Still awaiting an answer as to whether marriage makes you less of a man.
So, what I glean from this is that magellan will think less of marriage if gays can get married, so in his opinion it loses some of its luster, therefore marriage is worse because gays can get married, therefore gay marriage hurts the institution of marriage.
He can’t point to evidence of how gay marriage hurts marriage because, for him, gay marriage hurts marriage by being included as marriage.
It’s like a racist man standing on his porch seeing a black family move in. Now he knows that the neighborhood is worse because now the neighborhood includes the black family. The neighborhood is the same, but it’s worse to him because it includes the black family. If someone asked “How is your neighborhood worse?” he would only have the answer that it’s worse because there are black people there. It changes instantly from a good neighborhood to a bad one (or at least a worse one) because it suddenly includes these other people.
So, for those of us who want the magellans of the world to point out what the mechanism is for marriage’s destruction when it includes gays, know that the destruction is solely in his subjective evaluation of the spiffyness of the neighborhood. Marriage that includes gays is simply less good than marriage that doesn’t, because he doesn’t like marriage to include gays, therefore including gays hurts marriage.
Look, people, magellan01 simply wants a separate word but equal rights and responsibilities for the same action. How can you possibly call that separate but equal?
= = =
magellan01, you claim to have already explained your position, but every time the flaws are pointed out, you simply declare that it is the problem of your audience. You really need to stop and consider whether it is your explanation or your basic belief that is in error.
You use the terms “water down” and “dilute” to refer to SSM and then claim that the terms do not reflect badly on water, ignoring the fact that regardless of any good qualities of water, your explicit statement means that the change will harm marriage. No one claims that water is a bad agent that “harms” “bourbon and branch,” however, the phrase “watered down” indicates that the drink is harmed by the addition of water. Nothing you have ever posted suggests any other meaning than that SSM will harm marriage, and nothing you have posted genuinely explains how or why.
The closest you come is your “special” argument that simply makes no sense. If a couple fall in love and marry, they are attesting to the special nature of that act regardless of their sexes. You have never provided a reason for anyone to believe that seeing a same sex couple married would devalue the idea of marriage in the eyes of future generations. How would that work? What is devalued, (or even “watered down”), in the union of two people, regardless of their sexes? How does seeing a couple, (loving, bickering, affectionate, supportive, jealous, comfortably together, taking pride in their kids, juggling careers, whatever), change when the couple is of the same sex?
Without an actual explanation of your claim–how it works, why it would happen–your argument has has no weight or substance.
But none of that is bigotry, no ma’am.
Yes. I’d go even farther and say it’s a significant change, but not a damaging one.
This is an argument based around the concept of purity (in the Mary Douglas anthropological sense), which is actually where I think that homophobia ultimately comes from. You are saying that, once sullied, marriage can never be the same again. I don’t agree that marriage CAN be sullied, especially if it hasn’t been by all the fraudulent marriages and nasty divorces and adultery that exist in our wicked world.
Well, given the Old Testament patriarchs’ prediliction for polygamy, this is a more difficult argument to make based on “tradition.” However, I really don’t think it belongs in the SSM marriage. It’s the slippery slope fallacy. “If we allow marriage to be sullied by gays, WHAT NEXT?” Nothing next, necessarily. Take each idea on its own merits, please, and respect that all things historically classed as sexual deviancy are not the same.
And what qualities exist in heterosexual couples, that do not exist in homosexual couples, that necessitates a special term only for heterosexual couples?
Actually, the polygamy slope fails on the historical evidence.
The earliest proposal for SSM that I have been able to find dates to around 1974 and it did not even make it into the genrral consciousness of the gay community until the mid 1980s (at least as far as my hearing any of my gay acquaintances discussing it). Yet, by 2014, it is accepted in multiple countries around the world and several states in the U.S.
By contrast, polygamy, (or, at least, polygyny), has been around for thousands of years with attestations in the dominant scriptures of this culture and with many extra-cultural examples, (the Islamic world, China until outlawed by Mao’s government, etc.).
So far, this society has resisted for hundreds of years any suggestion that it embrace polygamy, but has begun to accept SSM in a span of only 40 years.
Fear of polygamy may not be a straw man, but it is hardly a realistic concern. (And that is if one is actually concerned that it is “bad.”)
True - why is it that Britney Spears’ drunken Vegas hookups are sanctified and demanding of society’s highest respect, while the two very nice men who have shared that house down the street for years cannot ask for the same, and in fact it would even be ridiculous?
To be fair, some people object to those kinds of marriages and divorces. But I have no idea what they think society should do about them other than not letting gay couples get married.
I’ve often heard it said that, in the legal aspects at least, it should be much harder to get married and much easier to get divorced, and I agree. The first takes a few minutes and a small fee, the second can take lawyers and years.
I also like Zach Galifiniakis’ take: “Let’s outlaw gay divorce. Let’s see how much they want it then.”
Degenerate.
Instead of “gay” marriage, why not start working for more “gender-neutral” marriages. Because we are really just saying that the genders of the persons entering into a marriage contract should be irrelevant to the validity of that contract.
[Oscar Madison voice] I don’t like pits, pits, pits in my juice, juice, juice …[/OMv]
What you are saying is that giving me the option to order a coffee with cream somehow harms your cup of black coffee.
SSM has been legal for about 15 years in various places. Has there been any evidence that anyone is choosing not get married because it’s not ‘special’ anymore since same sex couples can do it too?
Divorce rates are actually lowerin states with SSM. Correlation/causality, I know.
You want “evidence?” Look, there’s orange juice and there’s pineapple juice, ok? Do I have to spell it out for you? Once you start mixing the juices, you don’t have unmixed juice, and everyone can see where that will lead. And another thing, there’s nothing wrong with pineapple juice, but it’s a different. Yeah, it’s “juice,” but most people think of orange juice when they want some juice, am I right?
I strongly suspect that the majority of people who feel that SSM contaminates marriage’s neighborhood by its existence are past the “first marriage” average age by a long shot.
And, like the dude whose neighbors are suddenly black, they feel their own extant marriages have been devalued by the addition of gays. But once that happens, what can you do? You’re stuck with your now-gross devalued neighborhood.
For those of us who are pro-SSM, this is a bit of a win-win. We get the legalization of SSM and those who feel their marriages are devalued by it feel bad. I like it when bigots feel bad. I surely do.
Does it involve sex with a turtle?