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 » Fiction and Fact about the SSM case in Utah (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Fiction and Fact about the SSM case in Utah
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The problem with the constructive exception is that it is too much like the "which one of you is the man?" insult so frequently leveled against same-sex couples. It's just make it sounds like the state is now in on the joke.

As a secondary concern, I don't think many people on either side are likely to sign on for that solution. There's much *more* support for the whole "get government out of marriage" thing and even that's not going anywhere.

[ January 15, 2014, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  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 
I don't think that SSU or constructive exception (that's where the fiction that one spouse is has a gender than the one he/she identifies as?) would serve some of the social or cultural goals of the SSM movement as well as SSM. By which I mean the equal respect for and value of same-sex relationships, same-sex attraction, and people who somehow identify as 'not straight'. Maintaining any distinction between same-sex and different-sex marriages makes it easier for same-sex relationships to be treated as lesser.

Also, even though your solutions presumes equal respect and treatment, I don't trust that equality to be maintained in practice. Separate recognition of same-sex relationships would make it vastly easier for future governments to degrade their equality. If a government hostile to same-sex relationships came into power, they could easily impose additional burdens or requirements on same-sex unions; it would be much more difficult to this if the government did not distinguish between same-sex and different sex relationships. Also, consider that most of the anti-SSM referendums and such explicitly rule out SSUs as well. The main part of opposition to SSM is homophobic; it seeks to deny equal respect to same-sex relationships rather than protect the functionality of "traditional" marriage. You are exceptional not only in your arguments (which I haven't heard elsewhere) but also in your motiviations.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  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've never even attempted to show that neutering the meaning of marriage is necessary in order to provide protections or equality to same-sex couples and their families
The whole point of denying access to the word "marriage" for same-sex unions is to deny them equality, Pete. Surely you understand that, since it's what you're calling for?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Forcing a MM couple to label one of the pair as “wife” or any other female related label is insulting.
This is largely unrelated to the greater conversation, but I would just like to point out that forcing any couple to label one and only one member of the pair as "wife" can be insulting. To get a little personal, I loathe being called wife; the usage is restricted to situations where it's necessary to clarify the situation, and I still kind of resent it. (The normal form is "spouse" or "partner" depending on the situation.)
Posts: 3791 | 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 D.W.:
Forcing a MM couple to label one of the pair as “wife” or any other female related label is insulting.

Where's the force? hundreds of same sex couples have done exactly that in Utah and not a damned one of them has complained about it. Is your statement of harm that you as a heterosexual male feel insulted by same-sex couples joining together as man and wife?

Furthermore how is "insult" harm? Lots of people feel insulted at a change in the definition of marriage. What's harmless for the heterosexual goose is harmless for the gay gander.

Finally, lots of hets find aspects of marriage insulting. Case in point:

quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
quote:
Forcing a MM couple to label one of the pair as “wife” or any other female related label is insulting.
This is largely unrelated to the greater conversation, but I would just like to point out that forcing any couple to label one and only one member of the pair as "wife" can be insulting. To get a little personal, I loathe being called wife; the usage is restricted to situations where it's necessary to clarify the situation, and I still kind of resent it. (The normal form is "spouse" or "partner" depending on the situation.)
Almost everyone chafes at the rules at one point or another. OPs chafes at the label "wife." Others might chafe at the label "husband." Or at the idea of needing a "husband." Others might chafe at monogamy; after all monogamy isn't natural for our species. It's simply the best known adaptation to enable what we call civilization.

[ January 15, 2014, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

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:
you've never even attempted to show that neutering the meaning of marriage is necessary in order to provide protections or equality to same-sex couples and their families
The whole point of denying access to the word "marriage" for same-sex unions is to deny them equality, Pete. Surely you understand that, since it's what you're calling for?
Matt, would you help me remove Tom's head from where it's stuck? He still hasn't noticed my alternate proposal, that does NOT deny the word "marriage" to same-sex couples. And continues to fail to address how constructive exception shows me part of the conspiracy to "deny them equality."
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not the monogamy that chafes, it's having a label applied that doesn't accurately describe me.

But you're right, nobody forced me and I don't accept the label even when applied. I don't actually care what other people think my relationship is like.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  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 
quote:
Where's the force? hundreds of same sex couples have done exactly that in Utah and not a damned one of them has complained about it.
You're making an awful lot out of this.

They were in a hurry to take advantage of the situation; the very earliest reports on this issue speculated about how quickly the situation might change; it was a rather unexpected change and they might have thought let's worry about such details later.

In this situation, at this time, the fact that no one complained (or if they did it didn't make the news - which is the far more likely alternative, IMO) - doesn't mean what you claim it means. Those who didn't expect the situation to change again immediately upon appeals to higher courts probably expected the forms to change at a later date and would have complained if they didn't.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 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 OpsanusTau:
It's not the monogamy that chafes, it's having a label applied that doesn't accurately describe me.

What I meant was that the label chafes you and others, while monogamy chafes yet others. I'll try to make that more clear in an edit.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
As has often been the pointed out, what follows from this position is either that barren couples should be denied marriage licenses, or, that the state acknowledge the realities of surrogacy and adoption, and allow marriages to any adult couple that might reasonably have the potential to raise children.

Except that neither of those follows as a necessity. They follow as rational possibilities, but so - largely - does the pre-existing framework.

Specifically, "barrenness" may or may not be positively diagnosable, and even where it is, there are are countervailing interests in privacy that could legitimately be (and in the past have been) considered.

Surrogacy and adoption don't counter the argument either, as each is an intentional act (which voids the concern of accidental occurences) and neither speaks to whether the family ultimately created is in the best interests of a child and accordingly that the state would choose to encourage. And to avoid doubt, I find this idea as offensive as it sounds because it offends my core belief about the quality of such families, but I have to acknowledge that is my opinion and at the moment not a scientifically verifiable conclusion.
quote:
In other words, this argument is valid as far as it goes, but it does not lead to the conclusion that marriage should be gendered (as gender composition does not determine whether a pairing will raise children, either for or against).
It's not about leading to a conclusion. It's about accepting the decision point is within the range of things a government may legitimately make policy on. Government's don't have to be correct (eg Obamacare [Razz] ) to have the power to make a choice.
quote:
I didn't dismiss religious arguments as irrational at all; I labelled them *non-rational* (which is very different), and indicated that they were MORE valid than irrational arguments. Non-rational simply means "not arrived at or presented through rational means." Its certainly no a pejorative, at least not coming from me.
That honestly isn't an improvement from my view point. Religious arguments can be rational if you accept their root premise.

Unless your claim is that including an assumption with an unknowable absolute truth value invalidates having a rational position, your point doesn't follow. What would that say for any decision made where something can't be known? Do you view a commander's decision based on where their enemy could be as non-rational since they can't know whether the enemy is where expected?

I get that you would have ample cause to question the certainty that is placed on religious assumptions, particularly those that disagree with your own beliefs whatever they may be, but that doesn't make conclusions that follow from them non-rational or illogical (or non-logical for that matter).

Their use as argument is weak becuase other people don't accept the same premises, not because they are non-rational.
quote:
Not so. Democratic decisions are almost never rational, nor do they need to be.
Don't follow your "not so" there were multiple points and some you seem to agree with.

Why would you think that democratic decisions are almost never rational? That seems to be counter to the fundemental rules of self-interest that govern voting generally. In fact, I'd assert, if you understood the interests involved there are virtually no democratic decisions that are not completely rational, even if the results thereof result in absurdly irrational policies.
quote:
I was answering Pete's specific claim that *others* were claiming that there wasn't any argument against ssm that wasn't bigoted. My reply was that there simply wasn't a rational argument against it at all (at least, not one I had seen).
First I think bigotry is a charge that is flung around far more to stop debate than because its true.

