A new thought

[cammerfe]

Since the essay below didn't seem to provoke comment, let's try this:

Here in Michigan, a pair of 'same-sex domestic partners' have sued the state. Their claim is that present state law makes it impossible for each of them to adopt the other's individually-adopted children. Therefore the state law against same-sex marriage must be overturned. To do otherwise seems to be 'contrary' to the federal law requiring 'equal protection'.

The nitwits arguing for The State have so dropped the ball that an activist federal judge has just issued a very hostile ruling that agrees with the plaintiff same-sex couple's position.

I believe their entire argument is off-point because in order to invoke 'equal protection' it's necessary to change an essential definition woven into the fabric of society for centuries. 'Marriage' is to be between one man and one woman. Anything other than that is an aberration. In fact it's written into the State Constitution by a vote of the people.

Let me give this example of what should be said:

It's well known that the most 'successful' (regardless of definition) men are over six feet tall. They therefore have a natural advantage that isn't available to those of us who are only five feet ten or so. That doesn't give me 'equal protection under the law'.

Therefore, I simply demand that the definition of a one foot measurement be altered in such a way that one foot must become ten inches instead of twelve. If a foot is only ten inches I'll be more than six feet tall. Now I get to be 'equal'. A twelve-inch-foot is, after all, arbitrary and does me damage.

If you don't 'buy' this argument you can't buy the argument now before the court in the appeal process.

Discuss!

KS

And by the way, I believe that any properly-established domestic partnership should have such things as insurance coverage, inheritance reciprocity and other such technicalities. Same sex couples should NOT, however, be enabled to call their civil partnership a marriage.

 

[hrmwrm]

Same sex couples should NOT, however, be enabled to call their civil partnership a marriage.

everyone is entitled to an opinion. but it is just that. an opiniion.
kinda like yourself that's a dime a dozen.

 

[cammerfe]

I'd almost forgotten your penchant for snotty replies. In the spirit of your snarkiness, your comment isn't even worth two cents!

KS

 

[hrmwrm]

I'd almost forgotten your penchant for snotty replies. In the spirit of your snarkiness, your comment isn't even worth two cents!

i learned it well from your replies.

 

[cammerfe]

If you 'learned' from me, your ability to learn is obviously faulty since you 'learned' that which has not been available. You suffer from wishful thinking.

KS

 

[hrmwrm]

should NOT, however, be enabled to call their civil partnership a marriage

tell you what. i'll play if you explain why.

 

[Zr0]

And by the way, I believe that any properly-established domestic partnership should have such things as insurance coverage, inheritance reciprocity and other such technicalities. Same sex couples should NOT, however, be enabled to call their civil partnership a marriage.

Why not?

Better idea: Marriage licenses should be renamed into "civil partnership" licenses for all couples. Then let people call themselves married or whatever else they feel like.

 

[cammerfe]

I'll accept your idea of all licenses being for civil partnerships. I don't agree that the state should have ANY say into relationships so your definition is actually more on-point.

But call it marriage when it's same sex couples? Arbitrary changes in millenias-old definitions should not be changed to cater to demands of 2-3 percent of the population.

'The Worm' up above may want society to think of and address him as a hen or perhaps a prairie dog. But he's not entitled to be other than a human being!

KS

 

[Zr0]

I'll accept your idea of all licenses being for civil partnerships. I don't agree that the state should have ANY say into relationships so your definition is actually more on-point.

Yes the idea is that the gov doesn't have the say in what we call it, but does rule over the legal ability to be bound in a legally recognized relationship (marriage or whatever)

I'm actually perfectly fine with this if it should happen.

But call it marriage when it's same sex couples? Arbitrary changes in millenias-old definitions should not be changed to cater to demands of 2-3 percent of the population.

Things change. Not long ago we called certain people slaves, now they're just people...we used to call happy people gay, now they're not called that because they're happy...When we're talking about what/how we label these and other things it's just a shift in semantics, it happens a lot.

