This thread died of old age, or perhaps loneliness. Specifically, some posters asserted that legalizing same-sex marriage and/or using the term “marriage” to refer to the legal union of two adults of the same sex and/or gender would have significant, negative consequences for American society. Other posters asked for examples of these consequences. However, no clear examples were provided.
On the other hand, many posters pointed out (with cites):
[ul]
[li]The current legal standard of one man and one woman is by no means the only historical definition of “marriage,” nor is it the oldest;[/li][li]Other countries have recognized same sex marriage (Canada, ~6 years) or civil unions (Denmark ~15 years) for quite a while, with no apparent catastrophe;[/li][li]Several U.S. states have legalized same-sex marriage or civil unions, with no apparent catastrophe.[/li][/ul]
Therefore, I assert that same-sex marriage will have no negative impact on American society as a whole. This last part, “as a whole,” is important. I understand that some people will view this as a significant, detrimental change, and for those people, life as they know it will have changed in some some meaningful, perhaps tangible, way. However, I assert that those are the same people, or the same class of people, who believed (or believe) that racial integration and voting rights for women are bad things. I assert that for the overwhelming majority of Americans, legal recognition of same-sex marriage, officially termed “marriage,” will have no negative impact; further, for people not in a same-sex marriage, I assert that it will have no impact at all.
I know that several SD members disagree. In this thread, I invite you to describe the specific anticipated negative effects of legalized same-sex marriage and/or the use of the work “marriage” to describe the legal union of same-sex couples, as you foresee them. I am explicitly not interested in philosophical discussions of the meaning or definition of the word “marriage;” I am interested how you believe people’s behavior would change if the law were changed expand the legal definition of “marriage” to include same-sex couples.
I don’t think that thread died of old age. IMO it died because after numerous pages nobody was able to offer one reasonable fact based argument to oppose SSM.
It is? I’m curious if anyone can establish that same-sex marriage will have a negative effect on any part of American society.
Seriously, who’s hurt by it? We’ve got some people who say they’re hurt (or if not them, some ill-defined somebody will be hurt), but I’ve yet to see them quantify that, if they can.
So far as I can tell the only argument is the same one that kept blacks out of country clubs. “They are less than us, filthy and degenerate. To let them in my club makes the club less special.”
The argument is contingent on gays and lesbians being less worthy than straight couples. And having “filthy gays” included into their social club (marriage) makes them feel less special because they’ll let just anyone in.
It’s a paraphrasing of “There goes the neighborhood.”
Examples? EXAMPLES? It was pointed out over and over that said negative consequences would be two generations or so down the road, so any call for “examples” is ridiculous. Especially since no poster on your side could point in time, in ANY civilization, when SSM was legal, where we could then go back and see the long-term ramifications. The BEST you have a country or two that have had it legalized for 5 or 6 years. And, as was pointed out in that other thread, Denmark has civil unions, which I, representing the other side of the debate, was advocating. Even then, 15 years does not equal 40. Again, as was pointed out in that other thread.
[quote=“cwthree, post:1, topic:497593”]
On the other hand, many posters pointed out (with cites):
[LIST]
[li]The current legal standard of one man and one woman is by no means the only historical definition of “marriage,” nor is it the oldest;[/li][/QUOTE]
It is the one that our use of the term is based on. No one claimed that it was the oldest or that “oldest is best”. And while it is by no means the only definition, ALL definitions have required at least one man and one woman.
[quote=“cwthree, post:1, topic:497593”]
[li]Other countries have recognized same sex marriage (Canada, ~6 years) or civil unions (Denmark ~15 years) for quite a while, with no apparent catastrophe;[/li][/QUOTE]
So, this was cited. It was also dealt with (see above). You might as well cite that clowns have big feet. Your cites do nothing to negate the claims made by the other (my) side.
[quote=“cwthree, post:1, topic:497593”]
[li]Several U.S. states have legalized same-sex marriage or civil unions, with no apparent catastrophe.[/li][/QUOTE]
And this matters how? Did anyone on my side claim that there would be immediate or short term consequences? No, they didn’t. So we’re back to your clowns with big feet. A few years does not equal 40+.
Fine. Your assertion is so noted. For what it is, just an assertion.
False. How do I know? Because I am a person who believes both that SSM will cause long-term negative effects AND that racial integration and voting rights for women are good things. Of course, if you can prove this opinion of yours to be correct, I’d love to see that cite. So, I’m askiing for it.
Thanks for the assertion. Of course, I will now have to ask you for some evidence to back your assertion. Please point to ANY society in ANY time where SSM was even granted equal status, not to mention with no ill effects. As was pointed out in the other thread, even during times that homosexuality was much more accepted in a society, they never went that extra step. Never. So, your being able to guess what the long-term effects would have been is just that, a guess. Please show evidence to the contrary.
They have been described, more than once. But now the shoe is on the correct foot. Please provide proof or evidence why I should give your boldly stated assertions any credence at all.
I’ll add that most, if not all, of the points I’ve made here were made by me in the other thread AND, withe great defense, by mswas, who is on YOUR side.
I appreciate the frustration in that, but the fear is of the negative long-term effects. And since SSM has NEVER been given equal status in history, we cannot see what those long term effects were and point to them, never mind discuss how what might have transpired in a culture centuries or millennia ago might translate to today.
