Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Gay community apologizes to Amy Koch for ruining her marriage (Page 11)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 20 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  18  19  20   
Author Topic: Gay community apologizes to Amy Koch for ruining her marriage
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wayward, did you just concede that the purpose of the SSM movement is to change the language in order.to control.people's beliefs?
Laws cannot control people's beliefs. For instance, Fundamentalist LDS believe polygamy is right, even though it is not legal.

But laws do control how people treat each other. Two people moving in with each other can be treated as a non-couple if they are not married. They cannot if they are married. "Marriage" implies a societal unit, defined by law--actual, acknowledged, legitimate.

Posts: 7976 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Laws cannot control people's beliefs. For instance, Fundamentalist LDS believe polygamy is right, even though it is not legal.

But laws do control how people treat each other. Two people moving in with each other can be treated as a non-couple if they are not married. They cannot if they are married. "Marriage" implies a societal unit, defined by law--actual, acknowledged, legitimate.

I think you guys are really showing your rears here.

You acknowlege that the law does not always dictate morality.
1. I understand that some laws currently do not recognise homosexual unions as marriage. This does not effect the belief held by some that they SHOULD be recognised. Thus, just because the law says that these marriages are not legitimate, does not effect your belief that they ARE legitimate.
2. If homosexual marriages are recognized by law, then the belief that they SHOULD NOT, and ARE NOT valid marriages that are held by some individuals will not be effected. The fact that abortion was legalized did not legitimize the act in the minds of some.
3. Legalization of gay marriages will legalize, but will not legitimize, at least in the minds of those who do not believe that it is right. The only way the treatment of gays will be changed is in legal matters. That is a victory, and an important one. But if you are seeking something more then that, I think you are mistaken in the effects such a victory will have.

Posts: 2973 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
he only way the treatment of gays will be changed is in legal matters.
And that's all that really matters so far as the legal issue matters. Individual acceptance will come or not over time, but that's an individual matter. No one has to personally accept to not accept it,; the law just should be moved to a neutral position that allows for the greatest freedom for self determination and parallelism of beliefs, rather than pushing an explicit stance.
Posts: 9490 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let me just state that I, for one, am not "seeking something more than" simple legal legitimization. Heck, I suggested that civil unions be defined as being exactly like marriage (less any legitimate differences) before Pete took that stance. I would certainly accept civil unions in lieu of marriage for single-sex couples.

However, I believe that legitimacy is one of the things that advocates are looking for. When people say "marriage," they think of the sacred institution that has been recognized by society for centuries. There is something more meaningful to say that you are "married" over "we have a civil union," even if the terms mean exactly the same legalistically.

Now, we may disagree over whether marriage should include same-sex couples. Personally, I see no harm in it. But the term still has emotional power. And I do believe those most committed to establishing SSM want that emotional power applied to their unions, too.

Posts: 7976 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK. Thank you Pyr and Wayward.

I think the extra meaning that will be derived from "we are married" as opposed to "we are (what? civilly unioned? ridiculous)" will mostly be derived BY gay couples.

Posts: 2973 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Legalization of gay marriages will legalize, but will not legitimize, at least in the minds of those who do not believe that it is right.
And yet Pete's entire argument against it is based on the presumption that it will.
Posts: 20829 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you suggesting that changes in law will have no effect on the universality of the related ideas or language, Tom?

I think it is quite evident that 'what is legal' absolutely affects what many people understand to be 'right' (to the point of conflating the two). It is also clear that language changes are not just the effects of changes in ideas, but that evolutionary changes in language also affect the how we think about certain ideas.

Basically, there is a feedback loop between laws, language, ideas, social mores, etc., that is just too easy to ignore. Whether the effects of the loop are perceptible in this case is the question.

Posts: 10236 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Let me just state that I, for one, am not "seeking something more than" simple legal legitimization. Heck, I suggested that civil unions be defined as being exactly like marriage (less any legitimate differences) before Pete took that stance. I would certainly accept civil unions in lieu of marriage for single-sex couples.

However, I believe that legitimacy is one of the things that advocates are looking for.

Thank you an excellent answer to my question about your position. I apologize for posing it in a way that sounded accusatory.

Would it be fair to rephrase:

You support ssm as a road to equality, but not necessarily the only road there.

You think that legitimization of same-sex couples is a worthy goal;

however, you don't support legal ssm as a vehicle to enforce cultural legitimization;

nevertheless you recognize that use of legal ssm to enforce cultural legitimization is probably the agenda for *some* ssm supporters.

If that's your position, then I respect it; if I have misunderstood you, please correct me.

