Arguments **against** gay marriage?

Great Debates
301

I propose a law that people born on Tuesdays will no longer cast “votes” in elections, nor will they be henceforth referred to or counted as “voters”. They will instead cast “governmental preference expressions” and be referred to and counted as “governmental preference expressors.” For legal purposes, a vote and a governmental preference expression (GPE) will be identical in function.

Additionally, no polling agent will be forced to collect or tally GPE forms if it is against his or her personal moral beliefs. Local election boards will be free to designate separate polling stations for the collection of GPE forms and have discretion for the funding and hours of operation of same.
So, Aji, are you okay with no longer being a voter under the proposed legislation? You’ll have access to something just as good (at least at first), unless you don’t care about the personal moral beliefs of polling agents.

As a side note, I have no idea where Ají de Gallina is from - it may be a place where votes don’t have the same significance as in a westernized democracy.

The deserved flak you get is not for valuing the word, but disingenuously claiming that it isn’t a sign of how you devalue some of your fellow Americans.

Or maybe you honestly believe in the value of the word, in which case you’re not arguing from a position of reality.

On this matter, I’ll cheerfully concede that the word will lose some of its meaning - to people who cannot or will not adapt. I can picture someone for whom “marriage” (putting aside other uses of the word like “the marriage of form and function”, which all by itself undermines their concerns, but that’s another matter) conjures a fairly specific mental image of a legally joined heterosexual couple. A legally joined homosexual couple just does not come to mind, and likely will never come to mind.

Of course, the objection is fairly trivial, since legally joined heterosexual couples will still have a “marriage” and I don’t anticipate this changing any time soon, or in fact believe anyone seriously anticipates such, though they might try go the concern-troll route and “warn” us of the dire possibility.

A hypothetical I might use to put myself in the shoes of the “marriage defenders” is speculating that it becomes a popular idea that word “three” would no longer refer to the third natural number, but instead to a common type of fish previously known as “tuna”. I admit I would have problems with such. In conversations about fish, the phrase “three” would be jarring because it is no longer being used in a context I grew up with. In time, I suppose I might adapt, mostly by just quietly translating the now-unfamiliar phrasing into a more familiar form.

I would oppose the change, vote against it if I could. The major difference, though, is that I don’t anticipate anyone being able to explain to me how someone is getting unequal treatment under the law as a result of resistance to three/tuna transition.

302

Nope. You are simply wrong. One set of laws. Two groups qualify to tap into them. Look at Post 281. One set of laws that enumerate all the privileges and benefits that both groups qualify for. I get that you WANT my idea to be two sets of laws so you can argue against that aspect of it, but, sorry, not my idea. Find someone who proposes that and feel free to argue with them about until the cows come home. Hell, I might even join you.

[QUOTE=Miller]
I didn’t say its been a historical cornerstone. I’m talking about the role of SSM in our society going forward.
[/QUOTE]

Here’s what you wrote:

[QUOTE=Miller]
I mean, “cornerstone of our society” is a good thing, right? And you’ve pretty much explicitly said that gay relationships are lack that “cornerstone” criteria. So, right there, you’ve already said that gay relationships are less than straight ones.
[/QUOTE]

And my point is that you can’t just put on your Kreskin hat and say that “X is going to be this wonderful cornerstone of society”. It might turn out to be. It also might not be. Hell, it may prove to be a really bad idea. Look at the Welfare State we built. It was all puppies and kittens back in the day, then reality had its say and “uh-oh”. On the other hand, traditional marriage IS a cornerstone of our society. Do you deny that?

[QUOTE=Miller]
Yes, you do.
[/QUOTE]

Wrong again. You are 100% incorrect. I might as well be telling you I’m holding a cracker in my hand and you responding. “No you’re not. You’re holding a power saw”. Uh…sure. Whatever you say. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Miller]
That depends on what the differences you assign to the two relationships. The differences you assign to gay relationships are pretty insulting. You can tell by he way that virtually every single gay person who hears your ideas about gay relationships and SSM ends up being insulting.
[/QUOTE]

I can’t help it if people substitute fantasy for reality and then get insulted when they are forced to look at the real world. And if one doesn’t have a think enough skin to explore notions in a debate that might be uncomfortable, perhaps he or she shouldn’t participate.

