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 » Prediction: blackmail leading up to the SSM decision. (Page 6)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Prediction: blackmail leading up to the SSM decision.
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They arent generally the angry ones.
Don't be so sure. Many of us simply see no advantage being seen as "militant," which not infrequently happens when minorities raise their voices.
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 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 Funean:
quote:
They arent generally the angry ones.
Don't be so sure. Many of us simply see no advantage being seen as "militant," which not infrequently happens when minorities raise their voices.
That in no way contradicts my point that y'all are generally the most reasonable of the pro-ssm group.

Note that not all ssltssrs are proSSM. That was a surprise to me ...

Posts: 44193 | 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 
Funean, by angry i meant angry voices. I dont accuse you of being lukewarm in your feelings and convictions.
Posts: 44193 | 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:
You can tell if the person drinking is white or not without the sign. The sign is redundant.
And if you cannot tell whether the man who is married is married to another man or not without a special term for it, is that an argument for or against the term?

(I hope you see where I'm going with this, KT. Namely: is the sign for "non-white person drinking" meant to protect people who are not prepared to see a non-white person drinking from that fountain? Or is it meant to send a message to the non-white people who would drink?)

quote:
Is someone who will grant everything but the name actually a bigot -- simply because they won't relinquish the name?
Not necessarily. If they refuse to relinquish the name because they believe there is a meaningful distinction to be made with the use of the name, though, the question becomes "what sort of distinction are you making?" And the answer to that leads directly to bigotry.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bigotry is as bigotry does, I'd suppose. If a person's actions are bigoted, then they're a bigot, even if they happen to be ignorant of their own bigotry.

But I don't think that anyone is being accused of bigotry because they won't relinquish the names of marriage. No bigot actually owns the rights to the name of marriage. There may be bigots who claim to own the rights to define it--there are even a**holes out there who claim God chose them to proclaim to the world His opinion on what a real family and a real marriage truly is--but in reality nobody really has authority over the name of marriage.

In any case, while you can't really be a bigot for not relinquishing something that nobody can actually relinquish anyways, you can be a bigot if you so fervently believe that you know (for everyone) what a word means, that you act to spread intolerance of people who use a word in any way that you can't tolerate...

[ April 06, 2013, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  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:
You can tell if the person drinking is white or not without the sign. The sign is redundant.
And if you cannot tell whether the man who is married is married to another man or not without a special term for it, is that an argument for or against the term?

(I hope you see where I'm going with this, KT. Namely: is the sign for "non-white person drinking" meant to protect people who are not prepared to see a non-white person drinking from that fountain? Or is it meant to send a message to the non-white people who would drink?)

quote:
Is someone who will grant everything but the name actually a bigot -- simply because they won't relinquish the name?
Not necessarily. If they refuse to relinquish the name because they believe there is a meaningful distinction to be made with the use of the name, though, the question becomes "what sort of distinction are you making?" And the answer to that leads directly to bigotry.

My answer is: "I am making a distinction between three sorts of monogamous relationships:
1. where both parties to the relationship may have the ability to impregnate third parties but not each other;
2. where both parties may have the ability to become impregnated by third parties, but not by each other; and
3., where one party may have the capacity to impregnate the other party to the relationship. I think that those three different types of situation require distinct rule-sets and default presumptions. They are actually different family models."

How does such an answer "lead directly to bigotry"? Emphasis on directly. I've no doubt that SeekingProcrustes can lead us on a circuitous winding path to bigotry, but *directly*? Really? [Big Grin]

[ April 06, 2013, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | 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 
Oh, Pete, you're very special and no one is talking about you. You are the lone voice in the wilderness crying out, "But how will I know if these people can accidentally impregnate each other! I need to know!"
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And if you cannot tell whether the man who is married is married to another man or not without a special term for it, is that an argument for or against the term?
Tom, you miss the full implication of my statement about redundancy. On one level -- that of functional reality -- your example is ridiculous. It's the equivalent of the Flying Spaghetti monster argument used by atheists -- in which a logically correct equivalence is created by fatally distorting the actual substance of the question.

Both your example and your response are front-loaded with artificial constraints. You assume that marriage is a thing from which gays are forbidden, rather an thing in which they should now be included. As though hetero marriage is a traditional constraint on "marriage" in general.

