gotcha. well then, now on to the task at hand. i think what the article did was fair.

i assume the problem you have is that the owner could have been mischaracterized.

i doubt that you or my friend would fall victim to this and i don't have much sympathy for someone who does. they should communicate better. especially when talking to the liberal lame-stream media.

what cathy said is not nuanced, it's euphemistic.

this is what a stupid person says when they are trying to be tactful and it utterly fails. he's obviously trying to avoid saying "i don't want gays to be allowed to marry."

if he was mischaracterized (which i highly doubt) i don't really feel bad for him. if he's not actually against gay marriage he should have given a much more precise answer.

i doubt that anyone who says what cathy said would ever complain about being mischaracterized in this way (edit: other than to dishonestly save face). had you been interviewed, i bet your soundbyte would have been much different.

Sure. What does that have to do with whether government is involved with marriage?

Do I have the moral right to get married at a Mormon temple if I'm not Mormon? Do I have a moral right to have the Catholic church honor my marriage if I'm Jewish?

The blanket idea that everyone is exactly the same in every way is silly. Distinctions exist. And that's not automatically a moral failing.

That depends. Are we saying that skin color ALONE creates a fundamental difference between different men. If so, then not racist. Tall people are fundamentally different from short people (in the same sense of the word "fundamental"). That doesn't make someone height-ist.

If you mean it to be something MORE THAN skin color (such as, different species, not human, etc.), then yes.

But as you can see, this is far from a necessary conclusion.

And you draw this concept of marriage from where? And why does everyone have to agree with you?

Your position reminds me very much of a lot of stances that people take, in the sense that there is not much substance to your position. You are saying little more than "I think it should be this way."

However, in order for you to justify your position to yourself, you're using strongs words to try to characterize the other in a negative light, rather than presenting an affirmative case as to why someone should agree with you.

All I see is a "first principle" that doesn't actually seem to imply what you need it to, and then I see emotionally loaded language. The "main argument" appears to be almost vacuous ("I take that as a first principle.").

Yes. I'm not worried about this individual incident in particular (though I still see this as a contrived controversy). But more about what you can and can't do while being true to the original statement.

To be fair, the original interview was given to a "friendly" media outlet, and then it was picked up and reframed by other media.

Marriage is already involved with government whether we like it or not. As long as that remains true - and there is no reason to think it won't be for a long time - it is disgusting to discriminate against homosexuals.

I don't think churches should be forced to perform gay marriages, if that is what you are asking.

And yes distinctions exist, but for someone to do blatant discrimination based on a distinction (ie no marriages for gays, only straights) they have to demonstrate why this distinction is RELEVANT. So why is it relevant? Why should two people who love each other not be able to be married because of their sexual orientation? Don't even try to evade this question.




If you are going to have a government ban on marriage based on this skin colour, you have to show it is a RELEVANT DIFFERENCE otherwise people will rightly accuse you of racism. Of course, different skin colour is known to be IRRELEVANT to just about anything. Which is why people who make decisions based on it are called racists. Likewise, sexual orientation is a difference, but not a relevant one.

This is incredibly simple stuff.



A It is incrediably common for people of all backgrounds to recognize marriage in the terms I described as love and commitment and the like. The only time when it is NOT described in those terms, that I am aware of, is when people try to apologize for their discrimination against homosexuals then it becomes just this thing between a man and a wife. Well at one point in time the consensus of people also found that it was only for people of the same race. Now we call those people racists.

However, in order for you to justify your position to yourself, you're using strongs words to try to characterize the other in a negative light, rather than presenting an affirmative case as to why someone should agree with you.[/QUOTE]Strong words are the appropriate response to such blatant examples of discrimination in society. This is why it is appropriate to say that discrimination of blacks in schools is racist. Yes it is inflamatory, but it is correct to be so.

Of course, the burden of proof is entirely on the side doing the discrimination. So if you think it is correct to discriminate, please justify it. I have never - not once - heard a justification of this discrimination that is even the remotest big reasonable and you have not even begun to offer one here.


