[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
This is semantic and subjective, but I don’t mind anybody thinking such. There is no intrinsic problem with redefinition.[/quote]
Really ?
So it’s ok if me and my girlfriend make a contract who suddenly redefine a contract you made years ago ? [/quote]
Gay marriage is not analogous to this.
[quote]
Why are we so scared of the freedom to let adult relationships happen?[/quote]
This specific straw man is getting really old.
Which doesn’t prevent it to make me laugh, each and everytime, when i think to the kind of adult relationships that happens under my roof.
[quote]kamui wrote:
None of this means anything.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
This is semantic and subjective, but I don’t mind anybody thinking such. There is no intrinsic problem with redefinition.[/quote]
Really ?
So it’s ok if me and my girlfriend make a contract who suddenly redefine a contract you made years ago ? [/quote]
Gay marriage is not analogous to this.[/quote]
Why ?
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
This is semantic and subjective, but I don’t mind anybody thinking such. There is no intrinsic problem with redefinition.[/quote]
Really ?
So it’s ok if me and my girlfriend make a contract who suddenly redefine a contract you made years ago ? [/quote]
Gay marriage is not analogous to this.[/quote]
Why ?
[/quote]
Because it does not change anything about any specific extant marriage.
Argument by analogy is always weak.
We are not changing the letter of contracts that were written years ago. That does not belong in this discussion.
[quote]
You jumped the shark with this post. Why do you get to decide what is socially useful and not?[/quote]
Oh, i don’t decide what is socially useful and not.
Societies and centuries did it.
On the other hand, i don’t think moral intimidation and judicial activism should decide that either.
[quote]
And why does your definition of socially useful trump the definition of the majority of American people? [/quote]
You certainly wouldn’t have used this argument against the proponents of gay marriage decades ago, when the majority of american people was clearly against it.
Why use it now to defend it ?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Argument by analogy is always weak.
We are not changing the letter of contracts that were written years ago. That does not belong in this discussion.[/quote]
You’re not changing their letter, you’re changing their meaning. How is it different ?
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Argument by analogy is always weak.
We are not changing the letter of contracts that were written years ago. That does not belong in this discussion.[/quote]
You’re not changing their letter, you’re changing their meaning. How is it different ?[/quote]
In what way are you changing their specific meanings.
Edit: And in what way did the legalization of miscegenation not do the same.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
If that is the message, then the message is in error, because heterosexual monogamous relationships are not the most socially useful for the portion of the population that is gay. In fact, it can be considered socially detrimental for a gay guy to marry a woman.[/quote]
We do a lot of things, and disallow a lot of things that aren’t the most socially useful to certain groups all the time.
I won’t list them, as I’m sure you can name a few too, and ones the majority (for now at least) are okay with.
But in the end, my position on this matter is simple and been stated over and over:
Government’s role in marriage is limited to the custody contract (which largely covers the “benefits” extended by choosing to contractually share your life with someone).
However, if fucking people dont’ stop calling it gay marriage, I’m going to start writing off people as ultra lazy. It isn’t gay marriage, it is same sex marriage and there is a significant difference between the two.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
However, if fucking people dont’ stop calling it gay marriage, I’m going to start writing off people as ultra lazy. It isn’t gay marriage, it is same sex marriage and there is a significant difference between the two.
[/quote]
But there’s an extra word there…
And, re: the rest, yes, we disallow people from doing things they want to do, and we ignore certain socially useful possibilities.
However, when we’re disallowing people from doing things that are good for them and for society, then we’ve got our heads up our asses.
Which, of course, we do. For many, many reasons, most of them having nothing to do with homosexuals.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
You jumped the shark with this post. Why do you get to decide what is socially useful and not?[/quote]
Oh, i don’t decide what is socially useful and not.
Societies and centuries did it.
On the other hand, i don’t think moral intimidation and judicial activism should decide that either.
Why not? Society and government change based on what people expect from society and government. At a time there wasn’t a push to allow blacks and whites to marry. Over time this became something society wondered if needed to be changed. It changed.
Currently most of society is for this change and into the future it will most assuredly be even more so. So don’t make it because you think you need to tell what society what they can and cannot do?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
If that is the message, then the message is in error, because heterosexual monogamous relationships are not the most socially useful for the portion of the population that is gay. In fact, it can be considered socially detrimental for a gay guy to marry a woman.[/quote]
We do a lot of things, and disallow a lot of things that aren’t the most socially useful to certain groups all the time.
I won’t list them, as I’m sure you can name a few too, and ones the majority (for now at least) are okay with.
But in the end, my position on this matter is simple and been stated over and over:
Government’s role in marriage is limited to the custody contract (which largely covers the “benefits” extended by choosing to contractually share your life with someone).
However, if fucking people dont’ stop calling it gay marriage, I’m going to start writing off people as ultra lazy. It isn’t gay marriage, it is same sex marriage and there is a significant difference between the two.
[/quote]
I must have missed some of your earlier postings on this so forgive me for not remembering what you argued, but does the Libertarian party definition of how government should view marriage that I have been posting bother you?
[quote]kamui wrote:
And yet things have constantly changed over time. So why can’t this? It was socially “useful” (or at least acceptable) to allow slavery at a time. You wouldn’t argue with keeping that the same merely because it was socially useful at a time. Yet you would here? We can’t change the definition like we have numerous times because well, we just can’t be doing that?
Also it is highly strange (but whatever) that you claim to do all sorts of “socially inappropriate” sexual things in your bedroom and think that is absolutely fine…but when it comes to gay people being allowed a privilege to do something that heterosexuals can do (simply by being born) you draw the line?
I guess it isn’t that strange, a lot of men who are big time opposed to gay activity because it grosses them out have had anal sex with a woman. It’s that “I support gays… as long as they are both hot chicks!” dumbass redneck mentality that is prevalent in my area.
[quote]kamui wrote:
The health of heterosexual marriage in the state where people could first get married as gay doesn’t disprove what i said.
If anything it confirms it.
It’s easier to be married when there is next to no criterium to be married and when you don’t need to commit yourself to a social institution anymore.
[/quote]
So the divorce rate has gone down in these places because people feel free therefore to protect marriage we need to make sure people aren’t free which according to social state statistics will increase the divorce rate.
Yeah, not following this one bit really.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Oh, i don’t decide what is socially useful and not.
Societies and centuries did it.
[/quote]
And they all did it in different ways. Or did the Greeks spend their weekends in a way that would have pleased Winthrop?
This particular “society and century” is looking to include homosexual matrimony among the things that are socially useful.
It doesn’t get simpler than that.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Libertarian party definition of how government should view marriage that I have been posting bother you? [/quote]
I don’t know. I didn’t read it, lol.
I know what I feel government’s role in marriage is, and its role can’t prevent consenting adults from entering into the contract. Whether they be the same sex, different sex, three people, 12 people, whatever.
I don’t know.
I mean, if people want to make a huge fuss and call it something other than marriage, fine. But I don’t want my government doing anything but facilitating custody issues within the social contract.
[quote]
And they all did it in different ways. Or did the Greeks spend their weekends in a way that would have pleased Winthrop?[/quote]
The greeks never allowed gay marriage. And how people spend their weekends has nothing to do with our topic.
Maybe, maybe not.
But your opinion would be the same if this particular society and century was not looking to include homosexual matrinomy among the things that are socially useful.
You can’t invoke the majority when it suits you and disregard it when it doesn’t.
[quote]
And yet things have constanly changed over time. So why can’t this?[/quote]
I don’t say it can’t change. I say we shouldn’t change it without good reasons.
[quote]
It was socially “useful” (or at least acceptable) to allow slavery at a time.[/quote]
It was certainly useful for a bunch of people. For society, i’m not sure.
[quote]
You wouldn’t argue with keeping that the same merely because it was socially useful at a time.[/quote]
Actually, if slavery was really, demonstrably “socially useful”, i’m pretty sure i would be perfectly ok with it.
But then again, i’m pretty sure you and me have vastly different understandings of what “socially useful” means.
[quote]kamui wrote:
I don’t say it can’t change. I say we shouldn’t change it without good reasons.[/quote]
From this thread:
True. My sister just got pregnant with her second kid and somehow absolutely loves her gay cousin. She moved from a state that doesn’t allow gay marriage (Kansas) to one that does and guess what? She got pregnant in BOTH states. My wife and I will probably have 2 or 3 kids. We would have done it without gay marriage or with it being allowed.
Poor argument number 1.
It hasn’t yet, when is it supposed to start doing this? Your response for why divorce rates are lower in gay marriage allowing states was essentially well yeah when people are free to do certain things they can do them easier. Which if anything is a feather in the cap for the opposite side of what you’re arguing.
Poor argument number 2.
Poor argument number 3 down.
Poor argument number 4 down.
I’m waiting for those good reasons. So far we pretty much have outlandish hypotheticals, things that are already demonstrably untrue, (gay marriage is legal in some places so we can judge its effects today) or stuff that can’t possibly be argued for or against (YOU’LL RUIN IT!)
[quote]kamui wrote:
But then again, i’m pretty sure you and me have vastly different understandings of what “socially useful” means. [/quote]
I’m sure we do. You seem to argue for a lot of control based things where I tend to think people should be able to make their own decisions as long as they are not directly harming others with them.
If we are going to keep people from doing certain things (i.e. using heroin) don’t we have an obligation to explain why we are taking this action and how if this happens it would be harmful to society?
10-20 percent of the population is thought gay depending on which opinion polls you look at. Let’s call it 15%. Of those 15% some of them would like to get married and have the same privileges that I have SIMPLY for being straight. Lay out the nightmare scenarios for us of what will happen in this society if we let that go on.
If social usefulness is what matters why do we allow women or men who can’t get pregnant to get married? They are no different than two men. Why aren’t we drawing the line at can get pregnant? And why allow couples that AREN’T having kids the privileges? Two old people getting married isn’t socially useful.
Why aren’t you fighting all these people getting this privilege? They have no more ability to reproduce than two gay men.