Govt Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]forlife wrote:

Your last couple of posts are bordering on the personal, so just a polite request to keep it focused on the topic. I’ve been forthcoming with you throughout this discussion, and will continue to do so. I saw where you were going with your questions, and I replied honestly. I’m here for a constructive discussion, so please let’s not go there.[/quote]

No, I’m just not interested in hitting “reset” yet again and rehashing arguments that have already been addressed. You seem to want to do that, and I recognize it, and I have no interest in tolerating it.

Yes, the general definition allows for same gender and polygamous relationships to be considered marriage. That makes sense, when you consider that polygamous marriages and gay marriages exist and are legally recognized in many parts of the world.

Fine, and you even went further than that and stated that pretty much any relationship, regardless of makeup of gender or number, deserved to have that relationship formally recognized as “marriage”. That is fine - there is no dispute on this point.

But that doesn’t mean the definition can be twisted to include an adult marrying a child, or a man marrying his goat, or two business partners, or a corporate merger, or my grandma’s card club. It still provides very clear parameters on what is and what is not considered a marriage. It does not, as you contend, allow any relationship to be considered a marriage.

Strawman after strawman. I didn’t say the definition was destined to be twisted into allowing child marriages or bestiality. Nor do I mean “any relationship”, including corporate mergers.

As I have said many times, take whatever you think constitutes a proper relationship (i.e., non-business), and call it marriage. Then add a man. Then add another man. Then add a woman. Do anything you want. As long as you are free to manipulate the content of what constitutes “marriage”, it has no meaningful definition in our society.

I’ve said it over and over, and I won’t say it after this: “marriage” is defined a certain way to privilege a certain kind of relationship over others, i.e., one is better than others. That has always been the purpose of marriage. Under your theory, you reverse that completely, and the new definition of “marriage” won’t function to privilege any one relationship over another, you would equalize them all (even though you admitted, for purposes of child-raising, they aren’t equal, but I digress).

Thus, the very definition of marriage - which is completely contingent on defining a certain relationship as privileged to the exclusion of others - is gone. You have nullified it. It ain’t marriage any more, because it doesn’t do what we expect it to in our society.

Forget the rest, your argument isn’t heading anywhere. What you want to do is change the meaning of the word “marriage” and call something else - absoluet equalization of these other relationships - “marriage”. It ain’t so.

And setting aside the caviling of your Wikipedia defintions, etc. - the bottom line is that your theory eviscerates the very function of marriage, regardless of what word you want to assign to the world you suggest in which all these relationships are given the same equalized status.

It’s over. Just let it go. You’ve advanced a radical idea. You and I differ as to whether it leads to a good place or not, and that’s fine. But you can’t put the genie back in the bottle on what was a terribly radical admission by you.

[forlife]

Not strawmen at all. Each is an example of relationships that are blanketly excluded from being called marriage. There are many other such examples. Even one example proves my point, which is that the term marriage doesn’t suddenly lose all meaning when you allow gay and polygamous marriages.

Marriage still excludes a large number of relationships that couldn’t be construed as such, by any definition. For your claim (that marriage loses all meaning) to be true, any kind of relationship could be called a marriage. The general definition doesn’t allow any kind of relationship to be called a marriage, so the claim is incorrect.

The relationships falling under the general definition of marriage are in fact privileged at the exclusion of other relationships. It is more inclusive than your definition, I agree, but it still categorically excludes a large number of other relationships.

Radical? I wouldn’t call my definition of marriage radical when it is broadly accepted in many countries around the world, and in a growing number of states in our own country.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

You have nullified it. It ain’t marriage any more, because it doesn’t do what we expect it to in our society.[/quote]

Except it would.

Also, the article about the Canada polygamists is about two people - not a largescale movement in the least (though I’m not sure how I feel about criminalizing polygamy, but that’s off topic). Any word on if their logic won them the case? Or will I be correct that they try to use the “If gays can why cant we?” argument and fail?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]forlife wrote:

The relationships falling under the general definition of marriage are in fact privileged at the exclusion of other relationships. It is more inclusive than your definition, I agree, but it still categorically excludes a large number of other relationships.[/quote]

Let’s highlight this: “The relationships falling under the general definition of marriage are in fact privileged at the exclusion of other relationships”…no, they aren’t, for purposes of marriage, the functions of marriage. They are de-privileged, and now you have “equalized” all of them.

And when I say “all of them”, I am not referring to non-personal business relationships, etc. That is a meaningless point you keep harping on. This isn’t a game of semantics - what we are discussing is function and meaning. In our society, we do not define polygamy as marriage, at least not one we recognize. It doesn’t matter if otehr cultures do, or if for discussion purposes, we note it as a kind of “marriage”. That isn’t what I mean, and that isn’t what is it issue.

At issue is the meaning we ascribe to it functionally in our society, not what it says in Wesbters. Binary hetersexual unions are “marriage”, other things (like polygamy) are not. Your new definition opens the door to saying marriage is any of these inter-personal relationships, however the individual wants to define it. That nullifies the definition of marriage as we define it for our society based on its functions, goals and meaning, because there was no exlusivity of any kind of personal relationship.

Enough of this useless post-modern tangent on “marriage wouldn’t include corporate mergers, so the definition of marriage stays in tact”. Seriously. Learn to argue, or stop wasting my time.

Radical? I wouldn’t call my definition of marriage radical when it is broadly accepted in many countries around the world, and in a growing number of states in our own country.

Yes, you’ve said marriage is rightfully extended to any interpersonal relationship that desires to raise kids - that’s radical. And, where in the world is this version of marriage practiced and accepted?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Except it would. [/quote]

Except it wouldn’t. Forlife hasn’t explained why it would, and you certainly have not.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Except it would. [/quote]

Except it wouldn’t. Forlife hasn’t explained why it would, and you certainly have not.[/quote]

looks again at countries that already have gay marriage

Yup. Looks like they still see marriage the same way we do.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

looks again at countries that already have gay marriage

Yup. Looks like they still see marriage the same way we do.[/quote]

Are you even reading what Forlife and I are talking about? I am not talking strictly about gay marriage - I am talking about Forlife’s theory that encompasses more than just gay marriage.

Good Lord. Read the thread and try to add something intelligent. It is clear you have no idea what the discussion is about.

[forlife]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

The relationships falling under the general definition of marriage are in fact privileged at the exclusion of other relationships. It is more inclusive than your definition, I agree, but it still categorically excludes a large number of other relationships.[/quote]

Let’s highlight this: “The relationships falling under the general definition of marriage are in fact privileged at the exclusion of other relationships”…no, they aren’t, for purposes of marriage, the functions of marriage. They are de-privileged, and now you have “equalized” all of them.

And when I say “all of them”, I am not referring to non-personal business relationships, etc. That is a meaningless point you keep harping on. This isn’t a game of semantics - what we are discussing is function and meaning. In our society, we do not define polygamy as marriage, at least not one we recognize. It doesn’t matter if otehr cultures do, or if for discussion purposes, we note it as a kind of “marriage”. That isn’t what I mean, and that isn’t what is it issue.

At issue is the meaning we ascribe to it functionally in our society, not what it says in Wesbters. Binary hetersexual unions are “marriage”, other things (like polygamy) are not. Your new definition opens the door to saying marriage is any of these inter-personal relationships, however the individual wants to define it. That nullifies the definition of marriage as we define it for our society based on its functions, goals and meaning, because there was no exlusivity of any kind of personal relationship.

Enough of this useless post-modern tangent on “marriage wouldn’t include corporate mergers, so the definition of marriage stays in tact”. Seriously. Learn to argue, or stop wasting my time.

Radical? I wouldn’t call my definition of marriage radical when it is broadly accepted in many countries around the world, and in a growing number of states in our own country.

