I hope this isn't a "straw man" argument, but there was a time when the vast majority of Americans thought that Black people were inferior to White people and fit only for slavery. That didn't make it right.
I've never quite understood the concept of the strawman argument.
This isn't about people thinking something is inferior or about something not being right. This is about the fact that a union between persons of opposite sex, and a union between persons of same sex, are different from one another in that definitional aspect -- that one involves opposite genders, and the other involves same genders. As it happens, the union between persons of opposite genders represents the design for procreation (a not insignificant phenomenon), and the union between persons of same gender does not. This will not change. The question is simply, should the language have a word that describes the kind of union that embodies the design for procreation. I think the answer is obvious, and I think more people agree with me than don't. Perhaps there will come a time when the majority of people in our society regard the reproductive design within marriage as so insignificant, that they agree there should be no word by which to designate this concept in thought or speech. I don't know.
The point here is that marginalisation of any kind is about maintaining the status quo at the expense of another person.
The status quo here is that persons of opposite sex in a committed union (marriage) are configured to experience a kind of physical joining (significant in its design) that persons of same sex in a committed union cannot experience. If this is marginalization, it is not achieved or maintained by any human effort.
If there is no reason to distinguish between two genders, races, or ethnicities, then they should use the words "humans" or "people".
I'm guessing that you mean, no reason to distinguish within the context of legal documentation? I had misunderstood that earlier, I thought you were talking about speech in general.
My point is, there is good reason not to call gay unions "marriage," so naturally, there will have to be laws written to apply to whatever it is officially decided that gay unions be called. Those laws might be exactly the same as the laws for marriage, it's just that they will have to be written separately, as applying to gay unions.
TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote: |
Everyone has half the ability to create life.
Yes. And when you put the two opposite sex halves together, it results in a whole (a full representation of Man), out of which life can be created! A man and woman are designed so as to come together and create their very own flesh and blood children! It's really quite a thing.
When you put two of the same halves together, all you have is two halves that don't make a whole, and do not embody the design to create life. And yet you, and others say, this is not a difference significant enough to merit attention. That can only mean that you view the creation of children within the context of a loving marriage, as not significant enough to merit attention. This seems really quite remarkable to me.
That would be akin to holding all food sacred because of the design for digestion.
No, that is an incorrect analogy. It is not about holding anything sacred, it is about recognizing that the existence and value of something is significant enough to merit a word in the language to designate it.
I don't think that creating a child is of no significance, but from a social (or less personal) standpoint it isn't something that needs to be celebrated by all of society.
Well then, by all means, don't celebrate the creation of children within committed relationships. But don't try to deny others the means of celebrating this in thought and speech, by removing from the language, the word used to designate the kind of committed unions that embody this phenomenon.
I do agree that on the personal level, sharing a loving and committed relationship with someone and creating a life is something joyous and worthy of celebration, but the impact doesn't extend past the personal.
I would say that is a strange and unusual point of view, considering the numbers of people who attend baby showers, send cards of congratulations to new parents, or buy birthday gifts for other people's children, etc.
My question to you was, what would be the impact on the word or society itself if the this opinion of marriage was changed?
I think we've been talking about a definition of marriage being changed, not an opinion of it. You can't change an opinion about marriage by changing the definition, and that is why people will not accept calling gay unions "marriage."
As I've said, changing the definition would be a statement that our society does not value that aspect of the meaning of the word, and most people will not stand for that statement being made by their government, because most people understand that this concept is, in fact, significant enough to merit a word that describes it.
Would I be right to assume you might say that taking the design for reproduction out of marriage would change the way society values marriage and in a way devalue marriage, not because it includes gays, but because of the loss of this design distinction?
Luckily, no one can take the design for reproduction out of marriage (unless men and women are prohibited from marrying one another).
You could (theoretically) officially remove that aspect of the meaning of the word from its definition, but it wouldn't change the true nature of marriage, and it wouldn't enable two persons of same sex to experience it. All it would do would be to officially declare that our society doesn't value this aspect of the concept of marriage (which would be truly bizarre, IMO).
Semantically, this is the same as impact. Would the negative impact (or reflection about how we value) be the devaluing of the design for life?
I don't think it's the same as impact. We could all go around pretending or even believing that the birth of children within committed relationships is of no significance, but the birth of children within committed relationships would remain a profoundly significant phenomenon. In other words, you cannot devalue the design for life, regardless of how you might try.
A society could make a statement declaring that it doesn't value the design for life (for example, by removing the word from the language that designates the type of union that embodies it), and that is what I am objecting to. Would it actually devalue the design for life? No, but it officially disrespects it.
I think I might discontinue this segment of our debate because it seems we've exhausted much of it
Yes, I think we have entered into the dreaded realm of repetition.
I think many of the states that voted to legally define marriage will see no need to grant the same legal benefits to civil unions keeping gays marginalized.
Yes, that is the tragedy here. By insisting that gay unions be called "marriage" (and thereby instigating this spate of state referendums defining "marriage") I believe the gay rights movement has destroyed what was a real possibility for gaining legal recognition of civil unions. It is truly tragic, IMO.
Just because we have two genders doesn't mean we need two sets of laws.
It isn't the fact of two genders that requires two sets of laws, it is the fact of two types of committed unions (different in a significant aspect) that requires it. If you can't call gay unions "marriage" (and I believe you can't, or shouldn't), then obviously you need to produce a separate set of laws for whatever it is officially decided that gay unions be called.
Thanks.