posted
I generally don't think celebrity activists are anything special, but Sean Penn made a fine point at the Oscars.
Same Sex Marriage is coming. It WILL happen in the next 20 years. All the people who are the most vocal against it now really need to think about how their kids and grand kids are going to see them.
Some people in our generation, maybe some of us, are embarrassed to say that our grandparents were really racist. Do you want your grand kids to have to apologize about you to their friends?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue with marriage is that everyone gets to have their own ideas of who's really married. Government recognized marriage is just one piece of that puzzle.
As always, I wish government would just stop pretending that their fancy piece of paper had anything to do with who's forming a family. I'd rather they just called it a civil union and considered it a binding conract between two people willing to take on certain responsibilities for each other in exchange for certain benefits.
It'd be a lot easier in the long run with a lot less baggage, in my opinion.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I generally don't think celebrity activists are anything special, but Sean Penn made a fine point at the Oscars.
Same Sex Marriage is coming. It WILL happen in the next 20 years. All the people who are the most vocal against it now really need to think about how their kids and grand kids are going to see them.
Some people in our generation, maybe some of us, are embarrassed to say that our grandparents were really racist. Do you want your grand kids to have to apologize about you to their friends?
I'm sorry but I'm not going to live my life based on how my unborn grandchildren may believe. I fully expect my grand kids to believe firmly in the wisdom of the day, and in some things I may be an old coot who just won't see the light. I hope we won't be too guilty of either of those sins.
There's something to be said about doing something for your posterity that you yourself will never benefit from, but there's another thing to be said for those who see the waves of inevitability, and say, "I've made my voice heard, my conviction remains."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some people in our generation, maybe some of us, are embarrassed to say that our grandparents were really racist. Do you want your grand kids to have to apologize about you to their friends?
I'm sorry, but I think just about all of us who are opposed to same sex marriage (I can only speak for my friends and family and acquaintances, of course) would define the reasons for our beliefs as being related to our view of what the social institution of marriage means and not as being directed by hate of any particular set of people. Just because you decide that my beliefs are hateful and discriminatory does not mean that that's what they're actually motivated by. Comparing objections to same sex marriage to racism is false and misleading. California blacks were largely supportive of Proposition 8 - among black women, 75% voted for the measure. Is it really fair to draw a comparison to racism?
I personally believe that my grandchildren would be ashamed if they knew that I had turned against the gospel of Christ and the teachings of the living Prophet that I intend to teach them are true.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think just about all of us who are opposed to same sex marriage (I can only speak for my friends and family and acquaintances, of course) would define the reasons for our beliefs as being related to our view of what the social institution of marriage means...
Yes. It's quite well-rehearsed.
quote:California blacks were largely supportive of Proposition 8 - among black women, 75% voted for the measure. Is it really fair to draw a comparison to racism?
posted
Racism is thinking one group of people is superior to another based on external, physical characteristics. Being opposed to same-sex mariage generally rests on a disagreement over the definition of the word marriage.
While the results may be similar (denial of civil rights sometimes crossing into physical violence), the reasoning is completely different.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Racism had plenty of "reasoning" that went into it as well. In both cases, I don't think it has anything to do with reasoning or definitions. You can come up with arguments to support the belief but I think it's rooted in the same fear of the Other.
If people really cared about what the Bible calls an abomination, they'd be trying to ban shellfish as well. If people cared about sticking to the traditional definition of marriage, they'd argue for women that are essentially property and men being able to have multiple wives.
If I meet someone who campaigns for the above, I'll respect them for their consistency and honesty (even if I also think they're a menace to society). Until then, I have a hard time taking the anti-gay-marriage movement seriously as anything other than a gut reaction to something that's icky.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Racism is thinking one group of people is superior to another based on external, physical characteristics. Being opposed to same-sex mariage generally rests on a disagreement over the definition of the word marriage."
And if you dig into why the state shouldn't alter its understanding of who may have a legally recognized marriage, you find that the reasoning is usually "straights are better than gays."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right. Its opposition based on what you believe god says about marriage. And, since what you believe god says is subject to change if a certain person says so, its opposition based on whim.
