Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Manchu, I really don't understand what you're arguing.

I have been arguing for exactly this point:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Sure, you can not agree with gay marriage and not hate gay people

I just brought up the hypothetical argument "the reasons for X are still valid" to distinguish it from the other hypothetical argument "we should do X because we have always done X." As to what the "reasons" in question are, there are probably a lot of different views, which are honestly off-topic here, except to the extent that they are not necessarily hateful. So my further argument along those lines has been, such arguments need not be hateful first and foremost because the object of the position is a set of legal rights rather than any personal relationship. It's totally possible to grant the legal rights at issue without changing the definition of marriage - precisely because marriage and the legal rights of married people are different things (one would think, obviously). There are people who believe that the relationship traditionally enshrined in marriage is the ideal building block of society and should be preserved as-such, regardless of the separate issue of who may enjoy what legal rights.* Saying that other arrangements are not ideal is not automatically saying you hate the people who might participate in such arrangements.

* I don't personally find the argument very convincing - if you have a "civil union" for same-sex couples that is legally equivalent to a marriage then why not just change the definition of marriage? But there are people who have a very "reverential" attitude toward civil law; I'm just not one of them - at least not in the sense that people seem to think government recognition gives a marriage some kind of validity that transcends the law. (Note that both people who support and people who oppose gay marriage sometimes have that attitude.)

 Manchu wrote:
Most obviously, the law in this case was not arbitrary.

It (arguably) wasn't arbitrary, in a time when everyone in our respective countries was just assumed to be some form of Christian.

It most certainly is by today's standards, where a growing proportion of the population of our countries populations is either atheist or coming to realise that the Church's stance on same-sex relationships is actually grounded far more in dark ages Europe's sensibilities rather than anything to do with the Bible.

More importantly, the argument was never really, we should do X because we have always done X. Rather, it's more like, the reasons that we have done X are still valid today.

Nope, that wasn't the argument being made.

The claim I was responding to was the one that marriage has 'always' legally involved a man and a woman. A claim that is easily disproved with even the most cursory inspection of history.

It may have 'always' been the case in modern western nations. But the concept of marriage considerably pre-dates both those nations and the formation of the Christian church.

 Manchu wrote:

* I don't personally find the argument very convincing - if you have a "civil union" for same-sex couples that is legally equivalent to a marriage then why not just change the definition of marriage? But there are people who have a very "reverential" attitude toward civil law; I'm just not one of them - at least not in the sense that people seem to think government recognition gives a marriage some kind of validity that transcends the law. (Note that both people who support and people who oppose gay marriage sometimes have that attitude.)

I've argued much as the same way to did here...

Remove the lexicon of 'marriage' from all official documentations and call everything 'civil union' on official records.

But, that was roundly criticized when folks says "but, you don't own the word... so, no we object to this plan".

All that says to me that the SSM supporters had no desire to compromise at all.




*EDIT: fixed quote

I understand arbitrary to mean illegitimate, a matter of whim, or without reason. The definition of marriage as between a woman and a man is none of those things, considering the relevant historical and cultural context.

So the natural retort is, the context can change/has changed and therefore so too should the definition change. Fine, that's off-topic. The question is whether the counter-argument, that the reasons that marriage has been defined for so long in a certain way are still valid (which I believe you mischaracterized as being an argument from inertia), is necessarily hateful. I am arguing that it is not necessarily hateful - apart from whether any given person does or doesn't find it persuasive.

 whembly wrote:

I've argued much as the same way to did here...

Remove the lexicon of 'marriage' from all official documentations and call everything 'civil union' on official records.

But, that was roundly criticized when folks says "but, you don't own the word... so, no we object to this plan".

All that says to me that the SSM supporters had no desire to compromise at all.

Yeah, 'Let's compromise, and do it my way!' is rarely received well as a proposed course of action...

 Manchu wrote:
I understand arbitrary to mean illegitimate, a matter of whim, or without reason. The definition of marriage as between a woman and a man is none of those things, considering the relevant historical and cultural context.

So the natural retort is, the context can change/has changed and therefore so too should the definition change. Fine, that's off-topic. The question is whether the counter-argument, that the reasons that marriage has been defined for so long in a certain way are still valid (which I believe you mischaracterized as being an argument from inertia), is necessarily hateful. I am arguing that it is not necessarily hateful - apart from whether any given person does or doesn't find it persuasive.

so if it's not an argument from inertia, would it then be an appeal to tradition?

