That is the strangest argument I've read for awhile.
If that's the definition in a lot of places then it's time we redefined it.
Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Gannicus
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
If that's the definition in a lot of places then it's time we redefined it.
I'm pretty sure there are other landmark cases that have been split decisions.
I believe marriage is inherently between a man and a woman by definition. Therefore it's incoherent to speak of same-sex marriage; that's not what marriage is. Most people posting on this topic seem to think that marriage is just a social convention adopted by society - like driving on the right, or left-hand side of the road. We could just as easily adopt the opposite side of the road as convention. Or even reverse the function of the colours of our traffic lights (go on red, stop on green).
In the words of someone much more intelligent than myself, 'I would say that marriage has always and everywhere been defined and understood to be between a man and a woman, and that, therefore, the union of two persons of the same sex, whatever you might want to call it, just isn’t marriage. It would be as if someone wanted to redefine what it means to be an heir of someone else. Suppose I say, “I want to be the heir of Bill Gates,” and someone says, “Well, you can’t be. To be an heir you have to be designated in the will. You have to be a legal designee,” and I say, “Well, no. I don’t think we should define heir that way. I think an heir can be anybody who would like to have that fortune, and so, that is the way I think an heir should be defined and therefore, I want to be an heir of Bill Gates, and I am his heir.” Well, I think you can see that is just absurd. You are just arbitrarily redefining words. That is not what they mean. Similarly, I would say the same thing for marriage."
Furthermore, the title of this thread is Gay Marriage, whereas it should really be Same-Sex Marriage since it's differentiated from 'regular' marriage through gender, and not through sexual orientation. Gay people have been perfectly free to marry - just not to members of the same gender! So opposing same-sex marriage on these grounds isn't a question of discriminating against homosexuality.
People seem to be convinced that to oppose same-sex marriage is to be intolerant, to be close minded, and to be bigoted against a certain class of people, but I disagree. Tolerance should mean, “though I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death, your right to say it.” So we tolerate people but we discriminate between views. We discriminate views as true or false though we tolerate those who advocate false views. We recognize their right to an opinion and their right to express it. But in the new tolerance, the kind of new value that has been accepted, you discriminate against people but you tolerate all views. So, that you tolerate same-sex marriage as well as traditional marriage. You tolerate all the views, but now you will discriminate, for example, against those who hold traditional views, by calling them bigots and intolerant and rejecting them and vilifying them.
And I expect my views to be tolerated
My issue is that in the US married couples get rights that people in civil unions don't get, not about what the traditional definition of marriage is.
I think the motives behind why people care so much about opposing same-sex marriage are far more compelling than the debate itself.
We had this debate in Scotland when it was passed here about 18 months ago. It ended up being quite an effective way of flushing out and exposing the bigots, many of them fairly high profile, who made an arse of themselves in the public debate.
Why? and Why not?
I see marriage just as a commitment two people make when they are deeply in love with each other. They want to have their love blessed and witnessed and they want to share it. Also, as I said before there are many benefits to being married, so it is wise to do it from a financial and security point of view.
The most common replies against same sex marriage when pushed is usually to do with sex, and two men at that. What about two women? why is that rarely mentioned? More to the point, why are same sex marriage opponents always so obsessed with the act of two men fecking? And why are gay men usually thought of as paedophiles too? The other reply you hear is because the bible says so, and to be honest that's not even worth responding to. Finally, the old chestnut of marriage and procreation comes up, so why let infertile couples get married? or old people? or disabled people without the ability to procreate? The reason of love is often completely overlooked, it's moronic at best. Also, to compare it to driving on either side of the road is flippant and missing the point.
I respect your difference of opinion, I just don't agree with it.
McUnited said:I believe marriage is inherently between a man and a woman by definition. Therefore it's incoherent to speak of same-sex marriage; that's not what marriage is. Most people posting on this topic seem to think that marriage is just a social convention adopted by society - like driving on the right, or left-hand side of the road. We could just as easily adopt the opposite side of the road as convention. Or even reverse the function of the colours of our traffic lights (go on red, stop on green).
