holmes responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Whether we call the food "Kosher" or "non-Kosher" is irrelevant as the argument is over whether or not we call it "food."
Such a statement shows that the analogy has not been understood.
No, it shows that your analogy is meaningless.
You see, people have a sexual orientation. It doesn't matter what we call it. We are dealing with something much more fundamental.
quote:
In a society that was vast majority jewish
Irrelevant. Whether or not the society is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist, the fundamental issue is "food." Food is universal and applies to all living being regardless of their religious affiliation.
quote:
We are not talking about "food", as long as unions are made available to all.
Incorrect. That is exactly what we're talking about: There is a fundamental urge to pair-bond in humans. Whether we call it "marriage" or something else, we are referring to something basic.
quote:
quote:
It's simple logic: If two things are identical, why are you using different terms to refer to them? The only reason is because there is something different between them, which means they will be treated differently.
They are not identical, and traditionally are not.
What, pray tell, is different about the relationship between people that is dependent upon the sex of the participants?
You're saying that gay people don't love each other the way straight people do.
quote:
The concept of marriage being between any sex coupling is a very very recent phenomonon
Incorrect. I've mentioned Boswell's book before. Same-sex marriage is quite old. The Catholic Church even has a rite for it.
quote:
quote:
You're arguing "separate but equal," holmes, and you know better than that.
No I'm not.
[...]
I am also recognizing that a different name on a legal contract giving the exact same rights is a possible valid compromise.
Um, please explain to me how your arguing for "a different name on a legal contract giving the exact same rights" as something that is "possible" is not arguing for "separate but equal."
Since we know that there is no way to ever have "a different name on a legal contract giving the exact same rights," how is that ever "possible"?
quote:
In essence the majority should be satisfied.
The only way to do that is to treat them identically...which requires calling them the same thing. Whether that term is "marriage" or "civil union" is immaterial. However, the term needs to be identical or there will be legal discrepancies between the two.
quote:
First of all, it is not clearly a marriage rite.
Right. Have you read the work? Have you read the text of the rite? To call it something other than "marriage" is to fall into the same semantic argument.
quote:
Third, even if it was a marriage between same sex couples, this only reinforces the concept that marriage is not traditionally defined that way.
Excuse me? A ritual of marriage between same-sex couples performed by the most traditional religion in the world is somehow not a "traditionally defined" marriage?
quote:
Fifth, if you wish to use this as a reason that rights should be given, then why are you not fully behind polygamy, incestuous, and pedophilic marriages.
Nice try, but I was not the one saying that finding a religious rite was justification. That was you.
You were the one saying that there was no religious recognition of same-sex couples until recently and that that was justification to say that recognizing same-sex couples today is some sort of change to the "traditional" idea.
Therefore, this example of a
Catholic ritual recognizing same-sex couples that originated in pre-modern times and lasted for hundreds of years refutes your claim. That this is also justification for other things is irrelevant because I am not saying that your claim of "need to find a religious precedent" is correct. I am simply saying that since you find it to be a justification, then you have no claim to say that same-sex marriage is "modern."
Burden of proof, holmes. You know better than that.
quote:
quote:
It's the only way to find out who truly is committed to equality and who is just a homophobe pretending to be supportive.
This is not the statement you made about polygamists using the exact same method to demonstrate their rights before San Francisco did the exact same thing.
(*chuckle*)
And just what, specifically, did I say about polygamists? Where did I ever say that polygamists shouldn't demonstrate?
You seem to be confusing my statement that the justification for same-sex marriage is not applicable to polygamy since same-sex marriage does not change anything in the administration of marriage whereas polygamy necessarily does. The very first thing is simply to define "what on earth is 'polygamy'"? Do you mean hub-and-spoke or do you mean maximally interconnected?
quote:
Remember you said that them breaking the law to issue themselves licenses was not something that was admirable and going to get people on their side
No, I don't recall saying that at all. Are you sure it was me? I have never said anything about polygamy and breaking the law.
quote:
Do you care to revise your stance?
To paraphrase Inigo: I do not think I said what you think I said. There is no need to revise my stance since I never took any other.
quote:
quote:
Holmes, state-sponsored "civil unions" provide no federal benefits and are not transferable from state to state. They are practically worthless.
Marriages are not necessarily transferrable from state to state.
(*sigh*)
We're back to the insane, incarcerated, or in dire straits argument again. Can we stop trying to portray the outliers as if they were typical?
