Here is a clip from the November 7, 2008 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher.
Maher can have some very open conversations on Real Time. I think this clip speaks to some of the issues that have been, um... debated, on this blog recently.
(Not that you care but I'm working on my own post about Obama's election. Stay tuned.)
30 comments:
@the Candy Man
> If you voted for John McCain, you cannot celebrate the election of Barack Obama. If you voted to take away marriage equality from loving same-sex couples, you cannot pop the champagne for civil rights tonight.
What I am trying to highlight with this video is that what happened last Tuesday night is not as black and white as you would like it to be. I do not doubt that there are conservative gays who voted for McCain and No on prop 8. I have no doubt there are blacks who voted for Obama and Yes on prop 8.
Those blacks who voted for Obama have a right to celebrate the milestone achievement of America electing a black man. And those log cabin republicans who voted for McCain still hold the moral high ground for their stance on prop 8.
No matter how you look at it Obama's election is a big step forward for civil rights in the United States. This is not to be confused with "the end" of the civil rights movement. A huge step forward, even while CA takes a small step back, is cause for celebration. CA will eventually have gay marriage. Gay marriage lost the battle (probably) but will eventually win the war. The question is "when", not "if".
Obama's election may open some people to change. Why not use Obama's victory as a way to include new people in progressing civil rights?
Good video! I agree with Bill Maher, and I also watched Religulous and found it funny.
If you voted for John McCain, you cannot celebrate the election of Barack Obama. If you voted to take away marriage equality from loving same-sex couples, you cannot pop the champagne for civil rights tonight.
What I am trying to highlight with this video is that what happened last Tuesday night is not as black and white as you would like it to be.
I never said things were black and white. I am not someone who thinks in black and white. I have been in the most hard-core yeshivot in the world and the most liberal academic institutions. I've seen enough black-and-white thinking in my day and my positions are actually quite nuanced and surprising, if people pay attention to what I actually say.
It should be noted that there is a place for drama in writing and self-expression. MLK called the segregationist policies of the south "a moral cancer." I have learned over time that there is a time to be Bruce Wayne, and there's a time to be Batman.
What I said was, if you voted for Prop 8, then you can't pop the champagne for civil rights, because you are missing the forest for the trees. I didn't say you were a homophobe. I didn't say you were an idiot. I said you should stop and think about what you are doing here. I was trying to guilt those who voted for Prop 8, because honestly I do think it was a selfish and mean and irresponsible thing to do and they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Perhaps, I was also trying to guilt the middle ground a bit - people like you, who sit on the fence when it comes to gay rights.
I find it disturbing that the media has not picked up on this at all. It is highly hypocritical for a country to act like it has just done some hugely noble thing by (finally) electing a black man while with the other hand it has taken away fundamental rights from the only group left that is still being oppressed. If someone wants to celebrate an African American (finally) being elected president, that's fine. But that don't impress me much. It's like a Kennedy voter celebrating a Catholic getting into the white house while simultaneously voting for more segregation in the South.
Perhaps, LNM, you don't really appreciate the weight of Prop 8 because you haven't gotten personally involved in the cause. Perhaps it's just not an important cause to you. I think that kind of empathy is why discrimination still thrives in this country. I was lucky enough that the cause found me many years back, and I have been fighting for it ever since.
Or perhaps you think, from a purely secular point of view, that there is a fundamental difference between discrimination on the basis of race and discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. Please, if that is your position, explain why you feel that way.
"...taken away fundamental rights from the only group left that is still being oppressed"
what right would that be?
what kind of oppression are you talking about specifcally?
@the Candy Man
> I was trying to guilt those who voted for Prop 8, because honestly I do think it was a selfish and mean and irresponsible thing to do and they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
What about those people who honestly believe homosexuality is a choice and that God doesn't want people to have gay relationships? They think they are being the opposite of "selfish and mean and irresponsible". I don't think you will flip them with guilt. You and I know that homosexuality is not a choice and that the Torah is man-made but you're condemning people who might not know that. Do you think you can guilt someone out of their religion? Do you think you can guilt any of your high school rebbeim into believing the Torah is wrong?
