Warning: This post uses the “B” word but, in my defence, I am not attributing it to anyone here and I feel it is justified in context.
I have read again and again here that marriage has been defined as “between a man and a woman”. Ignoring all argument against that belief, isn’t it true that this definition itself is only due to the bigotry in western society over the past few hundred years or so?
I had a quick look at the Wikipedia page for LBGT rights, specifically to see when homosexual acts were legalised:
The US is listed as “Legal nationwide since 2003”. My country of origin, the United Kingdom, is listed as “Legal since 1967 in England and Wales, 1980 in Scotland and 1982 in Northern Ireland”. My country of residence, Sweden, which is known to be a very tolerant country, is listed as “Legal since 1944”. The Netherlands, the poster boy for tolerance, is listed as “Legal since 1811”.
Before those dates it was illegal to practice homosexual sex in those countries (admittedly, with the US it is a state thing and I cannot find a list of dates for all states. However, this page seems to show that only one state had repealed sodomy laws before 1970). Isn’t it right to say that these laws were in place due to bigotry? If so, is it then not true to say that the definition of marriage, if one exists, was a product of this bigotry?
As has been noted previously (did you think I’d forgotten?), there are two separate issues that are being (deliberately?) conflated here: Does the definition of the word “marriage” include unions other than between one-man-one-woman, and, has western/american/catholic society tended to allow such marriages?
The answer to the second question is “obviously not”. Nobody is disputing this - they’re just correctly pointing out that mere momentum does not imply that the status quo is right, moral, or legal.
The answer to the first question is “obviously the term “marriage” meaningfully refers to more unions than just one-man-one-woman unions”. This is proven both by the fact that the word is and has been used to refer to other types of marriageas, notably including same-sex marriages - and also by the simple proof that when somebody says “same-sex marriage”, we do indeed understand what the words mean! If the definition of “marriage” was incompatible with the concept same-sex unions, we simply wouldn’t understand the combined term. Whether non-western-traditional marriages are common is of course irrelevent to the definition of the word; cystic fibrosis is uncommon, but that doesn’t make the words “cystic fibrosis” gibberish.
I’m well aware that the reason for conflating these two issues is to fallaciously impart the perceived weight of a dictionary definition to the historical traditions of western christianized culture, to compensate for the fact that traditions have been losing so much inherent authority in recent decades. I’m just sick of the inherent dishonesty of making this fallacious argument. The argument from definition is crap. I’ve explained that, and you apparently accepted the explanation, because you shut up about it for fifty posts. That you ressurect it now, now that my post may have been forgotten, seems suspicious at best. Please stop it.
You have my persmission (as if you care) to argue for the validity of tradition on its own weight. But please, please, stop with the fallacious definitional argument already. The ‘cause’ just isn’t worth compromizing the honesty of your arguments over.
Yay! A direct answer to the topic that doesn’t involve any fallacies whatever!
I do take into account the problem this would be for people who are squicked out by gays and gay couplings. I’m squicked out by that myself. But the thing to remember is that people have conflicts all the time - people fight over property, people fight over rights, people fight over things that bother or offend them. When there are such fights, though, we have ways of dealing with it - generally we weigh the issues and harm on both sides, and whoever is harmed most wins and the other party loses out. Such is the nature of conflict resolution.
In this issue we are weighing the fact that some people are being vaguely squicked out at an abstract level about things that don’t directly effect them, against other people being denied the right to marry. It boggles my mind how anybody could seriously prioritize the former over the latter - for me to do it, I would not only have to be the most selfish human ever, I would also have to utterly dehumanize the people I’m restriction. Like, to the level of animals.
Even if there are people who so selfishly dehumanize other people, we prefer that our government not make a habit of doing so. Dangerous precedents and all that. So based on the relative harm, we should take note of the objections of the poor abstractly squicked-out people, and allow the gay people to get married anyway.
I do not believe that there is a bias against arguments and philosophies that are supported by religion - if there were, we would be resistant to banning murder and theft and perjury because Christianity explicity includes the banning of those things. I believe that instead the separation of church and state has the effect of separating the religious arguments which have a separate rational argument supporting them, from those that are only supportable by first incorporating the religion itself into your belief structure. Thus I feel that the only times religious perspectives are excluded by the separation of church and state are when they require a person to be in the religion for them to make a lick of sense - and I think it’s a good thing that I can’t force people to comply with things that only make sense to me. Even when my own preferences would be the ones being served.