And I don't think you've remotely carried the point that there aren't rational arguments, the arguements may be wrong but that's a different conclusion.
quote:
quote:
I agree its not the whole of what marriage has been,
Which is why Pete's assertion is false. His argument depends on the premise that its *the* purpose of marriage, and has always been.
I almost responded to myself on this, Pete does take it too far, but he's looking at a history where it's almost certainly the biggest common point that marriages have involved.
quote:
quote:
but historically its a bigger component than the modern idea of a romance between two people.
Ug. Romantic love is great; I don't think it has anything to do with marriage.
Shouldn't mention that to your spouse, lol. But seriously, you'd have to live in a cave to not acknowledge that many people in the west have come to believe its a primary if not the primary component.
quote:
I'm disappointed that you aren't even acknowledging that aspects of marriage that I myself would posit as most important: a social commitment to responsible, adult pair-bonding.
Don't be disappointed, I left out hundreds of other things it encompasses, and I would acknowledge this compenent as well. That's why artificial limits are nonsense in this topic.
quote:
I simply reject the false projection that marriage has always been a gender-rigid institution for the primary purpose of providing children with two, opposite gender parents. That's a relatively contemporary value that's being projected backwards onto history, and these discussions almost always peter out as scores of contradictory examples from history are proffered and then explained away.
Reject away that its the sole purpose, but carrying that to discrediting that it is a principal purpose is where you are jumping the shark. What's changed historically is not the need for stability in child rearing its the reasoning behind it (whether it be clarity in inheritance, health and well being of the child, or ensuring that the state doesn't have to pay for children without support (or others reasons) has changed in importance over time).
quote:
You're new enough here that you've probably missed the most of them, but there are probably two hundred or more pages of exactly what I just described in the archives.
Oddly enough, while my posting is relatively recent, my active lurking goes back more than 10 years. I've missed less than you'd think of the history.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 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 scifibum:
quote:
Where's the force? hundreds of same sex couples have done exactly that in Utah and not a damned one of them has complained about it.
You're making an awful lot out of this.

They were in a hurry to take advantage of the situation; the very earliest reports on this issue speculated about how quickly the situation might change; it was a rather unexpected change and they might have thought let's worry about such details later.

In this situation, at this time, the fact that no one complained (or if they did it didn't make the news - which is the far more likely alternative, IMO) - doesn't mean what you claim it means. Those who didn't expect the situation to change again immediately upon appeals to higher courts probably expected the forms to change at a later date and would have complained if they didn't.

Please wake me up when someone in Utah sues about it. My guess is that it won't be until AFTER some Republican points it out. Because while it's OK for them to agree to that situation, some will find it completely intolerable to have it implied that they haven't successfully ****ed up the constitutional Utah definition of marriage.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
I'm pretty sure I've never seen a Republican who is against SSM but on board with your constructive exception idea. Seems likely that if a Republican points it out, it'll be in the mean spirit of the old joke MattP mentioned.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 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 scifibum:
I'm pretty sure I've never seen a Republican who is against SSM but on board with your constructive exception idea. Seems likely that if a Republican points it out, it'll be in the mean spirit of the old joke MattP mentioned.

It will be taken as such regardless of whether it's meant as such. Because no doctrinaire lefty can be allowed to contemplate the possibility that someone might actually think that marriage means and should mean the union of man and woman for life.
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 NobleHunter:
I don't think that SSU or constructive exception (that's where the fiction that one spouse is has a gender than the one he/she identifies as?)

Close. It's the fiction that one spouse explicitly identifies as the opposite gender for purposes of entering marriage alone. Other than for entering marriage it has no more effect than the color of the bridemaids' dresses.

(I've seen many very offensively colored bridesmaids' dresses but I've never heard it said that they invalidated the wedding.)

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 MattP:
The problem with the constructive exception is that it is too much like the "which one of you is the man?" insult so frequently leveled against same-sex couples. It's just make it sounds like the state is now in on the joke.

Gay people are getting over their heterophobia. [Wink] A few generations ago, most same-sex couples would have been offended at the term "marriage" being applied to their partnership. I know several that still do today. Tolerance goes both ways. When I was a kid, calling a man gay was considered per se defamation in most jurisdictions. I don't recall anyone in the gay community getting shrill about the male "wife" in the remake of Stepford Wives.
Posts: 44193 | 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 
I don't see how that sorts out paternity and other bio parent-related issues. Aren't you still going to run into the same problems as one would with a gender neutral marriage certificate?

quote:
(I've seen many very offensively colored bridesmaids' dresses but I've never heard it said that they invalidated the wedding.)
Weddings would more pleasant to attend if they did [Razz]
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  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 
Man, I don't personally know anyone in the gay community who saw the Stepford Wives remake.
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 NobleHunter:
I don't see how that sorts out paternity and other bio parent-related issues. Aren't you still going to run into the same problems as one would with a gender neutral marriage certificate?

No! Under our common law system, the fact that an equitable constructive exception has been invoked, allows the court to consider further equitable adjustments.

