Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

Marriage Restroom Analogy

SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 8:57:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Consider an analogy:

Say that there exists a public restroom. This public restroom is unisex (that is, one can use it regardless of whether he or she is a male or female, provided it is vacant, etc.). Now, suppose that the restroom is vacant. Would it be unfair or unjust to deny a female from using this restroom on the grounds that she is a female? Well, of course it would be unfair, as that restroom exists to accommodate either males or females. This is analogous to the definition of marriage supporters of same sex "marriage" seem to be present or pre-supposing, namely, that marriage exists to join/recognize just any configuration of individuals who are lovingly committed to one another. Just as it would be unfair or unjust to not allow a woman to use a restroom that exists to accommodate either men or women, it would be unfair and unjust to disallow, say, 4 men from "marrying" one another if marriage just is people who are "lovingly committed" to one another if marriage exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another. (This crude example is disanalogous to this "lovingly committed" view of marriage in one notable way, however, namely that while one may at least argue that unisex restrooms serve a compelling purpose, marriage so understood, I contend, does not.)

Now, consider another public restroom. This public restroom, however, exists to accommodate females only (that is, this restroom is a women's restroom). Now, would it be unfair or unjust to deny a man from entering and using such a restroom? Not at all because this bathroom exists for a specific purpose, namely, to accommodate women and women exclusively, not men. This would be crudely analogous to the view of marriage I and others espouse, that being, namely, that marriage exists to permanently attach a man and a woman to each other and to any children that may come from their union upon which the children depend on for their well-being and stability. Now, just as it would not be unfair or in any way unjust to disallow a man from entering and using a restroom that exists to accommodate women, it would similarly not be in any way unfair or unjust to deny marriage to any sort of configuration of individuals which is not one man and one woman (along other considerations, such as individuals who are related, or individuals who are already married, or individuals who are underage, etc.).

Cue the accusations of bigotry.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 10:21:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 8:57:49 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Consider an analogy:

Say that there exists a public restroom. This public restroom is unisex (that is, one can use it regardless of whether he or she is a male or female, provided it is vacant, etc.). Now, suppose that the restroom is vacant. Would it be unfair or unjust to a female from using this restroom on the grounds that she is a female?

Well, of course it would be unfair, as that restroom exists to accommodate either males or females.

This is analogous to the definition of marriage supporters of same sex "marriage" seem to be present or pre-supposing, namely, that marriage exists to join/recognize just any configuration of individuals who are lovingly committed to one another.

The Fool: An argument from definition, is quite useless. For we do not think that a monkey, turns into a cow, if we define it as one. The only thing that's "being" defined, is the expression of the term, although many think to themselves otherwise. Literally that things are coming in and out of existence, by virtue of definition. And they call me foolish..

But these are the same people, who define themselves with terms derived from the references of others, and then think themselves to be the reference, because they refer to themselves with the same Terms. It's a spooky world..

Recognition, is by nature passive. And the second cognition of something. Re-Cognition.

So not recognizing in the voluntary sense would be synonymous with "pretending" something doesn't exist and knowing that it does. Even to themselves.

Regardless there is no entity which is marriage, which exist "to do things", but the use of the term has been used to refer to the joining of male and female. Regardless of recognition.

Perhaps the tradition, is derived from this purpose, but it is not an argument that it must remain to only serve this purpose. As a hammer can be used, to smash things, as well as nail things together. Despite its original intention. Good luck with that one. Lol.
(Fatal blow!)

But those who support gay marriage, and simply attempt to drown out the original meaning, and what others mean by it, are just as callous as those who are against them having the legal equivalent.

The only thing unfair, is that it "S-h-i-ts" on the tradition of those who value, a thing special to them. And it is immoral in so far as it is done more out of spite, as opposed to any sort of love. As love would not need legal anything. So its certainly not that, but a type ideology/mythology, for the excuse to hate and harm others others openly, who hate them, except get away with it. It's a matter of the lesser two evils.

But by calling it "gay marriage", and respecting the differences, with Marriage, and having their own tradition, I see no reason why anybody should deny it the legal equivalent. Nor do I think it can be argued, Rationally. Perhaps, normatively, perhaps ideologically, perhaps religiously, perhaps mythologically. I'm quite foolish to how those arguments work, Or in what sense they can constitute an argument. It is probably my ignorance, but nobody wants to teach me.

OppressiveDream: Cue the accusations of bigotry.

The Fool: To yourself, I guess, and for yourself. It must be a subjective truth.

<(89)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL