To the surprise of many around the country, strongly liberal California passed this measure 52.3% - 47.7%. There are very strong posts about the measure by Northern Light (celebrating the result) and Holy Hyrax (explaining why he thinks Prop 8 passed), while Nephtuli - not discussing Prop 8 per se - explains why he is not against SSM (same-sex marriage) on his blog, though I argued against some of his reasoning in the comments. In addition, HH has some truly troubling links in his post, including a school in Illinois which had 14-year old students attend a pro-homosexuality seminar and sign a confidentiality agreement not to tell their parents.Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Personally, I've never understood what the desire is on the part of the gay community. If they wish for equal rights and equal opportunities under the law, they already have this with the advent of civil unions. If gays wish to say there are situations where they are treated differently, such as visitation rights, then work on making those equal as well. But to fight consistently to allow gay marriage is silly: Either argue that the institution of marriage is 'wrong' because it discriminates against any non-monogamous, heterosexual union, or just ignore it. To redefine it to be more broad is simply making the word meaningless, by allowing it to mean whatever suits your goals - and if it must lose all meaning for it to include gays, why would they care to have it at all.
Like I said in my post, if Jews or Blacks were only permitted to enter into civil unions, do you think civil rights groups would just leave the issue alone? From the gay community's perspective, allowing them to only enter civil unions is equivalent to the denying Jews the right to marry.
ReplyDeleteAnd words do mean whatever we want them to mean. Marriage has undoubtedly evolved as a concept in the last millennia, and has different meanings in the different parts of the world. The concept of marriage in the US in 2008 is not the same concept of marriage in Saudi Arabia in the 1200s (or even today). The concept has different meanings to different people and it evolves over time.
Nephtuli,
ReplyDeleteYou are repeating the ol "evolving" line, but I never hear it explained. Nobody argues that different people have different roles in marriage or its practiced different ways, but down to its core, all the marriages are unions, between a man and a woman.
What difference does it make to allow gay marriage. I have yet to hear a coherent argument about why it is problematic.
ReplyDeleteYou are repeating the ol "evolving" line, but I never hear it explained. Nobody argues that different people have different roles in marriage or its practiced different ways, but down to its core, all the marriages are unions, between a man and a woman.
ReplyDeleteWho says? I don't deny that the concept of marriage currently is understood by most people in the Western world as a union between men and women. But historically it has not always been so. As long as people's understanding of the concept of marriage changes, marriage itself changes as an institution. I don't see how it can be any other way.
>But historically it has not always been so. As long as people's understanding of the concept of marriage changes, marriage itself changes as an institution. I don't see how it can be any other way.
ReplyDeleteWhat has not been so? It has always been about gender. Even when you have polygamy, it was not practiced by all. But it was still about a union of a man and a woman.
Like I said, the micro stuff what responsibilities IN a marriage have certainly changed, but not what type of union it was.
N - Not comparable. One is discriminating against a group's ability to marry; the other is barring a new type of marriage.
ReplyDeleteMarriage has undoubtedly evolved as a concept in the last millennia, and has different meanings in the different parts of the world.
?? How so? We've limited how many marriages someone can have, but marriage was always a man and a woman. Yes, words mean what we want them to mean, but see my point in the post.
Jack - If it makes no difference, why is it being pushed for?
Ezzie and HH,
ReplyDeleteForget about whether marriage has changed over the course of history. The important question is whether the definition of marriage can change. If people begin calling SSM marriage, why wouldn't it be marriage regardless of how the term was used in the past? Further if the concept of marriage once contained an element that limited it to opposite-sex unions, but as time changes people begin to view SSM as marriages, why wouldn't the concept of marriage change? The term and concept are defined by how people understand them at the time, not how the term was used in the past. How could it be any other way>
But that's the point! You have a choice whether to let it change or define it in strict terms. If you choose to let it change, it loses all meaning. If you choose to say it will not change, as the voters have, that's it.
ReplyDeleteIf you choose to let it change, it loses all meaning.
ReplyDeleteNo it doesn't. It just takes on a new meaning. Words and concepts can change without becoming meaningless.
What meaning does a word have if it can change so easily?
ReplyDeleteWhat meaning does a word have if it can change so easily?
ReplyDeleteWhatever the new meaning of the word happens to be. If people started using the word "soda" to refer to "pizza" the new definition of "soda" would be what we now call "pizza." Why is that problematic? Language has been evolving as long as humans have been using it.