> Perhaps, I was also trying to guilt the middle ground a bit - people like you, who sit on the fence when it comes to gay rights.
[SNORT] So not only are those who voted for Prop 8 in the wrong but also everyone who didn't fight hard enough against it? Really?
> Perhaps, LNM, you don't really appreciate the weight of Prop 8 because you haven't gotten personally involved in the cause. Perhaps it's just not an important cause to you. I think that kind of empathy is why discrimination still thrives in this country.
Look, I have a gay aunt who is in a committed relationship. My cousins have two moms. My aunt and her partner have lived together for years. This issue is more personal to me than it is to you.
> Or perhaps you think, from a purely secular point of view, that there is a fundamental difference between discrimination on the basis of race and discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. Please, if that is your position, explain why you feel that way.
There is no fundamental difference between discrimination on the basis of race and discrimination on the basis of gender and discrimination on the basis of sexual preference and discrimination on the basis of religion.
HOWEVER, there are severities of discrimination. To take an extreme example, same-sex marriage pales in comparison to the enslavement of black people. They are both civil rights issues but they and not equal. The same goes for woman's suffrage, or the Jim Crow laws. Laws against same-sex marriage are wrong, unjust, and unconstitutional. Gays should have the right to marry. Period. But same-sex marriage is not as unjust as forcing blacks to pass a reading and writing test before voting. I'm sorry. They're just not the same.
Gay marriage would give married gays the authority to make certain medical decisions for their partner, it would give them legal rights after a partners death, it would provide the ability to submit their taxes "married filing joint", and most importantly it would give gays a certain amount of dignity. These are all important but they do not hold a candle to the injustice of barring women from voting or the systematic treatment of blacks as second class citizens.
It feels like you are saying ALL discrimination is equal (black and white) and only those who vigilantly fight against any and all injustice are in the right (black and white).
The war for same-sex marriage is being won (Prop 22: 61%/39% vs Prop 8: 52%/48%). The war for civil rights is being won (see: Obama, Barack). The only way gay marriage will come to California, or any state, is by changing peoples minds. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. And you will not convince everyone. (There are STILL people who think blacks should be slaves).
Why are you so hung up on this tactic of guilt?
CrownHeightsPolitics.blogspot.com
Crown Heights, it's a sick place to be. SPread the word.
@LNM,
What about those people who honestly believe homosexuality is a choice and that God doesn't want people to have gay relationships?
Even when I was an Orthodox Jew who believed stridently, it was still a no-brainer to me that religious doctrine has no place in our secular law. I *never* liked "In God We Trust" on our coinage, and I still don't.
There is no fundamental difference between discrimination on the basis of race and discrimination on the basis of gender and discrimination on the basis of sexual preference and discrimination on the basis of religion.
Well we agree on that.
HOWEVER, there are severities of discrimination. To take an extreme example, same-sex marriage pales in comparison to the enslavement of black people. They are both civil rights issues but they and not equal. The same goes for woman's suffrage, or the Jim Crow laws. Laws against same-sex marriage are wrong, unjust, and unconstitutional. Gays should have the right to marry. Period. But same-sex marriage is not as unjust as forcing blacks to pass a reading and writing test before voting. I'm sorry. They're just not the same.
Never said they were the same. But this is the civil rights struggle for our generation.
All civil rights achievement in this country has been achieved through activism. That's what activism is. The majority just doesn't care, by and large. I'm an activist for gay rights.
Why are you so hung up on this tactic of guilt?
I use it once or twice, and suddenly I'm hung up on it? It's a useful tactic and activists use it successfully all the time. Can it backfire? Of course! But so can pulling your punches.
My posts on this issue have sparked really long conversations and even a blog post or two. The Jewish skeptic blogosphere is alive with talk of gay marriage. That's all I really ever wanted to achieve.
Women didn't gain suffrage by redefining 'women' to mean 'men.' Blacks didn't gain their freedom by redefining 'black' to mean 'white.' Jews weren't emancipated in Europe by calling Judaism a type of Christianity.
I favor having gay relationships granted the same types of government privileges and benefits that heterosexual relationships are granted, but I oppose this Orwellian methodology of accomplishing things through the redefinition of words.
