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

[lotus503]

Doesn't matter if society is harmed or not. We could change the meaning of mud to mean both mud and water, and the same thing will happen with a perverted definition of marriage that would happen with the perverted definition of mud: People who understood the two to be different would have to keep clarifying WTF people who kept using the perverted term really meant.

This is precisely why Gov should get out of the marriage definition terminology. They should only recognize civil union so as to not deal with the inevitable backlash that is going to occur when gays and their supporters start using in earnest 'I'm married' and people who don't accept the perverted term take steps - both in an official and unofficial capacity - to push back on it.

I do agree with you though: While I don't accept the perversion, society has gravitated towards perverting the term. But this happens with many things, and is to be expected. Look at how many happily sign up for welfare, how many think it's great to do so, how many are 'pro-immigration', how many love ever increasing Gov, etc. etc. etc. Other than bitching about it on the board here, I in real life race to hasten it; to the short term delight of those championing such things. The faster we hit bottom, the faster we can - hopefully - start up again. While the perversion of the term marriage certainly will not harm society in any meaningful way (not that doing harm is something that matters in any way to the debate), it really is a perfect example of the war being waged on Americans minds in a 'race to whatever goes' mentality.

Next up: "Pro-immigration". If you're not for being illegally invaded by the 10's of millions, you're a racist xenophobe. Same logic will be used...'But, if they are not hard working, and not in America, are they not Americans?' 'They're not Americans, they're Mexicans/illegals' 'But, is not the term American able to evolve as society wills it?' 'No.' Tons of illegals and their supporters march for "immigrant rights". Poof. Open borders. Same exact thing as the gay "marriage" issue...

I don't think anyone is for being invaded by millions of illegal aliens.

I think there is much disagreement in how to deal with it.
Not even a comparable set of issues though really.

You have a right to your views. We all derive our values and ideas from our life experience.

And I think based on that you will see marriage as a perversion. But obviously a majority of people disagree with you and don't think that way about it.

Just like I don't value church I do have to respect a lot of people do.

 

[Retro Rob]

Except in the case of interracial marriage, what blocked that was a false understanding that blacks were not the same as whites, when in fact, they are the same as whites except for pigmentation in their skin.



Chuck

I agree with this entirely...

 

[lotus503]

Quite frankly, it does mean unequality... for that reason... and that isn't a negative thing.. it's just a fact.

Sure, society doesn't let that define them which is a good thing, but that doesn't change the fact.

The relationship is unequal because of the deliberate incompatibilty... but the people (gays/straights) are equal as humans.

The relationship is different not unequal, biological compatibility is only a consideration if you want it to be in determining equality. Society is making the decision biological incompatibility does not mean unequal.

That's just it we choose to determine what is or isn't equal within society and culture. Since marriage is a social and cultural construct and not biological, society determines what is or is not equal.

 

[chucky2]

I don't think anyone is for being invaded by millions of illegal aliens.

I think there is much disagreement in how to deal with it.
Not even a comparable set of issues though really.

We have, and continue to be, invaded by millions of illegal aliens. There are large %'s of people on both sides of the aisle, each sides base, that are jizz over themselves happy about it. That is precisely the reason why it hasn't, and especially will not in the future, be dealt with. Our society has so bankrupted itself, we in fact have a willing quasi-slave labor force ready and willing to 'do jobs we don't want to do (that somehow were done by us before, but, somehow, now cannot be). You remember how much the Leadership of the South clung to slavery, and not allowing the North to dictate to them on the slavery issue? You remember what happened when the North stepped in to enforce its will? Well now, the entire US is the South. And the North in this case is those who want to - at minimum - lock down the border. How do you think that idea is going to go over with the slave owners/benefiters?

You have a right to your views. We all derive our values and ideas from our life experience.

And I think based on that you will see marriage as a perversion. But obviously a majority of people disagree with you and don't think that way about it.

Just like I don't value church I do have to respect a lot of people do.

