How to effectively debate proponents on moral grounds of same-sex marriage

[justyxxxx]

Your argument is concerning "additions to" a concept, such as the idea of "man" to include black people, women, etc. All knowledge is heirarchical, it builds upon the foundation of other truths, so expanding the limit of "man" to cover these additions is not completely re-interpreting the idea of "man" since you have not changed the essentials of this definition: man is a rational animal (Homo sapien = "knowing man"). If you wished to state that homo sapiens are dogs, would this be correct? Is there no truth to ideas, since words can be changed as you argue?

In terms of marriage, the common meaning of this idea has been the union of man and woman; in Roman days its meaning was derived from the "right" (a right we no longer accept in all of its manifestations) of males to take a bride. We have expanded its usage to that of willful voluntary matrimony, unlike its original meaning where fathers sold their daughters or men "took" women for brides, but its meaning has remained as essentially "man and woman".

The deconstruction of American thought has been occuring for decades now, and to deny it is to deny those who vocally advocate deconstruction. "Feminist" theory, "Gay" theory, "Gender" theory, "Racial" theory, etc. all derive much of their philosophy from Derrida's deconstructionism.

I'm reading to you the definition of marriage from the American Heritage dictionary by Houghton Mifflin, copyright 2000. You can choose to argue all that you want, but they know the meaning of words better than any of us and they've been doing it for decades. Of course there are truth to words, but things change - such as the meaning of gay from lighthearted, brightly colored to now mainly gay people or fag, from "to droop" to many meanings now. I don't see the difference of the changes of meanings to these things as any different from the current argument of the definition of marriage.

The deconstruction sounds like a good thing then, from everything that you mentioned . . . America has been removing the ignorance and/or stupidity and/or brutality that it has held for centuries. What is wrong with that?

 

[atlantabiolab]

I'm reading to you the definition of marriage from the American Heritage dictionary by Houghton Mifflin, copyright 2000. You can choose to argue all that you want, but they know the meaning of words better than any of us and they've been doing it for decades. Of course there are truth to words, but things change - such as the meaning of gay from lighthearted, brightly colored to now mainly gay people or fag, from "to droop" to many meanings now. I don't see the difference of the changes of meanings to these things as any different from the current argument of the definition of marriage.

Please stick to the points of discussion, which is the redefining of a single idea, not, as your example shows, the use of a word for a totally new concept. We are not talking about using "marriage" in some euphemistic/metaphorical manner, but the complete changing of its essentials.

The deconstruction sounds like a good thing then, from everything that you mentioned . . . America has been removing the ignorance and/or stupidity and/or brutality that it has held for centuries. What is wrong with that?

If you knew anything about the philosophies which I mentioned, then you would know what is wrong with them. They do not correct past mistakes, they take pride in generating new ones.

 

[casualbb]

So demanding equal rights is equivalent to deconstruction?

 

[Apöllo]

So demanding equal rights is equivalent to deconstruction?

must be

 

[justyxxxx]

Please stick to the points of discussion, which is the redefining of a single idea, not, as your example shows, the use of a word for a totally new concept. We are not talking about using "marriage" in some euphemistic/metaphorical manner, but the complete changing of its essentials.

Marriage and it's essential meaning to me is that of a very special love between two people who want to share a part of themselves with each other and no one else. That is the essential part of it to me. Historically, it has been viewed as between a man and a woman, but if everyone accepted current views then women wouldn't have the right to vote, blacks would still be shipped to America to work for free, and witches would be getting burnt at the stake. It's essentials haven't changed to me because gays have shared their love for thousands of years and now they are wishing to be viewed as a legitimate relationship instead of "a joke". I believe that it's fair and that it doesn't change the essentials of marriage.

I

f you knew anything about the philosophies which I mentioned, then you would know what is wrong with them. They do not correct past mistakes, they take pride in generating new ones.

You can't take an eraser and change any past mistake, you can only hope that the decisions that you make today work toward improving life for all. I don't agree with your point of view on marriage. It's not changing the essentials, it's recognizing a special love that has existed for many, many years but that has gone unrecognized. That's it.

 

[atlantabiolab]

So demanding equal rights is equivalent to deconstruction?

This is not an equal rights argument, since licenses are NOT rights. Are you going to tell me that EVERYONE has a right to government licenses or are they allocated only to those that meet certain criteria?? Can a ditch digger obtain a medical license? Can an electrician obtain a florist license? Can a twelve year old obtain a driver's license?

This is deconstruction, for the GBLT community has rejected all ideas to "civil unions, which would carry the same priviledges as marriage. If all you wanted was "equal protection", then why would you reject offers that grant equal protection, merely because it was not wrapped as nicely as you wish?

 

[Razorguns]

Why the FUCK would someone want the right to get married? Marraige is EVIL!

I can't wait ti the first gay coupel divorce, and one person gets 50% of the bread winner's earnings. Ouch is that gonna hurt! Hey, YOU wanted it baby!

Oh my god, i can't even imagine the drama of child custody battles. Does the other partner have the same rights to demand full custody as the biological parent? What about the biological father? Oooh it'll get nasty! Lawyers are gonna love this shit!

Gay people hav ealready gotten married this year. It's too late. It's inevitiable. I do'nt even know why people are fighting against it.

I already know what the gov't is gona do. What it's been doing for years. Just have it sit in courts for YEARS, so the next administration can worry about it. It's already ahppened. The surpreme court in CA stopped the practice, so it can hear arguments against the mayor, and let the lower courts decide on other provisions, hear briefs, blah blah blah blah. It'll be 10 years before it even decides ont he "constuttionality" of it.

It's a legal mess and that's how the gov't uses it to stop gay marraiges. Throw enough appeals and provisions and bounce from curt to court to state to state, so eventually they'll run out of money and give up. Let's face it. All those appeals cost money, and the gov't has more of it.

 

[justyxxxx]

This is not an equal rights argument, since licenses are NOT rights. Are you going to tell me that EVERYONE has a right to government licenses or are they allocated only to those that meet certain criteria?? Can a ditch digger obtain a medical license? Can an electrician obtain a florist license? Can a twelve year old obtain a driver's license?

This is deconstruction, for the GBLT community has rejected all ideas to "civil unions, which would carry the same priviledges as marriage. If all you wanted was "equal protection", then why would you reject offers that grant equal protection, merely because it was not wrapped as nicely as you wish?

This IS a rights issue. The rights and protections given to straight married couples should be equally given to gay couples that have tied the knot. The following are the rights and protections that gay couples are excluded from:

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Sec...Management/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16954

You try to make it out to NOT be a rights issue so that you can justify it within your own mind . . .

 

[casualbb]

You said this,

The deconstruction of American thought has been occuring for decades now, and to deny it is to deny those who vocally advocate deconstruction. "Feminist" theory, "Gay" theory, "Gender" theory, "Racial" theory, etc. all derive much of their philosophy from Derrida's deconstructionism.

Then I said this,

So demanding equal rights is equivalent to deconstruction?

All of those "theories" you mentioned are essentially movements in which said group demanded equal rights. If that's deconstruction, how is deconstruction bad?

Also, you claim that in allowing gay marriage, we're changing the definition of marriage. Well as a result of the women's suffrage movement, the definition of the franchise was changed. Would you like to roll back women's suffrage because it's forbidden to change a definition?

 

[Razorguns]

I don't know why they keep claiming most of america is against it. Almost everyone i talk to is more like "i don't give a shit, go ahead". Just grant them the right, and let them suffer like the rest of us. Like I care two ugly dykes wanna get married. They're gonna *eventually* get that right anyways -- no matter how long the gov't tries to stall it with legal wrangling in courts.