The neuter marriage rule demands that "equality" creates a procrustean bed, one law for the lion and the ox. If you can't say it gender neutrally, you haven't said anything at all. Dangerous and stupid, and creates a worst of both worlds scenario, a race to the bottom where any law that can't apply fairly to all types of couples is tossed. And there go the protections that are most relevant to unplanned children, e.g the presumption of paternity, nullification for lack of consummation, etc.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
quote:
Because no doctrinaire lefty can be allowed to contemplate the possibility that someone might actually think that marriage means and should mean the union of man and woman for life.
Trying to figure this one out. You think there's an influential political contingent whose members are unaware that this opinion exists, and collectively and paradoxically want to make sure no one contemplates that possibility?
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 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 TomDavidson:
Man, I don't personally know anyone in the gay community who saw the Stepford Wives remake.

Perhaps they implemented a don't ask don't tell policy as to who had seen the movie.
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 scifibum:
quote:
Because no doctrinaire lefty can be allowed to contemplate the possibility that someone might actually think that marriage means and should mean the union of man and woman for life.
Trying to figure this one out. You think there's an influential political contingent whose members are unaware that this opinion exists, and collectively and paradoxically want to make sure no one contemplates that possibility?
Nothing so harmless. I think the education system and the political community trains you to systematically refuse to listen to what your opponents are saying, unless it conforms exactly to what your favorite talking heads tell you that your opponents are saying.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:

A rational argument requires both that the conclusion follow from the premises and that the premises be demonstrably true (or at least plausible and supported by evidence).

Rational argument does not require that premises be demonstrably true, it requires that they not be demonstrably false. Nothing we're dealing with meets that standard for either side.

That said, you are correct they have to be plausible, and if you have a choice of multiple paths it's most reasonable to choose the best supported one. Of course, there is a legitimate dispute on which are the best supported.

I really thought long and hard about how to best respond to you. From the track you took I think you believe I think there aren't rational arguments in favor of SSM. As I'm favor of SSM I can assure you that isn't the case. But there currently is no compelling evidence, yet we are at a time when we're called to make a decision. In that circumstance, neither side is of necessity acting irrationally (though I grant you many people are acting irrationally).

It is not irrational to look at the lack of expirementation on this topic and conclude the welfare of children urges or requires carefull limits. That their interests should not be secondary to the interests of their parents. Nor is it irrational to conclude that the children's best interests are served by allowing SSM. Until we do have good data the possibilities are open.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  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 
quote:
No! Under our common law system, the fact that an equitable constructive exception has been invoked, allows the court to consider further equitable adjustments.

The neuter marriage rule demands that "equality" creates a procrustean bed, one law for the lion and the ox. If you can't say it gender neutrally, you haven't said anything at all. Dangerous and stupid, and creates a worst of both worlds scenario, a race to the bottom where any law that can't apply fairly to all types of couples is tossed. And there go the protections that are most relevant to unplanned children, e.g the presumption of paternity, nullification for lack of consummation, etc.

Oh, okay.

It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out in Canada. I haven't heard of any challenges touching on those issues yet. I'm reasonably sure the Act which redefined marriage didn't include any guidance to resolving them either. I don't think it even changed the Divorce Act, which did result in a court case, IRRC.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
you've never even attempted to show that neutering the meaning of marriage is necessary in order to provide protections or equality to same-sex couples and their families
The whole point of denying access to the word "marriage" for same-sex unions is to deny them equality, Pete. Surely you understand that, since it's what you're calling for?
Which leads to a more interesting question, from my view, of whether all three relationship types should be called marriage, but the rights associated therewith should vary. We've seen differences for instance in whether a FF marriage is entitled to recieve child support from the male contributor of sperm to produce their children. Wouldn't MM pairings that want to have biological children also need special rules to ensure an equitable result?
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 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 MattP:

As a secondary concern, I don't think many people on either side are likely to sign on for that solution. There's much *more* support for the whole "get government out of marriage" thing and even that's not going anywhere.