303

Well, somewhere along the way, these groups will have be defined for legal purposes. It’s this necessary distinction where your proposal falls apart (either by being poorly-conceived, disingenuous, or shockingly naive) because at some stage you’re going to have to declare that heterosexuals get treated one way under the law while homosexuals get treated differently.

Heck, I propose that American homosexuals have access to civil unions which have all the legal rights and privileges of marriage, plus they don’t have to pay property taxes on any marital assets. There, I’ve suggested a civil union scheme which is actually better than marriage (at least financially - I make no statement on the awe and wonder and heroism and other ethereal qualities of marriage). How long before straight couples demand access to it? They won’t be allowed, though; the cornerstone of western civilization says it’s marriage for them, or nothing.

304

Of course, you HAVE to change it.

Antimiscegination laws are an extremly rare set of laws in the history of marriage. They are as relevant to the discussion as discussing that polygamy was accepted in some of our (western) cultural forebears.

The board is not devoted to fighting ignorance, don’t delude yourself. It’s the website and the current Cecil Adams & Co.'s job.

Benefit? For me, nothing. For pro-SSM guys it means getting 99.78% of the way and getting the 0.22% much sooner.
Harmed directly? Nothing. The Boston bombing didn’t harm me directly yet I can still oppose them.

You’re free to propose whatever you want. I’m free to dismiss it or accept it. I feel absolutely no need to justify to you, an anonymous stranger, any of my ideas should I not desire it, and I do not desire it.

305

(sorry for doubleposting)

You’re free to propose whatever you want. I’m free to dismiss it or accept it.
I feel absolutely no need to justify to you, an anonymous stranger, any of my ideas should I not desire it, and I do not desire it.

However, it is the onus of the person desiring to change the statu quo to justify it, as desirable as the change might be.

Wow, that last sentence, simply wow. Bigotry cloaked in condescencion.

306

It’s quite curious that you keep repeating the same argument and keep skipping over the same question that I’ll pose to you for the THIRD time in this thread:

307

I’ve read post 281. It describes a two law system. I know that you want it to be a single law, but that’s simply not what you’re describing. This isn’t an ideological issue, it’s simple arithmetic.

Sure, I can make that prediction, because I know there’s nothing inherent to homosexuality that could possibly lead to a negative outcome. The fact that you think this is a possibility largely undercuts your claims that your opposition to SSM is not in large part predicated on a prejudice against homosexuals.

The problem you have here is that I can clearly see what’s in your hand, and it’s not a cracker.

I’m not sure you’re in the best position to criticize other people for their inability to correctly perceive reality, given your persistent confusion over the differences between crackers and power saws.

308

The reality is that the definition is already changing. In fact, it has already changed in numerous venues, both outside and inside the U.S.
I agree that the definition of marriage had to undergo a change in order for the laws to be understood to include same sex marriage, but with that change well under way in most places and already complete in many others, trying to retard changes to the law will simply result in the law being out of step with society.

309

Anonymous? I guess I should take offense at that or something, since “Bryan Ekers” is my real name. In any case, you’re free to comment as you choose (or not at all, if you prefer) and I’m free to draw any conclusion I like from your choice and comment on it, and others (including you) can comment as they choose on the conclusion I’ve drawn (which is that you’re okay with unequal treatment under the law if it affects people you don’t like), and so on.

Well, it’s not really that hard a change to justify - start with the concept of equal treatment under the law and add to that a pattern over the last few decades that shows laws against homosexuality are falling away, as governments can no longer justify making distinctions based on sexual orientation… Gay marriage just strikes me as something my fellow citizens wanted, and there was no purpose I could see in denying them since I couldn’t see any harm in it, and since other citizens already had access to legal marriage, a simple sense of fairness not tainted by any particular homophobia prompts me to not oppose their efforts.