And those old definitions of marriage...well what are we basing that on? For most the answer would be biblical definitions. Now if we really look at marriage in that sense we're not talking about one man one woman! Marriage in the bible was often between one man and 1-500 women. Lots of crazy things in there...

Now going past that: No one nor any religion owns the idea of marriage. It was around before the major religion of current day (IE the religion of most people complaining about same sex marriage)

Put simply: Marriage in our country is basically an affirmed legal contract/union between two people (as far as the government goes)
If two people wish to be married then let'em, it's not the end of the world!

'The Worm' up above may want society to think of and address him as a hen or perhaps a prairie dog. But he's not entitled to be other than a human being!

KS

Some people like to call there two pets married as well...it's not hurting you any

 

[shagdrum]

No one nor any religion owns the idea of marriage. It was around before the major religion of current day (IE the religion of most people complaining about same sex marriage)

But, to any reasonable human being, the burden of proof is on those looking to change and/or ignore tradition, not on those defending it. The traditional understanding of marriage crosses religious and cultural boundaries and has stood the test of time for a reason. Social science overwhelmingly confirms that family is the cornerstone of civilization and traditional marriage is the cornerstone of family. There is nothing "enlightened" or "intelligent" about ignoring those facts.

 

[cammerfe]

Very well said, Shag!

KS

 

[ford nut]

But, to any reasonable human being, the burden of proof is on those looking to change and/or ignore tradition, not on those defending it. The traditional understanding of marriage crosses religious and cultural boundaries and has stood the test of time for a reason. Social science overwhelmingly confirms that family is the cornerstone of civilization and traditional marriage is the cornerstone of family. There is nothing "enlightened" or "intelligent" about ignoring those facts.

Fact is the people have spoken they have voted for changing the traditional understanding of marriage or what ever word you choose to call two people committed to a love they have for each other.
Its also legal to smoke pot in CO

[video=youtube_share;xg9_Lx2AWaE]http://youtu.be/xg9_Lx2AWaE[/video]

 

[shagdrum]

Fact is the people have spoken

Relevance?

If the mob says something is true, reality is somehow changed? Arguments and truth are somehow negated?

Also, "the people have spoken", and not clearly on the side of same-sex marriage. At best it is ambiguous. Most of the legal victories of same-sex marriage have come via courts imposing a minority view against the will of the people.

 

[ford nut]

If the mob says something is true, reality is somehow changed? Arguments and truth are somehow negated?

Yep, the "mob" goes into a booth and and there is a new reality.

Also, "the people have spoken", and not clearly on the side of same-sex marriage. At best it is ambiguous. Most of the legal victories of same-sex marriage have come via courts imposing a minority view against the will of the people.

Not in this state
52.6% of state voters rejected a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in November 2012.

 

[shagdrum]

Yep, the "mob" goes into a booth and and there is a new reality.

So...are you just trying to be snarky here or are you actually under the delusion that the democratic process has some transcendent power to change reality?

 

[dnsherrill]

"God Bless the South"
--
we have plenty of problems here, thankfully this same-sex legal chaos is not one of them

 

[cammerfe]

Here in Michigan, the vote has been to not allow same-sex marriage.

On the other hand, The Sheeple have been under a barrage from Hollywood liberal/progressives. Every nitwit sitcom has about fifty percent of the characters being overtly 'gay' and a large percentage of the supposedly straight vamp to show their true orientation. The easily led will be made to feel righteous for their attitude change.

This country is F-U-C-K-ed!

KS

 

[Zr0]

Totally forgot about this thread.

But, to any reasonable human being, the burden of proof is on those looking to change and/or ignore tradition, not on those defending it. The traditional understanding of marriage crosses religious and cultural boundaries and has stood the test of time for a reason. Social science overwhelmingly confirms that family is the cornerstone of civilization and traditional marriage is the cornerstone of family. There is nothing "enlightened" or "intelligent" about ignoring those facts.

Clinging to tradition at the cost of people's equality is not something I'm willing to support. If reasonable people did not think this way then women wouldn't be able to drive/vote/work and blacks would still be slaves.