Well, it would convey whether they’re bi-ots or not - which is a descriptive term. But regardless the invocation of that word is banned in this thread, so he shouldn’t have brought it up.
Though to be fair, it was banned several pages ago, so he might not have noticed or have forgotten.
I think it’s okay to harm a culture if the culture is an oppressive regime that tyrannizes a minority. I mean, I’m sure that the slave-owners felt quite oppressed when their culture of slavery was declared illegal.
It’s not a matter of ignoring cultural norms; it’s a matter of weighing the relative harms of granting the right or continuing to deny the rights. In this case I am unable to find a rationale or assessment of the harm where the current culture is not found wanting relative to the alternate culture where the minority is not being tyrranized.
And blacks and whites could enjoy the same cool water. They merely had to use different fountains to access it. In the same way that – despite your quick insertion of the ‘same fountain’ phrase above – under your proposal gays and straights have to use different forms of union to access the marriage laws.
And before you post yet another rehash of the ‘ONE set of laws’ argument, I’ve read it each of the five dozen times you’ve posted some variant on it. The only part of it I don’t understand is this: do you seriously think that eliding over the need for gays and straights to use separate fountains to access the cool water of the marriage laws is going to fool anyone other than yourself into treating your separate but equal proposal as something other than separate but equal?
Well, it’s more of a minor expansion that will have no effect on existing marriages (or at least none that has ever been shown to exist, despite repeated requests).
Besides… so? It makes no difference if the concept of marriage itself was created last Tuesday or ten million years ago. I get that there is all kinds of emotional baggage about “tradition” and such; I just don’t see the importance, nor why it should override the “tradition” of equal treatment under the law.
14th Amendment. Individual rights and freedoms. The fact that the restriction serves no valid purpose.
So broaden it. I don’t personally care if the ancient Greeks practiced a proto-form of gay marriage, or if homosexuality itself sprang into existence five seconds ago, or any argument based on what marriage was or always has been or whatever. It’s currently a set of rights and privileges that is being regulated on the basis of gender, which strikes me as inconsistent with existing American law.
True enough that merely slapping on the label “bigot” means nothing. If it’s being used to describe a person who clings to prejudices without reason, at least it has the virtue of accuracy, though.
That’s the reason it’s so hard (for me at least) to argue for SSM without referring to the other side as bigotry. I just simply cannot believe that Group A would deny Group B something that has no effect on Group A purely on the basis of semantics. There’s got to be more there.
To be fair, it has an effect on them. It sticks a pin in their worldview that everything they believe is right and true and mandated by God who is in control of that and clearly would smite these folk 'cause he’s really real and not a prehistoric storm god fantasy.
These people are having a seriously hard time keeping that worldview inflated and are trying to get rid of the pins as fast as they can. Gay marriage, big bang, evolution, muslims existing - this is getting to be a serious problem and causes them a great deal of stress and worry. Their quality of life would really improve if everything that bothered them just had the decency to cease to exist.
One could take the flip-side of that just as easily and wish these people would just cease to exist (no I am not advocating that…just saying the reverse of the above can be held as true too).
Given these were the same types of people who opposed miscegenation I think is all the proof we need. Interracial marriages have increased since the 60’s and the world is trundling along just fine (or at least no worse because of interracial marriages).
Personally I think it’s not enough to classify them as bi-ots. (Despite how fun it is to irritate such people.) You also (or rather, instead) have to show that maintaining things the way they like it is more harmful or contrary to constitutional law than changing things in ways that bother them would be.
Which is kind of why we try to drag their rationales for opposing gay marriage out of them. You know, in case they know of a real, substantive, compelling reason to deny gays the right to marry each other.
Unless, of course, you’re the kind of person who thought the world would be a worse place if there were more interracial marriages, because they believed that interracial marriages are bad in and of themselves. To that person, more interracial marriage = more bad = the world is a worse place.
I don’t argue that there are people who apply the same math to same-sex marriage, or to homosexuality in general. I agree that these people are made unhappy, but I don’t agree that they are being harmed. The mere knowledge that people are doing something of which you don’t approve doesn’t constitute harm.
Really.
Group A defines murder as the intentional killing of a human being.
Group A defines an unborn fetus as a human being.
Group A therefore denies Group B the right to abort a fetus because Group A defines this as murder. Group A is not harmed by Group B aborting fetuses. This is entirely a semantics issue: what is the definition of a human being?
