What will be the next Great Progressive Cause™ now that same-sex marriage is common?

[jackstar7]

re: sterile couples being married.

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

It's too inconvenient given the mysteries of fertility.

This was interesting to read... but has more than a few holes that all it does to fill in is say 'but that doesn't really matter'.

 

[nehalem256]

That's your opinion, society has evolved and as its evolved the social construct of marriage no longer is based around human reproduction.

You make a choice to attach a reproduction component to marriage as a social construct because it allows you to use it for a basis of inequality.

I think same sex marriages given the biological differences are not unequal.

No I attach the reproductive component because that gives a legitimate reason to care about someone's relationship.

But again you are making my point. When I talk about marriage, and when you talk about marriage we are referring to entirely separate things.

You have created a new type of union and are trying to get by with calling it marriage in order to get the benefits marriage provides.

Correct, marriage does not deal with incest, that is a societal issue. Plenty of people related to each other have been married. This does not remove or diminish the biological requirement of 1 male 1 female from the context and meaning of marriage.

I have made the same basic point before. There is a difference between saying a relationship isn't marriage (same-sex "marriage") and saying a particular type of relationship could be marriage, but should not be allowed (marrying children, forced marriages, incest, etc).

 

[lotus503]

No I attach the reproductive component because that gives a legitimate reason to care about someone's relationship.

But again you are making my point. When I talk about marriage, and when you talk about marriage we are referring to entirely separate things.

You have created a new type of union and are trying to get by with calling it marriage in order to get the benefits marriage provides.



I have made the same basic point before. There is a difference between saying a relationship isn't marriage (same-sex "marriage") and saying a particular type of relationship could be marriage, but should not be allowed (marrying children, forced marriages, incest, etc).

We agree it's about ones choice to treat differences equal or unequal.

you want to treat differences unequal I want them treated equally.

And there you have it a choice for society. Majority feel the differences in same sex marriage are not unequal.

Given its a social construct it's defined by society.

 

[jackstar7]

This has already been discussed in this thread, and has already existed for thousands of years across multiple societies.

Chuck

So... no links? Nothing? Seems like it should be easy to just copy+paste a quick rundown... or link to the posts that can elaborate it for me.

 

[chucky2]

So... no links? Nothing? Seems like it should be easy to just copy+paste a quick rundown... or link to the posts that can elaborate it for me.

You are asking me to provide links to what amounts to Billions of peoples collective understanding of what marriage is? It's marriage...it's what it always has been.

Please provide links running down how 2 males being 'married' is equal to 1 male 1 female being married. The burden is on you to prove the context and meaning of marriage must be changed to include gays, not on me to back up what thousands of years of multiple societies has long understood.

Basically I'm asking you to provide a link that shows pure water is the same as mud. Better get going on that, I think your search will be a long one...

Chuck

 

[Retro Rob]

There is nothing to disagree with.
Marriage being a social construct is fact and can't be disputed.

The biological attachment is made by society or not made by society based on the choice of society.

That's also exactly why it's no different than interracial marriage.

Marriage predates recorded history, and since you're admitting that this is all relative, I know people who disagree.

Marriage is a social contruct to you, but not to everyone.

There's plenty to disagree with...

 

[lotus503]

You are asking me to provide links to what amounts to Billions of peoples collective understanding of what marriage is? It's marriage...it's what it always has been.

Please provide links running down how 2 males being 'married' is equal to 1 male 1 female being married. The burden is on you to prove the context and meaning of marriage must be changed to include gays, not on me to back up what thousands of years of multiple societies has long understood.

Basically I'm asking you to provide a link that shows pure water is the same as mud. Better get going on that, I think your search will be a long one...

Chuck

the only proof required is that societies evolve and they redefine social constructs. This is un-distputable fact. It happened with interracial marriage and its happening now.

Who knows in 200 years it may happen with robot companions. You can refuse to accept this change based on your viewpoints but society as a collective is what will define marriage for society.

 

[lotus503]

Marriage predates recorded history, and since you're admitting that this is all relative, I know people who disagree.