In the words of someone much more intelligent than myself, 'I would say that marriage has always and everywhere been defined and understood to be between a man and a woman, and that, therefore, the union of two persons of the same sex, whatever you might want to call it, just isn’t marriage. It would be as if someone wanted to redefine what it means to be an heir of someone else. Suppose I say, “I want to be the heir of Bill Gates,” and someone says, “Well, you can’t be. To be an heir you have to be designated in the will. You have to be a legal designee,” and I say, “Well, no. I don’t think we should define heir that way. I think an heir can be anybody who would like to have that fortune, and so, that is the way I think an heir should be defined and therefore, I want to be an heir of Bill Gates, and I am his heir.” Well, I think you can see that is just absurd. You are just arbitrarily redefining words. That is not what they mean. Similarly, I would say the same thing for marriage."
Furthermore, the title of this thread is Gay Marriage, whereas it should really be Same-Sex Marriage since it's differentiated from 'regular' marriage through gender, and not through sexual orientation. Gay people have been perfectly free to marry - just not to members of the same gender! So opposing same-sex marriage on these grounds isn't a question of discriminating against homosexuality.
People seem to be convinced that to oppose same-sex marriage is to be intolerant, to be close minded, and to be bigoted against a certain class of people, but I disagree. Tolerance should mean, “though I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death, your right to say it.” So we tolerate people but we discriminate between views. We discriminate views as true or false though we tolerate those who advocate false views. We recognize their right to an opinion and their right to express it. But in the new tolerance, the kind of new value that has been accepted, you discriminate against people but you tolerate all views. So, that you tolerate same-sex marriage as well as traditional marriage. You tolerate all the views, but now you will discriminate, for example, against those who hold traditional views, by calling them bigots and intolerant and rejecting them and vilifying them.
And I expect my views to be tolerated
Even the etymological roots of the word 'marriage' aren't stridently unambiguous about its supposedly heterosexual nature. I suggest that the associated words 'husband' and 'wife' aren't specifically heterosexual in all-round meaning, especially given objective interpretations of those words. And in any case, why get caught up in rather pointless definitions, seeing that language is fluid and ever-changing...unless one wants to use mere pedantry and the assumed authority of tradition (both secular, legal and religious) to obscure one's true position: either bigotry or insensitivity?
Last edited:
@Gannicus
The Indian SC heard a challenge to a colonial-era law criminalizing homosexuality. In the high court the law had been struck down. Everybody expected our SC, which is both quite liberal and also very interventionist and assertive to do the same.
1. Interventionist -- Our constitution has a unique feature called directive principles and they have made many of these rulings possible. Public Interest Litigation is HUGE, and is very often used to compel the government to do something. This was the landmark case that started it all:
2. Assertive: The court made a series of rulings which reduced the power of the government to make constitutional amendments (basic structure doctrine) and most importantly and controversially removed the government from the appointing of SC judges. New SC judges are appointed by a collegium consisting of senior judges of the current SC. Our newly elected government has seen court rulings (1, 2, 3) repeatedly embarrass the previous govt and has also got a few adverse rulings (1, 2) in their first year of power...so they have moved a bill which would give them a say in appointing judges, again. It's being challenged in court.
3. Liberal: the court has recently given transgenders status as a third gender and has included them in the Indian equivalent of a protected class. It struck down a draconian provision which made it illegal to post anything 'offensive' on the internet. It declared illegal a brutal militia the govt was using in tribal areas.
Given this recent history, it was supposed to be a foregone conclusion that homosexuality would be decriminalised. But a 2-judge bench uncharacteristically said that the SC does not have the power to strike it down, considering it a law like any other which would have to be removed in parliament itself. Here is an article by a engineering student with no legal training picking holes in that judgement. One of the judges retired the day he wrote the verdict, it was all very mysterious. The SC is hearing a review petition now.
Let's hope the US SC does not spring an unpleasant surprise like ours did.
The Indian SC heard a challenge to a colonial-era law criminalizing homosexuality. In the high court the law had been struck down. Everybody expected our SC, which is both quite liberal and also very interventionist and assertive to do the same.
