quote:But I think you'll find that after you lay all that out, and even get people to agree with you point by point that they'll end with "But I don't think we should redefine marriage just for that"
If what you say is true, then clearly arguing about the definition of marriage isn't going to change their minds. So you're no worse off trying this.
I've changed two people's minds on this using this technique (or, more accurately, started the thinking process that ended up with a changed position). How many minds have been changed by some of the other tactics seen in this thread?
Here's the key aspect: breaking apart what happens because a marriage license is filed and what happens because two people say "I do" to each other. (If anyone remembers my post about referents and precision in thought v. precision in wording, here's where it pays off. ) The former is civil marriage or civil union. Only three states have this for same sex couples. This entity should be available to those whose
The latter concept is Marriage. I contend that the state has no business in defining it. The state shouldn't be putting people in jail for having more than one wife when all agree to the arrangement (although age of consent and domestic abuse laws should still be enforced). It shouldn't be putting people in jail for having a same-sex partner.
What it should do is make civil marriage available to couples when it a) provides societal benefit or b) can be provided at cheaply or at no cost when that societal benefit would not result.
quote:But then, what do you feel is being redefined? Muslims certainly don't honor the Trinity when they get married -- do you feel Muslim marriages are significantly redefining marriage? Are you concerned that the federal government will force the Catholic church to marry homosexuals and violate dogma?
If not, I don't quite see what you feel is being redefined.
This question is simply answered by pointing out that most people do not make the distinction between civil marriage and Marriage that I outlined above. For the majority of Americans, civil marriage is Marriage, even when that is somewhat self-contradictory.
Make this distinction clear, and some will change their minds. Or, you'll find that you've moved beyond arguing about definitions and into the real objections. Many people fear that providing legal benefit to same sex couples will encourage same sex coupling. When it's clear that this is the worry, then the discussion can focus on that aspect.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Pixie -- you gave two contrasting definitions of marriage: "as an economic tool for the raising of children" and "A Man and Woman who love eachother".
You seem to think that the first definition is outmoded and obsolete.
While I don't have a precise definition of what a marriage is and what it should be, I can say that the first definition is an important part of what marriage is to me. It might even be more important than the second definition. I'm not sure.
I don't quite understand. Do you think these economic tools can be used only by heterosexuals? What would prevent homosexual parents from raising a family as successfully as heterosexual parents?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: Only one, but he's a politician. A Republican politician. (and I don't live in his district so I can't vote for him. grr!)
MPH: Those definitions are examples of definitions I have heard in the past. And we lost the children argument when it became possible for women to work and have kids without a man around. When no fault divorce caused men to abandon their wives (or vice versa) with ease.
Further, if marriage is simply for the children, my hubby and I better get to boiking before we get annulled. We have no kids.
And as Lalo said, Homosexuals can adopt, use sperm donors or surrogates, or have children from a previous, heterosexual encounter. If marriage behooves both parents and children in a heterosexual arrangement, they bohoove both parents and children in a homosexual arrangement as well.
quote:For instance: will gay men still be attracted to men who have grown up in a world where gayness is accepted? I can't provide an argument for why they would.
*blink* I'm curious why you discard the most obvious argument: that they are physically attracted to other men.
Most people are capable of being physically attracted to total strangers -- even people they just see in pictures -- forbidden or not. I assume this holds true for you as well, and that you were attracted to your husband before you got to know him.
If homosexuality were to become commonly accepted, I see no reason to assume that homosexual men would suddenly stop finding other men attractive. (Nor do I particularly believe that heterosexual men would suddenly be much more likely to find other men sexually attractive.) But if I DID feel that social acceptance would cause gay men to lose interest in sex, and if I -- like you -- felt that homosexual behavior was inherently sinful, it would seem logical to me that the best thing for society would be to advocate the acceptance of homosexuality, post-haste.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:What it would do, is give monagamous, loving homosexual couples legal rights. Rights that include: rights of inheritance and spousal priviledges. The right to sit at your loved one's bedside as they lay sick or dying in a hospital with family only rules and the right to make determinations about that persons healthcare if they are unable to make decisions for themselves, rather than giving that right to family members that may not have seen or spoken to them since they came out.
