Ten years of "gay marriage"

[Daniel2]

This anti-Gospel of breeders-bad/gays-good is like something right out of Isaiah.

Hey, USU,

Can you point to some examples of who and where this "anti-gospel" that "breeders-bad/gays-good" is being preached?

Darin

[Mordecai]

I guess when someone says rick and steve are married, they need a picture to help explain that their marriage will not be producing any biological children.

A strawman argument. When you figure out what I'm actually saying, you can get back to me.

Still fighting for the dumb people in the world.

So you're saying that only a dumb person would believe that a gay union and a marriage have no relevant differences? Some people on this board would take exception to that.

[Mordecai]

We liberals/gay right advocates believe that marriages are inherently personal.

Then why do they need government recognition?

We don't believe the Government has any business assigning value based on the type of marriage, whether it be a marriage by white heterosexual college educated christian republicans who aspire to have 3 children, or an arranged marriage, or an interracial marriage, or a marriage between atheists, etc., etc.

The gov't has to judge between what is good and isn't, seeing as the Constitution says to "promote the public good." That said, having two different names isn't a judgment of what is good and what isn't. That's what I've been arguing for so far. That's all I've argued for, in fact.

...marriage is a fundamental right...

This will probably be the 300th time I've explained this, but I basically agree (minus some exceptions, e.g. if you can't find someone to marry you). What I disagree with is special recognition of the type that you feel entitled to being a fundamental right.

Simply put, we are not asking that the Government declare that gay marriages "are equal", just that they be treated equally.

You and I are basically treated equally despite having different names and social security numbers. Perhaps you can start a movement of "equality" to have my name and social security number.

...discrimination against gays...

Here it is. The old, "Let's create a villain, so we can fulfill our political ambitions."

We know that gay couples cannot procreate, yet.

Of course they can. They just choose not to based on their own biological urges.

We know that because gays have been branded criminals, deviants and marginalized by society, that gay marriage has no tradition in this country.

It doesn't matter to this debate if it has a tradition or not. If it did have a tradition, what would it prove anyway? Furthermore, if it had a distinguished tradition, you wouldn't be looking to give it the same name. You'd want a different name in honor of its accomplishments.

We also know that traditions have to start sometime and somewhere.

Exactly. So start one but don't steal the name and unique status of marriage in doing so.

[Mordecai]

I will re-post my response so he is able to respond and we may continue to the conversation...

I already responded to this earlier in this thread. I explained how my criterion involves marriage in principle, and that your other examples of unions with differences do not have significant differences in principle, while "gay marriage" does. The only thing relevant to the gov't giving something a particular label is that the label make sense. It makes sense and is accurate for even an elderly or infertile couple, because they have what is essential to a marriage. The label marriage doesn't alter the definition for society. The gov't has no business in distorting the concept of marriage, and in fact, their obligation is to clarify, if anything, as part of their Constitutional mandate to "promote the public good."

When we're talking about principle, we might look at an apple. An apple with a worm in it is still an apple, not losing what is essential to its "appleness." But an orange is not an apple, with or without the worm. If you call it an apple, you'll create confusion. (If this sounds familiar, it's because I took it from Alan Keyes in his debate with Obama over this issue).

[semlogo]

Exactly. So start one but don't steal the name and unique status of marriage in doing so.

Some people would prefer that Mormons not "steal" the name of Christians. Their arguments aren't any better than yours.

[USU78]

Can you point to some examples of who and where this "anti-gospel" that "breeders-bad/gays-good" is being preached?

Oh, I dunno, maybe we could start at a certain organization that claims to be a church for "gays."

Whaddya think?

USU "No, I'm not going to be tricked into providing a link" 78

[USU78]

That still doesn't explain why Ezekiel 16:55 describes two sisters of Judah, and distinguishes Samaria from Sodom.

A fair question, which I've been thinking about from my sick-couch since you posted this. Miserable couple of days here.

You'll note I made the suggestion that the "Sodom" that is Judah's sister may be Samaria, or words to that effect. I'm still inclined that way, but I see why you might think otherwise, because of how Samaria and Sodom and Jerusalem are treated in the text.

I'm the last one to undertake a Gileadiesque analysis of Ezekiel to determine if it's even possible to nail down who/what "Sodom" is for purposes of Ezekiel's prophetic invective. All I know, and that provisionally, is that it can't possibly be Abraham's Sodom.

[Jaybear]

Then why do they need government recognition?

Property rights, medical decisions, child custody, intestate succession, etc.

The gov't has to judge between what is good and isn't, seeing as the Constitution says to "promote the public good." That said, having two different names isn't a judgment of what is good and what isn't. That's what I've been arguing for so far. That's all I've argued for, in fact.