True, it's not necessarily hateful, but it usually is. While it may not be a argument from hate, it's definitely a sexist attitude, trying to stick to and enforce archaic gender roles.

You are just using an arbitrary definition, especially considering marriages have been a wide variety of things over the ages. marriages to animals, cars, dolls, gods and dead people, and of course same sex couples. On a whim your church picked 1 man/women going against their own beliefs and what the bible states are legitimate marriages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I've argued much as the same way to did here...

Remove the lexicon of 'marriage' from all official documentations and call everything 'civil union' on official records.

But, that was roundly criticized when folks says "but, you don't own the word... so, no we object to this plan".

All that says to me that the SSM supporters had no desire to compromise at all.

Yeah, 'Let's compromise, and do it my way!' is rarely received well as a proposed course of action...

agreed, never compromise on equality.

sirlynchmob wrote:


agreed, never compromise on equality.

You want to be seen as a full equal human... I want to see you as property... Let's compromise... You are 3/5th of a person! Anyone who refuses to compromise is unreasonable!

'Tradition' and appealing to 'history' is the same reason people mutilate their infants because someone hundreds of years ago thought it stopped masturbation and reduced sexual urges. Now it is a 'tradition'. So while the people doing an action today may think their position has no 'hate' in it, often it is rooted in an ignorant or hateful origin. Unwillingness to re-evaluate those actions is dangerous.

EDIT: nevermind, let's not drag it offtopic.

 Manchu wrote:
Saying that other arrangements are not ideal is not automatically saying you hate the people who might participate in such arrangements.

"I don't hate black people, I just think that the races shouldn't mix."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
All that says to me that the SSM supporters had no desire to compromise at all.

Why should there be compromise? What about the anti-gay-marriage side's position has any merit at all?

 whembly wrote:
All that says to me that the SSM supporters had no desire to compromise at all.

You're right, they have no desire to compromise. But this get backs to my point way earlier in the thread – that this is a debate between people who see this as an abstract principle, and people who it affects directly, on a personal level.

For people opposed to gay marriage the issue is entirely abstract, they can negotiate on something like allowing some rights, while thinking they get something vague like a word to be kept on their side. They have nothing from their personal lives at stake. But for people who are trying to get equal acceptance from the law, who have been directly affected by not just marriage inequality, but a long history of both legal and social discrimination, then the idea of sitting down to negotiate to respect the other side is obviously pretty unacceptable.

There’s also another simple reason – it is in the best interests of the losing side to gain a negotiated peace, but it’s a nonsense to expect it from a side on the verge of total victory. No-one expected the Russians to knock on Hitler’s bunker, seeing if he’d like to negotiate a peace deal with them. But a negotiated peace was attempted by both sides, in 1943 when both sides were unsure if they were going to win. If the conservative forces wanted a compromise on this, then they should have tried that in the 1990s, when this issue was still up in the air.

Fact: it doesn't matter what's inside anyones head, as long as it doesn't affect the way other people are treated.

Irony: when someone complaining that you cannot have a private thought in your head without it causing you to treat others like crap, or causing you to force others to believe the same thing as you, is guildy of forcing his own belief on others and treating them like crap.

I'm glad that my bigoted opinions allow me to treat others better than people who are right.

Fact: if you're participating in a discussion thread about your thoughts then it's no longer a private thought in your head.

Edit: just to add:

I was once the same way. I was an donkey-cave who knew he was right and who alway tried to force his views on others. I learned that my beliefs are mine alone and only shape the way I live my own life.

I still have the same personal belief about marriage as a covenant between God/man/woman. I had the same belief when I voted in favor of the constitutional ban on SSM in Oklahoma, and I had the same belief when I celebrated the SCOTUS ruling on SSM, and I had the same belief when I saw our email at work that with the repeal of the DOMA we will have open enrollment for everyone in a SSM, and I had the same belief when I printed out that email and handed it to my gay coworker and watched him cry in happyness because he can add his husband to his insurance.

My belief never changed, I just learned that my belief dictate how I lead my life. They don't get to dictate how other people live their life.

I believe drugs are bad and doing them is wrong, I favor legalization of soft drugs and criminal justice reform.
I believe abortion is wrong, and I am pro-choice and favor safe and legal access to abortions.

