- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Marriage Equality Argument - Pretty good point
Posted on 7/29/14 at 11:29 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Posted on 7/29/14 at 11:29 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
You really don't understand. That's the funny thing.
Let's use your example of interracial marriage.
White man can't be in an interracial marriage.
Black man can't.
White woman can't.
Black woman can't.
Which means that no one os being discriminated against because all have the same rights. And those rights are they Can marry an opposite sex equal race.
Let's use this example.
You can't cook meth because the law won't allow it.
I can't cook meth because the law won't allow it.
Neither of us is discriminated against because the law treats is the same.
THE ENTIRE VIDEO IS BASED ON HOW SOMETHING IS DEFINED. WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THAT DEFINITION DOES NOT MATTER BECAUSE THATS HOW THE LAW DEFINES IT. The point of the video wasn't the guy trying to steal rights from the gay guy it was about how a word is defined
Change the definition or change the tax law. Those are the options. Arguing over if you are married at the current stage is pointless.
Let's use your example of interracial marriage.
White man can't be in an interracial marriage.
Black man can't.
White woman can't.
Black woman can't.
Which means that no one os being discriminated against because all have the same rights. And those rights are they Can marry an opposite sex equal race.
Let's use this example.
You can't cook meth because the law won't allow it.
I can't cook meth because the law won't allow it.
Neither of us is discriminated against because the law treats is the same.
THE ENTIRE VIDEO IS BASED ON HOW SOMETHING IS DEFINED. WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THAT DEFINITION DOES NOT MATTER BECAUSE THATS HOW THE LAW DEFINES IT. The point of the video wasn't the guy trying to steal rights from the gay guy it was about how a word is defined
Change the definition or change the tax law. Those are the options. Arguing over if you are married at the current stage is pointless.
0
Posted on 7/29/14 at 11:53 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
Toddy, I know you mean that with the utmost of sincerity. But you are wrong. It has not been defined over and over again. That is simply a talking point offered by those in your position.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 12:42 am to The Eric
quote:
Not at all the same.
A gay man can get married. But it must be to a woman.
Even a straight man cannot marry another man. Because it's against the currently used definition of marriage.
So everyone has the same rights and same barriers
Another way to view this would be that a straight person can marry the person he loves, but a gay person can't.
Posters are literally arguing semantics while ignoring the real effects of gay marriage bans on the lives of real people. With gay marriage legal in several states and countries, we know for a fact that society doesn't collapse once homosexuals can marry and none of the slippery slope arguments hold any water. There is literally no harm to society from allowing gay couples the same privileges as straight couples, so why should the government continue treating them as second class citizens?
Posted on 7/30/14 at 1:57 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Anderson employs a very similar argument that people did when slaves were claiming they were being denied rights.
Just substitute "personhood" with "marriage". "Well Mr. Slave, you are not being denied rights because you are not a person".
Or woman
"Well Mrs. Suffragette, you are not being denied rights because voting is reserved for men"
Not exactly. Anderson said there is a clearly defined and established legal/cultural/societal institution called marriage. The person at the microphone was, by definition, ineligible to participate in marriage and was not, by definition, seeking participation in it.
In your suffragette example, she is asking to be allowed to participate in voting by expanding the gender qualifier to include females. She is not asking that voting become something other than one person casting a vote.
Marriage at its core, as Anderson appreciates it, is defined solely by gender (male and female) and number of participants (two, one of each gender)). Age, race and mental health are peripheral qualifiers. It is in the qualifiers where debate and legislation may effect change, not in its essentials.
This is what I believe Anderson is arguing.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 8:06 am to Mr. Misanthrope
HailtoMichigan doesn't always make good arguments or analogies, but this time he did, and you don't seem to grasp it. The POINT is that we are not logically bound to any traditional legal definition of marriage. Marriage has always been what we say it is, and will ALWAYS be what we say it is. It's not some immutable object like a rock.
The current arrangement is discriminatory within Anderson's definition even though he protests that his definition excludes it. He makes no sense.
The current arrangement is discriminatory within Anderson's definition even though he protests that his definition excludes it. He makes no sense.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 8:09 am to Rex
quote:When has marriage, in all of history, ever been represented as anything other than a man to a woman or women?
Marriage has always been what we say it is, and will ALWAYS be what we say it is. It's not some immutable object like a rock.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 8:24 am to dante
I watched the video. I saw a gay man who was unable to adjust his questions go against a very intelligent well prepared speaker.
It really wasn't a fair way to judge the discussion.
That video was just an example of how an intelligent, well prepared debater in the wrong can easily handle an ill prepared emotional person arguing on the right side of things.
I am and have been for a long time a supporter of gay marriage. And honestly the guy at the podium really seemed like a reasonable guy making a reasonable argument because the guy asking the questions was rather inept. Someone skilled would have made the guy at the podium look foolish.
It really wasn't a fair way to judge the discussion.
That video was just an example of how an intelligent, well prepared debater in the wrong can easily handle an ill prepared emotional person arguing on the right side of things.
