Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 50
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,617
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No one is proposing preventing a gay person from having a child, so I'm not sure how that point is relevant.

    Your point would be a valid objection to prohibition against gay adoption, but few organizations have ever even floated that idea. Rather, what is usually offered is that there be prioritization, which was what my point was addressing.

    The objection seemed to be "that is ludicrous," to which I was noting that we already do it, so the argument should be more about whether or not this is on the same reasoning as the prioritization we already do.
    Perhaps I'm not following the conversation carefully, but I don't understand this line line of argumentation.

    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the allegedly gay man was --again, quite literally-- arguing that the reason why homosexual marriages shouldn't be allowed is because all children deserve a mother and a father. I'm directly countering with the statement then that "If we won't allow gay marriages to take place because it deprives a child two heterosexual parents", then single parent adoption should similarly be outlawed on the same logic, but since I doubt he's going to make that argument, we cannot accept his argument against gay marriage on the same grounds. Moreover if we do find his reasoning regarding outlawing homosexual marriages compelling, we are now must find outlawing single parent adoption equally compelling. And since I'm only hearing crickets with regards to banning single parent adoption, we should be hearing crickets with regards to banning same sex marriage --at least on these grounds.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  2. #22
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No one is proposing preventing a gay person from having a child, so I'm not sure how that point is relevant.

    Your point would be a valid objection to prohibition against gay adoption, but few organizations have ever even floated that idea. Rather, what is usually offered is that there be prioritization, which was what my point was addressing.

    The objection seemed to be "that is ludicrous," to which I was noting that we already do it, so the argument should be more about whether or not this is on the same reasoning as the prioritization we already do.
    But I assume you would agree that none of this equates to a coherent argument for banning gay marriage.

    Even if it is accepted that straight parents should be prioritized for adoption over gay parents, this in no way provides a rational argument for not letting gay couples marry.

  3. #23
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by GoldPhoenix View Post
    Moreover if we do find his reasoning regarding outlawing homosexual marriages compelling, we are now must find outlawing single parent adoption equally compelling.

    Which is a fair rebuttal. I was only pointing out the logical consequent that we do prioritize on this issue, so that, by the same logic would seem to apply equally as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But I assume you would agree that none of this equates to a coherent argument for banning gay marriage.

    Well not necessarily. I do think there is a coherent argument in there and other coherent arguments about redefinition of marriage, though I'm not sure article made any of them. I was simply pointing out what seemed a cogent fact to the argument GP was making. It definitely wasn't meant as a defeater of his rebuttal (which I pointed out above, does seem to be a valid rebuttal).
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #24
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well not necessarily. I do think there is a coherent argument in there and other coherent arguments about redefinition of marriage, though I'm not sure article made any of them.
    But the argument that straights are marginally better parents than gays does not lead to a valid argument for banning gay marriage. It would take some horrendous leaps of logic to get there, anyway.

    If one group is marginally better parents than the other, the logical reaction is to factor this into the adoption proceedings, which you point out does happen when it comes to a couple versus a single parent. I don't see how we get to "ban gay marriage" from there - again, without using really bad logic.
    Last edited by mican333; May 21st, 2015 at 07:00 PM.

  5. #25
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,617
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Which is a fair rebuttal. I was only pointing out the logical consequent that we do prioritize on this issue, so that, by the same logic would seem to apply equally as well.
    Prioritization is not prohibition.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  6. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  7. #26
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But the argument that straights are marginally better parents than gays does not lead to a valid argument for banning gay marriage.
    Just to be clear, that isn't my argument here. I think the OP could make that connection by linking the presumption mentioned with some kind of legal context for the institution. IE if he were to say "it was created as a general institution to codify the natural biological family in law to facilitate social stability, etc" then he could well defend the institution of marriage from being changed without the concern of the type of rebuttal made here (that there are sterile hetero couples, etc) because it is a general institution, not a specific institution (like a driver's license).

    Now that said, I'm not making that argument here, and if I were to make it wouldn't approach it in that manner at all. I'm simply pointing out that it isn't exactly an impossible gap to cross logically. More important, I only added the comment I did to point out a natural conclusion of the rebuttal mentioned. That no one seems to have disagreed with that conclusion makes my presence in the thread pretty short.


    Quote Originally Posted by GoldPhoenix View Post
    Prioritization is not prohibition.
    Totally agree. That point is not a valid defense of prohibition. Just a follow through from the logical consequences of the rebuttal.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  8. Thanks GoldPhoenix thanked for this post
  9. #27
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Just to be clear, that isn't my argument here.
    And to be clear, I'm not under the impression that it your argument and I'm not necessarily rebutting anything you are saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think the OP could make that connection by linking the presumption mentioned with some kind of legal context for the institution. IE if he were to say "it was created as a general institution to codify the natural biological family in law to facilitate social stability, etc" then he could well defend the institution of marriage from being changed without the concern of the type of rebuttal made here (that there are sterile hetero couples, etc) because it is a general institution, not a specific institution (like a driver's license).
    Right. Somewhere in the OP there might be something that will logically lead to an argument against gay marriage (although I'm sure it could also be easily rebutted) but as I said, the particular argument that straights are marginally better parents than gays (and for the record, I do not concede that that is even the case) cannot, as far as I know, logically get us there. One will be forced to employ bad logic to use that to get to the conclusion that we should therefore ban gay marriage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Now that said, I'm not making that argument here, and if I were to make it wouldn't approach it in that manner at all. I'm simply pointing out that it isn't exactly an impossible gap to cross logically.
    If we are referring to using the "fact" that straights are marginally better parents, I think the gap is impossible to cross. Once cannot use acceptable logical standards to do it.

    Again, that does not necessarily apply to any other argument in the OP, though.

  10. #28
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Right. Somewhere in the OP there might be something that will logically lead to an argument against gay marriage (although I'm sure it could also be easily rebutted) but as I said, the particular argument that straights are marginally better parents than gays (and for the record, I do not concede that that is even the case) cannot, as far as I know, logically get us there. One will be forced to employ bad logic to use that to get to the conclusion that we should therefore ban gay marriage.
    I would imagine it would be something of the form:

    P1: Straights are, on average, better parents than gays.

    P2: Government has a vested interest in maximizing parental outcomes and supporting institutions that maximize good child rearing.

