Party "A" and Party "B"

[rokapoke]

But my main reason for bringing that up is actually the next paragraph in that post. There has been a lot of talk about how "separate, but equal" doesn't work. In the case of marriage and same-sex couples, however, I wanted to point out that there is nothing "equal" when comparing a same-sex couple to a hetrosexual couple. Biologically, there are some very fundimental differences. That being the case, I contest that you must have a separate definition to describe something that is not fudimentally equal in the first place.

But haven't these fundamental differences between the sexes been disregarded as trivial in terms of women's rights? They are different from men but, rightfully so, now have the same rights as men.

The whole college athletics thing applies here, somewhat, as well. One can argue that historically and physically, men are "better" athletes. However, colleges are required to offer an equal number of varsity sports for men and women (as is my understanding).

 

[EricBess]

Ah, thanks for clarifying. So you're a bigot.

Not at all. I've already stated and will continue to state that when it comes to affording legal benefits, I would firmly support equality in such matters.

And yet AGAIN, of course they would seem significant TO YOU. Legally, they should not be.

Legallity has nothing to do with whether or not men and women are biologically similar or different. Ironically, I don't see anyone upset that we call men "men" and women "women". Are you not going to argue that this is also "separate but equal" and should be done away with?

But haven't these fundamental differences between the sexes been disregarded as trivial in terms of women's rights? They are different from men but, rightfully so, now have the same rights as men.

Yes, they probably have, but that misses the point. The problem in women's rights is that many occupations were considered "man's work" and women simply weren't allowed. More typically, these jobs were intellectual in nature, not physical, BTW. If two people are applying for an occupational position or being considered for a promotion, they should be considered based on their merits, which would almost never include gender.

Again, this comes to the same point. If you are arguing that people in a same-sex relationship should be afforded the same legal rights and oportunities, then we agree.

 

[Oversoul]

Not at all. I've already stated and will continue to state that when it comes to affording legal benefits, I would firmly support equality in such matters.

So you'd disagree with someone who said, "there is nothing 'equal' when comparing a same-sex couple to a heterosexual couple"?

Legallity has nothing to do with whether or not men and women are biologically similar or different.

But we're not talking about changing or not changing biology. We're talking about changing or not changing law.

Ironically, I don't see anyone upset that we call men "men" and women "women". Are you not going to argue that this is also "separate but equal" and should be done away with?

And that's language, not law. If we were making a new language, I would of course push for a gender neutral root noun that could be modified. That's actually how it used to work. In Old English, there was "werman" and "wifman." But "werman" became "man" and "wifman" became "woman."

Changing the language of a large group of people isn't exactly easy, though. People have tried. The feminist movement is a good example. And in some cases, it seems like they pretty much succeeded. Several opinions have been put forward on the merits of doing something like this. Regardless, it's not something I plan on pursuing in the near future...

Again, this comes to the same point. If you are arguing that people in a same-sex relationship should be afforded the same legal rights and oportunities, then we agree.

Unless the word used in the legal documents is "marriage."

 

[EricBess]

So you'd disagree with someone who said, "there is nothing 'equal' when comparing a same-sex couple to a heterosexual couple"?

I would not agree with someone who said that there is 'nothing' equal. But I could just as easily turn the question on you. Would you agree or disagree with someone who said, "same-sex couples and hetrosexual couples are equal in every way."?

But we're not talking about changing or not changing biology. We're talking about changing or not changing law.

Yes, but in doing so, we are talking about changing or not changing what a word means.

And that's language, not law. If we were making a new language, I would of course push for a gender neutral root noun that could be modified. That's actually how it used to work. In Old English, there was "werman" and "wifman." But "werman" became "man" and "wifman" became "woman."

But why should they be modified differently for a man than for a woman?

And don't kid yourself, this is language, too.

Unless the word used in the legal documents is "marriage."

Not redefining marriage is hardly an inequality of law.

 

[Oversoul]

I would not agree with someone who said that there is 'nothing' equal.