Of course you *can*. And again, it takes away from the meaning of those words. The point is that by holding things to stricter interpretation they have more meaning.
ReplyDeleteBut how does it detract from the word's meaning? Why would anyone want to arbitrarily limit the evolution of the meaning of a particular word? If people start using the term differently, how does that detract from the meaning of the word? The word's meaning has only changed.
ReplyDelete"Only changed"? Are you serious?
ReplyDeleteYou're overthinking this one, big time.
I suggest reading this post on JA and then determining if that's a good approach.
I don't see the relevance of JA's post. Do you feel there is a normative problem with the meaning of the word "marriage" changing? If yes, why? It's not enough to just state in a conclusory fashion that words do not have meaning if they can be changed. What negative consequences will arise if the word's meaning can be changed?
ReplyDeleteJA's post is (to me) to show how words and their meaning (or changes to) just rolls off a cliff at some point.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, read this post again, I think you missed my point; also, if your argument is that SSM should be allowed because who cares, we can redefine words, we do it all the time, and marriage is a word whose definition is changing, you're proving the point (not to mention making a really weak argument). And that was a really long run-on sentence.
Meanwhile, if marriage as a word has no meaning, then why do gays care to fall under its umbrella? And if it doesn't, then what's the point of it?
JA's post is (to me) to show how words and their meaning (or changes to) just rolls off a cliff at some point.
ReplyDeleteJA's post discusses how different moral views can influence the definitions one gives words. That is hardly the same thing as saying that society at large cannot define words differently.
Anyway, read this post again, I think you missed my point; also, if your argument is that SSM should be allowed because who cares, we can redefine words, we do it all the time, and marriage is a word whose definition is changing, you're proving the point (not to mention making a really weak argument). And that was a really long run-on sentence.
I never said marriage should be redefined for no reason. My argument is that marriage is already being redefined based on the recognition people are now granting SSM. I see no reason to consider the word marriage's defintion sancrosanct and prevent society's redefinition of the word from taking on a legal effect.
Meanwhile, if marriage as a word has no meaning, then why do gays care to fall under its umbrella? And if it doesn't, then what's the point of it?
Again, I'm bewildered by this comment. Of course marriage has a meaning; it's meaning is whatever society happens to grant it at the time. What you mean to say is that if that the meaning of the word "marriage" can be changed by popular vote, then it has no longstanding meaning. Which is true and uncontroversial in my mind. Why is it a problem that the definition of the word marriage can change?
But to answer your question about why gays care about whether their union is marriage or a civil union, society affords a certain level of recognition to the institution we now call marriage. If SSM is considered marriage, that means society grants SSM the same status as opposite-sex unions. That's a very big deal for gay people.
But to answer your question about why gays care about whether their union is marriage or a civil union, society affords a certain level of recognition to the institution we now call marriage.
ReplyDeleteExactly, which is what the debate is really about. They're desperate for recognition - meaningless recognition which has no inherent benefits, assuming equal rights in civil unions. Those who are against SSM are unwilling to give that recognition to gays because they don't want to do so about something they feel is immoral. In truth, gays shouldn't care - but for whatever reason, they seem to desire this recognition.
Now, back off the topic:
JA's post discusses how different moral views can influence the definitions one gives words. That is hardly the same thing as saying that society at large cannot define words differently.
But if you pay attention to the details, by using different words you can slowly change how you view the morality. It's why words' static definitions *are* important.
My argument is that marriage is already being redefined based on the recognition people are now granting SSM.
So it's redefined because it was already redefined? How'd it happen?
I see no reason to consider the word marriage's defintion sancrosanct and prevent society's redefinition of the word from taking on a legal effect.
And if I see no reason to change the definition?
Again, I'm not arguing that it can't be changed; I'm arguing that there's no good reason it should be.
You're saying that because some already have changed it, it should be; that's not a particularly compelling reason.
Ezzie:
ReplyDeleteSorry I'm late to the party. I was too sick to focus the last couple days. :-(
One is discriminating against a group's ability to marry; the other is barring a new type of marriage.
It's not a new type at all. Literally the only thing that differentiates gay marriage from straight marriage is the genders of the participants.
"Marriage" is a type of contract granted special priveledges by the government. The people of California just voted that one man and one woman may enter into that contract together but not two men or two women. It's not a different "type" of marriage that was voted down, it's who is allowed to use the original "type."
Privileges.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a new type at all. Literally the only thing that differentiates gay marriage from straight marriage is the genders of the participants.