Posts: 40796 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you suggesting that changes in law will have no effect on the universality of the related ideas or language, Tom?
Me? Absolutely not. I've been up-front about my belief that the use of the term "marriage" for legally-recognized same-sex unions is all about legitimizing and de-stigmatizing same-sex unions.
Posts: 20829 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:


However, I believe that legitimacy is one of the things that advocates are looking for. When people say "marriage," they think of the sacred institution that has been recognized by society for centuries. There is something more meaningful to say that you are "married" over "we have a civil union," even if the terms mean exactly the same legalistically.

There's nothing to stop a same-sex couple from saying that they are married. Or Dennis Rodman, for that matter. I recognize that through such usage, the term marriage could very easily come to actually evolve to signify to most folks, a lifelong union between any two persons. That would remove that objection of mine, since the law would not be used as a vehicle for cultural coercion.
Posts: 40796 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would agree with your summary of my position, Pete, with one minor expansion.

Although I do believe that some intend that the legalization of SSM would enforce a cultural legitimization of SSM, I would point out that this is an unintended consequence of legalization, too (even if it is intended [Smile] ). Any legalization implies that the action is also legitimate. So while some may advocate for SSM to enforce their beliefs, others may do so simply for the legal benefits (which may be difficult to achieve with civil unions, because of the old "seperate but equal" problems).

Posts: 7976 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Legalization of gay marriages will legalize, but will not legitimize, at least in the minds of those who do not believe that it is right.
And yet Pete's entire argument against it is based on the presumption that it will.
No, it's not.

When did I ever say that legitimization of same-sex couples was a problem?

Posts: 40796 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, that's absolutely at the core of your objection. It's just that you and I are defining "legitimization" differently. [Smile]
Posts: 20829 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you want to state the "heart" of my objection, you might want to do it in a form that I could recognize.

Unless "legitimize" means to you that one must obliterate all competing or alternate visions, then I have no bleeding idea how you construe that as my argument.

Posts: 40796 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"They cannot if they are married. "Marriage" implies a societal unit, defined by law--actual, acknowledged, legitimate."

Marriage pre-dates law, and there are legitimate societal forms that pre-date marriage. Thus the law can only be said to recognize and regulate marriage.

Posts: 40796 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Unless "legitimize" means to you that one must obliterate all competing or alternate visions...
But as you have previously conceded that you do not believe that the legalization of gay marriage will cause government to actually obliterate competitive definitions of marriage in any way, the only remaining issue is that you don't believe a gendered view of marriage can survive to compete in a world where it is exposed as unnecessary.
Posts: 20829 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheRallanator
Member
Member # 6624

 - posted      Profile for TheRallanator   Email TheRallanator       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
No. I don't think the law needs to anticipate people who go around trumpeting to the world that they've had their reproductive organs removed. Essentially you're asking me if I think that government should keep a database detailing peoples' reproductive abilities and deny them a license should they come up as infertile. Are you really telling me that you don't see how I can both oppose doing something that absurd and oppose SSM?

Yes he is, because your position boils down to "marriage must be all about fertility and childbearing* which is why same-sex couples (who demonstrably can't get each other pregnant**) should be denied the right to marry.

* Unless you're straight, in which case the state has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to invade everyone's privacy by attempting to deny marriage rights to couples who cannot or will not have children

** And that's enough for me because I'm not going to let pesky real life facts like adoption, IVF, or existing children from prior heterosexual relationships get in the way of my staggeringly illogical defence of legally sanctioned homophobia"

[ January 14, 2012, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: TheRallanator ]

Posts: 503 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Unless "legitimize" means to you that one must obliterate all competing or alternate visions...
But as you have previously conceded that you do not believe that the legalization of gay marriage
On the contrary, I have repeatedly emphasized that the phrase "legalization of gay marriage" is gibberish, like "legalization of black whiteness."
Posts: 40796 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, stop dodging.
Posts: 20829 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, you do realize that the "legalization of black whiteness" did in fact happen? That in some places black people could purchase the ability to be declared white?
Posts: 1417 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is an excellent analogy, NH. [Smile]

Yes, Gibberish happens.

Doesn't make it meaningful.

Posts: 40796 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Pete, stop dodging.

Stop throwing rotten eggs. What you said misstates my position, and makes assumptions which I utterly reject. It is hardly my fault that your position is based on equivocation and sleight of tongue.
Posts: 40796 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It was meaningful. It enabled blacks to own property and move in social circles formerly denied to them. It was an example of a very valuable social fiction. Marriage is rife with social fictions, what's one more?
Posts: 1417 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Unless "legitimize" means to you that one must obliterate all competing or alternate visions...
But as you have previously conceded that you do not believe that the [the state redefinition of marriage in America] will cause government to actually obliterate competitive definitions of marriage in any way, the only remaining issue is that you don't believe a gendered view of marriage can survive to compete in a world where it is exposed as unnecessary.
Even with the correction in square brackets (assuming that is what you referred to), what you said is still not my position, and I never conceded any such thing.
Posts: 40796 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
It was meaningful. It enabled blacks to own property and move in social circles formerly denied to them. It was an example of a very valuable social fiction. Marriage is rife with social fictions, what's one more?

