While I support a company's right to market products as it sees fit as long as I have my right to not support them, I do have to wonder... do you think they support ice cream equality? Do you think they'd celebrate it if I froze some tap water with food coloring in it, and sold it as "Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream"? Or would they be bigoted and sue me to impose their beliefs about ice cream and word meanings on me? What would be the harm if I did that?
Ironically, the redundancy of the flavor name - a play on the flavor name Chubby Hubby - illustrates precisely what is wrong with neutering state marriage licensing. There's no bride mentioned.
Wow- you're arguing that gay marriage constitutes copyright infringement? Really?
ReplyDeleteUnless there's someone else out there who thinks ice cream can be copyrighted, it's not worth correcting PF's failure, above.
ReplyDeleteClever Walrus - very clever
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure Personal meant that Ben & Jerry own exclusive rights to use the brand name "Ben & Jerry's" to sell ice cream.
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting for someone to explain what the harm would be. How does calling what I would be selling "ice cream", even "Ben & Jerry's", harm anyone? Shouldn't lactose intolerant people be able to enjoy "Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream" too? Or are you against equality?
ReplyDeleteThe harm is that it hurts the Ben & Jerry company, as it ruins their brand for inferior products to be marketed in their name. It also hurts consumers who may be misled into thinking that the ice cream they're purchasing is the real Ben & Jerry's. Also, it's illegal, and law enforcement resources would have to be spent in stopping the practice.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is that the Ben & Jerry company legally owns their brand name. No private entity owns the word or meaning of "marriage."
If you wanted to restrict your marketing strategy for tap water as just "ice cream", then the issues are different. No private entity can own the term "ice cream" either, so there's no copyright infringement there. But because the term "ice cream" has a clear and accepted meaning by society, you might still run afoul of truth-in-advertising laws, and would be violating the consumers' right to know what they're purchasing.
No private entity can own the term "ice cream" either [...]
ReplyDeleteAs the analogy unfolds, it shoots a few more holes in the neutered marriage philosophy. Especially that the expectation that term "marriage" should be privately interpreted -- only.
But because the term "ice cream" has a clear and accepted meaning by society [..]
Actually the label "ice cream" is regulated for content. You can read here to see where a real battle is taking place along the lines of Playful's allegory.
The difference is that the Ben & Jerry company legally owns their brand name.
You are correct, but probably not how you intended?
There have been gays calling themselves married without any impunity from the government for many decades. Yet no one can try to pawn off their ice cream as "Ben and Jerry's" but Ben and Jerry. The government is not taking the stance of an aggressive trade mark holder. However, the government is taking a strict stance (as directed by its populace) as to what contents of the relationship it accepts as a registered marriage.
And that would continue either way.
What Playful, and all of us are saying is that the content of the marriage that is most valuable to recognize is...
1) Equality... equal recognition of the rights and responsibility of everyone involved in how new people are born. The expectation of commitment before the baby is a critical part of helping people understand the importance of preparing their relationship and household for the strain children will be to them.
2) In-tact family bonds mean something. All else being equal, there are no two people more able to reach and help a child then the two who combined to create the child. The child identifies with each parent and learns tolerance and love as each parent tolerates and loves the other identity in the mix. This is the first, and probably greatest lesson in socializing children.
Replacing the expectation of those ingredients with the expectation of it just tasting sweet and cold opens up many for being taken advantage of.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Especially that the expectation that term "marriage" should be privately interpreted -- only."
ReplyDeleteObviously you're not paying attention to what I'm saying. If anything my argument was the opposite of this: that the word marriage CANNOT be privately owned. It's meaning and interpretation is left to the public.
"Actually the label "ice cream" is regulated for content."
Yes. This doesn't contradict what I said at all. If anything it reinforces it. Ice cream content is regulated precisely so that products marketed as ice cream match consumer expectations, based on its widely understood meaning. This is in fact a major point in the article you linked.
"However, the government is taking a strict stance (as directed by its populace) as to what contents of the relationship it accepts as a registered marriage."