    P3: Individual analysis of parental couples and their parenting style would be over-burdensome (and therefore reduce maximization a la P2).

    P3: Government creates laws that cover groups rather than specific cases. We have a mortgage tax credit because we think homeownership is a good concept, we don’t explore every individual case for a home purchase.

    C: Therefore government should retain the definition of marriage as is in order to maximize the potential affects of child rearing.


    Now there are obviously objections to all those premises, but I think that that would at least get the OP to where he seems to be going without trampling on too many logical rules.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #29
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    P1: Straights are, on average, better parents than gays.
    To be clear, neither of us are actually saying this premise is valid. It is just being forwarded as a hypothetical. This is for those looking in on the debate, Squatch. I know you understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    P2: Government has a vested interest in maximizing parental outcomes and supporting institutions that maximize good child rearing.
    But I don't see how we get from there to justifying banning gay marriage.

    Assuming having married parents is beneficial for the child, "maximizing parental outcomes" would entail making sure as many couples with children are married as possible, which would be an argument legalizing gay marriage.

    Nor do I see how legalizing gay marriage counters supporting the institution of marriage.

  12. #30
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    To be clear, neither of us are actually saying this premise is valid. It is just being forwarded as a hypothetical. This is for those looking in on the debate, Squatch. I know you understand.
    Agreed, thanks.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Assuming having married parents is beneficial for the child, "maximizing parental outcomes" would entail making sure as many couples with children are married as possible, which would be an argument legalizing gay marriage.
    Well it would entail ensuring that the maximal number of children are with straight couples a la P1. By mandating that same sex relationships also be considered identical to heterosexual relationships under the law, you eliminate the ability of the government to maximize that outcome.


    Again, definitely not the argument I would put forward and the premises are very weak. But there does seem to be a least a defensible structure of an argument in there in the sense that if you think the government's job is to maximize heterosexual families, it would be reasonable to allow the government to make a legal distinction between the two.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Nor do I see how legalizing gay marriage counters supporting the institution of marriage.
    Well the argument I would put forward is that it is changing that term, thereby ending that institution and replacing it with a different one. It would be like saying legally mandating that women be included in the male gender doesn't undermine the concept of the male gender.

    That argument wouldn't even need to show that the outcome is bad necessarily, only that it is, in fact, a material change in the nature of the institution.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #31
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well it would entail ensuring that the maximal number of children are with straight couples a la P1.
    Not at the expense of denying other children the chance to live in stable household because their gay parents cannot marry.

    I assume the goal is that, on balance, the maximum number of children live in the best available households as possible. If we move 1% of children from gay households into straight households and 30% of children from gay households into broken homes (single parent households, wards of the state, living with a relative who is not their parent, etc.), we are not maximizing the goal.

    And if we concerned about giving straight parents priority while not damaging gay households that are currently raising children, the solution is to alter our adoption laws to prioritize straight parents over gay parents. Banning gay marriage seems like a much less effective way to achieve this result.

    And I'm not necessarily conceding that P2 is a legitimate state goal but as it's reasonable to forward that it is, I believe that it should be accepted as one for argument's sake even if it is debatable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well the argument I would put forward is that it is changing that term, thereby ending that institution and replacing it with a different one. It would be like saying legally mandating that women be included in the male gender doesn't undermine the concept of the male gender.

    That argument wouldn't even need to show that the outcome is bad necessarily, only that it is, in fact, a material change in the nature of the institution.
    But I don't think there is a material change in the institution. The change is entirely subjective.

    As an example, I will argue that gay marriage does not change my heterosexual marriage one iota. That might a subjective argument on my part but I'm pretty sure that any opposing argument will likewise be subjective. Can one really show a change to heterosexual marriage that exists even if one refuses to recognize it?
    Last edited by mican333; May 29th, 2015 at 01:56 PM.

  14. #32
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Not at the expense of denying other children the chance to live in stable household because their gay parents cannot marry.
    Lets be clear on P2 though, P2 was about supporting the institution that led to maximal parental outcomes. Again, I think there is a lot to object to about the premise, but given it, the conclusion would at least, follow given the distinction we talk about below.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And if we concerned about giving straight parents priority while not damaging gay households that are currently raising children, the solution is to alter our adoption laws to prioritize straight parents over gay parents. Banning gay marriage seems like a much less effective way to achieve this result.
    The counter argument to that would be then that you aren’t really offering them “marriage” since you are willing to make a legal distinction about their joining. You are saying that it isn’t the same thing if you are able to craft a law concerning adoption preferences in that manner.

    The prosecutor of the argument above would say that no such law would stand long term (and I think he would have a point there), and thus, the only reliable way to ensure this result would be to define gay coupling differently.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But I don't think there is a material change in the institution. The change is entirely subjective.
    If the institution goes from being defined as the joining of two people of the opposite sex to any two people that would seem to be a material change. Literally the only clause in the definition has been changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    As an example, I will argue that gay marriage does not change my heterosexual marriage one iota.
    But that wasn’t the argument. I didn’t say it would affect your specific marriage. I said it materially affected the concept of the institution, which is clearly the case.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #33
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Lets be clear on P2 though, P2 was about supporting the institution that led to maximal parental outcomes.
    No, it was about maximizing parental outcomes in and of itself.

    "P2: Government has a vested interest in maximizing parental outcomes and supporting institutions that maximize good child rearing".

    I assume that "supporting institutions" is a means to the end of maximizing parental outcomes (ensuring that children overall have the best parenting available). If banning gay marriage decreases access to quality parenting for children, then banning gay marriage violates P2.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The counter argument to that would be then that you aren’t really offering them “marriage” since you are willing to make a legal distinction about their joining. You are saying that it isn’t the same thing if you are able to craft a law concerning adoption preferences in that manner.
    I don't understand your argument. And it's not about marriage anyway. Whether or not the couple is married, whoever decides adoption can give a higher priority to opposite sex couples (although I'm sure being married would likewise give a couple priority).


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If the institution goes from being defined as the joining of two people of the opposite sex to any two people that would seem to be a material change. Literally the only clause in the definition has been changed.
    But what is known as traditional or opposite-sex marriage doesn't change one bit. Same-sex marriage changes heterosexual marriage in the same way that atheist marriage changes Christian marriage, which is not at all. And all the government is doing to choosing to recognize gay marriage. It doesn't actually change anything for non-gay marriage.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But that wasn’t the argument. I didn’t say it would affect your specific marriage. I said it materially affected the concept of the institution, which is clearly the case.
    I'd say "concept" and "material" are different things. I consider a material change to be change that one can actually see. If it's just in one's mind (like a concept). it's not material.
    Last edited by mican333; June 4th, 2015 at 11:13 AM.

  16. #34
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    No, it was about maximizing parental outcomes in and of itself.
    Well there is a second half of that sentence joined by an “and” statement. Government is about establishing and monitoring institutions for a desired end. Arguing that the two are separate would by like saying the heart’s goal is to move blood, the pumping and veins thing is a separate question.

    Regardless, our hypothetical debater could have phrased P2 as “by…” rather than “and…” and avoided any objection.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I don't understand your argument. And it's not about marriage anyway. Whether or not the couple is married, whoever decides adoption can give a higher priority to opposite sex couples (although I'm sure being married would likewise give a couple priority).
    The point I was trying to make was that once you acknowledge a difference between a straight couple’s relationship and a gay couple’s relationship, you’ve defeated the idea that we would need gay “marriage” rather than some kind of civil union and hence the proponent would have a second avenue for a coherent argument.

    Remember that the point in insisting on gay marriage (rather than civil unions) is that gays should have the exact same thing as straights do. Once you’ve compromised that principle, you either de facto concede the opposing position that gay marriage is necessary or you allow the proponent to coherently dismiss your objections as sophistry, since you aren’t talking about the same concept he is.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But what is known as traditional or opposite-sex marriage doesn't change one bit.
    The proponent would disagree, and could do so somewhat coherently I think. He would argue that you are confusing the change in the category of the relationship with the details of a specific relationship itself. For example, if we changed the definition of “homo sapien” to include any vertebrate, we wouldn’t be changing my existence one bit, but we would be materially changing the concept of “homo sapien.”

    Likewise, because it wouldn’t affect my personal relationship with my wife doesn’t mean that it doesn’t materially affect the institution, which was the point I made above.

    You can’t say that you are removing the only clause that would limit a definition and seriously argue you aren’t changing the institution that definition covers.

    Let’s use another example. We could define lovemaking as “the consensual sexual activity between two adults.” Removing either of those clauses (consensual or adults) would dramatically affect that definition and what it covers right? That doesn’t mean a specific act between two consenting adults actually changes, but it does mean the concept of what we are talking about when we use the term does.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I'd say "concept" and "material" are different things. I consider a material change to be change that one can actually see. If it's just in one's mind (like a concept). it's not material.
    But that isn’t what that term means in this context. I’m clearly not referring to a synonym for physical, since no institution is physical in nature. I’m referring to “Important; essential; relevant: the insects did not do any material damage to the crop…
    significant, influential, or relevant, especially to the extent of determining a cause or affecting a judgment: information that could be material to a murder inquiry”
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us...glish/material

    IE we are talking about whether the change is relevant to the argument, not whether it is physically manifested.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #35
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well there is a second half of that sentence joined by an “and” statement. Government is about establishing and monitoring institutions for a desired end. Arguing that the two are separate would by like saying the heart’s goal is to move blood, the pumping and veins thing is a separate question.

    Regardless, our hypothetical debater could have phrased P2 as “by…” rather than “and…” and avoided any objection.
    In other words:

    "Government has a vested interest in maximizing parental outcomes by supporting institutions that maximize good child rearing"

    I think "supporting institutions that maximize good child rearing" is rather clumsily phrased. So I need to ask how do we determine if an institution maximizes good child rearing and why is there a vested interest in supporting such institutions?

    To save you some time, do you accept as an answer to the second part of the question "Because the government has a vested interest in making sure as many children have the best parenting situation as legally feasible"? If that's not quite right, I'd suggest making as few changes as possible to get it right.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The point I was trying to make was that once you acknowledge a difference between a straight couple’s relationship and a gay couple’s relationship, you’ve defeated the idea that we would need gay “marriage” rather than some kind of civil union and hence the proponent would have a second avenue for a coherent argument.
    Well, my debate position is that, even if we accept that straights are marginally better parents, there is no logical argument for banning gay marriage as in one cannot use that to give a good argument about why we SHOULD ban gay marriage.

    So conceding that adoption agencies have a legitimate reason to discriminate when it comes adopting does not automatically validate the government discriminating on marriage laws.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Remember that the point in insisting on gay marriage (rather than civil unions) is that gays should have the exact same thing as straights do. Once you’ve compromised that principle, you either de facto concede the opposing position that gay marriage is necessary or you allow the proponent to coherently dismiss your objections as sophistry, since you aren’t talking about the same concept he is.
    Doesn't matter. The burden is on the one who claims that there is a logical reason to ban gay marriage based on their relative parenting skills. Conceding that there is a rational reason to discriminate in one area does not equate conceding that any other method of discrimination is likewise rational.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The proponent would disagree, and could do so somewhat coherently I think. He would argue that you are confusing the change in the category of the relationship with the details of a specific relationship itself. For example, if we changed the definition of “homo sapien” to include any vertebrate, we wouldn’t be changing my existence one bit, but we would be materially changing the concept of “homo sapien.”
    You'd be changing the definition of the word. That's it. And how significant the effects of the change is depends on how conversations using the changed word are effected afterwards.

    And in the case of marriage, I think the change would be practically insignificant. More on that below...



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You can’t say that you are removing the only clause that would limit a definition and seriously argue you aren’t changing the institution that definition covers.
    About the only change I can see is that if a OSC wants to differentiate their marriage from that of a SSC, they will have to add the word "opposite-sex" or "heterosexual" before the word "marriage" when they want to define their union that way. Besides that, I can't see any effective change. And having to employ an additional word to describe one's union is not a material change. In fact, as long the couple see no need to verbally differentiate, there should be no noticeable different in their union.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Let’s use another example. We could define lovemaking as “the consensual sexual activity between two adults.” Removing either of those clauses (consensual or adults) would dramatically affect that definition and what it covers right? That doesn’t mean a specific act between two consenting adults actually changes, but it does mean the concept of what we are talking about when we use the term does.
    All you are talking about is making a WORD'S DEFINITION less specific and if one feels the need to be specific, they can just add a word to add specificity. What the word describes doesn't really change so the change is not material.

    And in most situations, you probably wouldn't even bother adding the specificity. If you removed either descriptor from "making love", it would probably NEVER effect your usage of the word. If you tell someone you made love to your wife last night, you won't bother specifying that your wife is an adult and/or the sex was consensual - that would be apparent in the context of the discussion, just like if you said you said you had "sex" with your wife last night (the word "sex" does not inherently contain consent or adults).

    So while I can see a change in definition resulting in a potential slight change in how we use words in the future, I don't see any change in the things those words refer to. Your marriage will stay the same, your status as a vertebrate will stay the same, your sex life will stay the same. Again, the only thing that might change is your conversations and the change should not be significant. It's even conceivable it will not change your conversations at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But that isn’t what that term means in this context. I’m clearly not referring to a synonym for physical, since no institution is physical in nature. I’m referring to “Important; essential; relevant: the insects did not do any material damage to the crop…
    significant, influential, or relevant, especially to the extent of determining a cause or affecting a judgment: information that could be material to a murder inquiry”
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us...glish/material

    IE we are talking about whether the change is relevant to the argument, not whether it is physically manifested.
    So then an IMPORTANT change would be "material". Of course whether a change is "important" is a bid subjective but I'll play fair on that issue and not reject something I sincerely feel is important just to win the debate.

    And as I argued above, I don't see any important (negative) changes to the institution of heterosexual marriage occurring because of legalizing gay marriage. About the only thing I can see in your future is MAYBE you having to specify that you are married to a female because it can no longer taken for granted that you are just because you use the word "married". I sincerely think that that does not qualify as important.
    Last edited by mican333; June 27th, 2015 at 07:09 AM.

  18. #36
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    138
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    There is a lot of nonsense spread about parents and children. Couples have their own lives to lead and often children come along. Some women have been shamed into silence because they hate their children at times. Hats off to feminists for making this point.
    If the writer would give anything to become a father then marry a woman; not deceptively but openly, Im sure there will be many willing females.

  19. #37
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I think "supporting institutions that maximize good child rearing" is rather clumsily phrased. So I need to ask how do we determine if an institution maximizes good child rearing and why is there a vested interest in supporting such institutions?
    That might be getting to into the weeds if you remember our initial construct that it was a question of whether the OP, in theory, could form a coherent argument based on the data he was providing. You’re asking if he could defend the premises, which we initially set aside.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Well, my debate position is that, even if we accept that straights are marginally better parents, there is no logical argument for banning gay marriage as in one cannot use that to give a good argument about why we SHOULD ban gay marriage.
    But I think that point allows the OP to formulate another coherent argument, which is that, by the discussion offered, we are implicitly agreeing that the two institutions are different. Remember, the OP isn’t arguing that we should ban gay coupling only that we should distinguish between marriage (as he defined it) and whatever legal form of coupling gay’s would enjoy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Doesn't matter. The burden is on the one who claims that there is a logical reason to ban gay marriage based on their relative parenting skills.
    But it does. Once you’ve made the concession discussed in my last post the argument is over because the OP can simply argue that you both agree. What you are calling marriage isn’t actually marriage, because you recognize it as different. It might be very similar (civil unions are very similar, as are legal partnerships in the business sense), but that doesn’t mean it is the same thing.

    Once both parties to the discussion have agreed to that point, the remaining objection is more an argument of definitions, and given the definitional ground was laid out in the premises initially put forward, this would be a material difference.

    It would be like arguing that a Chevy Yukon and a GMC Tahoe are the same car because they have essentially identical frames and components when the initial criteria and discussion revolved around manufacturing locations.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    You'd be changing the definition of the word. That's it. And how significant the effects of the change is depends on how conversations using the changed word are effected afterwards.
    And words convey meaning and change thought patterns. You can’t simply say that you’re changing 50% of the definition of a term and then think that that won’t have significant impact on how that word is used or how people understand the associated concept.

    Take the homosapien example. If we include chimpanzees into that definition it doesn’t mean I or you actually change, but it does change how we understand the concept of humans, especially over time. Orwell was spot on when he noted that the real power of Ingsoc was in Newspeak. By changing the language you alter the way people understand terms and how they are able to communicate. That doesn’t mean an instant change in the original item described, but it does mean a change in our understanding of that item’s relationship to other items long term.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    About the only change I can see …
    I’m not sure how you can honestly say this, or perhaps it is a good example of the above. You seem to have already made the mental replacement be redefining the term as “loving bond” rather than what it has traditionally meant all the way back to its Indo-European roots as a term (http://etymonline.com/index.php?allo...earchmode=none) , “an institution where a man and a woman were bound together as a single social element”

    By redefining the term, you are literally, as I pointed out in my earlier post, removing the only existing limiting criteria in the definition. You might not find that objectionable, sure, or even find it beneficial, sure, but you can’t intellectually honestly say that it doesn’t represent a material change in the definition of the term.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    All you are talking about is making a WORD'S DEFINITION less specific and if one feels the need to be specific, they can just add a word to add specificity. What the word describes doesn't really change so the change is not material.
    I think this misses the underlying point of my response. This isn’t about simply making a work more generic (though I do have major objections to that, see Orwell reference above). Rather, the problem arises from the existing relationships and changing relationships that word has with other meanings.


    I’ll give a nearly classic example. In the 1970s the word love went from being a term about an emotional attachment to being a synonym for sex. This wasn’t an organic linguistic change so much as a conscious attempt to reject existing standards and morals.

    But who cares right? It didn’t actually change those 70s trendsters’ actual behavior right? Perhaps not, but it did fundamentally allow a huge change in how we saw history, including all kinds of commonly held misunderstandings. Take for example the understanding of the Athenian mentorship idea and the Theban band. Until the 1980s no one considered either of these to be commonly associated with homosexual identity. There were some possible suggestions that the latter had some instances of homosexual activity, but nothing more. Why? Because historians were primarily working on primary sources and understood the term “love” in English can mean four or five different things in Greek. In this case a form of brotherly love not really associated with eroticism that we don’t have a term for. The same with the Athenians. The fact that historians generally wrote that older men “loved” the boys they mentored went from a commonly understood non-erotic meaning to an implication of pederasty (the fact that such activity was a crime and punished by stoning or drowning isn’t much discussed anymore).

    The result was that it became a widely spread idea that early greeks had openly homosexual groups and openly encouraged pederasty in some city-states. Concepts which don’t have historical support, but rely primarily on secondary source documents where linguistic changes have led to meaning changes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    So then an IMPORTANT change would be "material". Of course whether a change is "important" is a bid subjective but I'll play fair on that issue and not reject something I sincerely feel is important just to win the debate.
    Or relevant being another synonym of that word. Clearly in this since it is relevant since we are talking about essentially the same topic between the two points. You, Mican, might not find the consequences subjectively important, but that isn’t how the word is being used, it is being used, as I said in my last post, as “relevant” ie that it matters to the argument.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  20. #38
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That might be getting to into the weeds if you remember our initial construct that it was a question of whether the OP, in theory, could form a coherent argument based on the data he was providing. You’re asking if he could defend the premises, which we initially set aside.
    I am not challenging his premise. I'm challenging your argument regarding "institutions that maximize parental outcome".

    I find that term too vague to be the basis of a coherent argument and therefore ask that it explained better before it is an accepted premise.

    As I interpret the phrase, "maximizing parental outcome" would be having as many children in the best parental situation as possible and any institution that helps parents raise their children would qualify as an "institutions that maximize parental outcome" and since both heterosexual and homosexual unions raise children they are both institutions that maximize parental outcome (as in the children are better off with their parents than any likely alternative).

    Since my interpretation is one that leads one to favor recognizing SSM instead of opposing it, it's safe to say that my interpretation is not the one that you are forwarding. So you need to spell out what you mean by 'institutions that maximize parental outcome" or else I have no choice but use the only interpretation that currently makes sense to me which is the one I just forwarded.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But I think that point allows the OP to formulate another coherent argument, which is that, by the discussion offered, we are implicitly agreeing that the two institutions are different. Remember, the OP isn’t arguing that we should ban gay coupling only that we should distinguish between marriage (as he defined it) and whatever legal form of coupling gay’s would enjoy.
    Not just distinguish but discriminate.

    His (your) burden is to show that a logical argument exists to not recognize gay unions as "marriage" due to the relative quality of parenting.

    So just saying "they are different in some way" does not get you there. You have to show that the difference in parenting quality (the premise conceded for the sake of argument but not in reality) leads to the conclusion that gay unions should not be recognized as "marriage" by the government.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But it does. Once you’ve made the concession discussed in my last post the argument is over because the OP can simply argue that you both agree. What you are calling marriage isn’t actually marriage, because you recognize it as different. It might be very similar (civil unions are very similar, as are legal partnerships in the business sense), but that doesn’t mean it is the same thing.
    I've never conceded such a thing nor is it a logical outcome from any issue that I have conceded. Just because two unions are different does not automatically mean that they don't both qualify as marriage. There has to be something about one of the two unions that shows that it should not be called "marriage" before one can coherently argue that it should not have that term.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It would be like arguing that a Chevy Yukon and a GMC Tahoe are the same car because they have essentially identical frames and components when the initial criteria and discussion revolved around manufacturing locations.
    They aren't the same model of car but they both qualifies as "cars". And likewise one can forward that gay marriage and straight marriage are not the same model of marriage but they both qualify as "marriages" and the fact that they are different does not innately justify treating them differently, just like the two types of cars are treated the same in every way by the law.

    Maybe your argument has more to it than I can identify, but it looks like you are arguing that just because straight unions and gay unions are different, we should discriminate against gay unions. That is clearly not logically sound. You have to show that there is a difference that justifies discrimination (and in this case its the hypothetical difference in parenting outcome) and WHY that difference justifies discrimination in regards to the recognition of their marriage.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And words convey meaning and change thought patterns. You can’t simply say that you’re changing 50% of the definition of a term and then think that that won’t have significant impact on how that word is used or how people understand the associated concept.

    Take the homosapien example. If we include chimpanzees into that definition it doesn’t mean I or you actually change, but it does change how we understand the concept of humans, especially over time.
    I don't see the need for analogies, though. Why not just say that gay unions adopting the word "marriage" will change our understanding of marriage over time.

    But again, while I do agree that changing the definition will change our understanding of the word "marriage" (that's pretty obvious), I don't see how it will change the institution that was previously called "marriage" - a union between to opposite sex partners.

    For right now, don't even worry about supporting it but just tell me the material difference that you think will take place in the marriages of opposite sex couples. As I said, all I can see is that such couples may, in certain situations, will have to verbally differentiate their unions from same sex unions by adding the word "opposite sex" or "straight" before the word "marriage" or point out the gender of their spouse since it can no longer be taken for granted that their spouse is of the opposite sex.

    I don't really consider that a material difference in the union itself. I consider it rather insignificant in regards to the institution itself.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think this misses the underlying point of my response. This isn’t about simply making a work more generic (though I do have major objections to that, see Orwell reference above). Rather, the problem arises from the existing relationships and changing relationships that word has with other meanings.


    I’ll give a nearly classic example. In the 1970s the word love went from being a term about an emotional attachment to being a synonym for sex. This wasn’t an organic linguistic change so much as a conscious attempt to reject existing standards and morals.

    But who cares right? It didn’t actually change those 70s trendsters’ actual behavior right? Perhaps not, but it did fundamentally allow a huge change in how we saw history, including all kinds of commonly held misunderstandings. Take for example the understanding of the Athenian mentorship idea and the Theban band. Until the 1980s no one considered either of these to be commonly associated with homosexual identity. There were some possible suggestions that the latter had some instances of homosexual activity, but nothing more. Why? Because historians were primarily working on primary sources and understood the term “love” in English can mean four or five different things in Greek. In this case a form of brotherly love not really associated with eroticism that we don’t have a term for. The same with the Athenians. The fact that historians generally wrote that older men “loved” the boys they mentored went from a commonly understood non-erotic meaning to an implication of pederasty (the fact that such activity was a crime and punished by stoning or drowning isn’t much discussed anymore).

    The result was that it became a widely spread idea that early greeks had openly homosexual groups and openly encouraged pederasty in some city-states. Concepts which don’t have historical support, but rely primarily on secondary source documents where linguistic changes have led to meaning changes.
    But applying that to marriage, that would mean that people in the future might not realize that 20th century and before marriages were exclusively opposite-sex marriages as the future definition will apply to both SSM and OSM.

    But this does not really create an argument against the governmental recognition of SSM.

    The primary reason is that even if that future event is particularly undesirable, it's not so much a consequence of government recognition of SSM but THE PEOPLE'S acceptance of it. Speaking for myself, and almost certainly nearly every proponent of SSM, I personally choose to use the word "marriage" for gay unions and will do so regardless of how the government rules on the matter. The language change is happening because of people's decisions, not the governmental actions.

    And I don't think Orwellian applies. I consider "Orwellian" to be a conspiracy to intentionally altering language in hopes of changing people's thoughts on a certain matter as opposed to an organic language change that naturally happens all of the time (I assume you recognize that language always changes over time). Speaking for myself, and almost certainly nearly every proponent of SSM, I am not adopting the word "marriage" for gay couples because I want to influence others to think a certain way. I sincerely think it's the most appropriate word available and am using it for that reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Or relevant being another synonym of that word. Clearly in this since it is relevant since we are talking about essentially the same topic between the two points. You, Mican, might not find the consequences subjectively important, but that isn’t how the word is being used, it is being used, as I said in my last post, as “relevant” ie that it matters to the argument.
    So this is a semantic debate?

    Regardless of the actual definition of a particular word, if one is seeking to argue against gay marriage they have to show that a consequence is likely to occur that a reasonable person will think is a bad thing. So if we want to define a "material" change as a relevant but not necessarily important and/or impactful change, fine, it's a "material" change. But so what?
    Last edited by mican333; July 4th, 2015 at 10:18 AM.

  21. #39
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I find that term too vague to be the basis of a coherent argument and therefore ask that it explained better before it is an accepted premise.

    As I interpret the phrase, "maximizing parental outcome" would be having as many children in the best parental situation as possible and any institution that helps parents raise their children would qualify as an "institutions that maximize parental outcome" and since both heterosexual and homosexual unions raise children they are both institutions that maximize parental outcome (as in the children are better off with their parents than any likely alternative).
    I already did, you just didn’t like the phrasing, finding it “clumsy.” But clumsy or not the terms here aren’t vague at all.

    P2: Government has a vested interest in maximizing parental outcomes by supporting institutions that maximize good child rearing.

    Your interpretation doesn’t match that premise. Your version would be: “P2: Government has a vested interest in maximizing parental opportunities by supporting any institution that could produce a positive child rearing experience.

    The difference is that your interpretation is about maximizing the size of the population because, by definition, that increases the number of “best outcomes” while the premise offered is about picking the specific institution that produces the best outcome distribution.

    An example would be going to a casino. Your premise would be about increasing the amount of money you bring and playing every possible table because that increases the number of winning hands you could get.

    The premise offered was about picking black jack over craps because its winning distribution is better.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Not just distinguish but discriminate.
    In what sense? What specific material difference was he advocating? After all, if we are assuming there is a difference in the two (as the last response did), then you can’t simply say “they aren’t getting married” because you’ve already conceded that ground. The defense of a claim that he is discriminating would need to be something beyond just a term, something like “a gay person couldn’t live with their partner, etc.”


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Just because two unions are different does not automatically mean that they don't both qualify as marriage.
    Yes it does. Once you agree that the two relationships are sufficiently different to enjoy different privileges under the law, you’ve agreed they are two different things under the law. Now perhaps they are very closely related, but they are distinct in a legal sense.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    They aren't the same model of car but they both qualifies as "cars".
    Just as both of these are relationships, but only one is marriage. Because two relationship types share some similar criteria does not mean they are identical. Just as a Yukon is not a Tahoe because it shares some similarities. A Yukon has a set of characteristics that make it a Yukon, a subset of which make it a car.

    Likewise, a marriage has a set of characteristics that make it a marriage, a subset of which make it a relationship. Given that, literally, the only defining criteria of a marriage is the husband/wife criteria, it would be hard to argue that another relationship which doesn’t meet that criteria is part of that category of things.

    It would be like saying that a Yukon is defined as any car which has a “Yukon” label on the back of it and then someone arguing that the one that says “Tahoe” on the back is also a Yukon because it is virtually the same thing in their view.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Maybe your argument has more to it than I can identify, but it looks like you are arguing that just because straight unions and gay unions are different, we should discriminate against gay unions.
    I haven’t implied anywhere where we should discriminate against gay unions. That not only isn’t a feature of the hypothetical argument I’ve offered, it isn’t even a vague implication of it. That is, unless you are forwarding the odd proposition that recognizing a different object by a different term is inherently discriminatory.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    As I said, all I can see is that such couples may, in certain situations, will have to verbally differentiate their unions from same sex unions by adding the word "opposite sex" or "straight" before the word "marriage" or point out the gender of their spouse since it can no longer be taken for granted that their spouse is of the opposite sex.
    This essentially is just a re-iteration of the point I just responded to. The same counter still applies.

    You seem to have already made the mental replacement be redefining the term as “loving bond” rather than what it has traditionally meant all the way back to its Indo-European roots as a term (http://etymonline.com/index.php?allo...earchmode=none) , “an institution where a man and a woman were bound together as a single social element”

    By redefining the term, you are literally, as I pointed out in my earlier post, removing the only existing limiting criteria in the definition. You might not find that objectionable, sure, or even find it beneficial, sure, but you can’t intellectually honestly say that it doesn’t represent a material change in the definition of the term.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But applying that to marriage, that would mean that people in the future might not realize that 20th century and before marriages were exclusively opposite-sex marriages as the future definition will apply to both SSM and OSM.
    I think this response again misses the issue. It is one thing to acknowledge that two different things are equal. Men and women are different, no biological question about that. They have different parts, they perceive the world differently, their brains are organized differently, etc. But they are equal. Your position might be tenable if you were arguing for a coequal relationship status, but that isn’t what you are arguing for.

    Rather, you are arguing that we must fundamentally change the concept of what we understand as marriage. It would be like, in an effort to increase public transportation acceptance, we forced people to use the term “car” for busses and railways. Maybe they are equal options, but by demanding that people identify them as the same you are limiting their option to even think of them as different.

