Gay Marriage

[Kimmler]

“Objectivism does not support state marriage and family law…”

Now there is an understatement!

Found this from the link I provide below.

“Marriage vows in an objectivist church would probably run along the

lines of "Do you promise to attempt to dominate and subdue this woman

until such time as you grow bored?" "Maybe." "Close enough. And do

you promise to applaud this man`s production until such time as you

find someone with a bigger ... corporation?" "Whatever." "By the

power vested in me by having scammed you guys out of a marriage

license fee, I now pronounce you man and appendage. May you be

unencumbered by small persons." Having almost no idea of Rand's

family life (I do understand that in spite of the "Miss Rand"

references she did get married at some point) I still feel confident

in saying that nobody who has ever actually raised children could ever

talk about "the virtue of selfishness" with a straight face. The

discipline and self-sacrifice (oh, dear!) necessary to spend ten

years, part time, developing a new alloy is rather pallid beside the

investment made by any mother. However, the objection never arises,

since almost nobody seems to have any children. As a grandfather, I

really have to pity Galt and his friends.”

http://victoria.tc.ca/int-grps/books/techrev/bkatshrg.rvw

[Kimmler]

I object to Social Security. Nevertheless, if I receive it at the age of 65, I would object to my 65-year-old neighbor -- who similarly has paid into it all his working life -- arbitrarily being denied it. Similarly, although i believe that in a free society the state would have nothing to do with marriage, which would involve only private contracts and private ceremonies, nevertheless in our society I see no reason why homosexual couples should not he allowed state marriage if such is their choice. Like the rest us, their taxes go to pay for it.

Nor do I see any reason why homosexual couples who wish to be married by the state should -- in my view preposterously -- be accused of "an assault on culture," and of wanting to"destroy Rights." Nor do I see that "gay marriage is nothing more than an anti-concept which is being applied to destroy American Culture." Despite the views of what I call "the Fundamentalist Objectivists." not everything we don't like is A Conspiracy Against The Good, and not everyone who disagrees with us is Evil.

If homosexuals who want to he married by the state are conspiring against the rest of us -- were we who are married heterosexuals not also Evil Conspirators against America when we were married by the State? When blacks protested the laws that made it impossible for them to marry whites, were they Evil Conspirators hurling around deadly anti-concepts?

Yes, there are people in this world-- many people -- who are engaged in destructive conspiracies; there are people who are evil, and there are people who wish to destroy America. But they are not likely to be found in the line-ups of gay and lesbian couples hopefully waiting outside government marriage bureaus, eager to receive the same cultural recognition and sanction for their loving unions that heterosexual couples receive.

Thank you Barbara. I fully agree.

Both of my siblings are gay and in long-term loving relationships. My sister and her partner are both grandparents now and so the little ones have an extra grandma to spoil them rotten. I can't possibly see how the existence of gay marriage would be an attack on the culture. I certainly don't feel threatened by it and I believe same sex couples should have the same legal rights as opposite sex couples.

Kat

Perhaps the OP saw a homosexual once when he was younger and it frightened him.

[rodney203]

Barbara posted:

"Similarly, although i believe that in a free society the state would have nothing to do with marriage, which would involve only private contracts and private ceremonies, nevertheless in our society I see no reason why homosexual couples should not he allowed state marriage if such is their choice. Like the rest us, their taxes go to pay for it."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for chiming in. May I add a few more thoughts?

I appreciate Barbara's desire to treat gays equally under the law. I agree, as all people deserve to be treated equally, as individuals. However, please let us remember that "equal treatment" is not a true operating principle for governmnent. For example, when gays achieve the "right" to marry (which I expect them to), we will all then be "equally" allowed to marry only one person. This will then create another class of persecuted ones who desire group associations. Then too, keep in mind that allowing gays to "equally" partake in the hell of state administered marriage law is not really what we are looking for, are we?

But if they are willing to play this dangerous game to partake in the special treatment given to married people, then they should have the priviledge to. I just think we need to push the ultimate solution as much as we push the interim one.

[Kimmler]

Barbara posted:

"Similarly, although i believe that in a free society the state would have nothing to do with marriage, which would involve only private contracts and private ceremonies, nevertheless in our society I see no reason why homosexual couples should not he allowed state marriage if such is their choice. Like the rest us, their taxes go to pay for it."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for chiming in. May I add a few more thoughts?