Quite the opposite, actually. It occurred to me as I was writing the “vote/GPE” analogy (which you were free not to address, of course) that “hmm, maybe this person isn’t from the U.S. or other liberal democracy where I could reasonably expect a proposal that they could no longer ‘vote’, even if offered an identical-in-all-but-name substitute, to have a particular resonance.” After all, I sometimes feel the need to specify that I’m Canadian (and the gay marriage issue was decided in my country back in 2005) in cases where I’ve been assumed to be American (if I thoguht it mattered).

I didn’t assume your choice of username meant you were from a place with a (by western standards) corrupted electoral process, but I figured I should make clear I was not assuming the opposite, either.

Anyway, if you do feel that voting is important, I’ll repose the question - are you okay with the idea of no longer being a “voter” but an identical-in-all-but-name “governmental preference expressor”, by virtue of the day of the week you were born on?
By the way, the condescension was intentional. I wouldn’t feel right claiming otherwise.

310

Heh, it belatedly occurred to me the whole analogy is moot in Aji’s case- it might pry open debate opportunities with someone who opposes gay marriage but sees civil unions as a viable alternative (but probably not), but he (an assumption on my part, I admit) doesn’t like civil unions, either.

As a suggestion, Aji, why not debate magellan and try to convince him that civil unions aren’t acceptable, no matter what the number of sets of laws. He’s clearly not able to convince us of anything, so give it a shot.

311

OK, we would have to reverse the step of society.

It’s an anonymous board, thank you.

Good for you.

You can check the public profile.

You can check the public profile.

You’re free to propose whatever you want. I’m free to dismiss it or accept it.
I feel absolutely no need to justify to you, an anonymous stranger, any of my ideas should I not desire it, and I do not desire it.

Nothing like internet cojones to make a person feel, undeservedly, witty or brave.

Why not? There’s a sweater and a 50-céntimo coin on my bed, that why not.

312

Hardly. Since the old status quo is blatantly bigoted, it’s the ones who want to keep it who need to justify their desire to keep the bigotry. Not being bigoted isn’t the sort of thing that needs justification, it’s a good thing in its own right.

WE ARE THE BOARD. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.

313

Which post, as I pointed out, leaves out a central part of your proposal, namely, the definitions of the terms you use. You later admit those would show up in a different section of the law–but when pressed repeatedly on the point (e.g., post 288), you ignore the issue. I suspect I know why: I think you can see where this line of questioning is going, and you don’t like it one bit, no sir. But I could be wrong; perhaps you have another reason for ignoring this issue, for not simply confirming or denying that my understanding of your proposal from post 288 is accurate. It’d take you 2 or 3 letters to do so, and I look forward to it!

314

Not in the US, they haven’t been. That knowledge does shape our views here, in a way you might not understand. The history of civil rights advances in the US, of which SSM is merely the latest, is bound up with and largely defined by our history of race relations. The arguments, both legal and moral, supporting civil rights law are well-developed, and they fit just as well for any other inborn characteristic as for skin color. Or perhaps you know that, but simply find it enragingly contrary to the position you wish to hold; could that be it for you as well as for magellan01?

So you cannot, in fact, discuss them on the basis of their actual content or social import or basic morality. All you can do is handwave them away. Good, that’s cleared up.

Well, not everyone’s, obviously. But we have to keep trying, no matter the obstinacy of the resistance.

So you now claim your time here has not, in fact, been for the purpose of actually trying to convince anyone of your views after all, despite appearances. One can only wonder what the hell you think you *have *been trying to do here.

315

Well, the board may be, but I’m not. I suppose there are ways I could verify that my username is my real name, if it matters and I don’t think in this case it much does.

So my justification is satisfactory, or at least not being challenged? Yay, victory.

I admit having never developed the habit of doing so to research someone’s location (I’m occasionally mildly curious about someone’s last few posts, especially if they’ve been banned because the meltdowns are usually entertaining), but I’ll check yours now..

So, Lima. And just for my own edification, I’ll wiki the wiki page on Peru… looks like they’re doing okay - they put the guy who was president in the 1990s in jail - so good for them.

So, anyway, how would you feel if you were no longer a “voter”, but a “governmental preference expressor” (or the equivalent term in Spanish or Quechua or other language, as you might prefer)?

Sure, absolutely. As you see fit.

