The argument that it COULD work is the grounded in what I've been laying out. It removes the religious objection, which is really the primary objection that exists in the US.

Ultimately, history will do whatever it does. I don't think that the Supreme Court will want to be holding the bag on this one. The era of that type of ruling is probably passed.

It's not random speculation, though it is speculation. I think you are underestimating the level of religious push-back that is brewing. The political climate is already bubbling with lots of emotion (see Tea Party and response to the Affordable Care Act) and there's already a lot of political divisiveness, and I think that if this gets shoved through it's not going to be pretty.

But I could be wrong.

Here's what you said:

You're basically saying that even if there's legal resolution, you're still not happy, and you want to "resolve the discriminatory symbolism" of the word. How is this not trying to impose something on religious people?

Because it's another step in the wrong direction. Later, it will be harder to do something compared to now to fix the underlying problem.

Long term gains vs. short term gains.

That's because you haven't let go of your own definition of marriage as being about love and commitment. Since this is a disagreement about definitions, and since you're not willing to let go of that, you're never going to see it as anything different.

See my response to asfasdf about the construction of the legal contract. The structures matter.

Correct. I'm going to wait for some sort of information or structure to what you are thinking that a civil union includes. I'm basically trying to make you actually deal in some form of detail rather than playing the blanket "harmful/immoral/disgusting/blah blah blah" game that you're playing. I'd be more inclined to answer if you simply left all that excessive rhetoric behind completely.

I didn't even know what doggg's views on gay marriage were....so I don't know how I had him pigeon-holed.

That is great, btw, that you stood up to homophobia, I hope I would do the same in that situation.

The reason is to allow religious freedom to remain fully intact while advancing a positive social agenda. I don't think the religious viewpoint will yield on its definition of marriage, and since religious freedoms are so highly valued by significant portions of the population, I think that it's not difficult to respect that while still accomplishing the desired outcome.

Probably because you believe that "for traditional marriage" implies "against gay marriage" implies "homophobic." And that he's "for traditional marriage."

When you started this thread, I thought you were going to flip this and drop the hammer that pro gay, immigration, affirmative action; basically all these un-Godly ideas, are all discriminating against us and ruining our country. That all these ideas extract value from our ....account.

But no, you actually are trying to make a way for them. Hmm. Not gonna work imo.

implies? No. I think that most common uses in our political culture of someone coming up and saying they are for traditional marriage is the implicit idea that they are against gay marriage. But it is certainly not a logical implication.

For instance, I am for both traditional marriage and gay marriage. But it would be a weird thing for me to say politically.

How is religious freedom violated by allowing legal gay marriage?

Is my, say, intellectual freedom not in tact because my government does things I don't like?

If marriage falls within the purview of a religious view, and it is not necessary to co-opt the term, then there's no reason to co-opt the term.

Your intellectual freedom is not written into the document that defines the rules of the government. In fact, there's a very real sense in which disagreement with the government is central to healthy functioning of government (but only to an extent).

I guess nothing's new in RGT anymore: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...riage-1149120/

Anyway, I think your reasoning is just totally unreasonable. How does allowing gay marriages through the government infringe upon your religious freedoms? The word gambling has a legal definition that changes from state to state, and they all, for the most part, differ from the way we use the word here and in everyday life. Why would it be so hard for the religious people to accept that marriage can be the same way, where the legal definition differs from their definition?

EDIT: to go with the Bar Mitvah thing, the government defines an adult as being 18 or older, but the Jewish religion puts the line at 13. Is the government infringing upon the religious freedom of Jews here?

This is what you said earlier:

It took you a very long time actually admit that you're making an emotional argument, and now you've got yourself characterizing "for the most part" an implication that you're now backing down from and calling a flat "no."

I know what you're *trying* to say, but you can't pretend to be innocent of pigeon-holing people when you really have pigeon-holed them.

I'm not sure that it does. But I know that it is perceived to be. This is why DOMA got through with such strong support a while ago, and why it's still a point of contention for many.

I don't know why. I just know that it is.

