I'm reminded of one of the best movies ever made - "Fiddler on the Roof" and Tevya's lament - TRADITION! Actually, he is my hero - my life
Marriage is the spiritual and legal bond that binds a man and a woman together so that kids can have a stable upbringing and that their union can be 'blessed'. Society recognized a LONG time ago that to have a mom and a dad was the best way to raise kids. "Allowing" people to procreate without that parental structure was and still is just not a good idea.
I know that the marital bond has lost a LOT of its significance and status and that MANY kids are being brought into this world and raised outside of that bond. I also know that many marriages now last a shorter time period than the 'courtship' and that very few people anymore are at all upset by divorce and the divorcees no longer are seen as failures.
I like to extend things a few steps beyond current thinking to play devil's advocate. If states allow gay marriage, what will the definition of marriage be? And who will be the next group seeking to have it altered to meet their needs/beliefs. I think number one is the Mormons who still believe in polygamy. Who after that?
I think that the institution of marriage should stay the same, but the civil union for gay people should be created. Two people who are committed to each other should have the same beneifts as married people - I just don't like the idea of re-defining marriage. I know very well that the bond can be just as if not more special as that between a man and a woman, but I don't believe it is a marriage.
I understand the Mormon thing - I used it as an example because there are court cases pendind in Utah asking for polygamy to be granted the same status as marriage - they were filed after the first states started with gay marriage. I use it as an example in my 'next step' way of looking at things. Gay marriage, then polygamy, then what will be considered "marriage" next?
I've got a meeting and then another meeting, but I'll respond to your other points soon.
But the polygamists argue that they forsake all others except for their numerous wives - they firmly believe that they have the 'right' to marry as many women as they wish. (And the women who enter into these relationships appear to do so willingly and enthusiastically - it's no that they're being forced.) They use the same logic that gay people do - 'we would like to do something that society has outlawed for centuries because we feel we have the right to do so, and if you deny us that right, it is you - society - who are unfeeling, backward, vindictive and just plain nasty'. Or, maybe better put, 'We want society to change the definition of one o f its long-held institutions to include unions that it was never intended to include in the first place.' They feel that if society is going to change how it defines marriage to accomodate gay couples, they should not be treated any differently because their beliefs are just as strong and deserving of consideration.
I don't see civil unions as a second-rate consolation prize - I see them as a fairly realistic solution to a societal issue. If they were the former, they would not have the same 'benefits'. What I and I think most people who object to here is not gay people living together in a committed relationship with all of the benefits that married heterosexuals have, it is the changing or re-defining the institution of marriage itself.
So hoe can it be ok to change the definition for gays but not polygamists?
Did you always believe in the right to gay marriage, or did your thinking change somewhere along the line? If it did change, what was the catalyst?
Logic Girl to the rescue!sunringNovember 11 2006, 02:25:14 UTC
So. Lemme get this straight. You argue that:
Gay marriage should not be allowed because marriage has always been between one man and one woman. And that gay marriage should not be allowed because other groups like polygamists will ask for it next. In the first statement, you negate the possiblility of gay marriage just because there hasn't been any before. That's like telling your kid he shouldn't behave a certain way "just because." If Captain Picard didn't abandon old ways of thinking to look for new ways to do things, the Enterprise would have been blown up a million times over. And as for the polygamists, we're not talking about them here. We're talking about marriage between two people of the same gender. I was taught in Logic 101 that the "Slippery Slope" argument was a fallacy.
Sorry, Practical Man--your argument folds like a cheap tent under the intense scrutiny of Logic Girl!
You also state that the bond between two women or two men can be just as special and holy as that between one man and one woman. How is that relationship not a marriage then? You don't say why you don't want to re-define what a marriage is. Does allowing same gender couples to call their relationship a marriage lessen your marriage?
*sigh* We are so hung up on gender in this society. Do you think souls have gender? I don't know if you believe in past lives or not, but souls come back in different genders. It simply isn't as important as we make it out to be.
What is your clearest, most basic definition of what a marriage is? I think we might have different ideas of that and are arguing about two different things, lol.
Re: Logic Girl to the rescue!szy8xjNovember 11 2006, 11:11:38 UTC
Of COURSE we have different ideas about what marriage is - that is why we spend time posting!
And you lose Logic Girl life points for using a Star Trek metaphor that DIDN'T INCLUDE SPOCK - the mentor of Logic Girl. And using hottie Picard references doesn't replenish any of those - there was only ONE captain of the enterprise - KIRK! All others are posers!
My clearest and most basic definition of marriage - a man and a woman meet, fall in love, decide that they are meant for each other, in a civil and or religious ceremony they promise before all to love and remain true to each other forever, they go on a honeymoon, do a little dance, make a little love, have some kids, raise them up, watch them (and sometimes ask them to) leave, grow old and grey together and wind up in a double lot in the local cemetery. Woven throughout all of those is dealing with all of the difficulties that life throws at them which makes their union stronger.
Allowing same gender couples to marry does not lessen my marriage at all, it is redefining the institution. I don't want it redefined because I am a traditionalist and I think there are some things in this world that need to remain the same to keep a benchmark or anchor point that says 'no matter what changes we go through, there are some things that will stay as they are' and I take comfort in that.
I use the "slippery slope" example because that is to me exacly what is happening. The polygamy part of the argument I am making DOES fit because shortly after Massachusetts courts allowed gay marriage, polygamists in Utah filed for the same recognition of their unions.
I think I can boil it down to this...
I believe that "marriage" is a state of being between a man and a woman in which they promise to spend their lives together and raise a family.
Any union between other people no matter how beautiful, committed and personal is ok by me it just isn't a "marriage". I don't believe that this long-held societal (religious and civil) institution should be re-defined to include any other union (gay, ploygamist, 25 year old man and 13 year old 'bride', etc.).
I believe that western society is trying to become too homogeneous. You use gender as an example asking why we are hung up on gender - I think it is because the differences between the genders are being minimalized and in some cases erased. Men and women ARE different, gays and straights ARE different, blacks, whites and hispanics ARE different - (none of those differences is a negative) and we ought ought to recognize those differences rather than try to make them the same.
So I think that in summary I can conclude that you all think that the definition of marriage should be modified to allow for the union of a same-sex couple, but it stops there - no other changes after that. And I am unwilling to take that step.
Re: Logic Girl to the rescue!sunringNovember 12 2006, 23:46:26 UTC
Hey, no fair! Picard was a pretty logical guy, lol.
But according to your definition of marriage the man and woman who live next door and who have been married for eons aren't 'married' because they didn't have kids.
Also, not wanting to redefine marriage so you can have something unchangeable to hold on to and take comfort in while purposely excluding others is pretty selfish. Pick something else.
Too homogenous? When I think of your defnition of marriage and tradition and all that, I think of the 1950's. And that was pretty homogenous to me. I just mean that confining people to defined roles is pretty limiting. There isn't just one way to be a man or be a woman. Of course there are differences between the genders. They are biological ones (the way our brains are wired)...and recognizing those differences is exactly what we are trying to do. Recognizing that we are different, there's nothing wrong with those differences, and asking for the same priviledge of marriage that everybody else enjoys.
Not too long ago it was illegal for a black man to marry a white woman or vice versa. I'm glad marriage was 'redefined' to include them. Women also used to be considered property of their husbands. Again, I'm glad marriage was'redefined'.
Re: Logic Girl to the rescue!szy8xjNovember 13 2006, 13:50:39 UTC
Maybe they got married with all intentions of raising a family and couldn't have kids.
Selfish? What is NOT selfish about wanting to change a long standing tradiditional institution so that those who do not meet the requirements of that institution currently, can join? I'm reminded of the pressure the Boy Scouts are under to allow atheists into the organization. Why should the foundation of an organization like that be changed so that someone who doesn't believe in the organization's belief system in the first place can now join? It's like saying one is Catholic, but doesn't follow certain teachings of the Catholic Church - you CAN'T be Catholic (or Jewish, or Muslim, or Baptist, etc.) and only follow those portions of that religion's teachings that appeal to you.
I believe that in many, many cases, the motivation for these changes has more to do with the notariety that comes with proposing these changes than the actual change itself.
I think that the laws were correctly changed to allow for interracial marriage - people of different racial backgrounds can procreate and to me at least, that is still one of the foundations of the institution of marriage.
Maybe in a fifty years when all of us traditionalists are taking our dirt naps, the institution will have been changed and all SORTS of unions will be termed marriage - I'm just not ready to see that happen - I think that some things are what they are and should stay that way.
Re: Logic Girl to the rescue!szy8xjNovember 13 2006, 20:49:49 UTC
I DO acknowledge that many couples are married quite happily and are very committed to each other without children (there were days in my OWN marriage....), but I think that those marriages are missing something that would make them harder, more challenging, but oh so much more rewarding.
Marriage is the spiritual and legal bond that binds a man and a woman together so that kids can have a stable upbringing and that their union can be 'blessed'. Society recognized a LONG time ago that to have a mom and a dad was the best way to raise kids. "Allowing" people to procreate without that parental structure was and still is just not a good idea.
I know that the marital bond has lost a LOT of its significance and status and that MANY kids are being brought into this world and raised outside of that bond. I also know that many marriages now last a shorter time period than the 'courtship' and that very few people anymore are at all upset by divorce and the divorcees no longer are seen as failures.
I like to extend things a few steps beyond current thinking to play devil's advocate. If states allow gay marriage, what will the definition of marriage be? And who will be the next group seeking to have it altered to meet their needs/beliefs. I think number one is the Mormons who still believe in polygamy. Who after that?
I think that the institution of marriage should stay the same, but the civil union for gay people should be created. Two people who are committed to each other should have the same beneifts as married people - I just don't like the idea of re-defining marriage. I know very well that the bond can be just as if not more special as that between a man and a woman, but I don't believe it is a marriage.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I've got a meeting and then another meeting, but I'll respond to your other points soon.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
(And the women who enter into these relationships appear to do so willingly and enthusiastically - it's no that they're being forced.) They use the same logic that gay people do - 'we would like to do something that society has outlawed for centuries because we feel we have the right to do so, and if you deny us that right, it is you - society - who are unfeeling, backward, vindictive and just plain nasty'.
Or, maybe better put, 'We want society to change the definition of one o f its long-held institutions to include unions that it was never intended to include in the first place.' They feel that if society is going to change how it defines marriage to accomodate gay couples, they should not be treated any differently because their beliefs are just as strong and deserving of consideration.
I don't see civil unions as a second-rate consolation prize - I see them as a fairly realistic solution to a societal issue. If they were the former, they would not have the same 'benefits'. What I and I think most people who object to here is not gay people living together in a committed relationship with all of the benefits that married heterosexuals have, it is the changing or re-defining the institution of marriage itself.
So hoe can it be ok to change the definition for gays but not polygamists?
Did you always believe in the right to gay marriage, or did your thinking change somewhere along the line? If it did change, what was the catalyst?
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Gay marriage should not be allowed because marriage has always been between one man and one woman. And that gay marriage should not be allowed because other groups like polygamists will ask for it next. In the first statement, you negate the possiblility of gay marriage just because there hasn't been any before. That's like telling your kid he shouldn't behave a certain way "just because." If Captain Picard didn't abandon old ways of thinking to look for new ways to do things, the Enterprise would have been blown up a million times over. And as for the polygamists, we're not talking about them here. We're talking about marriage between two people of the same gender. I was taught in Logic 101 that the "Slippery Slope" argument was a fallacy.
Sorry, Practical Man--your argument folds like a cheap tent under the intense scrutiny of Logic Girl!
You also state that the bond between two women or two men can be just as special and holy as that between one man and one woman. How is that relationship not a marriage then? You don't say why you don't want to re-define what a marriage is. Does allowing same gender couples to call their relationship a marriage lessen your marriage?
*sigh* We are so hung up on gender in this society. Do you think souls have gender? I don't know if you believe in past lives or not, but souls come back in different genders. It simply isn't as important as we make it out to be.
What is your clearest, most basic definition of what a marriage is? I think we might have different ideas of that and are arguing about two different things, lol.