ReplyDeleteThat's like saying the only differentiation between basketball and baseball is the ball.
Again, it's using wordplay to mask a clear difference between the two.
That's like saying the only differentiation between basketball and baseball is the ball.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's like saying that if you let a woman onto the Cavs, you'd have to change the name of the sport.
Err... I mean YOUR argument is like saying that. Seriously, before the law there is no difference between the husband and wife. It's not like she has some duties and responsibilities and he has others. They are two equal partners. Whether those two partners are of opposite sexes or of the same sex changes nothing about the institution itself.
ReplyDeleteRead the post.
ReplyDeleteExactly, which is what the debate is really about. They're desperate for recognition - meaningless recognition which has no inherent benefits, assuming equal rights in civil unions. Those who are against SSM are unwilling to give that recognition to gays because they don't want to do so about something they feel is immoral. In truth, gays shouldn't care - but for whatever reason, they seem to desire this recognition.
ReplyDeleteBut from the gay perspective, denying them the right to marry is the same thing as only allowing Jews to enter into civil unions. Surely you would understand why Jews may protest if that happened.
So it's redefined because it was already redefined? How'd it happen?
In some areas, marriage has been redefined to include SSM. For example, in some places in New York, people generally view gay unions as married. Surely many gay couples view themselves as married. The next step is whether the government should formally recognize same-sex unions as marriage. In New York, the house already passed a SSM bill and Patterson is strongly supportive of SSM. Most likely the Senate, which is now Democrat, will support SSM. I'd expect New York to be the first state in the union to voluntarily enshrine SSM.
The point is that society can define marriage and marriage is not a static term. Marriage as a concept contains a number of existence conditions. Historically, one of those conditions was that the union be between members of the opposite sex. And that made sense since marriage was about procreation and child rearing (and that's why JA is wrong, at least as an historical matter). But many people do not understand marriage that way anymore. Whether there is a consensus either way these days is hard to say. But if there is a consensus in any given state that marriage includes same-sex unions, why can't the state recognize those unions as marriages? Even if there isn't a consensus, but a majority considers SSM marriage, why can't the state follow suit? What's the problem?
But from the gay perspective, denying them the right to marry is the same thing as only allowing Jews to enter into civil unions. Surely you would understand why Jews may protest if that happened.
ReplyDelete?? But it's not the same at all. One is discrimination based on the people; one is being against the actual actions, particularly as they are relevant to the definition in question.
In some areas, marriage has been redefined to include SSM.
...but how? That's just the point!
What's the problem?
! We all agree that it *can* - your argument is that it *should* because it *can*, while mine is that that's not a compelling reason at all. Go back and read through - your argument is circular and doesn't really get anywhere. You're saying it should because it can, and it only can because people arbitrarily decided it should, and therefore, now that they have done so, it can, so it should. I fail to see a compelling reason anywhere in there: No added benefit, no discrimination removed, nothing but a desire to fall under a definition which loses all meaning if you actually change it to fit the desire. It's stupid. You want to get rid of state-sponsored marriage? Go for it. It's a much more logical battle.
?? But it's not the same at all. One is discrimination based on the people; one is being against the actual actions, particularly as they are relevant to the definition in question.
ReplyDeleteBut the question wasn't whether gay people are correct in how they view their situation; it's why gay people consider recognition important. You're asking the question from their perspective. They might be wrong, but that's not the point.
! We all agree that it *can* - your argument is that it *should* because it *can*, while mine is that that's not a compelling reason at all. Go back and read through - your argument is circular and doesn't really get anywhere. You're saying it should because it can, and it only can because people arbitrarily decided it should, and therefore, now that they have done so, it can, so it should.
Not quite my argument but even the above characterization isn't circular. My argument is as follows:
Marriage is a conventional institution, meaning marriage is an institution that exists solely by convention. Marriage is not some metaphysical concept that is unchangeable. You do not disagree.
Historically, one existence condition of marriage is that it must be a union between members of the opposite sex. Now let's assume in society A every single member of that society believes that SSM is marriage. In that society, the existence condition that marriage be between two people is no longer part of the concept of marriage. Given what you've written in these comments, I doubt you'd disagree with anything I've written until this point.
Now let's take State A in the United States. A large percentage of that state believes that SSM is marriage, although another large percentage disagrees. In that state, the definition of marriage is in flux because there is no convention about whether the existence condition that requires an opposite couple still applies.
