- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
Separate but equal is your idea of a "reasonable alternative"?
Equal but not lying about what it is would be the reasonable alternative.
Separate but equal is your idea of a "reasonable alternative"?
Yes, and I am going to start identifying as an Iowa-class battleship and start demanding DoD funding!
Damn you're talented at being willfully obtuse. The numbers are irrelevant. The point at issue is that after one particularly contentions fight, they were offered a reasonable alternative assigning everything but legislative imprimatur through the use of the word 'marriage', and they vocally rejected equal rights throwing a f**king sh*t fit until they got legislated imprimatur tantamount to policing thought. That was enough to take me from a modicum of sympathy to none whatsoever, but I understand that you are going to scream up a lung following the leftist line to the end.
Since you apparently don't understand the point, let me reiterate. Equality does not include legislating and/or adjudicating social acceptance, and no one is entitled to government-enforced social acceptance, which so far as I can see is a major part of this issue.
Personally, I would have preferred that we turn marriage over to the religious, and simply enact civil unions for all (gay or straight); it really makes no difference to me what the legal term for my relationship with my spouse is. But if we're not going to do that, then having separate statuses just leaves the door open for discrimination.Equal but not lying about what it is would be the reasonable alternative.
I have to agree with you on the numbers, they were wholly irrelevant. The Supreme Court we pretty clear and the word "Marriage" was only part of the fight. But the gay marriage debate is meaningless at this point. It's over.
my only sticking point with your statement is your use of "government-enforced social acceptance". You are not being forced to accept anything. All these people got was legal standing and rights to certain bureaucratic procedures and privileges. A gay couples' marriage has literally nothing to do with you, and affects you and no way. You do NOT have to personally accept it. Heck I'm catholic, technically any married couple that hasn't gone through the Catholic sacrament and ceremony doesn't count to me. But i don't fight to prevent to prevent protestants from using the word marriage. Because that would be silly it doesn't affect me. And since my religion doesn't rule the country (thank God, us Catholics reeeeealy shouldn't be in charge of stuff) I think any public tax status or legal contract should be available to everyone equally.
Personally, I would have preferred that we turn marriage over to the religious, and simply enact civil unions for all (gay or straight); it really makes no difference to me what the legal term for my relationship with my spouse is. But if we're not going to do that, then having separate statuses just leaves the door open for discrimination.
Stop. Take a step back. First, tell me how allowing government to redefine language is not a threat. They wouldn't cause any harm redefining 'marriage', just like there is not harm in redefining 'reasonable', 'regulate', or 'infringe'.
Second, refusing the entire package of rights aside from the word marriage indicates no reasonable explanation other than a demand for imprimatur. Once again, there is no right to legislated social acceptance.
Third, no one said anything about the rights but rather the redefinition of language and enforced acceptance.
I could go along with this for the most part, but it is patently obvious that the fight over language is first a demand for enforced acceptance at a level far beyond natural social change, and second and more important, opens unintended consequences by affording the government the authority it has never had to redefine language. Once again, we have already had enough trouble with this.
As for the toilet, if we are going to have a third gender, then build a third john and be done with it.
How is the government supposed to enforce the law if they don't define the language? If religion defines marriage, then the government becomes the enforcement arm of the church. Better the law be repealed entirely than let that happen.Stop. Take a step back. First, tell me how allowing government to redefine language is not a threat. They wouldn't cause any harm redefining 'marriage', just like there is not harm in redefining 'reasonable', 'regulate', or 'infringe'.
Second, refusing the entire package of rights aside from the word marriage indicates no reasonable explanation other than a demand for imprimatur. Once again, there is no right to legislated social acceptance.
Third, no one said anything about the rights but rather the redefinition of language and enforced acceptance.
I could go along with this for the most part, but it is patently obvious that the fight over language is first a demand for enforced acceptance at a level far beyond natural social change, and second and more important, opens unintended consequences by affording the government the authority it has never had to redefine language. Once again, we have already had enough trouble with this.
How is the government supposed to enforce the law if they don't define the language? If religion defines marriage, then the government becomes the enforcement arm of the church. Better the law be repealed entirely than let that happen.
OK, let's get all three brains cells in gear and wrap them around the fact that rights, equal rights, can be afforded without redefining a particular definition that has been a consistent heterosexual phenomenon throughout human history. Much in the same way that we did not resolve equal rights among races by declaring to all minority persons that they are now white, redefining the language is not the solution here either.
I have to agree with you on the numbers, they were wholly irrelevant. The Supreme Court we pretty clear and the word "Marriage" was only part of the fight. But the gay marriage debate is meaningless at this point. It's over.
my only sticking point with your statement is your use of "government-enforced social acceptance". You are not being forced to accept anything. All these people got was legal standing and rights to certain bureaucratic procedures and privileges. A gay couples' marriage has literally nothing to do with you, and affects you and no way. You do NOT have to personally accept it. Heck I'm catholic, technically any married couple that hasn't gone through the Catholic sacrament and ceremony doesn't count to me. But i don't fight to prevent to prevent protestants from using the word marriage. Because that would be silly it doesn't affect me. And since my religion doesn't rule the country (thank God, us Catholics reeeeealy shouldn't be in charge of stuff) I think any public tax status or legal contract should be available to everyone equally.
OK, let's get all three brains cells in gear and wrap them around the fact that rights, equal rights, can be afforded without redefining a particular definition that has been a consistent heterosexual phenomenon throughout human history. Much in the same way that we did not resolve equal rights among races by declaring to all minority persons that they are now white, redefining the language is not the solution here either.
I already said that I'd be behind a solution that wouldn't involve redefining anything. But that didn't end up happening, so we're stuck with the present situation for the foreseeable future.
Besides, "we've always done it this way" is hardly a compelling argument. We also used to only let men be in charge and let people own other people. Just because those were traditions didn't make them the best, or even particularly good, ideas.
ok I think I'm starting to understand our base disconnect here.
To start, fundamentally we agree. The Government does not have the right to redefine language. Specifically the government does not have the right to redefine marriage. Again on that topic we agree.
our separation comes from our perspective on what occurred to get us to this point. from what I am understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) You belive the government has operated outside it scope by, without authorization by the people, redefining the very term marriage to something it previously wasn't. And thus created this situation we are in now. It that right?
Now here is my perspective (and the perspective of many others on the other side of the issue from you.) Government has NO ownership of language or culture in any way. We don't have a ministry of culture or a office of dictionary. So in the realm of culture and language the government must be reactive. Thats why many of our laws will have supporting documentation or exact definitions in the text, because our language changes over time. Now those on my side of the debate felt the government was overstepping it's bounds by trying to maintain the definition of marriage in the first place, with laws like DOMA and many pieces of state legislation. As people began to redefine the idea of marriage for themselves they felt it was not the governments place to interfere. So long as no other laws were being broken (age of consent, of right mind, ect.) they felt it it was not the governments place to prevent them from defining the relationships in their own life and seeking the same public contracts that are available to everyone else. The Supreme Court agreed, and decided not to define who a marriage could be between, but that the government couldn't define who a marriage could be between.
So we both agree that the government should not be controlling or manipulating language, we just disagree on what that actually means.
You would think that firearm owners, of all people, would understand the importance of judging something on its merits instead of assuming that a thing must be banned because someone, somewhere, could possibly do something bad with it.I also have to emphasize that not only do I see an element of policing thought behind the redefinition of the word 'marriage' as opposed to assigning a new arrangement its own identity, but also a great deal of potential for malfeasance in the course of redefining other language.
You would think that firearm owners, of all people, would understand the importance of judging something on its merits instead of assuming that a thing must be banned because someone, somewhere, could possibly do something bad with it.
This all sounds reasonable enough for the most part. I don't necessarily hold to the notion that 'because it's always been that way' is a justification, but when something has had a stable definition in every major culture throughout the entire length of human history, it requires careful thought before changing direction.
As distasteful as I find the subject matter at hand, that does not justify truncating the rights of others. I can accept equal rights to share worldly rights, privileges, and responsibilities. I also see it through the same lens as that through which I see that the original civil rights issue didn't stop with a president declaring, "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to announce that today I signed into law legislation making all citizens equal. Effective immediately, you are ALL white!" We have manufactured an new phenomenon, and it should be treated as such, and not conflated with something else.
I also have to emphasize that not only do I see an element of policing thought behind the redefinition of the word 'marriage' as opposed to assigning a new arrangement its own identity, but also a great deal of potential for malfeasance in the course of redefining other language.
It is also important to consider that there has been considerable overreach of constitutional authority on the part of the federal government. Using the Equal Protection clause as a justification would allow for the demand of equal rights, but not redefinition of language with no apparent purpose other than applying government imprimatur and by extension policing thought.
Interesting story about a trans person who became a man at 52, he said legally he had to use the womans bathroom and hes had young kids ask their parents why hes in the woman's room.
Interesting how it cuts both ways