Here is where we differ. You seem to think marriage exists to further the interests of the society. I believe that marriage exists to further the interests of the couple ... life liberty pursuit of happiness.

You and I are basically treated equally despite having different names and social security numbers. Perhaps you can start a movement of "equality" to have my name and social security number.

???. I don't get your point.

Here it is. The old, "Let's create a villain, so we can fulfill our political ambitions."

In, CA only men can marry woman. How is that not discrimination?

Of course they can. They just choose not to based on their own biological urges.

Gay couples can procreate? This is news to me.

Exactly. So start one but don't steal the name and unique status of marriage in doing so.

How is it stealing if heterosexuals couples can still apply for and secure a marriage license?

[Mordecai]

Property rights, medical decisions, child custody, intestate succession, etc.

None of those have anything to do with your imaginary right to special recognition.

Here is where we differ. You seem to think marriage exists to further the interests of the society. I believe that marriage exists to further the interests of the couple ... life liberty pursuit of happiness.

You're conflating, again, the recognition with the actual thing in itself. That's why you never comprehend what I'm saying.

In, CA only men can marry woman.

This has nothing to do with the debate. Prop. 8 doesn't say, "Gay people are banned." Prop. 8 is only about recognition. Period.

Gay couples can procreate? This is news to me.

Sure. With the opposite sex. Just not with each other.

How is it stealing if heterosexuals couples can still apply for and secure a marriage license?

It's like me taking the title of World's Strongest Man, when I never earned it. You can only take a lie so far. Like you said, gay unions have no tradition, which is to say they have accomplished and earned nothing. But you insist on trying to give them status and recognition as if they have, trying to steal the status real marriage has earned.

[Mordecai]

Some people would prefer that Mormons not "steal" the name of Christians. Their arguments aren't any better than yours.

My arguments are light years better than theirs, but they are free to say we're not Christians. Also, no one is insisting that the gov't officially declare us to be Christians, so that's a false analogy. In the case of "gay marriage," they'd be eliminating the unique designation of marriage, implying it's not good enough or important enough to even reserve for it a single arbitrary collection of phonemes.

[Daniel2]

Oh, I dunno, maybe we could start at a certain organization that claims to be a church for "gays."

Whaddya think?

USU "No, I'm not going to be tricked into providing a link" 78

When did a CFR become a "trick to provide a link"?

I googled "church for gays," in accordance with your response, and found a link to ReligionNewsBlog, the Westboro Baptist Church, several reference to the First Methodist Church, and Affirmation, however none of the links that I read mentioned anything similar to this "breeders-bad/gays-good" credo that you claim someone is promoting.

I ask again, this time as a "CFR"--what organization, specifically, is advancing this "anti-gospel" message...? (I don't care if you provide a link--but I expect you to at least be able to provide some examples).

Darin

[Daniel2]

I already responded to this earlier in this thread. I explained how my criterion involves marriage in principle, and that your other examples of unions with differences do not have significant differences in principle, while "gay marriage" does. The only thing relevant to the gov't giving something a particular label is that the label make sense. It makes sense and is accurate for even an elderly or infertile couple, because they have what is essential to a marriage. The label marriage doesn't alter the definition for society. The gov't has no business in distorting the concept of marriage, and in fact, their obligation is to clarify, if anything, as part of their Constitutional mandate to "promote the public good."

When we're talking about principle, we might look at an apple. An apple with a worm in it is still an apple, not losing what is essential to its "appleness." But an orange is not an apple, with or without the worm. If you call it an apple, you'll create confusion. (If this sounds familiar, it's because I took it from Alan Keyes in his debate with Obama over this issue).

This answer does not make any sense to me, and relies on a lot of rhetoric about apples and worms without ever being able to concisely articulate a simple, subtantive rebuttal. From my perspective, you haven't offered anything of substance as to why the potential (and highly individualized) differences between an opposite-sex marriage vs. a same-sex marriage are so uniquely different from the other types of unions I listed to warrent the exclusive use of the term "marriage" for opposite-sex couples (especially given that many states already recognize the importance of and already are attempting to grant same-sex couples all the same legal rights and responsabilities, even when prevented from federally fully doing so by DOMA). Then again, I suppose I won't hold my breath that I'll receive a coherent answer, as I'm not sure one can be provided.

Darin

[Mordecai]

This answer does not make any sense to me...

From what I can tell, it's because you don't know what I mean by in principle or why that's important. Let me ask you a question: why should the gov't be involved in labeling certain types of unions over others? The gov't doesn't label, for example, friends with benefits, do they? What's the point in the first place? Why not give everyone the same rights, having them register to be able to visit each other in the hospital or leave their money to whomever they choose?