And now a substantial portion of that populace is trying to direct the government to change its stance. Which is a perfectly legitimate exercise, because the word "marriage" is publicly owned, unlike "Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream", which is privately owned. This is exactly my point.
"1) Equality...
[...]
2) In-tact family bonds mean something."
Yeah right. This just sounds like a made-up justification to prevent same-sex couples from marrying. Historically, it was mainly just the rights of the husband, and the responsibilities of the wife, that were recognized; but those were called marriages too. And if intact family bonds were so important to its legal definition, then divorce wouldn't be legal. In truth, the law permits all sorts of marriages where these qualities aren't recognized. So why exclude same-sex couples on this basis?
In any case, I don't agree for a second that these are the features of marriage that are MOST valuable to recognize. The fact is, gays and lesbians are now widely known to be capable of loving, committed, stable relationships, and of raising children every bit as well as straight couples. So you have to retreat to upholding more ambiguous, unsubstantiated, and gender-dependent features of marriage in order to keep same-sex couples from marrying.
Obviously you're not paying attention to what I'm saying.
ReplyDeleteThat might be your knee-jerk interpretation, but its rather self-centered. I'm just saying.
That statement speaks to a much larger audience here at Opine, some of whom do expect marriage to be defined only at the individual contract level -- removing any and all social expectations of what marriage is.
Does your resentment at my bringing it up mean you disagree with that interpretation of what marriage is?
This is in fact a major point in the article you linked.
The correction is that "ice cream" is beyond a mere social expectation -- it is a government regulation of the term "ice cream". Hence PF's argument about trade-mark is off the mark. And your statement along those lines, "Which is a perfectly legitimate exercise, because the word "marriage" is publicly owned, unlike "Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream", which is privately owned. This is exactly my point." is also off the mark. You can't keep switching between the two like a con-man's shell game. One is more valid then the other, and we both recognize the regulation on content of ice cream is more relevant then the trademark.
But if your point is that there is good in how government regulates some labels based on how people expect its ingredients to be constituted, then you are in agreement with Playful Walrus above -- as I am in bringing it up.
Yeah right. This just sounds like a made-up justification to prevent same-sex couples from marrying.
Ah, I see. Are you going to be sincere in this discussion? Are you going to then take our values and dismiss them as rhetoric or will you be willing to accept that these values are much more ingrained in our lives then any level of opinion of homosexuality?
I hope that you can extend such a courtesy as to not trample on our values. We promise to extend the same courtesy, tolerance, and respect.
Historically, it was mainly just the rights of the husband, and the responsibilities of the wife
You need to learn more history then. From what source did you arrive at your conclusion?
And if intact family bonds were so important to its legal definition, then divorce wouldn't be legal.
Fallacy. It is true that outlawing divorce would show in-tact family bonds as important. But the lack thereof does not disprove their importance. The government is not as totalitarian in perfect enforcement of laws as your junior high school geometry teacher.
In truth, the law permits all sorts of marriages where these qualities aren't recognized.
Please outline these "sorts"...
The fact is, gays and lesbians are now widely known to be capable of loving, committed, stable relationships, and of raising children every bit as well as straight couples.
I'm not against gays raising children. However, just as all else being equal a step-parent relationship winds is widely seen as not as effective as the in-tact family, neither can any homosexual relationship (which at best is just a step-parent arrangement) be as such.
Nor can I equally respect from a humanitarian perspective a person who says they should be exempt from the expectation of love and tolerance of the other person they create a child with -- because they are intolerant of their gender.
So you have to retreat to upholding more ambiguous, unsubstantiated, and gender-dependent features of marriage in order to keep same-sex couples from marrying.
Thats a good punchline, but re-read this comment and you'll see that I've just shown where you are far more worthy of such a judgment then I.
"That statement speaks to a much larger audience here at Opine"
ReplyDeleteWell that's just silly. You directly misrepresent what I'm saying, and then when I call you out on it, your defense is that you were talking to other people?
"And your statement along those lines, [...] is also off the mark."
Not at all. I was responding to PF's rather nonsensical argument regarding trademark. I'm glad you agree with me that he was mistaken.
"The correction is that "ice cream" is beyond a mere social expectation -- it is a government regulation of the term "ice cream"."
Actually, no. They regulate the production, sale and marketing of ice cream, to protect consumer rights. The word itself is owned and defined by society. If the language evolved so that "ice cream" began to encompass sherbet and yogurt, regulatory law would probably shift accordingly.
"But if your point is that there is good in how government regulates some labels based on how people expect its ingredients to be constituted, then you are in agreement with Playful Walrus above -- as I am in bringing it up."
Of course there's some good in that regulation. But as far as marriage goes, it's an incredibly bad analogy that falls apart at the slightest scrutiny. Marriage is a contract to be entered into, not a commodity to be bought or sold.
"You need to learn more history then. From what source did you arrive at your conclusion?"
Oh please. Just look up the history of chattel marriages, forced marriages, and arranged marriages, and then tell me which spouse's rights have been more respected historically. Hell, just look up any feminist critique of marriage. I mean really, about a century ago married women weren't even allowed the basic liberty of owning property in most states.
"But the lack thereof does not disprove their importance."
But it does make it hypocritical to deny marriage to same-sex couples on that basis.
"I'm not against gays raising children."
Fascinating. You're fine with same-sex couples raising children, you just don't want them to be married when doing so? And is this supposed to strengthen the link between marriage and childrearing?
"neither can any homosexual relationship (which at best is just a step-parent arrangement) be as such."
Actually, it is very widely seen exactly as such. Also, by your logic if same-sex marriage should be banned on the basis of their intrinsic step-parenthood, then step-parenthood itself should also be banned.
"because they are intolerant of their gender."
Oh, so gay men are "intolerant" of women now? Just because they're not attracted to them? So by this logic, assuming you're a straight man, you're therefore intolerant of other men?
"Fallacy. It is true that outlawing divorce would show in-tact family bonds as important. But the lack thereof does not disprove their importance."
ReplyDeleteActually, now that I think of it, it's not a fallacy at all. If, as you seem to argue, the maintenance of intact family relationships is a defining feature of marriage, so that same-sex relationships should not be called marriages on this basis, then by definition, traditional marriages and families should not be "breakable" through divorce, adoption, and step-parenthood, either. If, on the other hand, it's an important but not defining quality of marriage, then there's an insufficient basis for denying same-sex couples the privilege of the term "marriage." Either way, the value of intact relationships are being upheld unequally in the eyes of the law. By your reasoning, intact family relationships are so important that gays shouldn't get married (even though you concede they can be good parents, and anyway most don't even have children), but not so important that the freedoms of straight couples should also be restricted. Convenient for you I suppose, but more than a tad hypocritical from my point of view.
"Not at all. I was responding to PF's rather nonsensical argument regarding trademark. I'm glad you agree with me that he was mistaken."
ReplyDeleteOops, I misunderstood; for some reason I thought you were referring to Playful Walrus. PersonalFailure's response actually addresses Playful Walrus's argument quite clearly and directly, as both asisoldieron and I pointed out, since Playful Walrus directly quoted the term "Ben & Jerry's ice cream".
But even setting aside trademark issues and restricting the discussion to the generic term "ice cream", my additional point still stands; in fact if anything you've reinforced and clarified it. Government regulation of ice cream content is presupposed by a societal expectation of what ice cream actually is; it ensures that when consumers purchase a product labeled "ice cream", its nature and quality matches their expectations. It does NOT mean that government owns or has a trademark on the term "ice cream", and is empowered to punish any misuse or misappropriation of the term. I don't think we're actually in disagreement here. What I don't agree with is that this reasoning applies to marriage, which is NOT a commodity that can be bought or sold.
Ax,
ReplyDeleteIt seems I need to take things slowly with you. I'll take that first issue and drive that to a conclusion before moving on.
You directly misrepresent what I'm saying, and then when I call you out on it, your defense is that you were talking to [...]
Actually, its more accurate to say you misinterpreted my remarks in two ways.
1) That my remarks misrepresented yours
2) That they even contradicted yours.
Admitting your over-reaching conclusion was the honest thing to do, now you're doubling down on the interpretation that you are the center of the universe here.
Lets look at what I wrote, and I believe you will see where your interpretation is in error. Is it representing your remarks or using them to speak to a much larger group of people?
I quoted you as saying,
Ax : >>> No private entity can own the term "ice cream" either [...]
That was a direct quote, I don't believe it misrepresents your position. I replied saying,
Me : >> "As the analogy unfolds, it shoots a few more holes in the neutered marriage philosophy. Especially that the expectation that term 'marriage' should be privately interpreted -- only."
The analogy was a reference to Playful Walrus's use of the regulation around ice cream, and the regulation around what is recognized as a marriage. The antecedent of 'it' is how that analogy unfolded in your own comments as quoted. The target it hits is a specific facet of 'neutered marriage philosophy'.
So how am I misrepresenting your position. Especially when in your own words you re-iterate that same position as...
If anything my argument was [...] that the word marriage CANNOT be privately owned.
I do not see how you cannot accept that my statement speaks to a much larger audience here at Opine, it is clear from the writing.
There are some who expect marriage to be defined only at the individual contract level -- removing any and all social expectations of what marriage is.
Does your resentment at my bringing it up mean you disagree with that interpretation of what marriage is? I think you have clarified that it does, but I want to make sure.
Ax, your lack of response here might be interpreted as concession that you were wrong in accusing me of misrepresenting? If so I move on to your next error...
ReplyDeleteMe :>>> "The correction is that 'ice cream' is beyond a mere social expectation -- it is a government regulation of the term 'ice cream'."
Ax :>> "Actually, no. They regulate the production, sale and marketing of ice cream, to protect consumer rights."
Since "regulat[ing] the production, sale and marketing" is clearly more than a mere social expectation, I'll take that as a second concession you were in error.
Its another example of you (and trust me these do bring chuckles) agreeing with me in substance, while claiming I'm wrong. If I was wrong, I'm sure you'd show evidence to the contrary, not to the affirmation of what I present.
I'll risk another while we are at it...
But as far as marriage goes, it's an incredibly bad analogy that falls apart at the slightest scrutiny. Marriage is a contract to be entered into, not a commodity to be bought or sold.
Actually it is your "scrutiny" which falls apart. We've already described the commonality enough to establish the analogy with marriage as constituting socially held value as well as any commodity object.
"What Playful, and all of us are saying is that the content of the marriage that is most valuable to recognize is...
"1) Equality... equal recognition of the rights and responsibility of everyone involved in how new people are born. The expectation of commitment before the baby is a critical part of helping people understand the importance of preparing their relationship and household for the strain children will be to them.
"2) In-tact family bonds mean something. All else being equal, there are no two people more able to reach and help a child then the two who combined to create the child. The child identifies with each parent and learns tolerance and love as each parent tolerates and loves the other identity in the mix. This is the first, and probably greatest lesson in socializing children.
"Replacing the expectation of those ingredients with the expectation of it just tasting sweet and cold opens up many for being taken advantage of."
Did you reply then that the analogy didn't fit either marriage or ice cream? No, instead you seemed to have understood the analogy, but simply disagreed on the value that was presented. You said,
Yeah right. This just sounds like a made-up justification to prevent same-sex couples from marrying.
On the use of the analogy, you claimed that the distinction was based on public ownership, not perceived value in the constitution of each recognized marriage or container of ice cream...
Me : >>>>> "Actually the label 'ice cream' is regulated for content."
Ax: >>>> "Yes. This doesn't contradict what I said at all. If anything it reinforces it. Ice cream content is regulated precisely so that products marketed as ice cream match consumer expectations, based on its widely understood meaning. This is in fact a major point in the article you linked."
True, that is the very point you seem to be struggling to understand or express, but as you said, "If the language evolved so that 'ice cream' began to encompass sherbet and yogurt, regulatory law would probably shift accordingly." Which, only further shows that you use the analogy in the exact same way -- at least when you think it works in your favor.