Probably not, though it may never have been challenged before. I couldn't find any examples of a 13 year old boy signing a legal contract that was later nullified by the government (or some other legal issue). Since they really haven't made an issue out of it, it's not an issue. It does not mean that it's not ACTUALLY an infringement upon religious freedoms. It could be more a matter of general acquiescence by the Jewish community.

There should be a lot better education about what the issues are really about; the elected officials who are voting on the issue on the people's behalf seem to be just as clueless as the everyday citizen who occasionally gets to vote on the issue in a ballot.

e.g. When North Carolina added the belts and braces amendment to their constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman, the people were voting on a secular issue, the ability of a same sex couple to be able to enter into the state-sponsored civil marriage contract, BUT they voted using their views on religious marriages to make their decision. False equivocation in action. Talk of Biblical definitions of family / marriage, quoting scripture and so on. This is a quintessential First Amendment issue, but framing it as such fell flat!

btw, NC banned same sex Civil Unions as well with their constitutional amendment, another common feature of many states, esp in the South.

I think it's obvious why these states are rushing to get constitutional amendments made: the younger demographic is much more in favor of SSM (there is continued growth in supporting SSM in younger age groups), but overturning existing state amendments is much harder than changing state laws.

But hopefully the younger generation will take care of this in due time, despite how bleak it sometimes looks I think it can only get better, and MUCH better.

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage

I'm fairly confident girls were horny in the 19th century too. Since you live for the documents, do you have one saying lust was suspended by Queen Victoria?

It's probably a mixed bag. I have a Saudi friend who told me that intense personal girl girl relationships form in Saudi Arabic due to the extreme gender segregation to the point of preferring each other to men in an overall sense, but the relationships aren't necessarily sexual.

The most disingenuous type of posting is when you quote someone incompletely and the latter half is the important expansion:
As you can see, I did NOT mean a logical implication, or a necessary implication, or anything of the sort. I think this is what people are meaning most of the time it is said in the political sphere (do you really disagree?). It is a point about how it is commonly used, not what it necessarily means. But this doesn't pidgeon hole every person who says it in the least, in fact I explicitly say that different people can mean different things by it!

The first paragraph doesn't answer my question. I asked if religious freedom is being violated by someone other than them taking a different definition. Saying "there is no reason to coopt it" does not answer this religious freedom question. For instance, you seem to agree that religious freedom is not violated if other people do a mormon religious ceremony different than your own, so why is religious freedom violated if the government makes a legal definition?

And yes, the asymmetry that religious views get special pleading in the document is ridiculous. People should have all the freedoms of assembly and speech and the like - which therefore protects religion - and religion should not be discriminated against just as sexual orientation shouldn't, but protecting religion explicitly is pointless.

However, we can still ask the question despite no special constitution protections. If you are arguing that their religious freedom to think as they do is being violated, why is my intellectual freedom to think as I do not equally not being violated?

I am very aware of the Tea Party's attempts to prevent any form of legal representation - civil union or gay marriage - for gays. It is disgusting and, ironically, by voting WITH them you are enabling the continued discrimination until such time as your pie in the sky solution eventually gets on the ballot box. But I don't see this as a reason to not act.
Yes, US politics is very polarized and divisive. That is the way it is on every issue the parties disagree on. But the solution isn't to roll over, it is to find the things that are clearly right - such as ending harmful discrimination against gays - and push that in the political conversation.


It fixes the discrimination now. All that needs to happen after that is the changing of a label. This is what I don't understand about your argument, you are coming with me 99% of the way it seems that the discrimination occurring right now is harmful and ought to be changed. And your proposal eliminates the discrimination in almost every way by including gays in the legal framework. The only quibble is about whether it is called one word or another. Yet when I give you the opportunity to vote to come that 99% with me, ending the discrimination, including the gays in the legal framework - which, btw, is the ONLY pragmatic option on the table politically in numerous states having such votes put to the people - you vote against this!

Let us just pretend I accept the need to change the word just to appease the religious people who can't accept gays in their institution. Is not the pragmatic course to accept decreased discrimination when it is presented to us and then additionally work on changing the word as something entirely separate to the gay issue?