If anything, given the way the current social culture treats marriage, it would probably be better for the institution if government got out of the marriage business altogether.
@ orthoprax
> Women didn't gain suffrage by redefining 'women' to mean 'men.' Blacks didn't gain their freedom by redefining 'black' to mean 'white.'
I'm no constitutional scholar but I think they redefined the term "citizen" to include non-whites and then, later, women. When Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal" he really did mean "men." And black men were not included under that definition of "men." Lincoln had a lot to do with the redefining of the meaning of that phrase. This approach is consistent with previous actions dating back to the 1800's.
Women didn't gain suffrage by redefining 'women' to mean 'men.' Blacks didn't gain their freedom by redefining 'black' to mean 'white.'
I'm no constitutional scholar but I think they redefined the term "citizen" to include non-whites and then, later, women. When Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal" he really did mean "men." And black men were not included under that definition of "men." Lincoln had a lot to do with the redefining of the meaning of that phrase. This approach is consistent with previous actions dating back to the 1800's.
Bammo!
I would add that it's not just about semantics - there are substantive legal differences between civil unions (even full ones with adoption rights, such as those in CA) and marriage.
I am happy to see that at least most readers on the blog support civil unions, even if they oppose gay marriage.
LNM,
"I'm no constitutional scholar but I think they redefined the term "citizen" to include non-whites and then, later, women."
No, I don't think so. They extended citizenship to these other groups, but the definition of the word 'citizen' did not change. In any case, I don't believe women were ever not considered citizens in American law. There is nothing intrinsic to the understanding of the word 'citizen' that would conflict with it being granted to former slaves.
"When Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal" he really did mean "men." And black men were not included under that definition of "men." Lincoln had a lot to do with the redefining of the meaning of that phrase."
Jefferson's racism notwithstanding, black men are in fact men and the word wasn't redefined. Again, there is nothing in the word 'man' that conflicts with is applying to black men.
> They extended citizenship to these other groups, but the definition of the word 'citizen' did not change. In any case, I don't believe women were ever not considered citizens in American law. There is nothing intrinsic to the understanding of the word 'citizen' that would conflict with it being granted to former slaves.
There is nothing intrinsic about the word marriage that would preclude it from being applied to gay marriages. The way the Constitution is written citizenship wasn't extended to blacks and women it was just reinterpreted to have ALWAYS included these groups. Jefferson didn't believe that women had the right to vote. The intent was redefined.
15th Amendment (1870)
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
This amendment doesn't create new voting rights. The text implys that blacks always had the right to vote but that it was "denied".
Amendment 19 (women's suffrage) does the same thing. These are redefinitions not confirmations.
> Jefferson's racism notwithstanding, black men are in fact men and the word wasn't redefined. Again, there is nothing in the word 'man' that conflicts with is applying to black men.
This was a redefinition for those people who believed that black men were not men. Is a male polar bear a man? For many people calling a black man a man was a redefinition.
Just as the word "citizen" doesn't imply "man," "woman," "black," or "white" there is nothing about the word "marriage" that inherently implys two different sexes. Sure, for a very long time "marriage" has meant one-man/one-woman. For a very long time "citizen" meant "white land-owning man born on U.S. soil". At some point "citizen" was expanded to also mean "black man born to slaves on U.S. soil."
When a gay persons says "I'm married" you know exactly what they are talking about. But you act like they are redefining some completely unrelated word to have some insane new meaning. Including "gay marriage" in the definition for "marriage" is not a stretch.
"Lubab No More said...
I'm no constitutional scholar but I think they redefined the term "citizen" to include non-whites and then, later, women. When Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal" he really did mean "men." And black men were not included under that definition of "men." Lincoln had a lot to do with the redefining of the meaning of that phrase. This approach is consistent with previous actions dating back to the 1800's."
No they did not redefine the words.
Citizen means by definition whatever a country demands as qualifications for full membership. As for the word men it was applied to blacks too. They were not considered ordinary men. No one redefined a dog as a man or a citizen as a bird.
When a gay persons says "I'm married" you know exactly what they are talking about. But you act like they are redefining some completely unrelated word to have some insane new meaning. Including "gay marriage" in the definition for "marriage" is not a stretch."
