5/7/2013 12:07 AM (edited)
Posted by tecwrg on 5/6/2013 10:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/6/2013 10:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/6/2013 9:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/6/2013 9:18:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it depends what that circumstances are. Obviously you treat cancer one way and a broken leg another way. BL (and myself) are arguing that heterosexuals and homosexuals are pretty much exactly the same thing.
Only different?
Different, yes. Does that difference require us to keep gays from marrying? I don't think so.

"That's how we've always done it" isn't a good reason for anything.
Neither is "Let's change an institution that's been in place for tens of thousands of years to something fundamentally different, because it's new and trendy!".
I don't think homosexuals want to be married because it's new and trendy. Gay marriage isnt a fashion statement.
5/7/2013 12:03 AM
Dahs, tec hasn't argued that "having children" is a reason to deny homosexual marriage, because he knows he'd have to demand that age 50+ marriage would also have to be denied.
5/7/2013 12:06 AM
I get that there are people who feel changing what marriage means re: homosexuals would essentially change what marriage means to everyone. That "homosexual marriage" is much different than your general marriage. I disagree, obviously. I know I'm not changing anyone's mind here. If it was going to happen it would have happened already.
5/7/2013 12:10 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/6/2013 9:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/6/2013 9:18:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it depends what that circumstances are. Obviously you treat cancer one way and a broken leg another way. BL (and myself) are arguing that heterosexuals and homosexuals are pretty much exactly the same thing.
Only different?
Different. Like a broken tibia and a broken fibula. It's still a broken leg.
5/7/2013 6:00 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/7/2013 12:07:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/6/2013 10:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/6/2013 10:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/6/2013 9:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/6/2013 9:18:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it depends what that circumstances are. Obviously you treat cancer one way and a broken leg another way. BL (and myself) are arguing that heterosexuals and homosexuals are pretty much exactly the same thing.
Only different?
Different, yes. Does that difference require us to keep gays from marrying? I don't think so.

"That's how we've always done it" isn't a good reason for anything.
Neither is "Let's change an institution that's been in place for tens of thousands of years to something fundamentally different, because it's new and trendy!".
I don't think homosexuals want to be married because it's new and trendy. Gay marriage isnt a fashion statement.
The idea that marriage should include SS couples is certainly new and trendy.  There wasn't much clamor for it prior to 20-25 years ago or so, other than the odd one-off case that was quickly dismissed.
5/7/2013 6:39 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/7/2013 12:10:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/6/2013 9:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/6/2013 9:18:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it depends what that circumstances are. Obviously you treat cancer one way and a broken leg another way. BL (and myself) are arguing that heterosexuals and homosexuals are pretty much exactly the same thing.
Only different?
Different. Like a broken tibia and a broken fibula. It's still a broken leg.
It's interesting that you are now comparing homosexuality to an adverse medical condition that requires corrective action.

Freudian slip?
5/7/2013 6:41 AM
I'm still waiting for the explanation of what makes same sex marriage fundamentally different from heterosexual marriage.

Legally mandated racial equality was fairly new and trendy in many areas of the country in the '40s and '50s, did that mean we should just ignore it for a few more decades to see where it went?  We aren't even giving same sex couples the pretext of a "separate but equal" protection.  If you give homosexual couples in civil unions the rights and privileges granted to married couples then it's truly a semantic argument.  That's fine.  I'll listen to an argument that you don't need to change the context of an ancient tradition; however, when that argument inherently generates social inequalities then semantics have to take a back seat.  And if you can't demonstrate a fundamental difference between same sex and opposite sex marriage, we seem to be in that situation.  So I'll continue to argue that semantics alone aren't important enough to continue restricting the freedoms of a segment of society typically estimated at 8-10% of the population.  Put in context, that means there are more homosexuals in this country than Asians or Jews.  I certainly don't think modern American society would put up with a construct that explicitly restricted the rights of the Asian or Jewish population relative to everyone else.  We're on constant simmer over the existence of stop-and-frisk and the Arizona law allowing ID checks because of the perception that these laws promote racial profiling in their implementation.
5/7/2013 8:10 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/6/2013 10:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/6/2013 7:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/6/2013 7:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/6/2013 6:41:00 PM (view original):
So, from that, I gather you do not understand the basic difference between man/man and man/woman. 