Marriage is a social contruct to you, but not to everyone.

There's plenty to disagree with...

Marriage doesn't exist absent culture and society therefore its a social construct.

Furthermore marriage in legal context requires recognition by society, further demonstrating it being a social construct.

Sure you can disagree with the facts but it doesn't make it less factual.

You could argue Marriage is what you feel relative to your commitment to your partner but we are discussing the law and how it relates to marriage, so its definitely in the social construct camp.

 

[Retro Rob]

Marriage doesn't exist absent culture and society therefore its a social construct.

Furthermore marriage in legal context requires recognition by society, further demonstrating it being a social construct.

Sure you can disagree with the facts but it doesn't make it less factual.

You could argue Marriage is what you feel relative to your commitment to your partner but we are discussing the law and how it relates to marriage, so its definitely in the social construct camp.

Fair enough.

Thanks.

 

[lotus503]

Fair enough.

Thanks.

I want to be clear, you are perfectly allowed to express and think that gay marriage it not equal to your marriage as it relates to your personal expression of what marriage is to you be it religious context, how you feel, or any other consideration.

You want to attach a procreation component for your person definition that fine, you want to choose to treat biological considerations as unequal thats fine too.

I personally hold the belief that marriage has two fundamental components.

societal
and personal

I'm in a very happy marriage id say I think its better than most marriages and that other marriages are not equal to mine because I'm so damn happy.

I don't expect society as a whole to take that into account when defining constructs though.

 

[nehalem256]

the only proof required is that societies evolve and they redefine social constructs. This is un-distputable fact. It happened with interracial marriage and its happening now.

Who knows in 200 years it may happen with robot companions. You can refuse to accept this change based on your viewpoints but society as a collective is what will define marriage for society.

Language is societal construct.

What lefties have does is spent 10+ years saying calling turkeys cows, and anyone who disagrees is aurochphobic, until a bunch of people basically said fine we give up we will call turkeys cows.

 

[chucky2]

the only proof required is that societies evolve and they redefine social constructs. This is un-distputable fact. It happened with interracial marriage and its happening now.

Who knows in 200 years it may happen with robot companions. You can refuse to accept this change based on your viewpoints but society as a collective is what will define marriage for society.

What's interesting is that so many different societies over such a long time period have long accepted, without argument, that marriage is of course (it is viewed as common sense) between 1 male 1 female or, 1 male multiple females. The common theme being, opposite genders. What is also interesting is that societies not only evolve, but, devolve. Meaning, society doesn't always get it right. This is also un-distputable fact.

We have already been over interracial marriage as being an incorrect comparison to gay 'marriage'. Here's something interesting though: We followed science to break down the incorrect societal view that interracial marraige was wrong, establishing the only thing different between say a black male marrying a white female was the pigmentation of their skin, inside, they were the same. Now when a scientific (biologic) reason is given for gays not being equal to traditional couples, thus not qualifying for the term marriage, we have the gay side completely throwing out science and instead screaming as loud as they can possibly manage, to drown out the biologic reason, that no no, it's a societal view now.

I find that incredibly interesting...

Chuck

 

[lotus503]

Language is societal construct.

What lefties have does is spent 10+ years saying calling turkeys cows, and anyone who disagrees is aurochphobic, until a bunch of people basically said fine we give up we will call turkeys cows.

Yup language is a social construct too and if the majority of the country wants to define turkeys as cows in language they can.

They wont, but could. Just like they could define marriage between and a man and potato as equal.

Again extremes examples that wont happen because society will wont support it, Thats what makes gay marriage different society will support the inclusion.

 

[jackstar7]

You are asking me to provide links to what amounts to Billions of peoples collective understanding of what marriage is? It's marriage...it's what it always has been.

Please provide links running down how 2 males being 'married' is equal to 1 male 1 female being married. The burden is on you to prove the context and meaning of marriage must be changed to include gays, not on me to back up what thousands of years of multiple societies has long understood.

Basically I'm asking you to provide a link that shows pure water is the same as mud. Better get going on that, I think your search will be a long one...

