No you’re right, I cannot. But I do particularly love this…
…pretty fucking hateful response to someone who was glad a gay ban was lifted. Alas, you sure aren’t saying that God hates fags (even though you seem to be pretty clear).
This argument really is so much classier:
Gay couples can’t conceive children without outside help, so fuck you, you can’t get married. Very classy argument indeed.
Slippery slope: it may lead to telephones marrying days of the month.
I am saying no arguments that are internally consistent.
Have you actually posted an argument in this thread that was internally consistent and had meaning regarding opposition to SSM?
steabo made a big deal about procreation, but he deliberately ignored heterosexual couples that are infertile and also ignored adoption and in vitro fertilization without explaining why he could ignore those situations.
magellan01 has made vague references to the noble ideal of marriage requiring the reservation of the word for a particular situation, in the past, but has never been able to articulate why it would differ for same sex couples. And, as I pointed out in Post #194, his most recent argument regarding child rearing is logically inconsistent.
So, where are these arguments that actually hold together? Or are you simply here to take potshots at posters on the “other side” without contributing anything, yourself?
Perhaps it’s a subset of #2, but magellan01 has in the past advised us that it would somehow “dilute the meaning” of marriage to let teh homos share in it, and that possibility, imaginary though it is, givez him a sad. Of course, that logic also requires him to have a sad that the meaning of “riding in the front of the bus” has been diluted by letting the coloreds share it.
IIRC he’s also tried the truly-precious argument that “Opposing bigotry is bigoted against bigots!”, but I may be thinking of someone else.
This comment has been made several times in this thread, while ignoring an argument that is mentioned more than once on the first page: opposition to government sponsored marriage (including SSM). Why does this not count, or at least merit an item number 4 on the comprehensive list of arguments against SSM?
I’m right, as usual.
(You seem to be putting a lot of effort on this, searching for a three-year old thread)
I was simply comparing our mothers’ résumés. Facts cannot be hateful.
If that’s what you got from that argument then there’s little I can do for you; at most I’d suggest suing your school.
It’s not the marriage, it’s the no-fault divorce and visitation laws clealy favour Fridays.
In this thread, I think not because a) I don’t want and, most importantly b) it assumes that people even remotely come to these threads with an open mind and ready to be convinced nd not regurgitate “because it’s icky” and get high fives.
I’m here to post as I please, please feel free to activate the useful function v-bulletin has to avoid engaging me so that my content-less incosistent rambling don’t affect you
Manlob: Perhaps because it’s so obviously contrived in response to this wave of expanded understanding of equal protection? You never heard it suggested previously (well, perhaps outside a few utopian or hippie communities, maybe) that the entire set of laws governing probate, medical decisions, child care etc. should be done away with. You’re not even hearing it *now *except from a few people who aren’t quite aware all that stuff even exists. Did you ever hear it suggested that it would be better to do away with schools entirely than to let them be integrated?
It’s not true that they are afforded the status of married by society. There are important and sometimes critical legal rights that go along with marriage. The important difference is hetero couples who decide not to get married are making a conscious choice because they HAVE a choice.
Concerning the significance of the word marriage. The significance is decidedly NOT the same for everyone. For SS couples it represents a significant breakthrough in equality and breaking a harmful generations old labeling of them as sick, or sinful, and generally less than. That’s why civil unions, although a step in the right dorection, are still a slap in the face to true equality and leaving false stereotypes behind.
You might as well ask why black Americans objected to having seperate fountains and bathrooms. Isn’t it obvious?
OTOH, people who justify opposing SSM by “defending” the word marriage and the institution have created a false image for themselves that denies the real world flawed history of the institution itself.
In history the institution of marriage has had many forms, served many purposes, and had various moral implications. There has been, polygamy, marriage arranged at childhood, marriage arranged for the state or empire, a host of economic motivations. The form that is being defended is a romanticized ideal that doesn’t reflect reality.
Even in modern times people get married for lots of reasons and marriages take many forms morally and in terms of bearing and raising children. The ideal romanticized version may be something we hope for, but not something we actively defend, unless, it seems, we need some justification to oppose SSM.
IMO, the very idea that some other marriage, like interracial or SS, could diminish marriage in any way is just an immature hanging on to a non existent idealized version. If your neighbour is a married hetero couple , but happen to be into wife swapping , or have an open marriage, or one of them is a compulsive cheater on the other, it doesn’t diminish any qualities that exist in your marriage. If they are horrible parents it doesn’t diminish your parenting. What ever love and commitment, whatever sacred quality that may exist in marriage and family, exists in the hearts and minds of the people involved and no place else.
The truth is that SS couples are just as capable of making that long term loving commitment as anyone. Just as capable of raising happy healthy children who contribute much to society. The same as interracial couples who, a few short decades ago, had the same arguments made against their union.
I understand religious objections. What you believe, what your religion teaches, is what it is, right or wrong, and usually some of both. I do think believers ought to at least recognize that religion and the beliefs being taught, has changed over time as society has changed. God doesn’t change, but clearly man’s understanding of God, creation and our relationship to both, have changed. They could entertain the idea that while they have a right to believe what they do, perhaps they are mistaken and need to reconsider, or because they might be incorrect they can allow others to choose their path and let God be the judge rather than they.
I think the suggestion someone made earlier is excellent. Since marriage is about legal rights and privileges let those with religious objections who cannot accept SSM establish their own sacred institution and have their own name for it that sets it apart from just the legal technicalities of marriage. I was just reading about the various types of marriage and one mentioned was Covenant Marriage.
“19. Covenant marriage
Legal in some areas of the US, a covenant marriage is one where the couple agrees to seek pre-marital counselling and accepts more limited grounds for divorce. In a covenant marriage, the only grounds for divorce are adultery, abuse, and one spouse being convicted of a felony with jail time. There is a movement of some fundamentalist Christians who want this type of marriage offered in all 50 states.”
Under covenant marriage the true sacred quality they believe in can be honoured, and God will be pleased with them. What the secular world does, or other religions do is up to them, because God is the judge.
Finally, in our country, because of the diversity of beliefs, it’s not enough to come to the table of public policy with just “these are my religious beliefs” religious beliefs must compete in the marketplace of ideas with all the others, and having a foundation of facts and an accurate view of historical precedence, coupled with rational arguments, has more weight than whatever particular holy book you believe in. It’s decidedly NOT okay to try to enforce your religious beliefs on others.
So. You’ got nothin’.
Getting government out of marriage is a separate discussion regarding the whole concept of marriage. It is not really a point against SSM.
(It is, as I already pointed out, earlier, historically inaccurate.)
You keep saying that, then describing the opposite. Once you create civil unions and marriages, you’ve created two separate bodies of law. They might be identical at first, but they’re still separate, and each can be modified individually with relative ease. By having one institution that everyone accesses, we can create serious barriers to that, by the simple fact that the government isn’t tracking which relationships are hetero, and which are not. Your solution does 75% of the heavy lifting necessary for any future bigots to reimplement marriage discrimination.
[QUOTE]
I corrected the idea on a previous post.
I’m sure SS couple want legal marriage. Now let’s have Suzie for the weather.
I’m sure some/many/most SS couples wouldobject to CU as either second-class or an unnecessary step. Now, sports with Billy McAngus.
No, I might not as well ask that.
I’m sure some deny it. I don’t.
Now, for groundbreaking news, a human institution is flawed.
I don’t know who “we” is.
I’ll repeat something I’ve said before. I straight couple had actually defended marriage and lived to its ideals we wouldn’t be having the SSM discussion. Marriage has been damaged from the inside.
American love the interracial marriage argument, whereas most people in the world never lived in a country with such impediments.
In your examples, yes they do.
