User talk:JamesH1934

Welcome

Hello, JamesH1934, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump.

I am sorry to welcome you by telling you that your lengthy addition to Same-sex marriage is certain to be removed. One of Wikipedia's guiding principles is to take a neutral point of view or "NPOV." As an encyclopedia rather than a collection of editorial journalism, the goal is to take no position on ideological or moral questions. All such judgments (for instance, identifying the "vital historic purpose" of anything) should be cited to a named, notable, verifiable third-party source. And emotional language like "twisted, "unnatural," and "sly" or flippancy like "That's what it's all about Alfie!" is not appropriate for what we strive to make the formal, encyclopedic tone of Wikipedia.

Again, welcome! You are sure to notice that many of our other editors fail to uphold the principles I've just described to you. Please be bold in pointing out and correcting specific instances of this. DanB†DanD 23:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6 January 2007

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coelacan, although the material still has a strong editorial point of view, the editor did revise it in response to my first message, removing the specific language I mentioned as inappropriate -- so he's not just reposting the identical deleted screed again.

James, I see that you've moderated your tone, but the fact is that the purpose of your essay is clearly to express a particular moral point of view, and Wikipedia strives (often without success!) to be strictly factual. Rather than having the frustration of seeing a long piece of your work repeatedly deleted, I suggest beginning by working collaboratively on an article for a while. There is a great deal of unsourced, biased information in Same-sex marriage already -- why not help to clear out some of the editorializing, or track down verifiable sources for more the unsupported assertions. DanB†DanD 19:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moved from my user page

Pardon me, but how may I contact you regarding your comments to me? Thank you. JamesH1934— Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesH1934 (talk • contribs)

Just the way you did -- by posting to my user page. However, it's usual to use the "Talk" tab for discussion rather than the user page itself, so I've moved your question to my talk page and also copied it to your talk page. You can reply in either place and I'll see it.

I'm happy to respond to any comments you may have, but understand that I'm just a regular editor of the site like you -- I'm not an authority or anything like that.

By the way, it's usual to sign and timestamp your posts to talk pages (not your edits to articles). You can do that by typing four tildes in a row: ~~~~.

DanB†DanD 06:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in... but I read your essay JamesH1934. At issue would be the negative wording that you use throughout the essay, and one does not have to read far into your essay to see this: "unnatural joining of two bastardized words" is very strongly negative right off the bat. Your position is that prior to the 20th century these words had different meanings, but what you fail to realize is that marriage was at first an economic and social situation for the benefit of the families of the bride and groom, and/or the husband, and establishing a legal, and official lineage for the child.

Your position about the intentions of marriage are based upon a current and modernized view of marriage that is directed by a moral group. I don't deny that this is a modern intended use of marriage, and it is the current moral ideal upheld by many institutions, but to claim that marriage was intended for making a good environment for children? Well, technically, it was really just for establishing a defined legal lineage of children.

Also, the change of the word "gay" is yes, accurate, but did you know that the word "Lord" comes from "Loafward" as in "breadwinner"?[1] and "bead" actually is a cognate (genetically related word) to the German word "bieten" which means "prayer", which is what "bead" actually meant? (Using a rosary you counted your beads (prayers) which eventually became counting beads (the small parts of the necklace.) The position of your essay is constantly against the "activist homosexuals" subverting terminology in order to obtain recognition of their goals. I'm certain that you would not disagree with me, if I were to say that the definition of "computer" were something much like: "a machine for manipulating data according to a list of instructions", and many people would be surprised that very early on a "computer" was a person, who performed simple mathematical operations, typically only addition. Should we say that this term was "subverted" by "activist programmers" seeking to remove computers from their careers?

There is no such thing as "Gay marriage". There is only a counterfeit sterile union pretending to be what it is not. a question you may not have considered. A man and a woman may both be physically infertile, and incapable of having children, should this automatically annull their marriage as you would annull a same-sex marriage? If so, I would need to inform my parents, my friend's parents, a community group leader and his wife, and many many other people in the world who are currently in socially accepted marriages.

This is the reason why "your essay is clearly to express a particular moral point of view". I hope that I've been able to shed some light on what words your are using to convey your moral point of view. --Puellanivis 07:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puellanivis, James removed the strongly charged language like "unnatural" and "bastardized" from his second version of the material. The discussion of the definition of "gay" was also removed from the second version.

James, as I read it, the essential point of your essay is here:

"That artificially introduced inversion of the pre-existing meaning and purpose of marriage, antithetical to the naturally developed and long standing meaning and purpose of marriage, is what thinking and caring people vehemently reject."

This, clearly, is the expression of a moral point of view. Were you to remove this POV, in this sentence and elsewhere, your main point would be lost. So, I don't think the text can be made suitable for Wikipedia. A Wikipedia entry should be structured to present information, not to construct an argument.