So you would disagree with this guy:

I wanted to point out that there is nothing "equal" when comparing a same-sex couple to a hetrosexual couple.

Right?

But I could just as easily turn the question on you. Would you agree or disagree with someone who said, "same-sex couples and hetrosexual couples are equal in every way."?

"Any two people being with each other is different from any other two people being with each other. So what?"

Yes, but in doing so, we are talking about changing or not changing what a word means.

What word? It's not "marriage" if that's what you're thinking. The text that was added to California's constitution was "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The implication is that other marriage does exist, but that it is not recognized by the state. No changing what the word itself means there.

But why should they be modified differently for a man than for a woman?

Did you not understand what I said? In Old English, the word "man" was gender neutral. To specify a male, "wer" was added as a prefix. To specify a female, "wif" was added as a prefix. Makes sense to me. That one of the prefixes was dropped is a product of chance and culture. That left us with "man" as both the default and the male version, which is kind of awkward. There are bigger problems with our language, though.

And don't kid yourself, this is language, too.

Yeah, the semantics I'm supposedly obsessed with.

Not redefining marriage is hardly an inequality of law.

Well, it certainly would be if marriage were defined in a way that excluded some people.

 

[DarthFerret]

Just want to interject here (because I am just that way....)

Question for both of you.

Ok, so if we want to say, hypothetically for this question only, that there is NO difference between a heterosexual and homosexual "marriage", then is there really a difference between a monogomous and a polygomous marriage? Should both be allowed? Should it be one man and multiple women, one woman and multiple men, multiples of both, or just any combination of people? I think you can see where all of this can lead. (And do not believe for one minute that there are not people out there that would try to take things to such a ridiculous extreem!)

 

[EricBess]

Oversoul - you are obsessed enough with semantics that I think you already realize that there is a difference between emphasizing "nothing" and emphasizing "equal".

A union between a same-sex couple is not equal to a union between a man and a woman and never will be. Biologically there are differences and implications that don't exist with a same-sex couple. If we differentiate between "man" and "woman" with different words because they are biologically different, then we should likewise use different words for these two, very different unions.

And I understood your point about the gender neutral root word, but words are frequenty made up of a root and modifiers, so that doesn't change the fact that we use two different words, one for each gender. Separate, and legally equal, while respecting biologically differences.

Darth - Exactly, but have you no imagination? What about a 60-year-old man that wants to marry an 16-year-old (boy or girl)? What about siblings?

 

[Mooseman]

How about Mother/Son or Father/Daughter? Will there be no limits on human behavior? Anarchy..... Cats and dogs living together?

The "equal but seperate" argument is silly..... civil unions are for everyone, no matter anything...... no seperation there at all. If marriage is exactly the same, but the name, then tough toots.....

and the majority of the California voters have spoken... if the referendum had been to allow marriage to include everyone and it passed, wouldn't that be the majority has spoken?

This discussion has broken down into nitpicking.... well a bit.... word origins? really.... what next, the definition of what it means? :yawn:

 

[Oversoul]

Ok, so if we want to say, hypothetically for this question only, that there is NO difference between a heterosexual and homosexual "marriage", then is there really a difference between a monogomous and a polygomous marriage? Should both be allowed? Should it be one man and multiple women, one woman and multiple men, multiples of both, or just any combination of people? I think you can see where all of this can lead. (And do not believe for one minute that there are not people out there that would try to take things to such a ridiculous extreem!)

I don't think it's a ridiculous extreme. Polygyny has been the default for most of human history (something that the "we just don't want marriage to be redefined" crowd should keep in mind). It still is the default in many cultures. It seems to have worked for all those people. The problem that's been raised is that it is sexist. Polyandry is much more rare, but where it has occurred, it has also been the default. One might argue that allowing both (or any combination of men/women) would be fair to everyone. And there are indubitably rebuttals to that and rebuttals to the rebuttals and so on. I don't think I could make a solid argument either way. Well, I haven't tried, at least. So I'm tempted to just plead ignorance on the issue. But I'll say that I'd probably be fine with it.

I'll also say that using polygamy and such as an actual argument against same-sex marriage is an incredibly massive slippery slope fallacy. Allowing polygamy or group marriage would be a completely separate issue and is NOT necessarily the logical extension of allowing same-sex marriage. It immediately tells me that the person using this tactic doesn't have any real arguments against same-sex marriage and so has to associate it with other things most people happen to be opposed to. I happen not to be "most people." But it's irrelevant. Polygamy and/or group marriage can stand or fall on their own merits.

Oversoul - you are obsessed enough with semantics that I think you already realize that there is a difference between emphasizing "nothing" and emphasizing "equal".

Yes, there is a difference. And the difference is entirely a matter of emphasis. There's still an obvious contradiction.

A union between a same-sex couple is not equal to a union between a man and a woman and never will be.

Legally, they are equal in Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Spain, and apparently even South Africa. That list is only going to grow.

Biologically there are differences and implications that don't exist with a same-sexrace couple. If we differentiate between "manblack" and "womanwhite" with different words because they are biologically different, then we should likewise use different words for these two, very different unions.

I fixed it for you.

And I understood your point about the gender neutral root word, but words are frequenty made up of a root and modifiers, so that doesn't change the fact that we use two different words, one for each gender. Separate, and legally equal, while respecting biologically differences.

The words "man" and "woman" are not legal institutions. My use of "separate but equal" is a blatant reference to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. The argument used by the defense was, famously, that a precedent had been set in Plessy v. Ferguson allowing for separate facilities for whites and "coloreds" if the facilities were "equal." The Warren Court overturned the old ruling and stated that separate facilities are "inherently unequal." But the United States government has never regulated the use of language in the broad sense.

Darth - Exactly, but have you no imagination? What about a 60-year-old man that wants to marry an 16-year-old (boy or girl)?

Technically, this is quite legal and I'm sure it has already happened. In most states in this country though, either parental consent or judicial review is required at the age 16. Move it up to 17 and a lot of that goes away (and I think it opens up to even more states too). Move it up to 18 and all boundaries go away.

What about siblings?

What about them? Aside from the slippery slope, this one raises another issue with "compelling interest." I'm rather against compelling interest arguments myself, but it already moves this into quite another category from same-sex marriage.

The "equal but seperate" argument is silly..... civil unions are for everyone, no matter anything...... no seperation there at all. If marriage is exactly the same, but the name, then tough toots.....

The Warren Court disagreed with your assessment of "separate but equal." You can call "silly" and "tough toots" all you like, but it's entirely legitimate.

and the majority of the California voters have spoken...

Part of the purpose of the constitution, and this has been true since the conception of the U.S. Constitution, is to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Mooseman]

The Warren Court disagreed with your assessment of "separate but equal." You can call "silly" and "tough toots" all you like, but it's entirely legitimate.

hmmm. no.... the separate part is definitely wrong.... there is no separation for civil unions.... Unlike your example which did separate.....

Part of the purpose of the constitution, and this has been true since the conception of the U.S. Constitution, is to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Now, it's tyranny? Wow... this discussion really is getting silly..... :yawn:

 

[Oversoul]

hmmm. no.... the separate part is definitely wrong.... there is no separation for civil unions.... Unlike your example which did separate.....

They quite clearly are separate.

Now, it's tyranny? Wow... this discussion really is getting silly..... :yawn:

Are you planning on making an actual point or just dismissing everything as "silly"?

 

[Mooseman]

They quite clearly are separate.

The point is that civil unions are not separate, everybody can have them.... is that simple enough?
I'm not sure I can make that point any clearer...... If that isn't clear enough then... well I just don't know....

 

[EricBess]

Oversoul, there was no need to "correct" my statement. There is no biologic difference between men of different races, only differences in DNA. The fact that you felt compelled to do so only makes me question your motives.