No, I see marriage as marriage. I see the perverted view of marriage as what it will be: A perversion of the term marriage. "A majority" of people agree that gays should have the same legal rights as straight married couples. I do not buy that a majority of Americans wish to pervert the term marriage, only that they lazily refer to gays being "married" and simply wish them to have the same legal rights as married couples. There'd have to be an unbiased poll conducted with a large enough and statistically significant sample size, asking clear questions, to see if a true majority of Americans were for the perversion of the term marriage to include gays.

I suspect this majority would not be a majority, nor even remotely close to a majority in large swathes of the US.

Chuck

 

[Retro Rob]

The relationship is different not unequal, biological compatibility is only a consideration if you want it to be in determining equality. Society is making the decision biological incompatibility does not mean unequal.

That's just it we choose to determine what is or isn't equal within society and culture. Since marriage is a social and cultural construct and not biological, society determines what is or is not equal.

We just see things differently, of course.

However, becasue society is trying to make them equal (gay adoption, surrogacy, etc), that speaks very loudly.

And I am not being insulting to you or sarcastic, but are you saying that anything can be equal because we say it is?

I don't think equality is relative as you're saying it is... some things are just not equal..

 

[lotus503]

We have, and continue to be, invaded by millions of illegal aliens. There are large %'s of people on both sides of the aisle, each sides base, that are jizz over themselves happy about it. That is precisely the reason why it hasn't, and especially will not in the future, be dealt with. Our society has so bankrupted itself, we in fact have a willing quasi-slave labor force ready and willing to 'do jobs we don't want to do (that somehow were done by us before, but, somehow, now cannot be). You remember how much the Leadership of the South clung to slavery, and not allowing the North to dictate to them on the slavery issue? You remember what happened when the North stepped in to enforce its will? Well now, the entire US is the South. And the North in this case is those who want to - at minimum - lock down the border. How do you think that idea is going to go over with the slave owners/benefiters?



No, I see marriage as marriage. I see the perverted view of marriage as what it will be: A perversion of the term marriage. "A majority" of people agree that gays should have the same legal rights as straight married couples. I do not buy that a majority of Americans wish to pervert the term marriage, only that they lazily refer to gays being "married" and simply wish them to have the same legal rights as married couples. There'd have to be an unbiased poll conducted with a large enough and statistically significant sample size, asking clear questions, to see if a true majority of Americans were for the perversion of the term marriage to include gays.

I suspect this majority would not be a majority, nor even remotely close to a majority in large swathes of the US.

Chuck

We have to agree to disagree polls have been conducted and majority favor gay marriage and the sentiment is gaining steam.

Your free to view it how you want. I disagree with your views and feel confident it will turn out to support my view soon.

Marriage is a social construct and society will include gays in it. In a generation it will be thought of in the same fashion as interracial marriage.

 

[chucky2]

We have to agree to disagree polls have been conducted and majority favor gay marriage and the sentiment is gaining steam.

Your free to view it how you want. I disagree with your views and feel confident it will turn out to support my view soon.

Marriage is a social construct and society will include gays in it. In a generation it will be thought of in the same fashion as interracial marriage.

Oh, I'm confident society will do exactly that, pervert the term of marriage to include gays. I've never thought otherwise. The logic is as clear as mud, but, society will rush over itself to get it done, for the simple fact that someone has said they've been insulted, and, in our PC society, that cannot be allowed to stand. Society must make sure everyone is in harmony, no bad feelings, regardless of what it takes to get to that point. Regardless of whoever has said they feel shunned/insulted should be told 'tough shit' or not.

And so too will come "pro-immigration". We already live in a time of Fed "pro-investment", look for that to continue in hundred $B scales per year.

It's all the same mentality, just different topics. Like I said before, I welcome it, faster we can get to the bottom and crash out, the better. Until that happens, those that feel the need to pervert things will keep on their jizz train, it's just the way things go...

Chuck

 

[jackstar7]

Doesn't matter if society is harmed or not. We could change the meaning of mud to mean both mud and water, and the same thing will happen with a perverted definition of marriage that would happen with the perverted definition of mud: People who understood the two to be different would have to keep clarifying WTF people who kept using the perverted term really meant.