Untill this whole redefinition was made if a gay person said he was married he meant for certain to someone of the opposite sex. When people talk they have some common defintions in mind. Black men were considred men but inferior. Thre was no redefinition of the word. Marriage meant between a man and a woman only. Your the one stretching things as usual.
Look Lubab if you're not going to answer anything I write because you are still making a fool of yourself over you freaking out about my questioning of you long ago. Fine. Your the fool so it's no skin off my nose. I have a world outside of the internet and unlike you who can nudge and nudge me about something and then tell me it's no skin off your back that caused you to nudge, I mean it. It was obvious to any moron that when you couldn't defeat me in philosophical debate debate and you said like an idiot thanks for reminding me why I don't answer you that you were just make an excuse. Either you can die in your grave an angry loser or learn to say your sorry like I would have if I were in the wrong and acted like a jerk like you did. Only an immature guy decides that because it upsets someone not to get a reply like a snob he won't reply to give him continual grief. It doesn't bother anymore so shove it.
LNM,
"The way the Constitution is written citizenship wasn't extended to blacks and women it was just reinterpreted to have ALWAYS included these groups."
No, you're just wrong. 14th Amendement: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This statement was not true before 1868. Citizenship was extended to these other people in this way, but the word was not redefined. Black citizens existed in America even before this amendment passed.
And women were _never_ not considered citizens by American law. They were citizens that did not have the right to vote recognized, but they were of course recognized as citizens.
"This [15th] amendment doesn't create new voting rights. The text implys that blacks always had the right to vote but that it was "denied". Amendment 19 (women's suffrage) does the same thing. These are redefinitions not confirmations."
Yes, there did exist in some states places where both blacks and women had voting rights even before these amendments were passed. In 1776 free black men could vote in NJ, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Maryland. These rights were subsequently denied. So actually these are accurate confirmations of rights taken away.
"This was a redefinition for those people who believed that black men were not men. Is a male polar bear a man? For many people calling a black man a man was a redefinition."
Yes, in the racist sense that black men were defined as property and not men. But this was undermined by factual analysis - black men are in fact men and therefore due their full rights as any other men. This isn't a redefinition anymore than finding out that what you 'defined' as an alien spaceship, actually turned out to be a weather balloon with unbiased observation.
"Just as the word "citizen" doesn't imply "man," "woman," "black," or "white" there is nothing about the word "marriage" that inherently implys two different sexes."
You're wrong. Pull out your old Webster's and flip to the word citizen. Did any dictionary ever define the word with a sex-based or race-based definition? Now, compare this to the defintion of the word 'marriage.' Is that defined literally (before recent political machinations) as anything else but a heterosexual union?
You can use the word however you want, but this is purely a political redefintion. Similar to defining 'black man' as 'not man; property' for political reasons.
@OP
> Citizenship was extended to these other people in this way, but the word was not redefined. Black citizens existed in America even before this amendment passed.
Did black citizens exist in South Carolina in 1787? According to the way you and I read it, yes. According to the way the government of South Carolina read it at the time, no. In time they changed their definition.
> And women were _never_ not considered citizens by American law. They were citizens that did not have the right to vote recognized, but they were of course recognized as citizens.
As far as the Constitution was concerned the citizenship of women was different from the citizenship of men. Why are you OK with "citizen" having different meanings but with "marriage" only one definition is allowed?
Let's use blacks as an example. When the Constitution was written "citizen" did not mean "black people born in the U.S.". The definition was changed. States may have given blacks rights but the Constitution did not. People like Franklin might have wanted the Constitution to include black people but he would concede that the framers intent was to allow the South to legally keep their slaves.
> This isn't a redefinition anymore than finding out that what you 'defined' as an alien spaceship, actually turned out to be a weather balloon with unbiased observation.
Uh huh. And when you look at a gay family (married parents, kids, dog, etc.) what you see is an alien UFO when it's just another boring weather balloon.
> Pull out your old Webster's...
Here is a link to the definition for "citizen" from the 1828 edition of Webster's.
The fifth definition in particular is relevant to our discussion of what was a U.S. "citizen" was in the early 1800's.
