Okay, if you think that gay marriage is morally or spiritual wrong, then say so up front. It would piss me off, but at least you would display a certain amount of honesty. That being said, don’t try to give me this bullshit about how gay marriage would be granting people a “special right” that goes above and beyond the rights of straight people.
Here are a few gems from a recent conversation:
If gay marriage were legal, I could marry another guy if I wanted. I could also marry someone I’m actually romantically in love with, which would almost certainly not be a man. If everybody can do that, I don’t see what the guy is driving at. What “special” right is bestowed?
The current (IMO disingenuous) argument is that gay people already get the same rights as everyone else: they can marry a person of the opposite sex. :rolleyes: Therefore, granting them the ability to marry someone of the same sex is a special right.
Of course, by that same logic, the answer is to allow everyone the ability to marry someone of the same sex as well as opposite. Voila, equality preserved.
I completely agree. However, trying to make this pint has been eerily similar to banging my head against the street.
You’re right, my bad, it isn’t exclusionary. Why don’t you go tell 100 friends that gay marriage isn’t exclusionary to rub it in my face? 
I think he’s just going off the fallacious “gays have an equal right to marry, they can marry the opposite gender just like anyone else.” arguement. Of course, your conversation guy already defeated that arguement when he says:
Because if gay marriage is aimed at gays, then straight marriage must be aimed at straights. If gay marriage is a special right because only gays would want to partake, then straight marriage is a special right because only straights would want to partake.
I understand the argument about “special rights” but it still doesn’t really explain why gender is or should be a necessary component of marriage. Why can’t marriage be between two human beings regardless of gender?
I wonder what the person quoted in the OP would say in answer to that question.
This is why I don’t use the phrase “gay marriage”. (Setting aside the fact that a marriage between people of the same sex may include people who are bi, which means that it’s a misnomer.)
The phrase carries with it the loading that there’s marriage, and then there’s this special kind of marriage, this gay marriage. It’s a marked-and-unmarked-cases problem, just like the old “doctor” and “lady doctor”, and so long as there’s a need to distinguish between the cases there’s going to be friction.
I’m in favor of access to perfectly normal marriages for same-sex couples, so I talk about marriage access rights.
Connotations are tricksy things. This is one of the ones that matters to me to fight with popular language usage about, because I think saying “gay marriage” seriously undermines the equal rights claim.
If you back off the pints a bit that urge may go away.
Completely whacked. The right that gays are seeking is the right to marry the consenting adult (outside their immediate blood kin) of their choice. Obviously, straight people currently have that right and gay people don’t (except in Massachusetts).
Allowing gay marriage would not give gays any “additional right to do something any straight person cannot do”. In fact, that quoted comment is an absolute gem of blatant self-contradiction:
“Please tell me what right straight people have that gays do not.”
In other words, since everybody’s allowed to marry a consenting unrelated adult of the opposite sex, straights and gays have equal rights.
“The additional right is the right to do something that I or any other straight person cannot do”
In other words, if everybody were allowed to marry a consenting unrelated adult of the same sex, straights and gays wouldn’t have equal rights.
Anybody who really thinks that’s a valid argument is too dumb to risk venturing on marriage with anything more intelligent than a refrigerator, IMO. (And actually, some of the modern chip-controlled refrigerators are probably too smart for them.)
The people who make that argument seem not to realize that, with a few minor word modifications, that argument can be made that interracial marriage as a “special right”.
And then there are the ones who complain that business partners will want to enter a sham marriage for some reason. Hello- there are both men and women in business, and you don’t generally hear about this sort of thing happening with straight marriages.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, . . .”
Anatole France, 1894
I think quite often the “special right” argument is used as a scare tactic against future calls for affirmative action. You know, first you Gays equals rights, the next thing you just know they’re going to demand is preferential treatment in hiring, college entrances, etc.
So people try really hard to label “Gay rights” as “special rights.” It’s easier to get people to vote “no.”
Ann Neville:
Exactly – and it was. Or at least, the “special rights” nonsense was used by people like Jesse Helms to argue against the black civil rights movement in general.
You’d think someone would notice that, by denying gays the “special right” to marry each other, and providing only the option of marrying someone of the opposite sex, that they are in fact advocating that gays enter into sham marriages to claim their “equal rights”.
In other words, to defend marriage from being degraded by gay marriages, they want gays to enter into marriages with a false premise to begin with.
:wally
And this was done within the lifetimes of many people who are now opposed to gay marriage. I really don’t understand how they can’t see that the arguments are the same. Oh, wait, I do- that one was someone discriminating against me, this is discrimination against someone else, why should I care? :rolleyes:
Because it’s not like there aren’t enough risks attendent upon starting a new business venture. Let’s add in the possibility that your business partner gets half your stuff if the enterprise goes South!
You honestly have to wonder how the people who say crap like that get dressed in the morning.
And for the ones who quote the Bible- the Bible devotes rather more space to saying that interracial (Jewish/Canaanite) or interfaith marriage is bad than it does to saying that homosexuality is bad. Yet those things are legal, and nobody except a few fringe loons like Christian Identity is saying they shouldn’t be.
Don’t you see, it’s all part of the homosexual agenda? They want special rights for gay marriages as part of their campaign to make gay marriage normal adn straight marriage deviant. Before long, straight people will be entering into sham gay marriages!
“Dave couldn’t be straight, he’s got a lovely husband.”
“Bob? He’s just a moustache.”
Plus if you legalized same-sex marriage you might get a couple of wiseacre straight roommates waltz[ing] into city hall demanding a marriage license and the world as we know it might spin right off its axis.
Some people don’t have enough problems with their roommates- they want to require a lengthy and expensive legal procedure to be able to move out, and want to let the roommate possibly get a portion of their stuff. I thought their not paying their share of the bills, stealing food and borrowing dishes without permission, never cleaning up their messes, and playing their music too loud were enough, but I guess some people just need more problems than that.
And where are the reports of opposite-sex roommates doing this? There are men and women who are not in a romantic relationship but share houses or apartments, you know.