This is precisely why Gov should get out of the marriage definition terminology. They should only recognize civil union so as to not deal with the inevitable backlash that is going to occur when gays and their supporters start using in earnest 'I'm married' and people who don't accept the perverted term take steps - both in an official and unofficial capacity - to push back on it.

I do agree with you though: While I don't accept the perversion, society has gravitated towards perverting the term. But this happens with many things, and is to be expected. Look at how many happily sign up for welfare, how many think it's great to do so, how many are 'pro-immigration', how many love ever increasing Gov, etc. etc. etc. Other than bitching about it on the board here, I in real life race to hasten it; to the short term delight of those championing such things. The faster we hit bottom, the faster we can - hopefully - start up again. While the perversion of the term marriage certainly will not harm society in any meaningful way (not that doing harm is something that matters in any way to the debate), it really is a perfect example of the war being waged on Americans minds in a 'race to whatever goes' mentality.

Next up: "Pro-immigration". If you're not for being illegally invaded by the 10's of millions, you're a racist xenophobe. Same logic will be used...'But, if they are hard working, and in America, are they not Americans?' 'They're not Americans, they're Mexicans/illegals' 'But, is not the term American able to evolve as society wills it?' 'No.' Tons of illegals and their supporters march for "immigrant rights". Poof. Open borders. Same exact thing as the gay "marriage" issue...

So you start by saying that it doesn't matter if society is harmed or not, and then go on to paint a portrait of a spiral into some kind of de-civilized abyss...


If you don't mind: Who is going to be confused by the term marriage if it includes gay couples? If a random co-worker of yours says they are married, would you feel compelled to inquire if it was to a woman or man?


I can't wrap my mind around how what is lost (a narrow meaning of a word) supersedes what is gained (parity for equivalent relationships under the eyes of the law).

 

[jackstar7]

Oh, I'm confident society will do exactly that, pervert the term of marriage to include gays. I've never thought otherwise. The logic is as clear as mud, but, society will rush over itself to get it done, for the simple fact that someone has said they've been insulted, and, in our PC society, that cannot be allowed to stand. Society must make sure everyone is in harmony, no bad feelings, regardless of what it takes to get to that point. Regardless of whoever has said they feel shunned/insulted should be told 'tough shit' or not.

Chuck

Disagree. The impetus is not insult. It is societal value. Society gains from organization and order -- two things that are inherent to family units / legal marriages.

Your belief that it all stems from some PC nonsense just sounds like your feelings. And you keep talking about your feelings using the word "fact", which is not helpful.

And to be clear, the one being told "tough shit" is you, and rightly so.


EDIT: Thinking more about it, it is incredibly insulting to state that this stems from an insult; like a whole class of people are just whiners. That is utterly degrading and I hope you give some additional thought to why these people want to be treated equally under the law, and how adjusting our language is a miniscule adjustment to make to correct the error in our culture which is disenfranchising homosexual couples that want to legally marry each other.

 

[chucky2]

So you start by saying that it doesn't matter if society is harmed or not, and then go on to paint a portrait of a spiral into some kind of de-civilized abyss...

What I mean by if it matters if society is harmed or not is that asking that question, "What's the harm if we just change the meaning?" simply doesn't matter. It's not a question that should be asked because it's not something that should be considered. It should not be considered because a gay couple is simply not the same as a straight couple, and the meaning and context of marriage, for thousands of years and across societies, has always been between a man and woman/women. It's not that we're in a spiral of de-civilized abyss, we're in a spiral of coddling abyss. We simply as a society have arrived a point thus un-arrived at before in our history where we don't have the societal balls to tell a group whining about something, "STFU, we do not care, what you want isn't going to happen, it's Fing stupid to even bring it up, do not whine about this again." We instead are at the hyper-appeasement point where everything is appeased or going in the direction of appeasement. There is no contradiction in my posts.

If you don't mind: Who is going to be confused by the term marriage if it includes gay couples? If a random co-worker of yours says they are married, would you feel compelled to inquire if it was to a woman or man?