It may be, but it isn't necessarily.

quote:
(I hope you see where I'm going with this, KT. Namely: is the sign for "non-white person drinking" meant to protect people who are not prepared to see a non-white person drinking from that fountain? Or is it meant to send a message to the non-white people who would drink?)
This highlights the silliness of your example -- the unlikelihood that anyone would want to implement such a measure. What would it accomplish, even for a racist regime, aside from a ritual of humiliation?. But it could only be implemented after everyone is allowed to drink everywhere.

You can legislate equality, but only functional legal equality. You can get the kids in the building under armed-guard, but you can’t make the white kids stop thinking “n***ers!” when they see a black kid. Over time, the “n***er” goes away and becomes “black,” and someday soon (I hope) we won’t even make that distinction. People will just look at one another and just think “person” and not see a categorical distinction to be made by skin color at all. We are not at that stage -- we still see “racial categories” even though such categories are imaginary social constructs. We retain some of the habits of racism -- does that make every white man who sees a black man as “black” a bigot?

quote:
If they refuse to relinquish the name because they believe there is a meaningful distinction to be made with the use of the name, though, the question becomes "what sort of distinction are you making?" And the answer to that leads directly to bigotry.
If that's your argument (and picking up from my previous point) then you should argue for the end of of the term "marriage" for everyone because of its long history as a legal tool for the oppression of women, just as I argue for the eventual end of racial distinctions.

My argument against you is the same argument I have against those who claim to support "traditional" marriage -- namely, that our current form of hetero marriage is not "traditional," but is only a short-lived (less than a century) intermediate stage between different, longer-lasting conception of what marriage is. Specifically, cultural taboos aside, gay marriage would have been both legally impossible and functionally meaningless prior to the legal equality of women, because "traditional" marriage required a gender disparity as to a whole host of legal rights, the most striking being the combination of man and wife into a single legal person. As women extricated themselves from gender subordination, marriage laws had to change (drastically) in accordance with the change. Now, there is no unitary entity, but a couple formed of legally distinct individuals with shared responsibility -- in no way is this traditional.

Ergo, there was no possibility of same-sex marriage until this more modern hetero marriage.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  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:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
quote:
If the water fountains were of equal quality, would having "Colored" and "White" fountains be a problem?
It's an absurd comparison Tom. You're not even considering my question properly.

In your scenario, there would still be water fountains that certain individuals would be prevented from using.

In my scenario, there are no benefits of any kind whatsoever that would be denied a same-sex couple. They could have all the same privileges, except for those that simply would not and could not apply to them.

And yet there would be a term that they would be prevented from using, just like, with the fountains, the water coming out of each is just as wet, and provides the exact same benefits from being drunk.

The reason that the word causes people to dig in their heels is because words carry social power. They grant and deny legitimacy, and using different words actively serves to reinforce division between the things named. In fact, the more similar they actually are, the more what difference there is is given significance by that separation.

That's why separate but equal, wherever and however it rears its head, is an an outright lie. It's impossible- socially, things that are separate cannot possibly be equal, because the very essence of separation is inequality. There is no way to say "you can have the right to everything but the term" without implicitly conveying the message that what you are getting is an unauthentic copy, lesser in status that those who have the right to the real deal.

The fountains may be the same in every detail, both in perfect repair and functioning, but the simple act of requiring a subset of people to use the one designated for their subset is an active communication to them of their social inferiority; a tool social oppression to ensure they cannot forget their second class status.

Legally allotting the term "Civil Union" in place of "Marriage" only becomes an acceptable compromise if it's done universally- strike "marriage" from the legal books completely and replace it with "civil union" (letting marriage become simply an instance of a civil union, if the people involved chose to call it that). But that's a lot more effort for little practical benefit over simply removing sex based restrictions on who can marry from the current institution.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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 
And it bears noting that among the basic rights of being married are those of being able to describe your relationship as marriage and of being able to present yourself to your community as married. Any parallel institution specifically cannot carry those rights, and it's the active denial of those rights that would ensure that it held a second class status.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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:
Oh, Pete, you're very special and no one is talking about you. You are the lone voice in the wilderness crying out, "But how will I know if these people can accidentally impregnate each other! I need to know!"

[Big Grin]

Seriously, that little factoid does answer this question: are the couple's children plausibly theirs and only theirs? I suspect that it's plausible paternity issue that causes hetero couples to prefer closed adoptions, and gay couples to prefer open adoptions.

You asked earlier what examples I could give where I thought that a same-sex couple might be superior. Here's another answer:

if you're a pregnant woman who is not ready to be a mother, and yet not wanting to entirely give up your claim on the baby you're about to deliver, adopting out to a male-male couple might be ideal. Male gay couples tend to prefer open adoptions, and they'd tend to feel less threatened than an actual married couple would, by a godmother who happened to be the biological mother, keeping tabs and limited visitation rights to the child.

