[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271820]Except that this only holds up under a revisionist view of marriage and history.

Interracial marriages have always, throughout human history, been considered marriages. Antimiscegenation has historically been about who is allowed to marry, and not what marriage is. Gay marriage, on the other hand, is both about who is allowed to marry *and* what marriage is.

I personally think that answer suffices. But, for the sake of argument, let us ignore that context. The question your post then raises is at what level discrimination is rational. Instead of interracial marriages, we could "fill-in-the-blank" (as I did previously) with other concepts, such as open, temporary, polygynous, polyandrous, polyamorous, incestuous, or bestial marriages. In my opinion, the only way to answer the question of what it is rational to discriminate against is ask "What purpose does marriage serve to society?" Or more fundamentally, "What is marriage?" Clearly, some of those listed options (like incest) run counter to a society which values certain basic human rights. For others, the answer may depend on what society wants out of marriage.

I would argue that allowing gay marriage fundamentally changes the historical societal purpose of marriage, and the stated purpose given in North Carolina, whereas interracial marriage does not. Furthermore, I would argue that banning interracial marriage in fact runs strictly counter to said purposes. In other words, if you want your parallel of my post to really be a parallel, you need to show how I am misinterpreting the purpose of marriage in North Carolina so that either (1) miscegenation does meet their purpose or (2) miscegenation doesn't meet their purpose, and banning gay marriage in some similar way also doesn't meet that purpose.

Most of this is spelled out more forcefully in the article I linked to earlier: [URL="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155"]What is Marriage?[/URL][/QUOTE]Why does it have to "mean anything to society" as long as it doesn't intentionally create the downfall of society in a real way with real harm among non-related consentual adults further than someone just doesn't like it because their beliefs say it's immoral? I think your limiting the idea of marriage to what one place calls it is insufficient. Marriage may have been at one time solely about raising children or family power solidification and safety, but in much more recent times it has come to be about love and happiness which is a much more happy way for it to operate. The "old way" it led to more instances of people marrying because they felt like they had to or were forced to by their families for some biased reason.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271874]Why do same sex couples get this institution and not best friends? In other words, what is the societal purpose of this institution? Is it simply to legitimize homosexual relations?[/QUOTE]Your use of the term "legitimize" and its apparent connotation makes it sound as if you are one of those people who disregard gay relationships as a matter of course. They don't need "legitimizing". They need equal treatment under the law with all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities" because, otherwise, it's not fair. Complete equality and fairness should be one of the main goals of a democracy.

Zeta-Flux:
There's another of those words describing the relationship: conjugal. The roots of the word mean very much together, and that is the type of relationship we are discussing here.
The language won't even let you describe what goes on between 2 gay men as anything other than the same thing that goes on between a man and a woman.

Let me steal a few words, from this paper "What is marriage" which is designed to get it's primary author a PhD by giving second authorship to a thesis advisor:
"The whole point of antimiscegenation laws in the United States was to prevent the genuine possibility of inter‐
racial marriage from being realized or recognized, in order to maintain the gravely unjust system of white supremacy.9"
Let's re-write that slightly, since the context of the article is why marriage must be only between a man and a woman....
"The whole point of "preservation of marriage" laws in the United States is to prevent the genuine possibility of homosexual marriage from being realized or recognized, in order to maintain the gravely unjust system of anti-gay discrimination."

Gay marriage walks like a duck, talks like a duck, even when ZetaFlux talks about it...it IS a duck...