It should be noted that nothing in the law prevents a homosexual partner from receiving an inheritance or being appointed as a medical decision maker. Do people think that single people have no say in these matters?
Of the legal constructs you mentioned, only spousal privilege is barred to same sex couples. The difference is in the mechanisms needed to avail oneself of those legal constructs.
I will plead once again for those who support change in the law to make arguments founded in reality. Clearly erroneous statements (such as the one saying same-sex couples lack the right to inheritance or to appoint a medical guardian of their choice) and restructuring opposing arguments so they are easy to refute simply provide an easy way for opponents to refute your arguments.
Perhaps, I should have been more clear about the (or at least my) definition of right of inheritance. Right of inheritance as I was using the phrase is that, if I die and I have no will, who my property is going to. As a single woman with no children, my property would legally revert to my parents or a sibling if my parents predeceased me. If I had children but was single, the money and property would belong to my children. If I were legally married to someone all that property would automatically revert to my husband. Gay and lesbian couples don't automatically have that protection. They could live together for 10 years but if there is no will then property would automatically revert to the closest blood relative.
Similarly, gay and lesbian couples have no automatic medical proxies, such as are afforded to legally married couples. While this can be achieved legally, it is expensive and contestable (sp?) by blood relatives if they so choose.
Frankly, the only real reason to deny equal civil rights to homosexuals is because you believe them to be inferior to you in some way (IMO) and I don't.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
The above post was in no way meant to bring about a discussion on the irresponsibility of not preparing a will.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Frankly, the only real reason to deny equal civil rights to homosexuals is because you believe them to be inferior to you in some way (IMO) and I don't.
As long as you believe this you will be incapable of changing the minds of those who don't want to change the marriage laws yet don't think homosexuals to be inferior.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Frankly, the only real reason to deny equal civil rights to homosexuals is because you believe them to be inferior to you in some way (IMO) and I don't.
As long as you believe this you will be incapable of changing the minds of those who don't want to change the marriage laws yet don't think homosexuals to be inferior.
Actually, the only reason to deny civil rights to ANY group of individuals who are different than another group is because they are believed to be inferior in some way. Telling someone that they can be afforded certain legal rights because they have sex with someone of the opposite sex but can't be afforded those same rights in the same manner because they sleep with someone of the same sex is pronouncing one group to be superior to the other. There's no way to change that. It may not actually be the intention of the people making the statement, but that is what is being said. Racial segregation was the same way.
Seperate but equal doesn't exist.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:MPH, I don't think anyone's been rude to you.
I have been called an unthinking, rationalizing bigot. Not within the confines of this thread, but in response to it.
quote:And if I've put words in your mouth, I apologize -- but could you point out which words, exactly, those were?
It appears as though I probably misjudged your motives. I apologize. Don't worry about the exact words.
quote:And if you'd like to compile a list of the consequences you fear if homosexuals were permitted to marry one another, I'd be grateful.
I won't compile a list, but I'll share some of my opinions to give you an idea where I'm coming from.
I believe that the family is the central and most important unit of society. I believe that children have the best chance of happiness if they are raised in a stable family with a mother and father.
Instead of being viewed as the bedrock of society, this "traditional family" is increasingly being viewed as merely one in an array of equal choices. I think this is not only mistaken, but dangerous as well.
Two things that Pixie mentioned, no-fault divorce and women's lib, have had a negative effect on this perception of the family. The sexual revolution, safe and effective birth control, and invitro fertilization are also good things, most of them good, which have had this same negative effect.
I believe that legalizing same-sex marriage will have a similar effect.
As I said before, I believe that most people could choose to be either straight or gay. I believe I could. I think that as more people view homosexual relationships as having the same value as heterosexual relationships, more people will come to self-identify as gay.
quote:Frankly, the only real reason to deny equal civil rights to homosexuals is because you believe them to be inferior to you in some way
While I do believe that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships in some ways, I do NOT believe that homosexuals are inferior. There is a world of difference.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I believe in evolution, I can not believe people would go with homosxuality exclusively. Procreation is the only reason for existence evolutionarily so we'll still want to make babies.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:While I do believe that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships in some ways, I do NOT believe that homosexuals are inferior. There is a world of difference.