Having that sort of situation available would marginally increase the number of kids raised knowing a father figure and a mother figure, plus marginally reduce abortion, since a pregnant woman who had that kind of option open to her might be marginally less inclined to abort.

Posts: 44193 | 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 Pyrtolin:
And it bears noting that among the basic rights of being married are those of being able to describe your relationship as marriage and of being able to present yourself to your community as married.

Can you think of any precedent for your curious assertion that there's a "basic right" to have your community change the basic meaning of a word so that it fits you? In Brown v. Board of Education, should Plaintiff have asked SCOTUS to have the Black kids declared White?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

quote:
In Brown v. Board of Education, should Plaintiff have asked SCOTUS to have the Black kids declared White?
Just wondering -- if they had demanded to be called white, would you have denied them the designation?

I'd argue that the real solution to racism in America is to end the use of "white" as a racial designation. But if people want inclusion in the term as a preferred method for attaining equality -- why not? ("White" and "black" are total BS terms anyway. I HATE calling myself "white." I get calls from the census bureau because I write screeds on their survey forms in red crayon).

"Marriage" despite its historical baggage, however, is a more defensible term than "white."

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  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:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
My answer is: "I am making a distinction between three sorts of monogamous relationships:
1. where both parties to the relationship may have the ability to impregnate third parties but not each other;
2. where both parties may have the ability to become impregnated by third parties, but not by each other; and
3., where one party may have the capacity to impregnate the other party to the relationship.

I think that those three different types of situation require distinct rule-sets and default presumptions. They are actually different family models."

How does such an answer "lead directly to bigotry"? Emphasis on directly. I've no doubt that SeekingProcrustes can lead us on a circuitous winding path to bigotry, but *directly*? Really? [Big Grin]

It leads to bigotry because those distinctions have little to no effect on the actual family model; they only require a token amount of common sense and implicit reflexivity to be applied to a single ruleset. Somewhat because a MM couple is for all practical purposes no different from a MF couple with an infertile F, and a FF couple likewise aligns to a MF couple with an infertile M, but more importantly because those issues are completely irrelevant to promoting a long term, stable social units as the primary family dynamic.

Drop antiquated gender definitions from the equation and simply apply the rules as appropriate to the individual in question without regard to sex. Taking Presumption of Paternity as an example- it would simply never need to be applied to a MM couple (a few corner cases aside, such as a intersex or transgender M that was functionally able to get pregnant, at which point PoP would easily logically apply). It would be relevant to a FF couple with only the unnecessarily gendered language as a possible issue. Treating it logically as Presumption of Parenthood, though, would only take a token amount of common sense, and be functionally equivalent regardless of family makeup.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
And it bears noting that among the basic rights of being married are those of being able to describe your relationship as marriage and of being able to present yourself to your community as married.

Can you think of any precedent for your curious assertion that there's a "basic right" to have your community change the basic meaning of a word so that it fits you? In Brown v. Board of Education, should Plaintiff have asked SCOTUS to have the Black kids declared White?
That's completely irrelevant as no meaning is being changed, only access. You're the one standing on a position that equates to "We can't allow blacks to use white people's fountains, because that would require redefining black to mean white;" insisting that the color of the user is integral to the definition of a fountain, since that's been the tradition for their use ever since fountains have been invented.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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 
The entire analogy to different facilities, i.e. water fountains, is disingenuous, since a word is not a facility. As SCOTUS itself pointed out in previous decisions which had nothing to do with SSM, the legitimacy and strength of the word marriage pre-dates our own form of government. It's the epitome of foolishness to suddenly treat the word like a government facility to which everyone must have access that is equally convenient.
Posts: 44193 | 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 Pyrtolin:
quote:
How does such an answer "lead directly to bigotry"? Emphasis on directly. I've no doubt that SeekingProcrustes can lead us on a circuitous winding path to bigotry, but *directly*? Really? [Big Grin]

It leads to bigotry because those distinctions have little to no effect on the actual family model; they only require a token amount of common sense and implicit reflexivity to be applied to a single ruleset. Somewhat because a MM couple is for all practical purposes no different from a MF couple with an infertile F, and a FF couple likewise aligns to a MF couple with an infertile M, but more importantly because those issues are completely irrelevant to promoting a long term, stable social units as the primary family dynamic.