Chuck

If you won't establish what "marriage" is, how am I meant to demonstrate how a gay couple can fit within how you define it?

You're positing that it is obvious or accepted. Should make it no effort for you at all.

And seriously, let it go with the mud/water thing. It has never helped the discussion.

 

[lotus503]

What's interesting is that so many different societies over such a long time period have long accepted, without argument, that marriage is of course (it is viewed as common sense) between 1 male 1 female or, 1 male multiple females. The common theme being, opposite genders. What is also interesting is that societies not only evolve, but, devolve. Meaning, society doesn't always get it right. This is also un-distputable fact.

We have already been over interracial marriage as being an incorrect comparison to gay 'marriage'. Here's something interesting though: We followed science to break down the incorrect societal view that interracial marraige was wrong, establishing the only thing different between say a black male marrying a white female was the pigmentation of their skin, inside, they were the same. Now when a scientific (biologic) reason is given for gays not being equal to traditional couples, thus not qualifying for the term marriage, we have the gay side completely throwing out science and instead screaming as loud as they can possibly manage, to drown out the biologic reason, that no no, it's a societal view now.

I find that incredibly interesting...

Chuck

I agree that society doesn't always get it right, but in the end its up to society to define social constructs using whatever means it wants, be it science or anything else for that matter.

being that in the end marriage is a social construct defining who is included in it is social and when we (Society) decided to allow interracial marriage and treat it equal is was a choice made by society.

Why society made that choice is irrelevant we only need to consider it may it. you can argue the arguments for interracial marriage were different and held more merit for you but it just doesnt matter.

every reason under the sun for not allowing Gay marriage has been made, society has considered them and they are going to treat it equal anyway.

 

[jackstar7]

Marriage predates recorded history

How do you prove that?

 

[chucky2]

If you won't establish what "marriage" is, how am I meant to demonstrate how a gay couple can fit within how you define it?

You're positing that it is obvious or accepted. Should make it no effort for you at all.

And seriously, let it go with the mud/water thing. It has never helped the discussion.

So...no links from you. And still dismissing the analogy that accurately blows the gay 'marriage' being equal to straight marriage argument out of the water, yet, no reason for the dismissal other than Please stop it really makes our argument look bad!

It's really OK, I get it. The gay argument is both an emo and legal one, wrapped in a legality angle. We get that to secure the perversion of the term certain key things need to dismissed, for their inclusion is so damning, if they were included, the equal concept would have a huge hole in it. So far you've provided nothing to indicate why thousands of years of marriage acceptance by multiple societies should be dismissed, nor why the biological difference should be dismissed.

Your only arguement so far has been a Pay no attention to the (biologic) man behind the curtain! type logic, which, predictably, has completely failed here but worked perfectly fine with the general public sheeple to finally get the gay marriage goal met.

You keep asking me to prove (when I don't need to) why society refers to a tree as a tree. I'm asking you to prove why society should accept why a bush now should be referred to a tree, when they are not the same.

Still waiting for your links...

Chuck

 

[lotus503]

So...no links from you. And still dismissing the analogy that accurately blows the gay 'marriage' being equal to straight marriage argument out of the water, yet, no reason for the dismissal other than Please stop it really makes our argument look bad!

It's really OK, I get it. The gay argument is both an emo and legal one, wrapped in a legality angle. We get that to secure the perversion of the term certain key things need to dismissed, for their inclusion is so damning, if they were included, the equal concept would have a huge hole in it. So far you've provided nothing to indicate why thousands of years of marriage acceptance by multiple societies should be dismissed, nor why the biological difference should be dismissed.

Your only arguement so far has been a Pay no attention to the (biologic) man behind the curtain! type logic, which, predictably, has completely failed here but worked perfectly fine with the general public sheeple to finally get the gay marriage goal met.

You keep asking me to prove (when I don't need to) why society refers to a tree as a tree. I'm asking you to prove why society should accept why a bush now should be referred to a tree, when they are not the same.

Still waiting for your links...