Here we go, another pearl from "what is marriage", a logical non-sequitur:

More decisively, though, the analogy to antimiscegenation fails because it relies on the false assumption that any distinction is unjust discrimination.
[Christenson: This is a straw man...noone seriously proposes to recognize the types of unions being discussed below, because either they are non-permanent or very likely to be based on a rather large power imbalance that removes choice from one partner, and marriage is about intentional permanence and sustainability of the relationship]
But suppose that the legal incidents of marriage were made available to same‐sex as well as opposite‐sex couples. We would still, by the revisionists’ logic, be discriminating against those seeking open, temporary, polygynous, polyandrous, polyamorous, incestuous, or bestial unions.
[Christenson: open and polyamorous unions already get recognized as regular marriages..who is this bozo kidding?:poop:]

I'd better stop here....before the logic bomb in the paper explodes completely....:deadhorse:

One more, before I start talking to myself....
Our wonderful author thinks that the essence of union is "the generative act", the one that possibly causes reproduction....so if I'm a sperm donor, and someone substitutes that sperm for what comes from her infertile husband, I must be married to that woman...

Fundamentally, given that the "generative act" between a man and a woman might or might not produce a child, might or might not involve actual physical contact, (think of Dear Abby columns about boyfriends getting GFs pregnant without coitus) I don't think it's the generative act itself that makes for a union...it's the sex, pure and simple. You wouldn't call my parents in less of a marriage because they weren't doing the final, generative part of sex...

I think, as in Hitchiker's guide to the galaxy, I need to start a philosopher's strike.....

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;271879]Your use of the term "legitimize" and its apparent connotation makes it sound as if you are one of those people who disregard gay relationships as a matter of course. They don't need "legitimizing". They need equal treatment under the law with all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities" because, otherwise, it's not fair. Complete equality and fairness should be one of the main goals of a democracy.[/QUOTE]You misunderstand my point. Here is some of the context.

Paul granted, for the sake of argument (perhaps in an effort to understand my position better, or to have me flesh it out), my hypothesis that allowing gay marriages would change the societal reasons for the institution of marriage. He then asked whether I would object to a completely separate institution which allowed for same-sex unions to be formalized by law. The point being, I think, that if I really only cared about marriage then I wouldn't be opposed to this separate institution on those grounds.

My question about legitimization was aimed at bringing out the reasoning for the separate institution. Depending on the reasons Paul would give for his proposed institution, then it might be the case that we could/should follow those same reasons to legally legitimize polygamy, or a host of other pairings. And in that case, we are led to a direct confrontation to the position he granted for the sake of argument. (Some of this comes back to your earlier question about why society cares about these things.)

By the way, I'm not trying to ignore you if I don't respond to your posts. It's just that I can't hold four conversations at once without there arising a lot of confusion. As Paul seems to discuss things reasonably and sincerely, I'll stick with that one thread in the tapestry.

Cheers,
Zeta-Flux

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271921]You misunderstand my point. Here is some of the context.[/QUOTE]
The context is clear, Zeta-Flux, and I don't think anyone is misunderstanding you. Jwb52z' suggestion, that what you write indicates a dismissal of the relevance and importance of same sex lifetime pair bonding, still stands. This lack of respect on your part for these relationships shows itself both in phrases like "best friends" which you keep using, and also in your entire argument that only opposite sex marriages serve the purpose of marriage which society requires.

[QUOTE]As Paul seems to discuss things reasonably and sincerely, I'll stick with that one thread in the tapestry.[/QUOTE]Understandable. You can't fight on all fronts at once. But I think everyone here is being reasonable and sincere.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271921]As Paul seems to discuss things reasonably and sincerely, [/QUOTE]I've been visiting family all weekend and arrived back home only 20 minutes ago. I'm too tired to post anything substantive now but will return to the subject tomorrow, all being well.

Paul

[QUOTE=Brian-E;271943]The context is clear, Zeta-Flux, and I don't think anyone is misunderstanding you. Jwb52z' suggestion, that what you write indicates a dismissal of the relevance and importance of same sex lifetime pair bonding, still stands. This lack of respect on your part for these relationships shows itself both in phrases like "best friends" which you keep using, and also in your entire argument that only opposite sex marriages serve the purpose of marriage which society requires.[/quote]That's the danger of message boards I guess. People will misunderstand you and then disbelieve you when you clarify.