I fail to see the fallacy in exploring poligamy or incentuous marriage relationships as a logical consequence of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. Just because you are not opposed to opening marriage up does not mean that others feel the same way. And if you are arguing that the legal rights granted via marriage should be given to everyone only by virtue of the term marriage, then don't you need to open it up to these other definitions as well by the same arguments? For that matter, I've heard a lot of people argue "love" as a reason to allow marriage to same-sex couples, but if you are strictly arguing that there needs to be a legal equality, then love actually should have nothing to do with who you open up marriage to. Is this consistent with your arguments or am I missing something?

And the constitution protects the majority as well by letting the people decide their own laws. This is far from crossing the line to tyranny.

 

[Oversoul]

The point is that civil unions are not separate, everybody can have them.... is that simple enough?

Uh, I'm not saying that civil unions are separate from civil unions or something like that. I'm saying that civil unions are separate from marriages.

Oversoul, there was no need to "correct" my statement.

It was tongue-in-cheek. Come on. How much more obvious did I need to make that?

There is no biologic difference between men of different races, only differences in DNA. The fact that you felt compelled to do so only makes me question your motives.

1. "Biologic"? That word is a noun that used to denote vaccines and other medicines made from biological sources. I don't know that anyone still uses it for that.

2. Not only are there phenotypic differences between races, genetic differences don't usually obey the lines of race as defined by humans. Several books have been written on this subject. And it's led some scientists to denigrate the whole concept of "race" (and some others don't take their conclusions to quite that extreme). But the important part is that race as a concept was very real (and important) to the people behind anti-miscegenation laws.

3. The whole point of my comparison was that that you are maintaining that same sex marriage should be disallowed because it's different from opposite sex marriage. This is the EXACT same reasoning used for anti-miscegenation laws. Interracial marriage was banned because it was different from intraracial marriage. One thing being different from another thing isn't an actual reason to ban it.

4. Like I already said multiple times, and couple is different from any other couple. If you want to claim that the differences specific to same-sex couples as opposed to opposite-sex couples are somehow going to be more of a problem than other difference between any other categories we might conceive, then let's see some evidence.

I fail to see the fallacy in exploring poligamy or incentuous marriage relationships as a logical consequence of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.

It's called a slippery slope fallacy. Look it up.

Just because you are not opposed to opening marriage up does not mean that others feel the same way.

You're kidding.

And if you are arguing that the legal rights granted via marriage should be given to everyone only by virtue of the term marriage, then don't you need to open it up to these other definitions as well by the same arguments?

Come again?

For that matter, I've heard a lot of people argue "love" as a reason to allow marriage to same-sex couples, but if you are strictly arguing that there needs to be a legal equality, then love actually should have nothing to do with who you open up marriage to. Is this consistent with your arguments or am I missing something?

If I understand correctly, I see no inconsistency. Love certainly doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for marriage in any system I've ever encountered.

And the constitution protects the majority as well by letting the people decide their own laws. This is far from crossing the line to tyranny.

Ah, well if you say so, I guess that settles it then, huh?

 

[EricBess]

1. "Biologic"? That word is a noun that used to denote vaccines and other medicines made from biological sources. I don't know that anyone still uses it for that.

Okay, this one I get. "Biological" better?

3. The whole point of my comparison was that that you are maintaining that same sex marriage should be disallowed because it's different from opposite sex marriage. This is the EXACT same reasoning used for anti-miscegenation laws. Interracial marriage was banned because it was different from intraracial marriage. One thing being different from another thing isn't an actual reason to ban it.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that we ban same-sex couples. I'm merely stating that the definition of marriage does not, and should not, be applied to them.

And comparing my argument to the argument using for anti-miscegenation laws is inaccurate. That is a logical fallacy as well, I'm just not up on the specific fallacy definitions .

In the case of interacial marriage, the underlying argument was merely that it was different, but there was nothing to suggest that it was different other than fear of the unknown. In the case of same-sex couples, there are significant biological reasons why such a coupling is not the same, which go well beyond the DNA differences in interacial marriage.

It's called a slippery slope fallacy. Look it up.

"The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question."

The article from Germany isn't considered evidence? I'm not arguing inevitability so much as presenting evidence that it has led to such things in other areas. My assertion is that the same arguments used here extend to those areas as well. There is a difference between inevitability and predictability.

If those groups do start arguing for marriage as well, would it be hypocrasy if many people who support "same sex marriage" may be opposed to extend the definition even further?

Ah, well if you say so, I guess that settles it then, huh?

Shouldn't it? At least until such time that there is another balot initiative to legally change it?

 

[BigBlue]

I see this thread is still going nowhere...

But, at least it's going, unlike most of the threads and topics which aren't in the gaming thread...

 

[Oversoul]

Okay, this one I get. "Biological" better?

But genetic differences ARE biological.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that we ban same-sex couples. I'm merely stating that the definition of marriage does not, and should not, be applied to them.

"Does not" is quite different from "should not." And "definition" is a pretty broad category here. We've got colloquial definitions (which won't always be the same), historical definitions (those depend on context), legal definitions (vary with region), dictionary definitions (numerous), etc. Legally, the amendment in California doesn't purport to define marriage at all, but to exclude marriages that aren't between a man and a woman from being recognized by the state.

And then there's "should not." Well, why not?

And comparing my argument to the argument using for anti-miscegenation laws is inaccurate. That is a logical fallacy as well, I'm just not up on the specific fallacy definitions

Well, I can't really dispute that it's a certain kind of fallacy if you can't tell me which fallacy you have in mind. All I can do is dismiss the claim.

In the case of interacial marriage, the underlying argument was merely that it was different, but there was nothing to suggest that it was different other than fear of the unknown.

Technically, it was and is different. What wasn't clear was that it was different in some important respect that would give the state a reason to ban it.

In the case of same-sex couples, there are significant biological reasons why such a coupling is not the same, which go well beyond the DNA differences in interacial marriage.

I actually do know a bit of biology. If you want to talk biology, start talking sense. Give some specifics and stop pretending that the differences between races don't go "beyond" DNA. You do realize that the people who made these laws would probably not have even known what DNA was, right? What you need, in order to make a relevant case, is some evidence that a difference between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples is a problem when same-sex couples can legally be recognized as married.

"The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question."

I don't know where you got that definition, but inevitability is not a necessary component for a slippery slope fallacy in any literature I've read.

Wikipedia: "In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is one of the classical informal fallacies. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later without establishing or quantifying the relevant contingencies."

The article from Germany isn't considered evidence?

What article from Germany? Seriously, I did a search and the first post that came up was the one with you saying "The article from Germany isn't considered evidence?"

I'm not arguing inevitability so much as presenting evidence that it has led to such things in other areas.

Let's see the evidence, then.

If those groups do start arguing for marriage as well, would it be hypocrasy if many people who support "same sex marriage" may be opposed to extend the definition even further?

Huh? Firstly, no. Like I already said, those proposals can stand or fall on their own merits. Or they should be allowed to, anyway. Secondly, you're asking the wrong person.

Shouldn't it? At least until such time that there is another balot initiative to legally change it?

No! If the question of a minority being subject to the tyranny of the majority comes up, asking the majority if it really counts as tyranny is the worst possible solution. They will always say that it isn't. It's having the fox guard the henhouse, or however that metaphor goes...

 

[DarthFerret]

But genetic differences ARE biological.



"Does not" is quite different from "should not." And "definition" is a pretty broad category here. We've got colloquial definitions (which won't always be the same), historical definitions (those depend on context), legal definitions (vary with region), dictionary definitions (numerous), etc. Legally, the amendment in California doesn't purport to define marriage at all, but to exclude marriages that aren't between a man and a woman from being recognized by the state.

And then there's "should not." Well, why not?

