Gay Dogma

[elguanteloko]

This reminds me of just how bad your reading comprehension is. I had forgotten.

So, care to address the point I made or not? Ad hominem attacks are easy, giving good reasons not so.

False. We have different social security numbers and names. That's legally relevant. Why do we have different social security numbers and names? Because we are significantly different. See my point? Different things with different designations? See how practical and logical that is?

...you missed the point entirely. I'm NOT saying there aren't differences between you and me or even that some of them can't be legally relevant. Anyone with some brain cells can see that. The point is that we need to distinguish between the relevant to a certain context and the irrelevant. You aren't making that distinction.

Since we're talking about linguistics, relevant in any way shape or form. Since the gov't was never granted the power to alter the English language, we shouldn't even be having this debate. We're in George Orwell's 1984, with a shrinking vocabulary as a means to control thought.

accusing an institution of "shrinking language" is the quite useless. Is this part of your argument? Since the Gov. is putting two previously separated institutions into one and calling them both with the same name therefore that's bad and shouldn't be allowed? Get real, Mordecai.

But outside of that, part of government obligation is to "promote the public good." By that measure, practically any difference between a gay union and a real marriage could be deemed legally relevant, depending on what is considered good and bad.

Part of promoting public good is to promote the good of same-sex couples, not just yours. If you think SSM is going to be detrimental then make your case but coming up with your "language-shrinking" argument is just plain pathetic, bro. BTW, you ignored the point of that part of my comment. My point was that you need to answer the question of, "differences relevant to what?" and make your case from there.

The word may illustrates my point. You have no evidence for your dogma.

Good reasons count as evidence, you genius. If you think they are not good then state why... but you still choose the easy way out: not think.

I never mentioned "both role models." There is a role model and an opposite sex parent that helps a child relate to the opposite sex. The child will model their future relationships on the opposite-sex parent. That, I called a "relationship model." I've already explained this stuff in another post. This is from sociology 106A or something like that, early childhood development.

Mordecai, you said the following: "Homosexual unions are comprised of only one gender role model or relationship role model for children". Is there another "gender role model"? Your comment implies that. You also said: "while heterosexual unions facilitate both role modelling and relationship modelling for their children". Here you changed the way of comparing the diversity between the one and the other. In the first part you imply there are more than one gender role model or relationship role model but on the second part you forget about that and treat "gender role model" as one thing and "relationship model" as another and call those 2. Plus, homosexual couples have both of these, i.e. a gender role model and a relationship model (how couldn't they?). At the very least, you stated your point very poorly.

Irrelevant in your mind only.

obviously. otherwise I wouldn't be saying it. difference is that I give reasons why it is irrelevant if you read the post. As I said there, when some of us pro-SSM people talk about "not being relevant differences" we are talking in a certain context. you are stripping those words from any context and declare it a win. get real.

So higher risk isn't bad, huh? Really?

Again, relevant to what? You need to answer that question. If eating a hamburger a week is going to make me fat that fact isn't relevant to making hamburgers illegal. Driving on the freeway increases your chances of a serious accident, does that mean we shouldn't drive on freeways? Read my whole previous post again but this time slowly and try to think about what I'm actually saying.

This would be a good analogy if there was a movement to have the gov't avoid using wording that would identify important differences in individual marriages. Since there is no such movement, this is a false analogy.

The role of the government is NOT to state ALL the differences between certain institutions but probably a few of the relevant ones to make a case or the point. Again, you are talking here also about "important differences" as compared to non-important differences. That is my point. What you have been doing here, however, is to forget about this distinction and name a bunch of differences that don't matter.

[Ariarates]

Last I checked, the best environment for children is with their biological parents.

Where did you check? What did you check? "Best" for what? Is a child better off in Zimbabwe with her biological parents or in, say, Germany with adoptive parents?

The most dangerous is with a step father (which is different than an adoptive father).

As far as I know, this only applies to girls being in danger of sexual abuse. You seem very fixated on sexuality, sexual interaction and gender roles. As I said before, I think this to too narrow a view to fully appreciate the issue.

My point, again, is that adoptive parents are screened, to prevent abuse. That's partly why abuse rates among adoptive parents are low.