Suppose there were a man my sister is married to such that no other state would ever dream of claiming that they're not married. Now, replace my sister with me. What possible justification could there possibly be to say that we wouldn't be married? It isn't because of age differences or familial relationships or mental status or anything else. All we've done is switch the sex of the participants.
If we leave this to the states, we will never achieve parity.
quote:
The Federal government would also have to acknowledge those unions as identical to marriages when dealing with federal issues.
Anything less is worthless.
And since that will never happen, state-by-state declarations of "civil unions" are worthless.
quote:
Many states did not originally have laws against gay marriage
Actually, many of them did. That's why the lawsuits that originally happened (Hawaii and Alaska) were filed where they were: There were no laws on the books that prohibited same-sex marriage. Hawaii was chosen not only because the definition of marriage did
not state the sex of the participants, but also because the Hawaii Constitution has an Equal Rights clause that says rights cannot be denied on the basis of sex. That's why everyone knew that the HSC was going to rule that same-sex marriage had to be allowed under Hawaii law and why they had to pass a constitutional amendment in order to stop it.
You literally do not know what you're talking about, holmes.
quote:
quote:
Marriage was between people of the same race.
The point is that... if you are going to be honest here... race was never mentioned in law books as a pre-req, certainly not traditionally or historically. Opposite sex was, and for some pretty logical reasons given what marriage was about.
Wait a minute...you just said that opposite sex was
not mentioned in the law books. Now you're saying that it was. Which is it?
And let's be honest here, race
was mentioned in the law books as a pre-req. That's the entire point behind Loving v. Virginia. It was
ILLEGAL to be a mixed-race, married couple in Virginia. They got married in DC, if I recall correctly, and Virginia tried to impose penalties upon them because of it. It wasn't that they simply wouldn't give you a license but rather that it was a
crime to do so.
quote:
quote:
Because we're living in the real world, holmes, where it is all or nothing.
So you agree with Bush that the UN is superfluous at this point in time?
Non sequitur.
quote:
quote:
Rights have always had to be fought for and forced upon those who cannot stand the thought of giving those rights to others.
Well, yes and no.
No: Yes and yes. If everybody thinks that something is inherent to everyone, then nobody bothers to make a point of it. Take abortion. You will notice that nobody bothered to deal with it at the founding of this country because at the time, it was legal. So long as it happened before "quickening," there was no question of the criminality of it: There was none. That was part of the argument before the SCOTUS regarding Roe v. Wade. The claim was that since the Constitution doesn't mention anything about abortion, it can't possibly be a right, but that's because nobody thought it was important enough to mention. As the old cliche goes, the Constitution doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law preventing a man from sleeping on his left side." Well, of course you can. It isn't mentioned because it's obvious.
quote:
quote:
I thought you said you were desperate to get your rights. Since separate but equal doesn't get you your rights, why are you fighting for it?
This is a good example. In the example I said I was desperate to get my rights. Calling my legal union a marriage as opposed to a civil union is not a right that is a necessity (indeed it may not even be desirable).
"Separate but equal."
Since it will never be equal so long as it is called something different, why are you arguing for calling it something different.
Please tell me that this argument is not about you saying that there
should be only one term but that you don't care if it is "civil union" or "marriage." I agree...whether or not the legal term for a contract between two consenting adults is called "civil union" or "marriage" is irrelevant. The important thing is that the term used for a mixed-sex couple must necessarily be the same term used for a same-sex couple.
Otherwise, it's "separate but equal" which we know from long experience means they are not equal.
quote:
I'd sacrifice semantics in order to get the rule of law on my side.
But if you're calling the mixed-sex contract "marriage" and the same-sex contract "civil union," then they are not the same thing and thus you don't have the rule of law on your side.
The only way to make sure that a same-sex marriage is legally equivalent to a mixed-sex marriage is to call them both the same thing. Whether that same thing is "civil union" or "marriage" or "blunderbuss" is irrelevant. The important thing is that they are called the same thing because the law will treat different names differently.
quote:
quote:
How do you alienate someone who agrees with you? The only way to do that is to find something that you disagree about.
By which I take it you have no issues with the way Bush conducts foreign policy?
Non sequitur.
quote:
You do not believe he alienated our friends even though they agreed with us on the general aim?
You assume they agreed on the general aim.
quote:
There is a thing called diplomacy.
Indeed.
There is also a thing called "Uncle Tom."
When you are faced with an all-or-nothing situation, it is disingenuous to point out that other things are shades of grey.
Things are equal or they are not. There is no inbetween.
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
™ Version 4.2