Hey hey!
So I was researching Prob 8 today and decided for the purpose of our blog that I needed to delve a little deeper to the underlying issue that were actually fighting for which is equality. I came across a blog that made mention of a court case from 1996 in which a convicted murderer (the father of the child) sought custody of his eight year old daughter and won on the grounds that the mother was deemed unfit due to her sexual orientation.
I think it is of little importance to refute the article, but more important to refute the ruling itself; and even the intent of the judge is in question. Was he really looking out for the best interest of the child or his own interests? By removing a perfectly happy and healthy child from a loving household, and placing said child into the hands of a murderer; where on earth could his priorities lie? In fact the judge didn’t even make mention of Ward’s conviction in the ruling. This is not a feasible confound to overlook in such a serious matter as a child’s well-being. The most disturbing part of the matter is that her father wasn’t even seeking custody because he wanted to be with his child, but rather on the grounds that he did not want her living with lesbians, only to further support the idea that this custody was not in the best interest of the child Ward makes no mention of her at all but instead addresses his stance by stating, "I'm not gay, and I'm opposed to being gay."
It goes on to say that after winning the custody battle that at age 14 Cassie’s father raped her, and even with previous accusations of molestation from his first child the judge still ruled in his favor.
This just goes to show that the oppression of same sex relations is out of control. One of leading positions against gay marriage is the future of our youth, but is this really the issue if we are willing to strip a loving family of a child and place him/her in physically harmful circumstances. God-forbid the child grows up with a more open perspective of the world around them because they were raised in a tolerant environment; yes that really would be the downfall of society in a nutshell wouldn’t it?
Showing posts with label Critical Refutation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Critical Refutation. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Dear Jon: On the Etymology of Marriage
On April 13th a not-so-anonymous Jon (Book of Revelation reference, anyone?) posed a number of formidable questions about the definitions of marriage, and opined that marriage is, “for all of the history of the word has been a contract between a man and woman.” This entry will be devoted to the refutation of his argument in the interest of civil discourse.
Jon’s argument focuses on two main arguments: (1) the definition of marriage is historically and linguistically defined between and man and women (2) if same-sex couples would like to be “married” they simply need a “new word”. When Jon initially posed his question, my etymological knowledge of the word marriage was fairly weak. Not one to be easily discouraged, I decided to do some research and see what I came up with. Now, as I already knew my stance on the issue of gay marriage, I was hoping to find that marriage meant nothing more than “union” in its linguistic derivation. As my search moved out of its nascent stages I began to question whether researching the semantics surrounding a word had any real place in the Prop 8 debate. You might be expecting me to parry Jon’s arguments by taking such a route, but Jon accurately aimed his critique: that is exactly what Prop 8 is about – semantics.
Legal definitions are debated down to their etymological core in the interest of accuracy and situational resilience. That being said, my research yielded varying results. This variance, I propose, is due to the different purposes of definition types (1) Legal definitions, (2) etymological definitions, (3) Contemporary or “common use” definitions, and (4) Academic definitions. All of these definition types host a wide gambit of explanations on the meaning of marriage, but no category ubiquitously claimed this union was between a man and a women. Interestingly, academic and contemporary definitions tended to favor the “man-women” definition, while legal and etymological definitions favored a broader defined union. Unfortunately for Jon’s argument, he placed an etymological idea inside a legal construct (the same rational posed behind the Prop 8 bill).
Etymologically speaking, it's a stretch for marriage to mean anything more than joining or union, and this union is not necessarily a union of two. The term “gam” is a root that means marriage. This root can be found in words such as monogamy, polygamy, autogamy, bigamy, exogamy…. Get the idea? Based on this information it’s difficult to postulate that marriage remains a word linguistically grounded in male-female connotations. What you could argue is that society has commonly referred to marriage as male-female. This assertion, however, will only go as far to suggest that this is the dominant representation of the word, and on that note we are all in agreement. Applying this formula in practice, to use reductio ad absurdum, would be akin to deeming the University of Minnesota, by linguistic definition, a white school because it has historically been dominated by that race. Since same-sex couples seem just fine with using the word marriage, might I suggest straight couples find a neologism to describe their union if they are unwilling to share the word marriage with everyone.