Drop antiquated gender definitions from the equation and simply apply the rules as appropriate to the individual in question without regard to sex. Taking Presumption of Paternity as an example- it would simply never need to be applied to a MM couple (a few corner cases aside, such as a intersex or transgender M that was functionally able to get pregnant, at which point PoP would easily logically apply). It would be relevant to a FF couple with only the unnecessarily gendered language as a possible issue. Treating it logically as Presumption of Parenthood, though, would only take a token amount of common sense, and be functionally equivalent regardless of family makeup. [/QB]

That's pretty circuitous and convoluted, Pyr.

I doubt very much that you have examined all the 1200+ laws involving a marriage in various jurisdictions, to come to your assessment that "they only require a token amount of common sense and implicit reflexivity to be applied to a single ruleset." The arrogance of making such a declaration, or more likely, of parroting the argument from the Goodridge decision where it originates, is matched only by the horror of the results of watching such "common sense" applied, e.g. the TF case which followed Goodridge. [Eek!]

Posts: 44193 | 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 KidTokyo:
Pete,

quote:
In Brown v. Board of Education, should Plaintiff have asked SCOTUS to have the Black kids declared White?
Just wondering -- if they had demanded to be called white, would you have denied them the designation?

I'd argue that the real solution to racism in America is to end the use of "white" as a racial designation.

You are right. But it doesn't follow that SCOTUS had the constitutional power to make such a decision. That would require a constitutional amendment. An amendment that I would oppose, because I would not trust government with that sort of power. Any more than I currently trust government with the power to tell a woman when she can menstruate.

Racism in America was struck a greater blow with cultural events, such as the images of what happened on Selma bridge, than by any SCOTUS decision or legislative act. I strongly praise the Brown decision, and the Civil Rights Act. They were right, and proper, and did much good. But ultimately to attack racism itself, rather than the legal trappings thereof, the battle is not in our courts but in our hearts.

[ April 07, 2013, 07:11 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
The entire analogy to different facilities, i.e. water fountains, is disingenuous, since a word is not a facility. As SCOTUS itself pointed out in previous decisions which had nothing to do with SSM, the legitimacy and strength of the word marriage pre-dates our own form of government. It's the epitome of foolishness to suddenly treat the word like a government facility to which everyone must have access that is equally convenient.

A word is a label for an institution. The institution is very much a legal facility. If you make certain people use a different word for something that is claimed to be functionally identical, then you send an explicit message that you are segregating them into a secondary institution.

The word is very much the legal title for the federal facility. And it is impossible to grant access to that facility without either applying the same word that everyone else gets to use or changing the title on it so that everyone gets the same legal title and can then freely apply whatever social or traditional name they want to it.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
That's pretty circuitous and convoluted, Pyr.

Nothing of the sort; it's one simple, trivial logical step in each case. If you're going to make that accusation, please support it with something other than pure assertion.

quote:
I doubt very much that you have examined all the 1200+ laws involving a marriage in various jurisdictions, to come to your assessment that "they only require a token amount of common sense and implicit reflexivity to be applied to a single ruleset."
Why should I need to? Can you provide even one counterexample that has a rational basis?

quote:
The arrogance of making such a declaration, or more likely, of parroting the argument from the Goodridge decision where it originates, is matched only by the horror of the results of watching such "common sense" applied, e.g. the TF case which followed Goodridge. [Eek!]
Other than simply coming later, what do you mean by "followed" here? If anything, the fact that the people in that case weren't married meant that they were very actively in the exact same legal position that they would have been had the Goodrich decision never happened; the ruling actually seems to reinforce marriage as a prior step before having children by slightly weakening the ability of an unmarried parent to sue for support, while reinforcing the position that marriage include a direct commitment to support the children of that family.

The decision does suggest that non-marriage relationships are accorded a bit of a second class status without the same degree of legal protection, but then that is part of the basic justification for legal recognition of marriage in the first place- to accord all other similar relationships secondary status so that people are actively motivated to make the more binding, long term term commitment.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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 
<snip bs>

Again, Pyr, can you give ANY precedent for treating one freaking WORD as a government facility which the government has to divy it up equally? Do you need me to explain what a precedent means?

Posts: 44193 | 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 
Except that the word is not the facility; the word is the label for the facility. If you have two different labels which do not describe the same thing -- if, for example, there are "civil unions" and "marriages," both of which are legally distinct from each other (so that, for example, same-sex civil unions can be performed, but same-sex marriages cannot) -- you have two different facilities.