1. Interventionist -- Our constitution has a unique feature called directive principles and they have made many of these rulings possible. Public Interest Litigation is HUGE, and is very often used to compel the government to do something. This was the landmark case that started it all:
HELD: 1:6. The time has now come when the courts must become the courts for the poor and struggling masses of this country. They must shed their character as upholders of the established order and the status quo. They must be sensitised to the need of doing justice to the large masses of people to whom justice has been denied by a cruel and heartless society for generations. The realisation must come to them that social justice is the signature tune of our Constitution and it is their solemn duty under the Constitution to enforce the basic human rights of the poor and vulnerable sections of the community and actively help in the realisation of the constitutional goals. This new change has to come if the judicial system is to become an effective instrument of social justice for without it, it cannot survive for long. Fortunately this change is gradually taking place and public interest litigation is playing a large part in bringing about this change. It is through public interest litigation that the problems of the poor are now coming to the forefront and the entire theatre of the law is changing. It holds out great possibilities for the future. This writ petition is one such instance of public interest litigation.
4.2 Having regard to the peculiar socio economic conditions prevailing in the country where there is considerable poverty, illiteracy and ignorance obstructing and impeding accessibility to the judicial process, it would result in closing the doors of justice to the poor and deprived sections of the community if the traditional rule of standing evolved by Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence that only a person wronged can sue for judicial redress were to be blindly adhered to and followed, and it is therefore necessary to evolve a new strategy by relaxing this traditional rule of standing in order that justice may become easily available to the lowly and the lost.
More recently, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest_litigation_in_India#Further_considerations
4.2 Having regard to the peculiar socio economic conditions prevailing in the country where there is considerable poverty, illiteracy and ignorance obstructing and impeding accessibility to the judicial process, it would result in closing the doors of justice to the poor and deprived sections of the community if the traditional rule of standing evolved by Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence that only a person wronged can sue for judicial redress were to be blindly adhered to and followed, and it is therefore necessary to evolve a new strategy by relaxing this traditional rule of standing in order that justice may become easily available to the lowly and the lost.
More recently, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest_litigation_in_India#Further_considerations
2. Assertive: The court made a series of rulings which reduced the power of the government to make constitutional amendments (basic structure doctrine) and most importantly and controversially removed the government from the appointing of SC judges. New SC judges are appointed by a collegium consisting of senior judges of the current SC. Our newly elected government has seen court rulings (1, 2, 3) repeatedly embarrass the previous govt and has also got a few adverse rulings (1, 2) in their first year of power...so they have moved a bill which would give them a say in appointing judges, again. It's being challenged in court.
3. Liberal: the court has recently given transgenders status as a third gender and has included them in the Indian equivalent of a protected class. It struck down a draconian provision which made it illegal to post anything 'offensive' on the internet. It declared illegal a brutal militia the govt was using in tribal areas.
Given this recent history, it was supposed to be a foregone conclusion that homosexuality would be decriminalised. But a 2-judge bench uncharacteristically said that the SC does not have the power to strike it down, considering it a law like any other which would have to be removed in parliament itself. Here is an article by a engineering student with no legal training picking holes in that judgement. One of the judges retired the day he wrote the verdict, it was all very mysterious. The SC is hearing a review petition now.
Let's hope the US SC does not spring an unpleasant surprise like ours did.
It is a simple matter of legal and moral equality. What is there to object about with that?
Plus since I doubt any priest, church or religion will be forced to marry anyone in the religious sense that they don't want to all we are really talking about is making the civil marriage the same for all. So WTF is the fuss about?
Plus since I doubt any priest, church or religion will be forced to marry anyone in the religious sense that they don't want to all we are really talking about is making the civil marriage the same for all. So WTF is the fuss about?
I don't because it is an archaic view informed by bigotry (and no I'm not calling the OP a bigot, I'm saying the religious view comes from a bigoted origin).
There's not even been anyone really high-profile here in Ireland that's come out against it, at least not that I'm aware of. Mainly just a load of campaign posters that go beyond just saying "Vote No", and instead manage to spread non-sense arguments that have managed to offend not just the Gay community, but single parents too.
There's been quite some activity in response to my previous post! Thank you to all those who took the time to articulate intelligent and thoughtful post. There's also been a considerable number of posters (e.g. Alex 99, Silva, Eboue, ThierryHenry) who have resorted to ridicule and cheap shots in place of a good argument. Reading some of your spiteful posts, it seems to me that some self-reflection about exactly what it means to be a bigot may be in order...
Let's be clear about one thing. I have nothing against gay people. In fact, some of the people I most admire in the world are gay. To say one is against gay marriage is not to say one is against gay people; this is a simple point that appears to confuse some people. And I'd reiterate that the term should be same-sex marriage, not gay marriage, because marriage is blind to one's sexuality - no-one is asked whether they are homosexual or heterosexual before they take their vows.
For almost 2000 years, the position that Western Society has held is that marriage is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman, for the purpose of mutual companionship, the good of society, and the procreation and upbringing of children. Just because I continue to hold to that view shouldn't be reason to be called 'archaic' or 'bigoted'.
For almost 2000 years, the position that Western Society has held is that marriage is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman, for the purpose of mutual companionship, the good of society, and the procreation and upbringing of children. Just because I continue to hold to that view shouldn't be reason to be called 'archaic' or 'bigoted'.
Really? I didn't call you bigoted despite the fact that you clearly are. Instead I addressed your points, both the (horrible) analogy and the theory that marriage has been one man and one woman in an unbroken chain since Adam and Eve. Clearly I gave you far more credit than you deserve. If you want people to take you seriously, make posts that don't have logical flaws a child could pick out. Moreover, if you want a debate, debate and stop crying.
One argument that has appeared several times in this thread goes along the line that marriage should be allowed between two loving, consenting adults.
My counter-argument would be that this does not exclude the possibility of someone marrying their own brother, son, daughter, grandmother, or any closely-related family member. Secondly, why should marriage be limited to two people. Why not reintroduce polygamy?
My counter-argument would be that this does not exclude the possibility of someone marrying their own brother, son, daughter, grandmother, or any closely-related family member. Secondly, why should marriage be limited to two people. Why not reintroduce polygamy?
If marriage is about the procreation of children then should straight couples who can't have children or who have no intention of having any be allowed to marry?
This is simply not true. I addressed it once and you ignored it. Less than 50 years ago, interracial marriage was illegal in the United States. For hundreds of years, marriage between a man and a young girl (younger than a woman) was common place. Polygamy played a prominent role in some western religions. The definition of marriage has changed several times in western society.
Marriage is also not just for procreation, which is the reason we don't dissolve the marriages of old or infertile people.
I'm afraid I don't feel the force of your arguments, and your tone is clearly one that doesn't encourage engagement.
I don't have a problem with incest being decriminalized. It's very rare that somebody would want to marry a close relative amd there's no real reason to disallow it other than it being a social taboo. Let me be clear that ages of consent are still in force and grooming before sexual contact is something that should be punished too.
It hasn't, you're chatting shit again.
I addressed this too. Polygamy has negative societal influences (power imbalances and negative effects on children) that gay marriages have not been shown to have. Maybe you should re read the thread instead of trying to be the victim.
No, Marriage is the medium in which children should be created. It doesn't therefore follow that you can't be married if you don't want/can't have children.
Did you just compare the effects of homosexual marriage with inbreeding?
Do we even actually prosecute people for it?
So you don't actually want to debate. You want us to treat your factually incorrect views as equal to things that don't have logical flaws and then you want to complain when anyone dares engage you.
I agree with all this!
But I'm still not feeling the force of your arguments.
1) All the examples you cite are of man marrying a woman (or several women).
2) Marriage is the medium in which children should be created. It doesn't therefore follow that you can't be married if you don't want/can't have children.
I am against Homosexuals getting married in church for religious reasons, however I have no problem with them getting married legally.
I'm sorry, Silva. This sort of post doesn't contribute anything to a discussion.
Ridicule and insults don't convince people of anything. Good arguments convince reasonable people.
You said marriage is a commitment for:
1. Mutual companionship
2. The good of society
3. Procreation
So are you now saying only 2 of these things are required for a marriage? And if we remove procreation as you are happy to do for infertile heterosexuals, which of the first two do gay people not meet?
