Staredit Network > Forums > Serious Discussion > Topic: Same Sex Rights
Same Sex Rights
Jun 30 2011, 4:07 am
By: Tempz
Pages: < 1 13 14 15
 

Aug 21 2015, 7:14 am Oh_Man Post #281

Find Me On Discord (Brood War UMS Community & Staredit Network)

This is what jack is doing right now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

Quote
The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception,[1] and is sometimes used as a basis for linguistic prescription.

If you want to learn more about linguistics and how words change meaning over time throughout societies read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 21 2015, 4:14 pm by Roy. Reason: Removing non-SD material




Aug 21 2015, 12:32 pm Jack Post #282

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

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 can't comprehend how you read what I actually wrote and then interpreted that to mean that not only am I supporting the argument but I am also pushing it in this forum and in these posts.



Red classic.

"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."

Aug 21 2015, 2:21 pm Oh_Man Post #283

Find Me On Discord (Brood War UMS Community & Staredit Network)

Quote from Jack
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 can't comprehend how you read what I actually wrote and then interpreted that to mean that not only am I supporting the argument but I am also pushing it in this forum and in these posts.
I thought you were saying you are against gay marriage?

You must understand the terseness of some of your posts means we have to interpret the meaning as best we can off the single sentence and, invariably, there's risk for mistake there.

Quote
Interestingly this is more or less one of the arguments against homosexual marriage, replacing pineapple with homosexual and fruit fetishist with homosexual.
Quote
I'm not sure what you're saying. As I said, replace the fruit references with homosexual and you have almost exactly the "redefinition of marriage" argument against homosexual marriage; that is, no matter how many people say that homosexuals can be married it is an impossibility based on the meaning of the word.
This is where I made the mistaken assumption.

So I guess we are saying Azrael is the one committing this fallacy then?

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Aug 21 2015, 4:15 pm by Roy. Reason: Removing non-SD material




Aug 21 2015, 5:13 pm rockz Post #284

ᴄʜᴇᴇsᴇ ɪᴛ!

Quote from Roy
Quote from rockz
My argument is that the word marriage is inherently religious and can be seen as damaging towards atheists. That's pretty much it. I ignored the religious origins of other words because I think it's silly to argue about that because "marriage" is on a different level than "enlightenment". There's not a controversy over the origins of "enlightenment".
They have the same origins, and you'd be correct to say there's not a controversy over the origins of "marriage". We all accept that it has religious origins, as does "enlightenment", "rubric", and "Paul". A word's origins, however, do not dictate their legal meaning, nor do they even dictate their modern meaning. "Awful" used to mean "inspiring awe", for example. Someone earlier even brought up relevantly that "gay" used to only mean "happy".

Clearing up the fact that "marriage" does not just mean "holy matrimony as conducted by a religious organization" and has in fact acquired a legal definition since before the inception of the United States is a good thing to do, and it willfully demonstrates not only that we maintain a separation of Church and State, but that it is a founding example of such a separation.
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.

Quote from Roy
Quote from rockz
Look, I'd be fine if we changed "marriage" to "Holy Matrimony" and left "marriage" as a strictly legal act, but that's not going to happen.
Why is it necessary for the Church to change what they call it? This statement of "Either the Church has to use a different word or the State does, and we can only legally enforce the latter" is a false dichotomy.
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?

Quote from Roy
Word origins are not forgotten, and that will be the case for both "marriage" and "civil union". Fortunately, I'm not asking to forget about the origins of words: my point is that the word's origin has no bearing on its modern usage, and especially not its modern definitions. If you want to take this argument to support "civil union" (which is less compelling because it does have negative origins), you must also take it to support "marriage" (whose origins are not strictly negative; not any more than the origins of e.g., "Mercury").
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.

Quote from Roy
If you're looking to desensitize lawful marriage, arguing that using a word one way for long enough causes this desired result is counterproductive to your point. As you argue, "marriage" is not a racial epithet and the word itself is not hateful.
Either word used long enough will cause the desired result. Civil Union will happen faster because it is not deeply engrained into our society.

Quote from Roy
Quote from rockz
"Marriage" is damaging to willfully ignorant (seems like an oxymoron, but OK) atheists. That's literally the crux of my argument.
Ignorantia iuris nocet: ignorance of the law is harmful. We should not encourage nor reward ignorance. It seems this is a position where we fundamentally disagree.
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.

Quote from Roy
Quote from rockz
Quote from Roy
I agree with you that their arguments were both illogical and entirely self-serving. Many of them fought so hard because of their religious beliefs that homosexuality is wrong, so they had two battles to fight:

1) They don't want to live in a society that accepts homosexuals, because it is sinful.
2) They don't want their religious text's word for holy matrimony to be warped into accepting homosexuality, because it is a desecration of their beliefs.