Right now? No one. Because marriage means exactly what it's supposed to mean: A union between a man and woman. After the gays and their supporters get their way? Anyone who still considers marriage to be between a man and woman would have to seek clarification when the mood moved them. Would I feel compelled to inquire if it was man or woman? No. Why? Because I simply don't care if they're married or garried. They have a SO, what does it matter to me? When they brought their same sex SO to the next office party, I'd then realize that they're using societies perverted new definition of marriage and adjust for it. Rather than asking how her and her husband spent the weekend, I'd instead ask how her and her SO spent the weekend. WhyTF would I pervert the meaning of marriage because society has chose to do so? In society view, this would be no different than gays claiming currently they're married to their partner.

I can't wrap my mind around how what is lost (a narrow meaning of a word) supersedes what is gained (parity for equivalent relationships under the eyes of the law).

I as well can't wrap my mind around how we need to lose a thing, when the law simply needs to be changed to refer to anywhere it has marriage in it as instead civil union, and the law is then done with this issue.

Why gays feel the need to pretend their equal to straight couples is beyond me...they have never been, are not, and never will be, by simple virtue of them being a same sex couple vs. a normal couple, i.e. calling water the same as mud. They cling to it like it's some type of social emotional acceptance ladder that they must climb else they can't live with themselves or feel they've been accepted fully by society. Where they get these wrong headed ideas I don't know. Society by and large has accepted gays for who they are, and who they are is gay. Stop pretending it's the same as being straight, and wanting to pervert the meaning of marriage in that context to include them. Just...insanely illogical...

 

[jackstar7]

Why gays feel the need to pretend their equal to straight couples is beyond me...they have never been, are not, and never will be, by simple virtue of them being a same sex couple vs. a normal couple<snip>.

Gotta stop you right there... again... they are equal. You can continue to rant about water and mud, but the reality is that a couple is a couple as far as society and the law are concerned, and as such they shall be equal under the law. Just because their relationships do not fit into your accepted rubric does not invalidate them, it invalidates the rubric.

 

[chucky2]

They are only equal if their 50% biologic difference is completely ignored. If one ignores that, then Yes, in the strictest sense, they are equal. Of course, in the context of marriage sense, and the tradition of marriage sense, they're still not equal. But hey, who am I to say that mud and water aren't the same. By all means, if society can be shamed and hoodwinked into agreeing to a definition change of mud, to also include both pure water or pure dirt, us non-perverted definers will have no choice but to go along.

We'll still of course continue to believe, and know, it's incorrect. Still refer to mud as mud, water as water, and dirt as dirt, but, society can feel happy that mud is also now just water and also just dirt.

This makes sense to you, correct? Because, it's exactly what you're advocating.

 

[jackstar7]

They are only equal if their 50% biologic difference is completely ignored. If one ignores that, then Yes, in the strictest sense, they are equal. Of course, in the context of marriage sense, and the tradition of marriage sense, they're still not equal. But hey, who am I to say that mud and water aren't the same. By all means, if society can be shamed and hoodwinked into agreeing to a definition change of mud, to also include both water and dirt, us non-perverted definers will have no choice but to go along.

We'll still of course continue to believe, and know, it's incorrect. Still refer to mud as mud, water as water, and dirt as dirt, but, society can feel happy that mud is also now just water and also just dirt.

This makes sense to you, correct? Because, it's exactly what you're advocating.

I'm sure it makes complete sense from your vantage, but it does not from mine. You get to be part of an elite group of victims though, so I guess there's a lot of comfort to be had from that. And you get to think you"re right and know the "real truth". In fact this is starting to sound like a religion...

Putting that aside, the only shame comes from the injustice of treating our citizens as something other than equal under the law. And yes, if the only factor that must be ignored is the biological sex involved, and society still gets the benefit of greater order and stability, then why wouldn't that be ignored? What you cling to as a truth has no actual value to society. Society has grown beyond that definition.

Also, tradition is hardly inherently virtuous, so I'm not sure why that's so central to your position. It certainly has no virtues in this case, as it stands in opposition to the goal of equality under the law.

 

[chucky2]

I'm sure it makes complete sense from your vantage, but it does not from mine. You get to be part of an elite group of victims though, so I guess there's a lot of comfort to be had from that. And you get to think you"re right and know the "real truth". In fact this is starting to sound like a religion...

There is not knowing the "real truth" anymore than knowing what mud is and how it differs from pure water or pure dirt. It only doesn't make sense because you completely, for the sake of your position, ignore the 50% biological difference. It'd be like if someone gave you an assignment to create mud and put it into this bucket, and you filled the bucket up with water. They come back and say how you doing on that mud, and you point into the bucket and say, All done! Ummm...no, you're not done, it's 50% wrong. No no you say, I've redefined what mud means! That is precisely your position. I am not surprised you chose to ignore that, as it basically completely nukes the gays are equal to straights argument.

Putting that aside, the only shame comes from the injustice of treating our citizens as something other than equal under the law. And yes, if the only factor that must be ignored is the biological sex involved, and society still gets the benefit of greater order and stability, then why wouldn't that be ignored? What you cling to as a truth has no actual value to society. Society has grown beyond that definition.

Also, tradition is hardly inherently virtuous, so I'm not sure why that's so central to your position. It certainly has no virtues in this case, as it stands in opposition to the goal of equality under the law.

Perverting the definition of marriage also has no virtues in this case, as that is unneeded - well, except by those who emotionally need it to be so.

Legally, all that needs to be done is for the Gov to only recognize civil unions. Done.

The rest is pure appeal to emotion, unneeded and unwarranted, except for societies ever growing need to make everyone feel special, happy, and part of the group. We mine as well combine St. Patty's day into Martin Luther day and call one or the other. When one side goes, WTF, they're not the same thing!, we can say, 'But, they're both days, they're both celebrations, and look, society benefits by celebrating both these occasions on a day! Who is harmed?'

The absurdity of that is the same absurdity that a gay union is the same as a straight marriage. It may be 100% in an emotional sense, but it is only 50% in the biological sense, which makes it not equal, not the same, and decidedly different. And that's without even bringing the tradition of marriage into the picture.

Want couples to be truly equal? Civil Unions for All. There you go...that's truly equal.

Chuck

 

[blankslate]

Want couples to be truly equal? Civil Unions for All. There you go...that's truly equal.

This would be acceptable if the Federal recognition and tax and family privileges that are today reserved for heterosexual marriages were instead given to people in civil unions regardless of whether the couple was heterosexual or homosexual, rather than just heterosexual marriages.

Churches could then sanctify any civil union they chose to in matrimony as well. but a marriage without a civil union would not get the Federal benefits. This would also encourage a further separation of Church and state.

Good idea!

 

[michal1980]

The relationship is different not unequal, biological compatibility is only a consideration if you want it to be in determining equality. Society is making the decision biological incompatibility does not mean unequal.

That's just it we choose to determine what is or isn't equal within society and culture. Since marriage is a social and cultural construct and not biological, society determines what is or is not equal.

society can be wrong.

On a macroscopic scale, gay marriage is not equal. They cannot reproduce and continue to sustain & grow a population.

By that standard government has a vested interest in supporting one form of marriage over another.

 

[michal1980]

ps on topic.

The progressives next cause will to force churches to marry gays.

 

[nehalem256]

The relationship is different not unequal, biological compatibility is only a consideration if you want it to be in determining equality. Society is making the decision biological incompatibility does not mean unequal.

The relationships are not equal with regards to marriage.

I think the problem is that liberals(and some conservatives *cough* Newt Gingrich *cough*) really do not believe in marriage. What they want is government sanctioned temporary sex partners (GSTSP). They then co-opted the name marriage to refer to their new union.

That's just it we choose to determine what is or isn't equal within society and culture. Since marriage is a social and cultural construct and not biological, society determines what is or is not equal.

That would be an argument for legislative action not for court action.

 

[fskimospy]

ps on topic.

The progressives next cause will to force churches to marry gays.

Oh, that sounds fun. Do you have a timetable for when you believe this will happen?

 

[nehalem256]

Oh, that sounds fun. Do you have a timetable for when you believe this will happen?

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/05/church-reverses-ban-on-interracial-marriages/

There is historical precedence. You don't even need to pass laws just start engaging in bullying any church that doesn't support it.