One other thing about writing Wikipedia entries: You write: "Webster's unabridged Dictionary Copyright 2001 was the first dictionary I found..." making the personal nature of the text clear. Each Wikipedia entry may have hundreds of editors, so it's not appropriate to use the authorial "I." Someone may come along and change the wording of your sentence, and where is the "I" in the article then?

DanB†DanD 19:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He may have removed such charged language, but he had still retained such charged language in the form of "what thinking and caring people vehemently reject", as if to imply that anyone who would not reject same-sex marriage is neither thinking nor caring. This phrase also still holds the strongly charged phrase: "vehemently reject". I personally don't see any significant difference from his first post, and his second post, both of which use a strongly-worded argument based soley on pathos in order to assert the position he is representing.

I will grant that as a newer contributor to Wikipedia, he is likely not aware of the guidelines surrounding contributions that are considered appropriate and respectful. It is entirely possible that he has never been confronted with a compelling dialog, which examines his moral beliefs, such as being in a very strongly homogeneous moral culture, and thus not have any idea that his assertions are a specific moral point of view, but rather in his consideration, they are the only right choices.

My argument does not rest solely upon the cited examples that I gave above, but from the entire tone and aspect of his assertions. Instead of presenting a moral position from an informational standpoint, rather he asserts a moral position as fact, as if it were the only possible correct choice, and belittles (directly or indirectly) those who would disagree with his position.

My argument still raised the usage of "homosexual/gay activists" in his essay as an issue, as he may not be aware that his position is that of a "conservative activist". Rather he presents and uses "activist" as if it were a perjorative term, thus implicitly questioning the motives of those whose argument he contends with.

His debate is valid, and a moral argument behind same-sex marriage is warranted, as it is a central and deeply contentious part of the discussion. My objection is to the terminology, tone, and aspect that he has used, and not simply that his assertion states a moral position. And neither should you content that simply expressing such a moral position is invalid within the contraints of Wikipedia. As an example, the core of his argument is presented here in a manner that would be reasonable and in accord with guidelines surrounding contributions to Wikipedia.

"The relatively recent changes in the meaning and purpose of marriage, is in direct conflict with long-standing traditions, to which opponents of same-sex marriage hold so strongly."

If you object simply to his position that it is a moral argument against same-sex marriage, then I feel that you are not properly representing the ideals behind Wikipedia, but rather carrying a crusade against people who would present homosexuality as a moral issue.

My last point to JamesH1934 still stands though, would he reject an opposite-sex marriage, which is infertile and sterile? Or is his position against some other deeper issue upon which he disagrees with same-sex marriage? --Puellanivis 23:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puellanivis, you write: "a moral argument behind same-sex marriage is warranted, as it is a central and deeply contentious part of the discussion."

This is true if the argument is sourced to notable third parties. However, what's appropriate to Wikipedia is to present the historical state of the arguments, not to endorse any particular side of them (except where expert consensus is very clear).

I think this is a problem with LGBT articles in general on Wikipedia: the version of neutrality we often practice is to have a "pro" and "con" section each arguing its own side. Wikipedia is not a debate competition! Relevant controversies should be described, not re-enacted. DanB†DanD 00:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I readily acknowledge a strong negative personal point of view, based upon the facts of the issue as I perceive them. But I remain puzzled by your statement that the following words "clearly express a moral point of view".

"'That artificially introduced inversion of the pre-existing meaning and purpose of marriage, antithetical to the naturally developed and long standing meaning and purpose of marriage, is what thinking and caring people vehemently reject.'

This, clearly, is the expression of a moral point of view."

I ask again: what is the moral point of view that is involved? I really don't understand what "moral view" you are describing. Please, I am aware of the wider moral arguments. It is your description of my statement as a "moral point of view" that I simply do not understand.

From my perspective, my sentence is clearly a short simple expression of a set of observable and testable facts regarding the

issue. Marriage has a "pre-existing meaning and purpose". Recent events involve a major change in that basic meaning. Observably, the events are artificially contrived with a powerful public relations campaign. (Observation: that kind of major change does not occur through natural and unassisted means in such a short interval of time. Q.E.D.) Again, observably, there are many thinking and caring people who do vehemently reject the change for a multiplicity of stated reasons. (I included this affirmation, because the view of these people is typically presented as being harsh, ignorant, and bigoted.) I did not state, imply nor intend to suggest that people who take the other side of the issue are either unthinking or uncaring. In retrospect, I wish I had included the modifier "many".

Puellanivis incorrectly presents my view as:  "Your position is that prior to the 20th century these words had different meanings,

but what you fail to realize is that marriage was at first an economic and social situation for the benefit of the families of the bride and groom, and/or the husband, and establishing a legal, and official lineage for the child."