Chuck

Failure is determined by the outcome and ones position related to it. In which case no matter what you say or do the end result of gay marriage being treated equally by society means your position has failed.

You can kick and scream with how bad that is and how everyone else is wrong it just doesn't matter.

Look at it this way, according to society for some time you have been right but soon your are going to be wrong

 

[chucky2]

I agree that society doesn't always get it right, but in the end its up to society to define social constructs using whatever means it wants, be it science or anything else for that matter.

being that in the end marriage is a social construct defining who is included in it is social and when we (Society) decided to allow interracial marriage and treat it equal is was a choice made by society.

Why society made that choice is irrelevant we only need to consider it may it. you can argue the arguments for interracial marriage were different and held more merit for you but it just doesnt matter.

every reason under the sun for not allowing Gay marriage has been made, society has considered them and they are going to treat it equal anyway.

Yes, society defines the meaning of terms, it's we who create the words and assign meaning to those words. In that sense, what marriage is certainly is a societal issue. I find it fascinating that for thousands of years, across radically differenct societies, societies that in many cases had no contact with each other, that in each one, marriage was between two different genders. No need to question what all these societies already accepted as marriage.

Now we have a society that is compromised of sheeple, has the benefit of mass communication, and thus, mass indoctrination, and also now this same society gets into a phase where it becomes so PC, no one is allowed to be insulted, dismissed, or perceived to be wrong. This same society somehow is going to come to the conlcusion that a bush is a tree, that pure water/pure dirt is the same as mud.

So be it. I've never felt once we've gone this insane PC road that it would be any different. But lets not try and gloss over the fact - and, as shown, it's a fact - that a gay 'marriage' is inequal to straight marriage. That fact only becomes dismissable when the large biologic difference is completely and willfully ignored, which only tens of millions of us are not willing to do (for various reasons).

Be content...you'll have got your way. Every group who whines loud enough in public in the US now gets their way (as long as they're not male, white, or Christian that is). It's the way of our future. Personally, as I've said before, I'm happy as hell it's happening. My hope next is "pro-immigration" "reform", and hopefully another few massive "pro-investment" bills. Whatever it takes to tank the US the fastest is what I'm pushing for. Little boulders down the hill like gay 'marriage' are OK, but I'm really hoping for some big boulders. We'll hopefully both get what we want in the future! :thumbsup:

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Failure is determined by the outcome and ones position related to it. In which case no matter what you say or do the end result of gay marriage being treated equally by society means your position has failed.

You can kick and scream with how bad that is and how everyone else is wrong it just doesn't matter.

Look at it this way, according to society for some time you have been right but soon your are going to be wrong

What you've just said is that everyone who believed interracial marriage to be wrong before that position was invalidated was in fact right at the time. Did you mean to say that or is that really your position?

 

[blankslate]

Basically what I think this thread boils down to is that some people who for whatever reason are opposed to "marriage equality" or "gay marriage" are finding out that most people under a certain age really don't see it as the end of society...

^and this is their reaction...

only a lot of them aren't as cute as the ferret.

 

[jackstar7]

So...no links from you. And still dismissing the analogy that accurately blows the gay 'marriage' being equal to straight marriage argument out of the water, yet, no reason for the dismissal other than Please stop it really makes our argument look bad!

It's really OK, I get it. The gay argument is both an emo and legal one, wrapped in a legality angle. We get that to secure the perversion of the term certain key things need to dismissed, for their inclusion is so damning, if they were included, the equal concept would have a huge hole in it. So far you've provided nothing to indicate why thousands of years of marriage acceptance by multiple societies should be dismissed, nor why the biological difference should be dismissed.

Your only arguement so far has been a Pay no attention to the (biologic) man behind the curtain! type logic, which, predictably, has completely failed here but worked perfectly fine with the general public sheeple to finally get the gay marriage goal met.

You keep asking me to prove (when I don't need to) why society refers to a tree as a tree. I'm asking you to prove why society should accept why a bush now should be referred to a tree, when they are not the same.

Still waiting for your links...