But frankly, I continue to think your comments can be turned right back on your own head. If I seem dismissive it might be because I think you are dismissive of lifestyle choices (like polygamy) that you disagree with, and the lack of respect on your part shows itself when you claim your type of relationship is legitimate while the polygamist's is not.

So, what you see as lack of respect I see as a call for you to clarify the differences. [b]WHY[/b] in your view is a "lifetime same sex pair bonding" any better than polygamy, or a lifetime friendship involving the mutual caring of two people, or a multi-person lifetime friendship, or such an arrangement that may be temporary? In my opinion you have yet to articulate why we should privilege "lifetime same sex pair bonding" above any of these alternatives.

Note: I have explained this before. I use phrases like "best friends" because I am unconvinced that you have a rational basis for privileging your preferred relationship over and above best friendship. I use it as a foil to your position. You have claimed that gay marriage should enjoy legal protections above other alternate forms of marriage such as polygamy only because it has the support of the populace, whereas polygamy does not. So I will continue to point out these types of discrepencies for people who, unlike you, think that this is a civil rights issue that is independent of popular support. If your relationship *deserves* the respect of law, so do two people who have no desires for sexual relations but want to care for each other and co-own their house, or three such people, or three such people who do want sexual relations, etc....

[quote]Understandable. You can't fight on all fronts at once. But I think everyone here is being reasonable and sincere.[/QUOTE]First, I didn't accuse anyone of not having those qualities--I only said that for certain Paul has them. Nor did I even mean to imply such a thing. I apologize to Jwb52z if he thought that. I think his posts are reasonable and sincere.

Perhaps I wasn't *REASONABLE*...but having read about half of the paper on "What is marriage", I've already found basic logic problems and fallacious application of the data. RD Silverman's english teachers would never have let him or me put such an invitation to ridicule in print, let alone given it a decent grade. I cannot believe a reasonably critical reviewer would not have found and flagged those problems before publication.

The conclusion that the paper, its authors, and its publisher aren't truly interested in putting forth or finding the truth (especially coming from a university with the slogan "veritas") is inescapable.

If marriage is supposed to be about doing the best possible for children, then this headline indicates just some of the real harm that rejection of gays is doing to our children:
[url]http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/07/a-quarter-of-gay-teens-are-homeless/242387/[/url]

Likewise, our wonderful author thinks that forcing the Catholic adoption agency not to place children in Massachusetts, the same wonderful state where the priestly child abuse scandal broke, is an abridgement of freedom of religion, as is a school banning words that will obviously threaten its gay (and simply wondering) students.

With such logic, I can prove anything I might like, including that all people with a "Z" in their "handle" should be banned immediately. It's in the studies that these type of people harm children, after all....

But I had better be very, very careful crossing the street when I do such logic, because I might actually think I was god...but reality doesn't care, and if there is a god, then there's a hot place awaiting me when I get run over.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;271991]So, what you see as lack of respect I see as a call for you to clarify the differences. [B]WHY[/B] in your view is a "lifetime same sex pair bonding" any better than polygamy, or a lifetime friendship involving the mutual caring of two people, or a multi-person lifetime friendship, or such an arrangement that may be temporary? In my opinion you have yet to articulate why we should privilege "lifetime same sex pair bonding" above any of these alternatives.[/QUOTE]
I have consistently avoided comparing polygamy or other multi-person setups with lifetime same sex pair bonding, much less said that one is any better than the other. I have suggested that polygamy, where it is legal, may be based on a desire by one individual to control multiple others, and I stated that in the context of it being completely different from marriage as we know it. Most recently I have expressly stated that I reserve judgment on whether polygamy is good for the few areas in the world where it is officially sanctioned, being an outsider with no knowledge of those societies. As far as the Western world is concerned, I have pointed out on several occasions that there is no evidence, as far as I can see, for any natural human need to bond for a lifetime with more than one other person, and for that reason I see no reason to implement it in law. Same sex couples, on the other hand, have been forming and thriving everywhere despite their lack of legal recognition. That is the difference.