The costs of gay marriage

[Gameface]

 

[colton]

As a utahn, I just don't understand the urgency to define marriage and stop gay marriage when we aren't even enforcing laws against polygamy. Why not enforce our existing laws before creating new ones?

I hear you. The problem with the existing polygamy laws(*), though, is they make polygamy illegal even when there is no state sanctioned marriage involved. So that's quite a different subject. That would be like if there were still laws preventing two homosexuals from living together, period. In my opinion any such laws shouldn't be enforced in that case (can't be, I think), and the current laws which prohibit that for, say a man and three women should also be not be enforced.

(*) Edit - in Utah, anyway. I don't know about other states

 

[colton]

Did you read the Spazz/Brow conversation at all?

Not really.

 

[One Brow]

You are saying it's not an insult to point out that someone's bigoted actions... but you are totally wrong on your accusations of what bigoted actions are.

You are using an argument that is occasionally valid in specific instances, but with much more frequency has been used to defend actions that are bigoted. Very few people committing bigoted action will own up to the bigotry of their actions; many are not even aware of it until it is pointed out.

This is an example of what you do:

I call you out for being a child abuser, and that you should not be offended because it is not an insult if I am pointing out the truth.
How would you feel, you would probably like to defend yourself.
Then I go on to describe how you didn't let your kid have something they really wanted, and that is abuse.

Assuming your intent in this hypothetical scenario is legitimate, I have to ask myself why you think it's abuse in the first place. I'll ask you whether that applies to this particular item or all items, etc.

Would that fit your definition of abuse, and make it so you agree with my assessment?

Even if it doesn't fit my definition of abuse, it still might be abuse. Maybe I think making my kid wear the same shoes for two years in a row is teaching the value of thriftiness, but it's really just causing his feet to be painful, which is certainly abuse from the child's point of view and that of any reasonable adult. I think of you as a reasonable adult, so it behooves me to carefully consider your words.

By the way, I'm presuming that you didn't really mean to compare the opinions of adult blacks, women, and adult homosexuals to the opinion of children who often don't understand whats good for them. There were no mean intentions on your part at all. Yet, that's the analogy you just drew. You know what? It sucks to be put in the role of the child in your analogy, even though you didn't mean any harm. One might even say that you were being hurtful unintentionally, that the comparison was racist/sexist even without any bad intent on your part. You may find this hard to believe, but the fact you were unaware of that offense didn't make it less hurtful. Of course, right now you want to defend yourself, I suppose. You may find this hard to believe, but you defending yourself also doesn't make that offense less hurtful.

You are using words incorrectly to describe somebody in a negative way, then saying they should not be offended by it because you are only describing their actions..... when you are way off and out of line.

Just acting like a child, am I?

That blog of yours is just playing with words as well. Anybody that is called something offensive, especially incorrectly would want to defend themselves and yet that blog you follow gives off the impression that anyone that is called a racist should accept it because of course their actions are racist because someone else said they are. It's a bunch of hogwash, and word games.

It's also a huge misinterpretation of the blog's contents. What it asks you to do is carefully consider why someone would say a comment/position is racist, not blindly accept that. It also points out that, due to the nature of human culture, favored groups often are unable to understand why comments regarding unfavored groups carry a prejudicial animus, so in particular, those in favored groups need to listen more carefully. However, I guarantee you that Ian Cromwell (the blog's author) would never tell you to blindly accept any person's word, not even his own.

 

[One Brow]

I think most of us see that the definition of marriage will eventually be changed. With that in mind, does anyone have the scoop on what the next "evolution" will be? Us conservatives are just wondering what we're going to be called ignorant bigots for next.

Whose concerns will you be dismissing next?

It's a simple bullying tactic.

Yes, all those poor, oppressed, straight, white men. My heart bleeds for their suffering.

Seriously, did you even read the link?

 

[One Brow]

I guess that would work in theory but I prefer the government getting out of the business of marriage.

You mean, no government recognition of marriage at all?

Also are you suggesting "covenanted" from religions and "marriage" from the government?

Sure. If religious people want to separate their unions from marriages, they should come up with their own term. I don't know if this directly applies, but don't Mormons already have a term for marriages performed in a temple, something like "sealed"? Gays could be married, but not sealed?

 

[One Brow]

On a positive note, reading this blog explains a lot about One Brow. He has either: spent WAY too much time reading Crommunist's blog, or he actually is Crommunist.

I'm not Ian Cromwell, and I read plenty of other blogs on similar issues, some that disagree.

 

[colton]

Sure. If religious people want to separate their unions from marriages, they should come up with their own term. I don't know if this directly applies, but don't Mormons already have a term for marriages performed in a temple, something like "sealed"? Gays could be married, but not sealed?

Yes, "sealed" is the right word for temple marriages.

 

[One Brow]

Well, I didn't, I guess, but I'll try to now.

Thank you.

Let's just stop with that one. Do you have evidence for that? I find myself skeptical that it's true.

I always approve of skepticism. This law review article quote State vs. Jackson, from 1883:

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3036&context=wmlr

It is stated as a well authenticated fact that if the issue of a black man and a white woman, and a white man and a black woman, intermarry, they cannot possibly have any progeny ...

Of course, it's entirely possible that "progeny" here refers to white children, as opposed to any children at all.

If finding a single individual who made a patently false claim ...

I agree that locating statements from individuals, who do not represent government or other political entities, would be *very* poor evidence.

How is that argument not sound against homosexual marriage? Whereas that statement is patently false for interracial marriage, it's patently true for homosexual unions.

I presume you mean the argument about having children. Gay couples have children, and many plan on having children. Some from adoption, some from fertilization, some from surrogacy, some from previous marriages. Your argument is unsound because it is based on a false assumption.

I didn't say gay couples were not interested in raising children, although I can see how my remarks could be taken that way. I said:

I don't have time to expound on that a lot, but basically I'm saying that a homosexual union is fundamentally different than a heterosexual one. This is so obvious, it's not even debatable.

I will wait until you have time to expound upon that, then. Because right now, you are invoking circumstances that could be present in many different sorts of heterosexual marriages, and using them to invalidate homosexual marriages.

No, probably not. At least not by the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition that I posted earlier in the thread.

Then, I respectfully disagree. I assure you, polite, respectful bigots abound.

It doesn't say "hatred or intolerance", it says "hatred and intolerance". Big difference.

It also says "treats with", not 'feels'. The effect counts, not trhe feelings of the person in question.

Not sure how that is at all relevant. To paraphrase Niven's 16th law, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niven's_laws, no position on any matter is so noble that it can afford to be judged by its weakest member. To Godwin our discussion, if a Nazi sympathizer happens to have the same opinion on a topic as you, does that make you a Nazi sympathizer?

Depends. Are we agreeing about vegetarianism or the Holocaust?

 

[One Brow]

Yes, "sealed" is the right word for temple marriages.

I have no problem at all with people saying gays can be married, but can't be sealed (have their marriages sealed? please excuse my ignorance of the correct terminology).

 

[Stoked]

You mean, no government recognition of marriage at all?



Sure. If religious people want to separate their unions from marriages, they should come up with their own term. I don't know if this directly applies, but don't Mormons already have a term for marriages performed in a temple, something like "sealed"? Gays could be married, but not sealed?

The government should recognize marriages and give them the rights that they'd give civil unions but that is it.

As for the word usage associated with religious ceremonies. I'm ok with it but I doubt some others will.

 

[colton]

I have no problem at all with people saying gays can be married, but can't be sealed (have their marriages sealed? please excuse my ignorance of the correct terminology).

Either phrase is fine. "Can't be sealed" would probably be a slightly more common usage than "can't have their marriage sealed".

 

[colton]

Thank you.



I always approve of skepticism. This law review article quote State vs. Jackson, from 1883:

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3036&context=wmlr

It is stated as a well authenticated fact that if the issue of a black man and a white woman, and a white man and a black woman, intermarry, they cannot possibly have any progeny ...

I thought you were saying that argument had been made in the 1960s. Did I miss something?

I presume you mean the argument about having children. Gay couples have children...

And you wonder why people complain about your semantics?

Because right now, you are invoking circumstances that could be present in many different sorts of heterosexual marriages, and using them to invalidate homosexual marriages.

You're trying to use a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" argument. See Scat's statement that I quoted. Just because not all heterosexual marriages lead to children does not mean that heterosexual marriages are not FUNDAMENTALLY different than homosexual unions, which CANNOT lead to children.

 

[colton]

Sorry, I didn't respond to this:

It also says "treats with", not 'feels'. The effect counts, not trhe feelings of the person in question.

So you're saying that person A can treat person B with hatred, without actually feeling hatred? I'm not sure I buy that.

 

[Zombie]

I thought you were saying that argument had been made in the 1960s. Did I miss something?




And you wonder why people complain about your semantics?




You're trying to use a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" argument. See Scat's statement that I quoted. Just because not all heterosexual marriages lead to children does not mean that heterosexual marriages are not FUNDAMENTALLY different than homosexual unions, which CANNOT lead to children.

Except for the fact that homosexual marriages can and often do lead to children.

 

[colton]

Except for the fact that homosexual marriages can and often do lead to children.

Not to biological children of the union. And in that sense, a homosexual union is more similar to, say, two sisters that live together and want to adopt a child, than to a traditional marriage. Would you call the two sisters' relationship a marriage?

 

[Zombie]

Not to biological children of the union. And in that sense, a homosexual union is more similar to, say, two sisters that live together and want to adopt a child, than to a traditional marriage. Would you call the two sisters' relationship a marriage?

I don't see what difference it makes whether they are biological children of the two parents or not. It doesn't make them any less a family, unless you think that of hetero couples who use alternative means to have children which I doubt. As for whether I would call the sisters relationship a marriage I personally would not because in our society two people who get married usually have romantic inclinations toward each other that sisters don't share. Now if the government got out of the marriage biz altogether and only issued civil unions I would have no problem extending those privileges to the two sisters as well as any other adults who wanted to enter into such a contract.

 

[Scat]

Except for the fact that homosexual marriages can and often do lead to children.

Not without outside intervention. Then again you know this and are just being purposefully obtuse.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

You are using an argument that is occasionally valid in specific instances, but with much more frequency has been used to defend actions that are bigoted. Very few people committing bigoted action will own up to the bigotry of their actions; many are not even aware of it until it is pointed out.

More often, or just the times you care about so it makes more of an impression on you? link?
Also are we to the point that we assume guilty first and force a person accused of something to try to defend themselves with that label attached?
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty, or giving people the benefit of the doubt until they prove you wrong? Is that the negative world you live in?

Also I'm calling you out on that crap about people committing bigoted action and not even being aware of it until it is pointed out. A person cannot treat others with hatred and intolerance and not even know about it. Because hatred is active, I'm pretty sure every person that is actually bigoted knows who/what they hate and don't need it pointed out to them.

Assuming your intent in this hypothetical scenario is legitimate, I have to ask myself why you think it's abuse in the first place. I'll ask you whether that applies to this particular item or all items, etc.

Even if it doesn't fit my definition of abuse, it still might be abuse. Maybe I think making my kid wear the same shoes for two years in a row is teaching the value of thriftiness, but it's really just causing his feet to be painful, which is certainly abuse from the child's point of view and that of any reasonable adult. I think of you as a reasonable adult, so it behooves me to carefully consider your words.

Let me clarify, as you seem intent to be coy.
I have labeled you as a child abuser because your daughter wanted a candy bar from the store and you told her no.... in public... in front of witnesses! You cur!

By the way, I'm presuming that you didn't really mean to compare the opinions of adult blacks, women, and adult homosexuals to the opinion of children who often don't understand whats good for them. There were no mean intentions on your part at all. Yet, that's the analogy you just drew. You know what? It sucks to be put in the role of the child in your analogy, even though you didn't mean any harm. One might even say that you were being hurtful unintentionally, that the comparison was racist/sexist even without any bad intent on your part. You may find this hard to believe, but the fact you were unaware of that offense didn't make it less hurtful. Of course, right now you want to defend yourself, I suppose. You may find this hard to believe, but you defending yourself also doesn't make that offense less hurtful.

You are the one comparing them, my example has to do with words and has nothing to do with adults, blacks, women homosexuals, or your opinion of children. You take an analogy and see what you want to see Shelob. One might say you try to spin your webs and catch people in them purposefully. One might say you see what you want to see even when there is nothing there. If you want to see hurt in everything around you, you will find it. I might even say you are a bigot if you tend to see bigotry all around you. You may try to attack people and try to get them to defend themselves of perceived hurts but realize any defense I make will not make the self inflicted hurts and wounds any better. Self inflicted woulds can only be healed by two sources, the first of course is yourself. The second is Jesus Christ. If I am offended at some perceived hurt from somebody else, most of the time nothing harmful was intended and they have no idea whatsoever that I am hurt. I can hang onto it and become bitter, or I can let it go and let myself heal. Stop the self inflicted wounds One Brow. Stop seeing bigotry and all the rest all around you. You might get lucky once or twice with your accusations, but most of the time I suspect you are jumping at shadows.

Just acting like a child, am I?

Is this your definition of what you are doing? Are you asking for my validation?

It's also a huge misinterpretation of the blog's contents. What it asks you to do is carefully consider why someone would say a comment/position is racist, not blindly accept that. It also points out that, due to the nature of human culture, favored groups often are unable to understand why comments regarding unfavored groups carry a prejudicial animus, so in particular, those in favored groups need to listen more carefully. However, I guarantee you that Ian Cromwell (the blog's author) would never tell you to blindly accept any person's word, not even his own.

I don't think its a huge misinterpretation of the blog's contents at all. He is lumping all people accused of being racists and misogynists and saying they just have to deal with it because it is the truth. (with few exceptions)

from Ian Cromwell:
You’re not being slandered. You’re not being unfairly labeled. Your reputation is not under attack. You are just being made to face the consequences for your actions and beliefs; a price that that, up until then, only had to be paid by the people on the receiving end of your abuse.

That is only true of people that are truly racists and misogynists. I say you are beyond using a broad brush to paint those words around, I think you are using a roller in your use of those words.
I don't know what Ian's definition of those words is and who he thinks fit in those categories, but I believe yours to be woefully off target, and that is my main issue with your whole schtick. If I hated women and/or held them in contempt in any way I would know about it. If I hated gays and/or lesbians I would know about it. If I hated anyone of any race or religion I would know about it.

Definition of HATE
1
a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
b : extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing <had a great hate of hard work>

Here is something I hate. I hate those neighborhood cats that come in my backyard and crap in my lawn and garden. Do you know what I do when I see them? I stop whatever I'm doing, I run out of my back yard and chase them, kick then, throw anything I can at them in hopes they will not return. I don't even hate them enough to really hurt them or kill them.

I disagree with plenty of things I don't hate.
I disagree most policy points of liberals.
I disagree with people walking their dogs and letting them dump all over the park.
I disagree with the gay/lesbian lifestyle.
I disagree with whether the seat should be up or down at home.

I don't go out of my way to harm or hurt anyone on the other side of these disagreements in any way. I speak my peace as respectfully as I can, and go from there.

If you want to change words, and jump at shadows, and try to claim what I do is something it is not, go ahead. That's your opinion, but that's all it is.

 

[Zombie]

Not without outside intervention. Then again you know this and are just being purposefully obtuse.

Oh am I? Colton said homosexual unions cannot result in children, must have missed the part where he said "via ****ing" Regardless of whether they make the kid the old fashioned way or with help they bear every bit as much responsibility for it and thus I believe they should receive the same rights associated with creating a family as anyone else.