 

[jackstar7]

society can be wrong.

On a macroscopic scale, gay marriage is not equal. They cannot reproduce and continue to sustain & grow a population.

By that standard government has a vested interest in supporting one form of marriage over another.

So your rule is that people who cannot procreate cannot be married.

I hope you see how your argument fails.

 

[nehalem256]

So your rule is that people who cannot procreate cannot be married.

I hope you see how your argument fails.

A gay couple inherently and obviously cannot procreate.

In almost every other case it would be a violation of a person's medical privacy (or just straight up impossible) to determine whether a couple can procreate.

 

[jackstar7]

There is not knowing the "real truth" anymore than knowing what mud is and how it differs from pure water or pure dirt. It only doesn't make sense because you completely, for the sake of your position, ignore the 50% biological difference. It'd be like if someone gave you an assignment to create mud and put it into this bucket, and you filled the bucket up with water. They come back and say how you doing on that mud, and you point into the bucket and say, All done! Ummm...no, you're not done, it's 50% wrong. No no you say, I've redefined what mud means! That is precisely your position. I am not surprised you chose to ignore that, as it basically completely nukes the gays are equal to straights argument.

Perverting the definition of marriage also has no virtues in this case, as that is unneeded - well, except by those who emotionally need it to be so.

Legally, all that needs to be done is for the Gov to only recognize civil unions. Done.

The rest is pure appeal to emotion, unneeded and unwarranted, except for societies ever growing need to make everyone feel special, happy, and part of the group. We mine as well combine St. Patty's day into Martin Luther day and call one or the other. When one side goes, WTF, they're not the same thing!, we can say, 'But, they're both days, they're both celebrations, and look, society benefits by celebrating both these occasions on a day! Who is harmed?'

The absurdity of that is the same absurdity that a gay union is the same as a straight marriage. It may be 100% in an emotional sense, but it is only 50% in the biological sense, which makes it not equal, not the same, and decidedly different. And that's without even bringing the tradition of marriage into the picture.

Want couples to be truly equal? Civil Unions for All. There you go...that's truly equal.

Chuck

You're never letting go of your terrible analogy, eh? Just from a communication standpoint, you should try something else because you've been beating the mud drum over and over and it's still not making your point. The only value I've found in it is that the way you keep using it reminds me that water and earth used to be considered elements. Now we define elements as the atomic foundations of all matter. The meaning of the word changed because we learned new information.

The same is happening here. The meaning of marriage is changing because we now understand that two men or two women can also have a life-long relationship that is a family, can raise children, and be just as useful as members of a community as any other marriage unit.

Why does the biology aspect matter to the law?

Heck, why does it matter to you?


And I used to sound the civil union horn just as you are now, but the reality is that the word marriage is an established legal word. Changing it to anything else does one thing: makes idiots hate gay people more because they "ruined the word marriage for everyone".

Oh the outcries of the oppressed majority will be so loud! 'Wahhhhh! Those gay people made it so I can't get married! Now I have to join an union! Wahhhh!'

Marriage is the accepted word. It will now include gay couples under its purview. This is not a perversion of language, it is its evolution due to exanded understanding.

So again, to use your phrase: Tough shit, buddy. Gay couples have every right to be married, not some lesser or other thing. And they're not ruining anyone else's marriage in the process.

 

[jackstar7]

A gay couple inherently and obviously cannot procreate.

In almost every other case it would be a violation of a person's medical privacy (or just straight up impossible) to determine whether a couple can procreate.

Incorrect.

Unless you mean that sperm donation and surrogacy are not valid methods to pursue procreation... and watch out, because science is making advances all the time. It won't be too long before two women will be able to procreate solely with their own genetic material.

 

[nehalem256]

Incorrect.

Unless you mean that sperm donation and surrogacy are not valid methods to pursue procreation... and watch out, because science is making advances all the time. It won't be too long before two women will be able to procreate solely with their own genetic material.

2 lesbians or 2 gay men cannot procreate together.

Also, marriage is really about society controlling the procreation of heterosexual couples. This is why society created marriage.

There is inherently no need to control procreation in homosexual couples as biology does it already.