quote:

---

This was touched upon in the previous thread.

I found a good 2 min explanation of the philosophical reason why gay marriage renders marriage meaningless from a debate involving Obama and Alan Keyes.

Here is the challenge - can you argue against his point without merely saying 'he is wrong' or engaging in ad hom argument against him or me? E.G without table pounding or name calling.

---

Get over the obsession. Another thread?!?!!!!!! Rediculous.

marriage ceases to be marriage when the existing definition is changed. If marriage becomes anything different from one man and one woman then Marriage means nothing. We could then have any combination of people entering 'marriage'. We could have 10 people all bisexual all married to each other living under one roof. There is nothing that could legally prevent that. That is not a healthy environment for rearing children for any society.

quote:

---

marriage ceases to be marriage when the existing definition is changed.

---

Just because you say so? Again, how specifically will your marriage be devalued when I have one?

quote:

---

If marriage becomes anything different from one man and one woman then Marriage means nothing. We could then have any combination of people entering 'marriage'.

---

Multiple wives used to not be all that uncommon. I seem to recall it happening a lot in some book people hold in high esteem.

quote:

---

We could have 10 people all bisexual all married to each other living under one roof. There is nothing that could legally prevent that. That is not a healthy environment for rearing children for any society.

---

Much like with gay couples, you could have such an arrangement right now, this very minute, even with children living there. This relationship may not have any legal recognition, but there's nothing illegal about it. Would you propose prohibiting these people from living this way, since it's unhealthy for children? Should the children be removed?

He's not proposing prohibiting homosexuality. Though it is bad for society.

I know he's not. He would be if he were being in any way consistent though. It makes no sense to say "X type of marriage shouldn't be allowed because X is bad for children," while at the same time being fine with children living in an X household, provided the parents aren't married to each other. If it's bad for kids, get them out of there. That's one thing I respect the full-on crazies for. They carry those thoughts all the way through.

quote:

---

He's not proposing prohibiting homosexuality. Though it is bad for society.

---

your existence is bad for society.

quote:

---

marriage ceases to be marriage when the existing definition is changed

---

My marriage will still be a marriage, regardless of how the government defines it.

quote:

---

you could have such an arrangement right now, this very minute, even with children living there. This relationship may not have any legal recognition, but there's nothing illegal about it. Would you propose prohibiting these people from living this way

---

Maybe not but we certainly don't have to re-define the cornerstone social construct of humankind to accomodate them!!!!!

quote:

---

quote:

---

you could have such an arrangement right now, this very minute, even with children living there. This relationship may not have any legal recognition, but there's nothing illegal about it. Would you propose prohibiting these people from living this way

---

Maybe not but we certainly don't have to re-define the cornerstone social construct of humankind to accomodate them!!!!!

---

So your hang up is w/ the word used by government agencies, but not the actual nature of the relationship?

Apparently, and based on the number of exclamation points I'd say that hangup is ever so big.

I thought it was obvious that both parties are hung up on the word.

I'm not hung up on the word. I'm hung up on equality. Pick a word - any word - to describe the civil relationship, apply to everyone, and I'm fine with giving "marriage" to the churches exclusively. Call it a civil union, call it a zorbjank, call it a blerbdoob, hell call it a "Valerie Bertanelli" for all I care.

quote:

---

I thought it was obvious that both parties are hung up on the word.

---

True, but I actually understand one side not really being comfortable with a "separate but equal" treatment on the issue.

quote:

---

It is NOT fundamentally different??? Marriage is the only institution that promotes BIOLOGICAL CREATION and for those 2 people WHO CREATED THE CHILD to be OBLIGATED to care for them. I think that qualifies as fundamentally different. In adoption, or in a same-sex partnership, it is impossible for BOTH the mother and the father to be biologically related to the child. Marriage is the only institution that promotes the biological family unit, which is a benefit to society as a whole.

---

So, are heterosexual blended families fundamentally different than nuclear ones? And do we call those marriages or no?

I think you are just adding more and more parameters to the definition, and creating more problems in the discussion.

quote:

---

I thought it was obvious that both parties are hung up on the word.

---

Not even remotely true. One side has said they don't care what the word is as long as the institution applies to gay and straight marriages, civil unions, flim florps. Whatever you want govt to call them.

They other side insists marriage not apply to gays and want separate institution for them. Separate but not equal.

You if course know that but you don't care about lying

quote:

---

I'm not hung up on the word. I'm hung up on equality. Pick a word - any word - to describe the civil relationship, apply to everyone, and I'm fine with giving "marriage" to the churches exclusively. Call it a civil union, call it a zorbjank, call it a blerbdoob, hell call it a "Valerie Bertanelli" for all I care.

