Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
filtherton,
that is a sophistic twist on the argument of tradition. it's logically inconsistent to say that because marriage isn't exactly the same for all people at all times... therefore it follows that it is perfectly acceptable that it become something it has never been before. ludicrous.
the argument of tradition has relevance. there are many things that marriage is, and many things that it has been. at all times the constant has been a contract between a man and woman. this is the elemental essence of marriage. to change that isn't to add another wrinkle to the equation, it is to change the fundamental foundation of it.
when that happens, you no longer have the thing you start with... you have a brand new institution that the previous idea cannot include.
|
I'm saying that those who claim to love the shit out of homosexuality, but can't get past the traditional definition of marriage have no idea what marriage has traditionally been. I agree that it has always been between a man and a woman, or multiple women. What i don't agree with is the idea that the heterosexual exclusivity of marriage has any roots in any rational reasoning other than, "because that's the way we've always done it". It doesn't take a whole lot of thought to break through that line of reasoning. It doesn't even reach a high enough standard to be sophistical. Why is it that it has always been done that way and are those reasons relevant anymore? Parenting has traditionally been something done by pairs of opposite sexed people. The fact that two parents are male or female has no demonstrable effect on their ability to raise a child. The increased acceptance of gay parents has not created a brand new institution in place of "traditional" parenting. Parenting is the same as it has always been. You could choose to see modern parenting as a pale shell of what it was before homosexuals started doing it, but you'd be deluding yourself.
I guess it depends on what you want to emphasize more in determining the significance of marriage. You could claim, as many seem to want to do, that marriage is significant solely because it is an agreement between people of the opposite sex. That's fine, but doing so i think misses the point why getting married is a meaningful act, especially in the religious sense. The foundation of marriage is commitment, not sex. It's not penis in vagina, it's two people who have so much interest in maintaining a relationship that they want to make a binding legal, and usually spiritual, commitment to eachother for an implied eternity. In the religious sense it's being confident enough in your feelings for another person to the extent that you're willing to go in front of your creator and make an eternal commitment under penalty of damnation(if you believe in hell). If you can't see why that makes marriage significant, moreso than the underwear contents of those involved, than i think you miss the point of marriage altogether.
How does the significance of marriage have any basis in the gender of those involved beyond, "Well, that's how we've always done it"? How much value do you give and opinion when its sole basis seems to be "Because that's how we've always done it." in any context?
One thing i forgot to include in my earlier post: If we are a nation who values the free expression and protection of religious beliefs, why is it that we want to outlaw gay marriage despite the fact that there are at least a few churches who have no problem performing such marriages? So many people oppose this issue on religious grounds without realizing that they are, in effect, limiting someone else's religious freedom.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
gosh, i hate to keep hounding ya, i'm not trying to be mean but...
tradition has everything to do with legal arguments. have you ever seen a judge do something based on precedence? that is good ol' tradition adding legitimacy to the ruling. do you think it's morally right to drive on the right side of the street? nope, it's tradition in one of its most practical applications.
don't flatter yourself into thinking that you're for equality and people who argue against you are not. homosexuals can be granted all the legal benefits and obligations that marriage is (thus legal equality) without calling it "marriage"... something that it clearly isn't. equal doesn't mean identical.
|
Don't worry about hounding me, you're a civil guy.
Precedence is not tradition. Driving on the right side of the street serves a purpose in that, for our sytem of roads and highways to actually work, we all have to behave in a somewhat predictable manner. Precedence helps make our legal system consistent. Those "traditions" are functional, they attempt to serve a purpose that benefits society as a whole. There is absolutely zero demonstrable functional benefit to society as a whole in keeping marriage hetero.
I don't care about flattering myself. All i have to do is look at my ass in tight pants and i feel nice for days.
Seperate doesn't mean equal either.