I appreciate Barbara's desire to treat gays equally under the law. I agree, as all people deserve to be treated equally, as individuals. However, please let us remember that "equal treatment" is not a true operating principle for governmnent. For example, when gays achieve the "right" to marry (which I expect them to), we will all then be "equally" allowed to marry only one person. This will then create another class of persecuted ones who desire group associations. Then too, keep in mind that allowing gays to "equally" partake in the hell of state administered marriage law is not really what we are looking for, are we?

But if they are willing to play this dangerous game to partake in the special treatment given to married people, then they should have the priviledge to. I just think we need to push the ultimate solution as much as we push the interim one.

Over in the UK gays are allowed to marry...shock, horror eh? Civilization as we know it did not collapse. Allowing gays to marry is a dangerous game? Dude, what are you smoking?

[Selene]

Folks:

I am making the assumption that we are arguing about marriage in the United States.

The definition in Black's is as follows:

"Marriage. Legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash.App. 247, 522 P.2d 1187, 1193*. Marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married, is the legal status, condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, or until divorced, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex. A contract, according to the form prescribed by law, by which a man and woman capable of entering into such contract, mutually engage with each other to live their whole lives (or until divorced) together in state of union which ought to exist between husband and wife, The word also signifies the act, ceremony, or formal proceeding by which persons take each other for husband and wife." *http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/legal/singer-v-hara-05.20.74

Changing that definition legally alters the structure of the "legal family" as currently defined.

That will structurally alter American society.

No longer will MARRIAGE, n. be "The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two." as Ambrose Bierce states in The Devil's Dictionary

Adam

[william.scherk]

I am making the assumption that we are arguing about marriage in the United States.

Please don't. Although we are in minority, there are Canadians on OL. Why not talk about or use Canada as a reference to this discussion?

The definition in Black's is as follows:

[ . . . ]

That will structurally alter American society.

Maybe, but in the same way resurfacing your driveway structurally alters your household.

I quote a bit of Duhaime's page on marriage (in Canada):

-- Marriage is the state-recognized, voluntary and exclusive contract for the lifelong union of two persons.

-- Marriages have to be consummated by sexual intercourse between the couple and are voidable if impotency is discovered. Impotency includes an aversion to sexual intercourse. However, a single act of consummation eliminates this possible ground for voiding a marriage (once consummated, always consummated).

-- Provincial marriage acts provide details on the legal age required for marriage. Generally, marriages of males below the age of 15 are voidable and below the age of 12 for girls.

So, we are able to make a comparison of sorts.

What I am saying is that you or rodney123 or Ted should find ample evidence of the hellish torment that will descend on America should same-sex unions be legalized. Use the Canuckistani example of the effects of 'gay marriage' to reinforce the argument of Dark Days Ahead.

[rodney203]

Adam posted:

"I am making the assumption that we are arguing about marriage in the United States."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These threads get so jumbled,,,,,,,, from only this reply not sure what you're for or against; just saying. :-)

And I'm posting from the assumption that we are all Objectivists trying to think from that perspective :-)

I like to think I try to see things from a universal perspective.

Then Adam posted:

"That will structurally alter American society."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

And your complaint would be?

Then Adam posted:

"No longer will MARRIAGE, n. be "The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two." as Ambrose Bierce states in The Devil's Dictionary"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I think I get it. You do seem to be poking fun at marriage.

[Selene]

(Reuters) - The Obama administration decided on Tuesday to appeal a judge's rulings that prevented the U.S. government from banning same-sex marriages, a move that could undermine support among President Barack Obama's traditional liberal base ahead of a key election.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B63U20101012

Although Obama opposes the law, a Justice Department spokeswoman said that the administration was defending the statute because it was obligated to defend federal laws when challenged in court.

"Marriage is a great institution, but who wants to live in an institution!" - Marx Groucho, the film "Animal Crackers"

"I was married by a judge. I should have asked for a jury." - Groucho Marx

"Politics doesn't make strange bedfellows, marriage does." - Groucho Marx

[Kimmler]

Barbara posted:

"Similarly, although i believe that in a free society the state would have nothing to do with marriage, which would involve only private contracts and private ceremonies, nevertheless in our society I see no reason why homosexual couples should not he allowed state marriage if such is their choice. Like the rest us, their taxes go to pay for it."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for chiming in. May I add a few more thoughts?

