Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktIIRC, this song first became popular when the great, then young, west coast jazz trumpeter, Chet Baker, sang it.
A couple of years later, it was made popular again when Ella sang it on the Rodgers and Hart Songbook.
Still later in the 50s, Frank Sinatra sang it. But for reasons that are part of a funny story I will tell here someday, I do not play Sinatra.
Sting butchered it in a live concert.
Chet Baker and Gerry Mulligan, along with Brubeck and Desmond, defined west coast “cool” jazz. When we were in high school, we really loved that stuff. Baker did not often sing, but until he died in the 80s, whenever he played he would be asked to sing this. Like any jazz guy, he never sang it the same way twice. This first rendition was my favorite, and the one that put the song on the map as a “standard”.
And Ella was Ella. I met her once. I was 14. She was gracious, as if it mattered to her that I knew who she was. She was with the blind singer, Al Hibbler, at the time, and although I did not recognize him, when she introduced us, I knew who he was – he had made a hit of “Unchained Melody”. I fumbled in embarrassment, but Ella made it AOK.
Happy Valentine’s Day, all.
Filed under: music |
All Things in Moderation 
“My Funny Valentine” – first dance at my wedding.
LikeLike
Thanks, Mark. I love Ella.
LikeLike
“But for reasons that are part of a funny story I will tell here someday, I do not play Sinatra.”
Weekend top post perhaps?
LikeLike
All, the “personhood” legislation (life legally begins at conception) in OK legislature passed out of committee today on a 5-2 vote. Apparently it is wildly broad. There is a humorous story about a proposed (tabled) amendment making it illegal for male sperm to be deposited anywhere but a woman’s vagina (a protest to the bill). I guess sometimes you just gotta go with it.
Thanks for the tunes, mark. I have to admit that I’m not that familiar with Chet Baker but love Ella. (Does your Sinatra story have anything to do with a trip to LV with a buddy? If so, I don’t recall the story clearly.)
LikeLike
For any still commenting at or reading PL comments, see denunzio at 4:03pm cst on today’s “birth control as wedge ctd” post. Supposedly new commenting rules just for PL. But they’ve already come up with their “reason” for not ponying up the ignore button. The reason is a new gadget nobody has asked for or particularly wants. lol.
I don’t like to carry PL over here, but qb made an interesting comment that he does not believe in majority rule. QB, I would love some elucidation on that outside of the venomous PL environment. Or a I misstating it?
LikeLike
okie,
I am traveling, and when I got to my hotel and settled in last night, I ended up slumming at PL. Too tired to do anything more serious.
Re majority rule, I believe I said that in response to a comment by some newcomer who said, “So you believe in majority rule until you lose,” in response to my comment that Obama’s contraception rule violates the First Amendment. I suppose “believe” could mean several different things, including “think it is the best form of government” and “think it is our constitutional rule.” I certainly don’t think “majority rule” is best, and it certainly does not characterize our constitutional system. I prefer our constitutional system, which has certain elements of indirect democracy, separated and limited powers, and federalism, among its other elements. I don’t even think pure and unmitigated democracy would be any better than a monarchy. Yep, that’s the truth.
Addendum: My interlocutor’s question was annoying to me because it so clearly ignored or missed the point. Since I had said that Obama’s rule violated the First Amendment, it was clear that I did not accept “majority rule” on this point, and more importantly that the Constitution does not permit majority rule.
LikeLike
Brent, 1st dance at my wedding, too.
LikeLike
“Weekend top post perhaps?”
Perhaps.
I read Qb as understanding the electoral college the way the Constitution does:
The states elect the President, not the people.
It’s just a different theory of electing a Chief Executive of a union of states from the direct election by the people that Chris Fox favors. In this respect, we are not democratic. So what?
Brent and tao, I am surprised that MFV was a common wedding dance.
Of course, Rosanne and I had “Wouldn’t it be Nice” by the Beach Boys played over the PA in the synagogue as the introductory theme for our wedding. So who am I to pass judgment?
LikeLike
I second the weekend top post idea.
