No, obviously not. Sexual orientation has never been a bar to marriage.


False distinction, with respect, for reasons I thought I made clear with my Chinese scenarios. Vermont state for example practices discrimination that private entities don't such as sexual discrimination in the provision of single sex hospital wards, single sex prisons and single sex public crappers.


No, I don't agree with that... it's not private but it is exclusive in numerous ways for example there's age discrimination against minors and a requirement that parties be members of the opposite sex.


Let's keep that one on ice then for the time being.

km

Well that just makes no sense whatsoever as a retort - so you're basically trying to support your statement that 'universally accepted' means 'generally accepted' by claiming (on the basis of the SOED definition) that you meant 'universally accepted - in the sense of being accepted by ALL INDIVIDUALS within a particular subgroup of humanity'?

Tautology. Of course something is universally accepted by the subgroup of people who universally accept it, but if humanity as a whole does not universally accept it, then it ain't universal. Next.

Correct - that it can mean generally accepted.


Incorrect - I wasn't relying on SOED but on general usage as confirmed by COED. Since you cited SOED I was simply pointing out that it was unhelpful to your case because the subgroup to which you refer is practically everyone --->

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Angola
Antigua
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Holy See
Honduras
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kosovo
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macau
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Micronesia
Moldova
Monaco
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
Netherlands Antilles
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Palestinian Territories
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
Sao Tome and Principe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States of America (cough)
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

I believe that list of nations is long enough to declare that the minimum requirements of marriage upon which they're all agreed represents a universal view thereof. As I said earlier such a statement is supported by the Concise Oxford Dictionary which says of 'universal':

"a term or concept of general application"

where "general" means

"affecting or concerning all or most people"

If you prefer Webster

"embracing a major part or the greatest portion"

That being so any fair minded person would conclude that I had used the term correctly.


I think you'll find it does.


I think you'll find it is.

km

Ah, I see where you're going with that and point taken. I'll rephrase then: There's exclusion based on the gender of the participants, as you mention further along in your post ...



Your example of the Chinese restaurant is interesting although the discrimination would only be limited to wait-staff (as opposed to a enterprise-wide policy of hiring only Chinese people) and I'd gather wether or not a successful discrimination case could be brought would depend of the specific circumstances. As for government agents, that example falls because presumably the agency would be hiring all types of people for all types of assignments, not just chinese people. The state could possibly also show an overriding security interest in using specific racial types for specific assignments ...



I think we can both agree there are existing examples of government discrimination where the state has successfully demonstrated an overriding interest in restricting civil rights. It's important to note, though, that such rights are assumed to apply unless the state can demonstrate a compelling reason why they should not. In regards same-sex marriage, there's four states now where it has been found (either in court or through legislation) that the government has no such compelling interest in denying those rights to same-sex couples (and more, apparently, where the question will also be put to the test) ...



But you said in your post above that nobody is excluded from marriage except on grounds of age -- by your own statement, it's not so terribly exclusive.

Besides, a public government institution is not nearly exclusive enough to pass legal muster allowing discrimination on those grounds ... I believe one of the common tests applied to associations is if membership exceeds 400 persons. Another is if membership or services are offered to the public at large. If either are true, the association cannot be considered private or exclusive -- and therefore not legally allowed to practice discrimination. Since the "membership" of a government are its citizens, a state would have to have an adult population of under 400 to qualify. Since the service of civil marriage is offered to the public at large (i.e. to persons outside the state) it also fails that test.

All of this inasmuch, of course, that a government can be considered an association or club in the first place -- and even then the comparison between the two is shaky, which has been my point all along =) ...

Have seen that list before.

Might shrink a little if you compare the populations of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New York. That might make a difference.

Exactly, because I'm drawing a distinction between harmless and harmful forms of discrimination and suggesting that the difference is not enlightened by whether the context is public or private.

My statement that nobody was excluded from marriage meant that there were no harmful exclusions from it. Equality dogmas tend to be expressed as rigid rules that attempt to separate harmful from harmless actions or activities and don't succeed. Racial discrimination is 'bad' but - Oh! What a surprise! Some instances of it are good! Discrimination based in sexual orientation is bad but Oh! There's another surprise! Some instances are good.

Since gays and lesbians aren't excluded from the institution of marriage it can't be said to be discriminatory on grounds of sexual orientation. So to make it discriminatory proponents of gay marriage dreamt up a new approach that half-wits everywhere have signed up to that society discriminates when it doesn't change the meaning of a word.

When Rosa Parks was thrown off the bus for being black there were no complaints about the meaning of 'bus' or 'black' and society didn't respond by re-defining those terms. It said that everyone's allowed on the bus provided they comply with a few harmless rules - so they're not allowed on the bus for example if it's full up because others would have legitimate objections and it could even be dangerous.

km

No, all you said earlier was 'Oxford dictionary'. So the reason we've been disagreeing about your use of the term 'universal' is because we're citing conflicting dictionary definitions of 'universal'.

I therefore accept that within your carefully chosen interpretation of the term 'universal', your original statement just means: most countries (or states thereof) have not yet voted in favour of same-sex marriage.

It must also be universally accepted that more are gradually doing so every day/week/month/year.

Wouldn't shrink much because there's only one line for the United States.

km

For context, currently nearly 4% of the world's population live in countries/states thereof where they may get legally married as a same-sex couple. This has all taken place within the last 8 years. Almost catching up with the mac users .