You’re thinking of magellan01 (and not just one thread either, or even one page), although in fairness he has dropped in an occasional handwring about the loss of “the old ways” being something to lament. His primary concern is about not letting the fudgepackers use the same word normal people use, though.
Actually, it was raindog, who’s Ají-like refusal to actually state his or her “reasonable” argument against SSM spawned this pit thread:
Well what is your damn argument? I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, except for “OMG, teh gays!!!”. Since nobody else seems to know either, I think you have failed to express your position clearly. Please do so or stop posting to a thread just to tell us that you refuse to participate in that thread.
Then why, for the love of God, are you here in this thread about SSM? It’s not like we came into your living room and forced you to talk about SSM - you came here (and keep coming back) of your own free will.
The question of whether or not Prop 8 is constitutional is separate from whether or not same sex marriage is something that ought to be legal and it strikes me as pretty suspicious that almost everyone who agrees on the latter issue agrees on the former.
Anyway, here is an argument against SSM that seems reasonable to me.
Marriage is a social practice, a practice that has corresponding legal status. There are a number qualifications a group of people must meet in order to gain the legal status of marriage. For instance, the group must consist of no fewer than and no more than two adults who are unmarried, not closely related, and of opposite sexes. Some of these qualifications, like that the people be adults exist in virtue of preventing some harm, for instance harm to children. Others exist in virtue of the typical way in which the social practice of marriage is practiced and has been practiced traditionally. The requirements are discriminatory in that they discriminate between adults and non-adults, two-person groups and three-person groups, opposite-sex groups and same-sex groups, etc. But they are not discriminatory in that they say, for instance here’s the rules for blacks and here’s the (different) rules for whites; or here’s the rules for heterosexuals and here’s the (different) rules for homosexuals. I can see why the second kind of discrimination is objectionable, but not why the first is. The issue of SSM is not a discrimination issue in the sense that should motivate us to support SSM. Additionally, we should bear in mind that when we say “legalize gay marriage” we are not using “legalize” in the same way as when we say “legalize marijuana.” We aren’t talking about removing the punishments for a certain act but rather about granting a certain legal status based on requirements that differ from the ones currently in place.
Of course, some people may want to change some of the requirements for the legal status of marriage for various reasons. However, it is not the case that the position for the changing of one particular requirement is fundamentally different from the position for changing a different requirement unless the requirement in question is one like the requirement that all parties be adults in that it has some kind of external justification.
The above two paragraphs establish the framework in which I really do see the issue. And while I personally am in favor of gay marriage, it is not difficult to see how one would argue against gay marriage if my framing of the issue is correct - they would simply do so in the same way that someone, such as myself, would argue against 3-party marriages. It’s enough to just say that I value the institution of 2-party marriages or opposite-sex marriages or whatever. It’s a value judgment, not an empirical judgment. There are all kinds of social institutions and practices that I value “just because” and sticking with tradition when we are in fact talking about a legal status corresponding to a traditional social practice does not seem outrageous. If my framework is wrong, of course, than perhaps there is a greater burden on opponents of SSM, a burden which they cannot meet. But as far as I can tell, neither the proponent nor the opponent of SSM stands on some higher moral ground - they just have different preferences, as do the proponents and opponents of 3-party marriages.
What this argument boils down to is: “Homosexuals have just as much right as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex.”
How can you seriously claim that a requiring the two parties to a marriage to be of different sexes does not put in place different rules for heterosexuals and homosexuals? By your logic, anti-miscegenation laws were reasonable, because both whites and blacks were equally authorized to marry someone of the same race.
If Tom and Robin want to get married, why is it of any interest to the state if Robin has a penis or not? Legal distinctions based on gender have largely fallen away. Why is it necessary for this one to persist?
This seemingly reasonable argument, as you describe it, is not really anything more than “preserve the status quo”, and while that may be a useful, easily-graspable stance in many situations, I’m not clear on why it would be in this one.
Robin the man and Robin the woman are (ideally) given equal treatment before the law in almost all other cases (Robin the man can more readily become a Green Beret and Robin the woman has a better shot at retaining custody of her children in a divorce proceeding, so disparities do exist), but one can marry Tom and one cannot, and it is unclear to me why the state needs to retain this distinction. A case can be made for harm that results from letting minors marry without parental consent, and the harm of polygamous marriages, and there was a time when a since-discredited harm-argument against interracial marriages existed (some pseudo scientific babble about gene-crunching, or something)… what’s the relevant harm-argument in this case? Is there harm occurring in countries where SSM is legal that can be held up as cautionary example?
I recognize that this is not an argument you personally embrace. I just disagree (pending someone producing some actual evidence) that it is a reasonable argument for anyone to support. You are expressing sympathy for bigotry by suggesting it is rational.
I don’t think these are seperate issues. I have yet to hear a pro Prop 8 argument that doesn’t boil down to “gay people just don’t deserve the same rights as straight people”. Sure you can make the argument that they’re not banned from marrying anyone, but they are banned from marrying someone they love, someone of their own choice. There is a definite disparity between the rights of heterosexuals and homosexuals in the US. I don’t see how that can possibly be considered constitutional.
Because the constitutional test used when a law treats homosexuals differently than heterosexuals is a different test than the test used when the law treats men and women differently, and yet another test is used when the law treats races differently.
That’s how it can possibly be constitutional… because under that test, which I’ll call Test R, very little examination of the law is actually made. Test I, invoked when men and women are treated differently by the law, examines the law much more carefully, and Test S, involved when races are treated differently, really looks at the law under a microscope.
Do you now understand how it can be constitutional?
Right - seperate but equal. What could possibly be wrong with that?
Who said anything about equal?
This is separate and unequal.
And who said anything about ‘wrong?’ You said you didn’t understand how it could be constitutional.
Are you not understanding me?
You’re not one of those people that thinks ‘unconstitutional’ and ‘wrong’ mean the same thing, are you?
Very simple, as I have stated repeatedly. I came in only to make the minute point that one cannot be blamed for deciding to fight for something he believes in, even if he were to accept that the cause was doomed.
You can certainly make the point that the cause itself is wrong, evil and cruel, but it is not a good debate argument to tell the person who holds that believe that his fighting is wrong SIMPLY BECAUSE he is going to lose.
Maybe, but that leads to debates on whether you should be blockaded, invaded or nuked.
Did I take a position on SSM?
Don’t you know? Or is that as super-secret as the reasonable, rational arguments against SSM that May Not Be Spoken, and you aren’t allowed to tell us that either?
Well, could you? Would that be too much to ask?
Or if it is, may I point out that when you say “X is reasonable (though I may or may not believe it myself)”, it is fair game for people to ask for the reasoning you see behind X.
No, it’s not too much to ask. But, as it is, I have no position that I can offer you on SSM. And that’s not me dodging the question, either. I am simply neutral on the subject.
Okay, so… I guess you can see the reasoning on both sides, then.
I can see the reasoning on both sides. I personally know people on both sides of the issue who are thoughtful, reasonable people who are empathetic and decent.
Yeah, that’s great.
I mean, the people opposed to SSM still have no rational basis for being so, but it’s great that you have lots of friends.
I think every forum should have a sticky with hyperlinks with the definitions for “logical” and “rational”.
In no other place do I see those words so fully misunderstood, or misapplied.