The actual argument is, “There are no arguments against SSM that are *not *based in bigotry. We should not legislate based on bigotry - it’s kind of against the law, and certainly against the spirit of the law. Ergo, SSM should be recognized as legal.”
If the bigots could muster other, consistutionally and/or argumentatively sound reasons to ban it, we’d be forced to consider the arguments, regardless or source. (Which is why we’re not particularly worried about polygamy or marrying children or sheep or appliances slipping in after - there are arguments against those.)
And I think you’re failing to recognize the bigotry of writing off those who write off others as bigots, as bigots.
THAT is utterly ridiculous. The “segment of the population” in question is DEFINED as those who hold a particular bigoted opinion. Of course they are bigots; that’s what defines them as a group.
I suppose it was bigoted to consider everyone who regarded blacks inferior to whites as bigots ? For that matter, is it bigoted to call everyone who votes Republican someone who voted Republican ?
That’s correct. The separate but equal analogy doesn’t hold up. Once the two things are equal, the analogy is inapt.
But what some referencing a point I’ve made numerous times, and getting it wrong. Blacks and whites now access the same water at the same drinking fountain. Let’s say there is a park with two fountains, one for each race. Blacks drink from the Blacks fountain and whites drink from the Whites fountain. Then, a law gets passed saying that you can’t do that. That everyone has to be able to enjoy the same quality of water. One way to do that is to just have one fountain. Everybody drinks from it, blacks, whites, browns, greens, blues, yellows, what have you. We have equality, yes? Yes.
Now, in the analogy, the water is our laws. More specifically, our laws outlining the rights and privileges afforded married couples. It used to be, that only married people (who were straight) we’re able to enjoy those laws. But now we pass another law stating that both straight couples (joined through marriage) and SS couples (joined through civil unions) can both drink from that same fountain. They can both enjoy the same cool water. Or set of laws.
Part of the confusion that some insist upon is in confusing the two groups we seek to treat equally with the two things (water fountains, schools, set of laws) that the two groups are allowed to use. “Separate but equal” talks to the latter. It says that since we cannot make two things equal—schools, for instance—so we won’t have one group going to School A and the other group going to School B. We’ll send both groups to both schools.
This has been done. Black kids and white kids now attend the same schools. Notice the “and” there? Two groups now both tap into one system.
Now we go back and substitute Blacks and Whites with Marriage and Civil Union. Theses two groups would both tap into one set of laws. One, not two. There is no question of whether two things are equal because there is only one thing. One set of laws.
Two groups. Tapping into one thing. Blacks and whites enjoy the same water coming out of the same, single fountain. And SS and OS couples enjoying the sam benefits and privileges coming from the same, single set of laws.
I hope that helps. Now, to prepare fro my conference call.
I’ve heard a white supremacist arguing this very thing. He objected to being dismissed as a bigot just because he sincerely believed that racial segregation was a good thing, and that one race was inherently superior to all others. He seemed truly unable to understand why people weren’t interested in listening to his ideas about politics and so forth.
Except that won’t happen, and would be impractical even if the whole idea was anything other than an attempt to write bigotry into law. It’s a stupid solution to a non-problem.
It would help a lot more if you could convince me that those who want the separate fountain aren’t resting their hand on the valve that will turn off the water to the Civil Union fountain.
Since when fumbling about for a reason why they could possibly want Civil Unions instituted at all, that immidiately comes to mind.
Would you prefer that only one side of an argument be aired? That would be an interesting point of view coming from the moderator of a forum called Great Debate. Perhaps you should suggest a new forum entitled The Echo Chamber.
Well, that makes no sense whatsoever. You can use the same reasoning to argue that the seggregated system was perfectly fine since blacks and whites used the same set of taps.
There’s a word for deliberately poking the embers - and I don’t gather that moderators need approve of the activity.
Me though, I’d be happy if the arguments from the other side just weren’t crap. I mean, it shouldn’t be too hard to be a better arguer than I am, right? I’m emotional and stuff.