This is an interesting observation. If true, I cannot help but wonder what on earth your problem with gay marriage is. Here's the state allowing gays to marry while at the same time implementing an apparently highly effective screening process to prevent abuse. Aren't you shooting yourself in the foot here?

[Ariarates]

Seriously? Did you do research on this just to make me look dumb or did you already know about Peter Sloterdijk?

Don't flatter yourself. You quoted one author on the topic of mockery, I quoted another. I read my first Sloterdijk in 1992 and his Critique of Cynical Reason became an all-time favourite of mine. My copy is extensively annotated and bears the author's signature which I obtained at a lecture in 1994. I also have a book by Scott Adams and while it is not a comic, it is most definitively an easier read than Sloterdijk. If you feel dumb because of that, I apologize, though I don't see any need for anyone to feel dumb for not knowing some obscure German philosopher.

[Jaybear]

5. Homosexual males, typically, do not want children at all and, in about half of cases, do not consider monogamy to be of high importance, even in a legally recognized union; heterosexual males, by contrast, are persuaded, at least in part, by heterosexual females that monogamy is important in marriages....Again, I don't speak for all males, but monogamy is not important to me becasue mt wife thinks it's important, it is important to me becasue I think that it is important

Mordy shows his true colors with this one. He opposes gay marriage for moral reasons (Dogma) then he looks for secular reasons to rationalize his position.

Up until seven years ago gays had no prospects of ever getting marriage. Now if they marry, and move to state like Texas, or Utah or even California, the marriage is a nullity. Should we really be surprised if gays don't have the same aspiration towards marriage and family at the same statistical level as heterosexual couples.

If Mordy honestly and sincerely believed that society is better served by all men having a greater interest in monogamy and raising children, then he would support gay marriage and even promote the value of marriage, family and monogamy to gay men.

Otherwise, by denying gay marriage to gays, he is simply perpetuating what he sees as a problem to be addressed.

By analogy, surely Mordy would never say African Americans should not be allowed to marry, because statistically they are more likely to have a child out of wedlock. Or would he?

By the way Mordy, tell me what you mean by "gay dogma"? You have used this term incessitantly, but I don't know what you mean. I am wondering if you know what the word means.

[LeSellers]

If you look at world history, I don't think you can really say or define what a "real marriage" is. Very little about marriage is historically consistent enough to be a "real or traditional" marriage.

Nonsense. By definition, history creates "tradition". So whatever is in history is traditional. Same-sex "marriage" is not in history, ergo, it is against tradition by its very nature.

Further, it serves absolutely no traditional function.

Does "real marriage" involve two people? Then forget about the many polygamous marriages in Utah. Forget about Jacob, whose two wives and concubines produced the heads of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Forget about thousands of cultures and countries throughout history.

Again, this is nonsense. Each plural marriage involved two people. Jacob had one marriage with Leah, one marriage with Rachel, one marriage with Bilhah, and one marriage with Zilpah. In each marriage, there were exactly two people, no more, and no less.

Does "real marriage" involve a religious blessing or ceremony? Then forget about early Christian marriages, before marriage was a sacrament.

No, as you point out, "real marriage" may not require a religious ceremony.

Does "real marriage" involve a recognition by law? Then forget about centuries of European prole marriages conducted outside the law.

We're now, finally, getting to an important point about marriage. The law does not have the first thing to do with "real marriage". The only thing the law has done with regards to marriage is screw it up beyond all recognition (as the law does with virtually everything it sticks its ugly nose into and which it grasps with its sticky hands).

Does "real marriage" involve love and not money? Then forget about centuries of negotiation about medieval estates, bride-price, morning gift and dowry (not to mention bride-burnings in today's India).

Bride burnings (in India or elsewhere) are not real marriages. Rather much the contrary, they are murder.

Real marriages can, however, involve money and no love whatsoever.

Every appeal to the tradition of "real marriage" in preservation of the present marriage laws falls into the same pit of illogically. Marriage has been different in each society throughout the ages and throughout the history of the United States.

Wrong.

Real marriages are those where the husband and wife commit to each other (irrespective of what brought them together

[Steadfast]

Lastly, if you can think of other differences that are not listed, perhaps you can post a comment on them.

8. Allowing gay unions to be called "marriage" will cause the institution to have less meaning and significance in the eyes of heterosexuals. It will have lost its special character. This decline in significance will cause more heterosexual couples to forego the institution, no longer finding it to be an important or meaningful aspect of a relationship. Of course, a decline in heterosexual marriage will gradually lead to calamity and societal decay. A look at countries in which gay marriage is legal shows a significant decline in marriages among heterosexuals since its legalization.

[zelder]

8. Allowing gay unions to be called "marriage" will cause the institution to have less meaning and significance in the eyes of heterosexuals. It will have lost its special character. This decline in significance will cause more heterosexual couples to forego the institution, no longer finding it to be an important or meaningful aspect of a relationship. Of course, a decline in heterosexual marriage will gradually lead to calamity and societal decay. A look at countries in which gay marriage is legal shows a significant decline in marriages among heterosexuals since its legalization.

Maybe you are right. However, I'm begining to think that government should have nothing to do with marriage. So in the long run, maybe what will happen is marriage will for the most part "burn to the ground" and only strictly religious people will marry. The rest of the world will be living in relationship chaos which will develop into total chaos, the prophesies of total war (D&C 45) will be fulfilled and Zion will be the only place of safety.

[Mordecai]

Please, what you have listed are anything but facts....they are opinions, plain and simple...

No. No, they're facts.

...how is your marriage taking a part in "building civilization'?

It's not. I never said it was. Although, it stands to reason that if marriages built civilization historically (and that is a fact), then contemporary marriages maintain civilization.

The only way that gays cannot take part in building civilization is due simply to the fact that they can't reproduce...

Yeah, I never disputed this. Check your reading comprehension.

...I can surely show you a number of studies showing how overpopulation is doing more damage to "civilization" than the small minority of gay unions, marriages, etc.

You "surely" can, huh? Well, that's very interesting. Again, never said "gay marriage" per se, would damage civilization.

....And I can't speak for other men, but I was "domesticated" long before I was married....I am faithful to my wife and loyal to my family becasue I love them, not becasue I have been "domesticated" by marriage....can a homosexual not feel that same love for family?

Yeah, so where did that culture come from? I'm going to say that there is a good chance, that at least in part, you became domesticated because you live in a society built by marriage. You may have some innate goodness there, but I wouldn't be so vain as to assume that it's innate. It's probably more learned and the credit should probably be given to God and marriage. Certainly not homosexual unions. (Although, homosexuals certainly can take part in affirming good values; sadly, gay male unions have not played the role of domesticating men, or at least there is no evidence that they have.)

...well, then we need to remove childen from single parent households and reallocate them to homes where there is both a mother and father.... well, then we better outlaw adoption, as it certainlt contains no biological parents in the mix...

These don't logically follow the facts. Also, even if these were good points (and they're not), these objections don't change the facts.

...I guess that childless heterosexual couples should feel invalidated as well...

Again, doesn't follow. But even if that logically followed the fact that gay couples don't have the same reproductive responsibilities, it's still a fact that they don't.

...I can tell you that I know about a dozen homosexual couples, and all of them were raised by heterosexual couples; my two gay uncles were raised by conservative and deeply religious (one LDS, the other Catholic) parents...

They probably are better teachers than they would be otherwise, but they can't possibly be as effective in their role-modeling, seeing as the example they set is not one of heterosexual coupling.

...I would love to see where you got your "facts" showing that children being rasied by homosexual parents suffer from abuse at a higher rate than children of heterosexual couples....CFR...

I didn't make that argument. But if you want to see high abuse rates, let homosexual males adopt children willy nilly, without screening. Then we'll see how good adoptive homosexual parent abuse rates are. I'm sure if you were given the responsibility to screen adoptions, a couple of gay males would not even be scrutinized, because gay male couples are guaranteed to not abuse children, despite the statistics on males that indicate otherwise. Right? Right? Anyone?

[Mordecai]

...So, care to address the point I made or not? Ad hominem attacks are easy, giving good reasons not so.

There is no reason for me to respond to it, since you didn't even respond to my point, seeing as you missed it entirely.

...The point is that we need to distinguish between the relevant to a certain context and the irrelevant...

I think you're not understanding my point, if you think this is a good response. Again, poor reading comprehension. This reminds of that ID debate we had, where you didn't seem to understand anything I said, practically.

Is there another "gender role model"?

Obviously, there are two. Male role models and female role models. Obviously. A gay union is only comprised of one.

..."gender role model" as one thing and "relationship model" as another...

Yes, they are different things, hence the different designations.

...Plus, homosexual couples have both of these, i.e. a gender role model and a relationship model (how couldn't they?)...

If you're a heterosexual male, and you are being raised by two females, you have two relationship models for your future romantic relationships. Certainly a male can learn how to relate to females, regardless of their sexual orientation. But said male would be missing a gender role model. I think you can follow my reasoning from there. I hope I don't need to extrapolate further.

...As I said there, when some of us pro-SSM people talk about "not being relevant differences" we are talking in a certain context...

The only relevant context is society. Since every fact I listed is relevant to society, we should not be having a debate about contexts.

...If eating a hamburger a week is going to make me fat that fact isn't relevant to making hamburgers illegal...

But it would be relevant if you wanted to call hamburgers, "apples." They are not apples, so the gov't shouldn't label them as if they are.

Driving on the freeway increases your chances of a serious accident, does that mean we shouldn't drive on freeways?

No. But it does mean we shouldn't call driving on freeways, "Taking a stroll in the park." That's because driving on freeways isn't taking a stroll in the park. Similarly, the gov't shouldn't call a gay union, "marriage."

...What you have been doing here is... name a bunch of differences that don't matter.

They don't matter according to your political ambitions, true. But they are important to families/society.

[Mordecai]

...If Mordy honestly and sincerely believed that society is better served by all men having a greater interest in monogamy and raising children, then he would support gay marriage and even promote the value of marriage, family and monogamy to gay men.

Wrong. While gay unions may benefit in the short run from changing the designation to "marriage," and I stress the word may, the same (or at least similar) logic that would lead you to believe the change in designation will lead to more monogamy among gays also must lead one to believe that the change in the meaning of marriage that inevitably follows from this gov't restructuring of basic social structures, would also influence heterosexuals for the worse. Since real marriages will always outnumber gay unions, your chances of doing more harm to marriage is many times greater than your chances of benefiting gay unions. In the long run, in particular, you'll simply reduce monogamy, not increase it.

Since, as I pointed out, gay men are not inclined to monogamy, their unions depicted in the media and as perceived in reality, by straight men, will give straight men ideas about how marriages can be open and that monogamy is not important.

...Otherwise, by denying gay marriage to gays...

I'm not denying marriage to anyone, nor is the gov't. Again, gay people can "live as husband and wife" the same way anyone else can, with a same-sex partner or not. Not receiving the same label as heterosexual couples is not denying anything but a label. A label is worlds different from the thing in itself. Similarly, you're not denying John Goodman the right to be Brad Pitt, just by saying he's John Goodman. In reality, he is John Goodman, no matter what you call him.

...By [false] analogy, surely Mordy would never say African Americans should not be allowed to marry, because statistically they are more likely to have a child out of wedlock.

...right.

...By the way Mordy, tell me what you mean by "gay dogma"?...

How many times do I have to explain this? The "gay dogma" to which I am referring is the hidden premise of "gay marriage," which is that a gay union has no significant or relevant differences from a real marriage. Again, the only rational basis for having the gov't recognize a gay union as a marriage is if gay unions are the same or if their differences are insignificant.

[Chris Smith]

The only possible rational basis there could be for calling a gay union, a "marriage," on a linguistic level, is the hidden and obviously false premise that there are no significant differences between a homosexual union and a real marriage.

Does calling both Mormonism and Islam "religions" rest on the hidden and obviously false premise that there are no sociologically significant differences between them? Two things do not have to be identical in all respects in order to fit definitionally in a single category.

Your use of the term "real marriage" is problematic, as well. You are assuming that some marriages are ontologically real, whereas others are not. To be quite frank, marriage is a socially-constructed relationship with no ontological status of its own. Neither heterosexual nor homosexual marriages have any reality except for the real exchanges and interactions that result from people deciding to define themselves as "married". These exchanges and interactions differ from case to case depending on the contexts of the participants' lives and their understandings of what marriage entails. (Like it or not, not even all American, Christian, heterosexual couples understand marriage in sociologically equivalent ways, let alone members of other cultural and religious groups.)

[Mordecai]

Does calling both Mormonism and Islam "religions" rest on the hidden and obviously false premise that there are no significant differences between Mormon devotional practice and real religion?

Obviously not. Just like if the gov't calls marriages and domestic partnerships, "unions," I have no problem with that. Of course, the difference here is that the word marriage is not neutral to our society nor the law, unlike the words religion or union. Marriage law and the language in itself, denote that marriage is something to be valued and even celebrated for its historically proven value. You can go back to Shakespeare plays (or really, any number of English works) to look at its meaning, as it denotes in his comedies the representation of new life, implying natural procreation, as opposed to his tragedies which end in death.

What's more, the natural and fundamental rules of language require you to have words that differentiate significantly different things, otherwise communication becomes muddled. If you hamper communication by shrinking the language, that is anti-free-speech, anti-democracy, and in this case, will undermine people's understanding of what is important about marriage, e.g. natural procreation, having both a father and a mother in the home, the domestication of men, etc.

Do gay unions have a historically proven value? Nope. Should we call Mormons, "Muslims?" Nope. While gold and lead are both metals, should we start calling lead, "Grey gold," or just, "gold?" Nope.

[Chris Smith]

Of course, the difference here is that the word marriage is not neutral to our society nor the law, unlike the words religion or union.

So your argument for preserving the legal status quo is that it is the legal status quo?

What's more, the natural and fundamental rules of language require you to have words that differentiate significantly different things, otherwise communication becomes muddled. If you hamper communication by shrinking the language, that is anti-free-speech, anti-democracy, and in this case, will undermine people's understanding of what is important about marriage, e.g. natural procreation, having both a father and a mother in the home, the domestication of men, etc.

Like it or not, Americans have understood marriage as primarily a lifelong romantic union since the late nineteenth century. It is difficult to exclude gay marriage under this definition.

In any event, what is truly anti-speech is the legal endorsement of a sectarian definition of marriage over against alternative definitions with wide popular currency.

-Chris

[Mordecai]

So your argument for preserving the legal status quo is that it is the legal status quo?

It's the legal status quo only in recognition of the proven historical value. It's not about preserving the status quo for the sake of the status quo but because the status quo #1. is based on history and #2 does not muddle the language, thereby radically restructuring social norms.

Like it or not, Americans have understood marriage as primarily a lifelong romantic union since the late nineteenth century. It is difficult to exclude gay marriage under this definition.

True. But you're completely ignoring all the rest of meaning associated with the word marriage, and you're ignoring the free speech problems of having the gov't impose new language that muddles communication and sways the debate in favor of gay dogma.

In any event, what is truly anti-speech is the legal endorsement of a sectarian definition of marriage over against alternative definitions with wide popular currency.

This is based on the false premise that the meaning of the word marriage agrees with you, that it only involves romance. If that were the case, we wouldn't be having this debate at all.

[Mordecai]

Where did you check? What did you check? "Best" for what? Is a child better off in Zimbabwe with her biological parents or in, say, Germany with adoptive parents?

I have read a lot on this subject and listened very carefully in my sociology classes. I distinctly remember one of my professors talking about studies that indicate that adoptive parents have a tendency to become less sensitive to their adopted children past a certain age, which is not so much the case with biological parents. Do you need to put best in quotes when we're talking about avoiding abuse, abandonment, neglect and lack of or presence of nurturing? We could also go to the reasoning of evolutionary biology to tell us that biological parents are more inclined to take care of their children than adoptive, as a general rule? It's not rocket science. Nature instilled in people the desire to take care of their biological offspring more than adopted, it appears.

Again, if we're debating laws and ideals, which we are, we are discussing the big picture. You continually focus on the exception to rules, when laws are not about exceptions but deal in the big picture. If I make the claim, "Apples are edible," will you object and say, "Well, what about rotten apples! Clearly, we shouldn't say apples are edible!" Similarly, if I say, "Biological parents are more inclined to be nurturing," is that a false statement and shouldn't the law reflect the accuracy of that statement instead of focusing on exceptions to the rule?

As far as I know, this only applies to girls being in danger of sexual abuse. You seem very fixated on sexuality, sexual interaction and gender roles. As I said before, I think this to too narrow a view to fully appreciate the issue.

In a debate about gender roles and sexuality, I suppose I'm going to sound like I'm interested in sexuality. I don't know how we can debate gender and sexuality without discussing sexuality, sexual interaction and gender roles.

It doesn't just apply to girls being in danger of sexual abuse, although that may be the primary issue. Same sex molestations among males are inordinately high. Only 3% of the population self-identifies as homosexual, while something like 1/3 of molestations are homosexual molestations.

We also have to consider reduced sensitivity among adoptive fathers and the natural instincts to protect biological offspring over adopted children. Increased violence and other forms of abuse are also an issue.

This is an interesting observation. If true, I cannot help but wonder what on earth your problem with gay marriage is. Here's the state allowing gays to marry while at the same time implementing an apparently highly effective screening process to prevent abuse. Aren't you shooting yourself in the foot here?

I'm fine with the gov't allowing gays to marry. I'm not fine with the gov't redefining what a marriage is. Furthermore, at no point have I suggested that gays shouldn't be able to adopt. Different issue.

Don't flatter yourself...

Why not, when it feels so good?

...If you feel dumb because of that, I apologize, though I don't see any need for anyone to feel dumb for not knowing some obscure German philosopher.

I don't feel dumb. In fact, I feel kind of smart. I took a quote that represented a position of a noted philosopher, despite the source being a comic strip author. The implication is that I don't need authority to recognize a good or at least a philosophically interesting statement. I'm smart!!

[Jaybear]

How many times do I have to explain this? The "gay dogma" to which I am referring is the hidden premise of "gay marriage," which is that a gay union has no significant or relevant differences from a real marriage. Again, the only rational basis for having the gov't recognize a gay union as a marriage is if gay unions are the same or if their differences are insignificant.

That's it? That is the reason why have continuously and repeatedly overused the term "gay dogma."

I hate to break it to you, but that is not the factual premise underlying the support of support gay marriage.

To me, the question is not whether the government should recognize gay marriage, but why it should not. I am a libertarian. I begin with the premise that marriage is a fundamental right, and one that is integral to one pursuit of life liberty and happiness.

If consenting adults would like to seal their relationship with the covenant of marriage, the gov't needs a compelling reason not to allow the marriage. I don't believe the Govt has a compelling reason to inspect the genitalia of the couple as a precondition to issuing a license.

I don't aspire to live in an authoritarian state where the purpose of marriage is to advance the interest of the government and society. That's actually very creepy.

As for differences. I believe that every marriage is different in fundamental ways that are relevant to the couple that seeks to marry.

By the way, "real marriage." You lose any pretense for rational objectivity when you refer to heterosexual marriages as "real marriages."

[Mordecai]

That's it? That is the reason why have continuously and repeatedly overused the term "gay dogma."... I hate to break it to you, but that is not the factual premise underlying the support of support gay marriage.

It is from a linguistic standpoint, no matter what you say. In essence, you're saying, "Although we don't believe that a gay union is the same as a marriage, we still want the gov't to pretend that they are the same, in effect adopting a false dogma."

To me, the question is not whether the government should recognize gay marriage, but why it should not. I am a libertarian. I begin with the premise that marriage is a fundamental right, and one that is integral to one pursuit of life liberty and happiness.

It's not a libertarian point of view to have the gov't do everything whenever you can't explain why it shouldn't. The thing is, I can explain why it shouldn't and that is because a gay union is not a marriage... at least if you want to be rational from a linguistics standpoint.

If consenting adults would like to seal their relationship with the covenant of marriage, the gov't needs a compelling reason not to allow the marriage.

They're not banning any marriages. They're just not recognizing a gay union as if it is the same as a real marriage. Extremely different.

I don't believe the Govt has a compelling reason to inspect the genitalia of the couple as a precondition to issuing a license.

They don't have to. The genitalia are inspected at birth, and the gov't determines the gender ahead of time. Problem solved.

I don't aspire to live in an authoritarian state where the purpose of marriage is to advance the interest of the government and society. That's actually very creepy.

How the gov't recognizes something doesn't impede people's freedom. There's nothing authoritarian in having a different label for something different. In fact, as I've pointed out before, to not do so in this case muddles the language, infringing upon free speech. Your stance is against freedom, not for it.

I believe that every marriage is different in fundamental ways that are relevant to the couple that seeks to marry.

Obviously, but the gov't, as far as I know, isn't trying to adopt any dogmas regarding their differences. If they did, I would have a problem with that, too.

You lose any pretense for rational objectivity when you refer to heterosexual marriages as "real marriages."

I disagree. I'm basing my assertion that a gay union and a marriage need to have different names, because, from a linguistic standpoint, that is the rational way to do it. This is based on my background in language, having studied it in college. You, on the other hand, learned how to argue in a way that will help you get your way but will not necessarily be logical. I'm more communicative, philosophical type than the legal type, myself.

[Walden]

No. No, they're facts.

It's not. I never said it was. Although, it stands to reason that if marriages built civilization historically (and that is a fact), then contemporary marriages maintain civilization.

If the opinions, speculations and beliefs that you have presented are facts, then you should have no problem citing the objective evidence that supports these "facts"....again, I will call for a CFR that shows the data supporting all your "facts". And I mean actual data, not just your "speculation".

And yes, there are many things that have contributed to the building of our society. You argue that "it stands to reason that if marriages built civilization historically (and that is a fact), then contemporary marriages maintain civilization." The same could be said about any number of things from which society was built upon. Heck, our American society was built on the backs of slaves, but I don't hear you calling for a return to slavery. Some things throughout history, though condoned, aren't necessarily right. I would add the narrow-minded view that love can only be shared in marriage by heterosexuals to that list of things that are condoned, but not right.

You can argue all you want that what you have presented are "facts" but in the real world, facts are generally supported by data and evidence. The only things that I have seen you offer as support for your "facts" are speculation, conjecture and personal belief. If that is what you mean by "facts" then yes, I guess you are presenting "facts", just don't expect the rest of us to accept it as such.

[Daniel2]

There are obviously going to be differences between a heterosexual union and a gay union, just as there are obviously going to be differences between one heterosexual union to another; one gay union to another; one religious union to a non-religious union; one same-race union to an interacial union; etc.

Whether or not those differences are "sociologically relevent" depends on the criteria one is using to define "sociological relevance."

Darin

[Chris Smith]

It baffles me how the "traditional-marriage-is-the-only-real-marriage" folks try to position themselves as philosophical defenders of language, when really their view of language is an almost pre-modern version of correpondence theory that ignores all linguistic and hermeneutical philosophy of the last three centuries.

[USU78]

It baffles me how the "traditional-marriage-is-the-only-real-marriage" folks try to position themselves as philosophical defenders of language, when really their view of language is an almost pre-modern version of correpondence theory that ignores all linguistic and hermeneutical philosophy of the last three centuries.

Other than Little Big Man, I see no evidence of "SSM" in any culture before our own unhappy times.

But perhaps I've missed something in all that linguistic and hermeneutical philosophy of the last three centuries that arises out of and is not prior to the notion of "SSM?"

[nutnfancy]

We here at the Nutn Fancy Project pray that gay people are eradicated from the face of the earth so we can all be clean

[Mordecai]

It baffles me how the "traditional-marriage-is-the-only-real-marriage" folks try to position themselves as philosophical defenders of language, when really their view of language is an almost pre-modern version of correpondence theory that ignores all linguistic and hermeneutical philosophy of the last three centuries.

I studied language in college, graduating in 2000. I guess my professors missed all the politically correct crap and just went with what made sense, instead.