You really have yet to tell me what a single long term consequence is. You say you have speculation, but have not even identified what you are speculating. As far as I can see it, the problem is entirely fixed in places like Canada which accept marriage equality. if you want to try to pass a bill here to change the word sure fine have at it, but what is this big long term consequence that is so huge you are unwilling to accept, today, a massive short term gain that ends the discrimination as we know it?


Well you are the one proposing a "civil union for all" solution, so YOU tell me what structures are there or not. Look, this is not a tricky term. Numerous states have implemented, or tried to implement, a civil union structure. It is normally something very close to marriage, often with a few small details different.

My contention is that it is very harmful and morally wrong to deny two people such a structure on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. It seems you agree from me, but when I press you on saying that this IS indeed harmful you demand some form of details. Who cares, they don't matter. Pick any of the ones out there if you really can't make a general statement on this! My goodness.

Let me pose a question to you: suppose we both agree that I am objectively correct on the tactical argument. By voting to expand legal marriage to include gays we have an option that could occur in the imminent future. However, the "change marriage to civil union and then expand" option is off the table and we all agree isn't going to happen politically for a generation. As in there is no question that the correct pragmatic approach is and can only be my solution...let us accept this as a premise.

Do you vast the deciding vote to expand it and end the discrimination now, or do you let the status quo perpetuate for a long time?

Hi Aaron,

I think what you're saying is a valid semantical exercise but I think it ignores the current political context of that phrase. Politicians for years have been campaigning on the protection of 'traditional marriage.' The only threat (while largely BS) to traditional marriage is expanding the term to allow others to marry as well.

The choice of words like "supporting traditional marriage" in every case its been used has been by politicians and/or organizations that think gay marriage is a threat and therefore traditional marriage needs support.

There is no cause of supporting marraige in our society today that really doesn't mean marriage rights that exclude 'non traditional.' Her statement is really meaningless unless you put it into context of what that means in our culture today.

You may try to show semantically how one could try to interpret her words differently but I feel pretty confident if you polled any number of adults what it means to support traditional marriage that they would all overwhelming agree that it means being against gay marriage.

I kind of thought this is what all the pro-gay rights people advocated. (that is-- there's some wordplay involved because to many, civil unions and marriage, at least in the eyes of the government, are essentially the same thing.)

The issue, in my opinion, and why something like this hasn't been done, is directly because of anti-gay bigotry. The people who don't like the gays and those who fear them don't want gays to be treated as equals. To do so would be to validate their lifestyle.

I contend that if you didn't have homophobia, then you would already have something akin to what you proposed above. That way, any church who wanted to marry gays in a religious ceremony could, those who opposed it would do so, and everyone would receive the same rights and benefits of such a union from the government.

Oh absolutely, I'm sure many Boston marriages were/are non-sexual. But this guy is claiming there's no reason to think any of them were. Sounds like the Victorians, very sheltered, cannot even imagine that Nancy next door would muff dive.

I think its a weird definition of religious freedom to say that only religious people can use the word 'marriage.'

By the way... should all atheists be forbidden from getting married since they're not religious? What if one religion wants the word "marriage" and their religous freedom requires them to deny Jews from using getting 'married'?

Yes, but they are also on record as being against gay marriage also.

There are some politicians looking to ban their restaurants in their districts, etc. As much as I disagree with their values, I also disagree with this tactic. They should be free to do business wherever they want. Just as more reasonable people are free to boycott their establishment.

Obviously, as a matter of logic, you can be for traditional family without thereby being against gay marriage. For example, I am for traditional families (I think the traditional heterosexual family is all things considered a positive force in society). I am also in favor of gay marriage (I think that homosexual families are all things considered a positive force in society). Thus I support both traditional and non-traditional families.

However, I think the idea is that in politics, saying that you are "for traditional family" is code for "opposes gay marriage." Thus, I think the inference made in the CNN article is probably justified.

I never said that you did. My point is that you're very much caught up in your rhetoric. After all, it took you how many posts before you were even finally able to admit that you were making essentially an emotional plea? And how many posts did you go denying that your view of marriage was not supportable by history?

Given these things and the rest of the aggressive rhetorical framework you've developed, is it really surprising (in a public forum, blah blah blah) that you got accused of piegeon-holing?