Many of us bigoted people have learned that our bigotness only gets to dictate our own behavior, not the behavior of those around us.
Someday every bigoted person will figure that out, or at least I hope so.
Maybe someday the people with the right thoughts in their head will figure out how to treat others as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Fact: if you're participating in a discussion thread about your thoughts then it's no longer a private thought in your head.

Fact: knowing my thoughts doesn't equal me forcing anybody to agree with them or forcing anyone to follow them. I was adding an answer to the general question of "does having a belief make someone a bad person" by adding my perspective of "a belief only matters if you let it affect the way you interact with people" and giving my own belief and the evolution of my interactions with others as an example.

The only person doing everything you are complaining about in this thread is you, and it's hilarious.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Man and woman are very different. A marriage between a man and woman therefore is something fundamentally different than a marriage between two men or a marriage between two women.

Marriage is the joining of people into a single legal entity. The gender of the people involved makes absolutely no difference to the process, or to the ongoing maintenance of the partnership.


The only reason that a marriage between a same-sex couple and a male/female couple is any different is because an arbitrary law says so.

The (legal) definition of marriage has always been a union between man and woman. This is true for pretty much every law or custom regarding marriage since the first known one until the present day. It is only in the past few years that in a number of countries this (legal) definition has changed to include all people regardless of sex.
The reason that a marriage between a same-sex couple and a different-sex couple is different is not because of an arbitray law, but because of milennia of social traditions and customs.

So if those tradition and customs change, that means it is okay for same sex marriage in the current era, except in those countries that have values that maybe considered backwards by others.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Man and woman are very different. A marriage between a man and woman therefore is something fundamentally different than a marriage between two men or a marriage between two women.

Marriage is the joining of people into a single legal entity. The gender of the people involved makes absolutely no difference to the process, or to the ongoing maintenance of the partnership.


The only reason that a marriage between a same-sex couple and a male/female couple is any different is because an arbitrary law says so.

The (legal) definition of marriage has always been a union between man and woman. This is true for pretty much every law or custom regarding marriage since the first known one until the present day. It is only in the past few years that in a number of countries this (legal) definition has changed to include all people regardless of sex.
The reason that a marriage between a same-sex couple and a different-sex couple is different is not because of an arbitray law, but because of milennia of social traditions and customs.

So if those tradition and customs change, that means it is okay for same sex marriage in the current era, except in those countries that have values that maybe considered backwards by others.

As far as I am concerned, yes. I can't find any rational reason to be against gay marriage if there exists widespread support for it amongst the people. Culture, and traditions and customs with it, is always changing. Laws should change with it.

Also, I think it would be a good idea to seperate secular and religious marriages. Currently, in most of the Western world the state is the only one allowed to conduct marriages, and even religious marriages are conducted by the state. I think that this is the reason for a lot of opposition of religious people to gay marriage, as it means that a gay marriage will be exactly the same thing as their sacred religious marriage. Giving religious communities the legal power to conduct their own marriages would allow them to have their own seperate definition of marriage instead of forcing the government's definition down everyone's throat, which would do a lot to remove possible religious objections, I think. A lot of arguments I have seen from the religious corner come down to that gay marriage should be a seperate but equal thing next to "normal" marriage. So why not turn it around and have a religious marriage as a seperate thing next to "normal" marriage?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Man and woman are very different. A marriage between a man and woman therefore is something fundamentally different than a marriage between two men or a marriage between two women.

Marriage is the joining of people into a single legal entity. The gender of the people involved makes absolutely no difference to the process, or to the ongoing maintenance of the partnership.


The only reason that a marriage between a same-sex couple and a male/female couple is any different is because an arbitrary law says so.

The (legal) definition of marriage has always been a union between man and woman. This is true for pretty much every law or custom regarding marriage since the first known one until the present day. It is only in the past few years that in a number of countries this (legal) definition has changed to include all people regardless of sex.
The reason that a marriage between a same-sex couple and a different-sex couple is different is not because of an arbitray law, but because of milennia of social traditions and customs.

So if those tradition and customs change, that means it is okay for same sex marriage in the current era, except in those countries that have values that maybe considered backwards by others.

As far as I am concerned, yes. I can't find any rational reason to be against gay marriage if there exists widespread support for it amongst the people. Culture, and traditions and customs with it, is always changing. Laws should change with it.