---

The relationships are not the same though. They are the same in that they both involve humans, but different in that marriage is man/woman only.

From our discussion yesterday involving the son and daughter, say your son wanted to be a girl and from then on he wanted his relationship to you to be "daughter." This only makes sense if it's understood that there is a distinction between the terms "son" and "daughter."

SSM advocates are akin to your son wanting to be called "child" only, and that your daughter should be called "child" only, too "to be fair". Because if you dare introduce the girl as your daughter, you are not being equal to your son.

I wonder if our resident theocrats want government to step in and force churches who are marrying gays to so. State level legislation from the anti ssm crowd has already called for this gross level of infringement on religious freedom.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm not hung up on the word. I'm hung up on equality. Pick a word - any word - to describe the civil relationship, apply to everyone, and I'm fine with giving "marriage" to the churches exclusively. Call it a civil union, call it a zorbjank, call it a blerbdoob, hell call it a "Valerie Bertanelli" for all I care.

---

The relationships are not the same though. They are the same in that they both involve humans, but different in that marriage is man/woman only.

From our discussion yesterday involving the son and daughter, say your son wanted to be a girl and from then on he wanted his relationship to you to be "daughter." This only makes sense if it's understood that there is a distinction between the terms "son" and "daughter."

SSM advocates are akin to your son wanting to be called "child" only, and that your daughter be called "child" only, too. Because if you dare introduce the girl as your daughter, you are not being equal to your son.

---

Your argument actually sounds more pro-SSM

Sons and daughters are different, but they are both still children. Neither sons nor daughters should get special treatment over the other.

Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different, but they are both still relationships. Neither type of relationship should get special treatment over the other.

quote:

---

The relationships are not the same though.

---

Legally speaking they are. As far as inheritance, taxes, joint property ownership, custody of children, visitation issues, power of attorney issues, there isn't one instance where genitals of the participants matters.

quote:

---

They are the same in that they both involve humans, but different in that marriage is man/woman only.

---

Fine. Give everyone a Valerie Bertenelli under the law, and you can keep your special word in your church.

quote:

---

Your argument actually sounds more pro-SSM

Sons and daughters are different, but they are both still children. Neither sons nor daughters should get special treatment over the other.

Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different, but they are both still relationships. Neither type of relationship should get special treatment over the other.

---

From my understanding, Franklins' proposes no special treatment, but still keeping the term marriage as it is.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm not hung up on the word. I'm hung up on equality. Pick a word - any word - to describe the civil relationship, apply to everyone, and I'm fine with giving "marriage" to the churches exclusively. Call it a civil union, call it a zorbjank, call it a blerbdoob, hell call it a "Valerie Bertanelli" for all I care.

---

The relationships are not the same though. They are the same in that they both involve humans, but different in that marriage is man/woman only.

From our discussion yesterday involving the son and daughter, say your son wanted to be a girl and from then on he wanted his relationship to you to be "daughter." This only makes sense if it's understood that there is a distinction between the terms "son" and "daughter."

SSM advocates are akin to your son wanting to be called "child" only, and that your should daughter be called "child" only, too "to be fair". Because if you dare introduce the girl as your daughter, you are not being equal to your son.

---

Call them whatever you want. As long as the law recognized them equally as children.

Govt marriage is a contract that binds people together legally and financially. It functions absolutely no differently if the people are same sex or opposite sex.

quote:

---

SSM advocates are akin to your son wanting to be called "child" only, and that your daughter be called "child" only, too. Because if you dare introduce the girl as your daughter, you are not being equal to your son.

---

I don't think so. SM advocates are saying that it's ok to call both of your parents "Father" (or "Mother"). No ones advocating calling them "Parent".

quote:

---

quote:

---

SSM advocates are akin to your son wanting to be called "child" only, and that your daughter be called "child" only, too. Because if you dare introduce the girl as your daughter, you are not being equal to your son.

---

I don't think so. SM advocates are saying that it's ok to call both of your parents "Father" (or "Mother"). No ones advocating calling them "Parent".

---

Father is an exclusive term. Only males fit the role. Mother is an exclusive term. Only females fit the role. I think it's unreasonable for a person to say, DUE TO THE EXCLUSIVITY OF THE WORD, that females should be allowed to be called fathers, and vice versa. Or better yet, do away with both terms and only use "parent." I think it's completely reasonable to advocate to keep the words as they are, even though we acknowledge some people will be excluded.

