Arguments **against** gay marriage?

[steabo]

@Bryan_Ekers

Yes, and we seem to value the principle of equal treatment under the law more than you do.

The individuals are equal; the relationships are not.

Your rule is an obvious rationalization, and you’re selectively applying it anyway. Straight couples who are sterile? No problem. Gay couples? No, because they’re sterile!

OK, so then cut off all sterile straight couples. You would have to administer fertility tests for every couple wishing to be married. You would have to test all married couples regularly to make sure they can still conceive, and at the moment they could be proven to be sterile, force them into a divorce. Also, post-menopausal women shall be not be allowed to get married, and the ones who already are should be forced to divorce, freeing their husbands to find younger, fertile women. Yeesh!

It’s a thin attempt at a rational argument, akin to someone in the 1950s claiming to know of scientific evidence that blacks were unsuited for higher education.

Attempting to instill fear in one’s opponent by accusing them of hate is despicable. Maybe it’s time you faced a little fear: I dare you to compare the marriage equality movement with the struggle of black people in front of an African-American. At best, they will bear it with quiet outrage…

[sidhechaos]

@Lakai

The best argument (and this isn’t saying much) against same sex marriage that I’ve come across is that it would undermine the culture of marriage that promotes responsible procreation.

and octo mom and the Dugars are examples of “responsible procreation?” That the vast majority of medicaid recipients in my state are people who dropped out of school for pregnancy, never went back and have on average six children by different fathers and have never held a job by age 25, and on average have CPS called on them at least once a year? Or don’t even actually have the children, the kids stay the vast majority of the time with grandparents but the “parent” still gets benefits. (no I have linkable stats on this, this is from 40+ years of observation)

and while I know personal observation is really boo’d around here, having worked for survey companies I know all to well how “stats” get manipulated.

I know seven people raised by same sex couples. They all are fairly well balanced reasonable responsible people. All but 1 identify as straight. I far prefer their company to that of the meth addict three doors down whose husband hasn’t been seen in years much less paid child support and 4 of her kids have already done time in juvie.

as for non religious supposedly viable arguments regarding banning gay marriage I remember hearing arguments that there would be “fake” marriages to get tax and medical benefits, as if that doesn’t happen with straight people too.

[steabo]

@Hershele_Ostropoler

Yes, really. If I believed that men and women were opposite, I probably would oppose SSM. I find it a little odd that you’re not making that argument, in fact.

I guess that’s built into the argument on exclusivity; That marriage should be reserved for the only type of relationship that can possibly produce children independently is an confirmation of the dual-genderedness of the species. If we were a one-gendered species, there would be no question (although I don’t know how sophisticated the civilizations of such species would become if they didn’t even have to speak to each in order to reproduce; not a lot of social skill development there). Just for fun, we shouldn’t forget about all those tri-gendered species that may exist out there in the universe, but I can’t imagine them getting very far, as having to convince three different parties to cop together would be a pretty tough deal to seal!

So you believe across the board that romance=friendship+sex. Are you missing something sublime in your relationships or am I missing something sublime in my friendships? If neither, why is it that the only sex that reinforces the emotional bond the kind that involves a man’s penis and a woman’s vagina?

I wouldn’t quantify the effect that sex has on a relationship. And I didn’t say straight sex was the only type that reinforces the emotional bond. What I did say was that it was indeed the sex that helps to objectively distinguish between a gay couple and a couple of great friends. Further, the gay couple can be distinguished from a procreative couple, as far as the ability to procreate is concerned. Having children is indeed the next level of the sublime…

You cannot use these things together.

Explain.

[magellan01]

@Miller

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.

Okay, using Post 281 as a reference, post the 2 sets of statutes here:

[magellan01]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

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!

Your attempt at gotcha is tiresome, and moves the debate not one iota. Do you really think it is not as transparent as Saran Wrap. I was hoping that you had some other angle you were exploring, but no, I gave you too much credit. Now, to explain to you what should be obvious: a section of the law that provides definitions as to the language that will follow it is not an an additional set of statutes. In my proposal there is one set of statutes outlining the benefits and privileges reserved for couples joined together in civil unions or marriages. Easy.

[steabo]

@Bryan_Ekers

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?

It is as unrelated to marriage as anal sex among straight couples is. I thought I made myself clear a couple of pages ago (I know, I know) that it was fine for the state to subsidize procreative relationships, but not sexual ones.