I'm not sure how that can be considered better,than basing opposition on the bible. It seems to me to be quite a bit worse, actually.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. What is it based on then? (I know there are plenty of religions out there other than traditional Christianity that still are opposed to gay marriage. I think most Americans opposed to gay marriage use the "static definition of marriage" argument, and I think the flaws with that are still relevant to Mormons.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I generally don't think celebrity activists are anything special, but Sean Penn made a fine point at the Oscars.
Same Sex Marriage is coming. It WILL happen in the next 20 years. All the people who are the most vocal against it now really need to think about how their kids and grand kids are going to see them.
This is not a very good argument though, for the simple reason that there's not really any solid reason to assume SSM is coming.
I'd think a more likely outcome for the issue, if it gets resolved in the next 20 years, is a general agreement on the establishment of "civil unions" as equivalent to marriages. If that happens, my guess is our kids and grandkids will wonder why our generation made such a big fuss over the issue.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It actually displays a fundamental belief that there is no god. That leads me to hold in disdain bad behavior that is justified by dictates from god.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing. Everyone's the referee in their own minds; they get to make all the calls. Everyone gets to decide what they believe about other people. Rail against it all you want, blame logical inconsistancy, but we all do it.
Right now, the government thinks it gets to set the standard for who's married and who isn't. As long as it does that, everyone who wants to make other people fall in line with their version of reality will be lobbying the government to use their definition. It's not really about agenda; it's about personality.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So perhaps you could squeeze out a little understanding as to why people might be fed up enough to discriminate against the people who are discriminating against them?
I wasn't aware that I had failed to show such understanding. In fact, I specifically said that I understand why people get upset, but behaving this way is counterproductive, and hurts the process more than it helps the cause.
The fact that you feel a certain way does not mean that expressing yourself that way is right or productive. Sometimes it is, but this is a case where I think it is not.
This insistence on painting the entire opposing camp with a single dastardly brush is the most lastingly harmful part of this entire debate. Like others have said, same-sex marriage is very likely an inevitability. We can get there through peaceful persuasion, or by demonizing half the country and leaving permanent scars. I don't think either strategy is faster than the other at achieving the goals of the movement. The latter is more emotionally satisfying, and also more irresponsible, in an adolescent-shouting-"I-hate-you-dad!" sort of way.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, do you have disdain for good behavior that was taught to a person via the concept of God? I'm not asking about your opinion of the teaching process — I'm wondering if you have disdain for the actual behavior itself, long after the teaching process is complete?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puppy, I agree that hate mongering is not helpful nor is it right. You might note in a careful reading of my posts that I said so.
I still can't summon up sympathy for the people whining about it.
Paul, saying that opposition to SSM is based on whim does not, in all cases, display a fundamental belief that there is no God though it may in your case. In some cases, it displays a belief that some people are simply wrong about what God wants.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hold in disdain the justification of "god said so," and I seperately hold in disdain bad behavior. When the two are combined, the level of disdain is compounded.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Raymond, LDS believe in a current prophet. The belief does still boil down to a "God said so" reason, but it comes from modern revelation. Most LDS will cite the Proclamation of the Family as their reason for general opposition to ssm, not any Biblical source. There are also some statements directly regarding prop8 from the current prophet. However, there are numerous LDS (including myself) who can justify why those modern prophecies still allow them to vote the other way.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if you dig into why the state shouldn't alter its understanding of who may have a legally recognized marriage, you find that the reasoning is usually "straights are better than gays."
Maybe some people see it this way. I don't. And I certainly don't think it's "usually" the case. Here are some reasons I can think of that are very real motivations for people to oppose SSM:
They believe that gays being legally "married" will cause their religious organizations to be nailed with anti-discrimination policies for continuing to practice and teach what they've practiced and taught for years.
They believe that adoption agencies will be forced to place children with gay families. They have a corollary belief that being raised without a father and a mother is psychologically damaging to children.
They believe that public schools will teach their children that homosexual lifestyles are acceptable and that people who teach them otherwise (even their own parents) are hateful bigots.
They believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and that people are not happy when they are living sinful lives. Therefore, it should not be the state's place to condone it.
They believe that making marriage a "civil right" opens the door to other controversial, and in their view harmful, forms of marriage being legalized.
.....
I'm not saying that you have to agree with any of these reasons. I'm just saying that these are reasons I've frequently heard from people I know who are opposed to same sex marriage. I realize that some people are very vocal and nasty about it - the type of people who have rallies holding signs that say "God hates fags." I'm telling you that these people are a very extreme minority and that even among people who are generally very socially conservative (I live in a predominantly Mormon state) there is a VERY real and constant struggle between the desire to do what's right according to religious teachings and a desire to make sure one is being compassionate and understanding of people who disagree.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Raymond, LDS believe in a current prophet. The belief does still boil down to a "God said so" reason, but it comes from modern revelation.
In other words, "God said so recently.
Annie your list of reasons comes down to a list of fears. If you want to live in fear of people who live differently from you, that's fine. My objection is when you are proud of denying people the right to have families based on your fears.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I hold in disdain the justification of "god said so," and I seperately hold in disdain bad behavior. When the two are combined, the level of disdain is compounded.
I don't think anyone should disdain a justification or a belief. Disagreement is perfectly acceptable and in fact useful, but disdain is an emotional reaction to something inherently logical and that never ends well.
That being said, I do agree that Divine Command Theory and morality combine problematically, at best. In this country, I think you need a reason to make something illegal and not to make it legal, and thus far, I have not heard a logical or sound argument for making SSM illegal.
quote: Maybe some people see it this way. I don't. And I certainly don't think it's "usually" the case. Here are some reasons I can think of that are very real motivations for people to oppose SSM:
They believe that gays being legally "married" will cause their religious organizations to be nailed with anti-discrimination policies for continuing to practice and teach what they've practiced and taught for years.
They believe that adoption agencies will be forced to place children with gay families. They have a corollary belief that being raised without a father and a mother is psychologically damaging to children.
They believe that public schools will teach their children that homosexual lifestyles are acceptable and that people who teach them otherwise (even their own parents) are hateful bigots.
They believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and that people are not happy when they are living sinful lives. Therefore, it should not be the state's place to condone it.
They believe that making marriage a "civil right" opens the door to other controversial, and in their view harmful, forms of marriage being legalized.
If you look at the starting points for these arguments, they come down to "straights are better then gays." Or, alternatively, "Its my right to teach my kids that straights are better then gays, and I don't want to lose that right."
Maybe you could find arguments that don't so neatly make my point for me?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I don't think anyone should disdain a justification or a belief. Disagreement is perfectly acceptable and in fact useful, but disdain is an emotional reaction to something inherently logical and that never ends well. "
I think MANY justifications and beliefs should be disdained. A lot of justifications and beliefs short circuit actual thought. Disdain, incidentally, as a verb, does not carry as a necessary component "emotional reaction."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or, alternatively, "Its my right to teach my kids that straights are better then gays, and I don't want to lose that right."
In all fairness, I would be absolutely fine with language that specifically protected any church that refused to perform a same-sex marriage. I have no sympathy for the other common argument, though, regarding clerks and other public officials who would not be able to in good conscience refer to these unions as marriages; the way I look at it, that's one of the things you give up when you choose to work for the public.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"In all fairness, I would be absolutely fine with language that specifically protected any church that refused to perform a same-sex marriage."
Oh, so would I. Though, honestly, I think that's already written into the first amendment. But I have no problem making that particular effect of the first amendment explicit.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a difference between thinking that "X is better than Y" and thinking that "X should be sponsored by government, and Y should not". It's not always a question of "better" or "worse", but of specific differences between X and Y that warrant different responses.
Are all the things that you think should be regulated or supported by government "better" than all the things that you do not think should be regulated or supported by government?
