Two-edged sword

[Mocca]

You would recognize the right of Person B to that job (job discrimination)

What the heck? You're "entitled" to a job? So if someone completely sucks at a job, we should give the job to him anyway, just because he or she is "entitled" to that job? *sigh* Communism much?

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

What the heck? You're "entitled" to a job? So if someone completely sucks at a job, we should give the job to him anyway, just because he or she is "entitled" to that job? *sigh* Communism much?

Yeah, I say pretty much the same thing. Almost every single employer would want to hire the best employee. But hey, it's the employer's money, why can't he hire who he wants to? Wouldn't you think that BET favors some people in hiring? No one cares about that. I don't. But what I don't see is the problem with a man hiring whoever he wants to with his money.

"Affirmative Action, policies used in the United States to increase opportunities for minorities by favoring them in hiring and promotion, college admissions, and the awarding of government contracts."

That's from encarta. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580666/Affirmative_Action.html

 

[TooCurious]

The_Horses_Boy, you keep insisting that marriage can only be the union of a man and a woman, and I don't know where you've gotten this idea. Marriage, like so many of the words and concepts in our world, has changed a great deal since it was first originated.

In the past, "marriage" was the union of a man and several women; polygamy was common practice in many cultures.

In the past, marriage was the union of a man and a female as young as fourteen, sometimes even younger.

In the past, marriage was a union formed for political or financial purposes, to unite two noble lines or to provide a means by which a man could get an heir, with the bride's family providing a financial incentive to the prospective groom in the form of a dowry. Often the bride did not meet her husband until very close to the wedding, and her opinions about the marriage were not sought.

In Western society today, the definition of the concept of marriage has been changed to exclude these things. Now monogamy is expected (and enforced by law), there is an enforcable minimum legal age of marriage, and it is the norm for marriage contracts to be formed by the two individuals to be married, and that they do so for romantic reasons. Clearly, what "marriage" is and what it is for has changed over the course of human history, so to say that its definition is set in stone or that it is not, should not, and cannot change to include homosexual unions is false.

If marriage is supposed to be about "family," homosexual couples can and do form families, so why should they be denied access to one of our society's most important legal institutions?

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

The_Horses_Boy, you keep insisting that marriage can only be the union of a man and a woman, and I don't know where you've gotten this idea. Marriage, like so many of the words and concepts in our world, has changed a great deal since it was first originated.

In the past, "marriage" was the union of a man and several women; polygamy was common practice in many cultures.

In the past, marriage was the union of a man and a female as young as fourteen, sometimes even younger.

In the past, marriage was a union formed for political or financial purposes, to unite two noble lines or to provide a means by which a man could get an heir, with the bride's family providing a financial incentive to the prospective groom in the form of a dowry. Often the bride did not meet her husband until very close to the wedding, and her opinions about the marriage were not sought.

In Western society today, the definition of the concept of marriage has been changed to exclude these things. Now monogamy is expected (and enforced by law), there is an enforcable minimum legal age of marriage, and it is the norm for marriage contracts to be formed by the two individuals to be married, and that they do so for romantic reasons. Clearly, what "marriage" is and what it is for has changed over the course of human history, so to say that its definition is set in stone or that it is not, should not, and cannot change to include homosexual unions is false.

If marriage is supposed to be about "family," homosexual couples can and do form families, so why should they be denied access to one of our society's most important legal institutions?

All of your "in the past" examples still hold one thing in common: man and woman. Polygamy: correct me if I'm wrong, but it was still a man and a woman? In most cases (respecting different religions), it the man was married to each of the women and each women to him, but the women were not married to each other. Age: in the past the life expectancy was also much different, but still man+woman. Nobility: common? It's nobility. That was the case for the few for, in case you forget, that was the case for nobles. Still, man+woman.

And, to what it is today, it is still man+woman. You're getting into the specifics: it is and always has been man+woman. When we let it change I'm going to push to be an African American.

Or is there a problem with me wanting to be what isn't?

 

[fillerbunny]

Fillerbunny, I did not say that I define homosexuality with marriage, I simply said that the marital benefits are in place for the assistance of families and their creation (the latter is done by heterosexuals).

Homosexuals are every bit as capable of creating a family as heterosexuals are.

To "say what", the basic idea is marriage is unity between man and a woman. That's just what it is.

I believe somebody else has already summed up my thoughts on this one.. so, I'll spare you the redundancy.

You want me to "accept" homosexuals,

No, that's not what I said at all. In all honesty, I could care less about whether or not homosexuals have your (or, for that matter, anyone else's) acceptance. My sole concern is civil rights.