[sjdawg]

From what I can tell, it's because you don't know what I mean by in principle or why that's important. Let me ask you a question: why should the gov't be involved in labeling certain types of unions over others? The gov't doesn't label, for example, friends with benefits, do they? What's the point in the first place? Why not give everyone the same rights, having them register to be able to visit each other in the hospital or leave their money to whomever they choose?

Are you suggesting that there is no difference between "friends with benefits" and serious relationships between homosexual partners?

[semlogo]

From what I can tell, it's because you don't know what I mean by in principle or why that's important. Let me ask you a question: why should the gov't be involved in labeling certain types of unions over others? The gov't doesn't label, for example, friends with benefits, do they? What's the point in the first place? Why not give everyone the same rights, having them register to be able to visit each other in the hospital or leave their money to whomever they choose?

That doesn't make sense. Friends with benefits isn't an example of people seeking marriage. Marriage is a contract, not a label we just stick on people against their will.

[Mordecai]

Are you suggesting that there is no difference between "friends with benefits" and serious relationships between homosexual partners?

My point is simply that really good friends who happen to have a sexual relationship might deserve a title also. Just giving another example, as a means to explore the purpose and reason behind labeling any union at all. Why are we giving unions labels and when should we give them different labels? Why not friends with benefits?

That doesn't make sense. Friends with benefits isn't an example of people seeking marriage. Marriage is a contract, not a label we just stick on people against their will.

But what if they wanted to visit each other in a hospital and want joint tax benefits? Maybe they could get some sort of different label than marriage.. Don't they have that right? Aren't they equal? Maybe the gov't should label them just to protect their right to hospital visitations and file joint tax returns.

[semlogo]

But what if they wanted to visit each other in a hospital and want joint tax benefits? Maybe they could get some sort of different label than marriage.. Don't they have that right? Aren't they equal? Maybe the gov't should label them just to protect their right to hospital visitations and file joint tax returns.

But they already DO have that right, if they're straight. They just have to get married.

[TAO]

Hey, USU,

Can you point to some examples of who and where this "anti-gospel" that "breeders-bad/gays-good" is being preached?

Darin

Darin, I remember a bit ago about a thread in which it was talking about a teacher's association supporting teaching kids about... things which they should not be taught about. More than just homosexuality as well.

I think that would be a good example.

I'm sure USU's example is also there as well, but we'll wait for him to respond, as I don't know which thing he is referring to.

[Mordecai]

But they already DO have that right, if they're straight. They just have to get married.

What if they choose not to get married? Should the gov't find a name for their type of union? Why or why not? My question involves whether recognition is a right. If it's a right, why? What evidence do you have? Is it good to recognize unions other than marriage? Why or why not? If I demand special recognition for my relationship with my dog, should I get that, too? Why or why not? I mean, a good relationship with a pet can literally extend your life. It's very important to society, too. Pets are like family to a good many people in the country. So, how about it? Some sort of special recognition for human pet relations? Why or why not? (Let me just mention before you freak out, I'm not saying it's equal to or better than gay union. Just making a point about how relevant or irrelevant special recognition is).

[USU78]

Darin, I remember a bit ago about a thread in which it was talking about a teacher's association supporting teaching kids about... things which they should not be taught about. More than just homosexuality as well.

I think that would be a good example.

I'm sure USU's example is also there as well, but we'll wait for him to respond, as I don't know which thing he is referring to.

I hid an actual URL in my response, which Dan'l no doubt knows well, and where this "anti-Gospel" of 'sin away!, there is no sin' is advocated. I was not going to link it directly because of its gross perversion. I'm not about porn, especially not the religious sort. Besides which I think the old rule about being very careful about what we link to was preserved in the most recent move.

USU "The alliterative couplet was only a couplet" 78

[california boy]

A strawman argument. When you figure out what I'm actually saying, you can get back to me.

Hey it is your argument not mine. You were the one that needs pictures to figure out whether a bow is a ribbon tied on a package or a weapon. If you want to call it a strawman go right ahead. I actually agree with you. I can tell the difference simply by the context.

So you're saying that only a dumb person would believe that a gay union and a marriage have no relevant differences? Some people on this board would take exception to that.

This is your reason for defending marriage. "To protect the people that are not as smart as you are" If you feel that is an important cause, then go right ahead. Personally, I think even dumb people probably know that two men are not going to be having children on their own. You feel keeping marriage only for heterosexual couples who may or may not have children is essential.

[Mordecai]

Hey it is your argument not mine...

My point was that you obviously misunderstood my argument, so it was not my argument either. It was your flawed interpretation of it, so it was yours, in that sense.

"To protect the people that are not as smart as you are"...

I never said such a thing. Is it Bare False Witness Day on this forum or something? In fact, I give all credit to God, my parents, the scriptures, the G.A.'s and my education for helping to prevent me from believing such an inane dogma. I've developed critical thinking, intellectual self-assurance, mental fortitude and become informed not because of something innate. It has little to do with intelligence, and I never said it was about intelligence. You did.