Also, I think it would be a good idea to seperate secular and religious marriages. Currently, in most of the Western world the state is the only one allowed to conduct marriages, and even religious marriages are conducted by the state. I think that this is the reason for a lot of opposition of religious people to gay marriage, as it means that a gay marriage will be exactly the same thing as their sacred religious marriage. Giving religious communities the legal power to conduct their own marriages would allow them to have their own seperate definition of marriage instead of forcing the government's definition down everyone's throat, which would do a lot to remove possible religious objections, I think. A lot of arguments I have seen from the religious corner come down to that gay marriage should be a seperate but equal thing next to "normal" marriage. So why not turn it around and have a religious marriage as a seperate thing next to "normal" marriage?

You can't paint with such a large brush though. A lot of churches support same sex marriages, and perform them. one church even stopped performing marriages until SSM were legalized. Seperate but equal never works, it's just a nice way to say discrimination.

 redleger wrote:
As an instructor I deny Trainees certain normal rights everyday. I do so because that is my job, within local regulations, service wide regulations, and policy. All of the above can be contributed too either safety and well being of said trainees, or to good order and discipline, based on the job at hand. A job like no other in civilian life. I feel no malice in enforcing these rules, because that is my job, and I understand why they are in place. Sometimes I have to enforce a stupid rule, and I feel gakky about it, but I still do it because its my job. I will speak my peace, say its not smart to do so, but at the end of the day, I lose(usually).

There is no public safety issue with same gender marriage, there is no other explanation that I have heard for the denial of same gender marriage within this thread that is other than an opinion that it is wrong. That same is true for those that make the laws. They quote a religious text, say it is against their beliefs and force that belief on the masses. That is where a lot of the anger comes from. Now to hear I don't believe in gay marriage, as it is understood(since I know the person understands that it does exist) is a kin to saying I don't like what your doing, I oppose it. Fine and dandy, he can't stop it. But the same politician saying I don't believe in same gender marriage can force that opinion on the masses and there for is oppressive. There is no real reason given to not allow it. I know its legal now, but how many years did it take to make it wrong to use the N word in the south. I actually still here it more than I would like. I hear it when I go home because no one says anything about it. Allowing rhetoric does damage society, whether you want to believe it or not.

I have a hard time understanding how I don't believe in gay marriage doesn't equate to an exclusionary stance on someone's rights, vs I don't believe gay marriage is for me, and there fore would not partake in such an activity.

I've read through just about all of this thread and I'm very surprised at some of the hardline stances taken by some posters here, who I thought were reasoning / educated people.

Firstly I am assuming that as a part of the training course on such a sensitive issue as to the perception of LGBT that there was no discussion on confidentiality and not discussing the contents of private conversations between individuals. And yet, here an individual who has sat through a training course on a subject that he doesn't agree with on a personal basis has opened up to you, a person he thinks of as a friend, that he has been uncomfortable with the subject of the course and your first course of action is to betray that confidence to the internet. Contentious issue aside, isn't that betrayal at odds with everything that was discussed?

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:

 redleger wrote:
As an instructor I deny Trainees certain normal rights everyday. I do so because that is my job, within local regulations, service wide regulations, and policy. All of the above can be contributed too either safety and well being of said trainees, or to good order and discipline, based on the job at hand. A job like no other in civilian life. I feel no malice in enforcing these rules, because that is my job, and I understand why they are in place. Sometimes I have to enforce a stupid rule, and I feel gakky about it, but I still do it because its my job. I will speak my peace, say its not smart to do so, but at the end of the day, I lose(usually).

There is no public safety issue with same gender marriage, there is no other explanation that I have heard for the denial of same gender marriage within this thread that is other than an opinion that it is wrong. That same is true for those that make the laws. They quote a religious text, say it is against their beliefs and force that belief on the masses. That is where a lot of the anger comes from. Now to hear I don't believe in gay marriage, as it is understood(since I know the person understands that it does exist) is a kin to saying I don't like what your doing, I oppose it. Fine and dandy, he can't stop it. But the same politician saying I don't believe in same gender marriage can force that opinion on the masses and there for is oppressive. There is no real reason given to not allow it. I know its legal now, but how many years did it take to make it wrong to use the N word in the south. I actually still here it more than I would like. I hear it when I go home because no one says anything about it. Allowing rhetoric does damage society, whether you want to believe it or not.