[magellan01]

@stpauler

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:

[QUOTE=stpauler]
Please show us how the Hague Marriage Convention recognizes civil unions as well as marriages or do you propose that international law needs to be amended as well to fulfill this foolhardy idea of yours.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not going to go on some errand and do homework for you. If you want to offer why my idea may be problematic as it regards to the Hague Marriage Convention, you are free to do so. It really has nothing to do with what I’ve put forth. But, please, knock yourself out.

[magellan01]

@ElvisL1ves

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?

You have been in these discussion before. It has been explained before in those very threads. If you are truly that hungry for this information, do a Search.

[tomndebb]

@steabo

Why do I need excuses when I have reasons?

Really? You have not provided any. You have done a lot of hand-waving, but nothing you have set forth stands up to any serious examination.

@steabo

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.

That would certainly explain the subjective stuff you have been throwing out in this thread. Such as:

@steabo

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.

You are spouting exactly the same stuff against you claim to be railing in the previous paragraph. Your self-esteem and validation seems to be tied up in a need to denigrate homosexuality or homosexuals (thus your “one-offs” about anal sex (studiously ignoring that it occurs among heterosexuals and does not always occur among homosexuals) and your irrelevant insistence that there is something magical about heterosexual procreation being “objective fact.”

It is certainly true that, currently, humans need male and female gametes to procreate. However, you have failed to provide any reason why that factoid should have any bearing on child rearing.

It would also appear to be some need to “validate” your own “self-esteem” by trying to link homosexuality to your subjective view regarding the “orgies” that you erroneously claim played some roll in the “fall of Rome.”

@steabo

After Julius Caesar, did the Romans win any wars, expand any territory, or see any increase in population?

Actually, the answer to all three of these questions is “Yes.”

@steabo

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?

And those orgies, limited to a tiny portion of the ruling class for about thirty-two years had no bearing on the actual lives of the vast majority of Romans for the next 400 years. They were also immediately followed by the period of the Five Good Emperors.
They certainly have no bearing on the idea of providing societal and legal support for committed couples to share their lives in the 21st century. (Of course, if one prefers to engage in “subjective” truth that homosexual love can only be “sensual” in nature, then one needs to stop appealing to claims of “objective” truth when referring to irrelevant biological facts.)

[Hershele_Ostropoler]

@Aji_de_Gallina

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.

Well, killing people is self-evidently bad. I’m not up to defending that proposition right now but if you care to play Devil’s advocate I can try to get something together in the morning. But what you seem to be saying here is that you oppose same-sex marriage because it’s bad.

In any case, I didn’t restrict it to direct harm.

Furthermore, I dispute that getting most of the way there will get you all the way there sooner than getting all the way there will.

@Aji_de_Gallina

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.

Then in all seriousness I’m not sure why you’re putting so much effort into giving the appearance of participating in the thread. There’s a thread going on about a topic on which I feel no need to justify my positions to Dopers, so I don’t read or post to it.

@steabo

I guess that’s built into the argument on exclusivity; That marriage should be reserved for the only type of relationship that can possibly produce children independently is an confirmation of the dual-genderedness of the species.

No, it’s actually a fairly arbitrary limitation (and “P should be Q” isn’t an argument for anything; it’s an opinion, not an objective fact, and this holds just as much even in situations where I think P should indeed be Q). Anyway, I’m not saying there aren’t two genders, I’m saying they’re not opposites.

It occurs to me you may have meant “that marriage is reserved…” That’s merely circular.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@tomndebb

Well, “we” would not have to do any such thing. It seems to bot 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.)

Interestingly for me #3 is the one. All others are secondary, including Tuesdays.

@Hershele_Ostropoler

Well, killing people is self-evidently bad. I’m not up to defending that proposition right now but if you care to play Devil’s advocate I can try to get something together in the morning. But what you seem to be saying here is that you oppose same-sex marriage because it’s bad.

In any case, I didn’t restrict it to direct harm.

Furthermore, I dispute that getting most of the way there will get you all the way there sooner than getting all the way there will.

On this board, nothing is self evident.
Since you said “how am I harmed” I assumed direct harm.
Your dispute is duly noted.

Then in all seriousness I’m not sure why you’re putting so much effort into giving the appearance of participating in the thread. There’s a thread going on about a topic on which I feel no need to justify my positions to Dopers, so I don’t read or post to it.

Interestingly enough it is basically zero effort.
Feel free not to particiapte on any thread that is of no or not enough interest for you. Furthermore, feel free not to read any of my posts. You may even use the very convenient feature that v-bulletin has for that effect.
I will participate as I may please.

