But no one in this thread was arguing that gays were more, or less, as promiscuous than heterosexual couples. Nothing in Revenant Threshholds’s post has anything to do with the concept of nuclear families. And nothing in that article goes to the idea that opposition to SSM is sexist, one way or the other.
Right. It got support from a bunch of Democrats because Democrats are almost, but not quite, as homophobic as Republicans. Particularly when DOMA was being signed into law. What’s that got to do with the sexism argument again?
I never said that. I said that not all gays are part of the Banana Republic set, and that being a member of that set should not be a prerequisite to being granted your basic human rights.
Since I started the thread, I’ll speak up here. There are two reasons I find this particular debate interesting.
First, I’m curious as to whether the laws prohibiting same sex marriage could be stricken down on the basis of sexism alone. Would I prefer that people everywhere realize that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals and allow SSM unopposed on that ground alone? Absolutely. Would I accept a court decision that had the same effect due to this sexism “technicality”? Sure enough, I’m not picky. Since posting, I’ve found out that there was actually a decision to this effect in Hawaii. That, to me, is good news. The decision was effectively negated by the passage of a constituional amendment (not good news), but to those who say prohibiting SSM isn’t an issue of sexism, the Hawaii State Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Second, I enjoy this debate as a thought exercise. I’ve found that in some cases, it’s opened some eyes just a little bit. For whatever reason, it’s been my experience that people who won’t budge on this issue in terms of equal rights for gays sometimes crack a little in the face of this argument. It gets them thinking.
Marriage laws are based on this: guy and girl meet, girl gets pregnant, kids are born. now what?
Laws should be designed so that they serve a function - one that benefits society. I’m saying we should rethink our marriage laws, yes.
One should not live or die by biology.
Not directly. But marriage laws are not sexist. Opposition to change may be sexist - it’s based on women being baby machines- but the law itself is not. Again, it has to do with intent. The laws (well, before all of this SSM fear nonsense) were based on biological norms and accepted principles of both men and women.
Sexism is when one sex is discriminated against. Well, the whole institution of marriage discriminates women. Sure, it’s worse in India, but it’s still an issue.
The g/r movement is probably the best thing that’s happened to women since Rosie the Riveter. It forces everyone to re-evaluate their ideas about what a marriage is.
Not all gay people want to be married, and not all gay people want kids. Maybe if we stop thinking about man/woman/children/dog/SUV as the model for marriage, we can stop pressuring women to conform to it.
But it’s the BR set that’s put on all the glossies, right?
I think that there are two very bad sentiments that infuriate me more than anything. One is this:
Women can do anything men can do.
Men and women are equal.*
and
SS/c are just like hetero ones.
Gay people are just like straight people.
Both ideas are wrong. Promoting an idea that ‘these two groups are exactly alike’ fails to recognize each group’s strengths and contributions to society. It also fails to recognize some needs.
Men often lament that there are few battered shelters for them. Well, biologically speaking, men are less likely to be grossly injured by a woman’s fist. But ignoring that abuse towards men happens is bad. BAD.
But if you flip it - if you think that all abuse is the same - you lessen the severity of other kinds of abuse. One way that we often overlook things is when you fail to consider biological context. Example: abusive partners often want their female partner to be pregnant so they can extort control easier. But if there weren’t specialized programs for women, how would Planned Parenthood be able to catch and counsel for that?
So, no. Gay relationships are not like hetero ones on many levels and they shouldn’t have to be. It’s not my job or a gay couple’s job to figure out who’s ‘wearing the pants’, it’s not right to assume that gay people want to be like hetero people, and it’s not right to assume that abuse in gay relationships is like the abuse in hetero ones because then I may fail to consider the social implications or prevalence of HIV and medical abuse.
Anyway. My point with the article was that the article challenged some of the assertions that the SSM has made about itself.
Marriage laws are sexist in the idea that they promote child-rearing and the lessening of women’s economic status. But the Court also left it open for an appeal - one that never got to happen, and the judge did not stay the ruling.
Finally, the opinion of the Hawaiian court hasn’t been echoed much elsewhere. Not that I know of.
The original point of this line of questioning was to try and get to the bottom of what the reasoning behind marriage was, so as to ascertain whether it was sexist. Given that your impression of current and previous marriage law reasoning is as you state there, I maintain that i’m correct in saying that such law is sexist. If the reasoning behind it is based on logic which does not follow through in cases where it should but for the sex of the people involved, it seems perfectly reasonable to call it sexist. If the reasoning was ostensibly to promote family, yet fertile couples were allowed to marry, yet a gay man may marry a gay woman, yet a gay same-sex couple may not, then it strikes me that one difference is that a man does not have the right to marry a man, and likewise for two women. So, yes, a same-sex marriage ban is a sexist law.
Edit: Just in general, I don’t believe that your thought about people saying that men are women are literally and exactly equal is all that prevalent, in all honesty.
Marriage law in and of itself is either sexist or just biologically appropriate. I mean, nature is sexist if you want to think about it. NO FAIR!
But denying same sex marriage in a marriage law is not sexist towards gay couples if it does explicitly contain language to hurt them. That is the argument you were trying to make.
It is sexist on a technicality if there is a specific ban for the reasons that the Plantiff argued in the Hawaiian court or reasons that conservatives put forth. It hurts women and men, but moreso women.
You don’t need explicit language in order to be discriminatory. As I think someone pointed out upthread, discrimination may even be an unintended result of law, and in this case it probably is. Beyond that, i’m not arguing that such law is sexist towards gay couples, because being gay is not a gender. I’m saying it’s sexist towards men and women, because it denies each of them a right that the other has.
The very fact that you’re suggesting I would have to go out of my way to find such opinions surely proves my point. I don’t deny the existence of such opinions; I deny that they’re at all common
Exactly my point, what is behind the motivation for the sexism. It goes to issues of the heart which could be good or bad, also different in different morality ‘sets’. It is sometimes appropriate to discriminate and good to do so, sometimes it’s bad or downright evil.
I think you may have misunderstood my point. I’m not arguing that there are situations in which sexism is good, depending on motivation - that can be a very dangerous and subtle form of unpleasantness. I’m arguing that in your examples of cases where you consider there to have been acceptable discrimination, that no discrimination actually took place. I’m not drawing a line between “good” kinds of discrimination and “bad”, as you appear to be doing, but between “discrimination” and “not discrimination”.
If you’re looking for a nanny for your child, and you base your search on who the child responds most well too, that isn’t discrimination. If you base your search on that, and select a female candidate because they fulfil that need most closely, that’s not discrimination. But if you base your search on that, and select a female candidate based on the prejudice that female candidates are inherently better in that regard, or that male candidates are inherently inferior, then it’s discrimination.