Subject:
|
Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:48:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1254 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Why don’t you explain why changing the definition of marriage is a good
thing. Again I defy you to come up with an alternative definition. Nobody
will.
|
Well...
If presently: “marriage is defined as the union of one consenting adult male
and one consenting adult female”
And proposed: “marriage is defined as the union of two consenting adults”
(Assuming they’re human, US citizens is that needed?, and adult = greater
than or equal to 18 years of age)
Pros to the change: Gays may now get married (which in and of itself isn’t
terribly wonderful-- it’s more the rights that they’re entitled to after
*becoming* married that are the real pros)
Cons to the change: ?
You’ve claimed that it’s bad to change, but again, I have to ask, why? (I
think I’ve gotten to this point of the debate with you twice, but I don’t
think I’ve gotten a reply). I only see reasons TO change, and I really don’t
see any NOT to, short of irrelevant ones 1.
|
Can I assume that the main knock on defining marriage as the union of 1 woman
1 man is that it discriminates (against gays). But doesn’t your proposed
definition discriminate against polyspousewanters? Why is your
discriminating definition any better than the one already in place?
|
That’s sorta irrelevant-- As I stated elsewhere, yes, I’m all for allowing
polygamy, etc (provided some probably some other changes), and all for letting
consenting aliens get married if we find any, but that’s not the point.
The proposed definitions above *BOTH* discriminate against polygamists, and
*BOTH* discriminate against non-human beings (and arguably against children).
The difference is that ONE of them doesn’t discriminate against gays, and one of
them DOES. Hence, the one that *doesn’t* is preferable (to me). And for the sake
of this debate, those are really the two propositions we should be considering,
because that’s the issue being discussed in Massachusetts and elsewhere.
| |
| |
Are you arguing that it’s actually bad that gays are allowed to get married?
|
No. I have repeatedly stated that it is not a gay issue. What I have
said is that changing the definition will render the institution of marriage
meaningless by watering it down to become just about anything.
|
?
There’s clearly laws that govern special perks for spouses and whatnot. They’re
still in effect, and they still VERY MUCH are meaningful. I mean, heck, allowing
you to file a joint tax return for starters. Doesn’t getting married still mean
you can do that?
| |
| |
IE
that they actually shouldn’t be allowed to get inheritence, be claimed
tax-wise as spouses, get hospital visitation rights, etc? (or whatever legal
perks you get from marriage) Or are you saying that there’s some other
negative aspect to gay marriage that I’m missing?
|
I think many of these benefits issues are easily solved without messing with
the institution of marriage. Advocating the changing of the definition of
marriage merely so that one can obtain certain legal right seems to me to be
quite an obtuse way of going about it. I am not opposed to many such rights.
|
AHhhhhhhhhhhh. So you want gays to get all the same *rights* by some other means
other than by calling them “married” (IE some sort of “civil union” type deal,
whereby for all intents and purposes, “civil union”==”marriage”, it’s just
called something different)?
I guess that would be fine as far as I’m concerned-- ideally I suppose I’d
rather the government not even have anything to do with “marriage” but only
“civil unions” (call them what you will). But realistically, from the stance of
the government, I’ll bet changing the allowed participants of “marriage” is FAR
easier and more practical than changing all terminology to ‘civil partners’,
etc, and also inventing new rules regarding licenses for civil unions, which now
everyone who’s currently married would have to receive.
In light of that, I’d have to say that since people right at this moment are
being denied rights that they should be entitled to, that we opt for the change
in the definition of marriage rather than a complex, time-consuming, and costly
redesign of the legal system, for what would essentially boil down to the exact
same change as simply changing (or clarifying if you prefer :) ) the definition
of marriage.
| |
As far as other negative aspects of gay marriage, I would only include one--
child-raising. I believe that every child has the right to have a father and
a mother. They are not equal and interchangable. All things being equal,
I believe it is better for a child to grow up having a mother and a father
rather than 2 of one or the other. Again, all things being equal, 1 woman
and 1 man is the superior and ideal family-raising scenario.
|
I guess that’s a fair opinion, although it doesn’t really have any bearing on
marriage, since gays (single or coupled or whatever) can already adopt children
(or have their own from another relationship), even without being married. If
that’s your beef (and I guess I might agree with the assessment, though disagree
that it should be law), then really gay marriage isn’t what you should be
objecting to, but rather child custody laws...
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) Can I assume that the main knock on defining marriage as the union of 1 woman 1 man is that it discriminates (against gays). But doesn't your proposed definition discriminate against polyspousewanters? Why is your discriminating definition any (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
113 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