[steabo]

@tomndebb

Really? You have not provided any. You have done a lot of hand-waving, but nothing you have set forth stands up to any serious examination.

That would certainly explain the subjective stuff you have been throwing out in this thread. Such as:
You are spouting exactly the same stuff against you claim to be railing in the previous paragraph. Your self-esteem and validation seems to be tied up in a need to denigrate homosexuality or homosexuals (thus your “one-offs” about anal sex (studiously ignoring that it occurs among heterosexuals and does not always occur among homosexuals) and your irrelevant insistence that there is something magical about heterosexual procreation being “objective fact.”

It is certainly true that, currently, humans need male and female gametes to procreate. However, you have failed to provide any reason why that factoid should have any bearing on child rearing.

It would also appear to be some need to “validate” your own “self-esteem” by trying to link homosexuality to your subjective view regarding the “orgies” that you erroneously claim played some roll in the “fall of Rome.”

Actually, the answer to all three of these questions is “Yes.”

And those orgies, limited to a tiny portion of the ruling class for about thirty-two years had no bearing on the actual lives of the vast majority of Romans for the next 400 years. They were also immediately followed by the period of the Five Good Emperors.
They certainly have no bearing on the idea of providing societal and legal support for committed couples to share their lives in the 21st century. (Of course, if one prefers to engage in “subjective” truth that homosexual love can only be “sensual” in nature, then one needs to stop appealing to claims of “objective” truth when referring to irrelevant biological facts.)

Your points are noted. I’m sorry that you think everything I say is a ruse to mask my hate. However, if the only reason I have to support gay marriage is to prove to others that I’m not a hateful person, then there is little more I can say. If I tried to explain that the sun and moon were objectively different becasue the sun actually produces light and heat, and the moon only reflects it, and that therefore only the sun should be classified a star, I can only assume you would accuse me of moon bigotry.

As it is, the record stands open for judgment.

[Miller]

@magellan01

Okay, using Post 281 as a reference, post the 2 sets of statutes here:

No problem, puddin’ pop.

Here’s the first law:

Article “X”
Benefits and Privileges to be enjoyed by state-recognized committed couples.

The following enumerates the legal privileges and benefits to be enjoyed by married couples

This set of statutes can only be amended in full, affecting both those joined in (1) marriages and (2) civil unions identically.

1. blah, blah, blah
2. blah, blah, blah, blah
3. blah, blah
   etc.

Aaand here’s the second:

Article “X”
Benefits and Privileges to be enjoyed by state-recognized committed couples.

The following enumerates the legal privileges and benefits to be enjoyed by those couples joined in civil unions.

This set of statutes can only be amended in full, affecting both those joined in (1) marriages and (2) civil unions identically.

1. blah, blah, blah
2. blah, blah, blah, blah
3. blah, blah
   etc.

It’s nice that you stuck these two laws together like that. Saves some paper, if the law ever got passed. Very environmentally conscious. But it doesn’t change the fact that you’ve created two bodies of law, one that applies to straight people, and one that applies to gay people.

Of course, that’s just using the stuff that was in 281. What you left out is the answer to the question Left Hand has been asking you: where is the law that defines what a marriage is, and what a civil union is, and who is allowed access to which arrangement.

[pjnlsn]

@steabo

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?

Yeah, but why do we need to tell people what to do if what they’re doing isn’t out murdering people or something?

And btw there is no ‘orgy’ period of Roman history. That you’d even write such without seeing how ridiculous that sounds is telling. And yes, some people had a lot of sex in Ancient Rome. Some people now have a lot of sex, even if in general our society is more inhibitive. So what?

And you clearly don’t know anything about Rome if you think that a) Rome didn’t expand after Julius Caesar or b) that there was 0 population growth, presumably because the vast majority of people in the entire empire (the vast majority of europe and some of the middle east) was exclusively having orgies or c) that no wars were won.

You’re basically personifying some of your own issues onto history.

[magellan01]

@Miller

No problem, puddin’ pop.

Here’s the first law:

Aaand here’s the second:

It’s nice that you stuck these two laws together like that. Saves some paper, if the law ever got passed. Very environmentally conscious. But it doesn’t change the fact that you’ve created two bodies of law, one that applies to straight people, and one that applies to gay people.

Of course, that’s just using the stuff that was in 281. What you left out is the answer to the question Left Hand has been asking you: where is the law that defines what a marriage is, and what a civil union is, and who is allowed access to which arrangement.

