Tim Thomas Stands with Chick-Fil-A (i.e. against gay marriage)

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Can you actually explain why it's "too important a thing to let change for any reason at all"?

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with you, but to make such an extraordinary claim, there needs to be some sort of justification for it.

It is too important to ME which is why I have that opinion.

I know others do not see it that way, I guess it's fine with me if they don't think so.

But I don't want those people changing the definition of something that is a defining part of my life. I don't trust them - partly because they don't believe it is important, or they wouldn't be trying to change it.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Can you actually explain why it's "too important a thing to let change for any reason at all"?

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with you, but to make such an extraordinary claim, there needs to be some sort of justification for it.

I also don't understand how it's an extraordinary claim - I would have thought (perhaps hoped?) that it would be more of an ordinary claim. I guess people don't really put that much importance in their own marriage anymore, which is a shame.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

I fail to see how a family relationship is not immutable. You cannot change who you are related to.

What is the personal characteristic upon which the differential treatment is based? It certainly isn't the characteristic of having a sibling. The characteristic would have to be characterized as "wanting to marry your sibling" or something. That is not a personal characteristic analagous to things like race, religion, or gender.

[Barnet Flame]

This thread is so 'out there' it would make a great read for TT.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Knalus

It is too important to ME which is why I have that opinion.

I know others do not see it that way, I guess it's fine with me if they don't think so.

But I don't want those people changing the definition of something that is a defining part of my life. I don't trust them - partly because they don't believe it is important, or they wouldn't be trying to change it.

Even if they are changing the definition to make it better (i.e., more inclusive)? For example, if you were alive when when women were not considered "persons", and being a person (with all of the legal rights attached to that) was important to you, would you be opposed to changing the definition of "person" to include women?

Or does this really boil down to the fact that you think that changing the definition of marriage to include same sex marriages somehow makes marriage worse (because same sex couples are not as good as heterosexual couples?), and you just don't want to say so?

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by Makarov

What is the personal characteristic upon which the differential treatment is based? It certainly isn't the characteristic of having a sibling. The characteristic would have to be characterized as "wanting to marry your sibling" or something. That is not a personal characteristic analagous to things like race, religion, or gender.

'Family orientation'

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

'Family orientation'

There is such thing as an enduring biological and psychological pattern of attraction to one's own family members?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Makarov

There is such thing as an enduring biological and psychological pattern of attraction to one's own family members?

It sure seems to happen regularly, as sickening as it is to contemplate, I'm sure someone can make that argument. I mean, you happen to be making the argument that your family and it's makeup isn't a personal characteristic. Lawyers can make all sorts of arguments.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Now, your a bigot and a homophobe if you disagree with it. These goalposts are moving so bloody fast, no one in their right mind knows where they will end up.

This is why I don't understand why people can't just let people be. Why does it matter whether or not someone wants to marry their same-sex partner, or cousin, or nephew, or sibling or whatever. What effect does it have on YOU? What is the point of standing inbetween anyone and loving who they want to love? Why can't people just move along and worry about themselves?

I just don't get why people see the need to spend their energy fighting against this type of change. The world changes, definitions change. If I called you a f** in Britain you're a cigarette. If I called you gay 100 years ago you're just happy. If you say you're married, you're married, to whomever you may chose.

(FTR I draw the line at humans. Siblings is pushing it because of the offspring they could possibly produce. Not fair to the child.) But really, none of this effects me or the way my life will unfold. Thus, I do not care.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by Makarov

There is such thing as an enduring biological and psychological pattern of attraction to one's own family members?

Hey I didn't define it, I just made it up.

But if two consenting adults want to get married why should they not be allowed to just because they are gay/siblings?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by MattyC

This is why I don't understand why people can't just let people be. Why does it matter whether or not someone wants to marry their same-sex partner, or cousin, or nephew, or sibling or whatever. What effect does it have on YOU? What is the point of standing inbetween anyone and loving who they want to love? Why can't people just move along and worry about themselves?

I just don't get why people see the need to spend their energy fighting against this type of change. The world changes, definitions change. If I called you a f** in Britain you're a cigarette. If I called you gay 100 years ago you're just happy. If you say you're married, you're married, to whomever you may chose.

(FTR I draw the line at humans. Siblings is pushing it because of the offspring they could possibly produce. Not fair to the child.) But really, none of this effects me or the way my life will unfold. Thus, I do not care.

Nope, I don't care who you love. Another guy, a girl, a group of three guys and four girls, a horse, a throwpillow, I honestly don't care.

But wait, now you want to change what it means to be married? I'm married. That does affect me. It's false to state it doesn't affect me.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Knalus

It sure seems to happen regularly, as sickening as it is to contemplate, I'm sure someone can make that argument. I mean, you happen to be making the argument that your family and it's makeup isn't a personal characteristic. Lawyers can make all sorts of arguments.

I didn't make that argument at all. I made the argument that prohibiting people from marrying their siblings is not treating people differently because they have a sibling, it is treating people differently because they want to marry their sibling.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Even if they are changing the definition to make it better (i.e., more inclusive)? For example, if you were alive when when women were not considered "persons", and being a person (with all of the legal rights attached to that) was important to you, would you be opposed to changing the definition of "person" to include women?

Or does this really boil down to the fact that you think that changing the definition of marriage to include same sex marriages somehow makes marriage worse (because same sex couples are not as good as heterosexual couples?), and you just don't want to say so?

To play devils advocate: (My apologies to the poster Devil's Advocate).

It's true that the definition of "person" changed to include women. That is good, and noble, and true. I would argue strongly against anyone who disagrees.