    What’s more, if you don’t think this is having a consequence now I would argue you aren’t paying attention. It is the insistence that SSM is identical (not equal to, but identical) to Marriage that is the fundamental defense for forcing people to participate in gay weddings. It is exactly that linguistic shift that is making the position defensible that some people have the right to force others to celebrate their union. We’ve already fundamentally changed the way people are thinking about the concept by changing the words we used. Perhaps a stroke of policy genius by early advocacy groups to identify them as marriages rather than partnerships, but that doesn’t make the effect less noticeable.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And I don't think Orwellian applies. I consider "Orwellian" to be a conspiracy to intentionally altering language in hopes of changing people's thoughts on a certain matter as opposed to an organic language change that naturally happens all of the time (I assume you recognize that language always changes over time).
    Well, that would be one heck of a “speaking for this group” assumption given the nature of groups that began this push. But setting that aside you are incorrect. Orwell’s example had nothing to do with a specific ideological aim. His point was that by causing confusion in meaning and lumping terms together you would alter people’s thought patterns. Usually you would simplify them so that they couldn’t really discuss or even grasp the nuance between two concepts. It wasn’t that the ministry of truth was intentionally trying to get people to love or hate Eurasia (that changed whenever it suited them to change it), it was that the oversimplification and politicization of the language prevented people from actively analyzing those policies because their ability to verbalize and thus comprehend subtlety was absolutely removed. Winston feels an angst about his job, but he can’t actually see what he is doing is wrong because he lacks the language to follow through on the thought. It was that process that I am referring to here. That goal of insisting that we all use the same term for two things we recognize as different (even if some people don’t care about the difference). Insisting that we redefine and simplify the term to mask any possibility of even picking up on the difference is the issue, not whether it was a specific agency or a trendy group that insisted on the change.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    So this is a semantic debate?
    Not at all, I used a specific term as part of this discussion. You used it in a different sense, causing confusion. I was simply correcting that misapprehension by pointing out that clearly wasn’t’ what was meant in this context. This kind of linguistic discussion is important if context and meaning are to be accurately portrayed. I think this confusion served as a perfect demonstration of my concern above. Changing the definition of a term simply for an emotional feel good moment is a dangerous thing, a la my discussion above. Limiting our ability to clearly convey meaning and blending concepts by arbitrarily redefining them is exactly Orwellian, it doesn’t matter if it is the aim of a small group or the government, it is the outcome that results from that kind of change that is the issue at hand.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  22. #40
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I already did, you just didn’t like the phrasing, finding it “clumsy.” But clumsy or not the terms here aren’t vague at all.

    P2: Government has a vested interest in maximizing parental outcomes by supporting institutions that maximize good child rearing.

    Your interpretation doesn’t match that premise. Your version would be: “P2: Government has a vested interest in maximizing parental opportunities by supporting any institution that could produce a positive child rearing experience.
    No, I would say "outcomes" not "opportunities" as in overall, the institutions would result in children receiving better parenting than if they weren't in those institutions (so the outcomes are generally positive).

    And "institutions that maximize parental outcomes" IS vague. On the surface, I don't know what it means. But given the context of the debate, I interpret it as meaning "institutions that do a better job at parenting than all alternative institutions".

    So P2 would read:

    P2: Government has a vested interest in maximizing parental outcomes by supporting institutions that do a better job at parenting than all alternative institutions.

    And that is my best-faith effort to interpret the term so if I have it wrong, then you need to state your premise more clearly. I don't challenge the P3s so I'll move to the conclusion.

    C: Therefore government should retain the definition of marriage as is in order to maximize the potential affects of child rearing.

    And I do not accept that P2 logically leads to the C.

    Just because the government has an interest in supporting the best institution for raising children does not logically lead to the conclusion that it should not support other institutions that do a good job of raising children just because they don't do as good a job as the best one. It would be like refusing to let a strong guy onto your tug-of-war team just because you have someone who's stronger than him on the team already. If BOTH men are helpful, they should both be on the team as your chances of winning the match improve with both of them pulling the rope instead of just the better of the two men doing it. Likewise benefitting both straight and gay marriage maximizes parental outcome better that just benefitting one of the two.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    In what sense? What specific material difference was he advocating? After all, if we are assuming there is a difference in the two (as the last response did), then you can’t simply say “they aren’t getting married” because you’ve already conceded that ground. The defense of a claim that he is discriminating would need to be something beyond just a term, something like “a gay person couldn’t live with their partner, etc.”
    I believe we were debating the notion of whether relative parenting skills is a valid reason to ban gay marriage. Clearly denying gay unions that benefits/recognition that straight unions receive materially discriminates against them.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Yes it does. Once you agree that the two relationships are sufficiently different to enjoy different privileges under the law, you’ve agreed they are two different things under the law. Now perhaps they are very closely related, but they are distinct in a legal sense.
    But I never agreed that the two relationships are sufficiently different to enjoy different privileges under the law.

    To be clear, my position that they should be treated equally under the law and there is no good reason not to do so. Whatever differences they may have does not change that just like many of the recognizable differences that you and I have as individuals (like our differing heights) does not warrant unequal treatment under the law for either of us compared to the other.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Just as both of these are relationships, but only one is marriage. Because two relationship types share some similar criteria does not mean they are identical. Just as a Yukon is not a Tahoe because it shares some similarities. A Yukon has a set of characteristics that make it a Yukon, a subset of which make it a car.

    Likewise, a marriage has a set of characteristics that make it a marriage, a subset of which make it a relationship. Given that, literally, the only defining criteria of a marriage is the husband/wife criteria, it would be hard to argue that another relationship which doesn’t meet that criteria is part of that category of things.
    As far as I can tell, this argument is completely unsupported and you are just telling me what you think.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I haven’t implied anywhere where we should discriminate against gay unions. That not only isn’t a feature of the hypothetical argument I’ve offered, it isn’t even a vague implication of it. That is, unless you are forwarding the odd proposition that recognizing a different object by a different term is inherently discriminatory.
    Technically, discriminating IS identifying differences between two things and treating them differently based on those differences (which isn't always a bad thing btw - a man should discriminate between his wife and his child).

    But I do argue that the kind of discrimination you propose would be wrong if practiced by the government.

    Marriage has both a religious, civil, and legal aspect in this society. So there is absolutely nothing stopping a gay couple from having a religious ceremony in front of family and friends and calling themselves "married" and considering themselves married. I assume you will agree that they have every right to do that. And then they are likely to seek governmental/legal recognition for their marriage. And if the government says to them "The government does not recognize your marriage but here's the legal benefits anyway" that IS clearly discrimination assuming the government behaves differently towards other couples.