On the contrary, my observation/position is that the meaning of these words have been artificially manipulated into something new and either totally unrelated to or even contrary to their original meaning. That manipulation of the words meaning was observably done for the benefit of those doing the manipulation. Again, I am not expressing a value judgment here, I am simply expressing an observable and testable fact. I used the word "bastardized" in my first post as the most accurate word I am aware of that aptly describes what I just said in the first sentence of this paragraph. The "unnatural joining" simply referred to the total absence of any identifiable meaning in terms of the original pre-1950 usage of both words.

Puellanivis failed to identify any source for ~~his~~her counter assertion that "what you fail to realize is that marriage was at first an economic and social situation for the benefit of the families of the bride and groom, and/or the husband, and establishing a legal, and official lineage for the child." I am at a loss to understand what economic and social benefits are supposed to have accrued to the families of the bride and groom and why governments should have taken notice of such things. While marriage does establish the presumed lineage of the child, numerous other methods would work quite as well as the state institution of marriage.

In comparing the two claims, I think logic shows that society and governments were unlikely to invest significant resources in the economic and social benefits of either the parents or the husband, which considerations would not provide any significant benefit to society or government. But, having the mother and the father of the child meet the needs of the child until he/she became independent is a self evident benefit to society and governments. Granted that in this I am drawing a conclusion from my experience of and with today's governments and society.

Puellanivis distorts and misrepresents my position as:  "::"The relatively recent changes in the meaning and purpose of marriage,

is in direct conflict with long-standing traditions, to which opponents of same-sex marriage hold so strongly." If you carefully compare the actual statement of my view to the altered viewpoint attributed to me by Puellanivis, the latter is obviously weaker and easily criticized because it is vague and conceals rather than expresses the meat of the argument. That debating trick does not advance a serious discussion of the issue, but it does reflect the way the issue is typically presented. Which is not a neutral point of view!

In response to my statement: There is no such thing as "Gay marriage". There is only a counterfeit sterile union pretending to be what it is not. Puellanivis replies: "a question you may not have considered. A man and a woman may both be physically infertile, and incapable of having children, should this automatically annull their marriage as you would annull a same-sex marriage." No, this should not annul a marriage.

The state's purpose in the institution of marriage is not damaged by the fact that occasionally, the normally fertile union of a man and a woman is not fertile for a particular man and woman. The observable fact that some marriages do not produce children is in no sense contrary to the state's purpose, it simply does not fulfill it. Do notice that the same cannot be said of the act of modifying the institution of marriage so that it applies to a union that is intrinsically sterile. That modification not only changes the meaning of marriage, it changes the purpose in a way that is directly contrary to the pre-existing purpose. In place of the needs of the child, the focus changes to the "intimate union" of two people, etc.

Moreover, the cost and harm from an attempt by the state to positively exclude any merely incidental infertility of individual marriages would vastly outweigh any benefits. First, it would involve denying a generally acknowledged right on the basis of a person's handicap! (I trust you are suitably horrified.) Second, the cost of determining fertility would be prohibitive with no significant benefit. Third, some cases where both couples are medically determined to be fertile do not produce a child and in some rare instances a child is conceived and born despite a medical determination of infertility. The debating point of denial/annulling of marriage in the case of the absence of children or known infertility that Puellanivis and others suggest is neither implied, necessitated by nor made desirable by the fact that the state's inherent purpose is to facilitate meeting the needs of the child that is born of a fertile union of a man and a woman. Latching on to the single link of "infertility" doesn't change the fact that you are mixing apples and oranges. (I.e. referring to vastly different categories.)

The phrase "as you would annull a same-sex marriage" is an example of presenting the issue in terms of the "new" meaning and purpose of marriage as an existing fact, which manner of presentation pre-judges the outcome in favor of the change. That which in logic is to be demonstrated or proved is simply assumed. (Another debating trick.)

I am curious regarding Puellanivis' assertion that: "Your position about the intentions of marriage are based upon a current and modernized view of marriage that is directed by a moral group." Can you direct me to the place where the group you specify has presented the argument I identified? Frankly, I've never found a presentation setting forth the pre-meaning and purpose of marriage as being of primary importance and I'd be interested in seeing it. I've found the absence of discussion of that aspect of the issue of what civil marriage is and should be quite puzzling. BTW: I did not say anything about "the intentions of marriage". My comments all involve the meaning of and the state's purpose for supporting the institution of civil marriage. The argument is thus: whether or not a change in that preexisting meaning of civil marriage is a desirable and beneficial social change.

Generally, I do not care to have other people attributing unstated and unverifiable motives for my actions, such as Puellanivis' assertion that: "The position of your essay is constantly against the "activist homosexuals" subverting terminology in order to obtain recognition of their goals."

My position was to illuminate what I believe are the observable facts regarding this contentious issue. Observable fact: there are "activist homosexuals" who are engaged in a massive long term campaign to change terminology in order to obtain recognition of their goals. I did not use the word "subverting". And I did not make any moral judgment. How does a statement of fact become a judgment?