However, nowadays Corporations are also defined as persons. Is this a change to the better? I don't think this is morally right. Does this make me an anti-capitalist now? Perhaps Un-American? Am I somehow closeminded because I cannot accept this new definition as better?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Nope, I don't care who you love. Another guy, a girl, a group of three guys and four girls, a horse, a throwpillow, I honestly don't care.

But wait, now you want to change what it means to be married? I'm married. That does affect me. It's false to state it doesn't affect me.

How exactly does it affect you?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

I just made it up.

Yes, that was my point.

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

But if two consenting adults want to get married why should they not be allowed to just because they are gay/siblings?

I've already addressed both of these (very different, despite your attempt to equate them) questions.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I also don't understand how it's an extraordinary claim - I would have thought (perhaps hoped?) that it would be more of an ordinary claim. I guess people don't really put that much importance in their own marriage anymore, which is a shame.

Oh, please. The definition of marriage isn't what gives it importance; how you behave in and value your own marriage is what gives it importance. If two gays gets married it holds absolutely no bearing on whether you value your own marriage or not. The same rings true for any type of marriage, whether gay, incestuous, whatever. In Canada, an uncle can marry his nephew. Whether you realized that before or not, it doesn't change how you behave or act in your own marriage. Making the claim that the definition is too important a thing to change is an extraordinary claim, and you still haven't justified it, other than to say because you don't want it to change (which in itself is akin to simply answering a questioning child with "because").

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Knalus

However, nowadays Corporations are also defined as persons. Is this a change to the better? I don't think this is morally right. Does this make me an anti-capitalist now? Perhaps Un-American? Am I somehow closeminded because I cannot accept this new definition as better?

Well, this was sort of my point. In that case, you believe that the change in definition was for the worse. Fair enough (although, purely as an aside, the modern world would not exist if not for the invention of the corporation). So the objection is not simply to the idea of change to something that is important to you. Therefore, your objection to the inclusion of same sex marriage in the definition of marriage is not to the fact that marriage changed, it is to the fact that, you believe, it changed for the worse.

That brings us to the real question: why do you think marriage has changed for the worse? How has it been devalued by the inclusion of homosexuals? Is it because you believe that homosexuals are worse than heterosexuals?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Knalus

But wait, now you want to change what it means to be married? I'm married. That does affect me. It's false to state it doesn't affect me.

I'm also married. I love my wife more than anything else in this world. My marriage is extremely important to me.

And yet it doesn't affect me in the slightest if two loving people of the same sex want to get married. How is my (and your) marriage diminished if John can wed Steve and Jane can wed Stephanie?

Please articulate how you are personally affected by legalized gay marriage.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Knalus

...But I don't want those people changing the definition of something that is a defining part of my life. I don't trust them - partly because they don't believe it is important, or they wouldn't be trying to change it.

Originally Posted by Knalus

...I guess people don't really put that much importance in their own marriage anymore, which is a shame.

It is pretty presumptuous of you to think that those in favour of changing the definition of marriage have a lower level of respect or regard for the institution and its importance. I absolutely reject the supposition, as I am enthusiastically committed to my own marriage, and a strong proponent for marriage generally, but am also very much in favour of refining it.

It is interesting, because you and I have crossed paths on this same issue at least once before, in which I offered the following assertion about the beneficial changes in the definition of marriage that are ongoing:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

...I agree with you that definitions are important, but in this statement you have mis-spoken about what marriage "has always been", and seem to think that it is somehow arbitrary. The fact of the matter is that marriage has been culturally shaped since the beginning of time, and this will continue until the end. I believe that marriage is a sacred institution, but my understanding for why this is is most certainly different from what marriage was for many thousands of years in a variety of different cultures.

Marriage in the modern world is an expression of relational affection, and has become a contract to ensure the exceptional status of that relationship. In my mind, this is a much higher ideal than that which we inherited, in which marriage was a contract between families for the purpose of ensuring progeny. You complain about cavalier attitudes that have developed towards the institution of marriage, but I fear that you fail to recognize that this is an unfortunate consequence for how the definition of marriage has in fact changed for the better in time. Ancient divorce rates were low, and marriages were permanent not so because they were so much better, but because their function was much more sustainable, if less noble. By shifting its purpose away from procreation and towards companionship, this has created a considerable amount of instability for the institution itself. Let's be clear here: marriages fail more frequently in the modern world because it is extremely difficult to find, cultivate, and maintain meaningful companionship with just one other person for a lifetime. It is a credit to you and your spouse for surviving modern marriage; the fact that so many others cannot is not a blight on the current state of the institution, but rather a consequence for how lofty an ideal it has become.

So, I will remind you again. I am convinced that the current vintage of marriage is easily the most superior expression of the ideal in human history, and this is demonstrated in part by how difficult it is to actually succeed in marriage. The current divorce rates are in many ways tragic and ultimately disappointing, but they do point to how noble and extraordinary the relational premises of modern marriage have become. In my mind, if homosexuals want the same rights to celebrate the same institution that heterosexual couples strive to perfect, are there really any good reasons for their exclusion?

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Knalus

But I don't want those people changing the definition of something that is a defining part of my life. I don't trust them - partly because they don't believe it is important, or they wouldn't be trying to change it.

If they didn't think it was important I doubt they would be going well out of their way to fight for the right to take part in it, risking public humiliation, beat downs, and discrimination along every step of the way.

What exactly have you ever done for marriage? Have you gone out and fought for the right just to take part in it and share in it?

I think their fight to change the legal definition of marriage shows just how important these people actually believe marriage to be, not the other way around.