5. In the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate.
This definition excludes women and blacks. Webster's today excludes the above definition (link).
Definitions change/expand/evolve.
> You can use the word however you want, but this is purely a political redefintion.
Please. Take a committed gay couple who raised two kids, sent them to college and who are now retiring and moving to their Miami condo. What makes them not married? The fact they both have boy parts? C'mon. This isn't some political effort to create some new form of family unit. These kinds of families have existed, exist, and will continue to exist whether the government recognizes them or not.
What would you call these unions? It seems to me (all politics aside) that "marriage" is the obvious choice.
Are you against gay marriage for religious reasons? If you seperate the religion from the state law by what reasoning do you argue that gays can not get married?
Also, out of curiosity, do you support the creation of "civil unions"?
OP he is clearly avoiding the issues you raise. The word citizen was not being redefined. It is rather that each country has rules for deciding who is a member. Further Lubab quotes for you the dictionary on citizen but fails to do so for marrige. He just can't make a straightforward argument here and that is also why he twisted your use of the word alien here.
Further it is interesting and of course this subtlty was of course lost on or ignored by Lubab in his citing Webster's 1828 Dictionary on what citizen means for the U.S. It does not prove his contention as it doesn't say only those who can vote in practice are citizens. It spoke of those having the qualifications for such rights. The Constitution did not prohibit women and blacks from voting rights. Does he think if someone moved somewhere and therefore was not yet qualified to register he wasn't considered a citizen? It means rather someone who has the potential if fufilled in practice to vote.
Originally property owners alone could vote. Were others not citizens? Of course not but by Lubab's reasoning they weren't.
I meant defintion for the word black from that dictionary rather.
OP here's the link "http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/citizen" OP I can see I can stifle if I wish Lubab's blog by raising everyones objections.
Now Op it will work. Just add the http
://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/black
LNM,
"Did black citizens exist in South Carolina in 1787? According to the way you and I read it, yes."
No, actually I don't believe they were granted citizenship in SC in 1787.
"As far as the Constitution was concerned the citizenship of women was different from the citizenship of men. Why are you OK with "citizen" having different meanings but with "marriage" only one definition is allowed?"
What are you talking about? The definition of citizen was exactly the same. It was the civil rights of different members which was different.
Do you think gay people not citizens if they aren't granted marriage rights?
"Let's use blacks as an example. When the Constitution was written "citizen" did not mean "black people born in the U.S.". The definition was changed."
No it wasn't. The word meant what it always meant. What changed was to whom it applied. Black people could conceptually be citizens, there was nothing about the definition of the word which conflicted with the idea.
"'5. In the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate.'
This definition excludes women and blacks."
No it doesn't. Why is this unclear to you? What part of that definition precludes women or black people? Politically they weren't granted rights at the time, but there was nothing about the definition of the word which was the reason.
"Please. Take a committed gay couple who raised two kids, sent them to college and who are now retiring and moving to their Miami condo. What makes them not married? The fact they both have boy parts? C'mon."
C'mon yourself. If a woman really acts like a man - dresses in men's clothing, cuts her hair short, pees standing up, etc - but she still has an XX chromosome count, breasts and a uterus - is she anything but a woman?
Acting-like is not same-as.
"What would you call these unions? It seems to me (all politics aside) that "marriage" is the obvious choice."
I would call it a same-sex union since marriage has a precluding definition exclusive to heterosexuality.
"Are you against gay marriage for religious reasons? If you seperate the religion from the state law by what reasoning do you argue that gays can not get married?"
Not particularly religious reasons. By what reasoning do you think they should be able to be married? There is no right to gay marriage and - as I have discussed ad nauseum on this blog already - I think changing the definition is a threat to the institution.
"Also, out of curiosity, do you support the creation of "civil unions"?"
I already stated in this very comment thread that "I favor having gay relationships granted the same types of government privileges and benefits that heterosexual relationships are granted." Ergo, pro-civil union.
@OP
You keep trying to argue that from day one the Constitution and all the other laws of the United States granted the same rights to all Americans only that they illegally denied those rights to many (most?) Americas. This is simply not true. The Founders intention was to exclude certain Americans from some of the rights they were creating. The definitions they had for the words they used to write the laws are slightly different from our definitions today. My reference to the 1828 entry on "citizen" is a perfect example. Over the last 180 years the definition has become more inclusive and therefore Websters has modified their entry.
