RI, DE, and soon MN?

[nehalem256]

Two things come to mind. First, homosexuality is mainstream, out in the open. Whatever societal harm may lie in open homosexuality is already here; we're literally arguing against the aspects of a homosexual relationship that are without question beneficial to society. Homosexuals will be openly living together and/or raising children no matter whether they can legally marry because we as a society have decided this is acceptable. No matter how strenuously one may personally oppose homosexuality, opposing same sex marriage seems to me to be bizarre. It's literally an issue where losing (for conservatives) carries no negative effects beyond a sense of ickiness, and one can easily decide just to not find homosexual marriage icky. Or at the very least, one can avoid thinking about it. Homosexuals one counters will be the same people whether or not they can legally marry, and one's own marriage will be exactly the same either way. There is simply no significant societal or personal harm in gay marriage.

Actually this would be addressed in this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opinion/sunday/douthat-marriage-looks-different-now.html?_r=0

Frum defended what was then the consensus conservative (and consensus national) position. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, he argued, would explicitly sever the institution’s connection to the two interrelated realities, gender difference and procreation, that it had evolved to address. In so doing, it would replace a traditional view of matrimony with a broader, thinner, more adult-centric view, which would ultimately be less likely to bind parents to children, husbands to wives.

“Proponents of gay marriage can only get what they want,” Frum wrote, “by weakening Americans’ attachment to the traditional family even more than it has already been weakened,” and speeding the “process of social dissolution” that the 1960s and 1970s began.

...

Yet for an argument that has persuaded so few, the conservative view has actually had decent predictive power. As the cause of gay marriage has pressed forward, the social link between marriage and childbearing has indeed weakened faster than before. As the public’s shift on the issue has accelerated, so has marriage’s overall decline.

In essence it is necessary to destroy the idea of marriage for SSM to even make sense.

Which goes back to what I have said repeatedly. When liberals use the word marriage they are referring to a radically different idea than traditional marriage.

So different that it is really absurd to use the same term to refer to 2 distinct ideas. The only logical reason I can see for why they use marriage to refer to their institution is:

(1) The idea of a "special" relationship holds appeal. If they were to call it something else few people would regard such a relationship as special.

(2) The want the rights that have come to be associated with marriage and think it would be harder to convince people to grant them to their non-marital relationship. And in some cases it would seem absurd such as expecting special inheritance tax treatment for your temporary live-in sex partner.

 

[nehalem256]

Personally I diverge from Nehalem on two issues. First is the proper role of tradition. I think no society is perfect and societal needs change, so while it's proper to respect tradition it's improper to allow it to become a straight jacket. The second is the role of society versus the role of the individual. I believe that society has the right to infringe upon the individual's liberty only when it has some compelling need to do so which can only be satisfied through that infringement. Tradition is not a compelling societal need, it's just the way things have been done.

I feel this is where we really diverge in thinking. I do not see limiting marriage to between a man and a woman is infringing on anyone's rights.

Marriage can only exist if society creates it. It is therefore necessary for society to define what it is. For millennia across cultures worldwide the institution of marriage has been focused on pro-creation and therefore logically only between people of the opposite gender.

The purpose of marriage is inherently to discriminate.

 

[nehalem256]

Nope, but it's you who used "liberals" instead of "the liberal position", making it about individual people instead of ideological viewpoints.

And it is you who want to nitpick wordings. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain what is meant. It should not be necessary to qualify everything said here with 5 pages of footnotes.

If someone said "conservatives support lower tax rates" it would be obvious what is meant. You are just butt-hurt that the liberal position is essentially what I say. And I am in fact right. Liberals do not believe in marriage as it is traditional understood. They believe in a substantially different institution that they are fallaciously calling marriage.

Pillars of the "conservative" ideology, today, have no problem with procreation outside of marriage, either. When the vanguards of both the liberal and conservative sides of the ideological spectrum move the goalposts, as they have with procreation outside of marriage, pointing to only one side is idiotic.

Go on. Show me a "Pillar of conservative ideology" who does not think having children out of wedlock is a bad thing as a matter of ideology.

Note that a conservative of having a child out of wedlock does not constitute of evidence of this anymore than John Kerry registering his boat out of state would constitute evidence that "pillars of liberal ideology" support lowering taxes on the rich. All it would show is that conservatives are just as self-serving as liberals.

 

[zsdersw]

And it is you who want to nitpick wordings. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain what is meant. It should not be necessary to qualify everything said here with 5 pages of footnotes.

Saying "the liberal position" instead of "liberals" is 5 pages of footnotes? What the fuck are you smoking?

If someone said "conservatives support lower tax rates" it would be obvious what is meant.

You'd be referring to conservative people... not conservative ideology. That's what's obvious to those of us who, unlike you, know English.

You are just butt-hurt that the liberal position is essentially what I say. And I am in fact right.

You couldn't be, in fact, more wrong. The liberal position is that marriage is strongest when the people involved truly love each other, whether they have children or not. They also believe that true love creates the commitment that any legal or religious bond depends on. The liberal position is also that love is not something men only have for women or women only have for men.

As far as children are concerned, the liberal position is that marriage is not required for children to be properly raised; that a devoted and loving parent can do the job well on their own if necessary.

Liberals do not believe in marriage as it is traditional understood. They believe in a substantially different institution that they are fallaciously calling marriage.

Neither you nor "the past" get to define what can and cannot be called "marriage".

All it would show is that conservatives are just as self-serving as liberals.

They are.

 

[AstroManLuca]

You couldn't be, in fact, more wrong. The liberal position is that marriage is strongest when the people involved truly love each other, whether they have children or not. They also believe that true love creates the commitment that any legal or religious bond depends on. The liberal position is also that love is not something men only have for women or women only have for men.

Absolutely. I've been really perplexed by this recent conservative argument that love doesn't have anything to do with marriage. I've actually seen it a couple times lately, once from an article written a few days ago and once here. I'd say love is probably the single most important part of a marriage; if you don't have it, it'll fall apart, and that's not good for anyone involved.

Contrary to what some believe, not all liberals think of marriage as a trivial, fleeting thing that you just do on a whim. Just because I didn't have a religious wedding doesn't make my marriage any less valid or important. If nothing else, I'm compelled to make it work because of how big a pain in the ass it would be were I to get divorced!

As far as children are concerned, the liberal position is that marriage is not required for children to be properly raised; that a devoted and loving parent can do the job well on their own if necessary.

True, but I think most people (especially parents) would agree that two parents is better than one. Ironically, by opposing same-sex marriage, conservatives are actually encouraging single parents over two-parent families. People who get married (gay or straight) are more committed to each other than those who do not get married, and are more likely to stay together through hard times. The adopted children of a married gay couple are more likely to have two parents around throughout childhood than the children of a cohabiting, unmarried gay couple.

 

[nehalem256]

Saying "the liberal position" instead of "liberals" is 5 pages of footnotes? What the fuck are you smoking?

You'd be referring to conservative people... not conservative ideology. That's what's obvious to those of us who, unlike you, know English.

And a conservative would be someone who in general agrees with conservative ideology.

And the 5 pages of footnotes comes from the fact that I am sure that as soon as I said "liberal position" in stead of liberal you would start complaining that their is no single "liberal position".

In short as with liberals using the word "marriage" to refer to a non-marriage relationship you are trying to obscure the truth by whining about semantics.

You couldn't be, in fact, more wrong. The liberal position is that marriage is strongest when the people involved truly love each other, whether they have children or not.

Which says nothing about what marriage is. Do you honestly think anyone would dispute that a marriage is stronger when the people involved love each other instead of hate each other?

They also believe that true love creates the commitment that any legal or religious bond depends on. The liberal position is also that love is not something men only have for women or women only have for men.

And the conservative position would be that marriage does not exist because of love. Once again you appear to be unable to separate things which may improve a marriage with the reason marriage exists or what marriage is.

As far as children are concerned, the liberal position is that marriage is not required for children to be properly raised; that a devoted and loving parent can do the job well on their own if necessary.

The liberal position is we should accept sub-optimal arrangements for raising children so that adults can do whatever they want without feeling bad.

Neither you nor "the past" get to define what can and cannot be called "marriage".

Still waiting for you to explain why you even want to use a term that applies to institution you find absurd for your institution...

They are.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence for "pillars of conservative ideology" not having a problem with having children out of wedlock...

 

[zsdersw]

And a conservative would be someone who in general agrees with conservative ideology.

And the 5 pages of footnotes comes from the fact that I am sure that as soon as I said "liberal position" in stead of liberal you would start complaining that their is no single "liberal position".

In short as with liberals using the word "marriage" to refer to a non-marriage relationship you are trying to obscure the truth by whining about semantics.

You like to create strawmen, for sure. Go play with them.

Which says nothing about what marriage is. Do you honestly think anyone would dispute that a marriage is stronger when the people involved love each other instead of hate each other?

Well, people like you who think ending no-fault divorce is the way to fix marriage seem to think that the marriage should remain even if there is no love involved... so yes, I do think you'd dispute that.

And the conservative position would be that marriage does not exist because of love. Once again you appear to be unable to separate things which may improve a marriage with the reason marriage exists or what marriage is.

No, your position is that marriage doesn't exist because of love. As I keep telling you, the fact is that your position on marriage is not what defines marriage for everyone else.

The liberal position is we should accept sub-optimal arrangements for raising children so that adults can do whatever they want without feeling bad.

Do whatever they want? There you go with the caricatures again.

Still waiting for you to explain why you even want to use a term that applies to institution you find absurd for your institution...

Your premise is flawed; you imply disparity where none exists.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence for "pillars of conservative ideology" not having a problem with having children out of wedlock...

Still waiting for you to provide evidence that your opinion is not getting more and more irrelevant as the years go by.

 

[nehalem256]

You like to create strawmen, for sure. Go play with them.

What strawman? I quoted verbatim a definition of marriage from I think an arguably socially conservative institution that is a well known supporter of traditional marriage.

I then argued that the liberal definition of marriage is contrary to the traditional one on every important point.

Well, people like you who think ending no-fault divorce is the way to fix marriage seem to think that the marriage should remain even if there is no love involved... so yes, I do think you'd dispute that.

And that argues against the idea that a marriage is stronger when the people love, or at least respect each other why?

The argument against no-fault divorce is that by allowing divorce because you feel like or are "unhappy" you weaken the institution as a whole. It is not a commentary on an particular marriage.

No, your position is that marriage doesn't exist because of love. As I keep telling you, the fact is that your position on marriage is not what defines marriage for everyone else.

Marriage was not created because someone went oh "look 2 people love each other we should have society/government/church recognize that relationship". If it were there would have never have been any reason to restrict it so you could only have one marriage at a time (as you can love multiple people), or to between a man and a woman. There would also have been no reason to associated ideas like consummation with marriage, or that having sex outside of marriage was wrong.

Why any 2 people get married is irrelevant for why marriage itself exists.

Do whatever they want? There you go with the caricatures again.

That is indeed why liberals have no problem with having children out of wedlock. Heaven forbid we expect adults to follow a code of behavior.

Your premise is flawed; you imply disparity where none exists.

If there was no disparity between traditional marriage and liberal marriage there would have been no argument over the last decade+ over the definition of marriage.

You are being intentionally dishonest because you know there is no rational reason for liberals to use the word marriage to refer to their unions.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence that your opinion is not getting more and more irrelevant as the years go by.

So you concede you were full of crap when you said "pillars of conservative ideology" thought there was nothing wrong with having children out of wedlock.

 

[zsdersw]

What strawman? I quoted verbatim a definition of marriage from I think an arguably socially conservative institution that is a well known supporter of traditional marriage.

I then argued that the liberal definition of marriage is contrary to the traditional one on every important point.

The strawmen about 5 pages of footnotes and reactions I'd supposedly have. Don't presume to know what I'd say. You're neither of two things required to know what I'd say: you're not me and you're not smart enough to know what I'd say.

And that argues against the idea that a marriage is stronger when the people love, or at least respect each other why?

You've never talked about love in a marriage, you've always said that married people need to stick it out no matter what.

Marriage was not created because someone went oh "look 2 people love each other we should have society/government/church recognize that relationship". If it were there would have never have been any reason to restrict it so you could only have one marriage at a time (as you can love multiple people), or to between a man and a woman. There would also have been no reason to associated ideas like consummation with marriage, or that having sex outside of marriage was wrong.

Why any 2 people get married is irrelevant for why marriage itself exists.

Marriage exists in America because we define it, not because it's defined a certain way in any other part of the world or because of history. Your opinion on marriage or any historical foreign perspective on and reason for marriage is irrelevant.

That is indeed why liberals have no problem with having children out of wedlock. Heaven forbid we expect adults to follow a code of behavior.

It is hyperbolic to say "do whatever they want". No one is advocating that. Your caricature is just that.. a caricature.