Sure, I guess, but I feel quite deservedly witty and brave. You calling me “anonymous” twice doesn’t make it less incorrect, though.
Huh, Cecilia Tait is quite attractive… and apparently left-handed, like me. I suppose I could be called El Zurdo, and if I ever felt compelled to change my username to an anonymous one, that would be high on my list, because it sounds cool.

And you could be El Orador los Incongruencias.

Or Escritor, I guess.

316

Again, this is unrelated to the marriage question…

But, it is a least partly the poop factor; that’s why we flush it, instead of serving it up in dessert cups.

And there’s the idea that natural selection has designated the infrastructure of the anus for exiting rather than entering. The sphincter and inner lining were simply not designed to take that kind of treatment.

317

So let’s say there’s a gay couple with no interest in anal sex, willing to sign sworn statements to that effect and tolerate occasional monitoring by government officials. Marriageable?

318

Yeah, in the US for 300 years. The rest of the world basically (enforced at least) very little for the past 3000.

You’re right. It doesn’t.

Whatever gets you through the night and keeps the barrel off your temples.

It’s not like you had to depicher the Voynich manuscript.

I would oppose such a law. Again, the onus is in the changer.

Danke schön.

I’m happy that you’re feeling right.
The board is anonymous, doncha know?

Great voleyball player but a shitty member of congress. She was “La Zurda de Oro”.

[/QUOTE]

“El escritor de Incongruencias”

319

If I made the claim that written language was a species construct, would you rally ask me to provide evidence?

Why do I need excuses when I have reasons?

I didn’t say I was against subsidies, but for them to promote procreative sexuality. You claim I do so without principle, and then acknowledge that there is an objective distinction.

What is objective has absolute purpose in terms of society. It is by objective truth that we can all come to agree on things, by which we can practice science, build bridges, and make laws. On the other hand, it is by subjective truth that we offer ourselves comforting reassurances that we’re good enough, smart enough, and that people like us, to validate ourselves. In other words it is by subjective truth that we lie to ourselves and necessarily to others.

Regardless if what the Supremes decide on DOMA, the march toward gay marriage will indeed continue, state by state. C’est la vie, but it is our society’s cult of subjectivity and self-esteemism that really concerns me.

The one-off was the thought on anal sex, not on the relationship of orgies to population decline, which was a another comment made in passing, quite unrelated to gay marriage. Now, if you want a scholarly source detailing this factor in the decline of Rome, I cannot provide one off the top of my head. But how about an explanation: the transition from republic to empire was the beginning of the end for ancient Rome. We already see evidence of a lack of vigor, pre-orgy period, with the so-called Augustan Settlement. Tacitus tells us that Augustus passed laws incentivising marriage because the coming generation was so much smaller by the end of the civil wars, largely because so many progenitors had been killed off, true. Is there any evidence these were successful?

Enter the Julio-Claudians, who presided over the orgy period, setting a pretty big example for the rest of society. These emperors, Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero, left what can only be described as a massive cum stain on the mattress that was Rome. The first century AD was marked by orgies, continued civil strife, and unwinnable wars (sound familiar?); Rome never really recovered. After Julius Caesar, did the Romans win any wars, expand any territory, or see any increase in population?

The hypothesis is that orgies are inherently non-procreative, nor are they conducive to raising high-quality offspring. First, because of the widely-used practice of coitus interruptus (please don’t tell me I need evidence for this!), and second, because if any conception did occur, who could be proven to be responsible?

320

Well, “we” would not have to do any such thing. It seems to bother you, but I am quite happy to see the direction that society is moving on this issue and in the decade or so that I have seen the issue argued, I have never yet seen a rational argument against it.

All motivations for arguing against SSM boil down to (in descending frequency):
1 ) “Eewww, homosexuality!”
2) “We’ve never done that before.”
or,
3) “God said ‘No’.”

(I am aware that some people like to assert that number 3 is the most prevalent reason, but I suspect that those folks have not been listening to actual opposition. Nudge a person who opposes it on religious grounds and, in my experience, eight or nine times out of ten, the person is using their religious teachings to cover their actual reasons that fall into the first or second category.)