It's not intended (or at least, it's not ALWAYS intended) as a slight that many advocates against same-sex marriage think that the differences between straight and gay marriage warrant different government responses. For instance, one of them, on the broad scale, is a gigantic baby factory, and the other is not. That's an easy point to argue against (eg, why not allow marriage between couples who have absolute control over when and how children are introduced into their relationship?) but the point stands that proposing different government responses based on the actual differences between situations isn't automatically a judgment of which is "better" than the other.
Actually, I wonder ... [undirected speculation to follow] ... what would be the ideal social order if 100% of the population were gay? Would it be traditional marriage, or something else entirely? I tend to think of traditional marriage as having been founded in the need to prepare for the inevitable flood of children that results from widespread heterosexual coupling. Society needs to know, without doubt, which children are whose responsibility, and to ensure that the majority of children arrive in households that are already stable and prepared for them. Because children crop up frequently and unexpectedly in heterosexual relationships, those relationships need to be solemnized, and made into households ready to receive children well in advance; ideally, before the couple begins mating. (At least, that's the standard in old-fashioned communities like mine.)
If we had a situation where the arrival of children wasn't frequent and unexpected, but was always the result of deliberate preparation and choice (as it is for homosexuals), would we have approached marriage in an entirely different way from the beginning of the practice? Would people apply for "household licenses" in advance of having children, but until that point, have no government involvement at all?
I have no idea if this has any relevance to the discussion at hand, but I thought of it, so I typed it
I think it might be significant, though, reading back, that the communities that oppose gay marriage tend also to promote abstinence before marriage. IE, within their communities, they are using marriage much the way I described above, as a means of regulating who is mating and who is generating children, and providing for those children's needs. To them, the idea of gay marriage is much more foreign to their existing purposes for the practice than it is for mainstream, largely-secular Americans, for whom marriage is much more about the couple and their love for each other than it is about social order and childrearing.
Anyway, forgive the tangent. I don't think these last few paragraphs lead to any particular solution, so I'm not advocating with them. We don't live in a hypothetical universe where 100% of anybody do anything, so hypotheticals are only useful for trying to understand each others' thought processes and approaches to things like marriage, and not for defining real-world policies.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not intended (or at least, it's not ALWAYS intended) as a slight that many advocates against same-sex marriage think that the differences between straight and gay marriage warrant different government responses.
I say this in all sincerity: I have never in my life met someone who perceived a necessity for a different government response for these two sorts of marriages who felt that same-sex marriage was superior.
That said, I agree that those communities most opposed to same-sex marriage are those who believe that marriage is primarily for the purpose of childrearing. I certainly have no problem with people who choose to believe that. I only have a problem when they believe that no one else should be permitted to engage in any form of marriage that they don't find personally valuable.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:A lot of justifications and beliefs short circuit actual thought.
So does disdain.
But more to the point, what use is it to disdain a belief? Sure, it may provide a sense of intellectual superiority and it might even make you feel better, but it doesn't defeat arguments or progress a train of thought and it most certainly does not provide a better alternative for bad beliefs. I think it is much more difficult to do what is useful and far easier to fall back on tired dismissals of arguments.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you propose would be a better alternative for someone's "bad" beliefs, when their beliefs in this case happen to be their religion?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"but the point stands that proposing different government responses based on the actual differences between situations isn't automatically a judgment of which is "better" than the other."
And if we had actual legislative differences that reflected actual differences in the relationships, and lumped them all under the category of "marriage" then I'd be fine with that.
The problem , and the reason this always ends up back at a "better than" place, is that "marriage," is, aside from being a legal institution, a social institution. And its probably the most highly regarded, highly sought after, and highly idealized institution we've got. A major purpose of life, from the perspective of the western canon, is "to get married and live happily ever after."
If you allow legal access to that status to one group of people, but not to another, you are conveying that one group of people is better then the other.
That problem is unavoidable as long as marriage is legally recognized.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What do you propose would be a better alternative for someone's "bad" beliefs, when their beliefs in this case happen to be their religion?