Ours was “We’re In This Love Together” by Al Jarreau. . . still one of my favorite songs, regardless. Of course, I basically love everything Al’s done.
Mark, this one’s for you and Roseanne:
Wouldn’t It Be Nice
LikeLike
Thanx, ‘goose!
LikeLike
Thought you’d enjoy that! 🙂
LikeLike
I’ve found another favorite (mostly) non-political blog based on the blogger’s sense of humor and writing style. She did a post today on Washington State’s signing same-sex marriage equality into law:
The mystery I suppose is marriage itself, that journey that puts you on roads you never dreamed you’d travel. I now ride shotgun, or to be more precise, he often does because I have a problem with chicken [braking]. On our journey we’ve driven through a rough pregnancy and all the subsequent twists and turns and lovely country of raising our beautiful daughter. My husband travels with a high maintenance partner that he takes too often to emergent care for migraine rescues, where he sits quietly in dark rooms until the medicine kicks in and my vomiting stops. He travels with someone who’s had to stop the journey for surgery several times, including neurosurgery. On this journey we’ve remodeled houses and our original expectations of marriage. We’ve battled, unpacked our past baggage, and then figured out what baggage to continue to carry and what to leave behind. We’ve laughed and laughed and laughed. We’ve buried our family members and held each other in that grief. We’ve carefully red-penned road maps, and now we’re heading to a new direction together next year, a new life neither of us would have dreamed even five years ago would ever be possible. Regardless of what opportunities or travails await us around the next turn, I plan on remaining strapped in next to this best of all friends and men, because I love him madly. Yeah, I’ll sure miss him now that gay marriage is around. I’m damn sure all of our hard-earned bond will suddenly veer off this matrimonial road.
The blog is here.
LikeLike
Michi, I can appreciate writing style of the blog you linked (although she needs a copy editor). You can anticipate the punch line coming.
2.5 observations about the piece, though.
While cast as sarcasm, to my side of the debate it presents the biggest of straw men and reflects an unwillingness to take the issue seriously. Relatedly, this “gays marrying won’t undo my marriage” argument is an example of simplistic thinking. Conservatives are often accused of being simple and “unable to handle nuance and complexity.” The “my marriage won’t end” argument is an example of that shoe fitting the other foot.
And also relatedly, this style of argument inadvertently illustrates one of the deepest flaws in the arguments for legalizing ssm, particularly of those arguments made in courts. Your author is appealing to feelings, sentiments, poetry. Intangibles. She is appealing to experiences and to the near ineffable roots and benefits of the institution. She is not making a logical or rationalistic argument. But the rationalistic argument–the logical proof–that marriage should not be redefined is what opponents of SSM are being required to produce. If you demand a rationalistic proof of what can’t be reduced to rationalism, you have rigged the game. That is what the arguments of SSM proponents do imo.
LikeLike
Oh, BTW, when you check in: Hi, FB!
Hope you’re having a fabulous time in Scotland. Would you like to go see my family castle? It’s (if I remember right) about three or four hours north of you; just let me know and I’ll send you a link to the castle.
LikeLike
[…] we got onto a first dance wedding song kick (a bit) on Mark’s Funny Valentine post last night, I’ve been listening to Al Jarreau , so here’s another one of my […]
LikeLike
okie/qb:
Warning….quick drive-by.
The preferability of a government is determined not by it’s type (democracy, monarchy, dictatorship) but rather by what it does. A democracy is just as capable of abusing individual rights as a dictatorship. The trick is devising a government in which such abuses are difficult to achieve and less likely in the first place.
LikeLike
Scott,
I agree. There is an argument going back at least to Aristotle that republican government is best because participation in self-government is good, and I agree with this, but as among different forms of government the “what it does” is more important to me. I would rather live under a righteous king than under a democratic mob.
LikeLike
Whatever QB, we all know how much you hate deomcracy.
While to some extent I loathe the standard response that we don’t have a democracy, it seems an enitrely appropriate response given the comment made to QB in addition to the point about the Constitution. Those sorts of conversations are often hard to have on most blogs because people can’t see past their own position to recognize where someone like QB is coming from. Fortunately, people here are generally intelligent enough to exit their own little world of beliefs for a second. If QB thinks that Obama’s actions have violated the First Amendment, then he’s been more loyal to our “democracy” than the poster over at PL.