The linki I provided toward the end of that thread went to show how well-intentioned ideas can have very negative long term implications that are hard to see or appreciate at the time.
That’s not the argument. I’d ask you to read the other thread(s) on the subject. In this thread, I’m interested in seeing the OP back up his assertions.
That it *might *have negative long term effects decades down the line isn’t a reason to not do something. If that were the case you’d be paralyzed and unable to act for fear of long term repercussions.
Mamma Hitler loved her baby boy, but he ended up being the proximate cause of tens of millions of deaths. Should everyone not have a baby because of the potential for negative effects down the line?
The intelligent way to act would be to take into account evidence for long term negative effects… of which there is none for SSM. And it has definite benefits, millions are made happy. Millions made happy versus no known negative effects is a pretty simple decision to make.
But what if there is a way to achieve the positive aspects of what you want, without accepting the possible negative long-term ramifications? Wouldn’t that then be the more sensible, rational course of action? And we do, as was pointed out in the link I supplied toward the end of that other thread, have examples of very well-intentioned social policy having very negative effects.
I fully support SSM, and so I may be reading your argument in an unduly harsh light. But doesn’t the idea that there may be very negative outcomes in the very long term apply to any proposed change whatsoever?
Picking an example completely non-randomly… Isn’t having ‘Civil Unions’ and ‘Marriages’ as two different groups but both getting equal treatment under the law completely unprecedented and may have horrible unintended consequences 40 years down the road? And so we shouldn’t implement your proposed solution anywhere, until we have a 2 generation baseline in some country otherwise entirely indentical to the USA so that we know what all the ramifications are?
It all depends on what number in your mind would constitute over and over. So, determine a number, then go count the instances in that thread. I’d say a fair number is five or more. I’ll wait for your report back.
Sorry, that was poorly phrased. I meant that since you pointed out the negative consequences over and over, you wouldn’t have any trouble proving that those negative consequences would occur.
What if there are negative societal ramifications of civil unions?
What if there were negative societal ramifications of inter-racial marriage (aside from me :D)? Wouldn’t it be better to just allow non-whites to have their own version of marriage… we can call it N-Marriage. All the rights of a traditional marriage, but if you want to marry a black you just have to get a N-Marriage.
Isn’t that more or less what you are arguing for? No analogy is perfect, since if it were exactly the same it would be exactly the same after all… but assuming you find the preceding paragraph repugnant, why is it you can’t see the parallels to the gay marriage situation today?
That’s an excellent question. There may be negative ramifications to any policy, so you make a good point. But as I’ve stated, expanding the meaning of the word “marriage”, by definition, dilutes the term. I think it holds a special place in our society and needs to be protected (and repaired) and held on to. Also, I think that there are certain changes that we are more morally obligated to move forward with, and just deal with what happens. I don’t think this is absolute, as consequences of any action should be weighed. The moves to gender and racial equality had moral authority. So the urge to act was very strong. i think the argument for SS rights has similar authority, and I might be tempted to go the same route here—IF—we didn’t have a way to satisfy the moral argument that a SS committed loving couple should enjoy all the same legal rights and privileges as an OS committed loving couple while NOT risking what I feel is an extremely valuable institution for society. Civil unions give us a way to live up to our moral obligations while preserving an important, foundational concept. I see it as win-win.
You haven’t been paying attention, have you? Your question indicates that you have not read the other thread, nor my initial post in this one. I urge you to read that initial post, as it answers your question in full.
Allowing Britney Spears and other straight idiots into my club makes it feel less special- can we start limiting straight marriages, please?
I cannot think of a single negative about SSM. I’m not being facetious, I’m serious.
I can’t imagine it would result in more gay children (which I’ve heard from people as an argument against)- all the gay people I know are the products of two heterosexual parents. So hetero parenting causes teh gay, right?
While I agree that the ideal household has two parents in it, I don’t think it matters what gender those people are. Loving parents of any gender are the best parents. There are lots of homes with women raising boys and men raising girls, with no significant problems. It’s not as if those kids have no other adult influences at all- grandparents, uncles & aunts, friends, coaches, etc.
I suppose some employers might see an increase in health care costs if same sex partners are eligible for benefits, but I’m okay with that (I am an employer who provides health insurance to all employees). Has Disney or another company that provides benefits to same sex couples ever said that the result was anything but positive for the company?
I would love to see what anti-SSM folks would cite as an example of a negative consequence. By that, I don’t mean referencing an old thread and saying “But I already posted that somewhere else!” I mean right here, right now.
You’ve been asked many times to suggest just what those negative effects might be, using as much imagination as you like, and you’ve come up with exactly nothing. Nothing at all. You ain’t got nothin’, even in your imagination. So why should anyone take this inarticulate, inchoate “fear” seriously?
BTW, we do have as many as five years of longitudinal data already, and nothing that you could have “fear” of has materialized in even the slightest way. Has that dawned on you or mswas yet, in any way? Meanwhile, we do know of the negative consequences of withholding equal protection rights. Those are real, specific, and highly articulatable, as you know. So why does your “fear” trump that?
Absolutely. And preventing some loving couples from enjoying it as much as we straight marrieds do is something that does need to be repaired.