Chuck

I'm asking you to define a tree. You are unwilling and instead fall back on tautology.

You are asserting that marriage is/means something. I'm asking what it entails entirely so that we can at least start from the same page. Again, you refuse.

Logic dictates that all givens be defined before one can proceed from them.

 

[lotus503]

Yes, society defines the meaning of terms, it's we who create the words and assign meaning to those words. In that sense, what marriage is certainly is a societal issue. I find it fascinating that for thousands of years, across radically differenct societies, societies that in many cases had no contact with each other, that in each one, marriage was between two different genders. No need to question what all these societies already accepted as marriage.

Now we have a society that is compromised of sheeple, has the benefit of mass communication, and thus, mass indoctrination, and also now this same society gets into a phase where it becomes so PC, no one is allowed to be insulted, dismissed, or perceived to be wrong. This same society somehow is going to come to the conlcusion that a bush is a tree, that pure water/pure dirt is the same as mud.

So be it. I've never felt once we've gone this insane PC road that it would be any different. But lets not try and gloss over the fact - and, as shown, it's a fact - that a gay 'marriage' is inequal to straight marriage. That fact only becomes questionable when the large biologic difference is completely and willfully ignored, which only tens of millions of us are not willing to do (for various reasons).

Be content...you'll have got your way. Every group who whines loud enough in public in the US now gets their way (as long as they're not male, white, or Christian that is). It's the way of our future. Personally, as I've said before, I'm happy as hell it's happening. My hope next is "pro-immigration" "reform", and hopefully another few massive "pro-investment" bills. Whatever it takes to tank the US the fastest is what I'm pushing for. Little boulders down the hill like gay 'marriage' are OK, but I'm really hoping for some big boulders. We'll hopefully both get what we want in the future! :thumbsup:

Chuck

Yeah I think we don't have to define societal constructs simply because of how they have been historically viewed. society is free to change and adpat with the times its in currently. That is what is occurring now society is choosing to evaluate itself based on itself currently vs. historically.

I don't think it means every little issue with attention gets societal support, its taken decades for gay marriage to gain traction and much debate.

But I do agree that the white Christian part of nation is going under transformation, losing both influence and superiority, in the course of that loss, its throwing all sorts of predictable hissy fits.

 

[lotus503]

What you've just said is that everyone who believed interracial marriage to be wrong before that position was invalidated was in fact right at the time. Did you mean to say that or is that really your position?

Whether or not I think it was right at the time is immaterial to the fact it was what society determined at the time. some people thought it was right some people thought it was wrong. ultimately the majority of society determined to change it.

Had I been around then I would have thought it was wrong and made attempts to change it doesn't mean I dont understand the mood of society at the time right or wrong.

Public policy has a habit of lagging behind the general feeling of society at the time.

Had I grown up on a cotton plantation during slavery would I have thought slavery wrong? hard to tell because thats not the life or life experience I lived through which is what determines our viewpoints to a large degree.

Consequently thats why the younger you are the less you care about treating gay marriage equal.

 

[chucky2]

I'm asking you to define a tree. You are unwilling and instead fall back on tautology.

For the purposes of our discussion here, marriage is the joining of a committed male and committed female to a lifelong union, you know, what it's been for the past couple thousand years in many different societies. I know this. You know this. Billions of people knew (since they are long dead) and know this. Why you've asked for a definition of something vastly understood mystifies me.

You are asserting that marriage is/means something.

Ahh, I see, you are confused. I'm not asserting anything. Marriage does mean the joining of two opposite sexed partners. This pretty much has hundreds of millions of historical examples and societal acceptance. You thinking I'm asserting this is where I see now you are confused. I'm simply stating fact.

I'm asking what it entails entirely so that we can at least start from the same page. Again, you refuse.

Logic dictates that all givens be defined before one can proceed from them.

It's not that I refuse, it's that you apperently while being a member of society who already has long understood what the term marriage is, somehow don't grasp it. It's like if you just typed, 'Please define what you mean by the term "tree".' It's just not a serious position to take.

Still waiting on those links from you...

Chuck