| 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 (1,674 Views) | |
| Bernard | May 16 2008, 05:36 PM Post #101 |
|
Senior Carp
|
I understand that POV jon, but I'm not sure it would work and I question whether fighting for civil rights first and going after marriage later would make any difference. I don't really think it would. It's going to be a fight no matter when it occurs and what is being fought for. To get things changed from civil-union to marriage would probably be just as hard a fight as going for marriage right off. If the current fight was just about civil-unions I think the struggle wouldn't be much different than what we're experiencing. I don't know really. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 16 2008, 06:35 PM Post #102 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
The analogy just does not work for me. The parallel of gay / straight to MacIntosh / Golden Delicious is "types of human relationships" not "types of marriage". Then why not call *all* human relationships "marriage"? Why not call the one night stand or prostitute or the mixed household or the cohabiting couple a "marriage"? I suspect you would qualify as "intended to be permanent" or such, but then so are most legal corporations. And so could be a commune or a group of two or more women and/or two or more men. Should that enjoy the term "marriage"? I think not. But even so, I think it would serve society to have registered domestic corporations to meet such needs.
That seems self evident-- if the argument were compelling, you would be compelled to accept it. ![]()
However a homosexual relationship is not even "possibly" or "potentially" fertile. The question of privacy has to do with the invasiveness of the state into the private health issues of the couple. As such, I agree that all people should enjoy the same degree of privacy, which as far as I can tell, gays and straights alike are free to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes.
I am not following you. I don't see how any homosexual relationship can be "life engendering" -- it requires the add DNA from a third party of the complementary sex. The question of the establishment of stable households for the engendering and formation of children is, I am quite certain, the core of the state's concern for regulating marriage. There are secondary and tertiary reasons as well -- public health, fraud, property and other rights, inheritance, compulsion, etc. -- that the state has an interest in the order of relationships. But the complementarity of heterosexuality and the natural consequences of children is so foundational to human existence that "marriage" has virtually always and everywhere held a particular place in the public life. I think there is indeed a compelling reason for other types of domestic corporation that ensure all citizens of basic equality of insurance, inheritance, visitation, etc rights based on other forms of voluntary association to protect rights and enforce responsibilities. But I disagree entirely with Sullivan that it is an issue beyond semantics that goes to the core of human value and dignity that other forms of relationship must needs be called "marriage". |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 17 2008, 01:05 AM Post #103 |
|
Cheers
|
Your straightforward wisdom was missed around here when you took your hiatus, Frank. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 17 2008, 01:13 AM Post #104 |
|
Cheers
|
And I understand that point of view, but I think time is on your side here. Acceptance of homosexuality by young people is much, much higher than among the 45+ crowd, even in very conservative areas. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 17 2008, 01:20 AM Post #105 |
|
Cheers
|
Again I'll go empirical. The fact is some societies throughout history (and even now) have recognized 'temporary marriages', that to you and me would seem similar to what you describe. But few if any people in our society view that as marriage. Next question? |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | May 17 2008, 02:15 AM Post #106 |
|
MAMIL
|
Britney Spears springs to mind. Pop stars will do more to undermine the concept of marriage in the minds of impressionable than gay marriage ever can. I say we stop them from marrying - while we're at it, we should stop them from singing. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | May 17 2008, 02:41 AM Post #107 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
:rolleyes: |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | May 17 2008, 02:51 AM Post #108 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
They at least got freedom or religion right thanks to Madison and Jefferson. But try telling that to these religious whack jobs that insist the US is a "Christian nation" founded in part to destroy Islam. As far as same sex marriage, we can see even from the posts in this thread in our small corner of the internet that people who do not want to accept that it is or could be legal just pretend that it isn't or never could be. It's comforting for some people to live in the past. For instance, if you don't like the 21st century, you can choose to live in the 20th. If that is too much of a challenge for you, you can live in the 19th. It's good to have choices. ![]() |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | May 17 2008, 03:10 AM Post #109 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
If arguments against same-sex marriage could be made without this kind of sarcasm I'd be more impressed with them. What is boils down to is not some treatise on the state having an interest in procreation as if that isn't a natural function-- oops, so the state can make laws according to justice, it doesn't have to insure procreation. What it boils down to is that bigoted people (i.e. intolerant people) do not want to share marriage with those people. I actually agree with you, Jon, that national civil union might be the way to go-- a civil union and a ceremony in a Congregationalist church would be just fine with me. But when I think of the inadequate arguments the other side makes, I am moved to support Bernard's position, because the arguments against same sex marriage are rationalizing and petty. Did people in Canada stop having children when same sex marriage was made the law of the land? Did Canadian society collapse? Another factor is that marriage can be accomplished as in Massachusetts. I don't see the other side offering national civil union. What I see them doing is ballot initiatives, some of which would disallow civil unions. In light of all of this, I'm not sure that there is any percentage in putting aside same sex marriage. The other side is going out of its way to re-write the Constitution of the US, pass federal law, strip courts, change state constitutions, you name it. Check out Ron Paul's We The People Act if you want to see their minds at work. They will stop at nothing and have a rather unhealthy obsession with the subject. Maybe those of us in favor of same sex marriage should not attempt to appease them. |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | May 17 2008, 03:35 AM Post #110 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
*snicker* |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | May 17 2008, 03:39 AM Post #111 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
|
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | May 17 2008, 06:34 AM Post #112 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Thanks, Jon.