If two guys get a license from the gov for a legally recognized relationship and call themselves 'married' it doesn't bother me in the least. It also does not lessen or belittle my marriage in any way, nor does it harm or lessen my family.

Any reasonable person would also understand that marriage =! family.

 

[ford nut]

Clinging to tradition at the cost of people's equality is not something I'm willing to support. If reasonable people did not think this way then women wouldn't be able to drive/vote/work and blacks would still be slaves.

That ground has been covered before, with Shag beating the drum "let the people vote".

Vote they will...... and the voice of reason will silence the religious right.

 

[shagdrum]

Clinging to tradition at the cost of people's equality is not something I'm willing to support. If reasonable people did not think this way then women wouldn't be able to drive/vote/work and blacks would still be slaves.

You really should understand a point of view before you dismiss it. Otherwise, to any informed person, you simply look foolish.

It also does not lessen or belittle my marriage in any way, nor does it harm or lessen my family.

This straw man is laughable to most anyone who understands the argument against same-sex marriage. It is also a straw man employed by almost ever proponent of same-sex marriage as they have no real understanding of the opposing viewpoint (and therefore, no legitimate reason to oppose that viewpoint).

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them… [H]e must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
-John Stuart Mill​

Any reasonable person would also understand that marriage =! family.

So, almost all influential thinkers/philosophers throughout history, social scientists, etc are apparently "unreasonable" people? They all have generally accepted the notion I spelled out earlier that family is the cornerstone of civilization and that marriage is the cornerstone of family. Even the more intelligent advocates for gay marriage (Andrew Sullivan, for instance) have accepted this truth.

Only a naive, ignorant, self-important fool would dismiss that truth. It is delusional and reckless to think that marriage has no sociological effects or that redefining marriage wouldn't alter those effects and create new ones.

Since you clearly don't know anything about the viewpoint you are so anxious to dismiss, let me help you out. Here are a few papers to peruse:

• "What Is Marriage" is a paper by a philosopher and law professor (both from Princeton) as well as a political scientist (from Notre Dame). It explains the history of marriage and spells out the argument against same-sex marriage and confronts almost any reasonable challenge you could likely think of against that argument. It also makes no appeal to religious authority.
• "Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles" is a paper by the Witherspoon Institute that brings in a lot more empirical evidence than the other paper. Again, it makes no appeal to religious authority in it's argument.

 

[shagdrum]

the voice of reason will silence the religious right.

Again, know what you are talking about before you dismiss it. Otherwise you come across as ignorant and foolish.

Since you clearly don't know anything about the viewpoint you are so anxious to dismiss, let me help you out. Here are a few papers to peruse:

• "What Is Marriage" is a paper by a philosopher and law professor (both from Princeton) as well as a political scientist (from Notre Dame). It explains the history of marriage and spells out the argument against same-sex marriage and confronts almost any reasonable challenge you could likely think of against that argument. It also makes no appeal to religious authority.
• "Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles" is a paper by the Witherspoon Institute that brings in a lot more empirical evidence than the other paper. Again, it makes no appeal to religious authority in it's argument.

 

[cammerfe]

That ground has been covered before, with Shag beating the drum "let the people vote".

Vote they will...... and the voice of reason will silence the religious right.

Why do you drag 'the religious right' into this discussion?

I started the discussion and I firmly state that whatever my religious beliefs might be, I have a diploma that says I have an AB in Sociology and I am looking at this from a sociological point of view.

KS

 

[ford nut]

Again, know what you are talking about before you dismiss it. Otherwise you come across as ignorant and foolish.

​

I will always be ignorant and foolish in your eyes..... which means nothing to me.
Let the people vote and lets live with what is decided.

 

[cammerfe]

I don't think you're either ignorant or foolish.

I DO think that in a determination to be fair, you miss some of the factors that help to make a society function.

You miss the 'slippery slope'. In Roman times, women 'married' dogs and horses.

KS

 

[shagdrum]

I will always be ignorant and foolish in your eyes..... which means nothing to me.

Apparently understanding opposing viewpoints before developing strong views about them also means nothing to you.

Intellectual prejudice and bigotry and much easier.