What is this, love the sinner, hate the sin? That really doesn't work out too well.
quote:Actually, the only reason to deny civil rights to ANY group of individuals who are different than another group is because they are believed to be inferior in some way. Telling someone that they can be afforded certain legal rights because they have sex with someone of the opposite sex but can't be afforded those same rights in the same manner because they sleep with someone of the same sex is pronouncing one group to be superior to the other.
Only people under 18 get free education. Are children superior to adults?
Only poor people get welfare (theoretically). Are poor people superior?
Government distinguishes between groups that are different all the time. The key is whether the difference is relevant to the governmental purpose.
The primary reason government recognizes marriage is because it was the primary mode of childbearing and childrearing. Excluding a couple that can not ever produce a child from that institution is distinctly related to that purpose.
(And yes, I know sterile heterosexuals are allowed to marry. That's irrelevant to this argument. Over- and under-inclusiveness caused by bright-line rules is very common. Just ask the 16-year old who's been ready to drive for a year, and think about that 19-year old who's still too immature to drive.)
This isn't denial of civil rights. This is a denial of a particular government benefit that a legislature could, if it so desired, end tomorrow.
quote:There's no way to change that. It may not actually be the intention of the people making the statement, but that is what is being said.
Your narrow view of others and your inability to view this issue from the perspective of others is a little scary.
quote:What is this, love the sinner, hate the sin? That really doesn't work out too well.
posted
By the way, all those who decided that the now-infamous Irregardless anti-abortion post was too insensitive can jump in any time on this.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if you'd like to compile a list of the consequences you fear if homosexuals were permitted to marry one another, I'd be grateful.
I won't compile a list, but I'll share some of my opinions to give you an idea where I'm coming from.
...
Instead of being viewed as the bedrock of society, this "traditional family" is increasingly being viewed as merely one in an array of equal choices. I think this is not only mistaken, but dangerous as well.
See, this is where I can never follow the opposition's point of view. I've never heard anyone give a single convincing impact on society of allowing gay marriage. Saying something is dangerous, on its own, isn't an impact.
Driving drunk is dangerous because you could plow into a bus full of schoolchildren and leave them dead in the middle of road. Base jumping is dangerous because your parachute might not deploy and you could end up a finely mashed paste on the rocks below.
Redefining the nature of the family to include same-sex couples is dangerous because _____________. If someone could convincingly fill in that blank with something concrete, it would help me wrap my mind around the argument. But when I hear some vague, nebulous conjecture about how my family, and the rest of society, are sure to suffer if Billy has two daddies, it just confuses me.
I'm not sure I'd be convinced if someone could answer this question for me. But I'm sure I'd at least respect the position more if I understood what exactly people on the opposite side are saying.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: What is this, love the sinner, hate the sin? That really doesn't work out too well.
-pH
Well, if you are Christian, everyone is a sinner (except Christ). So, Christian's either need to reject the idea of sin or learn to love the sinner or else we'd just be hatefilled lonely people.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: The primary reason government recognizes marriage is because it was the primary mode of childbearing and childrearing.
I hear this advanced all the time, but I'm not sure I believe it. I think our government recognizes marriage because, well, the tradition got grandfathered in along with a lot of property rights.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:MPH, I don't think anyone's been rude to you.
I have been called an unthinking, rationalizing bigot. Not within the confines of this thread, but in response to it.
quote:And if I've put words in your mouth, I apologize -- but could you point out which words, exactly, those were?
It appears as though I probably misjudged your motives. I apologize. Don't worry about the exact words.
quote:And if you'd like to compile a list of the consequences you fear if homosexuals were permitted to marry one another, I'd be grateful.
I won't compile a list, but I'll share some of my opinions to give you an idea where I'm coming from.
I believe that the family is the central and most important unit of society. I believe that children have the best chance of happiness if they are raised in a stable family with a mother and father.
Instead of being viewed as the bedrock of society, this "traditional family" is increasingly being viewed as merely one in an array of equal choices. I think this is not only mistaken, but dangerous as well.
Two things that Pixie mentioned, no-fault divorce and women's lib, have had a negative effect on this perception of the family. The sexual revolution, safe and effective birth control, and invitro fertilization are also good things, most of them good, which have had this same negative effect.
I believe that legalizing same-sex marriage will have a similar effect.
As I said before, I believe that most people could choose to be either straight or gay. I believe I could. I think that as more people view homosexual relationships as having the same value as heterosexual relationships, more people will come to self-identify as gay.
I believe two competent, loving parents are best for children. I don't particularly care what size, shape, or function their genetalia serves -- in fact, if one's genetalia in any way enters a parent's relationship with a child, I think that parent needs to serve a prison term.
Where I think you might be making a logical fallacy is in your belief that only heterosexual parents can be competent ones. Nobody disputes that two good parents are necessary to raise children -- but you seem to invent a condition with no apparent backing, that one parent have male genetalia and one female. Where did this requirement come from?
I've known too many parents to believe heterosexual orientation determines anything of their quality -- and if anything, I submit homosexual parents may, on average, be superior to heterosexual parents. There are no accidental children among homosexual couples, and no burdens. If they have children, it's because they fought tooth and nail against the law to adopt or raise a family -- and any parents with that kind of a devotion to a family, before their children are even born or adopted, are outstanding examples of what parents should be.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where I think you might be making a logical fallacy is in your belief that only heterosexual parents can be competent ones.
Yet again, you are putting words into my mouth. I have never said that.
But that doesn't really matter, as you obviously disagree with what I do believe. That's no surprise.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: By the way, all those who decided that the now-infamous Irregardless anti-abortion post was too insensitive can jump in any time on this.
Just as a side question, which post was this? I searched and found only two relevant threads, this one and this one. I scanned them quickly, but didn't see anything horribly inflammatory -- which post are you talking about?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I think an argument could be made that the biggest threats marriage has faced in this country were/are slavery, adultery, and divorce.
Among those slaves treated as breeding stock, purposeful breakup of families was not uncommon. It could be argued that institutionalized slavery established a pattern of broken homes, and generalized acceptance of that concept (not just among victims of slavery either, since, as we all know, it wasn't all that uncommon for slave owners to breed with their "stock")
That brings us to adultery -- the sin which even the strictest Christian sects acknowledge as a legitimate reason for divorce. It is a common practice (and no, I don't have data). But suffice it to say that adultery is more prevalent than homosexuality, more visible, and more damaging to marriage both directly and by example to young people (and older people)...
Which, of course, brings us to divorce. As a divorced person, I have an appreciation for the laws that allow this action. As a happily remarried person, I have much to be thankful for.
But, ultimately, is there much doubt that in a society where people talk about entering into a "practice marriage" we've gotten a little too accepting of this particular challenge to marriage.
I just get a chuckle about the idea that banning homosexual marriage is a "defense" of marriage. If it is, it's a weird one that goes after something nebulous and ill defined, with not a lot of data to back up the concerns, and not a lot of data to refute the concerns either -- um...just not a lot of data.
On the other hand, we have obvious links between adultery, divorce and damage to the institution of marriage. We have, as a society, accepted a definition of marriage that includes a lot of temporariness and escape clauses. And, for a time, we even institutionally encouraged the break up of marriages in 1/2 of this country in order to get better slaves.
Hey, sure, let's defend marriage!
Let's change our behavior.
Let's stop adultery.
Let's make it less "normal" to divorce.
Then, if marriage is still suffering from societal ills, we could maybe do a few studies and see what else is wrong with the way we live and relate to each other...
Or am I just not getting the concept...again?
Bob <---- out of step with his countrymen for 47 years, and counting.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I may be wrong but I remember reading about it in a book from Joe Haldeman, in a far future were everyone is gay or lesbian and a poor guy who belongs to our time but was in the future because of the relativity involved in space travels was straight and considered as very, very weird.
The novel is Forever War, and his troops call him "the old pervert" behind his back. One of his subordinates had repressed heterosexual tendencies and tried to put the moves on him while she was drunk. Because he knew how embarassed and mortified she'd be the next day, he didn't do anything with her.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:the sin which even the strictest Christian sects acknowledge as a legitimate reason for divorce.