However, take a state where a majority believes that SSM is marriage. In that state, one could argue, the concept of marriage no longer requires an opposite sex couple. If that is true, the defintion of marriage has changed in that state. It is then only a small step from that point to having the government officially recognize SSM.
I think your confusion stems from your belief that supporters of SSM must offer a normative justification for SSM to be treated as marriage by the state. I disagree. If descriptively SSM is viewed as marriage by a sufficient number of people, then SSM is defined as marriage in that society. While proponents of SSM should make normative arguments to convince others to accept SSM as marriage, once the number of people who accept SSM as marriage reach the required societal threshold to change marriage, SSM is marriage in that society. Marriage, which is a convention, has been changed by popular demand and there is nothing unusual about the state recognizing that change in the marriage convention and affirming SSMs.
So essentially my argument is not that marriage SHOULD change; it's that in many places, marriage has already changed (I admit this is an empirical argument, but I believe it is justified). Once it has changed, there is nothing wrong with the state recongnizing that reality and recognizing SSM.
Do you still think the argument is circular?
Read the post.
ReplyDeleteI did. That's not an answer.
JA - I can't keep re-explaining it.
ReplyDeleteN - You're asking the question from their perspective. They might be wrong, but that's not the point.
Of course it is.
Now let's take State A in the United States. A large percentage of that state believes that SSM is marriage, although another large percentage disagrees. In that state, the definition of marriage is in flux because there is no convention about whether the existence condition that requires an opposite couple still applies.
Ah, but where did that large percentage get that (I think you'd admit) new belief? I.e. if more than half the state would start calling the sky green and the grass blue, would that mean we should switch? We could, sure. But should we? Even if you'd argue yes, you'd admit we've changed, and that in general, the change was meaningless. We have simply changed the definition to suit our current change of opinion. It's not meaningful, it just is.
I think your confusion stems from your belief that supporters of SSM must offer a normative justification for SSM to be treated as marriage by the state.
Not a confusion - rather, an opinion. And a rather good one, I might add. :)
If descriptively SSM is viewed as marriage by a sufficient number of people, then SSM is defined as marriage in that society.
Oh, sure, but it's based on a false transition. It's like convincing more than half the people that the sky's color is in fact green.
(I admit this is an empirical argument, but I believe it is justified)
Ah, I disagree. And you have to admit it's weak at best, and without normative arguments, it's a really hard sell.
Do you still think the argument is circular?
Perhaps circular is the wrong word, but essentially, it's an argument that depends on itself and offers no real reasoning other than it became itself. That's pretty weak to me.
Ezzie,
ReplyDeleteYou're the one playing word games. If Bob and Chris get married, how is civil marriage a different type of thing if Chris is a woman than if Chris is a man?
Let me give you an analogy. Say a society has only recognized contracts between men. Eventually, women and some men begin pushing for women to be allowed to enter into contracts as well. Would that be a different type of thing as well? Would we have to call them "civil agreements" instead of "contracts" to maintain the distinction?
ReplyDeleteHow can Bob and Chris get married if both are men?
ReplyDeleteExactly.
And perfect: Would you agree that if they kept the term "contract" that the meaning of the word had been changed? And that what the women can now do is not the same "contract", but a new (if similar) thing called a "contract" as well?
Like I said, it's silly.
How can Bob and Chris get married if both are men?
ReplyDelete"I do." *sign the papers*
What's the problem?
And perfect: Would you agree that if they kept the term "contract" that the meaning of the word had been changed?
NO! The thing itself is not different in any way. It's just who is allowed to partake in that thing that changed.
And that what the women can now do is not the same "contract", but a new (if similar) thing called a "contract" as well?
NO.
Like I said, it's silly.
What's silly is denying what should be a basic civil right based on sophistry like this.
What's the problem?
ReplyDeleteThey're both men. Doesn't work.
NO! The thing itself is not different in any way. It's just who is allowed to partake in that thing that changed.
Wrong. The definition of a contract used to be only men. Now it's women. It has changed. And if it hasn't changed, then why the fight?
What's silly is denying what should be a basic civil right based on sophistry like this.
That's silly. What basic civil right? Are they discriminated against? Do they lack benefits? Didn't think so.
They're both men. Doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteWhat doesn't work? Have you not noticed that it already has worked? Including in California?
Wrong. The definition of a contract used to be only men. Now it's women. It has changed.
No, the definition of a contract didn't change. The laws surrounding contracts changed.
