Not particularly. I think marriage is too important and serious a matter to be based on anything as frivolous as romantic love and sexual attraction.
In general, (from my reading) the legal presumption is that not including a child in your will is an omission unless they are specifically disinherited. I’m far from a scholar in these matters though.
In regards to two issues, I think humanity continues to advance:
-
Science, obviously.
-
Social equality.
However, where no generation can claim to be smarter than another is on the issue of social mores where equality isn’t necessarily an issue. Our society has moved more and more towards encouraging personal self fulfillment even if the societal consequences are bad. On one hand, it’s great that now people marry for love and don’t necessarily raise families if they don’t want to. On the other hand, marriage has been devalued as a result and the West is seeing declining birth rates, which raises questions about how a rapidly aging population can be cared for.
Same goes for the sexual revolution. No one is a bigger supporter of sex being everywhere, but that comes with more STDs, more unplanned pregnancies, etc.
So on issues like that, I do not claim that our generation is wiser than past generations. Some things previous generations did were arbitrary and/or based on superstition. Other things they did to hold their societies together. Thus my annoyance at our generation suddenly in the space of only a few years discovering that marriage makes sense between gay partners and assuming that it’s just so damn obvious that anyone who hasn’t figured it out is either ignorant or hateful. It’s probably the biggest example of presumptious hubris I’ve ever seen that doesn’t involve the Baby Boomers.
I’ll claim it on your behalf.
Oh, boo-hoo. Gay marriage will cost you and society nothing, and if someone wants have a negative opinion of you if you still say you’re against it, let them. Surely you don’t want your right to hold negative opinions of things (including gay marriage, if you want) questioned, right? So someone has a negative opinion of you and your negative opinions. Deal.
It’s funny how conservatives try to point to a devaluing of marriage when there is a group that specifically values marriage and wants to be a part of it.
And what is causing the declining birth rates? How is it related to marriage? I suspect you do not know the answer to this.
Marriage being “devalued”, whether this is true or not, doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the declining birth rate. And even if it did, it has absolutely nothing to do with SSM.
SSM certainly doesn’t devalue marriage – quite the opposite.
If you want to blame anyone for the widespread acceptance of SSM, blame Adam Smith and his infamous invisible hand of the free market.
You know, that invisible hand that conservatives love when it’s stroking their crotches……but not so much when it’s punching them in the crotch.
Here’s how I see it.
-
Any statement by any individual voicing disapproval of SSM is turned into social media outrage if that person is prominently affiliated with a well-known corporation or organization.
-
Said organization reacts out of fear for their financial health and roundly condemns the individual’s stance on SSM and takes steps to distance themselves from the individual.
-
The consequences of this distancing generally have financially devastating effect on the individual that expressed disapproval of SSM.
-
After witnessing this a bunch of times, prominent individuals realize it is fiscally prudent to keep their disapproval of SSM to themselves.
-
Meanwhile, corporations and organizations begin to realize that there is a lot positive press and potential profits to be had by embracing marriage diversity. All this high profile embracing causes the general approval of SSM to skyrocket.
-
For some reason ….it isn’t called the invisible hand for nothing…conservative backlashes against these trends have absolutely zero effect .
-
Conservative attempts to allow anti-SSM voices to be heard in the free market backfire big time. When Arizona proposed a law that would’ve allowed business to discriminate against same sex couples, businesses throughout the state put up signage proclaiming themselves to be SSM friendly. Of course, this kind of backed any business owner that was against SSM into a corner as there was a lot of economic pressure to put up the signage.
The free markets have made the decision on SSM and it’s here to stay.
No, but all bigotry is the result of illogical views.
That, in itself, is an illogical view.
That’s true, and it was actually what persuaded me to support it. It wouldn’t surprise me if the gay divorce rate for some time is lower than the straight divorce rate.
But maybe I’m just being callous, because I still regard SSM as strictly a policy issue, not the Moral Crusade of Our Times. Marriage isn’t in the Constitution. The government doesn’t have to recognize marriage at all if they don’t want to. Defining marriage is a legitimate function of state governments and sure enough, marriage requirements, benefits, etc. differ from state to state. Disagreements on those parameters are a subject of policy, not basic human rights.
Geez, it’s not either/or. It’s a civil rights issue. It’s not slavery, or Jim Crow, but it’s still civil rights. Opposing it is wrong and bigoted. It doesn’t make them evil people, and it doesn’t mean they should be spat upon. But it should be called what it is – and it’s a bigoted thing to do.
We’re doing them a favor by telling the truth… if someone had told me 15 years ago that my opposition to SSM was bigoted, maybe I would have come around sooner.
I would have just been pissed off. Andrew Sullivan persuaded me to support SSM. And he continues to be a voice of reason on the issue. This is what he wrote about the Eich firing:
Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.
I think you’re eliding the issue about people’s rights being violated for thought crimes. if all that came from having the “wrong” views was being criticized for those views, no biggie. If we’re all adults, then we can take it. It’s when it crosses into social ostracization and the ending of people’s careers that it crosses a line.
Now sure, only the government is barred from doing harm to people in that way for thought crimes(at least in the US. Canada and Europe, the government can throw people in jail). So if you want to be technical, no one’s rights are violated. But social liberals especially should be standing up for tolerance here. Remember the response from liberals when the Dixie Chicks pretty much ended their recording career for saying something naughty? How about when radio stations boycotted the Beatles because John Lennon said they were more popular than Jesus? Sure, no one’s rights are technically violated, but it does have a chilling effect on free expression when people act like that and it really shouldn’t happen.
There was an attempt to get a boycott of Enders’ Game going because Orson Scott Card dares to actually take his Mormon teachings seriously. Fortunately, that didn’t get very far and Harrison Ford rightly said, “It’s just not an issue.” Ford disagrees with Orson Scott Card. he did not feel morally bound to disassociate himself with the man, as some of you would wish.
Remind me which people John Lennon and the Dixie Chicks were advocating to be treated as second-class citizens without full rights and privileges? I forget.
The reason that bigot is such a nasty word, and the reason that people shy away from it, is because it is a very nasty thing to be. It is worse than just having an unpopular opinion, or saying something mean about someone’s religion, or saying that you think people who voted for George Bush are morons, or whatever. It is advocating for the treatment of other human beings as lesser-than. It is considering other people to be unworthy of the same rights and privileges others have by virtue of their citizenship.
Reducing civil rights to “just a political disagreement, no big deal” is absurd. In a free country, you can say what you like, but if you say something really, really shitty then you will likely face social consequences. Saying that gay people are second-class American citizens (and by association second-class human beings) is really, really shitty. It is bigotry. If that hurts to hear, well, it should.
Out of morbid curiosity, adaher, are you as upset about Donald Sterling being punished for having the ‘wrong views’ on race as you about the Mozilla dude?
Yeah, he’s perfectly normal.
As for the success of the movie:
Hollywood’s Biggest Box Office Bombs of 2013.
Apparently, it did earn a bit more after this article, but I don’t think you’d consider it a rip-roaring success.
But who’s the “we” in this sentence? It’s not the government or political policy makers. He was fired by a private corporation acting in their own economic self-interest and it doesn’t get any more conservative than that.
Republicans have been fighting long and hard for employers to have the right to hire and fire anyone they want on whatever terms they dictate and there’s been huge pushback against any workplace regulations such as minimum wage and limitation on working hours. The reason that is always given is that of the sanctity of the free market. Why is this any different?
Free speech is not the same as consequence-free speech. The government isn’t stifling your anti-SSM sentiments…people are keeping their bigoted yaps shut because if they don’t their bosses will fire them and their friends will shun them. If you feel that your voice is being squelched while the love that dare not speak its name won’t shut up …tell it to Adam Smith.
Right. When it’s people getting fired for being gay, or when people can’t survive on the wages, or when people need time off for medical emergencies, oh, it’s all about the free market and letting people choose and how DARE we consider this anything like what the evil, evil government does and don’t we understand that only the government can oppress us, and property rights! Property rights!
Now, all of a sudden, private actors can be almost as bad as the government, and people have a right to jobs no matter how hateful they act, and how dare we judge people for being judgmental?
Problem is, right now it’s a vocal minority, and the backlash could be rather unpleasant, and I won’t feel bad for people you support getting hurt in exactly the same way. The strident morons are going to end up getting the same treatment, and it’s going to set the cause back quite a few years.
But keep it up.
Look, this isn’t hard. It was stupid to call people who opposed gay marriage bigots in 2004. It didn’t become acceptable just because the polls hit that magic 51% in favor of SSM. If you want to believe that 40% of Americans are bigots, then you are free to do so, but expect social consequences as you put it for anyone famous who says such a moronic and offensive thing. And expect many of your favorite politicians to denounce that figure who dares to call over 100 million americans bigots.
Now maybe in 2050, we can talk. In 1975, you could say things about minorities that you can’t say today, and in 2000 you could be downright homophobic and there were virtually no social consequences. Eddie Murphy’s 1980s standup career relied heavily on gay baiting and Eminem was famously homophobic on his early albums. Didn’t matter. Society changes, but believe it or not, it’s not hurried along by a vocal minority trying to hound people that haven’t come around yet. Your crusade to marginalize 100 million Americans is going to be about as successful as gay rights groups trying to derail the careers of standup comics and rappers.
You’ve become what you hate.
Don’t play this game. My side is better at it. We’ve been marginalizing liberals for less for decades. Ever seen Noam Chomsky on American TV? He’s lucky he can even find a publisher.
Oh, are you concerned about the cause?
Out of curiosity, did you ever comment on whether it was bigotry to be against interracial marriage in 1996? How about in 2014?
Bigotry doesn’t become so, or cease to be so, when a calendar ticks over to a particular year. It is also not some kind of popularity contest, in which something only counts as bigotry when not very many people support it. It is theoretically possible for 100% of Americans to be bigots.
Your complaint that it is not okay to call people bigots sounds very much like the sort of political-correctness language policing that liberals often get in trouble for.