4 ms·

You say marriage was defined as man/woman by pointing to Prop 22 that specifically defined as such in order to prevent same-sex couples from marrying? And that

by BobNNN 11y ago

You say marriage was defined as man/woman by pointing to Prop 22 that specifically defined as such in order to prevent same-sex couples from marrying? And that's you're proof that your position has nothing to do with anti-gay prejudice?

BrendanEich 11y ago
Green account is acting green, but I shall persevere. First, the argument I made refuted the claim that there was no conjugal definition in law. Job done. Your change to a new argument, "anti-gay prejudice", doesn't undo the fact that not only in CA post-Prop-22, but all over the world for millenia, marriage has been defined normatively as conjugal. Second, I know the exceptions, they do not prove the rule. Nor does the rule equal "anti-gay prejudice". The word matrimony comes from the Latin word for mother. Revising history won't erase the normative, biological basis of the conjugal marriage definition. Anti-gay prejudice is a novel claim. 30 years ago many gays resisted or objected to early attempts to redefine marriage, as at least wrong-headed _embourgeoisement_, and often as much worse: an attempt to control and ban sexual expression. See Mark Simpson, e.g. Andrew Sullivan just wrote about this from his point of view. It's a cheap trick to scream "prejudice" and "bigotry" when the argument is over essential differences. Those differences can be argued to be immaterial (the SCOTUS majority opinion did this, mostly by assertion) but they cannot be erased or reduced to "prejudice". At this point I will cite http://discussingmarriage.org/ http://discussingmarriage.org/ again. "Go green" over there if you must.
- BobNNN 11y ago
  There was no conjugal definition in law until anti-SSM people put one there. All over the world for millennia. In 372, the first Christian emperors of Rome banned SSM and tens of thousands of people across the Empire were led to their deaths as a result. That's also pretty "normative" since the rise of Christianity and its domination of govt. Why would anyone ban something that didn't even exist in the imagination, as you would probably claim. You rely on a cheap and stupid recollection of the 60s and 70s to claim that gay people didn't want marriage. If they didn't, then explain Baker v. Nelson, 1970. Explain the marriage certificate issued in CO in 1972. Explain the fight for Domestic Partnership, which began in CA in 1979. Explain the marriages conducted, with no legal effect of course, by MCC since the 60s. Sure, quite a few gay people in the 60s and 70s eschewed patriarchal marriage, in which men owned wives and spousal rape was entirely legal. A lot of heterosexuals did too. I would hope you also oppose certain aspects of the legal tradition of marriage in this country. Even if you don't, I would guess your wife does. And stop pointing me to hackneyed arguments that ignore the humanity of gay people. It is not "civil" to deny equal rights. And, given your apparent dislike of anonymity, why are you directing people to an anonymous website?
  - BrendanEich 11y ago
    I'll be brief: marriage defined conjugally by common and higher law is not for all (pairs of) humans, and never has been. So no one individual is per-se dehumanized by not being able to marry. What's more, as dissenting SCOTUS opinion makes clear, revising marriage without any essentialist basis for defining it means that polygamy should be legal too. Dispute or dodge that, and you are the hater: http://adam4d.com/whos-the-bigot/ http://adam4d.com/whos-the-bigot/ Finally, ad hominem arguments are fallacious on their face, and tiresome. I'm calling out your anonymity to level the playing field between you and me, not among us and http://discussingmarriage.org http://discussingmarriage.org folks, because you keep trying to smear me as "anti-gay" (or now pro spousal rape, or whatever). Argue the facts, not the person.
  - BobNNN 11y ago
    "Finally, ad hominem arguments are fallacious on their face, and tiresome." And where do you see one in my comment? You're just flailing. You spend too much time on the intertubes and think what you're doing is discussing. Later. Well, never actually.
    - BrendanEich 11y ago
      Calling me anti-gay based on a circular argument is an ad-hominem. It makes me the issue. I think that's clear. BTW it's not cool to downvote your counterparty here. Let others do that.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        People can't downvote replies to their posts. There's a minimum karma threshold for downvoting - about 500 or 750. A green account is unlikely to have that much karma.
        BrendanEich 11y ago
        Thanks.
      - 11y ago