Hard to say until we've tried. The solution does have the virtue of 1. giving both sides what they claim to want; 2. Giving both sides a legitimate reason to claim victory; and 3. giving both sides a reason to gloat on beating the other side, which seems, in this political season, to be the prime motivator in politics. It's paranthetically the only constitutional solution at this point other than a constitutional amendment, since neuter marriage cannot survive more than a generation until the courts realize that the whole basis for declaring it a fundamental constitutional right no longer exists.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Because no doctrinaire lefty can be allowed to contemplate the possibility that someone might actually think that marriage means and should mean the union of man and woman for life.
Trying to figure this one out. You think there's an influential political contingent whose members are unaware that this opinion exists, and collectively and paradoxically want to make sure no one contemplates that possibility?
Nothing so harmless. I think the education system and the political community trains you to systematically refuse to listen to what your opponents are saying, unless it conforms exactly to what your favorite talking heads tell you that your opponents are saying.
The reason I'm picking on you here is not that I think lefties are good at avoiding oversimplification and confirmation bias. It's just that the particular belief you are saying people will refuse or be unable to contemplate is an incredibly simple and central meme of SSM opposition. You'd have to be a feral person in order to avoid knowing that "some people believe that marriage is and should be a union of man and woman for life". In fact, this serves as THE crux of the argument.

I'm trying to figure out why you're exaggerating and distorting the problem with having the anti-SSM argument distorted or misunderstood.

My own opinion is that getting misconstrued happens to you because your argument is extremely technical and tenuous, and furthermore requires a lot of weight on the most tenuous parts. But the mainstream opposition - the appeal to tradition beyond which most advocates never go - which fairly boils down to "some people believe that marriage is and should be a union of man and woman for life" - is never misunderstood.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 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:
Which leads to a more interesting question, from my view, of whether all three relationship types should be called marriage, but the rights associated therewith should vary.
Why leave out if in MF marriages the family should be entitled to child support if the M of the couple is not the biological parent?

Or is obsfucating bastards and incentivizing sleeping around in the best interest of the family? We need to preserve the traditional family dynamic after all.

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 scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Because no doctrinaire lefty can be allowed to contemplate the possibility that someone might actually think that marriage means and should mean the union of man and woman for life.
Trying to figure this one out. You think there's an influential political contingent whose members are unaware that this opinion exists, and collectively and paradoxically want to make sure no one contemplates that possibility?
Nothing so harmless. I think the education system and the political community trains you to systematically refuse to listen to what your opponents are saying, unless it conforms exactly to what your favorite talking heads tell you that your opponents are saying.
The reason I'm picking on you here is not that I think lefties are good at avoiding oversimplification and confirmation bias. It's just that the particular belief you are saying people will refuse or be unable to contemplate is an incredibly simple and central meme of SSM opposition. You'd have to be a feral person in order to avoid knowing that "some people believe that marriage is and should be a union of man and woman for life".
Please explain that to Tom, just stated on the top half of page 3 that the only reason for opposing SSM is to deny equality to gays. [Crying]
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 D.W.:
quote:
Which leads to a more interesting question, from my view, of whether all three relationship types should be called marriage, but the rights associated therewith should vary.
Why leave out if in MF marriages the family should be entitled to child support if the M of the couple is not the biological parent?

Or is obsfucating bastards and incentivizing sleeping around in the best interest of the family? We need to preserve the traditional family dynamic after all.

Not at all. To the extent that traditions further the interests of the child, they should be preserved; those that demonstrably hamper the child's interests should (to the extent possible without violating other constitutional rights!) be discouraged and hampered. Bride-burning, wife-beating, etc. are examples of the latter.

Screw tradition for tradition's sake. OTOH, traditions which have a proven track record for benefiting children and society at large, should be protected.

What could be more obvious?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
Which leads to a more interesting question, from my view, of whether all three relationship types should be called marriage, but the rights associated therewith should vary.
Why leave out if in MF marriages the family should be entitled to child support if the M of the couple is not the biological parent?
Not leaving it out, it's just settled law, to my knowledge, in all 50 states that the answer is no. It only becomes relevant because it's not been answered so consistently for FF marriages to date, and I'm not aware that it's even been considered for MM ones.
quote:
Or is obsfucating bastards and incentivizing sleeping around in the best interest of the family? We need to preserve the traditional family dynamic after all.
I'm missing something here, you seem upset. How are bastards obfuscated - they don't exist in a married couple context (even if there is a different father). Not sure that this incentivises sleeping around, the goal - historically - was to prevent outsiders from disrupting a marriage by trying to claim the children born to that couple.

