivan is arguing that such understanding needs to be modified for 1) in order that gays not be seen as second class or inferior citizens, etc. It is entirely appropriate to test the other characteristics with that standard to see if "marriage" would still apply. I sense you realize that the terms simply do not apply to cohabiting couples or larger groups, but rather than revisit your position that the term "marriage" can be meaningfully applied to homosexuals, you try to paint my argument as a strawman. The same violence done to the term "marriage" by a menage a beacoup or some intentionally transitory relationship etc is somehow accepted by you for homosexuals. I just don't see the internal coherency in your position. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | May 16 2008, 02:03 PM Post #78 |
|
MAMIL
|
Also men wearing wigs, makeup and stockings. Those big butch bonking blokes. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 16 2008, 02:26 PM Post #79 |
|
Cheers
|
The list you chose is incomplete. Why not add 'religiously observant'? Or something to do with property rights of the husband over the wife, including her person? Point being we have modified that list as social mores change. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | May 16 2008, 02:30 PM Post #80 |
|
MAMIL
|
There's a reason they're called conservatives. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | May 16 2008, 03:43 PM Post #81 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
BTW, any idea if "progressives" feel safe to take on the label "liberal" again? Is it still a prejorative? |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 16 2008, 03:44 PM Post #82 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Because they are "con" any change in the status quo that benefits them? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | May 16 2008, 03:52 PM Post #83 |
|
MAMIL
|
Well it sure doesn't come from their conservationist tendencies. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | May 16 2008, 04:01 PM Post #84 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I thought it was because we like Mexican food. |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 16 2008, 04:22 PM Post #85 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
How can it be incomplete when I added "etc."? Your arguments makes no sense. "Marriage" is considered a natural institution, not a religious one. It does not require "religious observation". The religious, social, political, and cultural aspects are layered on to a fundamentally natural relationship through which human life is propagated. Furthermore, "property rights" have no bearing on the essential nature of marriage as foundational to society. I see why you want to keep clouding the issue but it does your argument no good. The fact that you cannot bring yourself to call a menage a trois a "marriage" or a one night stand a "marriage" or the lifetime pairing of the willow ptarmigan a "marriage" shows there is something essential and identifiable that constitutes marriage. You are quibbling over characteristics to try to avoid making that judgment, but it is there nevertheless. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 16 2008, 04:39 PM Post #86 |
|
Cheers
|
How about 'of the same race'? Wasn't that part of the tradition? It was the law of the land in some states even when you were born. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 16 2008, 04:43 PM Post #87 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Once again, you try too hard. "Of the same race" certainly never was an original understanding of marriage. There are countless instances in ancient history of interracial marriage. The fact that there were bad laws prohibiting miscegenation does not argue against anything we are discussing. You are smarter than that. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 16 2008, 04:49 PM Post #88 |
|
Cheers
|
Sure it does. That societies change the definition of what constitutes an acceptable marriage is empirically true. I'm not sure why you are pretending that isn't the case. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 16 2008, 04:51 PM Post #89 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Because it doesn't serve his purpose, of course. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 16 2008, 04:54 PM Post #90 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
So then if a society claims that marriage can be lawfully contracted between a human and an animal, it is a marriage? Is that really where you want to go with that reasoning? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 16 2008, 04:58 PM Post #91 |
|
Cheers
|
No, that's where you want to go with the reasoning. I was offering observations, not arguments. [Ivorylogic] How about if society decided that marriage was only valid if the woman was first circumcised publicly by the grooms father? Oh sh1t, that would be horrible, barbaric even. Better not let Kenny and Jose jump the broom! [/Ivorylogic] |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | May 16 2008, 04:59 PM Post #92 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Perhaps one of the attorneys here can recommend a good patent lawyer so that you can file a patent on the exclusivity of the design and process of what you describe as marriage. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 16 2008, 05:00 PM Post #93 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
It does not serve anyone's interest. If as Jon claims marriage is nothing more than what society says it is, then child brides and non humans and communes and one night stands can be called "marriage". What good does that do for the sake of discussion? You who mistakenly chide me regarding "dictionary definitions" seem curiously willing to abandon such lofty principles of book definitions for the sake of making a point. OED: 1. a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony. The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 16 2008, 05:03 PM Post #94 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I see you have run out of counter arguments to my original point, and are therefore abandoning even the attempt, and resorting to lame satire instead. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 16 2008, 05:06 PM Post #95 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Didn't you just quote the OED to the effect that NOW it is SOMETIMES used to refer to same-sex relationships? I could have sworn you did. Dictionary definitions change over time, just like understandings of what is a "marriage". As (almost) always, Jon is right. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 16 2008, 05:06 PM Post #96 |
|
Cheers
|
How is that satire? That is the gist of your argument. That Jose and Kenny can't marry because then really bad things will happen. Your example is humans marrying animals, my example was ritual female circumcision. Both are pretty ludicrous arguments. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 16 2008, 05:07 PM Post #97 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Even worse, his example was animals marrying animals. The horror! |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 16 2008, 05:08 PM Post #98 |
|
Cheers
|
When we were little my sister wanted to marry our cat. Maybe IT has a point. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | May 16 2008, 05:20 PM Post #99 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
To me, it's really quite simple: If you don't want gay marriage, don't have one. The government has no right, and should have no legal authority, to define what is and isn't love between two people. (and by people, I mean two consenting adults of legal age.) |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Bernard | May 16 2008, 05:23 PM Post #100 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Perhaps I'd sometimes get a little miffed by people using the terms gay marriage and straight marriage, but it would depend on context and I think most people would not go through the trouble of using the terms "gay marriage", "straight marriage" and would simply say "married." I wouldn't give them different names for the same reason that a MacIntosh apple and a Golden Delicious apple are both apples, though we may at times discriminate between them. What I mean about different types of relationships is that men and women get together with all sorts of personal understandings and arrangements. So do gay men and gay women. One need not look far to find two couples whose relationships are very different one from the other. Some married couples sleep in different beds, some sleep together; in some relationships the man is dominant, in some the woman is, in some it's equal; in some relationships money is pooled, in some it kept separate, etc. etc. There is not one definition of married life. There is one word and it encompasses many types of relationships. "One man/one woman" is just scratching the surface. I have never heard a compelling argument for reserving marriage to heterosexuals. That's just simply a fact. If it has nothing to do with whether a relationship is actually fertile I believe homosexuals fall into that category and like you said it is a proper matter of privacy.
This argument is a strong case FOR homosexual marriage. |
![]() |
|
![]() Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









4:59 PM Jul 10