I have already proposed a legal fiction which would allow same sex couples to obtain a.legal marriage without forcing a change in the core definitions tion of marriage. Declare one member of the couple constructively of the opposite sex for purposes of marriage.

Would that satisfy you?

Posts: 40796 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I never conceded any such thing.
Yes, you have. We've been over this one.
Posts: 20829 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No.

But that's 'cause I have very different ideas about gender and marriage than you do.

Besides, I live in Canada. By Act of Parliament, the definition of marriage includes the possibility of same-sex couples, without any superfluous declarations.

Posts: 1417 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheRallanator
Member
Member # 6624

 - posted      Profile for TheRallanator   Email TheRallanator       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
No.

But that's 'cause I have very different ideas about gender and marriage than you do.

Besides, I live in Canada. By Act of Parliament, the definition of marriage includes the possibility of same-sex couples, without any superfluous declarations.

I understand that this has completely warped and/or destroyed traditional marriage in Canada, and millions of married couples now find their relationship meaningless.
Posts: 503 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's also interesting that same sex marriages entered into in Canada are recognized in many countries and even some states in the USA - the idea being that one country recognizes legal marriages from other jurisdictions.

As such, many USA citizens actually already do know married gay couples who are legally recognized as such by their state's government.

Posts: 10236 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I understand that this has completely warped and/or destroyed traditional marriage in Canada, and millions of married couples now find their relationship meaningless.
Is the divorce rate higher in Canada than in the U.S.? Was there an erosion in benifits offered to the spouses of employees? In what way were traditional marriages in Canada warped/detroyed? Or are they spiritually or morrally devoid of meaning in some way?
Posts: 3300 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
(hint: sarcasm)
Posts: 6146 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Donald, that's why there was outrage when a particularly tone-deaf lawyer working for the Harper Government pointed out that Canadian common law does not consider marriages to be valid if the couple resides in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the marriage. The plaintiff's (who were a pair of lesbians actually trying to get divorced) lawyer leaked it to the press probably because the existing law wouldn't be favorable to her clients.

Once the politicians found out about it, the Harper Government was quick to announce that they would change the laws so that marriages of foreign same-sex couples would still be valid in Canada.

Posts: 1417 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is actually a problem in the U.S., too: gay married couples who can't get divorces because the state they currently reside in do not recognize their marriage. [Frown]
Posts: 7976 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be specific, NH, the marriage law does NOT need to be changed at all in order that "marriages of foreign same-sex couples would still be valid in Canada". The change required would only address the 'humanitarian' aspect of facilitating divorce for those who cannot access it in their current jurisdiction. So yes, although that is what the government claimed, the wording is purely political as no change is required to the actual marriage act but rather to the divorce act.
Posts: 10236 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
>_<
Thanks scifibum.

Posts: 3300 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As I understand it, the problem is not in Canadian law, as written, but in law as practiced in the reconciliation of different countries' legal systems. So the relevant act says the marriage is valid without a residency requirement, so you get a certificate. However, the actual practice of reconciling Canadian law with the reality of people living in jurisdictions that don't recognize the marriage was to consider the marriage invalid even in Canada. That's why the lawyer for the DoJ argued that the marriage was invalid, because that's what precedent and practice had established.

Maybe the law doesn't need to be changed to ensure that the Canadian legal system properly recognizes the marriages of non-residents, but the lawyer's argument seemed to be in accordance with the precedence establish by previous conflict of laws.

Posts: 1417 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Maybe the law doesn't need to be changed to ensure that the Canadian legal system properly recognizes the marriages of non-residents, but the lawyer's argument seemed to be in accordance with the precedence establish by previous conflict of laws.
Not to go any further down this rabbit hole, but the argument from the DOJ lawyer has been roundly panned and really does not reflect precedent - it seems to be a new argument that has yet to be tested. However, the Canadian marriage law is clear; there is no residency requirement, and certainly no requirement dealing with external jurisdictions.
Posts: 10236 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm bouncing this thread for the hypocrites who are now screaming that it's not ok for conservatives to "slut-shame" women who politically disagree with them, but thought it was OK to do it to a conservative woman.
Posts: 40796 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I fail to see any inconsistency, here.

The moral of this thread is: if you're going to whine on and on about the importance of marriage, you shouldn't cheat on your husband.

Amy Koch is an adulteress. What's more, she's a self-righteous hypocrite. For this, she deserves scorn.

Why would you defend her decision to cheat on her husband, again?

[ March 08, 2012, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 20829 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So is your position that Rush Limbaugh should have hired a private detective to discover some affair in Sandra Fluke's life, before calling her a "slut"?

My position is that people that politicize the personal are pimps. And that's worse than being a slut.

Posts: 40796 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 20 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  18  19  20   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1