I don't see how "changing your interpretation" of something is demonstrably different from changing the definition. Also, I have stressed many times that I do, in fact, believe homosexual "unions" would be a good way of dealing with things, at least for now, until the issue is more solidly sorted in the minds of the people. I do not, however, see the insistence on gay marriage being the exact same thing, nor do I see it as a healthy thing to simply declare a civil rights issue here.
A. What is the difference then, between calling such unions "marriages" and calling them "civil unions"
B. How is whether or not to allow people access to equal rights NOT a civil rights issue?
No, you absolutely did not. Where is the evidence that you have looked into, much less even really care about, the issue of damage possibly done to existing institutions, laws, customs, etc? The devastation of single parent homes in this country is now incontrovertible, and yet there are still liberals out there saying we actually have not gone far enough in undermining marriage. There was a thread about this here not long ago as well. Something along the lines of, "Is Marriage Fundamentally Sexist?" or some such.
Huh?
Well I think I did... I gave a reason I think gay marriage would be good, and I stated I don't think it will have any negatives. I don't wish to derail the thread, but who is actually trying to undermine marriage? How is ENLARGING the number of people who can and will get married going to undermine it? In what possible way do you see single parent familys as being analogous with homosexual couples?
You don't seem to care at all about anything except the political angle strictly from the far left, anyone-who-disagrees-is-a-homophobe, absolutist and self righteous insistence that this is all self evident and anyone who says otherwise is a bigot, though thankfully most of you have stopped spouting the word "bigot" every other post.
Is that "you" in the generalist sense, or directed at me personally? Because I certainly don't think I am a member of the far left. I am a political and military conservative, an "paleo-conservative" some would say. I am not advocating anything particularly leftist. Allowing homosexuals to marry is essentially a LIBERTARIAN (see Far Right) position.
I really do appreciate that, and I am not being sarcastic. It just utterly undermined any attempt at real discussion. But no, I do not see a cogent argument in favor of gay marriage in the relation of two individual legal hiccups that would probably already be changed if the gay community and their leftist supporters would stop antagonizing the whole rest of the country concerning gay marriage.
If gays stopped agitating for change, you really think they would suddenly start getting equal treatment? Sadly, history shows that, um, well this is never the case. Honestly, I'm doing my best here, but I can't honestly think of a single example were a group has improved their status and been given access to equal rights through quietly waiting for change to happen.
Answers.com? There are no primary sources here at all. The third link was the most interesting read, but again, no sources. Wikipedia gives a single reference to the assertion, which is to a psychology today article.
The Bible itself contradicts the idea that love had nothing to do with marriage by including the concept in virtually every tale where marriage is a significant portion of the story, right up to including the love David bore Bathsheba. The child they had together, Solomon, eventually inherited his throne despite the judgment God visited on David for the evil of his actions in having her husband left to die in battle.
2 Sam 12:24
24 And David comforted Bath-sheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon : and the LORD loved him.
KJV
I thought the third article was best too. I'm not saying that love NEVER occured/s in an aranged marriage, the position is that in arranged marriages, love is seen as, at best, a desirable extra, but not fundamentally important to the contract.
Literature from the Middle Ages does not support the utter demise of romance either. I imagine the vast majority of fathers also had at least some concern for their daughters' happiness, and took that into account when arranging marriages. Also, frankly, peasants made up the majority of people in those times and suprisingly little is known of their marriage habits, or was the last I checked. I doubt seriously bloodlines or inheritances were high on their list of things to consider.
The middle ages are not your friend here. Consider the ideal of "courtly love", which was considered the highest form of "true" love during the middle ages... which was considered possible ONLY between a married woman and a bachelor, and hinged on the presumed fact that she was not in love with her husband.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_love
None of this is to say that love never occured in marriage. Nor does it posit that the father of the bride did not have her best interests at heart. However, in times past, love was not considered as important to the brides best interests as, say, having a wealthy husband with a politically stable position.
I doubt seriously bloodlines or inheritances were high on their list of things to consider.
Then you need to research more. Any objective reading of the pentaeuch's teaching on marriage shows it to be a textbook on ensuring the purity of bloodlines in a pre contraception society.
Tell me, are you being picky about citations because you are interested in learning, or because you really don't want to believe what I'm telling you?
Because in all cases, the relationship is different. Economically, physically, culturally, socially, the relationship between a man and a woman is different from that of gay men or lesbians. And the concerns are not universally only for gays. You still have presented no argument FOR gay marriage. You have merely implied that there is something odd about opposing it despite the fact that it barely exists in history.
So what if it barely exists in history? Universal literacy, universal suffrage and universal emancipation are virtually unkonwn to history, yet I assume you don't oppose them? Just saying "its always been that way" is not, in itself, sufficient arguement.
You said I had not presented any argument for gay marriage. I say I have, but I'll try to clarify
1. Most important, gays WANT to be married. I believe denying people the personal freedom to do what they want is abhorent without a darn good reason
2. Homosexuals are currently being denied benefits and protections that they would recieve if they were recognised as married, for example, my friends posting issue, your hospital visitation issue, and other similar ones, like right to superannuation, rights to protection in event of divorce, sick leave, parental leave and bereavment leave, the list goes on. These people put the same work and effort into their relationships as heterosexuals are assumed to do, they should have the same protections and benefits.
Other than the liklihood of naturally concieved children (and thats not an absolute) how is a gay marriage like relationship different to a heterosexual marriage like relationship? Specifics please?
Originally Posted by
LightHorseman
You percieve universal emancipation to be a "compromise"?
Go a little further back.
Why? You don't approve of the end result? You were saying that compromise is good enough to resolve issues... well, how about slavery? How about women's suffrage? Would compromise have been sufficient in those areas?