And if it hasn't changed, then why the fight?
Huh?
That's silly. What basic civil right? Are they discriminated against? Do they lack benefits? Didn't think so.
The basic civil right of marriage. The Supreme Court recognized such a right, btw, in Loving v Virginia.
Tell me honestly. If your daughter turns out to be a lesbian and she wanted to get married to a woman, you really think it would be okay for the state to refuse to allow her to "marry?" Nobody's saying shuls and churches have to marry gay people, but we're talking about the state here.
ReplyDeleteWhat doesn't work? Have you not noticed that it already has worked? Including in California?
ReplyDeleteYeah, because they wrongly redefined it. I didn't say it can't be done (note my comments to Nephtuli), but it shouldn't. It's stupid.
No, the definition of a contract didn't change. The laws surrounding contracts changed.
Then it never excluded women in the first place. But that's not similar to our case.
Huh?
Why the need to fight about it? If it was always meant to include gays (a rather untrue statement), then they wouldn't have to have judges rule on it. They could have done this all along.
The basic civil right of marriage. The Supreme Court recognized such a right, btw, in Loving v Virginia.
Between two men? Or two women?
Tell me honestly. If your daughter turns out to be a lesbian and she wanted to get married to a woman, you really think it would be okay for the state to refuse to allow her to "marry?"
Sure. Assuming that things haven't changed.
ezzie:
ReplyDeleteI'm not arguing that people have always thought "marriage" is not between a man and a woman (or several women) but that letting two people of the same sex participate isn't turning it into a new type of thing. It's the same old thing, with different players.
I disagree. By allowing new players who previously were not allowed, you're changing the game.
ReplyDeleteBy allowing new players who previously were not allowed, you're changing the game.
ReplyDeleteNo, you're not. That just does not follow.
How not?
ReplyDeleteBecause definitions of things don't change depending on who is using them.
ReplyDeleteLet's take yet another example. A waltz, as traditionally understood, involves a man and a woman. If two men or two women decide to waltz, they are not changing the definition of waltzing, they are just engaging in the same activity that had previously been understood to be engaged by one member of each sex.
Not the same. Were a waltz specifically intended to refer only to a man and a woman, you would be correct; but a waltz is merely a dance, performed by a couple. It was never a definition intended to be that specific; it merely happened to be that way. Marriage was specifically intended as between a man and a woman, not two men or two women.
ReplyDeleteYou're saying the waltz wasn't intended to be danced by a man and a woman?
ReplyDeleteOf course it was. But the definition was never intended to be exclusive. Marriage was.
ReplyDeleteSo what?
ReplyDeleteWow, you two guys are really talking past each other.
ReplyDeleteOnto Ezzie:
Of course it is.
Wasn't your question about why gay people act a certain way?
Ah, but where did that large percentage get that (I think you'd admit) new belief? I.e. if more than half the state would start calling the sky green and the grass blue, would that mean we should switch? We could, sure. But should we? Even if you'd argue yes, you'd admit we've changed, and that in general, the change was meaningless. We have simply changed the definition to suit our current change of opinion. It's not meaningful, it just is.
Your analogy is flawed. Let's distinguish between the color blue and the word used to identify that color, which is "blue" in English and "azul" in Spanish. If people stated believing that the sky was "green" (i.e., that the word that identified the color blue is "green"), then the meaning of the word "green" may now be what "blue" used to be, provided they use the term "green" to identify the color blue consistently. However, if majority of society believes that the sky is the color green, they would simply be wrong because the color of the sky is not a conventional concept and exists independent of human conventions. Marriage, however, is defined and created by convention, so society can change both the concept and the term that identifies that concept.
Given the above, what do you mean by meaningful? If majority of a society started using the identifier "green" to refer to the color blue, I imagine a lexiographer would document that use and the next version of Webster's would recognize it. The state may also start using the identifier "blue" to refer to the color green. The change isn't normatively meaningful, but better tracks society's usage of the term. If the dictionary writers ignored the change, the dictionary would not be an accurate accounting of how society uses words. And if the state refused to recognize that the meaning of the identifier changed, they would simply be ignoring reality.
It's the same idea with the concept of marriage, since the concept of marriage is conventional just like the identifying word "marriage." If a substantial majority of society believed that the concept of marriage (and not just the identifier "marriage") included same-sex unions, it would behoove the state to follow suit simply because the state should recognize that the concept of marriage (and the identifier "marriage") has been changed by convention.