I appreciate Barbara's desire to treat gays equally under the law. I agree, as all people deserve to be treated equally, as individuals. However, please let us remember that "equal treatment" is not a true operating principle for governmnent. For example, when gays achieve the "right" to marry (which I expect them to), we will all then be "equally" allowed to marry only one person. This will then create another class of persecuted ones who desire group associations. Then too, keep in mind that allowing gays to "equally" partake in the hell of state administered marriage law is not really what we are looking for, are we?

But if they are willing to play this dangerous game to partake in the special treatment given to married people, then they should have the priviledge to. I just think we need to push the ultimate solution as much as we push the interim one.

Round 'em up, put 'em in a field and bomb the b******s?

Edited October 13, 2010 by Kimmler

[Roger Bissell]

“Objectivism does not support state marriage and family law…”

Now there is an understatement!

Found this from the link I provide below.

“Marriage vows in an objectivist church would probably run along the

lines of "Do you promise to attempt to dominate and subdue this woman

until such time as you grow bored?" "Maybe." "Close enough. And do

you promise to applaud this man`s production until such time as you

find someone with a bigger ... corporation?" "Whatever." "By the

power vested in me by having scammed you guys out of a marriage

license fee, I now pronounce you man and appendage. May you be

unencumbered by small persons." Having almost no idea of Rand's

family life (I do understand that in spite of the "Miss Rand"

references she did get married at some point) I still feel confident

in saying that nobody who has ever actually raised children could ever

talk about "the virtue of selfishness" with a straight face. The

discipline and self-sacrifice (oh, dear!) necessary to spend ten

years, part time, developing a new alloy is rather pallid beside the

investment made by any mother. However, the objection never arises,

since almost nobody seems to have any children. As a grandfather, I

really have to pity Galt and his friends.”

http://victoria.tc.ca/int-grps/books/techrev/bkatshrg.rvw

This "Robert M. Slade" you have quoted from his review of AS is really amusing, but nearly clueless about Objectivism and the movement. This quote is a perfect example. Just a few brief comments:

1. He obviously does not understand the Objectivist usage of "self-sacrifice," which is the giving up of a ~greater~ value for a ~lesser~ value (not just generally giving up something one wants in order to accomplish something else one wants, nor giving up something pleasant in favor of something else that involves unpleasantness or discipline or difficulty). If a parent values watching the Super Bowl less than one values one's child's health and survival (as he or she should), there will be no hesitation (well, not much, anyway) in bolting out the door to rush the child to Emergency, if needed -- and this act of supporting one's greater value should not be regarded as "self-sacrifice." (Of course, if a parent valued the Super Bowl over the child's health, it would not be an example of healthy egoism or laudable Objectivist Living, but instead a case of psychopathology and criminal child neglect!)

2. He obviously does not understand the normal, human, ~selfish~ pleasure parents take in the very ~being~ of their children, let alone their growth, development, learning, flourishing, etc. Genuinely self-LESS parents are ~not~ good parents. They give children exactly the wrong message about what it means to be a parent or a human being in general. Worst of all are the ~grudgingly~ "selfless", "self-sacrificing" parents (most often mothers), who resent the efforts they have to make for their children, and who convey all too clearly to their children that they are a burden, rather than a treasure. Many children have to struggle against this model in order to see their way clear to wanting to be parents.

3. He obviously does not give Objectivists much credit for knowing what their own limits are, just how much of their possible actions they can manage to be responsible for, without sinking into a life of misery and regret. Some Objectivists realize that they cannot realistically handle both a career and responsibility for rearing children, and they wisely and morally refrain from having a family. Others are perfectly fine with that sort of life.

4. "...almost nobody seems to have any children. As a grandfather, I really have to pity Galt and his friends." Wow, what a traitor to his Objectivist views Leonard Peikoff must be -- the guilt he must carry around! Why, even yours truly (scratch that: ~mine~ truly) has had not only seven children, but five grandchildren! (Of course, I'm not really an Objectivist, but instead an "enemy of Objectivism," as Comrade Sonia and her minions will readily affirm.)

REB

P.S. -- IMO, Mr. Slade suffers from the same rationalistic, arm-chair disease that all too many of Rand's critics (and supporters) suffer from--the idea that you can deduce specific rules for living from the behavior of her fictional characters. Ethical principles are very broad, general guidelines, not the kind of RDA you read off the side panel of a cereal box, which is a peculiar kind of concrete-bound rationalism as applied to ethics.

