Dancing Mustard wrote:daddy1gringo wrote:Not really. You're both ignoring the entire rest of my original post
Sorry D1G, but I find that resopnse of yours not only rude, but also fairly arrogant.
The reason that I didn't respond to the rest of your post was firstly because it was all premised on the proposition that I demonstrated to be circular in my first reply to you.
….
Seriously, which bit of your logic don't you understand is circular? If you need me to explain why that argument is a non-starter for a second time, then just say so. But if you're going to engage in civilised debate, then at least try to comprehend and respond to the points of others. Just bashing out the same old lines regardless of your opponents rebutals and demolitions of them is going to get you, and us, absolutely nowhere.
Woah, Mr. Kinetic Condiment, that’s an awful lot of antagonism and invective for a simple difference of opinion in what was, at least, a civilized discussion. In your defense, you’re not usually like this. Take a few deep breaths and let’s start over.
You say that my arguments don’t prove that the US government should not pass a law to define gay unions as marriage. I agree with you. That is a complicated issue, which involves not only the questions of the true nature of both marriage and of homosexuality, but also involves the questions of the basis of the US and its Constitution, the thoughts and intentions of its “founding fathers,” and the societal changes since then. I was not trying to settle that whole thing with these arguments. If you’re going to ridicule another person’s opinion, it’s usually best to make sure you’ve read and understood it first. I was arguing two very specific points about how the opposing arguments are often phrased, which I believe obscure the issue.
The first was that it is deceptive to speak in terms of “allowing or forbidding” gay marriage. Whatever is decided, they can still be together if they want. The issue is settling a legal definition in order to decide how various other laws apply. As you pointed out at length, either way, you are forcing something on somebody. That is a little more complex than “why can’t you just let people do what they want?” as is frequently said, and to ignore that fact avoids the issue.
The second point is that it’s inaccurate to speak in terms of conservatives trying to come in and enforce some new and arbitrary restriction. As I mentioned, there are, and have been, many different beliefs and customs as to what a marriage should be like, but being between members of the opposite sex is consistently part of the definition of what a marriage is. Your bringing up the point of inter-racial marriage is valuable. Various people through history, and I suppose some today, would object to someone of their race (tribe, nation, caste, etc.) marrying someone of another, but they generally would not say that it was not a marriage at all. Indeed, they object that the two did get married.
Even in the historical instances that are frequently mentioned where homosexuality became to some degree accepted and de-stigmatized, like ancient Greece, it generally did not involve marriage (not even a “civil union”), so that is irrelevant to the discussion, except, perhaps as more evidence for my point. My argument was that the idea of a marriage being between two people of the opposite sex is part of the definition of what marriage is, socially and historically, Notice that there is nothing in what I said that resembles: “Duh, cuz da Bible sez so!”
While we’re on things that are pretty clear even without any reference to God, your pontifications about what is and is not natural are a bit ambitious. The declaration that legal marriage is not “natural” is at best questionable in light of the fact that, in pretty much every human society we know of, as far back as we have enough historical or archaeological evidence to indicate one way or the other, there is some kind of marriage; some public covenant of exclusivity and relationship between a man and a woman.
If something consistently and independently shows up in human behavior wherever they gather together, it’s a good indication that it is inherent to human nature. It does not speak against my point in the least that, as you point out, many of these things that consistently express themselves are not good. (Here I will mention the Bible, but note that I am not using it to prove my point, but to explain the rationale behind my statement.) As I have said before, I believe human nature and behavior to be consistent with 2 principles from the earliest chapters of the Bible: 1.We are made in God’s image. 2. We are fallen into sin. Because of the first we are, under the right circumstances, capable of great and good things. Because of the second, what will motivate most people most of the time is selfishness and other base motivations. You may construct an argument that the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is evil, and that we therefore need to legislate against it, but realize that is what you are doing.
So, I stand by my previous statements: 1. The issue is not the “allowing or forbidding” of gay unions. 2. The idea that marriage is between a man and a woman is not some “new and arbitrary restriction.” 3. Your perception that the one particular statement was “circular” is the result of ignoring the rest of what I had said.
I look forward to continued intellectually stimulating discussion with you in the future.
).
