The state will teach homosexuality to children in school, squashing parental rights to teach children their own values. Here’s proof:
PS: I don’t agree with that.
Fine.
Can you explain **what the negative consequences would be **of simply referring to gay civil unions as “marriages”?
You’re right it’s a rehash. I don’t really care that much. I just get tired of people who have little but appeals to emotion talking about the irrationality of the other side.
But then again, this thread is a rehash. It’s a bunch of people congratulating themselves on being smarter and morally superior. A lot of SDMB threads devolve that way.
Other than a retooling of the culture with all its intendant consequences then nothing. The problem here is that what is being lost is things that one side doesn’t value, so they say they don’t even exist. The very moral fabric of the conservative culture system is based on the nuclear family. Allowing homosexuals to marry does destroy that, but it is costless to those who do not value that conservative framework.
The argument that marriage has already been devalued is of course a valid one.
It’s a constitutional, legal, and emotional issue. But let’s look at this emotional aspect a bit closer, shall we?
I put forth that the reason, the ONLY reason, why some of the anti-SSM crowd offer civil unions as an option is because they personally feel that a marriage is something distinct, different, and better than any other kind of union. A marriage is a special and meaningful coupling of a loving couple. Anything else…isn’t. More specifically, everything else is some kind of meaningless secular business deal. (And we all know what business deals that involve sex are.)
For all the shit they shovel about civil unions being the same as marriage (which is an unsustainable fantasy even in just the legal sphere), these people know that civil unions aren’t equal at all. Marriages are for good people - God-fearing christians, and oh yeah all those atheists and people in other religions too who at least aren’t sodomites. These anti-SSMers know they won’t respect civil unions, and they indend for that to be the norm across society. It is quite literally and explicity a coach-class union intended as a sop to make the gays shut up and stop whining about equal rights, which they clearly don’t deserve, being sinners before God and all.
This is nothing but hate-fueled bigotry and is purely vomit-inducing. Nobody has the right to deny another couple marriage for no reason but the “emotional” reason that they wish the other couple didn’t exist. Which is the only reason why people oppose SSM.
I’d like to note that not all people who are in favor of civil unions are opposed to SSM. Several of them instead think that gays should accept SSM marriage as an attainable sop, since the issue is so touchy and thus shouldn’t be fought over. My thinking is, these people underestimate the SSM crowd - once they’ve won the battle to force civil unions on people, the war against civil unions will begin. These people will whittle away rights an inch at a time until the gays finally catch the hint and cease to exist.
I notice you didn’t bring any rational arguments to wash down the big plate of holier-than-thou you’re working on.
To assume that both sides must be equally emotional and baseless is an utter cop-out. Assuming symmetry is a crutch for when you can’t come to a decision logically.
Pro SSM as a group want equal rights for a minority. It is eminently rational to not want separate-but-equal.
Anti SSM offers a bunch of emotional arguments that amount to “The Word Will Change!!!” and “Weiner and Weiner don’t make teh babies!!”.
Sorry to inform you, but you’re the one emotionally clouded here.
begbert2 Your post is laden with innuendo. That’s the irrational emotional aspect for sure. That the only reason people might oppose it is, ‘fags are yucky’, as opposed to basing society off of a heterosexual monogamous nuclear family. It alters the fabric of society. So right TO YOU, it is nothing but hate-filled bigotry.
You have presented nothing whatever, in all of these discussions, to support that statement. The growing mass of demonstrations to the contrary, presented to you on many occasions, have not made it past your shields.
Who is responsible for that?
So, are you or are you not going to tell us what separate-but-equal means in this unvalued “conservative framework” of yours?
Hey, some thread-relevent meat!
How is a civil union less destructive to the nuclear family than a SSM? I mean, in neither case is either member of the couple going to go off and get married to somebody of the opposite gender and start popping out nuclear babies.
Or are you looking ahead to when adoption and artificial semination rights are denied to couples in civil unions?
Oh please, with as much Christian hate I see on these boards it’s hilarious the utter hypocrisy of calling people ‘bigots’. This is not about equality, it’s about superiority, from both sides. Both sides want their views to be superior in the public sphere. That’s fine, one side will win, the Pro-SSM side is going to win. But the whole bit about how you guys are the good guys in the culture war is just as hokey as it is with the other side. That you must present your opponents as ‘evil’ is irrational by definition.