I am and have been for a long time a supporter of gay marriage. And honestly the guy at the podium really seemed like a reasonable guy making a reasonable argument because the guy asking the questions was rather inept. Someone skilled would have made the guy at the podium look foolish.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 8:41 am to dante
quote:
When has marriage, in all of history, ever been represented as anything other than a man to a woman or women?
Half the civilized world now recognizes same sex marriages as do several mainstream religious denominations. That train has left the station. Find another argument.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 8:44 am to thetempleowl
quote:
And honestly the guy at the podium really seemed like a reasonable guy making a reasonable argument
Not when the first words out of his mouth were thruple and quartet. I fully expected bestiality and pedophilia to be next.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 8:51 am to dante
Marriage has always been what society wished it to be. It was not valid in some cultures, for example, to men and women slaves.
Be that as it may, your argument seems to be that we should use laws to protect words instead of people. Alas, a dictionary evolves within its culture. As do laws.
Be that as it may, your argument seems to be that we should use laws to protect words instead of people. Alas, a dictionary evolves within its culture. As do laws.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 8:58 am to Layabout
Mr. Anderson's argument was incoherent. He first used potential discrimination against thruples and quartets as a rationale for abiding current discrimination against gay couples, then switched horses in the middle of the stream to deny that discrimination even exists.
I disagree with a previous poster who evaluated him as "very intelligent". I would have tied that specious bigot into knots.
I disagree with a previous poster who evaluated him as "very intelligent". I would have tied that specious bigot into knots.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 8:59 am to Layabout
quote:
Not when the first words out of his mouth were thruple and quartet. I fully expected bestiality and pedophilia to be next.
If we say marriage needs to be redefined, then it is a valid question to ask to what degree it is redefined. That is the only point he was making. It is a valid distinction.
Marriage redefined - what does it look like? Rex has pointed out (and I think it is a valid argument) that society redefines the construct. What does the new construct look like?
And an additional thought (which is nested in the first), what is the actual point of marriage? Why was the tax code (which seems to be an important part of this discussion) written to provide married couples this benefit. Was it not an incentive?
Again, these are fair questions.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 9:11 am to Rex
I am glad you mentioned slaves. I hope you don't mind if I use some of your wording.
"Slavery has always been what society wished it to be. It was not valid in some cultures."
The definition of slavery hasn't changed, only the laws regarding the legality of it.
In the case of "marriage" some laws have changed regarding the legality "same sex marriage" but to do so is to also change the definition of marriage. Why is "civil union" not good enough?
If the non-heterosexuals have two words to refer to themselves as(gay or lesbian), why can't we have to words to describe a contract between 2 consenting adults.
Marriage for a man and woman
Civil union for same sex partners.
"Slavery has always been what society wished it to be. It was not valid in some cultures."
The definition of slavery hasn't changed, only the laws regarding the legality of it.
In the case of "marriage" some laws have changed regarding the legality "same sex marriage" but to do so is to also change the definition of marriage. Why is "civil union" not good enough?
If the non-heterosexuals have two words to refer to themselves as(gay or lesbian), why can't we have to words to describe a contract between 2 consenting adults.
Marriage for a man and woman
Civil union for same sex partners.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 9:18 am to Toddy
quote:
When exactly was it defined? The definition of marriage has continuously changed throughout the course of human history.
It was defined in this country by scientific evidence that it is the best thing for the population to have a man and women have children and raise them. A man and woman are scientifically required.
Many things are decided are best for society by liberals and conservatives. Checkpoints for cars, smoking is bad, etc...
FWIW, I am for government getting out of marriage totally. No one should get better benefits because they are married. A single person shouldn't be discriminated against. It should be contract law related.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 9:21 am to Rex
quote:
Marriage has always been what society wished it to be
Exactly. Society used to need children which scientifically requires a man and woman. Plus, Married families have more successful children and families.
It is what is best for society. I don't care one way or the other but this is how society used to think.
Posted on 7/30/14 at 10:55 am to lsu13lsu
Those wishing to see "marriage equality" should define marriage, themselves, because depending on who you talk to, it is a moving target.
Is it "two people who love each other"? Is it "two or more consenting adults"? Can such a union exist between a person and a non-person? Can it exist with more than two parties? Can it exist between two children, or one child and one adult? Can it exist between siblings or immediate family members (mother to son, grandmother to granddaughter)?
What is the definition and what (if any) are the conditions for it? Or, is it any "loving union" between any number of people without condition? Because if that is the definition, then it dilutes the idea completely.
Is it "two people who love each other"? Is it "two or more consenting adults"? Can such a union exist between a person and a non-person? Can it exist with more than two parties? Can it exist between two children, or one child and one adult? Can it exist between siblings or immediate family members (mother to son, grandmother to granddaughter)?
What is the definition and what (if any) are the conditions for it? Or, is it any "loving union" between any number of people without condition? Because if that is the definition, then it dilutes the idea completely.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News