That's unfortunate.
Sure they're different. Why is that difference material to the marriage question?
Do you think that different circumstances/situations ever require different treatment/reactions?
Sure.
While I know you don't think this is one of those circumstance/situations, do you understand, and accept, that others can?
5/7/2013 8:11 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 6:39:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/7/2013 12:10:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/6/2013 9:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/6/2013 9:18:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it depends what that circumstances are. Obviously you treat cancer one way and a broken leg another way. BL (and myself) are arguing that heterosexuals and homosexuals are pretty much exactly the same thing.
Only different?
Different. Like a broken tibia and a broken fibula. It's still a broken leg.
It's interesting that you are now comparing homosexuality to an adverse medical condition that requires corrective action.

Freudian slip?
No. I was using a tangent off of your original comparison of cancer to a broken leg. Are you comparing homosexuality to a broken leg or cancer?
5/7/2013 8:12 AM
Posted by dahsdebater on 5/7/2013 6:41:00 AM (view original):
I'm still waiting for the explanation of what makes same sex marriage fundamentally different from heterosexual marriage.

Legally mandated racial equality was fairly new and trendy in many areas of the country in the '40s and '50s, did that mean we should just ignore it for a few more decades to see where it went?  We aren't even giving same sex couples the pretext of a "separate but equal" protection.  If you give homosexual couples in civil unions the rights and privileges granted to married couples then it's truly a semantic argument.  That's fine.  I'll listen to an argument that you don't need to change the context of an ancient tradition; however, when that argument inherently generates social inequalities then semantics have to take a back seat.  And if you can't demonstrate a fundamental difference between same sex and opposite sex marriage, we seem to be in that situation.  So I'll continue to argue that semantics alone aren't important enough to continue restricting the freedoms of a segment of society typically estimated at 8-10% of the population.  Put in context, that means there are more homosexuals in this country than Asians or Jews.  I certainly don't think modern American society would put up with a construct that explicitly restricted the rights of the Asian or Jewish population relative to everyone else.  We're on constant simmer over the existence of stop-and-frisk and the Arizona law allowing ID checks because of the perception that these laws promote racial profiling in their implementation.
Too wordy to get the full point as I just scan it but I believe BL has said the homosexual population is believed to 2-3%.   That certainly seems more likely than 1 in every 10. 
5/7/2013 8:16 AM
Posted by dahsdebater on 5/6/2013 10:38:00 PM (view original):
I don't think gay marriage is fundamentally different than traditional heterosexual marriage at this point.  Marriage has already shifted itself to something fundamentally different, at least within most of the developed world.  Don't kid yourself, marriage hasn't been around for "tens of thousands of years," as anti-gay-marriage proponents tend to argue.  It's probably somewhere between 4000 and 5000.  Still a hell of a long time, probably not a relevant difference.  But 4000 years ago marriage had 2 primary purposes: to produce children, and to yield a social organization that would allow for all the needs required to support individuals and their children to be fulfilled.  Marriage is now fundamentally different, even among heterosexual couples.  It is driven by factors such as mutual attraction, romantic interest, psychological support, and companionship.  Those things weren't important enough to factor in thousands of years ago, and were still afterthoughts even a few hundred years ago.  But it's really a Maslow's hierarchy of needs thing - we no longer need spouses to make sure we have a consistent suppy of food, clothing, and shelter, so we can start to look for marriages that support higher-order needs.  There is no difference between the capacity for these modern motivators of marriage between homosexual and heterosexual couples.  People that argue homosexual marriage is fundamentally different because it can't result in offspring are deluding themselves.  Do some 30-something women "settle" because they feel their biological clocks ticking?  Sure.  But they are a small minority, and the mere construct of "settling" for the purpose of rearing children clearly demonstrates the backseat child-rearing has truly taken in the general spouse selection process in today's world.  And plenty of children are conceived out of wedlock.  This CDC faststat page clearly demonstrates that reality - over 40% of children are now born out of wedlock, and some studies suggest half are conceived out of wedlock.  The median age at which American women first give birth is nearly a year younger than the median age of their first marriage.