I'm not saying we should call women Fathers or men Mothers. I am saying quite the opposite: that gender titles remain, but that marriage is not invalidated or weakened because someone calls two people Father or two people Mother.

We're talking past each other then. The parallel is that marriage is an exclusive term. It only includes a man and woman. It will exclude those man/man & woman/woman relationships. Franklins proposes that both types receive the same treatment, but retain different words. Just like son/daughter, father/mother.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

SSM advocates are akin to your son wanting to be called "child" only, and that your daughter be called "child" only, too. Because if you dare introduce the girl as your daughter, you are not being equal to your son.

---

I don't think so. SM advocates are saying that it's ok to call both of your parents "Father" (or "Mother"). No ones advocating calling them "Parent".

---

Father is an exclusive term. Only males fit the role. Mother is an exclusive term. Only females fit the role. I think it's unreasonable for a person to say, DUE TO THE EXCLUSIVITY OF THE WORD, that females should be allowed to be called fathers, and vice versa. Or better yet, do away with both terms and only use "parent." I think it's completely reasonable to advocate to keep the words as they are, even though we acknowledge some people will be excluded.

---

How has fatherhood not been ruined because priests are referred to as father we have father time we have stepfathers and godfathers how dare they use that exclusive term. They are ruining fatherhood. The apocalypse is near.

quote:

---

We're talking past each other then. The parallel is that marriage is an exclusive term. It only includes a man and woman. It will exclude those man/man & woman/woman relationships. Franklins proposes that both types receive the same treatment, but retain different words. Just like son/daughter, father/mother.

---

Understood. Thanks for clarifying.

I guess we're back at the "word" thing. I am still not sure why it's important. I don't buy that having "marriages" and "civil unions" will accomplish anything, and causes unnecessary confusion.

chuckd your argument only holds if everyone else accepts your presupposition that "marriage" is an exclusive term because you say it is. At least, I can't find any other reason why the definition can't be expanded if society wants to expand it. The definition of "marriage" at any point in time is determined by culture and tradition. It changes and evolves, but the anti-SSM argument appears to favor freezing it to the definition preferred by modern American evangelicals.

quote:

---

We're talking past each other then. The parallel is that marriage is an exclusive term. It only includes a man and woman. It will exclude those man/man & woman/woman relationships. Franklins proposes that both types receive the same treatment, but retain different words. Just like son/daughter, father/mother.

---

History demonstrates that the definition of marriage is neither exclusive nor static. You simply want to force your personal definition of marriage across the entire concept.

Separate but equal was ruled to not be equal. That won't change no matter how often you repeat it.

quote:

---

chuckd your argument only holds if everyone else accepts your presupposition that "marriage" is an exclusive term because you say it is. At least, I can't find any other reason why the definition can't be expanded if society wants to expand it. The definition of "marriage" at any point in time is determined by culture and tradition. It changes and evolves, but the anti-SSM argument appears to favor freezing it to the definition preferred by modern American evangelicals.

---

I believe I am a member of society with a culture and tradition in 2015. What is your definition?

quote:

---

quote:

---

chuckd your argument only holds if everyone else accepts your presupposition that "marriage" is an exclusive term because you say it is. At least, I can't find any other reason why the definition can't be expanded if society wants to expand it. The definition of "marriage" at any point in time is determined by culture and tradition. It changes and evolves, but the anti-SSM argument appears to favor freezing it to the definition preferred by modern American evangelicals.

---

I believe I am a member of society with a culture and tradition in 2015. What is your definition?

---

Based on my upbringing and religious beliefs, I think marriage is only between a jellyfish and a flounder. All humans should be excluded. This should be codified as law in order to bar any and all non-jellyfish+flounder arrangements. Unless we call them civil unions. That's okay.

quote:

---

Unless we call them civil unions.

---

Call what civil unions? And what is the definition of "civil union"?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Unless we call them civil unions.

---

Call what civil unions? And what is the definition of "civil union"?

---

Look, the point is not what the specific content of my definition or your definition or anyone else's personal definitions happen to be. The point is simply THAT there are differences in belief. Fortunately we have a judicial system whose job it is to reconcile these differences of opinion and figure out when those definitions produce violations of the U.S. Constitution. The anti-SSM faction don't generally seem to really give a rat's ass about that or playing by the processes we have to resolve questions of disputes and legal definitions.

12 pages on 3 threads over the course of 4 days. And to think I was criticized for mentioning the modern American church's apparent fixation on homosexuality a couple months ago.

Seamaster threads are like chum in the water.