Well, I don't think a belief in a religion is as bad as you do, but I will say this. Some of the most rational and intelligent philosophical discussions I have ever had were with a preacher who was a part time instructor. I think people are much more intelligent and much more rational than we give them credit for, and if we trust that, then we will be better for it.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And which beliefs did you propose as alternatives for that preacher's beliefs? Assuming you found his beliefs unsatisfactory, what other options did you give him?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And which beliefs did you propose as alternatives for that preacher's beliefs? Assuming you found his beliefs unsatisfactory, what other options did you give him?
Our discussions about religion centered on three arguments: the ontological argument, whether faith was epistemically justifiable, and the inductive problem of evil. I believe the onotological argument is not sound, that faith is not epistemically justifiable, and that the inductive problem of evil proves the non-existence of a Western God. Let's just say he disagreed.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Annie: They believe that adoption agencies will be forced to place children with gay families. They have a corollary belief that being raised without a father and a mother is psychologically damaging to children.
Sounds familiar, and remains still unsubstantiated.
quote:They believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and that people are not happy when they are living sinful lives. Therefore, it should not be the state's place to condone it.
Christianity holds that being an atheist or being a member of another religion, like Islam or Buddhism is living in sin. So saying this and making this rationale is like saying that it 'should not be the state's place to condone' the ability to choose religions that are not Christianity.
quote:" for the simple reason that there's not really any solid reason to assume SSM is coming."
Across all groups, acceptance of equitable marriage strongly correlates to age.
I'd expect acceptance of "equitable marriage" is already extremely high among all ages. The question is about SSM though.
Having said that, greater acceptance of something by young people doesn't indicate that it will be acceptable by everyone in the future. If that were the case, people in the 60's could have expected drug use to be legal by now.
quote:
quote:They believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and that people are not happy when they are living sinful lives. Therefore, it should not be the state's place to condone it.
Christianity holds that being an atheist or being a member of another religion, like Islam or Buddhism is living in sin. So saying this and making this rationale is like saying that it 'should not be the state's place to condone' the ability to choose religions that are not Christianity.
But that's why the Constitution forbids the government from regulating our ability to choose religions. That's the difference.
The Constitution does not forbid the government from defining the legal institution of marriage though. And defining marriage a certain way is definitely not equivalent to saying "you must believe in Christianity".
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'd expect acceptance of "equitable marriage" is already extremely high among all ages. "
Not really. Older voters vote to ban gays from getting married at a much higher rate then younger voters, and younger voters are well over 50% voting in favor of allowing gays to get married. On the other hand, I'm not sure that there was any age cohort that was more then 50% in favor of drug legalization in the 60's.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "In all fairness, I would be absolutely fine with language that specifically protected any church that refused to perform a same-sex marriage."
Oh, so would I. Though, honestly, I think that's already written into the first amendment. But I have no problem making that particular effect of the first amendment explicit.
I've mentioned this here before, but the federal Canadian same-sex marriage statute does exactly this:
quote:3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.
3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.
1) It is against the faith of some why believe that the bible considers sexual relations between two of the same sex as a sin.
I am not of that faith so that does not convince me. My faith asserts that Love of each other is the most Christ-like of motivations one can have, and that such Love should be recognized. According to my faith such marriages, if conceived in love, built on trust, and strengthened with the sweat and tears of those in love, should not only be recognized as equal with the average marriage, but should be demonstrated as an example to us all.
2) It is against the teachings of the LDS Prophets.
Again, not my faith so that won't convince me.
3) They believe that gays being legally "married" will cause their religious organizations to be nailed with anti-discrimination policies for continuing to practice and teach what they've practiced and taught for years.
Fear mongering at its worst. I am not Catholic. My wife wanted to be married at a local Catholic church. They refused to do so unless I converted. There was no option of me suing the church for discrimination. If its a tenant of your belief that Homosexuality is a sin then why would you think that your church would be sued for not performing a homosexual wedding?
It does not convince me.
4) They believe that adoption agencies will be forced to place children with gay families.
And the problem with this is? Sure, if its a religious based orphanage I think that could fall under the Separation of Church and State clause, but otherwise why shouldn't stable same-sex couples raise kids?
4b) They have a corollary belief that being raised without a father and a mother is psychologically damaging to children.