And yes, my hackles go up in the presence of anyone or any group who use manipulative techniques to advance their private goals, rather than a candid and open argument designed to persuade an informed mind.

Regarding the observation: "One other thing about writing Wikipedia entries: You write: "Webster's unabridged Dictionary Copyright 2001 was the first dictionary I found..." making the personal nature of the text clear."

My intent was to identify the limited nature of the research into the formally defined meaning of marriage in various dictionaries available in local libraries. More dictionaries were checked, but they did not contribute any additional information. I agree that was clumsy, but at the time I wasn't able to find a better short way of expressing that detail. Thanks for your thoughtful observations Dan.

In closing, I have no objection to the state establishing an economic union that would confer the same economic and other benefits that are conferred by marriage. The state's recognizable purpose in establishing such a union would be to enable any two people to join together in a union designed to improve the condition of their lives. It would have the desirable social benefit of mitigating the problem of extreme poverty. Notice, that this suggested "economic" union would eliminate any claimed injustice towards all people who do not choose to get married for whatever personal reason. An economic union really solves the problem rather than just grantting the goal of a small and vocal subgroup of homosexuals. And an economic union does not require any tinkering with the pre-existing meaning and purpose of marriage.

Oh yes, I say claimed injustice, because the only obstacle to a Gay person getting married is personal preference, not some artificial restriction arbitrarily imposed by law. Gays do have exactly the same right respecting marriage as do heterosexuals. And that was not true of the phony issue of interacial marriage in which specific laws did impose an unreasonable restriction on the basic rights of every man and every woman to marry. (Yet another debating trick.) JamesH1934 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot argue that you are not a skilled debator. You have obviously considered this issue well, and spent a reasonable amount of time investigating it, and you do not appear to simply have unjustified beleifs. I suppose that I should also reexpress the statement "clearly express a moral point of view," because if someone is deeply entrenched in a moral point of view as fact, they may not see at all how their statements are in fact justified only by an arbitrary moral preference. Thus I should say that your assertion is the expression of one particular moral point of view, and also is not a neutral expression of that point of view.

There are a number of fallicious parts of your argument (which does not make them wrong, it just makes them poor assertions for a discussion). The difficulties with your assertion do not present themselves until you reach a deeper historical examination, going to before the Victorian Era. While it certainly is true that "marriage has a pre-existing meaning and purpose" within the moral code that you are grounded in, your assertion implies that this is the only pre-existing meaning and purpose. This is clearly a argumentum ad ignorantiam, since you are unable to imagne, or have been unable to find any contrary positions, you assert that your position is the only one available. However, in many cultures around the world marriage is about the social and economic gains of the families and/or the husband. If you need examples, arranged marriages in India provide evidence of the former. An unwed woman in the family was/is a drain on resources, and thus she must be married off to a man, who will provide an economic or social advantage to the family as a whole, and with the generation of progeny only part of an advantage to be gained from the union. As for any more evidence of the use of marriage for social and economic gain, with consideration of children secondary please consult any of a number of fairy tale stories about a woman being married off by her mother to a rich man, in order for the family to avoid poverty. Your implied, and stated position that there is one purpose for marriage (the production of children) is a False dilemma. You create the notion that marriage is either about "child bearing" or it's not marriage. (You will note, in all your presented definitions of marriage, none of them say "for the purpose of raising children", in fact, the purpose and motivations behind marriage are not indicated by dictionaries, percisely because there are virtually unbounded purposes and reasons for marriage.)

The positon supporting that marriage as one purpose is/was to establish a proper and legal patrilineage is testified by continuing traditions, social expectations, and law. Wives change their name to their husbands, the children inherit the father's name, (while these are not legally required, there is a remaining strong social expectation to do so.) Legally, inheritance cannot be gained automatically by an illegitimate child. Within the legal realm, it is the automatic presumption that a child of a marriage is the child of the father, and it is upon the party objecting to this lineage.

"On the contrary, my observation/position is that the meaning of these words have been artificially manipulated into something new and either totally unrelated to or even contrary to their original meaning." I particularly invite you to examine the etymology of yet another word: "gaudy". It used to mean something similar to "religous, pious", but now it means "overly extravagent, excessively flourished". I have very important news for you from the linguistic world. Words change meaning all the time, without any intentional or active operation of a subgroup of people. Would you claim that "leap" is a bastardized word? Are you aware that it comes from the same origins as the German word "laufen" and Dutch word "lopen" which both mean "to run"? Your usage of "bastardized word" is contrary to known and established linguistic understanding.

As for it being an "unnatural joining", I would invite you to realize that there are people who see "peanut butter and jelly" as an unnatural joning. Just because the usage is not common to you, does not mean that it is unequivocably unnatural.

Puellanivis is composed of two words: "Puella Nivis" which is Latin for "Girl of the Snow", if you have not checked my User Page, I invite you to do so, as I am female, English directs the use of female pronouns for females, not male pronouns.