Yeah, I did and found my “previous” answer to be the correct one: no SSM.
Interesting idea but I don’t like it.
Interesting that you propose a two tier system whule previously decrying it.
I fully agree that consenting adult may enter into a legal contract establishing rules insofar in only entails them accepting its rules.
If John and Jake want to give each other visitation rights, go ahead.
I’m already married in a type of marriage that’s pretty old, I’ll pass.
Compete? Sure, but then you contradict yourself with “compete but not if it’s THAT kind of belief”.
If saying that makes you happy I won’t deprive you of that, unearned, happiness.
In reference to marriage and procreation: I’ve been married twice, no children, never wanted any, never been pregnant. My sister the lesbian, OTHO, has raised eight daughters–one biological, three as their lesbian stepmother, and four adopted. She married her current partner in California, renewed their vows in Massachusetts, and is planning another ceremony in our brother’s house in New Zealand as soon as gay marriage is legal there.
To quote Candance Gringrich, as she married Carol and Susan on Friends: I think God is happy when any two people come together and declare their love for each other.
This at the end of a lengthy post in which you again fail to make a single cogent argument against SSM.
I mistyped. I meant to point to your use of “set”, singular.
But the three “sets” you pointed to were each singular. So each one is not a set, except in the strictest “set theory” terminology.
There is no SBE language.
For the umpteenth time, for everyones benefit: for SBE to come into play you would need two sets of statues, each defining a group of benefits and privileges. This is not my idea. I have one set of statues. SBE, from history, was the notion that Black kids and White kids could get equal opportunities by going to segregated schools. The point was that the schools, were, in fact, different. Too different. So different that it would be impossible for Black kids to get anywhere near the education of the White kids.
This is precisely why Miller will not—cannot—argue against my actual idea. Why he insists on arguing against a position that is not mine and has never been mine. One would think that a poster if his intellect and debating skills would be above such tactics, but perhaps his emotional connection to this issue prevents him from coming to this particular debate with his usual considerable skill set. Just a guess, as his insistence as to he defining what my idea is is odd in the extreme.
At this point, we’re guessing. Would you please expand your proposal from post 281 to include enough instruction such that a county clerk, faced with Bob and Steve wishing to get a marriage license, and then Sarah and Mark wishing to get a marriage license, will know what to do?
Because I believe that if you make such a proposal, it will necessarily contain separate but equal language. You’ve denied that it would, but I don’t think it’s possible to write the actual statutes that would lead to the issuance of a marriage license to Sarah and Mark, but not to Bob and Steve, without including language that entails separate-but-equal.
Your proposal in 281 would not lead to such a result.
Edit:
We might come back to this point: it appears to me that if you’re hanging your hat on this point, you’re hanging it on a very odd technicality. But let’s figure out what your actual proposal is first.
Really? Maybe you are unaware of those threads in which I explained that: by robbing the word if its tight association with traditional marriage (however you dilute it), you make it a less special notion for men and women that want to take some, if you will, ultimate step. This could very will lead to fewer man-woman couples getting married. And that is NOT in society’s best interest. Therefore, it behooves us to find a way to simultaneously protect the word and to provide gay couples with the legal benefits and privileges that their straight counterparts enjoy.
Now, why not use your special mod powers and edit every single post you made that does not cover this? Thanks!
No, actually. By insisting that marriage is less about a lifelong love between two people who want to form a family, and more about complementary genitalia, you make marriage a less special notion. When our society says that marriage is the ultimate sign of love between two people, it becomes a more special and more “sacred” institution than when it’s merely about plumbing.
Nope. One—and only one—set of benefits and privileges.
This is a different argument. And FINALLY, an actual valid one. Congratulations! While I don’t agree with your number, I’ll grant you that any future change is more difficult with your method. The differences is that you place zero value on protecting the concept of traditional marriage and having a word to describe it specifically. I place great value on it.
Edit: NM, I’d rather get you to write your full proposal than go down side-channels.