Nephtuli - I got all that above. I'm saying that before it gets to that majority, it's silly. Sure, silly can take over, but it's silly. Much like in the case of the sky, it's still silly to call the sky green, and would remain so until a solid majority (if not overwhelming) feels that that is what it should be called. And at that point, it's more in line with throwing one's hands up in the air and saying "screw it, what's the difference, let them call it whatever they want to call it." Again - gays should not want this, because there's nothing meaningful about it.
ReplyDeleteA better way of viewing it is thinking of a high school class where a few loud people decide they want to pointlessly change something. At first, everyone ignores them, then they start guilting or otherwise convincing many more people to join their cause, until they have a sizable group. Finally, they have enough people to make enough of a scene about something that's unimportant enough that even the principled members of the class say "whatever, fine." It's still stupid.
Good, I'm glad we cleared up a chunk of the confusion.
ReplyDeleteNephtuli - I got all that above. I'm saying that before it gets to that majority, it's silly. Sure, silly can take over, but it's silly. Much like in the case of the sky, it's still silly to call the sky green, and would remain so until a solid majority (if not overwhelming) feels that that is what it should be called. And at that point, it's more in line with throwing one's hands up in the air and saying "screw it, what's the difference, let them call it whatever they want to call it." Again - gays should not want this, because there's nothing meaningful about it.
But it is meaningful in the sense that marriage is a venerable institution and respected by society. Allowing same sex couples to marry grants them legitimacy. Again, if Jews were only allowed to enter civil unions, we'd be up in arms because we would lose legitimacy. I understand your distinction between taking away marriage (Jews) and refusing to extend marriage (Gays), but if it's just words and meaningless, why would Jews care? There is something to being called married that is significant and that is what gays are after.
Agreed. But my point is that by going after whatever it is that is significant, it disappears anyway when the definition is changed to allow them to have it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, not only is there a difference between giving and taking, as you noted, but there's a difference between why it's not being given to each. Jews in your case would be denied for reasons that have nothing to do with marriage; whether you agree with it or not, gays are being denied for reasons having to do with the matter at hand.
Agreed. But my point is that by going after whatever it is that is significant, it disappears anyway when the definition is changed to allow them to have it.
ReplyDeleteWhy? When people view gay couples as married, part of that recognition is affording gay couples the respect comes with marriage. Why would the respect disappear if the concept of marriage changes?
Also, not only is there a difference between giving and taking, as you noted, but there's a difference between why it's not being given to each. Jews in your case would be denied for reasons that have nothing to do with marriage; whether you agree with it or not, gays are being denied for reasons having to do with the matter at hand.
Right, but why does that distinction matter? It's not just the discriminatory intent that matters; it's the fact that Jews would be viewed differently, even though there are no practical differences. That's how gays feel.
Why? When people view gay couples as married, part of that recognition is affording gay couples the respect comes with marriage. Why would the respect disappear if the concept of marriage changes?
ReplyDeleteNo - people will say "big deal, they're married. Even gay people can get married these days." It's a catch-22. It's like watering down a set of qualifications for an award so someone can win. Afterward, it's viewed as a much lesser award.
Right, but why does that distinction matter? It's not just the discriminatory intent that matters; it's the fact that Jews would be viewed differently, even though there are no practical differences. That's how gays feel.
So? Just because someone feels discriminated against doesn't make it so.
No - people will say "big deal, they're married. Even gay people can get married these days." It's a catch-22. It's like watering down a set of qualifications for an award so someone can win. Afterward, it's viewed as a much lesser award.
ReplyDeleteThat's just ridiculous.
No - people will say "big deal, they're married. Even gay people can get married these days." It's a catch-22. It's like watering down a set of qualifications for an award so someone can win. Afterward, it's viewed as a much lesser award.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think the above is true? Is that true in state or countries that do have SSM?
So? Just because someone feels discriminated against doesn't make it so.
Granted, but if people feel discriminated against and we as a society can alleviate their (illusory) pain without any costs, why not do so?
Granted, but if people feel discriminated against and we as a society can alleviate their (illusory) pain without any costs, why not do so?
ReplyDeleteThat comes back to the original problem of whether one considers SSM wrong or not (and therefore, a cost or not).
Why do you think the above is true? Is that true in state or countries that do have SSM?
I think it's almost automatic - if you change a definition to accommodate, you've watered it down. I would think that's true in places that allow SSM too.