So should we then force all single parents to surrender their children to the nearest married couple ASAP?
Being raised without a father and a mother may not be considered by some as the best option, but being raised in an abusive situation is the worst, and being raised in the bureaucratic nightmare that is our foster care system is almost as bad. What is the problem?
4c) Could it be that there is a bigger fear, that all homosexual couples are also pedophiles, and that children placed in there lecherous hands automatically will become victims?
There is no proof of this either, just terrible anecdotes that can be met with equally chilling heterosexual anecdotes starting with fairy tale evil step-mothers.
Not convinced.
5) They believe that public schools will teach their children that homosexual lifestyles are acceptable and that people who teach them otherwise (even their own parents) are hateful bigots.
Irrelevant. Smoke screen.
The first part, where schools will teach that Homosexual Lifestyles are acceptable will be taught in schools no matter the status of Gay Marriages.
The alternative, to teach nothing, or to promote the idea that Homosexual Lifestyles are Evil, Ugly, Wrong, Shameful, and Diseased will result in increased suicides from those children who are homosexual. It will result in increased violence to those suspected of such tendencies, and from those trying to hide such tendencies.
The second part is just bad teaching. I have no sympathy for a teacher losing their job for saying something so foul.
6) They believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and that people are not happy when they are living sinful lives. Therefore, it should not be the state's place to condone it.
There are other things that are considered sins by groups that the state condones. Working on the Sabbath (Jewish/Christian), Eating Pork(Jewish/Muslim), Eating Beef (Hindu).
I don't see any work on removing government subsidies for those sins.
I know a gay couple that are a lot happier since they found each other than when they were trying to pass as straight, so the happiness argument comes across as flat and uninformed.
It also comes across as a bit egotistical..."I know what will make you happy, be just like me."
7) They believe that making marriage a "civil right" opens the door to other controversial, and in their view harmful, forms of marriage being legalized.
Slippery slope argument--today two guys, next week, three girls and a pig.
Nope. Not convinced. If there are other types of marriage that are consensual then let them make their case on their own. Don't punish homosexuals for what others may do.
It is funny how so many of these arguments were the same arguments made by the white authorities during the 50's and 60's, and made by men during the 60's and 70's.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that list leaves out the simplest argument against it though, which comes in two variants:
8a) SSM just isn't what marriage IS, in the same way that a circle isn't what a square is.
8b) SSM is inconsistent with the tradition of marriage, and traditions are valuable simply for tradition's sake.
Of course, the first one depends on the idea that we aren't free to redefine things like marriage, and the second one relies on the assumption that traditions are more important than making gay couples happy.
------
But more important to this thread is the fact that, even though you may not agree with any of these reasons, some people DO agree with them - and not all of them are based on bigotry. Many of the reasons are not the sort of reasoning that would justify hating on those who reason in such a way.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I think that list leaves out the simplest argument against it though, which comes in two variants:
8a) SSM just isn't what marriage IS, in the same way that a circle isn't what a square is.
8b) SSM is inconsistent with the tradition of marriage, and traditions are valuable simply for tradition's sake.
Of course, the first one depends on the idea that we aren't free to redefine things like marriage, and the second one relies on the assumption that traditions are more important than making gay couples happy.
------
But more important to this thread is the fact that, even though you may not agree with any of these reasons, some people DO agree with them - and not all of them are based on bigotry. Many of the reasons are not the sort of reasoning that would justify hating on those who reason in such a way.
And yet no one puts forth a reason why one particular definition of marriage - out of all the many variations that have been or are - should be engraved in stone.
The reasons may not all be worthy of hatred, but the impact that the actions, whatever the reason, have on people's lives and families is certainly worthy of passionate opposition. That SSM opponents might believe that they have benevolent motives for messing with other people's families does not exempt them from responsibility.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Many of the reasons are not the sort of reasoning that would justify hating on those who reason in such a way. "
No one has put forth one on this thread yet.