[Selene]

“Objectivism does not support state marriage and family law…”

Now there is an understatement!

Found this from the link I provide below.

“Marriage vows in an objectivist church would probably run along the

lines of "Do you promise to attempt to dominate and subdue this woman

until such time as you grow bored?" "Maybe." "Close enough. And do

you promise to applaud this man`s production until such time as you

find someone with a bigger ... corporation?" "Whatever." "By the

power vested in me by having scammed you guys out of a marriage

license fee, I now pronounce you man and appendage. May you be

unencumbered by small persons." Having almost no idea of Rand's

family life (I do understand that in spite of the "Miss Rand"

references she did get married at some point) I still feel confident

in saying that nobody who has ever actually raised children could ever

talk about "the virtue of selfishness" with a straight face. The

discipline and self-sacrifice (oh, dear!) necessary to spend ten

years, part time, developing a new alloy is rather pallid beside the

investment made by any mother. However, the objection never arises,

since almost nobody seems to have any children. As a grandfather, I

really have to pity Galt and his friends.”

http://victoria.tc.c...ev/bkatshrg.rvw

2. He obviously does not understand the normal, human, ~selfish~ pleasure parents take in the very ~being~ of their children, let alone their growth, development, learning, flourishing, etc. Genuinely self-LESS parents are ~not~ good parents. They give children exactly the wrong message about what it means to be a parent or a human being in general. Worst of all are the ~grudgingly~ "selfless", "self-sacrificing" parents (most often mothers), who resent the efforts they have to make for their children, and who convey all too clearly to their children that they are a burden, rather than a treasure. Many children have to struggle against this model in order to see their way clear to wanting to be parents.

REB

Reb:

Excellently stated.

I imagine that Ayn had a great deal of difficulty projecting what you so ably stated above.

I always took her illustration of the mother bird who broke the wings of her fledgelings and then kicked them off the branch to survive in the world as the closest she got to understanding parenting.

I just used that illustration today to a caseworker in R.I. on a matter I am working on.

Thanks. I always enjoy your observations, almost as much as your music.

Adam

Post Script:

You should look up Mr. Bumbalough - his family comes from Tennesseee

[equality72521]

Both Martin and Barbra miss the point which is being made. You are examining only the surface of the subject. What makes "Gay Marriage" an "Anti-concept" is its deliberate attempt to distort and deteriorate the language and concept of Marriage. Why insist on it being called "gay marriage" when "Civil Union" grants the exact same legally.

I am for degrees of contractual relationships. For example Civil Unions as a simple common bonding of material assets.

Marriage however is a specific concept which implies the HAVING and raising of children, even as diluted as the language has become that is still the common thread in all regions of the world which makes Marriage something more than a casual relationship or a one night stand.

Especially as Objectivists Civil Unions are preferable regardless of if the union is hetero or homosexual.

Edited October 16, 2010 by equality72521

[anthony]

Both Martin and Barbra miss the point which is being made. You are examining only the surface of the subject. What makes "Gay Marriage" an "Anti-concept" is its deliberate attempt to distort and deteriorate the language and concept of Marriage. Why insist on it being called "gay marriage" when "Civil Union" grants the exact same legally.

I am for degrees of contractual relationships. For example Civil Unions as a simple common bonding of material assets.

Marriage however is a specific concept which implies the HAVING and raising of children, even as diluted as the language has become that is still the common thread in all regions of the world which makes Marriage something more than a casual relationship or a one night stand.

Especially as Objectivists Civil Unions are preferable regardless of if the union is hetero or homosexual.

"Contractual relationships", "civil unions", great - but that's not the issue.

Where you go badly wrong is "Marriage...implies the having and raising of children...which makes Marriage something more than... a one night stand."

Huh? Children make the marriage? Are they the 'natural outcome' and purpose of marriage?

Do you mean children 'sanctify' the marriage?

Wow.

[kiaer.ts]

Both Martin and Barbra miss the point which is being made. You are examining only the surface of the subject. What makes "Gay Marriage" an "Anti-concept" is its deliberate attempt to distort and deteriorate the language and concept of Marriage. Why insist on it being called "gay marriage" when "Civil Union" grants the exact same legally.

I am for degrees of contractual relationships. For example Civil Unions as a simple common bonding of material assets.

