|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
 Posted - 09/11/2005 : 06:32:44 [Permalink]
|
I think you missed Marfknox's point on one of the issues; is you problem that gay marriages are called marriages legally or that they are called marriages socially?
It is a valid question as laws should be based on ethical grounds rather than tradition and if your problem is with people referring to them as marriages in a social situation then the discussion is pointless, as that is none of anyones concern anyway. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
 |
|
|
CourseKnot
Skeptic Friend
USA
82 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 07:24:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
I think you missed Marfknox's point on one of the issues; is you problem that gay marriages are called marriages legally or that they are called marriages socially?
You miss my point that I am opposed to gay unions being called marriage at all based on the definition of marriage in line with tradition.
It is a valid question as laws should be based on ethical grounds rather than tradition
Then there are a lot of laws that need to be changed. Who would decide the ethics?
and if your problem is with people referring to them as marriages in a social situation then the discussion is pointless, as that is none of anyones concern anyway.
|
Just flying through space with the rest of you... |
| Edited by - CourseKnot on 09/11/2005 07:29:27 |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 09:38:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Who would decide the ethics?
That... That doesn't make sense... |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 10:01:14 [Permalink]
|
It was once traditional to buy and keep slaves.
Jim Crow laws were once a tradition.
In order to maintain the traditional roll of woman in society, they were not allowed to vote.
It was once traditional to use corporal punishment in our public schools and it was not frowned upon when a parent regularly took a child to the “woodshed.” Now that sort of thing is widely considered to be child abuse.
It was once traditional to “employ” children in dangerous jobs for little pay and long hours.
I could go on. Tradition is not a reasonable argument for keeping bad laws and wrongheaded attitudes. Culture evolves. Our culture is changing, and based on the above, it has been changing since it began as different (traditional) inequities have been addressed.
It is my belief that the “tradition” argument is based on an irrational fear of change. Of course, sometimes the motives are purely selfish. But I don't think that's the case with regard to the gay marriage issue.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 11:41:50 [Permalink]
|
Courseknot, you seem to be totally avoiding answering the question WHY you think we (society) should keep the tradition of only referring to unions between one man and one woman as “marriage”.
It seems like the term “marriage” is very meaningful to you, right? Don't you think that word is just as meaningful for many gay people? How would you feel if society insisted on calling your marriage a “domestic partnership” because it didn't fit in line with the majority's idea of marriage? (For instance, in some Muslim countries atheists cannot get married. I don't know if you are an atheist, but a lot of people on skepticfriends are, which is why I'm using that example.)
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/11/2005 11:42:52 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 11:50:43 [Permalink]
|
In the below, Courstknot's additions are in bold:
Do you have a problem with the government recognizing gay ed.marriages unions the same way they recognize straight ones,
No
Yes, you do. I dunno about you, but when I applied, the piece of paper said "marriage license", and afterwards the piece of paper said "Certificate of Marriage", so apparently you do have a problem with the government recognizing gay marriages the same way as straight ones. If they are not called "marriages" by the government, that means gays would get separate paperwork. On the census, tax forms, health insurance, they would check a box other than "married", calling yet even more attention to their status as a gay person. They would be constantly reminded that society regards them as different. That sucks.
If men and women really are equal in our society, then the difference between gay marriage and straight marriage is superficial. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/11/2005 11:53:31 |
|
|
|
CourseKnot
Skeptic Friend
USA
82 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 18:04:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
quote:
Who would decide the ethics?
That... That doesn't make sense...
I'm sorry.. I should have said who would decide the ethical grounds. |
Just flying through space with the rest of you... |
|
|
|
CourseKnot
Skeptic Friend
USA
82 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 18:31:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
It was once traditional to buy and keep slaves.
Jim Crow laws were once a tradition.
In order to maintain the traditional roll of woman in society, they were not allowed to vote.
It was once traditional to use corporal punishment in our public schools and it was not frowned upon when a parent regularly took a child to the “woodshed.” Now that sort of thing is widely considered to be child abuse.
It was once traditional to “employ” children in dangerous jobs for little pay and long hours.
I could go on.