Given that, in lieu of these facts, it is very difficult to argue that marriage is fundamentally oriented towards production and rearing of children - or even that this remains a significant consideration for a huge proportion of the American population - what makes heterosexual and homosexual marriages "fundamentally different?"
Perhaps what we recognize now as the institution of marriage has only been around for 4000-5000 years, as you point out (I don't know the exact timeframe), but even before it was a formalized, ceremonialized institution, there were still culturally recognized bonds between two people.  And those bonds have traditionally always been between a man and a woman. 

No matter what the underlying reasons were for the marriage/bond, the man/woman thing has always been a historical constant, and a fundamental basis for marriage (and it's less formalized predecessors)  That's what makes heterosexual and homosexual "marriages" fundamentally different.
5/7/2013 8:17 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/7/2013 8:11:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 6:39:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/7/2013 12:10:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/6/2013 9:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/6/2013 9:18:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it depends what that circumstances are. Obviously you treat cancer one way and a broken leg another way. BL (and myself) are arguing that heterosexuals and homosexuals are pretty much exactly the same thing.
Only different?
Different. Like a broken tibia and a broken fibula. It's still a broken leg.
It's interesting that you are now comparing homosexuality to an adverse medical condition that requires corrective action.

Freudian slip?
No. I was using a tangent off of your original comparison of cancer to a broken leg. Are you comparing homosexuality to a broken leg or cancer?
No.  Did you understand the context of that post, and what it was in reference to?
5/7/2013 8:21 AM
Posted by dahsdebater on 5/7/2013 6:41:00 AM (view original):
I'm still waiting for the explanation of what makes same sex marriage fundamentally different from heterosexual marriage.

Legally mandated racial equality was fairly new and trendy in many areas of the country in the '40s and '50s, did that mean we should just ignore it for a few more decades to see where it went?  We aren't even giving same sex couples the pretext of a "separate but equal" protection.  If you give homosexual couples in civil unions the rights and privileges granted to married couples then it's truly a semantic argument.  That's fine.  I'll listen to an argument that you don't need to change the context of an ancient tradition; however, when that argument inherently generates social inequalities then semantics have to take a back seat.  And if you can't demonstrate a fundamental difference between same sex and opposite sex marriage, we seem to be in that situation.  So I'll continue to argue that semantics alone aren't important enough to continue restricting the freedoms of a segment of society typically estimated at 8-10% of the population.  Put in context, that means there are more homosexuals in this country than Asians or Jews.  I certainly don't think modern American society would put up with a construct that explicitly restricted the rights of the Asian or Jewish population relative to everyone else.  We're on constant simmer over the existence of stop-and-frisk and the Arizona law allowing ID checks because of the perception that these laws promote racial profiling in their implementation.
"If you give homosexual couples in civil unions the rights and privileges granted to married couples then it's truly a semantic argument."

That's what I suggested that I am in favor of way back on page 2 of this discussion.

"I'll listen to an argument that you don't need to change the context of an ancient tradition."

That's all I'm saying.
5/7/2013 8:22 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/6/2013 7:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/6/2013 7:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/6/2013 6:41:00 PM (view original):
So, from that, I gather you do not understand the basic difference between man/man and man/woman. 

That's unfortunate.
Sure they're different. Why is that difference material to the marriage question?
Because tens of thousands of years of human history, culture and tradition has defined marriage as a bond between a man and a woman.

Oh, are we back at page one of this thread again?
We could say the same thing about polygamy then. Marriage between one man and up to four women for Muslims, and I'm not sure how many for Mormons.
5/7/2013 8:23 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 8:17:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/7/2013 8:11:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 6:39:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/7/2013 12:10:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/6/2013 9:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/6/2013 9:18:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it depends what that circumstances are. Obviously you treat cancer one way and a broken leg another way. BL (and myself) are arguing that heterosexuals and homosexuals are pretty much exactly the same thing.
Only different?
Different. Like a broken tibia and a broken fibula. It's still a broken leg.
It's interesting that you are now comparing homosexuality to an adverse medical condition that requires corrective action.

Freudian slip?
No. I was using a tangent off of your original comparison of cancer to a broken leg. Are you comparing homosexuality to a broken leg or cancer?
No.  Did you understand the context of that post, and what it was in reference to?
Yes. Man/Woman should be treated differently from Man/Man. Like cancer and a broken leg. I'm arguing it's a small difference. Like treating a broken tibia and a broken fibula.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.