I believe the should not is what really started alll this!

Well, I can't really dispute that it's a certain kind of fallacy if you can't tell me which fallacy you have in mind. All I can do is dismiss the claim.

So basically, for anyone to hold any type of debate or argument with you, they should be as knowledgable as you? What if they are more knowledgable in another area? Does that put the burden on you to get up to their speed? I am confused with what you are trying to get across here.

I actually do know a bit of biology. If you want to talk biology, start talking sense. Give some specifics and stop pretending that the differences between races don't go "beyond" DNA. You do realize that the people who made these laws would probably not have even known what DNA was, right? What you need, in order to make a relevant case, is some evidence that a difference between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples is a problem when same-sex couples can legally be recognized as married.

How about this (no need to quote anything). It is a well established possibility of a opposite-sex couple to naturally concieve a child. It is an impossibility for a same-sex couple to do the same. That is just one piece of fact (hopefully qualifies as evidence). I am sure there are others out there, but most of them would be viewed as opinion.

I don't know where you got that definition, but inevitability is not a necessary component for a slippery slope fallacy in any literature I've read.

Wikipedia: "In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is one of the classical informal fallacies. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later without establishing or quantifying the relevant contingencies."

Ah, what made me respond in the first place. If you use the word "will initiate" that tends to lead the reader to an inevitable conclusion. Leaves no room for argument. Therefore, even if the wording is a bit off, it still remains the same content. As for evidence of such, look at other areas of society. "Give him an inch and he will take a mile." That was my point before and what EB has been expounding upon (I think).

Huh? Firstly, no. Like I already said, those proposals can stand or fall on their own merits. Or they should be allowed to, anyway. Secondly, you're asking the wrong person.

If those proposals are allowed to stand or fall on their own merits, then why is there such a problem with the outcome of the vote in California? I would say that proposal stood on its own merit as well.

No! If the question of a minority being subject to the tyranny of the majority comes up, asking the majority if it really counts as tyranny is the worst possible solution. They will always say that it isn't. It's having the fox guard the henhouse, or however that metaphor goes...

In response

In modern usage, a tyrant is a single ruler holding absolute power over a state or within an organization. The term carries modern connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which the tyrant governs or controls. However, in the classical sense, the word simply means one who has taken power by their own means as opposed to hereditary or constitutional power (and generally without the modern connotations). This mode of rule is referred to as tyranny. Many individual rulers or government officials are accused of tyranny, with the label almost always a matter of controversy.

How is this considered a majority rules definition? If the majority rules on something, how can it be societally repressive? Individually, sure, but for a group of people as a whole, not so much. This also brings to mind the old adage, "You cannot please all of the people all of the time."

Personally, I think this is one of the things that is wrong with our society today. We are so worried about making every individual happy, that society as a whole is starting to degenerate. The thing that scares me the most is that on the surface, this appears to be to be leading toward an anarchy. I personally do not believe that would be a good thing for America.

 

[rokapoke]

It is a well established possibility of a opposite-sex couple to naturally concieve a child. It is an impossibility for a same-sex couple to do the same. That is just one piece of fact (hopefully qualifies as evidence). I am sure there are others out there, but most of them would be viewed as opinion.

I, for one, acknowledge that a fundamental difference between opposite-sex and same-sex couples is the possible creation of a child from opposite-sex partners.

However, not all marriages are undertaken with the expectation of having children. Not all opposite-sex partnerships have the physical means of having children. Not all children are born in wedlock. So what do children have to do with marriage? Nothing.

 

[Mooseman]

So what do children have to do with marriage? Nothing.

Do you really believe that? Marriage is the family unit to foster the best environment for raising children (looking at it from a Macro-view point). Just because there are exceptions to the role of children in a marriage, does not make that concept invalid. And since the goal of same-sex unions are not to produce children (mostly) then why bestow the mantle of marriage on them? Why are civil unions so abhorrent if it serves the stated purpose?