I'm not running around in a white ghost costume with burning crosses but marriage is man+woman. Plain and simple.

In your opinion. But obviously it's not that plain and simple, as same-sex marriages are currently being performed in several locations throughout the world.

If I were to ask you to redefine African American so that I can be, you'd laugh in my face, wouldn't you?

I still don't understand your motivation with this whole "african american" thing.

Marriage is the unity of a man and a woman: in my opinion.

Yes, this is your opinion.

African Americans are Americans with African heritage (typically black): in your opinion.

Ignoring the fact that I never mentioned african americans, I don't see where opinion factors in. If you're not an american with african heritage, clearly, you're not an african american.

If we can redefine marriage to include homosexual relationships, why can't we redefine African American to include whites like me, who have no known African blood?

Marriage has been continually redefined throughout history- and it hasn't always been defined as a union of one man and one woman.

I still don't get where you are going with the african american thing.

And Fillerbunny, "those rights" were in response to what someone else said, like the right to not be afraid. And I am sincerely interested in the 1049 rights, but I can't download that document. Perhaps you could post the most important? Because there are things that I think homosexual couples deserve, such as hospital visitation rights.

I'll gladly post a condensed list later when I have more time. I didn't really expect anyone to read the other in its entirety.. I included it so people could see I wasn't simply pulling the 1,049 out of the air.

I think the problem, really, is too much government intervention, which only causes more of it.

I agree.

Personally, I believe civil marriages and religious marriages ought to be separate entities entirely. I feel this would solve a great many problems. Churces could handle religious unions, and the government could handle civil ones. Churches should by no means be forced to recognize any union that they feel goes against the tenets of their faith. They should be free to deny religious marriages on any grounds they like. However, IMO, it is wrong for the federal government to discriminate against homosexual couples on religious grounds. (I have yet to hear a compelling secular argument against same-sex marriage.)

I can understand the argument against church-sanctioned same-sex marriages. However, if the government is going to provide federal and state benefits for committed heterosexual couples, I cannot see how they can justify denying committed same-sex couples the same rights.

 

[TooCurious]

All of your "in the past" examples still hold one thing in common: man and woman. Polygamy: correct me if I'm wrong, but it was still a man and a woman? In most cases (respecting different religions), it the man was married to each of the women and each women to him, but the women were not married to each other. Age: in the past the life expectancy was also much different, but still man+woman. Nobility: common? It's nobility. That was the case for the few for, in case you forget, that was the case for nobles. Still, man+woman.

The point here is that the definition and parameters of marriage are mutable, and have changed drastically in the past. Marriage is no longer an institution wherein one spouse is the property of the other, as was the case in the past. Now, marriage is a partnership between legal equals. The take-home point here is that what marriage "is" has changed, and can change in the future.

Oh, and for another example of how marriage has changed, and what may be the most relevant example yet: In some cultures in the past, marriage was an entirely religious practice. Today in many countries, marriage can be handled solely through the secular government, without any involvement from religious authorities.

And, to what it is today, it is still man+woman. You're getting into the specifics: it is and always has been man+woman.

The problem with this assertion is a simple one: You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is." The fact that marriage "is" a certain way right now doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that this is what it should be. In most parts of America today, marriage is a legal bond between two adult humans, one of each biological sex, who wish to legally join each other in a contractual manner that is permanent until dissolved, usually for reasons of romantic love. I cannot think of any good reason to resist changing that definition to, "Marriage is a legal bond between two adult humans who wish to legally join each other in a contractual manner that is permanent until dissolved, usually for reasons of romantic love." Perhaps you can provide a good, rational reason--but it would have to be more substantive than, "But that's the way it is!"

When we let it change I'm going to push to be an African American.

This is not a fitting analogy. The purpose of the term "African American" is to identify a particular subset of the human population. The purpose of the term "marriage" is to identify a contractual relationship created by humans. It is reasonable to modify the terms of a contractual relationship, and I have already described that this has happened repeatedly in the past. It is not reasonable to modify a descriptor intended to identify a particular subset of the population, unless the population in question first becomes modified in some relevant way.

Or is there a problem with me wanting to be what isn't?

The problem is that you are trying to equate a descriptive term which applies to a specific subset of humanity with a human construct that grants access to certain civil liberties. We may associate certain civil liberties the idea of membership within a given sociocultural subset, but these are not intrinsically and legally inherent in the idea of being "African American" in the way that there are rights legally inherent in the proposition of marriage. The analogy is flawed.