I have no idea what you guys are responding to. I never said that I supported the argument, and was saying that Azrael was committing that same fallacy more or less. Stop putting me in your box and actually read what I say and how I say it.
I was responding to this:
Azrael's argument is essentially in support of the idea that marriage shouldn't be redefined, or can't be.
This is the exact opposite of the argument he was making. He gives valid scenarios where the definition is free to change, so how you reached a contradictory conclusion requires explanation on your part. The part you quote mentions at the end that a niche definition (such as one defined by a particular sect of Christianity) would be a fraudulent claim on a legal document.
As an example, if a fruit fetishist "marries" a pineapple, he can go to his fruit fetish meetings and tell everyone they are married, and everyone there will recognize it as legitimate. However, that's because of the context of the situation he's in, in which everyone is willing to pretend they're all married to fruits to make themselves feel more accepted and fulfilled. Outside of that niche circumstance, those people would not tell others they were "married to a pineapple", because they know it isn't true and everyone would quickly remind them of that fact. They wouldn't say they were married on a tax form, because they know they'd go to prison for fraud. The word has a very specific legally-recognized meaning, independent of any religious institution.
Interestingly this is more or less one of the arguments against homosexual marriage, replacing pineapple with homosexual and fruit fetishist with homosexual.
Replace them with "Protestant" and you have the "argument" against protestants getting married. It's not an argument, just a statement on our existing laws. An underlying argument could be that we should allow an unjustifiable inequality in law because of a religious justification for inequality, but it would be laughable to take such a position. Another possible argument is that we can never ever change a law once it's created, but that is equally dismissible.
Perhaps nobody felt it necessary to state this, which is why they instead assumed you meant same-sex marriage is somehow equivocal with marriage to an inanimate object.
Were that true we wouldn't be trying to ban gay marriage for religious reasons. If change the words, people would still argue that "civil union" is the same thing as marriage and we should ban civil unions as well, but it will make their argument hold a lot less water.
The argument doesn't hold water. Best clear up these misunderstandings as they happen, rather than muddle them in obscurity and give fuel to arguments that we're betraying our national heritage.
Because it's damaging to Atheists. Aren't you saying there's a dichotomy between "civil marriage" and "religious marriage"? How can there be a false dichotomy and a dichotomy at the same time?
A
false dichotomy means presenting something as only having two options when there are more. Saying "Either the Church must rename marriage or the State must rename marriage" is a false dichotomy, because a third option is that neither entity needs to rename marriage.
There is a
difference between lawful marriage and religious marriage. It isn't a dichotomy to say that two things are not identical: that's a statement on their characteristics, not a statement of what available options there are.
You underestimate the fickleness of the mob. My point is that civil unions are not damaging because they are inherently fair across all people. Marriage is not fair across all people because it directly conflicts with a person's religion. Civil Unions do not.
Civil unions are not inherently fair. They are currently used as tools for unfairness. There is no distinction made here.
Further, civil unions still represent the same union lawful marriage does, so it equally conflicts with a person's religion.
Either word used long enough will cause the desired result. Civil Union will happen faster because it is not deeply ingrained into our society.
It will happen slower because people don't associate with the less familiar. Further, it will completely halt the progress of having people recognize that religious marriage has never been a part of law.
It's important to take a stand against things that are unlawful. The law is not all knowing and all powerful. We are right to challenge laws that we believe to be wrong. I refuse to believe that civil marriage is 100% separate from religious marriage because they use the same noun because they came from the same origin: the church.
Then you refuse to believe a civil union is 100% separate from religious marriage because they both allow opposite-sex couples to be joined together, and because the rules for which are both written in English, and that they both allow exactly two people to be joined. If your goal is 100% separation, it could not have these overlaps. Or you can admit that it's absurd, in which case, the position of not overlapping on the noun is fair game.
I don't understand how it will be a mistake to forcibly revoke a mistake at a point where it will fuel cultural acceptance, especially by substituting it with a term that is equal amongst all pairs of humans. The only thing I could think of was that we will hate gays for redefining marriage. I just don't see the mistake.
The mistake is that it causes same-sex marriage to become an inferiority. We're changing the term
because we now include same-sex couples, so we have to, as you put it earlier, "oppress everyone" for their sake.
Marriage has already been redefined, so if there is this damage you speculate, it will only be compounded. In fact, the opposite seems to have happened: there is widespread support for same-sex marriage,
including within many religious organizations.
We can't change the world government. We can change our government. Leading by example is a Christian thing to do here.
Leading by example is a thing leaders do. Countries such as the United States influence other countries, and sending a message to others that we don't believe same-sex couples deserve to be married and therefore must use a new term is a damaging message to send. We can change our government, and we can set a good example for the rest of the world.
My argument is that of a rhombus and a square. A square (religious marriage) is a rhombus (civil union). A rhombus is not necessarily a square. The couple that goes to the courthouse and gets married is not actually getting religious married unless they choose to and agree upon a religious marriage, which in my opinion can be done without any ceremonies because religion is up to individual interpretation. They could just say they're married according to their own personal religion and it's done.
Ah, so you want to link religious marriage and civil unions by making one a subset of the other. My goal is true separation of Church and State.
Most churches require one of the parties to be a member of the parish or denomination, so your claim that virtually any opposite-sex couple can go to a nearby church to marry is false. I think that they will get those accusatory eyes regardless of the definition of civil marriage/union, and it would likely last a generation or two.
Actually,
most churches will marry non-members happily: they just charge more money for it. It's effectively like how Sam's Club allows non-members to shop there but charge them 10% more at checkout.
Here you go:
http://www.weddingwire.com/wedding-officiants. Give me a location that doesn't have someone nearby willing to marry an opposite-sex couple. It would be easier to find a location that doesn't have pizza delivery.
Fortunately now that same-sex marriage is legalized, same-sex couples will have an easier time as well, due to the cultural shift that's coming with it.
Bigots gonna bigot. I could wait a generation or two to let everything settle though. You seem to believe that same-sex couples are free to use "marriage" without societal judgement, which is just false at the moment.
It may be false, but the difference is that the bigots are the ones who are demonstrably wrong, not the other way around.
We can't change other countries. I don't care about their governments. I'm surprised you do. I do care about the impression we make on other countries. The hatred and inferiority you speak of will be there regardless of what happens. I don't believe that people will be any more prejudiced towards what they believe to be an illegitimate union. Calling me an ignoramus for believing that all forms of marriage are linked by the word they use has no place in SD.
Of course I care about other countries: just because I live in the United States doesn't mean I think citizens of the United States are any more important than citizens abroad. I am a proponent for equality, and any action we can take to bring equality to law—any action we can take to demonstrate how unyielding equality exists in law—is an action I will support. I will not support destructive policies that slow and hinder progress for the sake of people that don't understand "God" doesn't appear on a Marriage Application Form.
"Ignoramus" is the best suited word for describing an ignorant person, and it was specifically targeted to the "willfully ignorant" group you described; unless you personally subscribe to that group, it was not directed toward you. Apologies either way.
Post has been edited 5 time(s), last time on Aug 21 2015, 11:02 pm by Roy.