[Nathair/|\]

A little parody I wrote some years back:

Alabama Court Strikes Down Law Defining Christian Religion

That was actually quite creative. As far as the first two commentators, all I can say is:Holy Poe's Law!

[Mordecai]

A little parody I wrote some years back:

Alabama Court Strikes Down Law Defining Christian Religion

That was actually quite creative. As far as the first two commentators, all I can say is:Holy Poe's Law!

His analogy is kind of apt, because it does illustrate how the gov't shouldn't manipulate a debate by manipulating language. Of course, he has it backward as far as what is and isn't fair and rational for the government to do in the case of "gay marriage."

As the word marriage evolved via the natural laws of language, it designated an institution with profoundly important and inextricably unique legal differences from a gay union, e.g. the good of enabling both mother and father to express their inherent protective and nurturing instincts toward biological offspring, as a team. We might also not ignore the importance of imparting the heterosexual lifestyle to impressionable heterosexual children. In other words, heterosexual children raised by heterosexual parents will more seamlessly transition into their own roles as parents and spouses.

Similarly, when the marriage laws were written by democratically elected officials, they were written in honor of that institution and its proven use for society and the state, specifically, without ambiguity, for the union of a man and a woman and for the legal differences inherent in that type of union and no other. As I've pointed out before, this type of union has no other designation, unlike traditional Christians who have their own unique labels. So if you give another type of union, lacking these legal qualities, the same name, you're going to have two different things, both of them completely lacking in a unique designation, like calling lead, "gold."

The problems here should be obvious: speech becomes confusing for everyone and the law gets significantly distorted retroactively, should the gov't adopt the position that a gay union should receive the same name as something significantly different.

The confusion of speech and muddling of the language represents restricted speech, like in Orwell's 1984, which in itself is legally relevant. Considering the law is already written as it was based on legal arguments for why the gov't should be involved at all, based on arguments regarding procreation, for example, and the state's interest in that, that alone is like a canon for the reservation of the word marriage for the institution about which the laws were written. If the government must choose a side in this linguistic debate, that is reason alone to do so.

Besides that, since it's necessary, in order for language to remain clear and unmuddled, for the union of a man and a woman to retain a unique designation, and since that one received its label first and since that label is associated with the status and value (heterosexual) marriage earned through history, it's only just and logical for the union of a man and a woman to retain that label, just as it is only just and logical for gold to retain its unique designation and not have lead be called, "gold."

With regard to the analogy of Mormons officially being declared to not be Christians, that analogy is false on more levels than the ones I've described above. The word Christian has no legal relevance per se, because a "Christian," historically, isn't necessarily good nor do they have unique qualities. Historically, a Christian is only a Christian because #1 they actually are a disciple of Christ or #2 they proclaim belief. Proclaiming one's belief is not a good in itself and has no unique, significant qualities, unlike with gold or marriage. The point being, not only do Mormons fit the most ancient historical definition of Christian anyway, even if they didn't, the word Christian is vague and general enough that the government taking a side in the debate would represent the government adopting a side arbitrarily instead of on legal and natural linguistic grounds.

Point is, my lead=gold analogy is vastly superior to the only-traditional-Christianity=Christianity analogy. The latter is a false analogy, slanted to support the left-wing dogma that a gay union has a right to be called, "marriage." Makes absolutely zero sense by any rational measure. On the other hand, just as it creates confusion and is contrary to natural laws of language to call lead, "gold," it muddles speech and artificially imposes value and unsupportable conflation of the meaning of a gay union to call it, "a marriage."

[Jaybear]

The problems here should be obvious: speech becomes confusing for everyone and the law gets significantly distorted retroactively, should the gov't adopt the position that a gay union should receive the same name as something significantly different.

Congratulations. This has to be the most contrived argument against gay marriage that I have ever come across.

All because you don't want to admit that your opposition to gay marriage is rooted in your dogmatic belief that God abhors sodomy.

As the word marriage evolved via the natural laws of language, it designated an institution with profoundly important and inextricably unique legal differences from a gay union , e.g. the good of enabling both mother and father to express their inherent protective and nurturing instincts toward biological offspring, as a team.

Not true at all. A couple need not be married to have and raise children. A couple that is married, need not have children.

Marriage is about the legal relationship of the couple. Parents are parents regardless of whether they are married.

In other words, heterosexual children raised by heterosexual parents will more seamlessly transition into their own roles as parents and spouses.

Your deep concern for the heterosexual children being raised by heterosexual parents is touching. The issue is gay marriage, however, not the forced removal of heterosexual children from their heterosexual parents and placing them with gay couples.

If that were the issue, we would be in agreement.