Reply With QuoteI thought we were still waiting on severe, economy crippling austerity.Originally Posted by DinoDoc
Wow, I guess we're all barbaric and backwards.
I come from the land of the ice and snow
From the rust belt where industry won't go
I thought we were still waiting on severe, economy crippling austerity.
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History
The Roman Empire even passed a law against same sex marriage when it was taken over by Christians. Earlier you cited a lack of laws against same-sex marriage as evidence that there was no such thing.
I guess this is a step up from the "Marriage is only a Christian institution" argument.
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
Disregarding your trolling . . . .
My question was legitimate. If gay people are citizens of the United States as covered in the Fourteenth Amendment, then my next question is:
Is marriage a right?
You have said earlier, that homophobes are not arguing that marriage is not a right. So, given that marriage is a right, and that gay people are citizens of the United States, it's irrational to deny American citizens the right that other citizens enjoy, on the grounds that marriage is traditionally conceived/understood as between two people of opposite genders.
Otherwise, tradition can be used to deny certain groups of American citizens other rights. For instance, before slavery was abolished in United States, pro-slavery advocates could have argued that slavery as a system had been traditionally accepted for thousands of years in civilization throughout the world. Another example, before 1920, women did not have the right to vote on the national level; tradition would have dictated that women should never have been granted suffrage.
This is where an awesome Mark Twain quote would be, but Apolyton says it would be too many lines. :(
From the same section:
The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[55] For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carian slave named Hierocles.[56] It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).
MrFun, just for the sake of argument try to actually see the other side for a moment. Fix in your head the notion "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman". Fix in your head the notion that "lifelong monogamous relationship between a man and a woman" is what marriage means. And then ask yourself, are gay people free to be married? The answer, of course, is yes.
Another quote, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
Some early Western societies integrated same-sex relationships. The practice of same-sex love in ancient Greece often took the form of pederasty, which was limited in duration and in many cases co-existed with marriage.[5] Documented cases in this region claimed these unions were temporary pederastic relationships.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] These unions created a moral dilemma for the Greeks and were not universally accepted.[13] There may[14] have been, at least among the Romans, marriage between men as evidenced by emperors Nero[15] and Elagabalus[citation needed] who married men, and by its outlaw in 342 AD in the Theodosian Code,[16] but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist.[17]
Newsflash, idiot, we have protected classes in this country, so women and blacks are hard to discriminate against. Queers are not a protected class, so any "rational basis" suffices to discriminate against them, and 2,000 years of fairly consistent history and a concern for the development of kids is considered rational by most courts. It's certainly considered rational by most citizens.
Lacking legal recognition doesn't make something a four-sided triangle. Performing marriage ceremonies for two men would seem to contradict the notion that everyone in western civilization always thought marriage was always between a man and a woman.
No, gay people are not free to marry to marry one another. As I've said before, saying that gay people are free to marry someone of the opposite gender makes no sense, since the idea is that you marry someone you want to marry, who also wants to marry you.
This is where an awesome Mark Twain quote would be, but Apolyton says it would be too many lines. :(
There is no rational reason to think that removing the societal convention that gives homosexuals unequal status will have a significant effect on fertility. It would only increase the number of couples that are eligible to adopt children if the need arises.
My god. I want to know if you're being deliberately obtuse or you simply aren't smart enough to understand what Kuci is saying.
In the hypothetical Kuci is postulating, gay people marrying each other is as sensible as male pregnancy. It doesn't even exist. So gay people are as free to marry (i.e. MARRY WOMEN) as everyone else.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
I understand what he is saying, HC. That's why I argued that it does not make sense, in my reply to him above. Take two gay men who are attracted to one another, and are in love with one another, so they want to marry one another. But they are denied the right to marry, because they cannot marry one another.
Kuci's so-called "reasoning" denies gay people the right to marry one another, because in the Western world, people tend to marry one another out of mutual romantic love. Saying that a gay man is free to marry a woman denies the gay man the freedom to marry the gay man he is in love with.
This is where an awesome Mark Twain quote would be, but Apolyton says it would be too many lines. :(
No it wouldn't. It is entirely consistent with the notion that there is an easy metaphor in the use of the word marriage to describe same-sex unions.
Has an effect on society. Sorry, every state and the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Yes they are. A gay man can marry a gay woman just fine.
Under the hypothetical, a gay man marrying another gay man is not prohibited by the state, it is physically impossible unless one of them gets a sex change.
You are begging the question.
This is exactly why you and Kuci miss the ball so often in debates, you base your positions on these hypotheticals that are meaningless in terms of real life. Do you think it matters in the slightest to a gay man that theoretically he could marry a woman despite not feeling the slightest iota of attraction? If the law was that only gay people could get married, would it comfort you to know that you were free to marry another man if you chose?
It turns out I was right. MrFun, you are a nice guy but I'm just not talking with you about this anymore because it is fruitless.
No, they aren't. A huge proportion of the population believes the hypothetical is true. If you are unable to put yourself in your opponents' shoes and reason from their own premises, you are intellectually stunted and should have little faith in your own beliefs.
A huge proportion? Funny last I checked the number of people in the US supporting gay marriage was above 50%.
Then again it doesn't really matter what proportion are for or against, just like it didn't matter that a huge proportion of Americans didn't believe blacks and whites should intermarry. You are talking intellectual exercises while millions of people are being discriminated against.
That's speculation on your part. The people performing the weddings between two men could have easily intended it as a literal marriage. That's the explanation that makes the most sense. If someone holds a funeral, I would think it was for an actual death and not something that died in a metaphorical sense.
A huge proportion? Funny last I checked the number of people in the US supporting gay marriage was above 50%.
Which leaves something like 45%+ on the other side. I'm not going to argue with you over the definition of "huge".
Then again it doesn't really matter what proportion are for or against, just like it didn't matter that a huge proportion of Americans didn't believe blacks and whites should intermarry.
It absolutely did matter because in a democracy even constitutional rights have only limited power to override the will of the people.
If someone held a funeral for something that was never alive (let's say for an idea) then you damn well would consider it a metaphor.
Sure it does, more orphans might get adopted. When has the Supreme Court ever said anything on whether same-sex marriage has an effect on society.
Yes, since an idea can't actually die. But people can actually marry, and you're only assuming people in ancient Rome who performed same-sex weddings thought men marrying men was physically impossible and it was all a metaphor. A same-sex wedding is far more likely to occur in a society where people don't think same-sex marriage is an absurd impossibility and is clear evidence marriage has not always, everywhere been conceived as strictly between people of the opposite sex.
Why the fvck would I want to marry a woman?
This is where an awesome Mark Twain quote would be, but Apolyton says it would be too many lines. :(
You wouldn't, but the point is that you can. You have the right to marry a woman; it's your choice to exercise it.
I come from the land of the ice and snow
From the rust belt where industry won't go
20% approval a year after Loving vs. Virginia. There wasn't a majority approval until nearly 25 years later. Should blacks and whites have been prevented from marrying until that majority opinion came along on its own?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks