Gay Marriage & Conflict Resolution

"I'm not sure I understand the distinction. It seems to me you're saying that you would support gay marriage, just not gay marriage ceremonies. I can't fathom why you'd make that distinction."

"I have no idea what a 'community-approved' marriage might be outside of the political context."

"When it comes to the government choosing to recognize some marriages and not others, however, I have a big problem."

"If the state discriminates against a class of persons for no good reason,..."

"If a young hetero couple elopes against the wishes of their family, and the family expresses their disapproval and acts on it by ostracizing the couple from family activities, does that make their marriage illegitimate?"

"The error is in your tailoring your argument against gay marriage by arguing against butt-sex and scissoring. Marriage is the institution, and straight couples becoming married isn't required to promote heterosexual sexual relationships. You're over-sexualizing the institution."

Quote:

"I'm not sure I understand the distinction. It seems to me you're saying that you would support gay marriage, just not gay marriage ceremonies. I can't fathom why you'd make that distinction."

1. I would not support making homosexual marriages a part of our current cultural institution.

2. I would adopt a hands-off policy of marriage as a private ceremony of the couple's devising.

Generally speaking, what is community-approved/traditional is the equivalent of cultural institution. Are you unfamiliar with what a cultural institution is? Institutions in that sense are given in just about any dictionary.

I make a distinction between a) the politicians, bureaucrats and judiciary (government) and b) the citizenry. How about, instead of the politicians, bureaucrats and judiciary, the citizenry/community's recognizing/not recognizing some marriages? Would you have a big problem with the that?

Why shouldn't discriminating between what is a sexual perversion and what isn't be reasonable?

Looks like we have a methodological problem. Let's see.

Quote:

"The error is in your tailoring your argument against gay marriage by arguing against butt-sex and scissoring. Marriage is the institution, and straight couples becoming married isn't required to promote heterosexual sexual relationships. You're over-sexualizing the institution."

You may be right, but are you accusing me of a fallacy (named and its application explained) or a contradiction? Or are you simply ignoring "A", what I laid out as the first plank of the flooring I suggested that we use?

"I don't know how you can oppose making something 'part of our current cultural institution.'"

"On the other hand, if everyone else in the culture wants to make it 'part of our current cultural institution,' there's not much you can do to stop it.".

"How are these gay people supposed to get married if they don't have ceremonies?"

"How would the citizenry express its disapproval except through its political organs?"

"That's begging the question."

"What I'm saying is that you're attempting to dictate the terms in which this topic is discussed."

"If you plan to force the issue of gay marriage to be a discussion on sexual perversion, you poison the well."

"If people (total strangers at that) disapproved of your marriage, can you still legally marry?"

"You can or you cannot marry in the face of disapproval alone."

Quote:

"I don't know how you can oppose making something 'part of our current cultural institution.'"

By voting on the issue as we did here in California. The vote, in effect, was to reject making homosexual marriage a part of our current cultural institution.

Quote:

"On the other hand, if everyone else in the culture wants to make it 'part of our current cultural institution,' there's not much you can do to stop it.".

Yes, but they didn't here in California. It was voted down.

Are you unfamiliar with the vote on Proposition 8 here in California?

Quote:

"How are these gay people supposed to get married if they don't have ceremonies?"

Homosexuals can have marriage ceremonies and consider themselves married; they simply aren't accepted as part of the current cultural institution. That's what the vote was about.

Quote:

"How would the citizenry express its disapproval except through its political organs?"

I'm not sure that I understand that question.

The citizenry expressed its disapproval by popular vote.

jackowens wrote: "Why shouldn't discriminating between what is a sexual perversion and what isn't be reasonable?"

Quote:

"That's begging the question."

That's a start. You've given me the name of a fallacy, but what's lacking is an explanation of how you're applying it. I need to know so that, if you're right, I need to change what I've said.

Quote:

"What I'm saying is that you're attempting to dictate the terms in which this topic is discussed."

Not really. I'm simply trying to nail down an agreed-on method for arriving at a resolution of the controversy over homosexual marriage. Some things are taken for granted but in this controversy we need to make sure that we're in agreement as to what they are.

For instance, if I say that I insist that the resolution of this controversy be factual, rational and fair and, if not, I refuse to participate, would you say that I'm attempting to dictate the terms in which this topic is discussed?

Quote:

"If you plan to force the issue of gay marriage to be a discussion on sexual perversion, you poison the well."

I don't follow that. It sounds like a left-handed way of trying to exclude from the discussion the facts and reasoning most people have for disapproving of the institutionalization of homosexual marriage. If there's any force involved in what you say it's on your part in trying to dictate what will and will not be discussed. For my part I'll discuss any aspect of the matter you care to.

Quote:

"If people (total strangers at that) disapproved of your marriage, can you still legally marry?"

Let me start with "no". Go from there.

Quote:

"You can or you cannot marry in the face of disapproval alone."

The obvious rejoinder is in regard to just what the disapproval is based on. My answer is yes, but it can't simply be arbitrary. (And of course we're not talking about private ceremonies. Right?)

My vote would be to permit homosexuals to marry, which they already can and do, by means of their preferred procedure as long as others aren't obliged to approve of such marriages.

My reasoning is that traditional marriage is an outgrowth of biology, anatomy, physiology, the obvious means by which Homo sapiens as a species is perpetuated and the fact that Homo sapiens has a sexual reproductive system rather than, say, a parthenogenetic or fissiparous one. This is in contrast to homosexual marriage, which abandons those norms and, instead, uses simple preference as normative.

But if we use simple preference, how, in fairness, can we disapprove of bestial marriages, which also already take place?

"So let me get this straight: you'd vote in favor of gay marriage, except when given the opportunity to vote in favor of gay marriage, in which case you would vote against gay marriage. Is that about right?"

"In other words, if a heterosexual marriage ceremony is a cultural institution, then a gay marriage ceremony that looks an awful lot like a heterosexual marriage ceremony is a cultural institution too."

"You're assuming that which is not proven."

jackowens wrote:

My reasoning is that traditional marriage is an outgrowth of biology, anatomy, physiology, the obvious means by which Homo sapiens as a species is perpetuated and the fact that Homo sapiens has a sexual reproductive system rather than, say, a parthenogenetic or fissiparous one. This is in contrast to homosexual marriage, which abandons those norms and, instead, uses simple preference as normative.

1) Would you approve of disqualifying old heterosexuals from marriage, on the grounds that their biology, anatomies, and physiology can no longer serve to perpetuate homo sapiens?

"Perhaps an even simpler question is to ask if you expect the law to protect your rights?"

"Do you believe in the protection of speech you do not approve of?"

"Can a culture show disapproval to certain types of speech (racism etc) without banning it?"

"Why is it necessary to ban homosexuals from marrying to convey your disapproval?"

"Are you incapable of disapproving without legal obstruction?"

"I believe you're attempting to assert that the issue of marriage hinges on some sort of definition of sexual perversion."

"Any restriction on individual rights and liberties must demonstrate a compelling NECESSITY."

"You've not justified how discussing sexual perversion is applicable to this topic."

"You very much have the legal ability to get married regardless of approval of others, and your marriage (approved of or otherwise will retain all of the rights and privileges that come with it from the state."

"How is that different from heterosexual marriages?"

"The law doesn't care--and neither does it need to care if you marry a man and people disapprove of that marriage."

"1) Would you approve of disqualifying old heterosexuals from marriage, on the grounds that their biology, anatomies, and physiology can no longer serve to perpetuate homo sapiens?"

"2) Are you aware that law in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, going back to at least to Blackstone, conceives of marriage as a civil contract?"

"Beasts are incapable of informed consent, so the law rightfully ignores their preferences, and doesn't let them enter into contracts."

I would have no objection to two people of the same sex marrying in their own private ceremony. They and a certain segment of the population would then consider them married but I and the majority of the population would not. Again, that's what the vote was about.

Quote:

"In other words, if a heterosexual marriage ceremony is a cultural institution, then a gay marriage ceremony that looks an awful lot like a heterosexual marriage ceremony is a cultural institution too."

That doesn't make sense. Are you, joefromchicago, invalidating the vote on Proposition 8 and repealing the law established by the citizenry in that regard?

I guess that's a way of expressing what you have in mind, but really my belief, as such, is valid as my belief although it may be wrong, which I admit.

So to find out, let me start with this:

I assume that you think that my belief is false, but do you believe that there are such things as sexual perversions?

By vote of the citizenry, homosexual marriages are not recognized as valid in California.

Quote:

"The law doesn't care--and neither does it need to care if you marry a man and people disapprove of that marriage."

How is that decided?

Quote:

"1) Would you approve of disqualifying old heterosexuals from marriage, on the grounds that their biology, anatomies, and physiology can no longer serve to perpetuate homo sapiens?"

No because a) they support the institution of marriage, b) still follow the natural order and, I assume, d) may still need an outlet for their reproductive drive if still active.

Quote:

"2) Are you aware that law in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, going back to at least to Blackstone, conceives of marriage as a civil contract?"

No, but if you consider marriage nothing more than a civil contract, I'm not sure what the complaint of Gay Liberation ideologues is. As far as I know homosexual couples can arrange a civil contract or appropriate legislation can be enacted.

And can't pretty much the same can be said of homosexual marriages: under what tradition of law can homosexuals marry?

Would you legally ban such marriages?