Well, if were going talk of marriage in a traditional sense, than we can't really outlaw polygamy, can we. As for the terms of a traditional marriage, is it not traditional for a woman to become her husband's de facto property? How far back does your concept of tradition go? The problem i have with your DOMA is that you use the word tradition like your tradition is the only one. You use the word marriage like it has a set-in-stone definition handed down by some marriage legislator from time immemorial. If you're going to play the tradition card you can't do so without acknowledging the fact that tradition changes, and is by its very nature subject to the whims of the society that employs it. Your traditions aren't the traditions of the whole world, and you'd probably be horrified if they were.
Quote:
|
what do you mean, you can't PROVE that there won't be some negative impact to on society/children (whichever), then that shouldn't be the basis of your argument.
|
I mean that there is no basis for your position that a child raised by a two father household will be any worse off than one raised by a father/mother household.
Quote:
Originally posted by gondath
I have a feeling filtherton wants to corner me into saying that I'm against gays, therefore that's why I'm against gay marriage. The two are actually mutually exclusive concepts. I've heard others who accept the lifestyle still oppose gay marriage. Arguing over a definition is a silly thing. At some point, we all have to agree on what a word means. Otherwise, no communication would be possible because everyone would be speaking their own invented language. Maybe this is the real problem today.
|
The problem is that a select group of people think that they own a word and refuse to let another group use it even though the first group is very hard-pressed to provide a consistent, logically sound reason for denying them access to said word.
Quote:
|
I agree with matthew330 that a natural (in the sense of a species carrying on its numbers and instilling some sense of gender) union of opposites sexes is the best environment for children.
|
Do you also agree that you lack any evidence for such an assertion?
Quote:
|
I don't see how people can argue that because polygamy has existed in some parts of the world at various times, then my definition of the word must be wrong and any arguments I might have had with it.
|
Words are powerful things. If you base an argument on the idea that a traditional marriage is a monogomous, reciprocal, respectful relationship than it kind of puts a damper on said argument if you completely leave out what traditional marriage has been for most of the history of civilization.
Quote:
|
However, if you accept the argument that every word is personally defined, then I can never be wrong about what any word means because I'll always be defining it based on my own criteria. That's a little extreme, but you can see my point.
|
I gave you the dictionary definition that you asked for. You must realize that you(the impersonal you) personally define every word that you use. You have to, you can't understand anything unless you put it in terms that you understand and can relate to. I think your problem is that you think that your definition is the real one and that others are trying to co-opt it. The ironic thing is that you have already co-opted it for yourself, hence your rush to define marriage as something it has, for thousands of years, not been. You seem to think that marriage has not been a rite of ownership, a means to transfer familial wealth or a way forge alliances with other families. Marriage is and has been all of these things, but to you the only definition of marriage is the one you try to use against those who you would deem unfit to carry the torch of marriage. Marriage is what it is, and for you to attempt to claim a monopoly on it usage is a bit presumptuous.
Quote:
|
Segregation isn't even remotely related to this issue. The two issues are so far apart it isn't even funny.
|
Don't be so quick to separate the two issues when both are so clearly a matter of civil rights.
Quote:
|
On my comment about separation of church and state, I'm saying that why do practically all people get married in a church, regardless of whether they are religious or not. The practice has become a standard. That's why I mentioned it. Marriage and religion are so closely related in this country that it's unbelievable. I mean, how many people don't get married by a priest of some kind? I don't see this argument as a game, but I would appreciate being called a bastard, instead of a robot. Don't take the cop out route of arguing that the time we live in has anything to do with an argument. I could show you many ways in which modern society is not any better than previous cultures. All I'm saying is that gays could be arguing for civil unions, instead of the word marriage. Thus they dodge the religious bullet somewhat in their quest for marital benefits or God knows what. It would be very hard to argue that religion and marriage are separate in this country.
|
What if gays took a different route. There are at least a handful of christian denominational churches in our nation who allow and even perform gay marriages. You must realize that by trying to deny them this you are in effect stifling their ability to practice their religion in peace. I don't think you'll get a lot of the folks screaming for the ten commandments in courthouses to acknowledge this fact though.