If same-sex partners can get legally married and heterosexual partners can have civil unions, and the two statuses are in all ways equivalent, then the two labels might arguably be describing the same facility. (One label is arguably unnecessary in that scenario, of course, since you don't really need two labels for the same thing.)

Posts: 22935 | 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 
Tom' we've already discussed (and IIRC you had no objection) differences between how they'd be handled, e.g. presumption of paternity, annulment, default closed vs. open adoption, etc.

The institutions would be different, and would probably become more different over time as the gay community's norms and needs became better recognized.

This is all consistent with the concept of marriage and other forms of civil unions being a type of contract. It is well established that the rules governing a contract should be custom to the culture (custom and usage) of those that engage in that type of contract. It seems very likely that like the open adoption default, there will be many more issues where the custom and usage within FF and MM couplings differs from the custom and usage within actual marriages.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[LOL]

A separate institution is necessary because we need to establish the default preferences of heterosexuals vs homosexuals regarding open/closed adoption?

Now I can see why we need to stop the queers from using the language they choose to describe their relationships...

[Roll Eyes]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  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 
"stop the queers from using the language they choose to describe their relationships"

That's another defamatory misrepresentation of my position. I have never told anyone that they can't use the word marriage to describe their own relationship.

Posts: 44193 | 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:
The institutions would be different, and would probably become more different over time...
I think that's untrue in its entirety.
Posts: 22935 | 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 
I hope that some country or jurisdiction gives us a test sample that we could discuss. I wish that civil unions had lasted longer in Vermont.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
You can tell if the person drinking is white or not without the sign. The sign is redundant.
And if you cannot tell whether the man who is married is married to another man or not without a special term for it, is that an argument for or against the term?

(I hope you see where I'm going with this, KT. Namely: is the sign for "non-white person drinking" meant to protect people who are not prepared to see a non-white person drinking from that fountain? Or is it meant to send a message to the non-white people who would drink?)

quote:
Is someone who will grant everything but the name actually a bigot -- simply because they won't relinquish the name?
Not necessarily. If they refuse to relinquish the name because they believe there is a meaningful distinction to be made with the use of the name, though, the question becomes "what sort of distinction are you making?" And the answer to that leads directly to bigotry.

For example:

quote:


If homosexual's desire to legally bind themselves, specifically for the joint care of children on a case specific basis, I am all for it. If they want to elevate that relationship to something which it is not, I am against it.

From noel earlier in this thread. Bolding mine.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Kate, do you have any Catholic source pre-1800 that claims that someone who believes in Jesus' atonement and resurrection, but denies some element of the Nicene Creed is "not a Christian"?

Because I'm telling you, that's a new argument, and one that Catholics recently picked up from of all people, the Southern Baptists. [Big Grin]

No idea. But plenty of sources that consider someone who was not legitimately baptised to be a non-Christian.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
<snip bs>

Nice dodge.

quote:
Again, Pyr, can you give ANY precedent for treating one freaking WORD as a government facility which the government has to divy it up equally? Do you need me to explain what a precedent means?
We're not talking about a word, we're talking about a social institution that uses a word as its label. You can't grant access to the institution without either granting access to the label or universally changing the label.

[ April 08, 2013, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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:
Again, Pyr, can you give ANY precedent for treating one freaking WORD as a government facility which the government has to divy it up equally? Do you need me to explain what a precedent means?

We're not talking about a word, we're talking about a social institution that uses a word as its label.

THAT was the dodge to end all dodges. [Roll Eyes]

Notions of "separate but equal" and powers of government redistribution don't apply to "social institutions." They apply only to government assets and to government facilities.

You could just as well argue that being "white" or that being male was a social institution, interwoven with nearly as many legal regulations and protections and responsibilities (e.g. jury service, military service). So by your blithering logic, government also has the responsibility to declare that blacks are white and that women are men.

Posts: 44193 | 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:
Notions of "separate but equal" and powers of government redistribution don't apply to "social institutions."
They do however apply to legal statuses.
Posts: 22935 | 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 kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Kate, do you have any Catholic source pre-1800 that claims that someone who believes in Jesus' atonement and resurrection, but denies some element of the Nicene Creed is "not a Christian"?

Because I'm telling you, that's a new argument, and one that Catholics recently picked up from of all people, the Southern Baptists. [Big Grin]

No idea. But plenty of sources that consider someone who was not legitimately baptised to be a non-Christian.
Ah. So then we agree that statement that "mormons aren't Christian" is false, since Catholic doctrine would hold that any and all mormons who were surreptitiously baptized in hospitals by some conscientious Catholic doctor or nurse, or who converted from Catholicism to the LDS church, are in fact Christian?