Marriage however is a specific concept which implies the HAVING and raising of children, even as diluted as the language has become that is still the common thread in all regions of the world which makes Marriage something more than a casual relationship or a one night stand.

Especially as Objectivists Civil Unions are preferable regardless of if the union is hetero or homosexual.

"Contractual relationships", "civil unions", great - but that's not the issue.

Where you go badly wrong is "Marriage...implies the having and raising of children...which makes Marriage something more than... a one night stand."

Huh? Children make the marriage? Are they the 'natural outcome' and purpose of marriage?

Do you mean children 'sanctify' the marriage?

Wow.

Talk about "wow"!

Children are an innocent third party. If two people want to shack up, it doesn't mean that the state has some third party's interest to protect

Common law marriage comes into effect when two people shacking up produce a third. .

Or for you is it just about sex? Is sex the reason we need judges to "marry" people? Does sex sanctify "marriage."

Wow.

[equality72521]

"Contractual relationships", "civil unions", great - but that's not the issue.

Where you go badly wrong is "Marriage...implies the having and raising of children...which makes Marriage something more than... a one night stand."

Huh? Children make the marriage? Are they the 'natural outcome' and purpose of marriage?

Do you mean children 'sanctify' the marriage?

Wow.

Children do not make a marriage. What makes a marriage is the possibility of children. It is a key point of the purpose of marriage. Marriage is a perminant contractual agreement. It is the pledge to remain together for the rest of ones life(again this is an aspect.). the point which I am making is that the fact that two homosexuals cannot conceive a child naturally or otherwise precludes them from marriage. Further if it is a matter of simple equal legal recognition WHY insist on calling it marriage. There are very few people who are against civil unions, they are viewed by most people I know as valid and almost exactly the same. The fact is that relationships between homosexuals and heterosexuals are not the same there is a fundamental difference. again WHY is it so important to call it a marriage.

My problem with the Anti-Concept "gay marriage" is that it IS an anti-concept. Marriage has always in all of recorded history been the union of a man and woman, it has possessed a specific definition. Definitions do change over time and concepts change as well however when concepts change they narrow not broaden in an attempt to make something more clear. When definitions change radically it perverts the language (see Gay, Queer, etc.)

Further from an objectivist view point Civil Unions are preferable due to the religious connotation. While marriage is not necessarily a religious institution it certainly is most often associated with religion. For this reason Civil Unions which are viewed more secualarly should be the preferred from of union.

[kiaer.ts]

"Contractual relationships", "civil unions", great - but that's not the issue.

Where you go badly wrong is "Marriage...implies the having and raising of children...which makes Marriage something more than... a one night stand."

Huh? Children make the marriage? Are they the 'natural outcome' and purpose of marriage?

Do you mean children 'sanctify' the marriage?

Wow.

Children do not make a marriage. What makes a marriage is the possibility of children. It is a key point of the purpose of marriage. Marriage is a perminant contractual agreement. It is the pledge to remain together for the rest of ones life(again this is an aspect.). the point which I am making is that the fact that two homosexuals cannot conceive a child naturally or otherwise precludes them from marriage. Further if it is a matter of simple equal legal recognition WHY insist on calling it marriage. There are very few people who are against civil unions, they are viewed by most people I know as valid and almost exactly the same. The fact is that relationships between homosexuals and heterosexuals are not the same there is a fundamental difference. again WHY is it so important to call it a marriage.

My problem with the Anti-Concept "gay marriage" is that it IS an anti-concept. Marriage has always in all of recorded history been the union of a man and woman, it has possessed a specific definition. Definitions do change over time and concepts change as well however when concepts change they narrow not broaden in an attempt to make something more clear. When definitions change radically it perverts the language (see Gay, Queer, etc.)

Further from an objectivist view point Civil Unions are preferable due to the religious connotation. While marriage is not necessarily a religious institution it certainly is most often associated with religion. For this reason Civil Unions which are viewed more secualarly should be the preferred from of union.

I disagree slightly, in that possibility is unmeasurable. States can work out offering whatever civil partnership agreements seem helpful, as well as adult adoptions for next of kin which don't cover joint property. There are three separate matters, designation of next of kin, joint property, and common parenthood. The first two have nothing to do with sex and the third has nothing to do with homosexual couples per se. A marriage would basically be a statement of commitment to joint support which would obviate the need for a suit for custody or support in case anything goes wrong. I.e., if a couple get married, then each has equal joint custody and support rights in regard to children they produce, should they separate. That is what is important here. Marriage protects the caregiver spouse and the children in case of separation. When a homosexual couple splits, all that is relevant is property.

[Rich Engle]

"Further from an objectivist view point Civil Unions are preferable due to the religious connotation. While marriage is not necessarily a religious institution it certainly is most often associated with religion. For this reason Civil Unions which are viewed more secualarly should be the preferred from of union."

Really? According to whom?

I did the exact opposite, last June. Rev. Allison Farnum, in a garden, no license, under the eyes of the Universe.

This type of bone-ass, dry rhetoric is about as far away from it as it gets. "The preferred form of union." Get the sheets, start cutting the holes.

Good luck with that.

I so want to say "fuck you" but I will not. How about "says fucking who?"

rde

I changed my mind: Fuck you, and state your premises.

[equality72521]

"Further from an objectivist view point Civil Unions are preferable due to the religious connotation. While marriage is not necessarily a religious institution it certainly is most often associated with religion. For this reason Civil Unions which are viewed more secualarly should be the preferred from of union."

Really? According to whom?

I did the exact opposite, last June. Rev. Allison Farnum, in a garden, no license, under the eyes of the Universe.

This type of bone-ass, dry rhetoric is about as far away from it as it gets. "The preferred form of union." Get the sheets, start cutting the holes.

Good luck with that.

I so want to say "fuck you" but I will not. How about "says fucking who?"

rde

I changed my mind: Fuck you, and state your premises.

When all else fails do not address the topic at hand instead fall back on personalizing the attack.

I do not care how the service is held. A service does not make a marriage or a civil union. The question I would ask you personally is WHY is it so important to call it a marriage? does the world come to an end if you call it something else? why redefine an entire institution for the sake of a minority?

as to the get the sheets start cutting the wholes comment... I love when you disagree with someone on anything their immediate response is to slander you with comments like "Nazi" and "Fascist" and "KKK".

Well Rich you don't know the slightest thing about me, the old saying goes "assuming make an ass out of you and me" well it doesn't it just makes an ass out of you.

people who want school vouchers hate children.

Chris Christi making teachers pay for some of their health care is the greatest assault on education in modern times.

Mathew Shepard was killed because he was gay and NOT because of a drug deal.

People who oppose Obama do not do so because he is a socialist/communist but because he is black and they are all hood wearing KKK members.

Edited October 16, 2010 by equality72521

[anthony]

"Contractual relationships", "civil unions", great - but that's not the issue.

Where you go badly wrong is "Marriage...implies the having and raising of children...which makes Marriage something more than... a one night stand."

Huh? Children make the marriage? Are they the 'natural outcome' and purpose of marriage?

Do you mean children 'sanctify' the marriage?

Wow.

Children do not make a marriage. What makes a marriage is the possibility of children. It is a key point of the purpose of marriage. Marriage is a perminant contractual agreement. It is the pledge to remain together for the rest of ones life(again this is an aspect.). the point which I am making is that the fact that two homosexuals cannot conceive a child naturally or otherwise precludes them from marriage. Further if it is a matter of simple equal legal recognition WHY insist on calling it marriage. There are very few people who are against civil unions, they are viewed by most people I know as valid and almost exactly the same. The fact is that relationships between homosexuals and heterosexuals are not the same there is a fundamental difference. again WHY is it so important to call it a marriage.

My problem with the Anti-Concept "gay marriage" is that it IS an anti-concept. Marriage has always in all of recorded history been the union of a man and woman, it has possessed a specific definition. Definitions do change over time and concepts change as well however when concepts change they narrow not broaden in an attempt to make something more clear. When definitions change radically it perverts the language (see Gay, Queer, etc.)

Further from an objectivist view point Civil Unions are preferable due to the religious connotation. While marriage is not necessarily a religious institution it certainly is most often associated with religion. For this reason Civil Unions which are viewed more secualarly should be the preferred from of union.

Alright, I see where you get the "anti-concept" from now.

(I haven't been following this thread closely.)

But still, I don't see the problem.

First, your re-naming of 'gay marriage', borders, imo, on word-play and semantics.(Where is GS when you need him?) What's in a name - the concept is the thing. Language is always growing, and it is very debatable that it's becoming "perverted."