Catholicism doesn't, although it can recognize a lack of intent to live faithfully at the time of marriage as grounds for annulment, adultery in and of itself is not grounds for a divorce or annulment.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I recall correctly, in The Forever War people were made gay by some sort of treatment as a population control method.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was no treatment mentioned in the book. A couple of relevant quotes:
quote:"Most governments encourage homosexuality-the United Nations is neutral, leaves it up to the individual countries-they encourage homolife mainly because it's the one sure method of birth control."
quote:He said that the relations between people who chose homolife and the ones he called "breeders" were quite smooth, but I wondered. I never had much trouble accepting homosexuals myself, but then I'd never had to cope with such an abundance of them.
quote:Where I think you might be making a logical fallacy is in your belief that only heterosexual parents can be competent ones.
Yet again, you are putting words into my mouth. I have never said that.
But that doesn't really matter, as you obviously disagree with what I do believe. That's no surprise.
My mistake, you don't believe homosexuals can't be competent parents -- only that heterosexuals have a better chance at it. Is this better phrasing?
Yet in either case, you're still imposing a proofless condition. What possible significance does a parent's genetalia have in a relationship between parents and their children? And what reasoning do you have to believe heterosexual parents are superior to homosexual parents?
Please don't mistake this for an attack -- it's not. These are questions I've long wanted answered, and to date I have yet to see any argument against homosexual parenthood stand up to examination. I think you may be making a similar set of mistakes to those I've seen so many times before -- namely, holding faithful to beliefs you've cherished all your life, and mistaking questions about their validity for an assault on your religion.
I respect the LDS Church as much as any other, but I think they've mistaken a longtime prejudice for a religious tenet -- a mistake repeated by most religions in the world. But if called upon to defend the concept of heterosexual superiority, I think you'll find yourself grasping for defenses that aren't there; and will recognize questions that take advantage of those absences as attacks on your religion and identity.
So I'll ask for reasons why heterosexual parents might be superior to homosexual parents. If you can't provide that, it doesn't mean that your culture's wrong or in danger -- only that one particular belief might be based more on traditional prejudice than reality. I beg you, reconsider your beliefs; and if you choose to maintain what amounts to heterosexual supremacy, by all means, do. Just please don't feel threatened and defensive every time someone questions those beliefs, because I promise you, for the rest of your life, they will. Your children will, and if they don't believe differently, their children will. In a free society, homosexual equality is as inevitable as that of every other minority -- racial or religious, it doesn't matter, any idea taken for granted will go through the crucible of examination. I can't think of many that have withstood the process.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
m_p_h: ridiculous geek that I am, I know that at one point the society is discussed heterosexuality is illegal.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My mistake, you don't believe homosexuals can't be competent parents -- only that heterosexuals have a better chance at it. Is this better phrasing?
It's better, but still not quite right.
quote:Yet in either case, you're still imposing a proofless condition.
I know that. I offer no proof because I have none that would hold any weight with you. My reasoning for that condition begins we "Take as a given that Jesus was the Christ, and that Joseph Smith was and Gordon B. Hinkley is his prophet."
quote:What possible significance does a parent's genetalia have in a relationship between parents and their children?
You are assuming that I believe that gender is merely a matter of plumbing. I do not.
posted
Edit: So I type too slow. *grin* My bad, this post was an irrelevant and pretty dumb misreading of both Eddie and Porter that probably only made sense to me. Nothing to see here, folks, move along.
Personally, I'm hugely ambivalent about the issue, and very wary to throw my lot in with one side or the other. (I might even be the "ambivalent sometime-Agnostic" Twinky mentioned earlier. *grin*) But I'm really appreciating the discussion here. So keep it up, y'all.
quote:My mistake, you don't believe homosexuals can't be competent parents -- only that heterosexuals have a better chance at it. Is this better phrasing?
It's better, but still not quite right.
quote:Yet in either case, you're still imposing a proofless condition.
I know that. I offer no proof because I have none that would hold any weight with you. My reasoning for that condition begins we "Take as a given that Jesus was the Christ, and that Joseph Smith was and Gordon B. Hinkley is his prophet."
If you have no reason but religious dogma, shouldn't only Mormons be subject to Mormon morality? I think you'd object to, say, Muslims demanding that you pray five times a day, even if they had a large enough population to force it into law -- why would it be any different with a different minority in religious headlights?
