RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Ben_B's comments:
on The Meaning of Marriage
jkpotter,
You said "I see no inherent downside to allowing gay people the same legal rights as everybody else. "
Indeed, and I agree. But this touches an issue that is seen in many attemtpts to change the definition of marriage. In many cases, especially California, a civil union concept that allows homosexuals (and others) equivalent legal rights to marriage is rejected as inadequate, because "it is not marriage." This is what I object to, the demand to redefine marriage to include practices that are in essential opposition to what marriage is. Polyamorists want their changes made, homosexuals want their changes made. Both are demanding that the Western definition of marriage be redefined to suit their lifestyle tastes. This is often followed, especially by the homosexual lobby and their sympathizers, with snarky denigrations of how lousy heterosexual marriage is, "so why keep the concept intact?"
I object to the rejection of legal rights equivalents of marriage and insistence on a redefinition of marriage (which must include the term "marriage") to suit the tastes of various sexual behavior variants. I believe that in such cases what they are seeking is a validation of themselves and their sexual behavior by assailing and redefining the useful and needed cultural/legal institution of marriage.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
But marriage is NOT open to all. 1st degree relatives can't marry, if marriage not about an absurd obsession with procreation, why can't 1st degree relatives marry? Multiple partners can't marry, why not? Both of these things have been true in historical times, why not now?
But I see you are interested in striking "one man, one woman" from the definition of marriage. That means any consenting adults may marry, in any number. I assume you will retain "no 1st degree relatives", but correct me if that is not your intent.
Well, what you propose is not marriage. That is some new-aged, .alt form of civil union. Have at it, by all means. I certainly believe in liberty. There is no need to redefine marriage to suit this free-flowing union of adults, so call it a "unity-fest" or some similar analogue. What's the problem with that? Why must you redefine marriage into something that it is not?
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
jkpotter,
For the very reason you just posted. If there are no limitations, it can't exist as a legal entity. If some agreement or entity has no boundaries, how can it be legally distinguished from anything else?
Take the definition of "person" within the law. All human people can be a person, there is no limit so long as they are human. But definitions of "minor" or "adult" will exclude many persons, based on their very definition.
Marriage is a specific thing, with boundaries. The boundaries are some version of: one man, one woman, both of legal age of consent, not 1st degree blood relatives. You advocate redefining "marriage" or perhaps doing away with the term. If you redefine it, you will establish boundaries.
Exclusions are an unavoidable outcome of defining boundaries. You may choose to figuratively sing "koom bi ya" about it, but a redefinition will require retaining boundaries that will exclude some who seek the label "marriage" for themselves.
Who will be excluded in your redefinition of marriage?
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
jkpotter,
The legal institution will need a definition of "marriage". Marriage can't be all things to all people "all who wish to marry", or it won't need a legal institution.
What would the definition be? You will have to impose limits if you are defining something to be codified in law. You will have to exclude some who want the label "marriage" for themselves.
Who will be excluded?
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
jkpotter,
So you would limit the redefinition of marriage to 2 people, and maintain it as only for a couple? Surely there must be other groups of individuals who have their own personal meaning of what marriage constitutes and that does not fit within the current definition, such that they would continue to be denied/discriminated against in such a narrow redefinition? Why limit what marriage could be?
Rather than diluting "marriage" down to a meaningless state, why not let such groups declare their own version, that does not require a redefinition? It would seem that those who assail heterosexual marriage as failure should be proud to blaze a new trail full of success, rather than retreading a tired old bourgeois cliche, such as marriage.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
Exactly. A fruitcake or German chocolate cake is not in fact a cheesecake, so why are you trying to make these other cakes be called cheesecake?
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
jkpotter, I suppose my "meaning" is your "baggage". Your propose removing the meaning in "marriage" and a state-sponsored elimination of the term as currently used by those who are conventionally married in order to shake loose the baggage. This would be an engineering of a "not-marriage", so that if self-defined minority groups can't have marriage, no one else can either.
I disagree. I'd rather see marriage remain as it is, and let the minority groups create their version.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
Marriage is primarily a culture-wide institutionalized effort to fuse reproducing couples, exactly as Maggie Gallagher says. The basic reason is to keep the man around for the children. Marriage takes on other shades over time in different cultures. Homosexual groups are trying to redefine the current Western meaning of marriage to be inclusive of homosexuals. Generally it is apparent that homosexuals want a "couple" to remain an important part of the meaning of marriage. At the same time, polyamorists want to redefine the current Western meaning of marriage to be inclusive of multiple sexual partners, generally of heterosexual partners because there are many more heterosexuals than homosexuals.
I would like to see marriage remain as an institution for heterosexual couples, with the assumption that the overall intent is to fuse the procreating couple. If some heterosexual people want to be married and have no intention or biological ability to have children, so be it. If heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, polyamorists or other sexual behavior variants want to create a legal institution of bonding with tax benefits and kinships claims, I support that.
I do resent the attempts at redefinition of the term "marriage" to be inclusive of their sexual behavior and lifestyle choices, and also resent their attempts to denigrate marriage in their pursuit of such a change. I support them to create legally defined "gayrriage", "polymarriage", "transexual marriage" or would even consider a "species diverse-bonding" if that is what tickles them. I am certain that there are people out there who would like to marry their dog or horse or whatever if the option was available to them, regardless of the presence or absence of any sexual intent. My intent there is not to equivocate homosexual behavior with bestiality, but to point out that other sexual variants and nonsexual interest groups would also like to redfine marriage to be inclusive of them. But I do not support them in their attempt to redefine marriage to include a variety of fringe behavior (which it in fact statistically is), or to be dissatisfied that their bonding is not "the same as regular marriage" when it is not in fact the same as regular marriage.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on The Meaning of Marriage
This line of thought is seen in many comments here. It first denigrates marriage, in order to say why it desirable to homosexuals. In other words, marriage is crappy so why limit it to its culture-wide meaning. It frequently "fails" as it is, so therefore we should be able to do it also.
If heterosexual marriage somehow had a perfect success rate, would that mean that homosexuals would have no claim to marriage?
How does that make sense?
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
Speak the Progressive message loud and clear, Dino. Let your light shine for all to see and know the Truth, and keep on with the zero tolerance for the insufferably intolerant ignorant white trash scumbags, may they shoot their own children. You are a Beacon, sir.
posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
Would actual documented incidents of self-defense in Vacouver /Clark counties, by concealed or open carriers, change your opinion of the propriety to carry as a nonpolice/non armored car crew member?
posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
What about their past is important to you, and what is "the type who should have a gun?" Celebrities and government designees? Is the regular American citizen qualified to openly carry a firearm, or must the person be wearing a uniform for you to feel safe?
posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
Fear vs. terror, or caution vs neurosis. Mr Beal did not sound terrified or neurotic. He sounded cautious. He might even have fire extinguishers in his home...or his car. Can you imagine that?
posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
Open carry is a growing movement partially in response to gun-prohibition movements, probably due to an a awakening via information through the Internet.
posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Unpacking Heat
The cheap psychodynamic comments of phallic-substitute, inadequacy, power impotence etc, are exactly that...cheap psychodynamic jibes, probably based on ignorance and fear rather than any informed or trained staus.
posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context
