mitchellmckain wrote:I have repeated it over and over in this thread. What I am suggesting is to avoid the "marriage" question altogether and point out these other types of customs and contracts in other cultures and argue the merits of rights and recognition for those contractual relationship, and that can include explicit federal law prohibiting the prejudicial treatment.
What you seem to be saying is make civil unions a federal law. That's a slight alteration of one of Stagger's 3 ideas, "allow civil unions for all". I think this would be a good step, but the LGBT community won't be satisfied with it.
Frankly I think it would be very very difficult to argue against, making all their usual arguments that this is not what marriage is irrelevant and leave them no recourse but blatant religious legalism or homophobia.
I don't think fundamentalists would hesitate to object, Mitch. They already engage in blatant homophobia. North Carolina has just passed a constitutional ban on any sort of legally recognized civil union between same sex couples and I expect that will soon become a trend among the other "Red" states.
I know you and others don't think it is about language, but whatever the motivations behind it may be, I do think it is all about language.
We say it isn't about language because the source of their motivation is not etymology. They really don't care about that. It has to do with their cultural (religious) values. They just hate the idea of homosexuals enjoying public trust and respect. Just ask an Evangelical why they oppose gay marriage and don't stop at "because that's not the definition of marriage". Probe deeper. That argument is just a screen to deflect easy questions, a Fox News talking point. Ask enough probing questions and you will hear them talk about values and culture, the end of the nuclear family, undermining hetero-marriages, and so on. If it were just about etymology, then they wouldn't ever go to those other places. I argued about this with my sister for an hour once and she mentioned the definition of marriage for one sentence. The other 59 minutes were about values.
After all it has been my repeated assertion that religion itself is 95% or more language, which frankly should get a lot of atheist nodding their heads if they weren't so preoccupied with pushing their hypocritically intolerant opinions that religious people are just a bunch of ignorant superstitious fools.
So, you're saying this because religion is just one way to view the universe and the language is not adequate to completely describe an idea that atheists also know to be true by a completely different set of linguistic tools? Am I even close? BTW, I'm trying hard to ignore your implied insult here so please do me a favor and take it easy, will you?
My issue is with the whole prenatal determination of sexual preference, which I don't believe in. I don't even believe in sexual preference at all. I believe in love. I think that whole approach is not only terribly misguided no matter how much people may have convinced themselves that this is true, but I think it has done a great deal of harm to a great many people.
Well that's interesting because we find ourselves in somewhat of an agreement. I disagree about the harm aspect, but I do consider the whole "genetic disposition" approach to be ultimately misguided, although at the specific juncture at which it was employed, it certainly had its uses. That time seems to have passed so I would like to see it retired. My whole problem with it is that since our constitutional rights are based on freedom and liberty, then why must I have any explanation for who I am or what I am? I am who I choose to be and that should be enough. If I say I am homosexual, then deal with it. It's none of your business anyway. I don't owe anyone a genetic proof of what I am. For a country that supposedly prides itself on it's profound degree of liberty, it's appalling that people must offer a genetic explanation for who they choose to be and yet they are still marginalized for it.
I have a friend in California who got their engineering degree and when he applied for a licence he was required to take this class run by the gay rights thought police. He made the mistake of voicing his opinion, JUST ONCE, that he didn't think that it was scientifically proven that homosexuality was genetic. And for daring to voice that opinion, which was actually a fact to tell the truth, he was denied his engineering license.
Mitch, I'm sorry, but that just sounds too outrageous to be true, even for Kalifornica. I'm not saying you aren't being honest, but maybe your "friend" wasn't totally honest with you. That just can't be right. And I'm not being sarcastic or argumentative here. I'm just profoundly confused, to the point that I can't believe that.
I will settle for any compromise at all, even the largely empty one of letting the opposition delude themselves that they can control the meaning of the word "marriage". Frankly, I just want the public perception that a compromise was reached, however fictional it may be, so that the gay rights community don't become the dictators of truth and law in the land. I really mean that LITERALLY. I DONT want the leaders of the gay rights movement to be moving into the administrative offices of the government to "lord it over us" in victory. THAT is a result that I will fight against even if it means that gay couples don't get what they want, need and admittedly should have by all rights. Sorry, but there is a lots of times we must choose the lesser of two evils in politics. And a state religion courtesy of the gay rights movement is a greater evil in my book.
I think this concern of yours is unfounded, Mitch. It sounds like you've been listening to too many Jerry Falwell sermons on tape.
I have a similar stand on the abortion issue in this sense, but in that case the uncompromising idelogues are on the side of anti-abortion. I can support a compromise reducing the time limit on legal abortions, but I will NEVER accept this ridiculous self-righteous ideological stand of no compromise and equating any abortion of any kind with murder.
Well, I can agree with you there.