Same sex marriage, a different perspective

[FA_Q2]

But "traditional" marriage as it's being defined isn't that old.

It is older than you are.

By the way, when did you become an expert on traditional marriage, or even tradition?

It's not older than a fair number of people living today, so to say it's something that should be frozen in time seems unusual.

?
This seems a strange statement. Marriages have been going on in this nation since before its founding AFAIK and they are not really any different than they are today.

 

[Polk]

It is older than you are.

By the way, when did you become an expert on traditional marriage, or even tradition?

It's not older than a fair number of people living today, so to say it's something that should be frozen in time seems unusual.

?
This seems a strange statement. Marriages have been going on in this nation since before its founding AFAIK and they are not really any different than they are today.

The "traditional" "definition" of marriage (one man, one woman) dates to the 1960s. Before that point, the definition was (one man, one woman, both of the same race). At various other points, it's been one man, any number of women.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But "traditional" marriage as it's being defined isn't that old.

It is older than you are.

By the way, when did you become an expert on traditional marriage, or even tradition?

It's not older than a fair number of people living today, so to say it's something that should be frozen in time seems unusual.

There are people living today that have been alive for over 500 years?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not older than a fair number of people living today, so to say it's something that should be frozen in time seems unusual.

?
This seems a strange statement. Marriages have been going on in this nation since before its founding AFAIK and they are not really any different than they are today.

The "traditional" "definition" of marriage (one man, one woman) dates to the 1960s. Before that point, the definition was (one man, one woman, both of the same race). At various other points, it's been one man, any number of women.

This has to be the most ignorant thing you have ever said, and that includes your argument that the only purpose of defensive missiles is to prevent retaliatory strikes in the event of a nuclear war.

I suggest you take the time to read Othello sometime, which is the tale of a marraige between a black man and a white woman that was written by William Shakespeare.

 

[Polk]

Such a marriage would have been considered "unnatural" in the United States as recently as the 1960s.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Such a marriage would have been considered "unnatural" in the United States as recently as the 1960s.

This is not the 1960s, what's your point?

 

[Polk]

Such a marriage would have been considered "unnatural" in the United States as recently as the 1960s.

This is not the 1960s, what's your point?

Something that has existed in various forms for thousands of years can hardly be considered to have an deep-rooted "traditional" version that's younger than the PC.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Such a marriage would have been considered "unnatural" in the United States as recently as the 1960s.

This is not the 1960s, what's your point?

Something that has existed in various forms for thousands of years can hardly be considered to have an deep-rooted "traditional" version that's younger than the PC.

Really? Are you telling me that nothing exists unless you can define it in a way you like?

 

[Polk]

Nice red herring you got there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nice red herring you got there.

It is actually a reductio ad absurdum, which means I just got your argument down to its simplest form.

 

[Liberaservative]

I believe the solution is to remove any legal advantage to traditional marriage.

And, I believe the drive to make same-sex marriage legal has more to do with forcing society to "normalize" behavior that, to many, seems aberrant, than anything else.

 

[PaulS1950]

So when your wife or child is in the hospital and 8:00 pm rolls around you will go home?
When your wife dies and half your property gets taken by her relatives - that's OK?
When your wife is in the hospital after a car accident and is the critical care unit you don't get to see her untill she is back out into a recovery room, that's OK?
When You die and it's only the wife and kids and your sister (the one you always hated) takes your kids to raise them her way, That's OK?

Those are a few of the rights that marriage protects. It isn't about money or even the property as much as it is about the union and the protection of that union to the partners within that union.

 

[Liberaservative]

So when your wife or child is in the hospital and 8:00 pm rolls around you will go home?

No. Hospital visitation can be changed to include anyone without demanding homosexual marriage.

When your wife dies and half your property gets taken by her relatives - that's OK?

That's what wills are for.

When your wife is in the hospital after a car accident and is the critical care unit you don't get to see her untill she is back out into a recovery room, that's OK?

See #1 above.

When You die and it's only the wife and kids and your sister (the one you always hated) takes your kids to raise them her way, That's OK?

See #2 above.

Those are a few of the rights that marriage protects. It isn't about money or even the property as much as it is about the union and the protection of that union to the partners within that union.

And, I say remove any connection between law and marriage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So when your wife or child is in the hospital and 8:00 pm rolls around you will go home?
When your wife dies and half your property gets taken by her relatives - that's OK?
When your wife is in the hospital after a car accident and is the critical care unit you don't get to see her untill she is back out into a recovery room, that's OK?
When You die and it's only the wife and kids and your sister (the one you always hated) takes your kids to raise them her way, That's OK?

Those are a few of the rights that marriage protects. It isn't about money or even the property as much as it is about the union and the protection of that union to the partners within that union.

Can you name a single hospital that denies anyone visitation rights simply because they are not married?

As for the rest of your post, contractual law does the same thing. It might have been nice if you actually read the OP before posting.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think this is one of the most interesting things I have ever read. It actually raises some questions I hadn't considered, and is one of the best arguments I have ever heard against men marrying men.

What Donovan, and I to an extent, are asking is why aren’t we creating and appropriating some sort of bond or union that reflects our unique relationship to one another, as two men? With of course, legal hospital visitation rights, property taxes, joint income tax relief — etc etc — that is undertaken by anyone who chooses to commit their life to one another.
Why do we have to take a tradition that’s not ours and try to appropriate it? Why not make our own? Something inspired and honored by the unique Mars/Mars combination that make up an intimate same-sex relationship. There is no woman in my relationship — yes opposites always attract — but that doesn’t make one of us the “girl.” I am a man. We are men — there is no bride. There is no wedding dress. My dad sure as hell isn’t giving me away to anyone. I choose to give my life for someone else.
Why not create something honorable, unique to our relationships with each other, that are – separate from marriages – but equal in the legal context. The problem with this whole ‘equality’ argument — is that it essentially gay sounds like spoiled brats who want something just because they can’t have it. I am gay, it is a behavioral trait — I do not choose to feel desire for men — but I do choose to act on it. And I’m good with that. I take responsibility for it. No one owes me anything. I’m not a victim. I’m not oppressed. I’m not embarrassed. I’m not “proud” because I didn’t pass any test to be into dudes. I just am.
I’m a man who loves other men.

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/05/01/guest-post-my-ever-devolving-stance-on-gay-marriage/

It’s an opinion which has nothing to do with the validity of equal protection rights for same-sex couples.

Indeed, the opinion piece goes to the fact that there is no ‘gay agenda,’ that not all homosexuals believe the same things, that homosexuals are as diverse as the population in general, including opposition to acknowledging the equal protection rights of same-sex couples, and that homosexuals can be just as wrong as others who oppose equal protection rights for same-sex couples.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think this is one of the most interesting things I have ever read. It actually raises some questions I hadn't considered, and is one of the best arguments I have ever heard against men marrying men.

What Donovan, and I to an extent, are asking is why aren’t we creating and appropriating some sort of bond or union that reflects our unique relationship to one another, as two men? With of course, legal hospital visitation rights, property taxes, joint income tax relief — etc etc — that is undertaken by anyone who chooses to commit their life to one another.
Why do we have to take a tradition that’s not ours and try to appropriate it? Why not make our own? Something inspired and honored by the unique Mars/Mars combination that make up an intimate same-sex relationship. There is no woman in my relationship — yes opposites always attract — but that doesn’t make one of us the “girl.” I am a man. We are men — there is no bride. There is no wedding dress. My dad sure as hell isn’t giving me away to anyone. I choose to give my life for someone else.
Why not create something honorable, unique to our relationships with each other, that are – separate from marriages – but equal in the legal context. The problem with this whole ‘equality’ argument — is that it essentially gay sounds like spoiled brats who want something just because they can’t have it. I am gay, it is a behavioral trait — I do not choose to feel desire for men — but I do choose to act on it. And I’m good with that. I take responsibility for it. No one owes me anything. I’m not a victim. I’m not oppressed. I’m not embarrassed. I’m not “proud” because I didn’t pass any test to be into dudes. I just am.
I’m a man who loves other men.

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/05/01/guest-post-my-ever-devolving-stance-on-gay-marriage/

It’s an opinion which has nothing to do with the validity of equal protection rights for same-sex couples.

Indeed, the opinion piece goes to the fact that there is no ‘gay agenda,’ that not all homosexuals believe the same things, that homosexuals are as diverse as the population in general, including opposition to acknowledging the equal protection rights of same-sex couples, and that homosexuals can be just as wrong as others who oppose equal protection rights for same-sex couples.

It is an opinion that did not address the validity of anything other than the opinion of a single gay man that doesn't want to get married. The only people that have a political problem with this are the ones who think the only issues are political.

 

[Polk]

Nice red herring you got there.

It is actually a reductio ad absurdum, which means I just got your argument down to its simplest form.

Except that wasn't my argument. It's an strawman you decided to attack since you didn't have a good response to the substance.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nice red herring you got there.

It is actually a reductio ad absurdum, which means I just got your argument down to its simplest form.

Except that wasn't my argument. It's an strawman you decided to attack since you didn't have a good response to the substance.

You weren't the person that argued that because interracial marriage was illegal in a couple of places a few years ago that it means that anyone talking about marriage is required to accept that only modern marriage is applicable to the discussion? You want me to go back through the thread and show where that is exactly what you did argue?

 

[Polk]

It is actually a reductio ad absurdum, which means I just got your argument down to its simplest form.

Except that wasn't my argument. It's an strawman you decided to attack since you didn't have a good response to the substance.

You weren't the person that argued that because interracial marriage was illegal in a couple of places a few years ago that it means that anyone talking about marriage is required to accept that only modern marriage is applicable to the discussion? You want me to go back through the thread and show where that is exactly what you did argue?

That's closer to the argument I made, but this is the much more extreme argument you were claiming just a moment ago:

That's a claim I never made.

My point wasn't that people are required to accept any particular definition. Gay marriage could be legal in every state and you're still free to believe gay couples aren't married (just like there are people today who don't recognize inter-faith marriages). My point was that you can't hold out your preferred definition as "traditional" when it doesn't really have any historical roots.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Except that wasn't my argument. It's an strawman you decided to attack since you didn't have a good response to the substance.

You weren't the person that argued that because interracial marriage was illegal in a couple of places a few years ago that it means that anyone talking about marriage is required to accept that only modern marriage is applicable to the discussion? You want me to go back through the thread and show where that is exactly what you did argue?

That's closer to the argument I made, but this is the much more extreme argument you were claiming just a moment ago:


That's a claim I never made.

My point wasn't that people are required to accept any particular definition. Gay marriage could be legal in every state and you're still free to believe gay couples aren't married (just like there are people today who don't recognize inter-faith marriages). My point was that you can't hold out your preferred definition as "traditional" when it doesn't really have any historical roots.

Like I said, reductio ad absurdum. That means that I reduce your argument to its most absurd example in order to prove that is is false.

Then we have the fact that you are not even addressing the point that was raised in the OP, which is why I elected to use a logical fallacy against you. If you want to actually talk about the points that were raised in the OP feel free to come back and do so. If you want to continue to pretned that this is about something else, and then accuse me of using straw man arguments, I will continue to treat your arguments with the same degree of contempt I have been using.