gbaji wrote:
You're making no sense here. You want me to say what I think will happen. But not what I think will happen, but what will actually happen? Could you repeat that again in the form of a valid question?
What I mean is that neither of your responses before was worded as what will actually happen.
Quote:
I'd like to believe that in 100 years we'll become smart enough to realize that "marriage" isn't a piece of paper the government gives you and the people will realize what a silly silly thing it is we're arguing about today.
That is what you want to happen, what you hope will happen, or what you think should happen. That doesn't mean it is what you believe
will happen. "I wish it would rain tomorrow," doesn't mean I think it will rain tomorrow, just that I'd like it to.
Quote:
If we go the way the liberals want, instead of becoming an enlightened group of people who realize the fact I stated in the first sentence of this post, we will almost certainly be debating the minutia of whether or not a marriage consisting of two men, a goat, three women, and 5 children should qualify for the same benefits from the government as one consisting of three men, a pig, two women, and 8 children. And we'll have a zillion lines of legal code defining each and every single one of them in order to ensure that no one misses out on their rights to have the full amount of government benefits to which they are entitled.
That is a hypothetical statement. You're suggesting that if the liberals win these are the consequences, but you aren't asserting that the liberals will or will not win. "If it rains tomorrow then I will bring an umbrella," does not mean I think it
will rain tomorrow, it just says what I will do if it does.
It is not my intention to play a semantics game. But a literal interpretation of what you had said did not answer my question. You had said what you want to happen, you had said what hypothetically might happen, but you had not said what you think will happen. Do you understand my previous confusion and objection then?
gbaji wrote:
I believe that the majority of people believe that right now. The problem isn't really about gay couples or acceptance. The problem is about whether one defines "marriage" in a way which absolutely requires that the government provide you with "marriage benefits". If you believe that the absence of government benefits equals a denial of the right to marry, you will arrive at the false conclusion that gay people are being denied their rights, and further that this derives from a broad misunderstanding about the "okness" of gay couples and marriages.
While there certainly is a small percentage of people who oppose gay marriage period, the majority of those who sway the results in bills like prop8 are those who care about the issue entirely in the context of the government benefits. It really is the deciding factor. The reason the gay marriage "cause" seems to be hitting so many roadblocks isn't because of some kind of social immaturity (as you seem to be suggesting). Because of that, no amount of trying to change social views of gay people or gay couples will adequately address the problem.
Hence, my answer. We will either realize that we're arguing different things and correct for it, or we'll continue to go the way we are. In that case, we will have accepted a "government benefits == social condition" paradigm and we will end out with more legislation and government used to define every social condition and status. My example was tongue in cheek, but meant to illustrate that point.
It's not really about gay rights or gay acceptance. Once you realize this, you'll realize that your question is off the mark. Your question assumes that the issue is a rather childishly simplistic conflict between a bunch of evil homophobic gay haters, and a group of enlightened respect-for-everyone types. While I suppose those labels may make some people feel better about themselves, it's *not* an accurate model of the issue itself. And attempting to "solve" the issue without first accurately defining it is kinda going to be non-productive...
This is fairly close to what I want. I don't want to frustrate you too much, but I am going to have to ask for some clarification.
Are you saying that the small percentage of people who you believe understand the difference between marriage and marriage benefits will fail to convince the majority or will they succeed (in the context of creating legislation)? It seems like you think they will fail, which will lead to some further legislative gains by the majority who believe marriage and marriage benefits must be tied, and that this will lead to other issues.
Will then the issue of gay marriage be settled the way liberals want it (nationally, with full straight marriage benefits), and will this be permanent? Or do you think at some point this minority might convince or correct the alleged misunderstandings of the majority?
Edited, Mar 9th 2010 10:13pm by Allegory 