by BobNNN 11y ago

BrendanEich 11y ago

Green account is acting green, but I shall persevere. First, the argument I made refuted the claim that there was no conjugal definition in law. Job done. Your change to a new argument, "anti-gay prejudice", doesn't undo the fact that not only in CA post-Prop-22, but all over the world for millenia, marriage has been defined normatively as conjugal. Second, I know the exceptions, they do not prove the rule. Nor does the rule equal "anti-gay prejudice". The word matrimony comes from the Latin word for mother. Revising history won't erase the normative, biological basis of the conjugal marriage definition. Anti-gay prejudice is a novel claim. 30 years ago many gays resisted or objected to early attempts to redefine marriage, as at least wrong-headed _embourgeoisement_, and often as much worse: an attempt to control and ban sexual expression. See Mark Simpson, e.g. Andrew Sullivan just wrote about this from his point of view. It's a cheap trick to scream "prejudice" and "bigotry" when the argument is over essential differences. Those differences can be argued to be immaterial (the SCOTUS majority opinion did this, mostly by assertion) but they cannot be erased or reduced to "prejudice". At this point I will cite http://discussingmarriage.org/ http://discussingmarriage.org/ again. "Go green" over there if you must.

BobNNN 11y ago
There was no conjugal definition in law until anti-SSM people put one there. All over the world for millennia. In 372, the first Christian emperors of Rome banned SSM and tens of thousands of people across the Empire were led to their deaths as a result. That's also pretty "normative" since the rise of Christianity and its domination of govt. Why would anyone ban something that didn't even exist in the imagination, as you would probably claim. You rely on a cheap and stupid recollection of the 60s and 70s to claim that gay people didn't want marriage. If they didn't, then explain Baker v. Nelson, 1970. Explain the marriage certificate issued in CO in 1972. Explain the fight for Domestic Partnership, which began in CA in 1979. Explain the marriages conducted, with no legal effect of course, by MCC since the 60s. Sure, quite a few gay people in the 60s and 70s eschewed patriarchal marriage, in which men owned wives and spousal rape was entirely legal. A lot of heterosexuals did too. I would hope you also oppose certain aspects of the legal tradition of marriage in this country. Even if you don't, I would guess your wife does. And stop pointing me to hackneyed arguments that ignore the humanity of gay people. It is not "civil" to deny equal rights. And, given your apparent dislike of anonymity, why are you directing people to an anonymous website?
- BrendanEich 11y ago
  I'll be brief: marriage defined conjugally by common and higher law is not for all (pairs of) humans, and never has been. So no one individual is per-se dehumanized by not being able to marry. What's more, as dissenting SCOTUS opinion makes clear, revising marriage without any essentialist basis for defining it means that polygamy should be legal too. Dispute or dodge that, and you are the hater: http://adam4d.com/whos-the-bigot/ http://adam4d.com/whos-the-bigot/ Finally, ad hominem arguments are fallacious on their face, and tiresome. I'm calling out your anonymity to level the playing field between you and me, not among us and http://discussingmarriage.org http://discussingmarriage.org folks, because you keep trying to smear me as "anti-gay" (or now pro spousal rape, or whatever). Argue the facts, not the person.
- BobNNN 11y ago
  "Finally, ad hominem arguments are fallacious on their face, and tiresome." And where do you see one in my comment? You're just flailing. You spend too much time on the intertubes and think what you're doing is discussing. Later. Well, never actually.
  - BrendanEich 11y ago
    Calling me anti-gay based on a circular argument is an ad-hominem. It makes me the issue. I think that's clear. BTW it's not cool to downvote your counterparty here. Let others do that.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      People can't downvote replies to their posts. There's a minimum karma threshold for downvoting - about 500 or 750. A green account is unlikely to have that much karma.
      - BrendanEich 11y ago
        Thanks.
    - 11y ago