But let me get you on record for clarity sake: if a vote is put to you to either legalize gay marriage or not, how do you vote?

Further, are you saying you REJECT this principle: "Two people who love each other and want to spend a life together should be allowed to do so to the same extent that any other members of our society would be able to". If so, WHY?

Before you answer "how do you vote", remember God has forbidden man made legislation in Deut 4:2.

Great. So if you vote on zero other issues this is an acceptable answer. However, if you only use it for this issue that is special pleading.

Regardless, you can still answer questions like "is it wrong to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation?" and the like without voting.

This position is different from the one that you seemed to argue. This is a "practical matter" but your argument is "moral" (and "morality" trumps "practicality"). The argument I'm making is that government SHOULD get out of the marriage business, and you've said that even if it happened, it doesn't fix things. This is an inconsistent argumentation.

Right. So it's not a "moral right" for a homosexual couple who has access to a civil union (when the government ONLY has civil unions) to maintain marriages as understood by religious groups. There's a valid distinction there, and a form of discrimination that you'll allow.

There is a fundamental disagreement about the nature of marriage.

If you believe this to be the case, then you're disconnected from history. Same-sex unions have been recognized at many points in history, but they were very often viewed as being different from heterosexual unions. (For example, pederasty is a specific type of recognized homosexual union that is not a marriage.)

Throughout history, the debate about whether same sex marriages should be allowed has been a point of controversy. In order for this to be the case, there must be some viewpoint that declares marriage to be between heterosexual couples.

At this point, I want to point out that you've constructed yourself a "logically" unassailable position. By this, I mean that every single instance in which I can find a disagreement about the structure of marriage (that is, someone who thinks it should be between a man and a woman), you can automatically declare it to be an "apology" for discrimination. Therefore, under the logic that you present, you cannot possibly be wrong.

Why? Because you say so? Or is this another one of your "first principles"?

I think the reason why you can't see it as being "even the remotest bit reasonable" is because you've defined yourself into a happy little cocoon in which you can be nothing be right.

I vote against. (Therefore I must be homophobic, right?)

If a vote is put to me to de-legalize heterosexual marriage, I vote for it. (Therefore I must be heterophobic, right?)

The black-and-white perspective you want to bring is a clear example as to why it is that the type of logical error that is committed as in OP is dangerous for actual conversations about actual issues. Demagoguery works in multiple directions, and you may not want to believe you're doing it, but you are.

You have failed to make a logical argument up to this point, and are merely taking emotionally charged words to create the illusion of having put forth a meaningful position. I've shown you that you've fallaciously set yourself up with your concept of what marriage is (that it's about two people who love each other and never about gender... despite the fact that gender has been a historically demonstrated division). The most you've gotten for yourself is a "first principle" and you haven't even taken the time to understand my objection to your application of it! (See below.)

I don't reject the principle. I reject that the application of the principle means what you think it means. There are people who want to live their lives together who can be married in a Mormon ceremony, and there are people who want to live thier lives together who can't. Doesn't this mean that they are not able to share their lives to the "same extent" as other members of society?

If you think it is, then I think you're ignorant. This is a highly complex social, religious, and political issue with far reaching implications.

chick fil a is delicious derr

If you want to argue that government shouldn't be in the business of marriage - and that argument is entirely separate from any consideration of gays - then that is fine. However, it is incredibly unlikely to happen and serves no purpose. It is just word play. Government remains involved we just call it a different word. So it is proposing this pie in the sky solution that is ONLY about the changing of a word.....and we are changing this word for the sole purpose it seems of not having to resort to the horrors of actually allowing people who love each other to marry.

Nobody should be forced to do something without a clear benefit for this being the case (like jailing murderers). This means it is wrong for the government to prevent marriages just as it is to force pastors to perform a marriage. I mean would certainly encourage pastors to do this and would attempt to explain to them the problems associated with discriminating against people based on arbitrary characteristics, but I would not want it forced on them.



I asked you why gender was relevant? Presumably you DON"T think skin colour is a relevant distinction even though a long history of people have thought that. So why on earth would gender be relevant? I don't see how your reply addresses this at all.



Oh I know that discrimination against LGBT members is millenia old (and I don't see how this helps you) I am just saying that my description of it being something about love and commitment and the like IS commonly accepted by others....they just want to tack on the discrimination whenever the issue comes up.

I assume most people agree that discrimination without purpose is wrong. So if blatant discrimination is happening - and surely you agree that it is - then it needs a justification for why it is acceptable. Do you have ANY SHRED of a justification?



Fine. Then give me such a reasonable justification for the continued discrimination.



Presumably. But I will give you opportunity to give a non-homophobic explanation for this. But what you have said is that despite marriages being part of the government - and there is no momentum to change this...even in your proposal it would be at best a word play - you are unwilling to change the continued discrimination? WHY? What possible argument could there be for this?



How does it not apply? If you agree that two people who love each other should be able to be married, why would you vote to continue the ban on two people of certain types who love each other being married? The Mormon bit seems entirely unrelated. Who cares?



What are these far reaching implications? People who love each other can now marry. That is good and prevents the significant bad of denying people who love each other the ability to marry. What is the bad? Does it hurt anybody else? If you think this is a complex issue, please explain your justification for the continuation of this bigotry. What complex thing am I missing? Seems as clear cut to be bad as it is clearly bad for a ban on interracial marriage.

As with all previous discussions for you, you have yet to say one word about WHY you believe as you do. You just obfuscate around the details and play semantics and other nonsense. So please, please, do not hide away and give a clear justification for why you think it is okay to allow the discriminatory ban on people who love each other marrying to continue.

You might say that "it serves no purpose" but I think it stands as a perfectly reasonable policy position to take. I also think that it's possible to generate support for this type of position as it placates MANY voting blocs simultaneously. (Separation of church/state people should go for it, lots of religious independents who are sympathetic towards gay rights would find it acceptable, and people who just want to put a stop to the nonsense would go that way as well.)

Yes, it's going to take time and hard work to go through it all, but the long term benefits (in my opinion) outweigh the short term work of getting this cleaned up.

It's not really horrible. Once you're set free from the government defining things, people will be free to express their marriages in all sorts of ways. But again, the primary issue here is definitional.

Is this another "first principle"? How many "first principles" do you have?

You don't see it because you're too caught up in your own belief system.

Again, you're free to characterize it however you want. But what you're really doing is spinning around in your own little bubble that has no bearing on reality.

There are many formulations of marriages in which love plays no part (such as "political" marriages in early tribal societies -- in which marriage is given as a truce between different groups -- or arranged marriages). Unsurprisingly (to me), all of those marriages were male-female. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good story. The millenia of discrimination has never been about some *actual* disagreement about the nature and structure marriage, even though we see examples of cultures that accept same sex unions while NOT calling them marriages.

So until you're able to come back to reality and at least consent that history happened, your position is really nothing more than you asserting yourself repeatedly without any support.

It depends on what you require for a "purpose." It also depends on whether that purpose needs to be explained in legal terms, or social terms, or religious terms (or if religious terms are even allowed).

Again, this is demagoguery. Here's the game you're playing: "I'll make up some ad hoc rule and then hold you to it."

I've told you. It's a matter of definition. If I say triangles have three sides, and you say they have four, am I engaging in "continued discrimination" by telling you that you've got it wrong?

Because we disagree on definitions and concepts.

It's only unrelated because you're too trapped in your own thought bubbles. You have to give me a meaningful statement of what this whole "same extent" business actually means. I've shown you that there are people who have access to something that others do not, and yet it's not really an issue. And they made it an issue, they STILL wouldn't get it.

The far reaching implications fall with respect to the history that you reject (this is an important issue for many people, and has been for a long time), it has long term legal consequences (if we get marriage out of government now, it will reduce these types of issues in the future), and it's complex because it involves the interplay of many, many, many systems of thought that need to work together in order to reach a positive outcome.

The reason why is that you're not engaging in an actual conversation. I can give you historical refutation, and you won't hear it. I can demonstrate a "non-homophobic reason" to reject gay marriage (because I reject government marriages completely), but you won't accept it. You're basically just reciting a collection of personal talking points. Your position is gratingly shallow.

Despite my repeated provocations asking you WHY you won't prevent government sanctioned discriminationed against gay people who love each other, you didn't give me one. Pretty sad.

It is not just a matter of definition. It makes real differences to people's lives. The fact that marriage is illegal causes genuine harm to people who want to be married and cannot with numerous legal and social consequences that come from that. I don't have much of a problem if you personally want to exclusively define marriage as between a man and a woman. I think it is a stupid definition, but go right ahead. Where I have a problem is when one legislates that THEIR definition is the only one and everyone else has to live with it. Now that is great that you want government out of marriage, but in the interim until that happens you seem quite content to allow the discrimination - and harm that comes from that discrimination - to continue. To chalk it up as just a difference of definition is ridiculous.

What you have to do, what you have utterly failed to even begin to do, is give an argument or justification for why the harm caused by this discrimination is acceptable so much so that you would not vote to change it.


What is the purpose? It is just switching out the word "marriage" for the word "civil union" and this word play is just to appease those who GASP cannot accept the idea of the word "marriage" to apply to gay people. And I totally reject this is a tactically advantageous position. Many countries and jurisdictions have gone to full marriage equality quite fine and none that I know of have done this weird linguistic trick step.



You are the one who will not vote to end the government defining marriage in a way that discriminates against gays.



So explain it then! Why on earth would gender be relevant! GIVE YOUR JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DISCRIMINATION!
It depends on what you require for a "purpose." It also depends on whether that purpose needs to be explained in legal terms, or social terms, or religious terms (or if religious terms are even allowed).



Not at all. Just like this last thread, I have no idea why you seem to interpret everything I say as me binding you or holding you to something. It is truly a bizarre interpretation.

The reason I suggest all these things is that I think it is common that most people generically agree that discrimination is bad. THey agree that banning interracial marriages, for instance, is bad. But they don't apply the standard they hold in the rest of their lives to this issue. So if you actually don't have any standard like this and think that discrimination IS okay then great.



What, exactly, are these consequences or complexities? You keep stating they are there but I don't see them. The legal situation after accepting marriage is just the same as for any other marriage what is complicated by this?

What is the historical refutation? That because people were discriminatory in the past they can be today? Should I have looked to the history of slavery for clues on the morality of discriminating against blacks? What is this actual argument?

The problem is that the consequences of your voting would be to continue the status quo of discrimination. It is great that you have this pie in the sky work around...but as long as a bill comes before you on whether to continue the discrimination or not and you are choosing to continue the discrimination, you have to actually give a justification for that. And unlike your solution, bills like mine actually do come out as ballot initiatives.


Now you have this silly word play solution but let me ask: do you think that someone who thinks civil unions should not be allowed for gays is wrong and immoral and discriminatory and harmful and should be strongly reject?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...gotry-1057806/

Interestingly, the OP's name there is EasilyFound.

The real question, imo, is-- is it fair of aol (huff post) and numerous other news outlets to have headlines referring to chick-fila's "anti-gay" position.

"Anti-gay," imo, carries with it derogatory and possibly criminal connotations.

What's sad is that it's right in front of you, but you're too stubborn to see anything that's not your own view.

Nobody said definition makes no real difference in people's lives.

The fact that marriage remains a government-owned word perpetuates this. Hence, get government out of marriage.

Who says I'm attempting to legislate my definition? I'm trying to tell you that a better way out is to DE-legislate it.

You seem to be stuck on the short term. Granting short term relief creates long term issues. By giving MORE people legal marriage rights, it only perpetuates the problem. It doesn't actually solve anything. Furthermore, it will become even MORE difficult to get the necessary correction in place if we placate those who are focused on the short term fix.

Definitions drive lots of things, including governments. Your issue currently resides with a government. It's not nearly as ridiculous as you seem to think it is.

You're making the WRONG ARGUMENT.

The purpose is to reach a point in the political system in which equality actually exists. If changing the wording will do this, then why not change the wording?

Other countries that have made the switch do not have the same strong religious groups to deal with. This seems to me to be a battle over words, so why not take the problematic words out of the system?

I would vote to do it. Just not by making the problem worse. You're playing a game where your way is the only way. Too bad that's not connected to reality. Your way is NOT the only way.

Two different things is not the same thing as two same things. That's why it's relevant.

Let's see:

Why are these the relevant factors? Because you say so?

Why is this so? Because you say so?

You are asking me to answer challenges that I deem to be randomly held and irrelevant. I'm arguing that the best way forward is to get government out of marriages. Your counter to that is asking me why I'm for discrimination, and repeatedly challenging me on that question.

The real issue is that you disagree with the solution I'm presenting. But rather than construct an actual argument, you'll simply spout out your talking points about your solution, and argue as if those points have meaning relative to what I'm saying.

I think that discrimination takes many forms which are perfectly normal. I've noted that ethnic groups discriminate with regards to marriage on the basis of ethnicity, and I don't see any issues with this. There are values that the group wishes to express, and that's how they choose to express it.

Religious groups hold a value of marriage being of a certain form. This is a value they want to express. This form of discrimination is not different than Mormons declaring that your marriage isn't complete unless you're been married in a Mormon temple.

That's because you're blind.

The historical argument is a direct refutation of the characterization of marriage that you've given. It's also a recognition that the disagreement *actually* exists, and that your characterization of it is faulty.

Sometimes, to reach the end goal, you've got to turn down short term gains.

That depends on what a civil union (ie, legal definition) is and what it actually entails.

Can you see with this last question how you're really trying to demagogue the conversation? Can you at least be *THAT* honest with yourself?

It does (usually) carry derogatory connotations towards homosexuals and it is a position which infers criminalizing marriage between two parties of the same sex.

So, you got that right at least.

Aaron, you may have mentioned this, and I missed it, but...if the government gets out of the marriage business, and only issues civil union certificates, what would stop homosexuals from getting 'married' in a strictly religious ceremony? It seems you would only be adding another step.

They *could* get married in a religious ceremony, but only for a religion that accepts their marriage. So they can be religiously married, but that marriage only bears significance for that particular religion.

I don't have to accept Mormon marriages, and they don't have to accept church-of-Aaron marriages. But we all have to abide by the laws pertaining to civil unions.

And if a couple Baptist churches decided to allow gay marriage, would that bear significance to your religion?

What do you mean by 'accept' Mormon marriages? It's starting to sound like No True Scotsman.

"No, Mormons can't really get married."

...Did not realize that saying "I support traditional marriage" means "I believe in criminalizing gay marriage, sending them off to jail, and locking them up!"

If you say so, brah.

Errr, it's already criminalized. Guess what happens when the law gets broken.

Not particularly. Since my religious concept of marriage is primarily a social institution (a God-ordained one -- ie, a religious one -- but it's still just a social institution), there's no particular significance for me if some Baptist church decides to marry people.

The theology of marriage is a bit different than the Mormons. The Mormons hold to eternal marriages, and populating planets with spirit babies and such, so their marriages bear a different type of theological significance.

I mean that the fact that they've been married in at a temple carries no significance in any way to me in terms of how I treat them. I don't really care about their ceremony, in the same sense that I view an adult Jew as an adult even if he never had a Bar Mitzvah.

Fair enough. It just seems like a strange workaround for relatively little (if any) benefit.

Let me back up for a second. The problem we are trying to solve is that the status quo is discriminatory and harmful (tell me if you disagree) and, as such, ought to be changed. It is a problem formed, for the most part, because a large number of primarily religious people do not want gay people involved in the institution of marriage they think ought to be only for them. Since you are proposing a solution, it seems safe to say you agree there is a problem.

