Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Do I hear Wedding Bells for Kenny?
Topic Started: May 15 2008, 10:11 AM (1,675 Views)
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
May 16 2008, 02:58 PM
Nice try, but...

Right, his point was about gay couples, not menage-a-beaucoup groups.


Quote:
 
So why shouldn't cohabiting couples likewise be called "married" so that they are not wounded in the souls and psyches, so that they are not considered inferior as family members and citizens?


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.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 02:44 PM
ivorythumper
May 16 2008, 02:58 PM
Nice try, but...

Right, his point was about gay couples, not menage-a-beaucoup groups.


Quote:
 
So why shouldn't cohabiting couples likewise be called "married" so that they are not wounded in the souls and psyches, so that they are not considered inferior as family members and citizens?


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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Luke's Dad
May 16 2008, 05:34 PM
Quote:
 
There are things that the Founders were willing to accept that, today, we'd find utterly unthinkable.


Yep, like chamberpots. :puke:

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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
May 16 2008, 05:59 PM
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.


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.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
There's a reason they're called conservatives.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
:clap:

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
John D'Oh
May 16 2008, 05:30 PM
There's a reason they're called conservatives.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Well it sure doesn't come from their conservationist tendencies.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I thought it was because we like Mexican food.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 03:26 PM
ivorythumper
May 16 2008, 05:59 PM
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.


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.

How can it be incomplete when I added "etc."? :P

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
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.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 05:39 PM
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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
May 16 2008, 08:43 PM
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 05:39 PM
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.

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.


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.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 07:49 PM
ivorythumper
May 16 2008, 08:43 PM
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 05:39 PM
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.

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.


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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 05:49 PM
ivorythumper
May 16 2008, 08:43 PM
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 05:39 PM
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.

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.


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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
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.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
May 16 2008, 02:59 PM
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.


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.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
May 16 2008, 05:51 PM
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 07:49 PM
ivorythumper
May 16 2008, 08:43 PM
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 05:39 PM
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.

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.


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.

Because it doesn't serve his purpose, of course.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 05:58 PM
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]

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
ivorythumper
May 16 2008, 08:00 PM
QuirtEvans
May 16 2008, 05:51 PM
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 07:49 PM
ivorythumper
May 16 2008, 08:43 PM
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 05:39 PM
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.

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.


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.

Because it doesn't serve his purpose, of course.

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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
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.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 08:06 PM
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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
When we were little my sister wanted to marry our cat.

Maybe IT has a point.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
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!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bernard
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
ivorythumper
May 16 2008, 09:45 AM
Bernard
May 15 2008, 07:07 PM

Yes, different kinds: straight marriage and gay marriage, but marriage none the less.


I suspect you would be quite pissed if people ever said "Oh they have a gay marriage" to denote a different *kind*. If it is such a different *kind* why not just give it a different *name*?
Quote:
 

I do not view gay relationships and straight relationships as necessarily being the 'same', which is why I would call one gay marriage and the other straight marriage. But the question is 'same as what?' Keep in mind that there is not one type of gay relationship. There are many many kinds, just as there are many kinds of straight relationships that are recognized as marriage by the state.

I have no idea what you mean by that. There are *not* many kinds of straight relationships that are recognized as marriage by the state (at least in the monogamous West). There is one kind, between one and one woman that is basically presumed to be exclusive, faithful and permanent. I don't think you are using "type" and "kind" very clearly.

Quote:
 

However, as the state is unable to make any compelling argument against gay marriage I would find it unacceptable to not have the same benefits as are bestowed upon married straight couples, including the recognition of being married. Exactly what concern the state has in not calling it 'marriage' is unfathomable to me and it certainly looks mean and petty.

You presume that the state is unable to make an compelling argument against gay marriage for reserving marriage to heterosexuals. You can't just do a lot of handwaving about this and expect everyone to agree. The rationale for the State to reserve a particular understanding to a particular *type* of relationship has to do with the basic nature of the relationship.

This happens in all sorts of ways: you can't go around calling yourself a policeman and acting like one if you are not actually one. The policeman has a basic relationship to society at large involved with the protection of the civic order.

You can't go around calling yourself a medical doctor and acting like one if you are not actually one, nor a lawyer, etc.

You can't call yourself a publicly traded company and sell stocks if you are not incorporated as such. etc.

The reason marriage is historically reserved for heterosexual couples has to do with the basic nature of the relationship and the role of such relationships in society -- the begetting and rearing of children. It has nothing to do with whether the relationship is actually fertile or not, since that is a proper matter of privacy. A homosexual couple is incapable of engendering a child between them. A homosexual couple requires the contribution of DNA from a third party, outside the relationship.

The state has a vested interest in promoting stable, exclusive, life engendering relationships for its survival. There are *strong* arguments -- you would find none of them compelling but that is already a given.

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.

Quote:
 
The state has a vested interest in promoting stable, exclusive, life engendering relationships for its survival. 


This argument is a strong case FOR homosexual marriage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
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 »
Add Reply