quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The things is, at least from a legal perspective, it has proven much easier to create new rights than to decide old ones weren't really rights. So maybe we should think really hard about the future consequences before we start enshrining new things as legal rights.
But we don't have to enshrine anything at all! Just say "The government can not count penises before giving couples their marriage license." That's it. That would solve all the problems. Then gay and straight and bi and transgendered and intersexed people, and whatever category I'm forgetting could all get honest marraiges.
quote:Which is why I'm asking, build the argument. Why is SSM the just thing to do?
If you don't understand it by now, you never will. If you would tell your gay child that he should never have an honest legal marriage like the rest of his friends and family, then there's no convincing you.
quote:Why should people have the right to marry someone of the same gender?
Why the hell shouldn't they? Why the hell should the government be looking down the pants of an intersexed person who lives as female and say "Sorry, your penile tissue is 2 cm too large for you to marry the man you love and who wants to marry you. Go find a woman."?
quote:Use your best logic, your best heart render stories, your best persuasive ability and explain why people should consider this a right. Don't just keep repeating that its obvious.
Those stories have been told for years, the arguments have been laid out. Some people are too morally obtuse to empathize.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Hey, I am not such a big fan of unfettered capitalism myself. Theoretically, people are supposed to have the same opportunity to make the money to buy the chocolate.
Yeah. Not so much.
And, just saying, calling people crows is not so civil and I have never called you a monster.
No, you haven't called me a monster. You are quite civil and I did not mean to imply otherwise. There are however other people who have participated in this thread who have called "a monster" and "worse than Hitler" in times past because I raised a question about property rights. I just really don't want to head down that road right now.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
swbarnes2, I don't think that The Rabbit actually believes the arguments she is defending.
I think (and I am guessing here so forgive me if I am way off) that she is just hurt and troubled by the idea of people that do believe those arguments being called unjust and unkind.
For what it is worth, I don't think that, ordinarily, those people are basically unjust or unkind. I don't think that most opponents of SSM think of the issue in terms of what is just or what is kind. I think most of them are thinking in terms of "we need to protect families" or "God says so" or some combination. I think that, if they started to think in terms of justice and kindness, they would see things differently because, at heart, most of them are kind people and fair people.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, You are absolutley missing my point. I don't think current marriage laws in most states are just. But discriminatory is not the only form of injustice out there.
My point is, and has been through out this thread, that you can not build a persuasive argument for SSM unless you make an effort to actually understand that opposition. If you just demonize them and demean their position, it will go over well with the choir but you aren't going to win any converts.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But we don't have to enshrine anything at all! Just say "The government can not count penises before giving couples their marriage license." That's it. That would solve all the problems. Then gay and straight and bi and transgendered and intersexed people, and whatever category I'm forgetting could all get honest marraiges.
And you think that wouldn't enshrine anything? Man you are naive.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand the anti-ssm position. I've looked closely at it for years. There are two basic non-god arguments against equitable marriage:
"Straights are better than gays, either intrinsically or at some important task such as raising children." Or "I don't want my kids to learn that there are gays out there until I'm ready to tell my children about those people."
People keep trying to tell me they have other arguments, but they haven't advanced one yet that doesn't fit into those categories (plus "God told me too," which doesn't even merit categorization as an argument).
" If you just demonize them and demean their position, it will go over well with the choir but you aren't going to win any converts. "
I actually disagree with that statement, on this topic, because I don't think the people on the fence are there for reasons concerning the substance of the arguments anymore. I explained that in depth on another thread a few months ago.
That said, if you are arguing that anti-ssmers are acting out of what they think is justice, I'd like to know what definition of justice they are using.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... If you just demonize them and demean their position, it will go over well with the choir but you aren't going to win any converts.
Again, I wonder if this is actually true. The Gallup polls that I linked to earlier have historical results for same-sex marriage as well. Interestingly, most of the increase does seem to be due to converts.
While it is possible that the conversion is *in spite* of the current tactics employed which include a hefty amount of demonization and mockery. I'm starting to think that the change may actually be because of it.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: swbarnes2, I don't think that The Rabbit actually believes the arguments she is defending.
I would have thought so too, until she said that no one thought that consent was more than "hand-waving". She thought that you didn't care about consent either. That wasn't some hypothetical argument, that was her made-up strawman of your position.
Why ask other people to refute arguments that you already know how to refute?
quote:I think (and I am guessing here so forgive me if I am way off) that she is just hurt and troubled by the idea of people that do believe those arguments being called unjust and unkind.
If I arrested every member of the LDS church in her town because I sincerely believed the Mormons were awful people who belonged in prison, I don't think she would be troubled by the people calling me an authoritarian monster. I don't think she'd care a whit if I thought I was being just and kind, while her butt was languishing a prison cell.
quote:I think that, if they started to think in terms of justice and kindness, they would see things differently because, at heart, most of them are kind people and fair people.
In which case, telling people "Look at the consequences of what you are advocating. Look at how cruel and unfair it is" wouldn't be a bad strategy. But the attitude of "OMG!!!111 YOu have to let the true-believers do and say whatever they want, becasue telling them they are being pointlessly cruel and unfair is so mean!!!" precludes that approach.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Changes can be made with more or less tact. New Hampshire earned points when approving same sex marriage because the governor insisted on having it spelled out, among other things, that churches could not be compelled to perform same sex weddings. Under the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, there was zero chance the courts would permit such compulsion anyway - but having that written into the law made it more acceptable to the people of the state.
California did just the opposite in two ways. First the state altered marriage licenses to say those contracting were Party A - if I remember - and Party B. That annoyed a lot of heterosexuals who thought they were married to a husband or wife and not a party, and they protested so loudly the licenses had to be changed again to say Spouse A and Spouse B. That was acceptable wording, but bad feeling remained.
Secondly a lot of people worry that permitting SSM might have bad social effects. And California did not even ask whether spouses considered themselves male or female, nor whether they were from California or from out of state. So no one has any accurate figure for how many same sex marriages were performed, or where these couples might be living - so no studies can be done to show no detectable harm was done. Failing to keep any records on a major social experiment made voters nervous, and when voters get nervous about anything they tend to throw it out and start fresh. Or that is my opinion of voters anyway, for whatever it may be worth.
As a Californian, I should hate to say that Californians are just naturally dumb. California officials got taken by surprise because very few expected the California Supreme Court would suddenly insist on issuing marrage licenses to same sex couples. And New Hampshire made the change later, with plenty of time to prepare, and that state could learn from California's mistakes. Both sides in this controversy are now settling down for a long struggle, and some of the initial blunders will probably not happen again.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