I have a hard time understanding how I don't believe in gay marriage doesn't equate to an exclusionary stance on someone's rights, vs I don't believe gay marriage is for me, and there fore would not partake in such an activity.

I've read through just about all of this thread and I'm very surprised at some of the hardline stances taken by some posters here, who I thought were reasoning / educated people.

Firstly I am assuming that as a part of the training course on such a sensitive issue as to the perception of LGBT that there was no discussion on confidentiality and not discussing the contents of private conversations between individuals. And yet, here an individual who has sat through a training course on a subject that he doesn't agree with on a personal basis has opened up to you, a person he thinks of as a friend, that he has been uncomfortable with the subject of the course and your first course of action is to betray that confidence to the internet. Contentious issue aside, isn't that betrayal at odds with everything that was discussed?

Cheers

Andrew

He didn't state his location, base, military branch, or him or his buddy's name, so their anonymity is still safe. Second, if someone opened up to you that they were a closet racist (not calling OP's associate that, just making a case), is some harmless internet venting all that damnable?

 AndrewC wrote:

 redleger wrote:
As an instructor I deny Trainees certain normal rights everyday. I do so because that is my job, within local regulations, service wide regulations, and policy. All of the above can be contributed too either safety and well being of said trainees, or to good order and discipline, based on the job at hand. A job like no other in civilian life. I feel no malice in enforcing these rules, because that is my job, and I understand why they are in place. Sometimes I have to enforce a stupid rule, and I feel gakky about it, but I still do it because its my job. I will speak my peace, say its not smart to do so, but at the end of the day, I lose(usually).

There is no public safety issue with same gender marriage, there is no other explanation that I have heard for the denial of same gender marriage within this thread that is other than an opinion that it is wrong. That same is true for those that make the laws. They quote a religious text, say it is against their beliefs and force that belief on the masses. That is where a lot of the anger comes from. Now to hear I don't believe in gay marriage, as it is understood(since I know the person understands that it does exist) is a kin to saying I don't like what your doing, I oppose it. Fine and dandy, he can't stop it. But the same politician saying I don't believe in same gender marriage can force that opinion on the masses and there for is oppressive. There is no real reason given to not allow it. I know its legal now, but how many years did it take to make it wrong to use the N word in the south. I actually still here it more than I would like. I hear it when I go home because no one says anything about it. Allowing rhetoric does damage society, whether you want to believe it or not.

I have a hard time understanding how I don't believe in gay marriage doesn't equate to an exclusionary stance on someone's rights, vs I don't believe gay marriage is for me, and there fore would not partake in such an activity.

I've read through just about all of this thread and I'm very surprised at some of the hardline stances taken by some posters here, who I thought were reasoning / educated people.

Firstly I am assuming that as a part of the training course on such a sensitive issue as to the perception of LGBT that there was no discussion on confidentiality and not discussing the contents of private conversations between individuals. And yet, here an individual who has sat through a training course on a subject that he doesn't agree with on a personal basis has opened up to you, a person he thinks of as a friend, that he has been uncomfortable with the subject of the course and your first course of action is to betray that confidence to the internet. Contentious issue aside, isn't that betrayal at odds with everything that was discussed?

Cheers

Andrew

The class it self was 45 min of death by powerpoint, with no discussion during the class itself. It is unfortunately the norm, when you have 20 hours worth of work to fit in a 16 hour day. it was also during our allotted meal time, since that is the only open space on the calendar daily. Secondly, he didn't confide, he made a statement about the class, and although his view point is ok, what upset me was he denial that his desire to deny that ability to same gender couples was not in any way discriminatory, after he back pedaled when I called him on how horrible that statement sounds. After I discussed it with him, he could not see how he could possibly be discriminatory. His statement was that the quote itself was not necessarily discriminatory. I have actually read and followed this whole thread, and while a bit derailed, I have read some good points, and acknowledged previously I can see how the statement itself may not be as malicious as I personally took it. However the statements after definitely were discriminatory. I just wanted to see if I was completely effing nuts to interpret it initially in the way I did.

I have given zero PII (personally identifiable information) and although you may deduce my basic location, I doubt there is much more you could gather to learn of this persons, or my identity. also in my country, generating discussion is a good thing. As I mentioned, the conversation has changed my mind. However other stances on the subject have not.

Red, firstly my condolences on 45 mins of powerpoint, I've pm'd you as I don't want to derail the thread.

Cheers

Andrew