So in your philosophy, the gov't can artificially manipulate the language as a means to control thoughts in the process of a top-down radical restructuring of social norms? I think the philosophy you ought to look at here is the philosophy of ethics, more than language. That's really at the heart of this. This is just a disgusting example of corrupt people trying to manipulate a debate in support of an elitist, obviously false dogma, using courts and propaganda. You might also want to study what it means to be in favor of Democracy. Everyone pretends to be or even believes they are, but then we have a debate like this, and it's clear they are against Democracy. They make up new "rights," by playing word games and present manipulative arguments (using guilt by association, reading into every comment some evil motive and pressuring people with "right side of history" rhetoric) and try to ram it down people's throats.

In all sincerity, please describe where I'm going wrong philosophically. It's not like I don't understand philosophy. I think the Philosophy of Ethics was the only class I got an A+ in, when I was in college, probably because I actually understood Kant really quickly, when most philosophy majors really struggle with him. I also refuted Nietzche in a debate with the professor (although she didn't like Nietzche so she didn't defend him as strongly as a big supporter of him would have). I don't see what philosophy would justify manipulating the language via the government.

[Mordecai]

If the opinions, speculations and beliefs...

Like the "opinion" that heterosexuals reproduce naturally and homosexuals don't? You need a source for that one, even? As far as the others, I've already presented sources to some degree or another. Admittedly, in some cases, my source was my sociology professor in college and things like that. In other cases, I've included more specificity with page numbers, etc. Regardless, some of these aren't even a little bit debatable, but you called them all opinions with no thought or analysis whatsoever, which tells me there is no hope of having a rational discussion about this with you.

Actually, I found some sources for one of my claims, just to prove my point that your reaction was pure emotion:

One recent study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions, reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity.

Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon, Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology, 2003.

David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, The Male Couple (Prentice Hall, 1984) 252.

qtd. from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01

...statistically speaking, male--but not female--homosexual couples have been shown to tolerate and practice infidelity considerably more than heterosexual ones, as biology would lead us to expect...

http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/views/vw289.htm

[Chris Smith]

Other than Little Big Man, I see no evidence of "SSM" in any culture before our own unhappy times.

But perhaps I've missed something in all that linguistic and hermeneutical philosophy of the last three centuries that arises out of and is not prior to the notion of "SSM?"

There are historical instances of gay marriage, though they have never had wide social acceptance until recently. But history is irrelevant. Language is a fluid social construction, and new usages do not have to be historically precedented to be useful for communication.

I studied language in college, graduating in 2000. I guess my professors missed all the politically correct crap and just went with what made sense, instead.

Did your professors tell you that words have "real" definitions and "unreal" definitions? Somehow I doubt it. The usage of words can have conventional validity, but no modern philosopher in his right mind would argue that usage can have ontological validity. In the case of gay marriage, what we have is a sectarian religious group attempting to legally privilege its own linguistic convention ("marriage is between one man and one woman") against a widespread, competing linguistic convention ("marriage is between two people") that it finds morally and theologically distasteful. That's it. No ontological linguistic correspondence is at stake here. The nature of language itself is not under threat.

So in your philosophy, the gov't can artificially manipulate the language as a means to control thoughts in the process of a top-down radical restructuring of social norms?

You, my friend, are the one arguing in favor of passing Constitutional amendments to assert the exclusive claim of a particular linguistic convention. My view is that the government should entirely drop the use of the religious term "marriage", and leave it to the public to define their individual contractual associations however they please, and call them by whatever religious or non-religious terminology they choose. In my view, the acceptance of a Catholic/evangelical definition of marriage over against a liberal Protestant definition comes perilously close to an establishment of religious norms.

I think the philosophy you ought to look at here is the philosophy of ethics, more than language. That's really at the heart of this. This is just a disgusting example of corrupt people trying to manipulate a debate in support of an elitist, obviously false dogma, using courts and propaganda. You might also want to study what it means to be in favor of Democracy. Everyone pretends to be or even believes they are, but then we have a debate like this, and it's clear they are against Democracy. They make up new "rights," by playing word games and present manipulative arguments (using guilt by association, reading into every comment some evil motive and pressuring people with "right side of history" rhetoric) and try to ram it down people's throats.

You say I am against Democracy, and yet I am supposed to be the one attributing evil motives to people? Your hypocrisy boggles the mind.

Peace,

-Chris