Yes, you’ve said marriage is rightfully extended to any interpersonal relationship that desires to raise kids - that’s radical. And, where in the world is this version of marriage practiced and accepted?
[/quote]

So instead of saying “marriage loses all meaning”, what you meant was “marriage loses the meaning currently defined in our particular culture as the union between one man and one woman”. Gotcha. Hardly an insightful statement, and not worth discussing since I agree with you.

And for the last time, I have never said every personal relationship should be categorized as a marriage. Nor have I said that every personal relationship raising kids (say, an older brother and sister raising their younger brother) should be called a marriage. Quit putting words in my mouth.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]forlife wrote:

So instead of saying “marriage loses all meaning”, what you meant was “marriage loses the meaning currently defined in our particular culture as the union between one man and one woman”. Gotcha. Hardly an insightful statement, and not worth discussing since I agree with you. [/quote]

Not quite right, as I have explained too many times - it nullifies the meaning of marriage even beyond the paramters of “one man and one woman”, it nullifies the very purpose of why we have marriage in the first place. So hung up on “definition”, you fail to see how it relates to “meaning” and “purpose”.

We don’t simply define marriage as “the union between one man and one woman” for kooky fun, we do so because it means something to our society. You keep glossing over this fundamental issue by assuming the very issue at the heart of the debate.

To you, the definition is nothing more than descriptive, rather than normative. We aren’t talking about mere descriptions, as I have explained to you over and over by contrasting the fact that, no, we don’t define marriage to include polygamy, even though polygamy is a kind of marriage, by description.

You haven’t figured out this distinction yet. Maybe you can’t.

And for the last time, I have never said every personal relationship should be categorized as a marriage. Nor have I said that every personal relationship raising kids (say, an older brother and sister raising their younger brother) should be called a marriage. Quit putting words in my mouth.

You said it above, taht any relationship raising kids (outside of obvious exceptions) deserved marriage. I am not argiung this applies to incest, so enough with that.

[thunderbolt23]

To refresh your memory. I asked:

Good, next step - is there an arrangement that you think children wouldn’t be better off if the adults in charge of them were legally married (holding everything as normal and general, assuming no exceptions such as abuse, etc.)?

To which you replied:

Not that I can think of, as long as the adults in charge are parents rather than, say, orphanage administrators.

As long as the “adults in charge are parents” (however that is defined), then you can’t think of any arrangement that shouldn’t be afforded “marriage”.

Well done.

[forlife]

So let’s talk normative.

Instead of saying “marriage loses all purpose”, what you meant was “marriage loses the purpose currently fulfilled in our particular culture through the union between one man and one woman”.

That’s a far better statement than the catastrophic Henny Penny “marriage loses all meaning” statement you’ve made several times in this thread.

I agree with the more realistic statement, but only conditionally. It’s true that gay marriage isn’t likely to keep men from littering the streets with bastard children. In that one regard, gay marriage doesn’t fulfill the same purpose as straight marriage.

However, I contend that gay marriage contributes to the same purpose, by taking bastard children off the streets and giving them a loving home. It’s true they aren’t raised by their biological parents. However, gay marriage still contributes significantly to that purpose, as would heterosexual marriage between a straight infertile couple that adopts children.

Furthermore, I contend that the large majority of Americans would agree that marriage serves important purposes beyond reducing the number of bastard children. In all of these same ways, gay marriage is equal to straight marriage in fulfilling those purposes.

[forlife]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
To refresh your memory. I asked:

Good, next step - is there an arrangement that you think children wouldn’t be better off if the adults in charge of them were legally married (holding everything as normal and general, assuming no exceptions such as abuse, etc.)?

To which you replied:

Not that I can think of, as long as the adults in charge are parents rather than, say, orphanage administrators.

As long as the “adults in charge are parents” (however that is defined), then you can’t think of any arrangement that shouldn’t be afforded “marriage”.

Well done.
[/quote]

Note that I said parents, not “any interpersonal relationship”.

[thunderbolt23]

Sorry, Forlife, it’s over. I know you want nothing more than to hit reset and discuss why you think gay marriage is good. It’s just not that interesting anymore. What’s been said has been said - I am not interested in hearing it yet again.

This is not much an issue. We have a new war in Libya, high unemployment, a contest over a health care bill, an earthquake in Japan, and a presidential election in 2012. I’ll watch the court developments on gay marriage, but the world turns on much more important stuff that is frankly more interesting and more relevant to people’s lives. Those are the discussions I am interested in, and I am interested in the people who know lots about those subjects. Adios.

[forlife]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sorry, Forlife, it’s over. I know you want nothing more than to hit reset and discuss why you think gay marriage is good. It’s just not that interesting anymore. What’s been said has been said - I am not interested in hearing it yet again.

This is not much an issue. We have a new war in Libya, high unemployment, a contest over a health care bill, an earthquake in Japan, and a presidential election in 2012. I’ll watch the court developments on gay marriage, but the world turns on much more important stuff that is frankly more interesting and more relevant to people’s lives. Those are the discussions I am interested in, and I am interested in the people who know lots about those subjects. Adios.[/quote]

I’m actually glad to hear you consider it a nonissue. And I agree, for you and your marriage it really is a nonissue.

Of course, for my partner, me, and our 2 children it is a very important issue. I think our country is making significant strides, but we still have quite a ways to go yet.

Thanks for the discussion, and for the generally respectful tone throughout.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Um, you can’t allow “cross-cultural” theory (makes me want to vomit saying that) to “set” (impossible, since cultures spring up and vanish on micro and macro scales) parameters for marriage…That would be BIGOTED! Dum, dee, dum, durr! And that’s just not allowed! Marriage isn’t about, like, parameters, know what I’m I saying? It’s about INDIVIDUAL rights, dontcha know?

Congrats, you’ll probably succeed in driving the final nail in marriage’s coffin, with a theory that still even excludes the imaginative dealings of consenting adults, based on some obscure and fluid reference to the opinion of an ever-changing, ever selfish, ever hipster-activist predisposed liberal tarpit of chaotic thought.

[/quote]

Nah man, BIGOTED is claiming allowing homosexuals to marry would destroy marriage - despite zero evidence in places where gay marriage has been legal for, uh, like, a decade, man.[/quote]

Destroying? It was already destroyed. Homosexual marriage is simply a clear sign (along with divorce rates, out-of-wedlock rates, cohabitation) of it’s destruction. But, it particularly will serve as a one-way door, barring the way back to salvaging marriage’s scrap for rebuilding.

Stick a fork in the West, we’re done. We’re a graying, unanchored, bored, and decadent people. Clamoring for our “individual rights.” Yet, robbing a shrinking pool of tomorrow’s youth in order to “take care of me in the crib, hospital and the nursing home.”

This monoculture (cross-cultural, lol) of whiny and air-headed feel-gooders embarrasses the
heck out of me.[/quote]

Father Corapi? I wondered why Sloth pops up when Fr. Corapi goes on vacation.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

looks again at countries that already have gay marriage

Yup. Looks like they still see marriage the same way we do.[/quote]

Are you even reading what Forlife and I are talking about? I am not talking strictly about gay marriage - I am talking about Forlife’s theory that encompasses more than just gay marriage.

Good Lord. Read the thread and try to add something intelligent. It is clear you have no idea what the discussion is about.
[/quote]

Sigh. You mean the part where you keep saying “marriage will be defined out of existence”?

The part where you try so, so hard to get Forlife to “admit” he wants to “define marriage out of existence”?

The part where you predict that social attitudes towards marriage will so drastically change that marriage will lose all (or even most) of its meaning? And that society will act accordingly, by engaging in frivolous “marriages” or ignoring the institution entirely? And that marriage will “lose its purpose”?

The part where you CONTINUE to ignore the fact that, in places with gay marriage, straight people STILL get married, which STILL “orders procreation”?