    And I also argue that it would be probably be rude for you personally to refuse to recognize a gay union as marriage in many social interactions. I mean if your gay co-worker got married and introduced you to his husband, it would be impolite to say "I do not consider you two married and I don't consider that man to be your husband" and that would likely upset him at least a little. IMO all else being equal, it is wrong to upset other people.








    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You seem to have already made the mental replacement be redefining the term as “loving bond” rather than what it has traditionally meant all the way back to its Indo-European roots as a term (http://etymonline.com/index.php?allo...earchmode=none) , “an institution where a man and a woman were bound together as a single social element”

    By redefining the term, you are literally, as I pointed out in my earlier post, removing the only existing limiting criteria in the definition. You might not find that objectionable, sure, or even find it beneficial, sure, but you can’t intellectually honestly say that it doesn’t represent a material change in the definition of the term.
    Right. As I bolded in your response - "the definition of the term" or "the definition of the word".

    Yes, the definition of the word is changing and will completely change in the future. But that's it.

    Assuming one does not have a big problem with the definition of words changing every now and then, this isn't something to be concerned about.






    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Rather, you are arguing that we must fundamentally change the concept of what we understand as marriage.
    I'm pretty sure I never said such a thing and if I did, I retract it.

    I mean I am observing that the definition is changing and I'm glad that it is but I don't argue that people MUST change the concept.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It would be like, in an effort to increase public transportation acceptance, we forced people to use the term “car” for busses and railways. Maybe they are equal options, but by demanding that people identify them as the same you are limiting their option to even think of them as different.
    But then I have not demanded that anyone use the term "marriage" for SSCs. If you don't want to use the term, then don't use it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    What’s more, if you don’t think this is having a consequence now I would argue you aren’t paying attention. It is the insistence that SSM is identical (not equal to, but identical) to Marriage that is the fundamental defense for forcing people to participate in gay weddings.
    You will need to explain this because people are not currently forced to participate in gay weddings nor do I find it reasonable to think that this is in the future.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It is exactly that linguistic shift that is making the position defensible that some people have the right to force others to celebrate their union.
    You're going to need to explain that. I've never heard an argument for forcing people to celebrate their unions and I don't see how one can stem from the language shift under discussion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We’ve already fundamentally changed the way people are thinking about the concept by changing the words we used. Perhaps a stroke of policy genius by early advocacy groups to identify them as marriages rather than partnerships, but that doesn’t make the effect less noticeable.
    I think you are putting the cart before the horse. I hold that people's increasing acceptance of gays is causing the language shift we are discussing, not vice versa.





    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Orwell’s example had nothing to do with a specific ideological aim. His point was that by causing confusion in meaning and lumping terms together you would alter people’s thought patterns. Usually you would simplify them so that they couldn’t really discuss or even grasp the nuance between two concepts. It wasn’t that the ministry of truth was intentionally trying to get people to love or hate Eurasia (that changed whenever it suited them to change it), it was that the oversimplification and politicization of the language prevented people from actively analyzing those policies because their ability to verbalize and thus comprehend subtlety was absolutely removed. Winston feels an angst about his job, but he can’t actually see what he is doing is wrong because he lacks the language to follow through on the thought. It was that process that I am referring to here. That goal of insisting that we all use the same term for two things we recognize as different (even if some people don’t care about the difference). Insisting that we redefine and simplify the term to mask any possibility of even picking up on the difference is the issue, not whether it was a specific agency or a trendy group that insisted on the change.
    But regardless, Orwellian does entail a conspiracy. Someone or some group is INTENTIONALLY altering language with the hope of changing people's thoughts on a matter.

    And I do not accept that that is what is going on here. That's not to say that it's inconceivable that maybe someone is trying to do just that (with a large enough group, an example of anything can be found) but that is not primary why the change is taking place. The change appears to be primarily natural from my perspective.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Changing the definition of a term simply for an emotional feel good moment is a dangerous thing, a la my discussion above.
    And I reject that that is the reasoning for changing the definition.

    It's certainly not my reasoning. My primary reasoning for accepting the word "marriage" is because it's the best word available as far as effectively communicating the concept of a gay couple who are "married". There is no word that I know that does a better job of relaying the concept. And that's not a concept that I thought out either ("hmmmm. What's the best word to use?"). People just have a tendency to pick the word that best communicates the concept they are trying to relay so I use "marriage" when I refer to a gay union. So I do it for effectiveness of communication, not to feel good. And I'm guessing that that is primarily why it's used by others.

    While I support gay rights and gay marriage, I am not using the word "marriage" as a means of support for gays or to make a point to others. Again, it's just the best word to communicate the concept to others.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Limiting our ability to clearly convey meaning and blending concepts by arbitrarily redefining them is exactly Orwellian, it doesn’t matter if it is the aim of a small group or the government, it is the outcome that results from that kind of change that is the issue at hand.
    But your ability to differentiate is not limited. You still have the necessary tools to differentiate a heterosexual union from a gay union and even have the ability to refer to opposite-sex marriage exclusively.

    Orwellian COMPLETELY removes concepts from our language - it doesn't create a shift that allows us to say the same thing we could say before but with different words.


    And the best way to figure out what the likely outcome of the language shift will be is to look at a similar shift in the past and how it effects us today. In the past only men could vote so the word "voter" referred exclusively to men. And then women were allowed to vote so the definition of "voter" changed to include both men and women. The only effective change I can see from that is that when someone says "voter" the listener does not know if they are referring to a male or female. But that's not really a problem. Most times the speaker isn't trying to specific a gender when he says the word and when he does want to specify, he just adds an additional word before the word "voter". And that, I believe, is what the future has in store for us regarding the word "marriage". Not too worrisome IMO.
    Last edited by mican333; July 21st, 2015 at 08:15 AM.

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 116
    Last Post: January 26th, 2013, 05:38 PM
  2. Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument
    By Apokalupsis in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: October 17th, 2011, 05:43 AM
  3. Marriage
    By chadn737 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: March 6th, 2007, 10:45 PM
  4. What is Marriage?
    By chadn737 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: July 17th, 2005, 10:18 AM
  5. The Bible opposes interracial marriage
    By 3rdPersonPlural in forum Religion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 3rd, 2004, 11:04 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •