The specific "tradition" that matters here is "common law."

Love has exactly nothing to do with marriage as a legal contract. We were talking about this with old friends of ours (gay—one of whom is a lawyer) and they agreed that this would likely have been settled already had they pushed "civil union" as the term. The trouble is that even most democrats don't like "marriage" being used as the word—blacks particularly (a monolithic democratic voting block and important "base" to pander to).

Pragmatically, that makes the most sense to me so they can get reciprocal, durable power of attorney, visiting rights, yadda, yadda, yadda, for the cheap price offered by the County Clerk with a single form. Push for "civil union." Worry about what to call it later.

tater

I see exactly what I've read here:
people thinking that a change of words in a travel document would mean a (intentional) further destruction of the traditional family.

Like it or not: in 2011 hundreds of thousands of kids are raised under different circumstances than living together with their bio-dad and bio-mom. It is striking that nobody wrote something about Platapus' argument, that a document that states the name of the de-facto parents would be benefitial for him - at least it would put him not in stupid situations where he has a lot of explanations to give.
A customs officer gives a damn about who donated the sperm and the egg, their duty is to check if the two people who accompany a child are legitimate.
Another benefit might be, that a document like this could prevent cases of child abduction. It happens that a guy takes his kid and takes him back to his homeland. If the child is not reported missing yet, he is often succesfull doing so, cause the passport states him as the father = legal child companion. A document that states the two legitimate people who are allowed to travel with the kid can inhibit a situation like this.

When it comes to communication, generally speaking, I do. Which is what I was referring to (specifically your comment about the dictionary changing).

As far as this issue is concerned, while I don't believe in the tyranny of the masses, I also do not believe in the imposing upon the traditions of the masses by the minority.

Remember my position on this from the last time we debated this: let homosexuals have all the same benefits of marriage - just call it something else.

*Sigh*

I suppose I need to brush up on the different terms of logical fallacy.

What I was TRYING to say was that justifying a debate over tradition with tradition is not a fallacy when the argument is, essentially, we don't like it because it is untraditional. Hence my "black dress" analogy.

When the argument is about social preference itself it seems to make perfect logical sense to reference said preference when the context is not simply tradition but tradition CURRENTLY held within favor.

I'm sorry, but I see a bit of "Some are less equal than other" in that concept. If anyone has a monopoly on what anything is allowed to be called, then they are indeed excersizing discrimination and tyranny.

That's my feeling anyway.

There needs to be consensus on what a term is meaning. That udnerstanding needs to be defion ed, and shared by all. Else any communication becomes useless at best, causing troubles at worst.

Already more than 2000 years ago Kung Tse called for what he called "the ordering of terms" (in German: das Ordnen der Begriffe).

Language shall not be arbitrary - else it becomes impossible to talk with each other.

That is why it makes me so angry when PC brigades for example hijack terms like "racism" in order to brandmark criticism of religious ideologies, and even make laws basing on these corrupted definitions of terms. Askling questions of relgion'S claims, is no racism, and not agreeing with the supremacist claim of relgious groups is no racism. A law ruling that it is, is basing of totally misled conceptions.

In other words it has lost its relevance for reality from which it is now disconnected.

Terms are important. Or as poets say: names give us power over things and items. If we misuse them, then we don't say what we mean, and we do not mean what we say. So does the other person as well. Nothing good can come from that.

How is that less equal? We're talking about terminology - right now, the terminology is already different, as we call it "gay marriage" rather than "marriage". This in and of itself shows the pervasiveness of preferred tradition, except that the polarizing factor is the term "marriage" itself.

We ARE talking about something different here - why do we have to pretend it's the same when it clearly is not? This isn't separate but equal, as gays ALREADY have the same rights as HUMAN BEINGS that the rest of us do. This is about honoring something different but in an equal legislative fashion.

Or do you suggest that churches be required to marry homosexuals as well?

That is precisely my point from earlier, worded more completely. :rock:

I think when I said this:...it was too complicated for a certain individual and therefore it was ignored. Especially when in the context (another difficult word for said individual) of "majority" it was clear I wasn't referring to some sort of vote tally but rather the general acceptance of those familiar with common usage of a term (IE, qualified awareness of the subject).

PS: I know this is kinda feeding the trolls, but hey - sometimes it's amusing. I even tried to use the term "vernacular" to help clarify the issue, but hey - I guess if you're a troll you can define anything any way you want it to be.

The fact that the "preferred tradition" is pervasive is irrelevant. If law is based solely on tradition then that law needs to be examined more closely.

They do? Then why can't they get married?

Absolutely not! I believe in complete separation of Church and State. Churches should not be compelled to do anything. Of course one can always go to another Church. One can't go to another law.

Who said it was based soley upon tradition? It is based upon tradition combined with the human biological imperative of the species combined with the natural tendency of more than 99% of the population, combined with that which makes the majority of people comfortable.

Take away any one of those and you still have three good arguments - arguments which could be settled with a simple adjustment of terminology.They CAN get married. Just not to their preferred sex.I know you wouldn't suggest that.

Sure they can - make a law that respects the imperatives of those opposed to gay marriage while granting freedoms to homosexuals with respect to their unique preferences.

But make no mistake - gays ALREADY have exactly the same rights as the rest of us. They want different ones. I (a heterosexual man) have no right to marry another man, either.

This is not about an expansion of liberty - state sanctioned marriage DOES NOT CONSTITUTE a liberty as defined Constitutionally. However, the Constitution explicitly grants states rights and many states (including my own) have passed laws or State Constitutional amendments defining marriage. I believe that should be honored.

What we are discussing here is what I ultimately find to be a tradition motivated by human biological imperative. Many secular rights have been extended to marriage, primarily for the purpose of keeping an ordered society by honoring the tradition of the vast majority of its members (maintaining order is one of the key functions of government). Extending a term that traditionally stems from religious roots to apply to that which BY NATURE defies those roots does nothing to satisfy the imperative of keeping order, nor does it applies to a biological neccessity.

On the other hand, there is an injustice involved when one partner can't visit another in the hospital, for just one example.

So how does this get resolved? Change the damn terminology!

Because ultimately, gay marriage IS asking for something traditionally different from marriage, and terms ARE defined by tradition. Let those who want their traditions respected have such deference.

The majority of people have been comfortable with all sorts of evil over the millenia. I'm not saying that finding homosexuality distasteful is evil, but still folks condone all sorts of discriminatory practices because it's easier for them that way.

In some ways I could be called a homophobe. When a friend showed me Six Feet Under I thought the show was pretty good - right up to the point when they had a scene of one of the main characters kissing his boyfriend. I refused to watch it after that. However, I feel that Jefferson's argument for Religious Freedom applies here as well. What injury does it cause me if they want to get married? It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. In fact it means nothing at all except to someone's personal morals, which means that we're back to legislating morality.

So? How is the parallel?

We're talking about same thing, different terminology. All sorts of people have be comfortable with all sorts of good for generations as well. The point is moot. There are many arguments here, not just the comfort one.

The US federal government honors Christmas. Should it honor Ramadan as well? Culture, tradition, biology, the very REASON for secular law honoring marriage (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_marr.html), etc create a vast wall against infringing upon the term.

I have yet to hear a single compelling argument as to why the meaning of a time-honored traditional term should be changed to acoomodate the extreme minority while the same rights are being extended.

Ultimately, in that context, the question becomes "why"?Again, that only addresses part of the reasoning behind the secular respect given to marriage.

But let's go with it - how does religious freedom apply? Gays certainly aren't arguing for marriage rights based upon religion. But let's say they were. Jefferson clearly understood that not anything purporting itself to be religion in order to secure federal recognition should be allowed to do so - else we'd have people marrying trees, or at least it would be implied that he meant they should be allowed to do so.

Legislating morality and respecting cultural morality are two different things. Besides, how is giving someone the SAME EXACT THING but defining the term differently (as it WOULD be something different) legislating morality?

Words mean things. Right now, legally defined or not, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If you're going to come up with something new, why not use a new word?

Wow this thread got derailed badly.

Anyways just let gays get married and the people who think marriage can only be between a man and a woman can just learn to accept that marriage is between two people. :O:

I agree with you. We in Russia, too, such a law and I worked with this law do not agree.
They think about the rights of sexual minorities? And about my rights who thinks? I do not want to be in the passport of my children I was recorded as "parent two"! I want there I was recorded as the "father" and my wife just wants to be the mother of the children and not "parent one"! But nevertheless want to infringe on my rights and called my parents, although I am father! The father of two children.

In the end, it is ol' mother Nature herself being racist and discriminating humans, for women not having penisses and men not having boobs and the abiulity to give birth to children themselves. Nature is a bitch, let'S correct her.

To some people it does not seem to come to mind that Nature did very well in arran ging some things the way they are. Or in a less sentimental meaning: maybe the reproduction via a hetero-sexual race design has advantages that made it the superior path of evolutional design for certain species. And there can be no doub t that this is how it is for us humans. That makes the social consequences from that "natural", and the norm, the rule, the standard. It'S is not about morals so much. It is about naturalness, and the norm this defines for a race and a civilisation. Morals just come later, on the grounds of the natural standard. We favour the protection and interest of families and heterosexual couples, becasue of their importance for the community, a social importance and function that neither singles nor homosexual couples can show up with. We have taboos on incest, for the biological fact that there is a significant raise in chances for genetic defects if sisters and brothers lie together, anmd over conti8nuing generations. Like incest is a biological degeneration, the equalising of status between hom and hetereosedxual couples in the society's hierarchy of interest and protection priorities is a degenration of vital social core functions.

There is no reason and no excuse for discriminating or attacking homosexuals, nor is there such an excuse for doinmg the same with singles. But there is also no reason to see both as equal in importance to heterosexual couples. Any man doubting this should check if he can naturally get pregnant and give birth to children. Any woman doubting this should check if she can reproduce naturally with just another woman.

Sorry all you politically correct equality fanatics, but that is how our nature is. Live with it. Homosexuality= no chance for natural reproduction, no survival of the social community. Heterosexuality=chance of natural reproduction, chnace of survival of social community. Period.

Or would anyone argue that mankind should turn to invitro-fertilization and abandon the ways of nature? In Australia there is a couple suing the state for the right to designt he sex of their next baby, because they have had three girls, they now demand the right (!!!) to design a male embryo. This is were genetics and their potential benefit of discovering serious deseases early, turn into abuse, paving the way for designer-babies.

Do people want this as the future?

I am for genetic diagnostics. I am against genetic designing of babies.