Or two men. Or two women. See? Words change.
How do you respond to post #30?
Agreed. How about ‘Person’? ‘Property’? ‘Citizen’? ‘Vote’?
Well, if you want to put it that way, because that’s what it means to the vast majority of people, and has meant for hundreds of years. You’re free to define a bowling ball as a triangular object, but that doesn’t make it so.
And this is an excellent argument either against a religiously based moral code or God. We have to talk inbred compulsion here, not someone choosing to do bad through free will. If God made someone with the compulsion to commit a sin, then either we are mistaken about it being a sin or God is evil. That this compulsion comes from genetics, and there is no God, is a much simpler solution to this problem.
ETA: And I sympathize with your frustration at the non-answers.
For thousands of years, it has meant a union between a man and a woman, and maybe another woman, and maybe another woman beyond that…
If the civil definition of marriage can not allow polygamous marriage, then clearly it can further vary from the “original” definition to allow a polygamous marriage without the man. Or, to be sexually equal, a polyandrous marriage without the wife.
Face it. Etymological arguments for exclusively non-polygomous heterosexual marriage don’t hold water - not only do definitions change, the definition simply isn’t what you claim. So, are there any other arguments favoring being exusionary towards gays regarding marriage?
To answer the OP, the only thing close to a reasonable explanation is that we’ve always done it that way (even when we haven’t.)
The child issue doesn’t stand up well. My brother got married for the first time long after children were possible, and my father got remarried long, long after more children were possible.
As for the laws, I haven’t notices any anti-SSM people suddenly changing their mind after SSM is voted in, or after discrimination laws are found to be unconstitutional. You think they’ll stop in California if the proposition fails?
As for the religious objection, it would be fine if they limited their objection to a minister being forced to perform the ceremony - which no one is proposing. It is yet another case of “you have to do what I say because I claim it comes from God and you can’t disprove it.”
Do we allow people to determine rights for minority groups in this country even when the will of the people is clearly illegal or unconstitional? I mean, marriage used to mean “only between one man and one woman of the same race,” but the courts said “um…no.” The people want the word to mean “only between one man and one woman,” but the parallels between the laws against interracial marriage and the laws against same-sex marriage seem too sharp to be dismissed.
You know, neither of these posts are actually responsive to the subject at hand. We know what marriage means now. The argument is that marriage should be changed to mean something else. Simply restating what marriage means now is not an explanation as to why the definition shouldn’t be changed. There is, I believe, a specific name for this sort of logical fallacy, but I can’t recall it off the top of my head.
Similarly, when someone advocates a minority viewpoint, simply pointing out that it is a minority viewpoint does not rebut the argument. Any sort of social/political change is by necessity going to begin as a minority viewpoint. If the argument can be dismissed purely on the grounds that it is a minority viewpoint, it becomes impossible to discuss any issue in modern society at all: whichever position has the most adherents becomes correct by default, and there’s no mechanism by which one can attempt to convince members of the majority view to defect to the minority.
I am, however, in agreement with you in your response to gonzomax. God, if you believe in such an entity, is the author of all that is both good and evil in the world. The existence of homosexuality is not in and of itself proof that God approves of homosexuality.
You seem to content with a language that never changes. And yet is does. As noted above by several posters words change their meanings over time. The obvious one in this case is the word gay. It seems you are okay with this in general yet want to strictly define then meaning of one specific word forever. Why? What makes the word marriage more special compared to, say, the word villain?
Frankly it looks like just another way of enforcing a kind of bigotry - seperate but equal indeed.
[roll-motherfucking-eyes goes here, but of course the feature now works only intermittently] Sure, whatever you say. Never mind that I just used the “God made” formulation of the poster I originally responded to, parroting HIS reasoning and critiquing it for what it was. But I’m glad you truffled out another excuse to trash theism. Well done. Now you can go have yourself a good wank.
(Man, this is getting old.)
[Hijack]
Read up about Reconstruction. Ex-slaves did have equal rights, including voting rights, after being freed. They lost them again after the compromise ending the 1876 election deadlock caused the North to pull troops out of the South, ending Reconstruction.
[/Hijack]
I was expanding on the argument. (though I will admit, the ‘God made them’ argument won’t get a lot of support from me since I don’t feel religion should have anything to do with a civil arrangement)
From a religious viewpoint, I would say that yes, God made all of those people and doesn’t want them mistreated. Whether or not that is true is not relevant. (or is that what you were looking for anyway?)
Now we can expand into other ways for society to respond to people that vary from the norm. Arsonists and serial killers engage in behavior that is detrimental to the rest of society. (namely by causing property damage and killing people) As a society we have determined that those people should be separated from the rest of society.
Compare that to people who are emotionally and sexually attracted to people of their same gender. That action does not cause a detriment to society, so as a society we have determined (in general, but not everywhere) that these people should be treated like anyone else. These people want to establish legal relationships in pairs in the same way that pairs of people have done throughout recorded history. There is a system in place in government to recognize these pairs and afford them certain rights and responsibilities.
Why should these pairs not be afforded the same rights under the same system when the only difference is the gender of the parties involved?
Yeah, well, how do you think we feel about it?
Oh, that one’s easy. Gays are relatively well organized politically. I don’t think polygamists have any political organization at all. No politician will give them the time of day until they do.
Actually I’d say that the meaning has already changed - there are other countries where it’s already allowed, and nobody finds statements describing gay couples as being married confusing or incomprehensible anywhere. They don’t even mix the term up with the “the perfume is a mariage of the scents of violets and marigolds” meaning! Everyone knows exactly what it means - and more tellingly, nobody expresses consternation or confusion at the thought anymore. It’s not “you can’t have a marriage between two men; that doesn’t make any sense!”; instead it’s “marriage between people of the same sex is immoral!” “gay marriage is illegal and should stay that way!” “marriage between gays makes baby Jesus cry!”
In the unlikely event that the word didn’t include the homosexual meaning before, it certainly does now. All that remains is for people to get over their denial - rather forced and strained denial, too.
My apologies. I thought the argument was that “God making someone who wanted to do something didn’t make it right.” That is actually superficially a good response to the “god made people gay” argument. I was just giving some possible explanations for this apparent discrepancy, the simple to solution to which is either paedophila and gay marriage are both good or both bad.
How do you resolve the problem of God making people with certain proclivities and then calling them sinful? The gay proclivity I’m interested in is to get married, like anyone else.
BTW, if you call pointing out that the absence of God is a logical solution to this problem is “trashing theism” you need to invent some stronger words for what the people who really trash theism do.
That’s not the only reason it fails. See Millers post. The last third of it, which he actually got right. : )
Why not just give them the same rights? Why MUST it be under the same system? Why MUST it ask of society to change the idea of marriage that’s been around for hundreds of years.
You know, it’s become increasingly clear to me that it is not about rights. That’s just a Trojan Horse. That want to contort society to fit the view of a minority. Fuck that. The call was for—rightfully—equal RIGHTS. But now that’s not enough. Well, fuck that, too. I’m becoming increasingly annoyed at this pushy insistence. I find myself, for the first time, starting to not like gay people. I find myself broadbrushing almost the whole community (except for my gay friends and other reasonable people that actually don’t even want SSM), as well as their non-gay cheerleaders.
This isn’t a good response, since a god-based reason for or against something is not based on value or harm to society - it just is. An anti-SSM person can easily admit that there is no harm, but be against it because God is. At that point we’re just arguing how to read the Bible, and I think the anti-SSM people would have the best of that argument.
When typing this, did you consider the nature vs. nurture debate of homosexuality? I’m pretty sure we’d all like, on some primal level, to have a dozen wives, and so I can’t see poligamy as anything but a choice. I think it’s pretty much settled that most gay people are born that way.