And I could go on and on about good traditions like Thanksgiving that we enjoy and I hope don't change.
Tradition is not a reasonable argument for keeping bad laws and wrongheaded attitudes.
I'm all for the law to be changed. I would like the word marriage taken out because it has a meaning I would like to remain as it stands.
Culture evolves. Our culture is changing, and based on the above, it has been changing since it began as different (traditional) inequities have been addressed.
Here here.
It is my belief that the “tradition” argument is based on an irrational fear of change.
I don't fear change. I am mearly opposed to changing the definition of marriage as I have stated earlier.
Of course, sometimes the motives are purely selfish. But I don't think that's the case with regard to the gay marriage issue.
|
Just flying through space with the rest of you... |
|
|
|
CourseKnot
Skeptic Friend
USA
82 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 18:44:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Courseknot, you seem to be totally avoiding answering the question WHY you think we (society) should keep the tradition of only referring to unions between one man and one woman as “marriage”.
Because I think we should carry on the tradtion. It worked well for so many of our ancestors and it has worked well for me. It's the ideal I cling to. Of getting married as a man and a woman and creating children and raising a family.
It seems like the term “marriage” is very meaningful to you, right?
Yes.
Don't you think that word is just as meaningful for many gay people?
It's my understanding that most just want to be recognized by law as being leagally bound so they can enjoy the same rights as hetero couples.
How would you feel if society insisted on calling your marriage a “domestic partnership” because it didn't fit in line with the majority's idea of marriage?
It would stink and I'd either fight for change or find another place where I could live freely and married!
(For instance, in some Muslim countries atheists cannot get married. I don't know if you are an atheist, but a lot of people on skepticfriends are, which is why I'm using that example.)
Glad I live in the U.S.
|
Just flying through space with the rest of you... |
| Edited by - CourseKnot on 09/11/2005 19:00:19 |
|
|
|
CourseKnot
Skeptic Friend
USA
82 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 19:15:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
In the below, Courstknot's additions are in bold:
Do you have a problem with the government recognizing gay ed.marriages unions the same way they recognize straight ones,
No
Yes, you do.
Not if the term marriage is taken out.
I dunno about you, but when I applied, the piece of paper said "marriage license", and afterwards the piece of paper said "Certificate of Marriage", so apparently you do have a problem with the government recognizing gay marriages the same way as straight ones. If they are not called "marriages" by the government, that means gays would get separate paperwork. On the census, tax forms, health insurance, they would check a box other than "married", calling yet even more attention to their status as a gay person. They would be constantly reminded that society regards them as different. That sucks.
Your solution of using the term civil union for all legally bound couples from the time the law is enacted on forward is a winner to me.
If men and women really are equal in our society, then the difference between gay marriage and straight marriage is superficial.
|
Just flying through space with the rest of you... |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 20:45:07 [Permalink]
|
Courseknot wrote: I'm all for the law to be changed. I would like the word marriage taken out because it has a meaning I would like to remain as it stands.
That doesn't make any sense. If the law is changed so that all domestic partnerships are legally dubbed “civil unions”, then gay unions will definitely be called “marriages” by society at large, because gays themselves and their friends will use that term and there won't be a term to differentiate their relationships from straight ones.
I wrote: WHY you think we (society) should keep the tradition of only referring to unions between one man and one woman as “marriage”.
Courseknot wrote: Because I think we should carry on the tradtion.
You think we should keep the tradition because we should carry on the tradition. Ooooh kaaay.
It worked well for so many of our ancestors and it has worked well for me. It's the ideal I cling to.
The ideal you cling to? First of all, heterosexual marriages are not diminished one iota when homosexual unions are called marriages. Second of all, if heterosexual unions are an ideal, then are homosexual unions less than ideal?
If we alter the “tradition” to include gays, gays gain and straights lose nothing. If we refuse to alter the “tradition”, gays continue to be marginalized, straights lose nothing. I don't see your logic.
Of getting married as a man and a woman and creating children and raising a family.
Er…not sure where that came from. I know plenty of couples who never had kids. Do you not want to call their unions marriages too? My husband and I are planning to adopt. So are we not married in your point of view because we won't be “creating children”?