I originally provided you with as much support and citation as you gave yourself in stating that marriage is for the purpose of child-rearing. I hope that my given evidence better expresses the positions that do not automatically agree with your assertion about the purpose of marriage. In the future I will make sure to give full support of opposing points of view, as someone may not find them as clearly apparent as I do.

Society and governments are likely to invest significant resources in any number of silly issues. Your imagination should not be a limiting factor in determining what a government would spend its time and energy doing. Society and government are much more likely to invest signifcant resources in managing the flow and control of power and status, especially when in an inherited power system (such as royalty). It is actually according to my opinon, far better the benefit of the society for a colletive group to raise a child, and not his mother and father alone. Your position "governments and society", draws again a personal point of view, that there is only one society to examine. There are in fact hundreds if not thousands of societies to consider, and I am sure of the existence of at least one that would draw objection to your position that the father and mother are the most vital part of a child's development.

My restatement of your position is justified. Your positon implies that there was one accepted meaning and purpose of marriage before the 20th century. This is known by trivial examination of anthropoligical studies to be false. There have been numerous meanings and purposes for marriage throughout history. Despite this variation, within our culture and society the meaning of marriage was clearly established, and I will agree that only recently has there been an effort to change the meaning of "marriage" to make it inclusive of same-sex unions. This is in direct conflict with long-standing Christian traditions, and thus long-standing traditions of the United States in particular, and the objection of people who strongly adhere to these traditions object to this change of meaning. Your position is that my statement is weaker, and I will agree, it is, but that is because your stronger statement is inaccurate, and false. Given two statements "-1 <= sin x <= 1" is certainly weaker than "0 <= sin x <= 1", but it vastly ignores a significant amount of data, and ends up being false. Just because a reinterpretation of your position is weaker does not mean it is more open to attack or dispute. In fact, a weaker argument is LESS open to attack and dispute.

The phrase "as you would annul a same-sex marriage" is appropriate, and is not begging the question. Were a same-sex marriage given, you would have it annulled, as invalid, being that it is in direct opposition to the meaning of "marriage". An annulled marriage never happened, and never actually existed. I think this is exactly what you're trying to say about same-sex marriage, that it doesn't exist. (By very definition an annullment is the assertion that the marriage doesn't exist. An annullment could not apply to a marriage that does exist, because if the marriage existed, then the annullment would not apply.)

subvert: "to overturn or overthrow from the foundation" from Latin: "sub- + vertere" literally "to turn beneath". Your position as I understand it is that marriage has an established meaning, and that homosexual activists are actively working to change/overturn that meaning. I do not see how the word "subvert" does not apply in this situation, unless you simply object to words with a negative connotation being applied to your argument (despite your willingness to do so to those arguments which you argue against.)

Also, since "Puellanivis" is Latin, the proper possessive would be the genetive of the phrase yielding "Puellaenivis" not "Puellanivis'". Latin has established usage and grammar, and I take objection to people attempting to change it to suit their limited grammatical understanding.

A statement of fact becomes a judgement by intonation, accent, and/or word choice. Someone attempting to plug a phone plug into a light socket could be told "That doesn't work," which is a statement of fact. However, place a judgmental tone upon the phrase, "That doesn't work." makes it judgmental. By word choice, you chose the word "activist homosexuals", the usage of activist has connotations especially among conservatives. Look at any of the reactionary talk show hosts talking about "activist judges" and you may hopefully see my position on this usage. Also, homosexuals are not the only people seeking to get recognition of their unions as "marriages". I for one am not homosexual, and I still think they should be allowed to get married. There was no massive long-term campaign to change the word "gay", just like there was no massive long-term campaign to change the word "pitiful", (it didn't mean anything close to disgraceful before, it used to mean something that evoked strong emotions of sympathy.) likewise the same with "spam" to mean "unwanted email". Language groups spontaneously change meanings all the time. If you're not aware of this, then please take this opportunity to inform yourself of this.

"I have no objection to the state establishing an economic union that would confer the same economic and other benefits that are conferred by marriage." The objection for same-sex marriage is more than just about economic privileges. If a homosexual man is brought to the hospital, under a solely economic union, his partner would still be prevented from visiting him, because he is not considered as "family", and thus is afforded no right to visit. This would be an expected social benefit. There are also legal benefits that are expected, such as inheritance rights, and automatic medical proxies. Legally, a same-sex partner under a soley economic union would not automatically become the medical proxy of his partner, were the one to become incapacitated.