Of course it was in a historical context that didn't allow for certainty of parentage, and I think Pete demonstrated that the rules are changing in some places in light of new technology.

In any event, the fact that we need updates invalidates that the rules need to work differently for different families how?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 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 
"Or is obsfucating bastards ... in the best interest of the family?"

Yes. Absolutely. Many a family has been saved by what daddy didn't know. MORE IMPORTANTLY it's in the best interest of the child to not be known as a bastard.

"incentivizing sleeping around"

It doesn't create an incentive. It does perversely remove a disincentive, but protecting the child is the more important consideration.

Obfuscation of bastardy and plausible paternity is also the most obvious positive function of allowing conjugal visits. Why else would we facilitate reproduction of convicts? Presumably mama's going to get her thang on, and better to give daddy an excuse to believe that her kids are his, and prevent a spree of murders and resulting orphans when daddy's released from the pen.

These are the civil lies that comprise civilization.

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:
Please explain that to Tom, just stated on the top half of page 3 that the only reason for opposing SSM is to deny equality to gays.
Specifically, I said that the reason to oppose applying the word "marriage" to "same-sex marriage" is to deny that the union of two same-sex individuals is equal to the union of two opposite-sex individuals; the only reason to object is to maintain that distinction.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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'm missing something here, you seem upset.
quote:
It doesn't create an incentive. It does perversely remove a disincentive, but protecting the child is the more important consideration.
Not so much upset as stunned or unsettled. But I have an odd personal moral code which ranks honesty as more valuable than preserving a pretty fiction even if that honesty has terrible costs.
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 Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
you've never even attempted to show that neutering the meaning of marriage is necessary in order to provide protections or equality to same-sex couples and their families
The whole point of denying access to the word "marriage" for same-sex unions is to deny them equality, Pete. Surely you understand that, since it's what you're calling for?
Matt, would you help me remove Tom's head from where it's stuck? He still hasn't noticed my alternate proposal, that does NOT deny the word "marriage" to same-sex couples. And continues to fail to address how constructive exception shows me part of the conspiracy to "deny them equality."

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 
Your alternate proposal suggests that an idiotic, transparent fiction is preferable to just facing the truth. I know I wouldn't want my marriage to require me to accept a falsehood before I could get one.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Not so much upset as stunned or unsettled. But I have an odd personal moral code which ranks honesty as more valuable than preserving a pretty fiction even if that honesty has terrible costs.

Then I am missing something. Not sure where I advocated dishonesty. My initial point on that was just noting that the pre-existing rules don't fit well with the new circumstances. Though I get why the rules are where they are, there are plenty of other places they could reasonably be.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  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 
I was addressing a point Pete had made previously, and just reiterated after your question. Sorry for the confusion.
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 TomDavidson:
Your alternate proposal suggests that an idiotic, transparent fiction is preferable to just facing the truth. I know I wouldn't want my marriage to require me to accept a falsehood before I could get one.

"Transparent fiction"

Yes, tom, that's the meaning of a constructive exception. American law is riddled with them, and yet the sun keeps shining.

"I wouldn't want my marriage to ..."

Is that your best demonstration of harm? That you don't "WANT" it?

you can't always get what you want, baby.

Do you want more time to think of a harm, Tom? After all you've only had 12 years of discussion with me to think of one.

In the mean time can you at least concede that there is no 14th Amendment argument against my proposal?

[ January 15, 2014, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

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 D.W.:
quote:
I'm missing something here, you seem upset.
quote:
It doesn't create an incentive. It does perversely remove a disincentive, but protecting the child is the more important consideration.
Not so much upset as stunned or unsettled. But I have an odd personal moral code which ranks honesty as more valuable than preserving a pretty fiction even if that honesty has terrible costs.

I never knew you were a puritan, DW. Do you persecute all fiction writers as liars? Does Stephen King need to worry about you stalking him?

In my moral universe, a fiction is only problematic when it's passed off as fact.

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:
In the mean time can you at least concede that there is no 14th Amendment argument against my proposal?
I would argue that requiring someone to lie to qualify for an available status would in fact violate the 14th. By your logic, it would not violate the Constitution to charge all Jews additional taxes, as long as anyone who was Jewish could lie about it.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

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