We have two different solutions to this problem. Mine is the solution done around the world which is to simply make the tiny change of including the LEGAL definition of marriage to be irrespective of gender (you, personally, can have whatever definition you like). This solution has been, for the most part, successful and does not have any negative ramification that I can see and is quite pragmatic at actually being implemented. The numerous economic, legal, and social consequences the problem put on LGBT members is solved - and I have seen first hand the joy given to my mothers in law from this policy in Canada.

Your solution is to likewise expand the legal definition of this framework to be irrespective of gender but to ALSO change the legal word used. Presumably the legal situations would be identical in our two scenarios we would just call it civil union in your case and marriage in mine. Eitherway, the main issue of the lack of legal and social benefits is resolved. Pragmatically, there are no jurisdictions that have taken your solution and it seems incredibly unlikely to occur.

So since you are proposing something further (the change of name, not just the expanding legal aperatus that we both seemingly agree should be expanded) you have to justify WHY you want to change that. The only argument I have seen thus far is a tactical argument that it is more likely to occur in the religious US and that it fixes some unidentified long term problems you have not elaborated on. But I don't think you want this just because of a the tactical arguments that I think are silly. It is this issue, the justification of why you want to additionally change the name, that you have fallen short on.I know the (spurious, in my mind) justifications that others give for this, but not yours. Not only have you not demonstrated why your solution is a good one, you have not demonstrated why my solution is a bad one. Can you argue for either side?

Now I think your solution is bad, despite it coming the majority of the way to the end goal: equal status for both. I think there is a tactical problem with your solution as I have laid out. But more importantly, what you have added is at best a word trick. And it is a word trick that is being used, presumably, to appease people who don't want their notion of that word to be allowed to apply to gays. There is a symbolism here that marriage ought to ONLY apply to straight people and your plan does not resolve that symbolism. Instead, we should resolve the discriminatory symbolism in the word as well as the legal situation.

And now, select few replies from the microquote mess.


If you give gays the right to marry, how does that perpetuate the problem? In fact it solves ALL the problems I can think of in one swoop. Now the widespread harm from discrimination is eliminated and any two people that love each other CAN indeed be married. What further step or longer term issue is there?

Imagine if someone back in the day had said this same argument about interracial marriage. Oh no I couldn't possible vote to end that because my goodness that would just create more problems and not solve the long term ones. Please.


Because there is a vastly simpler solution, the one already achieved in many jurisdictions around the world: simply accept gay marriage legally. Problem solved. But let us turn the question around, if simply expanding the definition will do this, then why not change the definition?




Sorry what? If a bill in your state comes up to legalize gay marriage do you legalize it or not? I thought you answered "no" to that to which I submit you ought to present your justification. Did I read that wrong?



That doesn't answer anything. I know there is a difference. I am asking why it is a RELEVANT difference. For example, skin colour is NOT a relevant difference. Height is not a relevant difference. IQ is not a relevant difference. Why is sexual orientation a relevant difference? That is what you have utterly failed to justify in any way.


So state them. If I have no idea what these major consequences are, and you do, just tell me.


Who cares about the nit picky details? A civil union much as it is in many states either identical or close to that in legal ramifications. You seem to accept civil unions for everyone. So do you think that NOT allowing civil unions for gays would be discriminatory and harmful and the like?

There are also various libertarian and also some lefty types that propose the same solution.

But they are usually more that government shouldn't have any legal structure in place at all (ie not the one we typically call marriage) and government has no place in this institution. Aaron seems to support the continuing legal structure - expanded to include gays - but just demands that we call it a different name for some unknown reason.

The benefit is providing a much clearer distinction between the legal and the religious, which I think is generally beneficial.

For this specific instance, it has the benefit of getting certain religious groups over their hurdles to accepting legal rights for gay couples. I don't think that many people REALLY have issues with inheritance laws and hospital visitations.