I think you'll find that a lot of religious people actually fought for only the second point; in fact, the term "civil union" came into being and prospered because many religious people did recognize the discrimination and inequality against gays is, well, wrong. (Eventually, I'm sure the bigots will insist that this was the case for them all along as well.) Had the State not borrowed the Church's word for marriage, I honestly believe the battle for same-sex rights would have been much tamer. As a side effect, however, they either have to recognize that State-recognized marriage is distinct from theirs, adapt their beliefs to fit new cultural standards, or fall into extremist obscurity. Having same-sex marriage recognized may actually move forward religious tolerance of homosexuality because of this; had we called marriage by another name and given gays the right to it, we wouldn't have created the societal pressure on churches (and perhaps other discriminatory organizations) to accept the gay community. It certainly became a much larger cultural turning point when individual states recognized same-sex marriage vs when they allowed civil unions.

In brief, it was a great mistake to reuse the word "marriage" for law, but it would now be a mistake to forcibly revoke it at a point where it will fuel cultural acceptance, especially by substituting it with a term that does the opposite.
So we will hate the gays for changing the definition of legal marriage? I don't see why we can't fix our initial mistake now.
I suggest you elaborate, because this statement on its own is a complete misinterpretation of what it was responding to.
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.

Quote from Roy
Quote from rockz
In this case, I actually don't care about other countries or the world. If they don't see the importance of church and state, then that's a problem with their country and we'll gladly begrudgingly take them their children.
So we have a difference in priorities. I detest the "I got mine" mentality and look for the solution that will most likely benefit the greatest number of people.

My position still maintains a strict separation of Church and State, mind you.
We can't change the world government. We can change our government. Leading by example is a Christian thing to do here.

Quote from Roy
Quote from rockz
Marriage would imply a civil union. Atheist couples who choose to ignore this and just say "married" are free to do that. A civil union does not necessarily imply a marriage, and generally someone choosing that term has chosen to distance themselves from "marriage". For most of the population, nothing would change.
If the terms were separated in the manner you propose, marriage would absolutely not imply a civil union. Your whole argument up until now is to separate the two terms to explicitness. Rather than go into that here, though, I'll put my argument into the relevant reply a couple quotes below.
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.

Quote from Roy
That is an interesting hypothetical. Unfortunately, you cannot just 100% disagree with reality, in which virtually any opposite-sex couple can go to a nearby Church to marry, regardless of their faith. This would, in fact, mean that they could use "married" and nobody would bat an eye.

Until recently, however, same-sex couples had no such option, and their search for an accepting church is still egregiously more challenging than an atheist couple. Them using the term "marriage" to refer to their legal designation would in fact be combated if the legal designation was another name. No, they would have to say "We're civil unioned" in most social situations, or explain every single time they get accusatory eyes that they did manage to find a church that performed a ceremony for them. It would be a prejudice that applies only to them.

You could say it would go away in time, and it indeed would, but not as fast as you'd think, especially with conflicting laws and beliefs outside of the US. This kind of social change is slow and painful. I suspect this may be why New Zealand decided to legalize same-sex marriage rather than exclusively use civil unions.
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.

Quote from Roy
Quote from rockz
No, when a gay couples says "married" they mean an ordained minister married them in a ceremony or they don't care enough about the separation to call it a civil union. There is fundamentally no difference between different and same sex legal or religious marriages in the eyes of the law or the Episcopal Church!
It's not a guaranteed accurate term unless you're speaking in legal terms, and they will be disregarded as "not actually married" by their peers. To me, this is a believable statement that would be created from changing the legal term:

"Sorry, same-sex 'marriages' don't count; even if you had a ceremony, it didn't receive God's blessing. Please stop using that word: you're infringing on my religious beliefs."

You seem to believe same-sex couples would be free to interchange "civil union" and "marriage" without societal judgment. I suppose this is another area where we disagree, unless you're strictly talking about putting same-sex couples through social torment for decades first, in which case, I disagree that we should. If anything, I'd rather we wait it out for decades and then change it for everyone, once there is no longer social prejudice for couples ready to be freshly exploited, and when there's no longer a misunderstanding around the legal definition of marriage and its separation from any religious entities.
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.

Quote from Roy
It seems to me that your main position is fairly self-centered. You express a lack of concern around the immediate and lasting social impact, and you outright state a lack of caring about the impression we make on other countries. The crux of your argument, as you claim yourself, is to go forward with reckless abandon because we should cater to those that embrace ignorance. Finally, you justify it all with the argument that it's a matter of separation of Church and State, though this is demonstrably false by the fact that a non-lawful form of marriage already has no bearing on lawful marriage.

Perpetuating hatred and inferiority, even if only temporarily while society adjusts, is not something we should condone for the sake of trying to solve a phantasmal problem of ignoramuses.
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.



"Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman - do we have to call the Gentleman a gentleman if he's not one?"

Aug 21 2015, 5:27 pm Roy Post #285

An artist's depiction of an Extended Unit Death

Quote from Jack
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:
Quote from Jack
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.

Quote from Jack
Quote from Azrael
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.




Quote from rockz
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.

Quote from rockz
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.

Quote from rockz
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.

Quote from rockz
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.

Quote from rockz
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.

Quote from rockz
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.

Quote from rockz
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.

Quote from rockz
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.

Quote from rockz
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.

Quote from rockz
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.

Quote from rockz
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.




Aug 21 2015, 10:30 pm Jack Post #286

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

Quote from Roy
Quote from Jack
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:
Quote from Jack
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.
I'm not sure where he gave these valid scenarios. He gave instances where both the common understanding of the term and the legal term were in conflict with what some people thought marriage should be (fruit marriage, in this case). Not so long ago, both the common understanding of the term and the legal term were in conflict with homosexual marriage. Arguably the common understanding of the term is still in conflict with homosexual marriage, although the legal term has been changed. E.g. "The reason you put "marriages" in quotes is because you're aware that you, along with those who read your post, know that that's not how the word is used, and anyone who says they are "married" without appropriate context and without having any legal recognition is being deceitful." This is the same line of reasoning that was and is used against homosexual marriage.

The post is somewhat conflicted by his talking about both legal meaning and people's understanding, which are not necessarily the same thing. However, specifically with regards to people's understanding, if his reasoning is correct then homosexual marriage is actually homosexual "marriage" and not a real marriage at all. An additional example would be the law changing to say that one can marry a fruit. People would not understand you to be married to a fruit no matter what the law says, unless there is a massive shift in people's thought.


Quote from Roy
Quote from Jack
Quote from Azrael
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.
His stated line of reasoning is the same as those who support the redefinition-of-marriage argument, with an additional legal aspect which is typically not used by the redefinition-of-marriage people. The fruit, and I'm sure Azrael would agree, is not the important part of his example; rather, the reasoning could apply to any kind of aberrant marriage. My point was merely that the line of reasoning has been used to exclude homosexual marriage as anything but ridiculous.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from Oh_Man
Quote from Jack
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 can't comprehend how you read what I actually wrote and then interpreted that to mean that not only am I supporting the argument but I am also pushing it in this forum and in these posts.
I thought you were saying you are against gay marriage?
I am. That doesn't mean I agree with every argument against it.

Quote from Oh_Man
You must understand the terseness of some of your posts means we have to interpret the meaning as best we can off the single sentence and, invariably, there's risk for mistake there.
Fair enough. I feel like you have added meaning to my posts where there was none but I understand the mistake. I am particularly annoyed at Sacrieur's post, because of the way he refers to my argument as silly and fallacious, without even reading what I said correctly, along with his "unassailable truth" (doesn't exist) and "gracious rebutting" (never happened). At least Roy actually read what I said and didn't overly miscomprehend it, but Sacrieur is basically acting in a very dismissive way without even rebutting what I actually said.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 21 2015, 10:41 pm by Jack.



Red classic.

"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."

Aug 21 2015, 11:16 pm Roy Post #287

An artist's depiction of an Extended Unit Death

Quote from Jack
I'm not sure where he gave these valid scenarios. He gave instances where both the common understanding of the term and the legal term were in conflict with what some people thought marriage should be (fruit marriage, in this case). Not so long ago, both the common understanding of the term and the legal term were in conflict with homosexual marriage. Arguably the common understanding of the term is still in conflict with homosexual marriage, although the legal term has been changed.
Could you explain "common understanding"? Because there is no common understanding regarding marriage: there are countless variations regarding the rules, implications, permanency, and inclusions. "Pineapple marriage" would be a common understanding if there was a place that allowed them.

It is also the case that "common understanding" does not equate to correctness. It is a common understanding that you can use the number 2 in writing to mean "to" or "too", rather than "two".

Regardless, "common understanding" has no relevance to the effort to grant equal rights to everyone.