:rolleyes:
As I’ve said, gay marriage won’t hurt the institution of marriage, the no-fault divorce has already done that.
But at the same time there are people who see their culture crumbling before their eyes and they are being called evil villains for wanting to maintain it. That’s an appeal to emotion.
It’s not irrational to get angry when one group is spouting nothing but hate-filled bogotry. Emotional, yes. Irrational, no.
And until you explain how denying SSM will support basing society off of a heterosexual monogamous nuclear family, you are arguing from a foundation of empty words.
Let’s list the options, shall we?
Gay couple in a SMM.
Gay couple in a civil union.
Gay couple living separate and lonely.
Which of these is better for other people’s heterosexual monogamous nuclear families?
Henry VIII, Ronald Reagan and Society in general. 
See inability to discuss it without personalizing the argument. The ‘Conservative framework’ of mine. Way to be rational!
OK, now we’re getting somewhere. What do you thing that re-tooled culture might look like? What do you think those consequences might be?
I disagree. “Conservative” has come to mean vastly different things to different people (I, for one, would pay good money for a ringside seat at a Goldwater-Reagan-Bush43 slugfest, and that’s just talking about political conservatives).
Again, since “conservative” is a highly subjective label, I don’t believe that it’s even possible for this to be true.
I don’t agree, and I think if you really did, you wouldn’t be participating in this thread.
Actually, would it be? I’m not sure, but wasn’t the major argument against “seperate but equal” facilities was that the seperate facilities weren’t equal? That the white facilities were better funded than the non-white ones?
That’s because the other side IS irrational.
Because the pro-SSM side IS morally superior, and probably smarter on average too.
Garbage. SSM doesn’t do a thing to the nuclear family. What, do you think that marrying people of the same sex is going to become mandatory ?
And the “conservative culture system” isn’t based on the nuclear family. It’s based on bigotry, as we are seeing.
This is factually incorrect. People who are imagining that their culture is crumbling (but can’t articulate how this is actually supposed to be happening) are appealing to emotion. People who call them evil villians for trying to deny other people a right based on their flimsy appeal to emotion are criticizing a perpetuation of injustice that is observably happening in the actual world.
And unlike the anti-SSMers, they have other arguments in addition to their emotional outrage against bigoted oppression to bring to the table.
Right, one sides moral code is nothing but hate-filled bigotry. Their religious beliefs have no value to you. It’s just bigotry.
Well the arguments are made clearly by the links you all keep posting but you ignore it because you just label it all as ‘hate-filled bigotry’ and don’t listen to it. The fact that people cannot educate their kids in a moral fashion as they see fit is one way. Many progressives want to do things to put curbs on the ability of Christian Fundamentalists to home-school their children as they would like to. Kids will go to school and be taught ‘diversity’ and acceptance of homosexuality, and the opposition to it will be taught as ‘hate-filled bigotry’ which will lead to further intoleration of certain religious beliefs, which is ok because they are just, ‘hate-filled bigotry’.
My point is just about the emotional aspect. People are insisting on ‘marriage’ being redefined, and this is not simply about equal rights. Marriage is not a waterfountain metaphorical or otherwise.
Now we’re on to something. That at least is a stated effect. It won’t happen, but it’s something that can be argued against.
Can you see how what someone else does down the road doesn’t effect your culture? The real problem is that conservatives don’t want to be marginalized. They will still have their chastity dances and bible readings and hunting trips and whatever other stereotypical conservative Republican base activities I’ve missed. But they don’t want to be a tiny subset of the nation. They don’t want mainstream America to pass them by.
To which my answer is boo fucking hoo. Their vision of American Values™ is something they can keep to. But enforcing it on others isn’t rational or decent.
Nothing is lost. Nothing. You can still live in an anti-gay community. You can still hate them and think that they are less than you and wretched in every way. That’s your right. You can still forbid them from marrying in your churches, you can still try to brainwash your children out of it. You can do what you want, this is America. Yet you want to make it impossible for them, the gays, to do what they want. Why is that fair?
Damn that Henry VIII. :rolleyes:
News flash: Preventing people from having civil rights *is *evil. That you don’t see it is a harsher condemnation of your system of morals than anything I could ever do.