Let me be clear. I am not saying that gay marriage fits into the current Websters definition for marriage. I am saying that just as the meaning of the word citizen has changed to be more inclusive over time so too has the word marriage changed over time to the point that now "gay marriage" can reasonably be included in the definition.
Which brings us to your final point:
> I think changing the definition is a threat to the institution.
I've heard this line a thousand times and I still don't understand the logic. You seem like a pretty smart guy. Please explain to me how including gay marriage in the definition of marriage "threatens the institution".
Further, you said you "favor having gay relationships granted the same types of government privileges and benefits that heterosexual relationships are granted." Why don't you see this as a threat to marriage? If we say gays are "unioned" instead of "married" do you believe this trick of semantics somehow protects the "institution of marriage"?
LNM,
"You keep trying to argue that from day one the Constitution and all the other laws of the United States granted the same rights to all Americans only that they illegally denied those rights to many (most?) Americas. This is simply not true."
No. I'm just saying that the Constitution granted the same rights to all citizens. It's only that some groups at the time were not recognized as citizens and some things we today consider rights were not then considered rights.
"The definitions they had for the words they used to write the laws are slightly different from our definitions today."
Again and continued to be wrong. The definitions are the same. Does the definition of "President" change once a black man takes the office? There was nothing about being black or white or anything in the definition of "President" in the first place! The word 'citizen' didn't change it's definition, only to whom it was applied since the definition was never exclusive to whites or men or whatever in the first place.
"Please explain to me how including gay marriage in the definition of marriage "threatens the institution"."
I've already gone over this a dozen times on this blog and others and I find it hard to believe you never noticed, but fine, I'll do it in brief.
What is the point of marriage? To create a social support structure for the inevitable case that couples have children. That's why people ought to wait to have sex until they are married.
But what is the message of gay marriage? That marriage has little to do with reproduction or raising families and is just about love and showing people you care about your partner. Well, here's a shocker, many couples find they don't need to get married in order to show their love. So they don't get married, have uncommitted premarital sex and leave a generation of children with absent parents and broken families.
Now as I've said in the past, the state of marriage in America is already pretty crappy. Gay marriage wouldn't be the worst thing to happen to the institution in America, it would just be the latest thing.
"Why don't you see this as a threat to marriage? If we say gays are "unioned" instead of "married" do you believe this trick of semantics somehow protects the "institution of marriage"?"
The point of a civil union could just be for the monetary benefits and so on, it makes no difference. But marriage needs to be kept on a level on its own with its own set of social expectations and duties.
@ OP
> It's only that some groups at the time were not recognized as citizens and some things we today consider rights were not then considered rights.
And so too there are some unions that are not recognized as marriages and some rights that haven't been considered rights (right to marry the person you choose). The intent of the law changes/is changed.
> The word 'citizen' didn't change it's definition, only to whom it was applied since the definition was never exclusive to whites or men or whatever in the first place.
You are ignoring the fact that the definition in the dictionary was actually changed. But then again I'm not argueing that the current Webster's definition of marriage is correct. We're just going to have to disagree on this one.
> I've already gone over this a dozen times on this blog and others and I find it hard to believe you never noticed, but fine, I'll do it in brief.
Woke up on the wrong side of the bed? I don't catalog every position you've ever expressed on this blog (and others). (I also don't read every comment on this blog). As far as I recall this is the first time we've personally discussed this issue in depth. Calm down buddy.
> But what is the message of gay marriage? That marriage has little to do with reproduction or raising families and is just about love and showing people you care about your partner.
Actually, no. Gay marriage is about saying that gay people are the same as straight people. It's also about gay families with children having the same rights and advantages that straight families with children have. Yes, gay people have kids. Sometimes they are adopted and often they are biological. Gay marriages (like other marriages) are about making an offical commitment to a person that says you will stick around even when things are bad. This generally benifits "the kids", which, again, gay people have.
> The point of a civil union could just be for the monetary benefits and so on, it makes no difference.
