So far, the only way to make the argument that it’s not bigoted is to make the argument that people are/were too ignorant to be bigoted.
Obviously, I was talking about “our society” the one into which Mormon-style polygamy came and went.
Now you get a free redo. Ready, GO.
So your argument would be true if there were no such thing as history.
Nonsense. One could simply believe that SSM threatens the concept of marriage over the long haul and that ALL the privileges and benefits that the institution affords heterosexual couples should be extended to homosexual couples through a different mechanism. Like a Civil Union.
Before I answer that, why don’t you restate what you THINK my argument is.
Having been down this road many times before, I know you don’t have one.
And if asked how those marriages would be harmed, one would say “magic!”
There’s what you know, and what you think you know. And probably what you profess publicly to know but really know you don’t have a fucking clue about, but like trying to come off as a confident5 and good debater. To which end: you must try harder.
And if you were to claim that I never answered with specifics you’d either simply be mistaken or you’d be lying. The first option is a bit scary is that it would point to an astounding inability to retain what you’ve read. Particularly about a subject that you seem passionate about. And from one of Favorite Posters 
no less.
It’s my fault, really. I’m insisting anti-SSM arguments need to be based on factually accurate views of marriage and history, and that’s no fair. It makes SSM opponents feel bad if you try to restrict them to the facts because their opinions aren’t based on facts. Just like it makes them feel bad if you say opposition to SSM is bigoted (even if they can’t explain why it’s not). The truth of the matter isn’t important. The only thing that matters is how they feel, and that’s supposed to be the basis for our laws.
I may have missed your particular reasons for thinking someone could rationally believe this, but I do know that the people who wanted to establish this point in court came up empty.
Oh, piffle. I cannot think of a single person who has changed their stance on SSM based on being accused of bigotry. It would be interesting to see you provide evidence that this has ever happened.
Yes, it is your fault. Next time, try sticking to factual statements, or ones of pure opinion. Relaying factually incorrect information will not help you.
I’m glad that you were able to get something positive out of this.
I suspect that you dismiss anything that does not make sense to you so that you never will see such an argument.
I do not claim that there is actually a fact-based, legitimate argument against SSM. However, those people who simply cannot conceive of a marriage that was not heterosexual are not making any assumptions about gay people. They are acting according to a world view that is becoming outdated, but they are not doing it to disparage anyone.
I worked with such a person. He was an IT manager, (and no dummy), who had a couple of gay employees. He never gave them any hassle about their sexual orientation. He never made them the butt of jokes. They were given plum assignments according to their skills, and promoted at a pace that matched the rest of the department. He had no problems with their having partners and chimed in for a gift when one of the couples adopted a child.
When the topic of SSM came up, he simply went cold. He could not envision the word marriage being employed for anything other than a heterosexual relationship. To him it simply did not make sense.
He and I went round and round on the topic a few times, but he simply could not conceive of how a Same Sex union could be a marriage.
Now, I will not claim that all the opposition to SSM has come from people like him. Certainly, there are a lot of bigots out there. But I have known enough people whose views are similar to those of my acquaintance that I recognize that throwing out the bigot label was not appropriate for most of them.
Der Trihs pretends that name calling works, but that probably has more to do with his deep rooted desire to call people names than any actual facts. Fundies enjoy name calling; they do it well. I see no reason for other people to go down the same path.
For those playing the home version: the concept of one man and one woman is so central to marriage that society didn’t even need to defend it because it had always been that way, except the long period of history when it hadn’t been that way at all. And we know the concept was important because society didn’t do anything to defend it. And if you don’t agree with that, you’re using Lewis Carroll logic.
I’ve changed my stance on lots of things because of it, including polygamy.
Polygamy still has legal problems that SSM doesn’t. I do not have a solution for them, but I am no longer opposed to the attempt. I was a bigot about it. People told me I was. I thought about it and agreed. Now I’m not.
While this is a fine argument for opposite sex marriage, there’s nothing in there that’s actually an argument against allowing same-sex couples to marry. Everything in your argument could stand with or without allowing SSM, even if they present a ‘per se bar to the introduction of children into the world’ (which they don’t, but even if they did, the argument still wouldn’t imply that SSM is harmful in any way).
This is beautiful. You’re looking to protect your position by looking for cover in polygamy? Do you really believe that western society has embraced polygamy in any way? That Americans have? HA! The one sect that did adopt the practice was ostracized until that had to give it up. And you point to this as support for YOUR opinion?!
I guess all I can say is “Thanks for the help!”
And although this too was covered in previous threads, if you want to expand “society” to mean Western Society writ large, expanding it back in time way before the U.S., let me ask you this: with the countless societies that have come and gone, (some, I will point out, like Ancient Greece which were extremely accepting of homosexual love), can you name one—even one—that extended the concept of “marriage” as it was used at the time, to homosexual relationships?
I’ll wait.
I’m saying you made an incorrect claim about the history of marriage. You’re in good company.
You know, I have more respect for the person who says he hates gays than for the person who just can’t seem to understand what gay marriage could possibly mean. How long are we supposed to sit around patiently while someone says, “Gosh, this whole ‘horseless carriage’ thing is just baffling. WHAT CAN IT MEAN?'”
Again, the only defense against bigotry being offered is this sort of ignorance or willful stupidity. Once people are on notice that something exists, having them act like it’s just unfathomable is no defense. At a certain point, someone has to figure out what the fuck is going on. Failing to grasp it doesn’t make the position neutral o tolerable. If you’re going to have an opinion, you’d better figure out the basis for it, not say “Oh, I have an opinion, but you can’t blame me for my opinion because I am just too slow to understand what it all means. But I’ll support my side.”
This is pretty easy, if we’re including all of history: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, United Kingdom, and Uruguay in the modern era (e.g. today).
I just wonder how long, and in how large a portion of the world same-sex marriage would have to be legal before opponents will at least admit that some societies consider it legitimately a type of marriage.
They’re basically the same people who claim that universal healthcare can’t work in the US, despite working quite well everywhere else in the fucking civilized world.