Sure it is. Say a group of people wanted to make sure that ethnic Hmong couldn’t vote. And their argument was that “Allowing Hmong to vote would ruin the institution of democracy.”
Their argument would be based on bigotry. Just because you haven’t the self-perception to admit it doesn’t make it not true. Your argument is based on bigotry. Sorry, but if you can’t come up with anything substantive to argue for, a rational person would change their opinion. Yet you stick to your argument even though you have nothing but emotional histrionics about words changing.
I have friends and family members who are conservative Christians and believe homosexuality is a sin. I don’t think of them as hateful bigots. People are multifaceted and their bias and possible bigotry on a certain subject isn’t a reflection of everything they are. That doesn’t make it something to be accepted and catered to though.
I see many people’s bias against gays and SSM as ignorance and a self imposed group delusion too often supported by religious crap. I don’t think that makes them worthy of scorn and self righteous ridicule but concerning this issue they’re wrong and IMO hurting others by insisting others accept their ignorance as valid.
You aren’t making arguments. You’re whining and throwing a tantrum over and over about dictionary definitions and “one set of laws”. You’ve lost this debate because you’re unable to make a substantive argument.
You just refuse to admit to it, instead you deflect, repost and repeat.
“Can we imagine Frank’s family and friends warning him that “If Joe were serious, he would put a ring on your finger”? Do we ask Vera to stop stringing Sally along?”
Yeah, actually. If gay folks - and their families and friends - expect that the benefits (if you wish to call them that) of marriage are possible, then many may very well expect that a recalcitrant partner defecate or abandon the commode. Those of you who have seen *Kissing Jessica Stein *may recognize the scenario.
The author asserts that gay marriage is silly because it does not fulfill the same role that marriage occupied in primitive society, e.g., the sexual suzerainty of men over women. Since gay people can “take or leave” marriage, it follows that hets may wise up and do the same. What Mr. Schulman seems to forget is that the “bonds of kinship created by marriage” that he describes have ceased to be overly relevant - or binding - for a number of people in North Atlantic society for some time now. His argument is based on a priori postulates that simply do not exist any longer. Women have their sexual freedom with or without marriage, and society has, by and large, rejected coercion as a valid reason for a union.
Let’s say that the club was a men’s only club. Don’t you think that the inclusion of women would make the club less desirable to people who are interested in a men’s only club?
Also, your desire to used loaded language is an overt appeal to emotion. But you probably knew that. My example is cleaner because it doesn’t suffer the emotion of judgemental terms like “degenerate”.
IIRC in Brown v. Board of Education the school for the minorities was fine and pretty much the equal (in terms of funding and curriculum and facilities and so on) of the white-only school that was the alternative.
The SCOTUS held that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
I think a similar argument can be made here as well.
Actually, the argument would not be all that bad–if it was based on fact, rather than on a fantasy history of Western Europe that was only partially true, there, and utterly irrelevant to much of the rest of the world.
A number of societies have functioned in ways that are (somewhat) similar to the situation Schulman describes. However, a great many societies and cultures have never operated in that manner. He has taken one restricted application and tried to pretend that it was a universal truth. That is not sick and twisted, just ignorant an stupid.
(Of course, since he appears to approve of that situation, the epithets sick and twisted do appear to suit him.)
It’s the pro-SSM marriage side that’s arguing for the equivalent of men’s clubs being allowed, and the anti-SSM one that’s insisting that they not be allowed.
Keeping in mind that they need not ever meet these women, but instead only know abstractly that their names are somewhere on the register…and that their own club activities will be *completely *unaffected by the presence of the women elsewhere in the club…if they leave the club over that then they clearly didn’t value it that much in the first place.
Which makes it odd for such people to complain about the destruction of something they care so little about.
He says in a post that is 50% composed of an appeal to emotion about the other side’s supposed appeal to emotion.