There should be an addendum to Godwinization that encompasses abortion.
Anyway, in the case proposed there is harm to another…the death of the unborn. If Joe Blow murders Jane Doe in Florida does it harm me? Nope. Do I have a stake in a society where we do not murder people? Yeah. Afterall Joe Blow might come for me next and I do not want to die. However, if Joe Blow is homosexual I am not worried he will come and marry me against my will.
MSWAS, you will note that I agreed with you, even though I am myself in a SSM, when you said in post 161 (I think the earlier posts on this thread might qualify as historical;) that:
"… marriage as it has existed historically has been defined as being between a man and a woman."
Now, I agree with you in that, with the exception of an obscure arrangement for a form of two-female marriage in Africa that nobody really seems to understand, the opposite-sex element of marriage has never been challenged or changed.
As I said in another post, ancient Greek parents might adore their teenaged son’s older male lover, but if the two had proposed marriage, the whole of athenian society would have considered them crazy.
But then again, Athenian society considered it normal for the older male lover of about 30 to marry a 12-year-old girl, have children, but continue to have sex with his teenaged lover.
Marriages have been (and still are) polygamous in some societies, and were often so in the Old Testament.
Some societies have polyandry (one woman with several husbands). This is usually the case in poor countries where it takes more than one man (often two or three brothers) to support one woman and household.
Marriages have been viewed as the purchase of a woman as a chattel. The “giving away of the bride” in modern marriages is a left-over of the transfer of property.
Our grandmothers swore to “obey” their husbands. Few if any women still do so.
Marriage in Christian Europe was not necessarily performed in and by the Church until about 1200. Prior to that, “private marriage” based on mutual consent, was the norm among most of the ordinary folk, which is where we get the expression “common-law marriage”. The Church claimed exclusive jurisdiction over marriage mainly in order to protect women by recording the various agreements that the marriage involved.
Marriage was until recently viewed as an economic arrangement, often between two families, not two individuals. It had little or nothing to do with love in most cases.
And as we have pointed out, it used to be illegal for people of different races to marry in some parts of the US.
The minimum marriage age has varied enormously. And there were laws in ancient Rome setting a maximum marriage age.
Divorce has been possible or impossible in different societies for various reasons.
Marriage, as an institution, has been subject to continuous change over the years. People who claim it is a permanent institution are like people who claim that the same axe has been in their family for 600 years. It has had the head changed four times and the handle eight times, but it is still the same axe!
**So, mswas, here is the meat of the matter. Can you agree with the following two statements?
"With the exception of the opposite-sex aspect, many of the most basic characteristics of marriage, including the ceremonials, role, nature, significance, durability, legal control and negotiability of marriage, the role and powers of the marriage partners, and even the number of marriage partners has varied enormously throughout human history, depending on changes in social, cultural and economic conditions.
Can you agree with statement no. 1.? Now statement no. 2:
In recent human history, namely since the late 20th and early 21st centuries, there has been pressure and agitation to offer marriage as an option to couples of the same sex. Between eight years and six months ago, six democratic countries, with a combined population of almost 160 million, have joined a growing list of countries that make no distinction by gender in marriage, and therefore allow same-sex marriages. None of these countries, many of which are very similar to the United States on an economic, social, cultural and religious level, have reported any serious or significant problems after an initial period of controversy when the change was made.
So, can we agree on those statements?**
Now, I realize that statement no. 2 refers to VERY recent history, but surely the experience of these countries is more relevant to the debate in the USA than what may or may not have been the state of marriage in ancient Egypt?
To be a bigot implies prejudice. Prejudice implies no rational basis for that opinion or an irrational hostility.
On the abortion debate both sides have a rational argument. Defining when a human fetus is sufficiently human to merit protection is arbitrary to an extent. Barring fringe arguments these positions can be debated honestly even if they are fundamentally irreconcilable. Their hostility towards each other is not what I would define as irrational either.
Sorry but that’s just a “No True Scotsman” argument in disguise. You are implying that there is “no rational basis” for not wanting marriages between people of the same gender. This means, of course, rational as far as you are concerned. But those who oppose the concept do indeed include some who do so rationally, as opposed to out of simple hatred of a class of people. You may not like their thinking process, but that’s not enough to warrant distinguishing their approach from the situation I highlighted in the way you have.