If you really "favor having gay relationships granted the same types of government privileges and benefits" then the right to adopt would be included. If kids are involved, which you seem to support, than it makes a difference.
LNM,
"And so too there are some unions that are not recognized as marriages and some rights that haven't been considered rights (right to marry the person you choose). The intent of the law changes/is changed."
Right - the law can change, but not through redefinitions of words. That's why permitting interracial marriage expanded freedom but didn't change the definition.
"You are ignoring the fact that the definition in the dictionary was actually changed."
The 1828 Webster's definition we discussed was a descriptive one of policy, not a definition of the word. Policy can change. Who is a citizen can change. What 'citizen' means ought not be messed around for political gain.
"Actually, no. Gay marriage is about saying that gay people are the same as straight people."
Actually yes. Listen to the rhetoric on the pro-gay marriage side. They clearly and insistently say that reproduction has nothing to do with marriage. How could they as inherently sterile couples argue any differently?
> What 'citizen' means ought not be messed around for political gain.
No one is talking about changing what "marriage" (the relationship) means. I just want who can marry who to catch up with reality.
> Listen to the rhetoric on the pro-gay marriage side. They clearly and insistently say that reproduction has nothing to do with marriage.
If you have any mainstream "rhetoric" that backs you up link to it. I haven't heard this as an argument for gay marriage. Never mind the fact that I assume you support sterile straight people getting married.
Of course what you were actually arguing was that gay marriage sends the message that marriage is only about "showing people you care about your partner" and not about anything else. When in fact marriage (gay or otherwise) is about making a commitment to be part of a family.
If you appreciate Andrew Sullivan you should read this article he wrote for The Atlantic a few issues back: My Big Fat Straight Wedding
> How could they as inherently sterile couples argue any differently?
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say.
LNM,
"No one is talking about changing what "marriage" (the relationship) means. I just want who can marry who to catch up with reality."
Turning marriage from a binding of the two sexes to the association of any two people changes the definition. You might as well call ketchup a vegetable.
"If you have any mainstream "rhetoric" that backs you up link to it. I haven't heard this as an argument for gay marriage....Of course what you were actually arguing was that gay marriage sends the message that marriage is only about "showing people you care about your partner" and not about anything else."
I didn't say only, but I did say mainly. It fundamentally changes the focus of the relationship from the security needed for raising a family to a self-focused ends of social acceptance.
From a 5-minute Google search:
Quote: "What is Marriage?
Marriage is civil recognition as well as a private and public commitment of love and support
by adult couples. It means others can recognize the commitment the couple has made to
one another. The union of two people in a long-term, committed relationship has long been
considered by many to fulfill basic human needs for sharing, commitment, and love." - Arizona Human Rights Foundation
http://equalityarizona.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=FSiQ3AXSYoQ%3D&tabid=138&mid=510
Did you see they say anything about raising families?
Quote: What is marriage? - "So what does it really mean? To me and Nyla is a decision that we felt was right. We wanted to be with one another, and we wanted that to be for a long time. It still means that." - http://www.comingoutpoly.com/what_is_marriage
Quote: "What then is marriage after all? To put it somewhat poetically, marriage is intimacy given substance in the medium of everyday life, the day-to-day. Marriage is the fused intersection of love’s sanctity and necessity’s demand." - What Is Marriage Anyway?
by Richard D. Mohr, Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples
http://buddybuddy.com/mohr-1.html
Again and again do these kinds of proponents neglect the key function of marriage which is to create the stable environment within which to raise the next generation.
"Never mind the fact that I assume you support sterile straight people getting married."
I neither support it or oppose it. But it is the fact that most people who marry do not do a fertility test beforehand - and even those who believe themselves to be sterile may find that they are not! The point of marriage is not necessarily the intentional generation of children, but the safe haven so created for the children that may be so generated.
The second fact is that even people who are infertile still manage to appear to fit the pattern of what marriage intends and therefore aren't making that public statement to deflect the purpose of marriage from it's actual goals. Gay marriage trivializes actual marriage.
"That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say."
How do you figure? They are sterile couples and I have yet to see gay marriage proponents realistically urge procreation as the focus of marriage.
Post a Comment