But what you did does NOT resemble what I propose. It’s as if:

magellan01: Hey how about we drive from SF down to San Jose
Miller: Nah. It’ll take so going to the airport at SF, parking and waiting in security lines is a drag.
magellan01: No, I said drive. Let’s drive down. I’ve got my car right here.
Miller: Nah. I just hate dealing with airports. And the flight isn’t worth it.
magellan01. No. Pay attention.—Let’s DRIVE!
Miller: Plus, I hate the food I serve on those planes.
magellan01: Okay then, how about I give you a ride to the mental hospital.

As I’ve always said, they key is to have it be ONE set of statutes—identical to itself—so that the legal benefits and privileges therein MUST be the same for both groups. Not two, ONE. If there are two sets of statutes describing the legal benefits and privileges, it’s not my idea. So, you’ve presented someone else’s idea. I know you are compelled to do so, because otherwise your valid objections fall away. So, as I’ve I stated consistently: one set of laws that enumerate the benefits and privileges that can can be accessed by two groups. The point that there will be definitions, etc. matter not a wit. The important thing is that there be one set of benefits and privileges. THAT is my idea. You broke them out into two, which is expressly what I’m against. So, you can direct all future objections along these lines to that imaginary poster you’ve conjured up.

Unbelievable.

[stpauler]

@magellan01

I’m not going to go on some errand and do homework for you. If you want to offer why my idea may be problematic as it regards to the Hague Marriage Convention, you are free to do so. It really has nothing to do with what I’ve put forth. But, please, knock yourself out.

The Hague Marriage Convention recognizes marriages, not civil unions. So those who have civil unions do not get the same portability as those who are married across international borders. Even if your proposal to create a separate but “equal” law for gay civil unions, international laws and treaties would then have to be changed as well. Is this what you’re proposing?

[magellan01]

@stpauler

The Hague Marriage Convention recognizes marriages, not civil unions. So those who have civil unions do not get the same portability as those who are married across international borders. Even if your proposal to create a separate but “equal” law for gay civil unions, international laws and treaties would then have to be changed as well. Is this what you’re proposing?

I’m proposing laws for the U.S. Let’s get it right here (as I see it, of course), then worry about the international aspect.

[stpauler]

@magellan01

I’m proposing laws for the U.S. Let’s get it right here (as I see it, of course), then worry about the international aspect.

Or, let’s just skip over the need to change international law and just legalize gay marriage instead of having to create a separate but equal situation that you’re proposing.

[cosmosdan]

@tomndebb

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.)

This has been my experience as well. All the pretense of rational logical arguments breaks down to these three which are neither. It’s just an emotional reaction based on cultural and religious indoctrination. Something we’ve overcvome in the past and will again.

I’ll add that I think many people are unaware or they are in denial about the real harm being done to their fellow citizens by denying them equality. They simply refuse to see it as a civil rights issue about equality for fellow citizens because doing so would put them the bad guy.

As a US male pushing 60 I feel the results of that indoctrination. You grow up being taught that gay males are perverts and gross. Being raised in a society where open affection among males is not the norm I feel the same “oh gross” reaction when I see two men kissing. The difference is I recognize it for what it is, and realize it’s my problem rather than anything to do with them and who they are as people.

Yes people have a right to your opinion and in general , can’t control how they feell about something , but it’s how they deal with that opinion and those feelings that determine whether they fit the definition of bigot.

The term bigot may not pleasent but when it fits it fits. real people may be very good and decent people in many areas and still have a blind spot, still be bigots on a specific issue.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@magellan01

Okay, using Post 281 as a reference, post the 2 sets of statutes here:

I’d propose it a little different from Miller’s:

1. The term “civil union” is defined as a a mutually-obligating contract between two consenting adults who are not married or civil-unioned and who are the same sex.
2. The term “marriage” is defined as a a mutually-obligating contract between two consenting adults who are not married or civil-unioned and who are not the same sex.
3. This set of statutes can only be amended in full, affecting both those joined in (1) marriages and (2) civil unions identically.

So we’ve actually got three sets of statutes, the first two of which treat ssc and osc differently.

Do you really think it is not as transparent as Saran Wrap.

I appreciate the compliment. I am not, of course, trying some leet ninja debate move that you’ll never see coming; as I said, I am breaking your argument down into tiny chunks to find the point of disagreement. You’ve agreed that definitions appear in the set of statutes, but now you appear to be saying that they are not actually a set of statutes. Perhaps our next move is to see if you understand set theory; I’m kind of flummoxed at this point, how you can make such a bizarre claim.