And then there's all the marriages which are just for gain, marriages to stop warring factions, marriages born out of sheer boredom, marriages because people felt they had to. And the list is endless. Not all marriage are the same and not all reasons to marry are to do with procreation.
I'm quite happy to debate anyone who can articulate their disagreements respectfully. I don't recall complaining about people engaging me - I merely pointed out the manner in which some people have done so.
You still haven't answered the first questions you were asked by more than one person. Who defined marriage?
You've summarised my previous post incorrectly - it should include:
0. Between a man and woman.
And two gay people would not therefore qualify.
So 1-3 are just meaningless "bonuses" then and are not essential?
According to who?
Doesn't help when you defer to the 'intelligence' of a man who thinks their very existence is immoral.
I'm not sure what relevance that has. Why does it matter who defined marriage?
When discussing gun control, for example, would you ask 'Who defined gun? Who defined control?'
No. Because that would be idiotic. Who defined marriage?
I'm afraid I haven't listened to the video you quote, but from what I've heard him say previously I think you're misrepresenting his views.
As far as I understand, he says he doesn't think being homosexual is in itself immoral. But he says that to engage in homosexuality is immoral.
Something like that!
@berbatrick
Thank you for the info on India. There's something odd about the judicial procedure you described. Hopefully this gets sorted out soon.
The SCOTUS has a few options, but just a few. It could find that the equal protection clause prohibits a form of legal contract that is limited to opposite sex parties. After all, "marriage" at its root is a legal contract. It is not "sacred", at least not in the eyes of the law. And marriages can be and often are ended, just like contracts. The court could find that special circumstances are associated with this particular form of contract such that it is "inherently" absurd to invalidate laws that limit marriage to opposite sex couples. This would be the @McUnited argument, I suspect.
I don't think Kennedy will fall for the "customs and traditions" argument, though I suspect Scalia and Thomas will. If we were to slavishly follow "customs and traditions" we'd still ban interracial marriage. Jim Crow had a century of "tradition" but we put an end that, thankfully.
Scalia is a crabbed "originalist", though he does sometimes gets it right, as he did in the flag burning case in the early 1990s. But Thomas is the one who distresses me the most, as he relies on a unique theory of originalism that should, rationally, lead him to the observation that the views of Founders of the 14th Amendment are entitled to the exact same philosophical standing as the Founders of the original Constituion and the Bill of Rights. It is almost entirely true to state that prior to the 14th Amendment the Bill of Rights was a paper tiger. It's too late for Thomas to understand this, but I hope a new generation of conservative scholars will come to see the equal protection clause, as well as the incorporation doctrine, as a vital improvement of the great work of the Founding era. A Reagan appointee and law school professor from California, sees this.
Thank you for the info on India. There's something odd about the judicial procedure you described. Hopefully this gets sorted out soon.
The SCOTUS has a few options, but just a few. It could find that the equal protection clause prohibits a form of legal contract that is limited to opposite sex parties. After all, "marriage" at its root is a legal contract. It is not "sacred", at least not in the eyes of the law. And marriages can be and often are ended, just like contracts. The court could find that special circumstances are associated with this particular form of contract such that it is "inherently" absurd to invalidate laws that limit marriage to opposite sex couples. This would be the @McUnited argument, I suspect.
I don't think Kennedy will fall for the "customs and traditions" argument, though I suspect Scalia and Thomas will. If we were to slavishly follow "customs and traditions" we'd still ban interracial marriage. Jim Crow had a century of "tradition" but we put an end that, thankfully.
Scalia is a crabbed "originalist", though he does sometimes gets it right, as he did in the flag burning case in the early 1990s. But Thomas is the one who distresses me the most, as he relies on a unique theory of originalism that should, rationally, lead him to the observation that the views of Founders of the 14th Amendment are entitled to the exact same philosophical standing as the Founders of the original Constituion and the Bill of Rights. It is almost entirely true to state that prior to the 14th Amendment the Bill of Rights was a paper tiger. It's too late for Thomas to understand this, but I hope a new generation of conservative scholars will come to see the equal protection clause, as well as the incorporation doctrine, as a vital improvement of the great work of the Founding era. A Reagan appointee and law school professor from California, sees this.