That's a pretty astonishing bit of retcon. Do Catholics believe that when when the word Christian was first used at Antioch, that it referred to whether someone had been baptised? That when Romans picked out Christians to feed to the lions, that they were looking for people that had been properly baptized?

I notice that there's no statement from the Pope or from any source that speaks for Catholicism saying that "mormons aren't Christian." Catholics wanting to slip into the Protestant echo chamber seem to use that phrase, but the official statement from the Catholic church is that "mormon baptism doesn't make someone a Christian." And even Mormons would agree with that. Baptism is only the third step of the Gospel; the first step of Jesus' gospel is Faith, and that's where someone becomes a Christian. Baptism is something that Christians do, to follow Jesus' example and teachings.

Posts: 44193 | 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:
quote:
Notions of "separate but equal" and powers of government redistribution don't apply to "social institutions."
They do however apply to legal statuses.
Again, I invite you to show precedent where the battle for civil rights occurred precisely over the word for a legal status.

If we called the general legal status "civil unions" for everyone, and then allowed for separate rules such as presumption of paternity to apply differently to marriages, male partnerships, or female partnerships (being descriptions of facts within the union), does that change the picture?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hardly retconning. Baptism was pretty much the deal since just about the beginning. I don't know what standards the Romans applied.

What Catholics are you talking about? In my Catholic experience, the only time the "are Mormons Christian" question comes up is when determining who has to be baptised at Easter and when Mormons (or their advocates apparently) are whining about not being considered Christian.

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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:
If we called the general legal status "civil unions" for everyone, and then allowed for separate rules such as presumption of paternity to apply differently to male/female partnerships, male partnerships, or female partnerships (being descriptions of facts within the union), does that change the picture?
If you change the portion in bold from “marriages” then yes, absolutely. As has been pointed out repeatedly. Even in this statement you couldn’t help but create a distinction which drives a wedge between the social acceptance of different couples. I could care less if you, your neighborhood, state or church see them differently. I do care when you insist that the law make a distinction which does not server any legal purpose. (but does serve a divisive social one)

I’m trying to behave and mostly that means staying quite on this issue now. But I got to know Pete. Are you just messing with us? I know it ruins the joke (if it is one) to let us in on it. If so, ya got me. I can't handle the methods the Pete at Home of this topic employs.

[ April 08, 2013, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 kmbboots:
Hardly retconning. Baptism was pretty much the deal since just about the beginning. I don't know what standards the Romans applied.

What Catholics are you talking about?

Mostly some twerps on Catholic Answers forum (50% of the discussion on their "other religions" forum is mormons aren't christians and various anti-mormon hate exercises. E.g. someone posts a statement from the LDS church offering congratulations re Pope Francis, and then the CAF peanut gallery rants on for 14 pages about how the statement represents some sinister motive on the part of the church.

Also a Cardinal Neuhaus (sp) who seems to be the highest ranking officer in Catholicism that holds a rabid hard-on for Joseph Smith.

quote:
In my Catholic experience, the only time the "are Mormons Christian" question comes up is when determining who has to be baptised at Easter
See, that's the Catholicism that I was raised with. Catholics prayed with me, talked about scripture and our faith in Christ, none of them ever told me that I wasn't Christian or that I followed a different Jesus. It wasn't until the advent of the internet that I discovered a more hateful breed who said things like:

quote:
and when Mormons (or their advocates apparently) are whining about not being considered Christian.
[Frown]

[ April 08, 2013, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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:
50% of the discussion on their "other religions" forum is mormons aren't christians and various anti-mormon hate exercises.
Just to be clear, saying someone isn't a christian isn't by itself a hate excercise is it? I mean when I was to recieve my first communion the church made my parrents take part in another marriage ceremony because in the eyes of the church they weren't married. This may indicate dissaproval if they were judging my parents but I don't think it would be fair to say anyone hated them.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would not spend a whole lot of time on Catholic Answers if I were you. If you were me, it would just annoy you.

Really. Other than in RCIA, Ornery and Hatrack are the only place this comes up for me. I don't guess I spend any time at fora with a large community of Christodelphians or Jehovah's Witnesses.

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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 
Not joking. And civil unions that are male-female partnerships, have always been called marriages, DW. There's no legal reason to change that.

I didn't ask for anyone's feelings on the matter. I'm asking about precedent for a 14th amendment judicial ruling that the word "marriage" is somehow a government facility that requires equal access.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

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