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 17 2008, 09:45 AM Post #113 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You have the wonderful ability to not say anything at all substantive while still using lots of words. I admire it, and I am sure it is a useful skill for you. I just don't see the point other than to avoid the obvious. ![]() You keep appealing back to characteristics that are entirely extrinsic (and really analogous and derivative of the human condition of marriage), and trying to prop up your position with examples that are not germane. It really does not matter if some society has considered polygamy as a socially acceptable form of human relationships. It really does not matter if some society has allowed for child brides, or temporary marriage, or cultic mystical "marriages" with goats. You assiduously avoid the obvious fact that human life is propagated through the coupling of complimentary sexuality, and that the basic family unit is one man and one woman and their off spring. The fact that there are lots of variations, socially and culturally conditioned terms, religious overlays, and varying public policies on the order of human relationships, etc does nothing to change this essential fact. So what do *you* call such an arrangement that distinguishes it from all other types of human relationships? I sense you don't want to call it anything, since by doing so you are defining it as a special relationship that does not admit of temporariness, or non-exclusivity, or inherently incapable of ever propagating life, or free will and informed consent, etc. But that would be only weak and addled nonthought. "Marriage" as I have described is a particular type of human relationship. Yet for you it has become "the love that must not be named". ![]() |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 17 2008, 09:58 AM Post #114 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Of course. People use the term analogously all the time -- that is obvious. The problem is that you are begging the question with your linguistic games. Even if we started calling all relationships "marriage" we would still have to have a term (or a compound term) to describe a particular sort of relationship. Traditionally that terms was simply marriage. Now perhaps you think that clarity of thought is advanced by calling things "gay marriage" and "straight marriage" or "permanent marriage" and "temporary marriage" or "marriage between humans" and "marriage between human and animal". I would be midly surprised if you thought that, but not entirely surprised. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 17 2008, 09:59 AM Post #115 |
|
Cheers
|
My dear friend Ivorythumper, if only you could begin to understand just how humorous this line is coming from you. But back to the point. You seem to believe that there exists some Platonic ideal of Marriage to which we all owe loyalty, independent of the desires of mankind. And, by happy coincidence, that Platonic ideal is exactly what you think marriage should be, no more and no less. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that view, other than the fact that the real world seems not to operate by it. It is a simple empirical truth that what makes a marriage acceptable varies across both time and place. Indeed, in May of 2008 homosexuals can marry in 5 countries and parts of a sixth. So please feel free to focus on that Platonic ideal, but make sure to look both ways before you cross the street. I wouldn't want you to get hit by Jose and Kenny's limo while you're pondering the Marital Ideal. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 17 2008, 10:05 AM Post #116 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You miss the point again Jon. In India a man "married" an animal. see link Mine was not a ludicrous argument -- it is a fact. By your inner lights, this must be a marriage, no? After all, he said it was, and the society seems to agree with him, and even the newspapers reported it as such. Your silly satire in no way addresses anything primary to any understanding of marriage. But that is perhaps because you cannot admit that there is anything that is primary to an understanding of marriage. Therefore, temporary marriage has the same claim to the term as permanent marriage, a one night stand has the same claim, a woman taken as a war hostage is "married" to her captor, a man can marry a dog, and two men can marry. It is all the same thing -- in other words, it is really nothing. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 17 2008, 10:14 AM Post #117 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Not at all some platonic ideal. You have not answered the question: what if anything do *you* call such an arrangement (heterosexual, permanent, publicly committed, exclusive, monogamous,etc) that distinguishes it from all other types of human relationships? Is this the ONE THING IN THE UNIVERSE that cannot have its own clarifying term? You keep avoiding the obvious, Jon. You suddenly don't want to have clearly defined terms. Everything else in the world gets named according to its particular characteristics, but you cannot bring yourself to give *this* type of human relationship a unique name. Why is that, Jon? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 17 2008, 10:14 AM Post #118 |
|
Cheers
|
No, it doesn't have enough support. I'm sure most people in India wouldn't recognize it as a valid marriage. One kook calling it marriage isn't enough, I wouldn't think. So no, its not all the same thing. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 17 2008, 10:17 AM Post #119 |
|
Cheers
|
The following is an undeniable empirical fact: What constitutes an acceptable marriage is culturally relative. It varies by both time and place. Who's avoiding the obvious? |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 17 2008, 10:23 AM Post #120 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Is the guy in India really married to the dog in the same way you are married to your wife? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 17 2008, 10:25 AM Post #121 |
|
Cheers
|
No, I don't think marriage to an animal is generally accepted in India or anywhere else. I'm unaware of any place or time when that was considered acceptable. Certainly here in the US it isn't, even in Brooklyn .Remind me again what that has to do with the topic at hand? |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 17 2008, 10:38 AM Post #122 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
But by your own terms he must be married-- it seems to be a socially acceptable and accepted act, and even reported in the papers. There was another case in the Sudan where a man had to pay the goat owner a dowery and was ordered to marry the goat by the village elders. Certainly by your definition this must be a marriage and be essentially the same thing as your marriage to your wife, no? There are many cases in folklore of human animal marriages, and there are ritual ceremonies of marrying animals. Are these not marriages by your own terms of cultural definition? By your logic, marriage must be an acceptable term to describe that type of human animal relationship. You seem to be special pleading here if you think it is not applicable. If you are not special pleading, then what is an essential ingredient or characteristic of "marriage" that precludes these from being considered marriages? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 17 2008, 10:46 AM Post #123 |
|
Cheers
|
I'll repeat myself, in case you missed this post. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | May 17 2008, 10:48 AM Post #124 |
|
Cheers
|
What's your evidence for that? I've been to Tamil Nadu, and without exception the married couples I saw were human beings. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | May 17 2008, 10:49 AM Post #125 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
TOTALLY OFF TOPIC for JON (I just know he is hanging in this thread) - I sent you a PM at WTF - let me know what you think. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |












4:59 PM Jul 10