Reply
And you lose Logic Girl life points for using a Star Trek metaphor that DIDN'T INCLUDE SPOCK - the mentor of Logic Girl. And using hottie Picard references doesn't replenish any of those - there was only ONE captain of the enterprise - KIRK! All others are posers!
My clearest and most basic definition of marriage - a man and a woman meet, fall in love, decide that they are meant for each other, in a civil and or religious ceremony they promise before all to love and remain true to each other forever, they go on a honeymoon, do a little dance, make a little love, have some kids, raise them up, watch them (and sometimes ask them to) leave, grow old and grey together and wind up in a double lot in the local cemetery. Woven throughout all of those is dealing with all of the difficulties that life throws at them which makes their union stronger.
Allowing same gender couples to marry does not lessen my marriage at all, it is redefining the institution. I don't want it redefined because I am a traditionalist and I think there are some things in this world that need to remain the same to keep a benchmark or anchor point that says 'no matter what changes we go through, there are some things that will stay as they are' and I take comfort in that.
I use the "slippery slope" example because that is to me exacly what is happening. The polygamy part of the argument I am making DOES fit because shortly after Massachusetts courts allowed gay marriage, polygamists in Utah filed for the same recognition of their unions.
I think I can boil it down to this...
I believe that "marriage" is a state of being between a man and a woman in which they promise to spend their lives together and raise a family.
Any union between other people no matter how beautiful, committed and personal is ok by me it just isn't a "marriage". I don't believe that this long-held societal (religious and civil) institution should be re-defined to include any other union (gay, ploygamist, 25 year old man and 13 year old 'bride', etc.).
I believe that western society is trying to become too homogeneous. You use gender as an example asking why we are hung up on gender - I think it is because the differences between the genders are being minimalized and in some cases erased. Men and women ARE different, gays and straights ARE different, blacks, whites and hispanics ARE different - (none of those differences is a negative) and we ought ought to recognize those differences rather than try to make them the same.
So I think that in summary I can conclude that you all think that the definition of marriage should be modified to allow for the union of a same-sex couple, but it stops there - no other changes after that. And I am unwilling to take that step.
Reply
But according to your definition of marriage the man and woman who live next door and who have been married for eons aren't 'married' because they didn't have kids.
Also, not wanting to redefine marriage so you can have something unchangeable to hold on to and take comfort in while purposely excluding others is pretty selfish. Pick something else.
Too homogenous? When I think of your defnition of marriage and tradition and all that, I think of the 1950's. And that was pretty homogenous to me. I just mean that confining people to defined roles is pretty limiting. There isn't just one way to be a man or be a woman. Of course there are differences between the genders. They are biological ones (the way our brains are wired)...and recognizing those differences is exactly what we are trying to do. Recognizing that we are different, there's nothing wrong with those differences, and asking for the same priviledge of marriage that everybody else enjoys.
Not too long ago it was illegal for a black man to marry a white woman or vice versa. I'm glad marriage was 'redefined' to include them. Women also used to be considered property of their husbands. Again, I'm glad marriage was'redefined'.
Alright. Gotta get back to my homework.
Reply
Selfish? What is NOT selfish about wanting to change a long standing tradiditional institution so that those who do not meet the requirements of that institution currently, can join?
I'm reminded of the pressure the Boy Scouts are under to allow atheists into the organization. Why should the foundation of an organization like that be changed so that someone who doesn't believe in the organization's belief system in the first place can now join?
It's like saying one is Catholic, but doesn't follow certain teachings of the Catholic Church - you CAN'T be Catholic (or Jewish, or Muslim, or Baptist, etc.) and only follow those portions of that religion's teachings that appeal to you.
I believe that in many, many cases, the motivation for these changes has more to do with the notariety that comes with proposing these changes than the actual change itself.
I think that the laws were correctly changed to allow for interracial marriage - people of different racial backgrounds can procreate and to me at least, that is still one of the foundations of the institution of marriage.
Maybe in a fifty years when all of us traditionalists are taking our dirt naps, the institution will have been changed and all SORTS of unions will be termed marriage - I'm just not ready to see that happen - I think that some things are what they are and should stay that way.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment