It wasn’t child-rearing. It was a combination of child rearing, ensuring paternity, and division of property. And again, gay couples can have children. They can’t have biological children without some assistance, but unless they’re medieval monarchs and we’re worried about a war for the throne, that doesn’t strike me as a big deal.
Or that god didn’t want it to happen. “Socially undesirable” is a very meek euphemism for something people were murdered over.
They were indicative of political posturing, not his mental state. He said he supported same-sex marriage in 1996, and his statements about his “evolving” views were pretty obviously intended to reflect the question until it was advantageous to say he supported SSM.
You’re free to present an argument for incest-marriage, but it has nothing to do with SSM. You can even frame it and compare it to SSM if you like, just as we do for interracial marriage.
But it changes nothing with regards to the arguments for or against SSM.
For me to give an opinion on the value of incest-marriage, I’d have to hear from a couple who was denied marriage by law. That’s how I was convinced to support SSM – by actually engaging with gay couples.
When the dead hand of tradition means you’re treating people badly just because you always have before, then it’s time for that tradition to die. As with polygamous folk, the consensual incestuous couples are welcome to make their case to society, but there’s no real logical connection to SSM.
I’m giving them exactly the same consideration today, that I gave the 90%* twenty years ago. 90% of Americans were bigots about gay rights twenty years ago. Now, it’s somewhat less than 50%. We got from there to here using the exact same tactics you’re trying to convince us are misguided: calling out obvious bigotry for what it is, and not letting its proponents weasel out of it.
Also, big lolz to homophobes calling for “respect” on this issue. The hallmark of the anti-marriage movement has always been lies and character assassination. Nice to see that they suddenly care about “respect” when they realize that they’re the minority for a change, but no dice. I’m going to show them the exact level of respect they have, historically, shown me: absolutely none at all.
He gets this wrong as he does everything else. Bigoted beliefs aren’t bigoted because they’re a minority view. Bigoted beliefs are bigoted because they’re bigoted, regardless of how many people hold them.
He does have a documented history of not being able to tell the smaller number from the bigger number, so I guess this error isn’t really all that surprising.
What’s funny is his argument about kids is he’s actually comparing interracial marriage to incest. His big weapon against SSM is the inability to have kids. That’s not a problem with incest. And he’s already said that society feeling it’s unwise isn’t enough to prevent interracial kid-having. Voila.
Then I suggest you look into the history of inheritance law. Widows without children often had to fight for the right to inherit their dead husband’s property. Even now without an ironclad will (and sometimes even with one) a widow or widower may have to battle offspring that resulted from the non-marital relationships of their deceased spouses.
Don’t you think this is a good thing, that we have changed our notions of marriage? Do you dream of the days when couples were forced into loveless marriages as a means of property transfer, settling scores, political machinations, etc…? Setting aside the absolute horrors that women have suffered for millennia under these conditions, why would you look at that time with nostalgia, let alone for guidance???
Thank God I was born in this time, in this country. Thank God I have the opportunities that I do. And I will fight to my dying breath for each and every human on this planet to have the same opportunities as me, despite their sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation.
There is no historic or traditional principle I am so beholden to, that I would not give it up if it is being used as a justification to discriminate.
The entire “you can’t call me a bigot” argument in this case boils down to, “I don’t like the term bigot, and therefore it doesn’t apply to me, even though my thoughts and/or actions are in fact bigoted.”
OK, sparky. “I’m not racist; I just don’t think that black people should be treated equally in our society. That doesn’t make me a bigot, or hateful. I don’t hate black people. Some of my friends are black! It just seems obvious to me that because black people have always been treated as inferiors in our society, that should continue, for the sake of tradition. Stop calling me a bigot just because I am for tradition and moral values.”
Yep. We see this play out again and again on this board (as in off-board life). “What X does is what I do, so X can’t be a bigot because that would make me a bigot and I’m a good person.”
I know people right now battling it out (thankfully through legal channels) with their deceased spouses’ siblings and other family members. And children excluded from a will have no more right to inherit than dogs have a right to inherit from their owners.