Second, why can't a concept be broadened? As more knowledge comes our way - eg, with human sexuality - previous concepts can and should subsume more, surely?

The traditional meaning of marriage entailed a man and a woman appearing before priest, rabbi, etc., in a ritual that sanctified their lifelong union in the eyes of God.

So they could have sex, children, and companionship; and to make a holy commitment for each other's sake; and be socially acceptable to others.

Now,today, what if two atheists wish to marry? Or, a hetero couple who definitely don't want children? Or, a homosexual couple who feel they have the right to a church wedding, and might adopt chidren? What about the fair probability of divorce, as one more break with tradition?

Or any combination of the above.

We have evolved a long way from "traditional marriage."

For me now, the core concept of *marriage* is: two adults who choose one another in love. That's all.

Everything else - sex included,btw, Ted - is secondary.

Instead of an anti-concept, this simply becomes an expanded concept. Rights in law should follow suit.

[Selene]

Geez...

now here I thought Rich was taking about Orthodox Jewish sheets and cutting holes for procreative purposes...

who knew that it was a prep for a KKK rally!

Night all...

All is right with the universe because the Yankees came back from a 5-0 deficit and scored one (1) run in the 7th and five (5) runs in the 8th to take the first game of the ALCS [American League Championship Series] at Texas' home field.

Go Yanks!

Adam

[equality72521]

"Contractual relationships", "civil unions", great - but that's not the issue.

Where you go badly wrong is "Marriage...implies the having and raising of children...which makes Marriage something more than... a one night stand."

Huh? Children make the marriage? Are they the 'natural outcome' and purpose of marriage?

Do you mean children 'sanctify' the marriage?

Wow.

Children do not make a marriage. What makes a marriage is the possibility of children. It is a key point of the purpose of marriage. Marriage is a perminant contractual agreement. It is the pledge to remain together for the rest of ones life(again this is an aspect.). the point which I am making is that the fact that two homosexuals cannot conceive a child naturally or otherwise precludes them from marriage. Further if it is a matter of simple equal legal recognition WHY insist on calling it marriage. There are very few people who are against civil unions, they are viewed by most people I know as valid and almost exactly the same. The fact is that relationships between homosexuals and heterosexuals are not the same there is a fundamental difference. again WHY is it so important to call it a marriage.

My problem with the Anti-Concept "gay marriage" is that it IS an anti-concept. Marriage has always in all of recorded history been the union of a man and woman, it has possessed a specific definition. Definitions do change over time and concepts change as well however when concepts change they narrow not broaden in an attempt to make something more clear. When definitions change radically it perverts the language (see Gay, Queer, etc.)

Further from an objectivist view point Civil Unions are preferable due to the religious connotation. While marriage is not necessarily a religious institution it certainly is most often associated with religion. For this reason Civil Unions which are viewed more secualarly should be the preferred from of union.

Alright, I see where you get the "anti-concept" from now.

(I haven't been following this thread closely.)

But still, I don't see the problem.

First, your re-naming of 'gay marriage', borders, imo, on word-play and semantics.(Where is GS when you need him?) What's in a name - the concept is the thing. Language is always growing, and it is very debatable that it's becoming "perverted."

Second, why can't a concept be broadened? As more knowledge comes our way - eg, with human sexuality - previous concepts can and should subsume more, surely?

The traditional meaning of marriage entailed a man and a woman appearing before priest, rabbi, etc., in a ritual that sanctified their lifelong union in the eyes of God.

So they could have sex, children, and companionship; and to make a holy commitment for each other's sake; and be socially acceptable to others.

Now,today, what if two atheists wish to marry? Or, a hetero couple who definitely don't want children? Or, a homosexual couple who feel they have the right to a church wedding, and might adopt chidren? What about the fair probability of divorce, as one more break with tradition?

Or any combination of the above.

We have evolved a long way from "traditional marriage."

For me now, the core concept of *marriage* is: two adults who choose one another in love. That's all.

Everything else - sex included,btw, Ted - is secondary.

Instead of an anti-concept, this simply becomes an expanded concept. Rights in law should follow suit.

You are missing some very important aspects of this (or any) conversation. what is the sound of one hand clapping? The reason we have language is to convey concepts to one another, once you start distorting or radically changing the meaning of words or once you start diluting them you create linguistic anarchy where no ideas are able to be conveyed(the number one problem in todays world is linguistic anarchy). the word-play/semantics is exactly how the progressives/socialist/communists have managed to get away with as much as they have. Take for example the word liberal. modern liberals are anything but. when progressives became unpopular they painted themselves as liberal, then they moved the meaning of the word farther and farther down the spectrum until they ended up on the far right of the spectrum.

Anarchy----------------------------------------------------------------------Statism

a 16th century liberal would recognize a 17th, 18th and even 19th century liberal, a 19th century liberal would not recognize a 20th century liberal. If you want to win a debate 9 times out of 10 the way to win it is not through some overwhelming fact but rather through the use of language, or rather through arguing a single definition. concepts can be broadened but that is much rarer. the real question is why should it be broadened. and why should the many be forced to change their lexicon for the sake of a very few. and why is it so important that we call it marriage? for me what gives the game away is that they want to call it not just marriage but gay marriage, for me that is on par with black rights, Hispanic rights, etc. There is a difference between a language growing and perverting a language. up until a few years ago i refused to read any book written after 1900. can you seriously read something written from 50 years ago and tell me the language is growing? if anything it is shrinking, and it is doing so because of the anti-concepts. subsume several things under one name and you shrink the language. George Orwell call your office.

*note for further reading on language read "words that work".

I believe your definition of marriage is too broad. What I have done my my definition of marriage is to synthesize the meaning of marriage from all cultures which I know about (which is a great deal due to my interest in religion). The vast majority of cultures including cultures which tend to be less theistic either discourage or prohibit divorce. they view marriage as a life long commitment. It also includes the commitment to have children(or to attempt it).

I wish to focus on some things you said though

"for me now, the core concept of *marriage* is: two adults who choose one another in love. That's all."

So the term boyfriend/girlfriend does not adequately describe this? there is no special aspect to marriage. husband/wife=boyfriend/girlfriend?

"Everything else - sex included,btw, Ted - is secondary."

Body mind diachotomy

"Instead of an anti-concept, this simply becomes an expanded concept. Rights in law should follow suit." another old saying, his mind was so open his brain fell out.

but most importantly

"Or, a homosexual couple who feel they have the right to a church wedding,"

So because a homosexual couple FEEL they have a Right to a wedding in a church, Catholics should be forced at the point of a gun to recognize gay marriage and be forced to hold them in their churches?

Marriage is the fullest expression of heterosexual love, it is the commitment not just to live together, not just to love one another and share eachothers property, but most importantly it is the commitment that two people love eachother so much that they desire to HAVE and raise children together. while homosexuals can adopt they cannot HAVE children which is part of the process. it is saying "not only do I love you but I love you so much that I want to carry on my genetic line with you".

homosexual relations and heterosexual relations are apples and oranges they are no the same thus you cannot subsume them under one concept. Fundamentally this is what makes them difference. If every homosexual couple disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow human life would go on. If every heterosexual couple disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow there would be no more humans in 110 years.

[kiaer.ts]

"Further from an objectivist view point Civil Unions are preferable due to the religious connotation. While marriage is not necessarily a religious institution it certainly is most often associated with religion. For this reason Civil Unions which are viewed more secualarly should be the preferred from of union."

Really? According to whom?

I did the exact opposite, last June. Rev. Allison Farnum, in a garden, no license, under the eyes of the Universe.

This type of bone-ass, dry rhetoric is about as far away from it as it gets. "The preferred form of union." Get the sheets, start cutting the holes.

Good luck with that.

I so want to say "fuck you" but I will not. How about "says fucking who?"

rde

I changed my mind: Fuck you, and state your premises.

As I suspected.

[Rich Engle]

"As I suspected."

And exactly what does that mean, Hammer?

My non-civil union marriage ceremony, 6/2010, www.uucfm.org , Reverend Allison Farnum.

[equality72521]

"As I suspected."

And exactly what does that mean, Hammer?

My non-civil union marriage ceremony, 6/2010, www.uucfm.org , Reverend Allison Farnum.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. If an objectivist couple decide to get married that is fine I am not objecting to that what I am saying is that CU's should be more desireable because it more or less removes the state.

[kiaer.ts]

My non-civil union marriage ceremony, 6/2010, www.uucfm.org , Reverend Allison Farnum.

Ah, yes, the redoubtable fuckyounitarian fuckyouniversalists. No doubt your marriage ceremony lacked civility.

Edited October 16, 2010 by Ted Keer