Quote from Jack
E.g. "The reason you put "marriages" in quotes is because you're aware that you, along with those who read your post, know that that's not how the word is used, and anyone who says they are "married" without appropriate context and without having any legal recognition is being deceitful." This is the same line of reasoning that was and is used against homosexual marriage.
Emphasis mine. There is no legal justification for the discrimination of homosexuals, and so naturally they should have equal rights and legal recognition. It's a lack of reasoning that is used against homosexual marriage.

Quote from Jack
The post is somewhat conflicted by his talking about both legal meaning and people's understanding, which are not necessarily the same thing. However, specifically with regards to people's understanding, if his reasoning is correct then homosexual marriage is actually homosexual "marriage" and not a real marriage at all. An additional example would be the law changing to say that one can marry a fruit.
What is a "real marriage"? Again, there are so many definitions of marriage: it's a No True Scotsman scenario. The key difference is that while you can make up any relationship between two things and call it a "marriage", there is and still will be a legal definition for marriage that is nationally applicable to everyone. I don't need to know your religious beliefs to understand that you are legally married.

If his reasoning is correct, homosexual marriage is actually just marriage. As defined by the law, it's just marriage.

Quote from Jack
People would not understand you to be married to a fruit no matter what the law says, unless there is a massive shift in people's thought.
By definition you would be married by law. The pineapples that grew on the same tree as the one you married could be your in-laws, depending on how the law was written. It's not an opinion: it's a legal term.

Quote from Jack
His stated line of reasoning is the same as those who support the redefinition-of-marriage argument, with an additional legal aspect which is typically not used by the redefinition-of-marriage people. The fruit, and I'm sure Azrael would agree, is not the important part of his example; rather, the reasoning could apply to any kind of aberrant marriage. My point was merely that the line of reasoning has been used to exclude homosexual marriage as anything but ridiculous.
I can't speak for him, but my interpretation is that Azrael was speaking of context. You can have any definition of marriage you want as long as it's understood in context, and a legal definition is a universal context for the citizens subject to it.




Aug 22 2015, 12:11 am Jack Post #288

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

By common understanding, I mean the understanding that the average person has of what marriage is. For example, one hundred years ago the phrase "homosexual marriage" would have been an oxymoron to the average person. I am aware that common understanding (and legal definition) does not necessitate correctness; however, my understanding of what Azrael said was that both common understanding (such as when he says "know that that's not how the word is used") and legal definition were important for the general use of a phrase such as "I'm married" to be truthful in a particular context.

Perhaps Azrael could clarify whether he was referring to just legality or included the common understanding of the word by the average person.



Red classic.

"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."

Aug 24 2015, 6:03 pm Sand Wraith Post #289

she/her

Talking about "truthfulness" has virtually no impact on why or how same sex marriage should be legalized. The very contextual cues of the phrasing of "legalization" asserts a context. The discussion at this point is pedantic and a bore to read. Even if you have a religious context one still ends up with near-identical questioins as to whether there is any legitimacy behind denying same sex marriage. Pedantic arguments like "omg it's an oxymoron therefore it can't" are fundamentally flawed because all such reasoning is either based on non-common premises or questionable ones or circular reasoning.

Any conflicts about words and their "common meaning" boil down to typical social protocol of getting on the same page, the matter at hand however will always be dictated by contextual variables and their respective relationships with one another.

---

In general, marriage should be done away with entirely and be replaced by something that does not by default materially favor a particular section of society.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 24 2015, 6:10 pm by Sand Wraith.




Options
Pages: < 1 13 14 15
  Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[05:00 am]
KrayZee -- Leap of Faith Day 2020
[08:03 pm]
Moose -- Doc Halsey probs in Halo books well before Reach came out
[03:57 pm]
lil-Inferno -- probs just coincidence tbh
[2020-2-27. : 5:45 am]
Kolokol -- Okay, are both of these games referencing something else here? If so, what are they both referencing?
[2020-2-27. : 5:45 am]
Kolokol -- So I am looking at the custom campaign "Legacy of the Confederation". One of the missions has references such as "Doctor Halsey" and "Noble", but the campaign was made almost 10 years before Halo Reach.
[2020-2-27. : 2:55 am]
Dem0n -- ya
[2020-2-27. : 2:45 am]
Wing Zero -- Ah damn it Demon
[2020-2-27. : 2:03 am]
KrayZee -- Yeah, we just need 3 more. We can get a complete F if it's 4.
[2020-2-26. : 10:06 pm]
jjf28 -- i'll take that advice into cooperation
[2020-2-26. : 7:43 pm]
KrayZee -- Okay, but we need other people to cooperate and not ruin it
Please log in to shout.


Members Online: alannahdchristian