At this point, you would need to confere all rights, privileges and benefits to same-sex unions as you would need to confere to opposite-sex marriages. At this point, you appear to just be complaining that words have changed their meaning, and you're upset about that. I find this about as lame as complaining abot how to pronounce "nuclear". A language group as a whole dictates the meanings of words, not a subset of people wanting to retain some archaic usage, or policy. If you were to grant all the privileges you indicate to a same-sex union, then popularly people would start calling them marriages, and husbands with husbands, and wives with wives. Which they would be in all apart from an arbitrary semantic archaism. --Puellanivis 06:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is evident to me that attempting to engage in a civil discussion with you, Puellanivis, is foredoomed to failure because you do not discuss, you pontificate. You simply repeat ad hominem arguments with unsupported claims to justify your trick of substituting the fantasies that you want to attribute to me in place of what I in fact do say. It is, of course, much more difficult to actually respond to the content of what I do say without a massive infusion of debating tricks. But hope is ever present in my philosophy that an inherent love of actually seeing and responding to reality (i.e. the truth - defined as that which is) can never be totally rejected by the human mind.

To that end, I will make this last response to point out a few of the most obvious defects in your last post and then go on to more useful and interesting activities.

You, Puellanivis, wrote:

"...if someone is deeply entrenched in a moral point of view as fact, they may not see at all how their statements are in fact justified only by an arbitrary moral preference. Thus I should say that your assertion is the expression of one particular moral point of view, and also is not a neutral expression of that point of view."

You've simply repeated your unsubstantiated assertion, still without identifying what this alleged "moral point of view" actually is. I'll repeat my response one last time and then stop running around in circles with you. Exactly how and why is a recitation of observable and testable facts a "moral point of view". What "moral point of view" are you talking about? Certainly, I have formed an opinion and do not hesitate to state my conclusion based on facts, which I do identify.

Puellanivis wrote: " My restatement of your position is justified. Your positon implies that there was one accepted meaning and purpose of marriage before the 20th century. This is known by trivial examination of anthropoligical studies to be false. There have been numerous meanings and purposes for marriage throughout history. Despite this variation, within our culture and society the meaning of marriage was clearly established, and I will agree that only recently has there been an effort to change the meaning of "marriage" to make it inclusive of same-sex unions."

Actually my statement "implies" no such thing. I wrote of: "the core meaning of marriage", I did not say "the only meaning of marriage" and I did not mean that. My statement only requires that the state's motive for supporting marriage was significantly and possibly primarily to achieve the rather obviously important goal of encouraging, promoting, and supporting the presence of the mother and the father in the life of the child born of their fertile sexual union. I trust that the needs of the child are so obvious that there can be no rational denial of that rather vital detail. The presence of other auxiliary purposes for marriage can be made to appear important to the discussion if the relative weight of those other purposes is conveniently neglected. Does the concept of "'subordinate' purposes" for marriage mean anything to you? BTW, thank you for acknowledging the recent nature of "an effort to change the meaning of 'marriage' ..."

Restating an opponents "position" and then arguing only against the restatement is never justified. It is a trick widely used in formal debate where the identified goal is winning by means of the presentation, not by the merits of the arguments. (I derived that conclusion from the fact that debaters are taught and expected to be able to "debate" and win either position or side of the debate.)

Puellanivis wrote: "Also, since "Puellanivis" is Latin, the proper possessive would be the genetive of the phrase yielding "Puellaenivis" not "Puellanivis'". Latin has established usage and grammar, and I take objection to people attempting to change it to suit their limited grammatical understanding."

What triggered that absurdly irrelevant outburst? It does make a nice distraction though, doesn't it?

Puellanivis wrote: "By word choice, you chose the word 'activist homosexuals', the usage of activist has connotations especially among conservatives. Look at any of the reactionary talk show hosts talking about 'activist judges' and you may hopefully see my position on this usage. Also, homosexuals are not the only people seeking to get recognition of their unions as 'marriages'."

You are simply wrong about my use of the phrase "activist homosexuals and other interested groups". It is not the word "activist" that has a negative connotation. It is the joining of the irreconcilable meaning of the nouns "activist" and "judge" that is defective. An activist is a partisan, a participant, one who has chosen a side, whereas it is the solemn duty of a judge to be impartial, to hear and weigh each side's arguments carefully, and to render an unprejudiced decision strictly in accord with existing law. The complaint by "reactionary talk show hosts" is thus fully justified because of the inherently contradictory and opposed conditions identified by the two words.

Compare my innocent use of the word "activist" to your choice of the word "reactionary"? Now that choice by you was negative and of clearly pejorative intent.

Puellanivis wrote: "subvert: 'to overturn or overthrow from the foundation' from Latin: 'sub- + vertere' literally 'to turn beneath'. Your position as I understand it is that marriage has an established meaning, and that homosexual activists are actively working to change/overturn that meaning. I do not see how the word 'subvert' does not apply in this situation, unless you simply object to words with a negative connotation being applied to your argument (despite your willingness to do so to those arguments which you argue against.)"

Simply amazing. That a person "so sensitive" to imagined negative connotations in the word "activist" is incapable of seeing the very real negative connotation in the word "subvert". Let my objection to and rejection of your attempt to introduce this booby trap also serve as my denial of your false accusation: "despite your willingness to do so to those arguments which you argue against."

Puellanivis wrote: "At this point, you appear to just be complaining that words have changed their meaning, and you're upset about that."

You continue to try and perpetrate the fraud that my complaint is only with the irrelevant fact that words do naturally change in their meaning over time. My attributing the unvoiced word only to your statement is derived from your repeatedly directing attention to that true, but irrelevant fact, along with your repeated false assertion that this is my complaint. And that distortion by you continues despite my explicit objection and correction of your error. That's a nice debating tactic, but again, it does not advance a serious discussion of views.

Once again, contrary to your false characterization of what I believe and object to, my observation/position is that the meaning of these words are not changing via natural process; but rather, have been artificially manipulated into something new and either totally unrelated to or even contrary to their original meaning. That manipulation of the words meaning was observably done for the benefit of those doing the manipulation. Again, I am not expressing a value judgment here, I am simply expressing an observable and testable fact.

My value judgment, based upon additional unstated facts, is that the change in the meaning of marriage sought by this small group in collusion with others is socially and legally undesirable.

Puellanivis wrote: "I have no objection to the state establishing an economic union that would confer the same economic and other benefits that are conferred by marriage." The objection for same-sex marriage is more than just about economic privileges. If a homosexual man is brought to the hospital, under a solely economic union, his partner would still be prevented from visiting him, because he is not considered as "family", and thus is afforded no right to visit. ... Legally, a same-sex partner under a soley economic union would not automatically become the medical proxy of his partner, were the one to become incapacitated."

Read more carefully what I actually wrote: "... an economic union that would confer the same economic and other benefits that are conferred by marriage." My suggestion was not limited solely to "an economic union".

But note the significant additional detail. I suggested widening the alleged "correction of an injustice" to all who choose for whatever reason not to get married. You Puellanivis reveal your actual disinterest in "equal treatment" by your instant dismissal of any such consideration. Your "real" interest is quite obvious.

As to the detailed list of problems to be solved, a team of good lawyers could have drawn up a standardized contract that would have achieved every one of those goals excepting only tax law issues. And tax law issues could have been dealt with vastly more easily in the legislature than trying to dictate what you want marriage to mean to the rest of society.

At this point, Puellanivis, you wrote the statement: "At this point, you would need to confere all rights, privileges and benefits to same-sex unions as you would need to confere to opposite-sex marriages." Despite the inadvertent insertion, your intended meaning is clear. And you concluded with:

"If you were to grant all the privileges you indicate to a same-sex union, then popularly people would start calling them marriages, and husbands with husbands, and wives with wives. Which they would be in all apart from an arbitrary semantic archaism."

In these two statements of yours, Puellanivis, you reveal clearly and unambiguously your real goal and intent.

That purpose is to have sterile same sex marriage declared by society/government to be the equal to fertile marriage. Or if you prefer to state it in terms unrelated to childbearing and rearing: the purpose is to have same sex marriage declared by society/government to be the equal of the marriage of a man and a woman.

Argue as you will, such a statement by any legislative or judicial body would be as absurd, false, and logically nonsensical as prior attempts to define Pi by legislated law as being equal to 3. Bodies of men and women can engage in such intellectual absurdities, but such assertions will not change what is. JamesH1934 22:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would like to apologize that my restatements of your argument have been received so poorly. It has not been my intention nor desire to prop up your position in a way that makes it easier for me to attack, and then procede to deal with it effortlessly. My intentions in restating your position have always been to ensure that my interpretations of your statements are accurate, and that I am not misunderstanding you, and not as a debating tactic to gain ground. For this purpose, my format has been a restatement of what I understood you to be saying, and my reaction to that. I have, however, gained significantly more insight into your position by your corrections to my interpretations than any restatement, or reassertion of any of your positions. As such, I certainly hope that you have benefitted as much as I have, from you being able to correct me percisely about your argument. My continued belief is, how can I say that I understand your position, if I cannot correctly articulate it myself.

I'm hoping that I can inform you, that this is the very reason debate teams take the side of issues that they do not agree with. In having to justify, and argue for the position that you disagree with, you must learn accurately what that position's reasoning is. After all, I already know how I feel about the issue of same-sex marriage. I'm not here arguing with you to convince you that you're wrong, or that I am right. (Although my behavior at times, may have failed to demonstrate this accurately. I am only human, and I always give myself more empirical evidence that it is a poor idea to argue while worked-up. Case in point, my tangent regarding the genetive of "Puellanivis".) My in this argument has been to understand what your position is as accurately as possible, so that I can understand your argument. The shear effort that both of us have put into this argument should testify that we are both interested in having the other side understand our position. If a debate team were always to argue issues that they believed in, how would they ever learn from this? We don't learn things by rehashing what we already know, we learn things, by exploring new issues, and topics, that we are unfamiliar with. Would you become upset at a student learning your ideas and beliefs for failing to statement them perfectly and accurately as you would? I do not believe so, rather you would attempt to correct them in where their statements misalign with your position. It is my feeling that how can I ever really claim that I understood your position, if I cannot provide a clear, and accurate restatement of your position.

I will also apologize for how my use of "reactionary" was received, as I never intended for it to be perceived as a pejorative statement. I was attempting to use it inline with its meanings defined in political science. As we are discussing a political issue, I felt that it would be an appropriate use. My use of "reactionary" was intended as a declaritive way to refer to those conservatives that are very conservative, the same as I would refer to liberals, who are very liberal as "radicals". I am not trying to give special treatment here. I appreciate that you told me directly that you feel that it was being used pejoratively, as I am not attempting to describe anyone or anything in a negative light by using that term. I was simply attempting to make a distinction between those people who hold very strongly to the conservative position, from those more moderate conservatives, who generally believe conservative positions, but may feel uncomfortable listening to radio talk-show hosts, who are so conservative that their position can only be described in political science as "reactionary".

I would like to deal with your statement: "But note the significant additional detail. I suggested widening the alleged "correction of an injustice" to all who choose for whatever reason not to get married. You Puellanivis reveal your actual disinterest in "equal treatment" by your instant dismissal of any such consideration. Your "real" interest is quite obvious." I regret that you have misunderpreted my position, such that you feel that I would dismiss equal-treatment of people not wishing to seek a marriage. Actually, I am very approving of providing benefits to couples choosing not to get married. However, I do not see this position as relevant to any discussion regarding the bounds of marriage. Our topic of discourse here, as I understand it, is fully qualified with people who are married, and those who wish to be married, but are not allowed to, especially for the reason that they are same-sex couples. As such, the definition, and bounds of marriage has essentially no impact, or relevance to people, who do not want to get married. They have already dismissed marriage on the current terms, and I doubt any widening of the applicability would have any impact upon their choice.

I do find it difficult to believe that a contract could be drafted that would permit particular benefits equal to a marriage (tax situations being a non-issue as we both recognize that a personal contract could not allow two people to file jointly.) Any contract between such a union would still be unable to have binding force upon 3rd parties to recognize them as a cohesive union, and confer benefits to them. For example health-care could still easily be denied, as the health-care provider is under no obligation to abide by a contract that they are not a party to. Also, the validity of such a contract could even be contested in a court by a third person involved in a suit as a second person against either party. In particular, attempting to assert that a member of such a contract would be unable to create a binding contract between the other member of said contract, and a third-part to that contract. An argument against this, would likely work in the same way that contracted slavery is not allowed. Also, the benefits of spousal privilege would certainly not apply, and the presence of the other member of the contract during a therapy/counselling session, legal consultation, or medical dialog, could result in the details of that being stripped of its confidentiality, due to the presence of a third-person during the session. I would ask you to imagine a couple under such a contract, where one person of that contract is in court defending the disclosure of their otherwise confidential communications to their lawyer, simply because their contractual partner, who is uninvolved in the suit, was present during the dialog regarding their legal advice.

I would like to attempt to confirm my feeling that your position is best asserted in the following two excerpts: "[M]y observation/position is that the meaning of these words ["marriage" and "gay"] are not changing via natural process; but rather, have been artificially manipulated into something new and either totally unrelated to or even contrary to their original meaning. That manipulation of the words meaning was observably done for the benefit of those doing the manipulation. Again, I am not expressing a value judgment here, I am simply expressing an observable and testable fact.'"

I now would like to ensure that I am understanding your position properly by restating your position as best as I understand it, from your perspective, so that you have every opportunity to inform me as to any misinterpretations that I may make of your position during my restatement. Your position as I understand it, is that:

"Marriage" has a natural, and indismissable characteristic to it, which is so fundamental to its nature that it cannot be removed or altered, without seriously affecting the meaning in such a way that it would not become contradictory to its natural condition, or in at least the very best light, would not be "marriage", but rather something else.
This indissmissable natural characteristic is reproduction, and the existence of a married environment for the development of the children. (As an asside apart from your positions, statistically, children of married families are better off economically, and socially in life than children from seperated or divorced families.)
That there is intentional, active and possibly even organized manipulation of the meaning of "marriage", and that this manipulation is for the express purpose of bringing a benefit to those, who are seeking to make this alteration of meaning. (I am percieving an implication that this manipulation is organized in your argument, although I am certain that you have not stated it explicitly, thus I am especially seeking your clarification about this point particularly.)
That according to the first position, the third position is acting contrary to natural order.
That all of these positions are fact, and as such are observable, testable, verifiable, and true.

Now, considering that I really would like to avoid any possibility of performing strawman tactics against you, I would like you to clarify my misunderstandings of your position. I want to be sure that I understand your position correctly, and accurately, before I attempt any further argument about the core position of this entire argument. --Puellanivis 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]