By no means am I demanding you enter in a homosexual marriage. Only that you maintain the separation of church and state, precisely so everyone -- including, of all groups to forget this lesson, the LDS Church -- is free of religious persecution and control.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:What possible significance does a parent's genetalia have in a relationship between parents and their children?
You are assuming that I believe that gender is merely a matter of plumbing. I do not.
If you're referring to the importance of gender stereotypes, that's vastly different from actual sex. Many heterosexual couples have feminine men and masculine women -- and many homosexual couples have a dominant partner. I think you'd find that most homosexual couples would provide both stern rules and loving care, just as the they traditional stereotypes would predict from heterosexual couples.
What traits do you believe sex provides that personality doesn't? Do you believe men can't be as loving as mothers, or women as stern as fathers? I think you might be relying on rigid stereotypes, long outdated -- and never true.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, whether or not it makes a difference in effective parenting or not, gender *is* more than a matter of plumbing.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, on both of those points, let me say that you don't understand my position.
But, this has been too wearying for me. I don't want to debate you, and I am tired of being asked to defend what I think. I just don't have the stamina to keep this up.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Princess Leah: Well, whether or not it makes a difference in effective parenting or not, gender *is* more than a matter of plumbing.
Obviously, but to the point where it hinders parenthood? What aspects of gender affect a person's competence to either discipline or nourish?
These aren't assertions I'm making, to be clear. Claiming that homosexuals would be incompetent (or at least inferior) parents, with no shred of reasoning or evidence behind the claim, seems to be a common card played when arguing against homosexuals' right to marriage. I'd like to understand the logic behind the criticism; but I have yet to see anyone stand behind it upon examination.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, I already said that I know that I have no scientific evidence for the beginning assumptions of my position. I believe it anyway, and am not going to act as though it's not true. I stand behind it.
quote:But when I hear some vague, nebulous conjecture about how my family, and the rest of society, are sure to suffer if Billy has two daddies
Is this systematic mis-stating of the anti-SSM position being done on purpose or is it just habit by now?
This exact same mis-statment has been done several times already in this thread.
If that's a mis-statement, please, please, for the love of God, correct me. I hear a lot of "you don't understand," and precious little "this is what I mean."
The MPH post I quoted last time started out very promisingly. I thought he was going to lay out some specific, concrete reasons that he thinks same-sex marriage (SSM) will be detrimental to society. I read the post with bated breath. But all I got were the same vague allusions to hidden secret dangers.
If someone would explain exactly what they feared would happen, I think a lot of people would listen. I would be one. But all I ever hear is that if we allow SSM, we'll lose the man/woman model of marriage. That's not a consequence. That's just re-stating the definition of SSM.
Every other thing we debate on this forum has a discussion of impacts. If you're pro-war, you can talk about how delaying war will make us look weak and allow the terrorists to prepare to take us on, resulting in more attacks. If you're anti-war, you talk about how our aggression will enrage the terrorists, giving them reason to hate us, resulting in more attacks. If you're for stricter environmental laws, you can talk about global warming and the melting of the icecaps and the storms and the ocean level rising. If you're anti-welfare, you can talk about breeding a class of sponges that will be content to leech off the working class and suck the economy dry. Even when discussing these positions with people with whom I disagree, I can understand and empathize with their point of view.
All I ask of the anti-SSM people is to put together some kind of logically consistent impact statement so that I can at least figure out what in the heck they're all so scared of. I've tried and tried to understand their point of view, and it continues to elude me. And every time I look for some kind of guidance, I get another one of these snarky remarks, like they've explained it hundreds of times and I'm not getting it on purpose.
Once again, I implore you, fill in the blanks. "Two men getting married is dangerous to society because it will lead to _______________." Feel free to use all the scare tactics you want on this one. Tell me something that will keep me up at night. And make it clear enough that I will never have to "mis-state" your position again.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The ongoing inequality of women is the main reason I feel this amendment is necesary. Hide behind your style manual if you like.
Uhm... huh? I am unversed with your history of argument on this topic... can you make that NOT sound like a parodic non sequitur?
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) The former is civil marriage or civil union. Only three states have this for same sex couples. This entity should be available to those whose 
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