Your 8a and 8b, incidentally, usually lead back to "straights are better then gays." They are conclusions, not premises.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Many of the reasons are not the sort of reasoning that would justify hating on those who reason in such a way. "
No one has put forth one on this thread yet.
Reasons 1, 2, 3, 4, 4b, 5, 6, 7, 8a, and 8b all do not rely on bigotry. Only 4c seems to be based on the idea that gay people are by nature worse than staight people.
Reasons 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 all require "hate the sin, love the sinner" reasoning. The other reasons don't even require hating the sin.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darth_Mauve: Just a few chinks I'd like to point out in an otherwise solid piece of summation.
quote:The second part is just bad teaching. I have no sympathy for a teacher losing their job for saying something so foul.
And yet, how could we possibly legislate against this? I don't think we can, and so it will inevitably be said in classrooms. If there was a way to keep idiocy out of the classroom we'd probably live in a perfect society. To some then the best way is to force the context on the teachers by defining "marriage" as the heterosexual union and "civil-unions" as the homosexual union. Making them different but with no need to state rank order just as we don't really say if an apple and an orange are better than each other however they are both fruit. I can appreciate that many opponents of SSM marriage are simply feeling rather than thinking, but I can also see that opponents of SSM are being labeled hateful things, while those throwing the labels hide behind the victimhood of homosexuality. I think this new trend and the one of hate that preceded it are both terrible things.
quote:I know a gay couple that are a lot happier since they found each other than when they were trying to pass as straight, so the happiness argument comes across as flat and uninformed.
It also comes across as a bit egotistical..."I know what will make you happy, be just like me."
I think Dan that the extremely fragmented state of Christianity indicates that at least Christians recognize that there is not a specific model that works for every person. Christianity certainly provides a more specific road map to happiness than many other philosophies, but none of it's adherents say, "Be exactly like me and you will be happy." Only Jesus seems to have been able to get away with that statement, but even he was probably not saying, "All of you become carpenters."
quote:7) They believe that making marriage a "civil right" opens the door to other controversial, and in their view harmful, forms of marriage being legalized.
Slippery slope argument--today two guys, next week, three girls and a pig.
Nope. Not convinced. If there are other types of marriage that are consensual then let them make their case on their own. Don't punish homosexuals for what others may do.
Dan it's a bit more like this, "Yesterday a guy and several girls was stopped, today we debate two guys or two girls, tomorrow I'm not sure what we'll see.
To recognize the validity of SSMs means that we must allow that when people desire to form a union and raise children that gender is no longer a fundamental part of that conversation. If our laws are built on precedent SSM establishes a strong new direction.
We can certainly say, "Let them win their battles on their own," but we've already got the fruits of battles lost on the law books. Polygamy made its' case over a hundred years ago, and yet it remains illegal, with those practicing it thrown in jail and fined. By comparison SS couples are not at risk of being thrown into jail.
I'm not saying I necessarily think we need to go full steam ahead with polygamy since SSMs are on the table, but I think both sides have the exact same arguments, and I fail to see why SSM should be permissible while polygamy should not.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There doesn't need to be a reason why a circle can't be redefined to include squares. That's just not what circles are. "
You need to match a definition with a thing before they are paired. Explaining why the definition does not include same sex couples is a necessary step before saying the definition of marriage does not include same sex couples. When the definition is under scrutiny, citing the definition is circular reasoning.
"Reasons 1, 2, 3, 4, 4b, 5, 6, 7, 8a, and 8b all do not rely on bigotry."
Not necessarily bigotry, but "straights are better then gays," yes, they all do. At least, they do if you examine the actual arguments rather then the statements as made. And, in many cases, the statements as made actually include "straights are better then gays," reasoning.
And, in order to head off more of the "hate the sin love the sinner" reasoning, take two identical people with identical sins. Now make one of them gay. You now have two non-identical people, one of which has a heavier burden of sin. You know have a "straights are better the gays," line of reasoning contained within "hate the sin, not the sinner" reasoning.
And just because you don't think of it that way (to head off any responses along that line) doesn't remove it from "straights are better then gays," reasoning. I'm using that as a fairly broad phrase here.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