It's my understanding that most just want to be recognized by law as being leagally bound so they can enjoy the same rights as hetero couples.
You are misinformed. Did you miss the thousands of couples in California who applied for marriage licenses when that greenie mayor made it temporarily legal? Who do you think is lobbying lawmakers in California to get gay marriage instituted? (Not to mention those lobbying in other states all over the country.) Why do you think so many people are fighting for gay marriage, when domestic partnership is so much more palatable to the homophobic general public? The gay rights activists who are instead lobbying for domestic partnership are only doing so because they think they can't get gay marriage legalized because there are too many damn bigots in this country. Domestic partnership is a compromise, not a preferred term.
Your solution of using the term civil union for all legally bound couples from the time the law is enacted on forward is a winner to me.
Yes, you've made that clear. But you've conveniently ignored my post where I said that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of happening. Here's a direct question: If I'm right, and “marriage” continues to be on all government documents, do you persist in insisting that gays use different forms, check different boxes, etc, even though that clearly ostracizes them and is not their preference?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 21:07:25 [Permalink]
|
Lest there be any doubt that thousands of gays in America are raising, and often even creating children, I offer this from the ACLU and Partners Task Force http://www.buddybuddy.com/adoption.html#Chapter%20Two
"In the fall of 2000, a Kaiser Family Foundation national study of 405 randomly selected, self-identified lesbians, gays, and bisexuals found that 8 percent of the participants were parents or legal guardians of a child under 18 who lived in their home. While this study does not necessarily offer solid evidence on how many gay parents there are, it suggests that around 8 percent of gay people are parents. The Kaiser survey also measured the extent to which gay people would like to become parents. Among those who weren't parents at the time of the survey, almost half (49 percent) said they would like to have children of their own some day. This at least suggests the possibility of a gay “baby boom” in the near future. For entire generations of lesbians and gay men, parenting did not seem to be an option. Now that it is becoming a real option, more and more people are likely to become parents.
"Finally, we also know that gay and lesbian families live in communities across the country. The 2000 Census found that same-sex couples live in 99.3 percent of all counties in the United States (Gay and Lesbian Families in the United States: Same-Sex Unmarried Partner Households, Human Rights Campaign, August 22, 2001). Some of these folks doubtless are parents. As more gay people are able to live their lives openly and truthfully, it's inevitable that more will become parents." |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/11/2005 21:07:53 |
|
|
|
CourseKnot
Skeptic Friend
USA
82 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2005 : 04:18:30 [Permalink]
|
I give up. I've grown weary of this thread going around in circles and having my statements misinterpreted and twisted around. I've stated my opinion and I see nothing wrong with it. The inquisition for me is over. Have fun.
I expext to be shot in the back on my way out so use a bazooka if you like. ó¿ò |
Just flying through space with the rest of you... |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2005 : 08:18:06 [Permalink]
|
CourseKnot, I'm not trying to twist your arguments. I am genuinely confused by them. You have yet to give a single reason why the tradition of "marriage" exclusively referring to straight unions is superior to "marriage" referring to both straight and gay unions, other than the mere fact that it is a tradition. (And as Kil made clear in his post, something merely being a tradition hardly means it's worth keeping around.)
I have listed several social benefits of gay unions being called "marriages" (which nobody has contradicted yet), and I have listed several examples of how calling gay unions something different is hurtful to many people (which, again, nobody has contradited yet). In other words, I've stated my case for why this is a bad tradition, but you give no reasons why it is a good tradition. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/12/2005 08:19:09 |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2005 : 21:44:57 [Permalink]
|
[/quote]Snake!!
Welcome back -- we've missed you!
You must tell us all about your SE Asia adventure...
[/quote]
Hey there Filthy! I've been back a while but it's one thing after another. You would't believe what happened! It was Great. Thanks for asking. I'm sure my life is of little interest to most others, haha. And not many would understand nor believe it anyway. But feel free to email me any time.
How's the snake handling going?
And just to keep this on topic...
If and when Californians do get to vote on this, how do you think it will go?
Norma
CuriousCreations.com |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