If there was no disparity between traditional marriage and liberal marriage there would have been no argument over the last decade+ over the definition of marriage.

There is no "traditional marriage" and "liberal marriage". There is marriage. The disparity you think exists is your deluded creation, not fact.

You are being intentionally dishonest because you know there is no rational reason for liberals to use the word marriage to refer to their unions.

Wrong. There is no difference, there is no disparity.

So you concede you were full of crap when you said "pillars of conservative ideology" thought there was nothing wrong with having children out of wedlock.

So you concede your opinion on marriage is growing more and more irrelevant.. and that you're losing the battle.

 

[zsdersw]

nehalem is a dinosaur... and the meteor is en route.

 

[nehalem256]

You've never talked about love in a marriage, you've always said that married people need to stick it out no matter what.

And that doesn't mean love or at least respect doesn't make a marriage better.

Marriage exists in America because we define it, not because it's defined a certain way in any other part of the world or because of history. Your opinion on marriage or any historical foreign perspective on and reason for marriage is irrelevant.

Marriage exists in America, because it existed in the groups of people who came to America.

It is hyperbolic to say "do whatever they want". No one is advocating that. Your caricature is just that.. a caricature.

Again you are trying to play a game of semantics instead of understanding what is clearly meant.

There is no "traditional marriage" and "liberal marriage". There is marriage. The disparity you think exists is your deluded creation, not fact.

No you don't want to admit that there is "traditional marriage" and "liberal marriage" because to do so would render your "liberal marriage" to be less.

The disparity is not a deluded creation it is a fact.

Wrong. There is no difference, there is no disparity.

If there is no difference between "traditional marriage" and "liberal marriage" why have liberals spent over a decade working to redefine marriage? :hmm:

 

[zsdersw]

And that doesn't mean love or at least respect doesn't make a marriage better.

They're essential to marriage... yet you've never mentioned them.

Marriage exists in America, because it existed in the groups of people who came to America.

So did slavery, but we ended that. Marriage exists in America because we define it.

Again you are trying to play a game of semantics instead of understanding what is clearly meant.

Wrong. You've always been hyperbolic when it comes to liberals, blaming them and "liberal values" with everything that's wrong with society in your view. Nuance and precision don't matter to you when it comes to talking about liberals and the liberal position.

No you don't want to admit that there is "traditional marriage" and "liberal marriage" because to do so would render your "liberal marriage" to be less.

Wrong. There is no "traditional marriage" and "liberal marriage".

The disparity is not a deluded creation it is a fact.

Wrong.

If there is no difference between "traditional marriage" and "liberal marriage" why have liberals spent over a decade working to redefine marriage? :hmm:

No redefinition has been sought, only a better articulation of the existing definition.

 

[zsdersw]

nehalem is a dinosaur... and the meteor is en route.

Because it bears repeating.

How does it feel to know there are fewer days ahead than there are behind?

 

[nehalem256]

They're essential to marriage... yet you've never mentioned them.

Note I said love OR respect. Love as being an essential part of is a very modern idea. And looking at the modern divorce rate...

So did slavery, but we ended that. Marriage exists in America because we define it.

And as I said you want to end traditional marriage and replace it with liberal marriage.

Wrong. There is no "traditional marriage" and "liberal marriage".

No redefinition has been sought, only a better articulation of the existing definition.

You are trying to play semantic games.

Any honest person knows that liberals are redefining marriage.

 

[zsdersw]

Note I said love OR respect. Love as being an essential part of is a very modern idea. And looking at the modern divorce rate...

I think love and respect are required... but love doesn't usually happen without respect.

And as I said you want to end traditional marriage and replace it with liberal marriage.

Wrong.

You are trying to play semantic games.

Nope.

Any honest person knows that liberals are redefining marriage.

Then how would you know that?

No, your assertion is wrong.

 

[nehalem256]

Wrong.

Nope.

Then how would you know that?

No, your assertion is wrong.

My assertion is 100% correct. Traditional marriage and liberal marriage are very different concepts.

You simply support liberal marriage because you think SSM is double-plus good.

 

[zsdersw]

My assertion is 100% wrong. Traditional marriage and liberal marriage are not at all different concepts.

Fixed that for you.

 

[zsdersw]

My assertion is 100% correct. Traditional marriage and liberal marriage are very different concepts.

You simply support liberal marriage because you think SSM is double-plus good.

... and then you woke up, with a mess in your bed.