Jon’s argument focuses on two main arguments: (1) the definition of marriage is historically and linguistically defined between and man and women (2) if same-sex couples would like to be “married” they simply need a “new word”. When Jon initially posed his question, my etymological knowledge of the word marriage was fairly weak. Not one to be easily discouraged, I decided to do some research and see what I came up with. Now, as I already knew my stance on the issue of gay marriage, I was hoping to find that marriage meant nothing more than “union” in its linguistic derivation. As my search moved out of its nascent stages I began to question whether researching the semantics surrounding a word had any real place in the Prop 8 debate. You might be expecting me to parry Jon’s arguments by taking such a route, but Jon accurately aimed his critique: that is exactly what Prop 8 is about – semantics.
Legal definitions are debated down to their etymological core in the interest of accuracy and situational resilience. That being said, my research yielded varying results. This variance, I propose, is due to the different purposes of definition types (1) Legal definitions, (2) etymological definitions, (3) Contemporary or “common use” definitions, and (4) Academic definitions. All of these definition types host a wide gambit of explanations on the meaning of marriage, but no category ubiquitously claimed this union was between a man and a women. Interestingly, academic and contemporary definitions tended to favor the “man-women” definition, while legal and etymological definitions favored a broader defined union. Unfortunately for Jon’s argument, he placed an etymological idea inside a legal construct (the same rational posed behind the Prop 8 bill).
Etymologically speaking, it's a stretch for marriage to mean anything more than joining or union, and this union is not necessarily a union of two. The term “gam” is a root that means marriage. This root can be found in words such as monogamy, polygamy, autogamy, bigamy, exogamy…. Get the idea? Based on this information it’s difficult to postulate that marriage remains a word linguistically grounded in male-female connotations. What you could argue is that society has commonly referred to marriage as male-female. This assertion, however, will only go as far to suggest that this is the dominant representation of the word, and on that note we are all in agreement. Applying this formula in practice, to use reductio ad absurdum, would be akin to deeming the University of Minnesota, by linguistic definition, a white school because it has historically been dominated by that race. Since same-sex couples seem just fine with using the word marriage, might I suggest straight couples find a neologism to describe their union if they are unwilling to share the word marriage with everyone.
More to Refute From the Opposition
Hi all-
On a continued attempt to compile evidence of the weak arguments made by or oppositions, I have come upon another blog that attempts to convince its readers to vote for Proposition 8. I have found two arguments that blog titled Random Encounters of We tries to make that really just do not make sense to me. The first is found in the bloggers main blog post and the other is made after someone has commented against his original post.
The first argument RandomEncounters makes is that “Marriage is ordained by God and intended for ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.” The one word that sticks out to me in this quote is ‘God.’ Now as far as I understand God is a part of certain religions, and because of the laws of this country, has nothing to do with our governments decisions. Separation of church and state was established so government and religious institutions would be kept separate and independent of one another. Then why is our government allowing the passing of Proposition 8 when it is only because God says gay marriage is not right?
The second point that this blogger argues is that the traditional family is made up of a husband and wife and that this is the best situation for any child. The first thing that comes to my mind when I think of family is a supportive group of people who have an endless amount of love for one another. Whether this is a husband and a wife, and husband and husband, or a wife and a wife, no one group is a better family than the other. If RandomEncounters and other supporters of Proposition 8 are suggesting that gay and lesbian couples should not have the chance to marry because that would not make for the traditional family, then I think we must look at other situations. If a husband and wife with two children get a divorce, and for instance the mother gets full custody, that no longer becomes a traditional family. Should single parents not be allowed to raise their children because they are not a traditional family? With the argument that RandomEncounters makes, this would be the case.
In the end, we must consider what we are actually dealing with, and this is the rights of certain people. I think when we take a look at the Random Encounters of We blog and the arguments that it tries to make, as well as the arguments that other Prop 8 supporters out there make, the weaknesses of them are so evident. Gay and lesbian couples only want to have the same rights as heterosexual couples and I have to ask everyone out there, does it really hurt you or your family for these groups to have the right to a legal marriage?
On a continued attempt to compile evidence of the weak arguments made by or oppositions, I have come upon another blog that attempts to convince its readers to vote for Proposition 8. I have found two arguments that blog titled Random Encounters of We tries to make that really just do not make sense to me. The first is found in the bloggers main blog post and the other is made after someone has commented against his original post.
The first argument RandomEncounters makes is that “Marriage is ordained by God and intended for ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.” The one word that sticks out to me in this quote is ‘God.’ Now as far as I understand God is a part of certain religions, and because of the laws of this country, has nothing to do with our governments decisions. Separation of church and state was established so government and religious institutions would be kept separate and independent of one another. Then why is our government allowing the passing of Proposition 8 when it is only because God says gay marriage is not right?
The second point that this blogger argues is that the traditional family is made up of a husband and wife and that this is the best situation for any child. The first thing that comes to my mind when I think of family is a supportive group of people who have an endless amount of love for one another. Whether this is a husband and a wife, and husband and husband, or a wife and a wife, no one group is a better family than the other. If RandomEncounters and other supporters of Proposition 8 are suggesting that gay and lesbian couples should not have the chance to marry because that would not make for the traditional family, then I think we must look at other situations. If a husband and wife with two children get a divorce, and for instance the mother gets full custody, that no longer becomes a traditional family. Should single parents not be allowed to raise their children because they are not a traditional family? With the argument that RandomEncounters makes, this would be the case.
In the end, we must consider what we are actually dealing with, and this is the rights of certain people. I think when we take a look at the Random Encounters of We blog and the arguments that it tries to make, as well as the arguments that other Prop 8 supporters out there make, the weaknesses of them are so evident. Gay and lesbian couples only want to have the same rights as heterosexual couples and I have to ask everyone out there, does it really hurt you or your family for these groups to have the right to a legal marriage?
Friday, April 9, 2010
Weak Arguments made by "Yes on Proposition 8"
Hey Readers!
We would like to extend our blog not only to compile evidence on why we should say No to 8, but also reveal the weak arguments of those who are anti- same sex marriage. I would like to focus specifically on one oppositional blog that is on the social networking site, myspace, and it is called Yes on Proposition 8. This is an interactive blog on a myspace member’s profile that lives in Sacramento, California. Other members of the social network comment on this person’s arguments and add their own opinions. Within the site there are also other blog links listed that are in support of 8. This blog incorporates videos and photos to visually stress their arguments around the idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Within this refutation I would like to point out three weak arguments that I have found within this myspace page. The author of this page writes that there are 3 simple things that voting Yes on Proposition 8 does.
The first argument the author makes is that, by voting yes on Prop 8, “It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.” First off, what is this vast majority of voters? This argument ignores the fact that there were thousands of people for same-sex marriage and publicly speaking out for their rights. This is a weak statement because where are their facts? According to Ballot Pedia election results of this ballot show that only 52.3 percent of the votes were for prop 8. This is barely over half, would one consider this a vast majority? It seems like a split down the center decision for me, at lease according to these statistics.
Their second argument is as follows, by voting yes to Prop 8, “It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.” When reading this statement, I am infuriated from the statement “ignored the will of the people” because wait a second, doesn’t this Proposition itself ignore the rights of an entire group of people?
The last argument this myspace blog claims is that by voting yes, “It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.” This is the weakest argument yet. In public schools, exactly what school subject is marriage actually studied in? Out of all my years in my schooling I never once had a section on the legalizations of marriage. That is within the family and it is up the parents to teach children whatever beliefs they choose. Another reason this argument is weak is that people do not have to tolerate anything; it is just letting everyone have the same rights to everything. It would be just the same to say that Californians have to tolerate that African Americans and woman can vote.
The fact is that people who are in support of these arguments made not only by this myspace page, but also other anti-same sex marriage groups are ignoring the rights of people. They want to deny an entire population the benefits of marriage and what is the point of that? We are all the same no matter whom we choose to love, so why discriminate against homosexuals for wanting to share all aspects of life with their partners.
http://www.myspace.com/yesonprop8
Yes on Proposition 8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