LikeLike
Not as much as I hate puppies and kitties and apple pie.
LikeLike
Not as much as I hate puppies and kitties and apple pie.
And the poor….most of all the poor.
LikeLike
QB – I wrote this to Okie immediately after her comment:
I read Qb as understanding the electoral college the way the Constitution does:
The states elect the President, not the people.
It’s just a different theory of electing a Chief Executive of a union of states from the direct election by the people that Chris Fox favors. In this respect, we are not democratic. So what?
==========================================================
I think the representative republic has served us very well and would not be wanting to screw with the mechanism for no particular reason. However, I think it is the BoR that separates us from “mobocracy”.
I would not protest amending the Constitution for direct election of the President. It would not contravene the BoR. I would probably oppose it if I lived in Wyoming; this issue is not a matter of deeply held principle for me, so I could be swayed on arguments to my own state’s advantage.
No kings, no mobocracy for me. Strong BoR. This, of course, will probably lead to my Gary Johnson vote in November.
LikeLike
qb; you hate AMERICA. Remember?? 🙂
LikeLike
poor puppies are the worst. they really chap my ass.
re: wedding songs. Ain’t That a Kick in the Head
LikeLike
A drive-by from me, sorry, but couldn’t resist the song at our wedding post.
“So Happy Together” by the Turtles, sung by a bluegrass band…..too funny.
LikeLike
“So Happy Together” by the Turtles, sung by a bluegrass band…..too funny.
Ha…I’ve been singing that song to my son for the last week or so. I don’t have a good voice but if there’s anything guaranteed to get him to smile, it’s singing a song to him.
LikeLike
Ashot – one of the great joys of fatherhood is finally having someone who unreservedly appreciates your singing.
Now that I am the grandfather of twins living in my house it all comes back to me – even the lyrics of songs I had long forgotten.
And singing in the car or while pushing the stroller is now required.
I have put two generations of little ones to sleep singing Erie Canal. They like to be close to your chest when you get to the line “…from Albany, to Buffalo-o“. That last “o” is a low note that resonates for them even at one month.
LikeLike
Mark-
It is weird how the lyrics to songs long forgotten come back to you. I’ve been singing my son a lot of the songs I sang at church as a kid. It cracks my wife up how many cheesey Sunday School songs I know.
LikeLike
” She is not making a logical or rationalistic argument. But the rationalistic argument–the logical proof–that marriage should not be redefined is what opponents of SSM are being required to produce. If you demand a rationalistic proof of what can’t be reduced to rationalism, you have rigged the game. That is what the arguments of SSM proponents do imo.”
If I’m following this correctly, the argument is that opponents of SSM should not have to offer a rationalistic argument in defense of traditional marriage. Is that correct?
LikeLike
If I’m following this correctly, the argument is that opponents of SSM should not have to offer a rationalistic argument in defense of traditional marriage. Is that correct?
They do not have to in the first instance, Brian. Starting with the presumption that laws passed by leges are valid, the risk of not persuading the court is first on the proponents of ssm.
That burden could shift, based on evidence presented by the proponents of ssm.
LikeLike
qb, scott and mark, thank you all for your responses this morning. heh. I was guessing qb’s comment was referring to electoral college, so I’m glad for the enhanced opinion. I agree with all of you on a number of points, so should I be getting scared now?
“Your ideal form of government” might be fun to discuss sometime when news is not hopping.
LikeLike
The argument over SSM is the perfect differentiator between conservatism and ideologies that support SSM. Liberalism/progressivism treat traditional mores and social structures as matters of prejudice to be subjected to the “critical” analysis and jettisoned. Conservative thought treats them as entitled to a benefit of the doubt as the wisdom of generations.
No one can “prove” under rationalistic premises that it is a bad idea or against human nature to redefine marriage. It is an unwinnable game. A clever debater can always assert that reasons for distinctions are arbitrary and rooted in prejudice. What I was noting was that arguments like the one quoted don’t proceed on rationalistic premises, either. They don’t prove anything, and can’t. (But they do indulge in straw man arguments.)
LikeLike
“arguments like the one quoted don’t proceed on rationalistic premises, either. They don’t prove anything, and can’t.”
That piece didn’t read, to me, as an argument for marriage equality so much as a criticism of the opposition for making the weak argument of defending the ‘sanctity’ of marriage. The sanctity of marriage is defined solely by the members of the marriage, whether or not their genders are opposite. Some will treat the contract seriously and some will not. The relative genders of the partners are irrelevant.
Point being; just as the quoted argument doesn’t “proceed on rationalistic premises,” neither does the one to which it responds.
LikeLike
Point being; just as the quoted argument doesn’t “proceed on rationalistic premises,” neither does the one to which it responds.
That is just the obverse of the point I made.
That piece didn’t read, to me, as an argument for marriage equality so much as a criticism of the opposition for making the weak argument of defending the ‘sanctity’ of marriage.
To the extent that it makes any actual argument (in rationalistic terms), it of course does no more than attack a straw man. (Gays marrying won’t make me get a divorce.) But her ode to marriage itself, and her implication of its suitability for gays, is just and appeal to intangibles. It’s basically poetry.
The sanctity of marriage is defined solely by the members of the marriage, whether or not their genders are opposite. Some will treat the contract seriously and some will not.
You
mistakeconfuse the social significance and expectations of marriageforwith how faithful a married couple is to them. Even if you look at it as just a “contract,” a contract is still a contract whether or not a party breaches it.The relative genders of the partners are irrelevant.
Irrelevant to what? Whether a married person takes marriage seriously? That is itself irrelevant. If you contend that gender is irrelevant to marriage, then I invite you to prove it.
LikeLike
The sanctity of marriage is defined solely by the members of the marriage, whether or not their genders are opposite. Some will treat the contract seriously and some will not. The relative genders of the partners are irrelevant.
One of the wisest things I’ve read in a long time!
LikeLike
I’m still unclear about what the opponents of SSM oppose. In the eyes of the state, which is the only relevant body when referring to the law, a marriage is a contract between two people. The state has no interest in the relative genders of the parties to that contract.
If the rebuttal is some squishy argument about historic social norms, I fail to see the point. Religious institutions, in my view are of course welcome to define their sacraments as they see fir. Catholics, for instance have fairly strict rules about marriage eligibility (though arrangements can be made, of Scouse).
LikeLike
Brian, were I in the lege I would vote for ssm; let’s get that on the table.
Start with the zero based proposition that the state has no interest in what consenting private adults do. Then add that sometimes heterosexual coupling results in babies. Then add that the state decides it has an interest in the welfare of children. Then add that the state decides that the couple who spawned the children should be in a contract with each other to support the child in one household. Then you get to a law permitting heterosexual couples to get married as an encouragement to stable child rearing. This is a rational basis for heterosexual marriage.
Now add in that stable homosexual couples can adopt, because the state has an interest in getting unwanted children adopted. This is a rational basis for allowing civil unions.
Each example could be a rational basis for state approved marriage or civil unions.
What QB is saying, I think, is that all the arguments based on feelings of the couples are irrelevant in a courtroom. He is also saying that to overturn a law in a courtroom there must be no rational basis for the law, in an instance like this. He is also someone who would not, as a legislator, vote for ssm, I think, b/c of tradition, which means more to conservatives than to liberals; and while I respect tradition, I never thought the state should sanction anything but civil unions for anyone, considering how different “marriage” is in each religious denomination.
In my view, courts give deference to tradition in three ways: 1] by respecting the language of the constitution, 2] by respecting previous court rulings, and 3] by respecting the will of the legislature. Here, the fed constitution does not speak to marriage, the only previous S.Ct. ruling found no federal question involved in gay marriage, and Prop 8 was the will of the people, upheld by the state court.
LikeLike
” I never thought the state should sanction anything but civil unions for anyone, considering how different “marriage” is in each religious denomination.”
That is the rational solution.
But what is the legal rationale for the separate but equal treatment of marriages for some, civil unions for others?
Some friends are expecting in April. They cannot legally marry in MN. If the state has an interest in children being raised in a stable two parent household, how is a ban on SSM not discriminatory?
LikeLike
Since I’ve been hitting and running (I’m on the road), let me try to respond and clarify a couple of things. There are many issues entangled here.
In the eyes of the state, which is the only relevant body when referring to the law, a marriage is a contract between two people.
What is the basis for this assertion? What is the basis for saying it (just) a contract, and why between “two people” and not between a man and a woman. Marriage in fact has never been merely “between two people.”
The state has no interest in the relative genders of the parties to that contract.
Again, what is the basis for this? How do you know the state has no interest? What is the proof?
LikeLike
I would mostly agree with Mark’s first paragraph, although (1) I have have not seen any persuasive argument why, consititutionally, a “rational basis” is needed to justify legal sanction of traditional marriage, and (2) while I agree with the emphasis on childbirth and child rearing, I think it is probably an overly narrow focus.
What QB is saying, I think, is that all the arguments based on feelings of the couples are irrelevant in a courtroom.
I don’t think this is what I’m saying, although perhaps we misunderstand each other. A point I am trying to make is not limited to or perhaps even related to the courtroom and legal arguments. It is that the debate over SSM is an example of a clash between different philosophical approaches to knowledge, culture, tradition, etc. Modern ideologies which I am shorthanding as “liberalsim” seek to subject traditional mores and social structures to what purport to be rigorous epistemological and critical analyses. They reject notions of natural law as well. A range of rhetorical and forensic “moves” are used, typically demanding “proof” that marriage means what its defenders say it means, or that civilization will collapse if it is redefined.
So, for example, bsimon asserts above that marriage is something between “two people.” The implicit reasoning is apparently that, since men and women are more generally “people,” we can simply generalize and say that they are interchangeable. If we observe that men and women are different, we encounter arguments that, e.g., those differences are just generalizations or don’t concern the “essence” of the institution–generally just because proponents of redefinition say so.
In some instances, these arguments purport to be subjecting tradition to methods of analytical philosophy, and, as one of my radical profs used to say, “that stuff just doesn’t work,” meaning, you can’t ultimately prove anything about society or morals this way. Other instances are more like attacks from the other end of the spectrum: deconstructionism. Once you learn the tricks of deconstruction, you can decontruct any moral or social claims you want. You can tear down any institutions or traditions you want as being based on no more than arbitrary prejudice or caprice.
There are contrasting views of human nature involved as well, but I’ll leave off there.
Addendum: The original point about the “feelings” type of argument was not to devalue it at all but that it is the very type of argument that proponents of SSM themselves use, but then they adopt a different mode of argument and inquiry when they attack traditional marriage and claim it is based solely on irrational prejudice.
He is also saying that to overturn a law in a courtroom there must be no rational basis for the law, in an instance like this.
Yes, that is true, insofar as my argument is in the context that this is the law courts like the ones in Perry are applying, although I see no real basis in the Constitution for marriage laws even to have to pass such a test (particularly when the game is rigged, as it clearly was).
He is also someone who would not, as a legislator, vote for ssm,
That is definitely true.
LikeLike
But what is the legal rationale for the separate but equal treatment of marriages for some, civil unions for others?
Men and women are different, and different-sex relationships are differnent from same-sex relationships. Why is that not a perfectly rational position. Is all of human history really irrational on this point?
Some friends are expecting in April. They cannot legally marry in MN. If the state has an interest in children being raised in a stable two parent household, how is a ban on SSM not discriminatory?
You have same-sex friends “expecting”? Clearly, they are not expecting offspring of the two of them. Thus, sanctioning a marriage between them would have nothing to do with channelling the natural results of a physical relationship between them into a stable social institution best for children. In short, their physical relationship will never under any circumstances produce children, so there are no “children” whom the state has an interest in protecting that actually result from the relationship.
That aside, you have assumed a lot in the terms of your question. Why doesn’t the state have a superior interest in children being raised in stable mother-father households? Isn’t it rational to say that having a mother and father is the best environment? Indeed, what does having a second “mother” or a second “father” add in the first place, let alone what that is of equal value to having both mother and father?
LikeLike
“Men and women are different, and different-sex relationships are differnent from same-sex relationships. Why is that not a perfectly rational position. Is all of human history really irrational on this point?”
If you’re hung up on the physical nature of relationships, yes, same sex relationships are different from opposite-sex relationships. I think the courts have already said the state has no interest in consenting adults’ private behaviors. So it would seem your point is mooted. And surely it is not your point that marriage is solely about the physics of sex.
What is the state’s interest in the relative genders of a marriage’s participants?
LikeLike
If you’re hung up on the physical nature of relationships, yes, same sex relationships are different from opposite-sex relationships.
My statement was in response to your question of what the basis is for separate but equal treatment. I don’t see any answer here to why the distinction I made–men and women are different, as are the physical relationships–is not a rational one.
Relationshps between men and women tend to produce children. Same-sex relationships never do and by definition cannot. It is perfectly rational to say that the state has an interest in recognizing marriage between the former and not the latter. Referring to to this as being “hung up” isn’t an argument.
I think the courts have already said the state has no interest in consenting adults’ private behaviors. So it would seem your point is mooted.
No, I think you dramatically overstate or misstate the law. But your argument is both off point and proves too much. Recognizing marriage as it has always been constituted does not regulate anyone’s “private behaviors,” and if your argument were right, then all marriage laws would apparently be unconstitutional, since the state has no interest in marriage.
And surely it is not your point that marriage is solely about the physics of sex.
No, of course it isn’t (this is a typical straw-man argument). But surely you can’t be claiming either that the physics of sex or the results thereof (children in one case, no children in the other) are irrelevant.
What is the state’s interest in the relative genders of a marriage’s participants?
One compelling interest is the one I already identified. Relative genders determine whether children may be produced. Why do you refuse to recognize that reality or the state’s interest in it?
LikeLike
I wrote
“In the eyes of the state, which is the only relevant body when referring to the law, a marriage is a contract between two people.”
qb responded
“What is the basis for this assertion?”
Speaking in terms of the state, which is entirely unrelated to the various religions’ treatment of marriage… A marriage is legal shorthand for a wide array of things that can otherwise be assigned contractually. If my friend Patrick who died in December wanted to leave me his things, he could have, with a properly created will. He did not do that, so his wife gets everything. A gay couple doesn’t get that shortcut; they have to file a will. When Patrick was on a gurney in the ER, his wife was able to make medical decisions on his behalf. A gay couple doesn’t get that shortcut; they have to figure out how to assign medical power of attorney. If my wife passes away, nobody is going to ask me whether I have legal custody of my kids. It was granted to me because I was married to her when she gave birth. For a gay couple, one partner has to adopt the children.
All these legal relationships were granted my wife and I for the trouble of paying about 75 bucks and a half hour of our time to get a marriage license at the county courthouse. A gay couple can mimic most of the rights I’m granted through marriage, but at significant expense and effort. What is the state’s interest in granting that legal shortcut to opposite sex couples, but denying it to same sex couples?
LikeLike
bsimon,
You described some legal consequences of marriage but did not show that marriage “is a contract between two people.” “In the eyes of the state,” that simply is not what marriage is. It has always been a relationship that is legally recognized between a man and a woman. You can assert that it is a “contract” and is between any “two people,” but as a factual matter, you are incorrect. You are, rather, making a claim about how you think marriage should be defined. But that is just your opinion.
If my wife passes away, nobody is going to ask me whether I have legal custody of my kids. It was granted to me because I was married to her when she gave birth. For a gay couple, one partner has to adopt the children.
It was granted to you because you are presumed to be their father. No gay man will ever have a baby; a gay couple would always have to adopt. A lesbian will never become pregnant through her lesbian relationship; she have to use a sperm donor.
What is the state’s interest in granting that legal shortcut to opposite sex couples, but denying it to same sex couples?
There’s the one I’ve identified a number of times now: children. One tends to produce children, because that is the nature of men and women. The other doesn’t.
You never addressed many of my points, including my questions about why the state does not have an interest in favoring traditional marriage because having a mother and father is the best way for children to be raised. Having a second “father” or “mother” would seem to me to contribute nothing other than potentially more financial means, but if that is an interest that is equal to having a father and mother, then adding still more mothers and fathers would be even better.
I think there is no way to argue for SSM that does not come out sounding like nonsense, because it really is a nonsensical concept.
LikeLike
bsimon:
What is the state’s interest in the relative genders of a marriage’s participants?
What is the state’s interest in any of the relative characteristics of a marriage’s participants? Should the state recognize a “marriage” between a brother and sister? How about a “marriage” between a mother and her son?
And if the state has no interest in the gender of participants, what is the state’s interest in the number of participants? If a “marriage” between two gay men should be recognized, why not “marriage” between three gay women?
And if the physics of sex is irrelevant to the state’s interest, isn’t the very existence of sex equally irrelevant? Shouldn’t a “marriage” between two or more people seeking the legal advantages of marriage, but who have never had and will never have any kind of physical relationship also be recognized?
The logic behind legally recognized SSM essentially destroys the very concept of marriage itself.
LikeLike
The logic behind legally recognized SSM essentially destroys the very concept of marriage itself.
This–although I would still search for a different way to phrase it that did not impute logic to the argument.
It is an oxymoron of the profoundest sort.
When someone demands proof that there is some essential difference between men and women that relates to the thing we call “marriage,” we really aren’t on the ground of reason. We are on the ground of looking at reality and denying it, saying we can redefine it however we want. It is as if I said, why does democracy require any popular vote? Democracy a form of government that gives effect to the will of the people, but a king can give effect to the will of the people, so a monarchy can be a democracy.
LikeLike
” Relationshps between men and women tend to produce children. Same-sex relationships never do and by definition cannot. It is perfectly rational to say that the state has an interest in recognizing marriage between the former and not the latter.”
So should marriage be allowed between everyone who can’t have children? A widower and widow can’t marry because they’re beyond child bearing years?
The state doesn’t require children from married people. Many married people choose not to have children. What’s the state’s interest in allowing them a legal shortcut that is denied others?
Scott, I agree; there are some good questions to be asked about what the state’s interest is in regulating the number of marriage participants. Personally I don’t think plural marriages are a good idea. But I don’t think that is a decision that goveshould make. Like helmet laws.
LikeLike
So should marriage be allowed between everyone who can’t have children? A widower and widow can’t marry because they’re beyond child bearing years?
The state doesn’t require children from married people. Many married people choose not to have children. What’s the state’s interest in allowing them a legal shortcut that is denied others?
Ah, yes, the next move: but don’t exceptions mean your explanation is imperfect? This is why I say that it is impossible to prove on rationalistic grounds that marriage should be what it is, and by the same token it is impossible for you to prove it shouldn’t. All you can do is continue pointing to one reason or another why no explanation is complete and self-contained and without a priori premises. But that is the nature of knowledge and reason, not a problem with marriage as it is and has been. Marriage arises from the nature of human beings and deserves legal recognition because of the important social functions it serves. Gay marriage doesn’t. There’s a rational explanation for you.
Childless hetorosexual couples don’t change a thing. Male-female relationships are the kind that tend to produce children and a natural family unit. Exceptions don’t change the types. Homosexual couples can never, ever produce children. Nor can they ever provide the best social environment to raise children even if they are allowed to adopt. A mother and father are the natural and best environment, and no matter how many objections or exceptions you can throw out, that will never change. It is the nature of reality. A same-sex couple by definition can never be equivalent to, and interchangeable with, a same-sex couple in this regard. All you can say is that they are also two people who want to share a legal relationship, but that isn’t all that marriage is.
How can you demonstrate that any of this is irrational?
LikeLike
bsimon:
The point was not simply about numbers. It was about the whole concept of marriage and state sanction of it. As I said, the logic (or perhaps “logic”) behind SSM pretty much destroys the very concept of marriage itself.
LikeLike