And there was violent opposition to integration in Boston, too. It’s an ideological affinity, not a geographical one.
It’s not the least bit absurd.
I support gay marriage, because I think it’s a good idea. I don’t doubt that most of those who oppose it do so out of hatred for gays.
But it’s not absurd to say that marriage is between a man and woman. In fact, it’s absurd to say it’s anything else. I support that “absurdity” but that doesn’t make it not one.
Marriage is defined. That makes it exclusive. This is about letting one group through the door. But we’ll still be excluding everyone else. Polygamists, for instance. Marriage is an artificial legal construct, not a natural right. It’s like a driver’s license - it’s designed for a purpose, and you only get one if you qualify.
I believe we have changed what marriage is to the point that there’s no good reason not to let gays have it. But it’s not quite the same thing as a civil right.
Ok, agreed. Sorry if I misinterpreted you, I just tire of the equation of all bigotry with the South.
That’s ridiculous. I just cited three dictionaries–probably the three most authoritative dictionaries in English–that contradict your definition. How can you possibly make such an argument?
LOL. Dictionaries?
And it’s not my definition.
60% of the area of the world is covered by polygamous societies.
Historically, neither romantic love, nor the age of consent, nor monogamy were part of marriage in the vast majority of places, so your assertion about what “traditional marriage” is just plain isn’t true.
Many countries already have gay marriage.
The issue isn’t what the dictionary says, it’s the issue of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing the equal protection of the laws, meaning that a man can marry a man if a woman can. No right by anybody to enter into a polygamous relationship exists, so it’s irrelevant.
Do you need more? The whole bullshit about how marriage simply “is” between a man and a woman is just that, bullshit. It’s neither true, nor relevant, nor historical. The opposition to gay marriage comes from people who think boys kissing is gross, or from people who are told to pretend they think that way by their pastors, combined with the terrible American impulse to want to use the force of government to stamp out anything different or uncomfortable from the aesthetic preferences of the majority. Anyone who claims to be motivated by something else is simply not being honest, and of course anyone who wants to perpetuate a second-class legal status for a class of people is a bigot, because that’s what words mean. Trying to complicate this very simple good v. evil issue is a tactic of the evil side. And the chicken sandwich man is a walking pile of trash who could do nothing better for humanity than drop dead.
This may be the most content-free post in the history of the Internet.
Edit: Dammnit, I forgot. Low-hanging fruit and all.
Not even close. Check out the “Evidence for God” thread.
No, they wouldn’t. The word “marriage” has legal meaning. And the only reason for even the idea of a civil union is to make it inferior.
Yeah, right. :rolleyes: They’ve been given the chance again and again to produce non-bigoted reasons for their position, and failed both in and out of court because there are no such reasons. If they weren’t bigots, then they wouldn’t be anti-SSM.
The right wing sure does love its persecution complex.
It does when doing so is the only purpose of the “otherness”. You could have used your same argument to support racial segregation.
Because it’s not “pure semantics”. Civil unions and marriage are not equal. They are never going to be equal. That is why civil unions exist, to be inferior.
Garbage. The “engine” behind marriage is the human pair bonding instinct, which is just as strong in homosexuals as in heterosexuals.
Of course we can. The historical definition of marriage was that women were essentially domestic slaves for their husband; property. That was evil, and we after millennia finally changed that; and that was a far larger change than just letting same sex couples have it.
No thanks.
Christian logic is going out with bats hunting for queers, breaking nine kneecaps, having a tenth target fend them off with a gun, and then complaining about being “bullied” and “persecuted.”
Plenty of Christians are on your side, you know. Stereotyping like this is wrong no matter who does it.
Wow, now there’s a circular argument.
So it’s not “anybody can marry anybody” or “marriage equality” after all - it’s “marriage is defined as between one man and one woman (or one man and one man or one woman and one woman).”
Of course it’s historical.
Stop speaking for other people and telling them how they think.
But I’ll ask you why YOU oppose polygamy.
It’s awesome when you get to argue BOTH sides of an argument, isn’t it? You can never lose!
If the law recognized only spousecontracts, or only civil unions, and it was the same for everyone, then the people on our side would not have a problem with it.
Several years ago, this was my preferred solution - that the government should get out of the business of calling anything a marriage, since what we think of as the legal rights are really a contract of how two people are in a relationship with each other.
What changed my mind about this is realizing that legal marriage is more than just the relationship of two people to each other, it’s also how society interacts with that couple. And those interactions have deep tentacles - laws that deal with how a married couple are to be treated are everywhere. These laws refer to marriage and married people.
I also realized (duh!) that marriage is not a religious institution, it’s a human institution which the various religions tried to rein in for their own purposes.
I have yet to hear of an argument against same-sex-marriage that couldn’t be used against interracial marriage (and the same arguments were used!). 20 or 30 years from now, you won’t even be able to find anyone who will admit to ever opposing SSM, just like now you can’t find anyone who admits to being opposed to interracial marriage.
That should be the challenge to Shiloh and magellan, or any opponent of SSM: can you come up with an argument against SSM which could not also be used against interracial marriage?
I read his post three times, and it did not mention anything about the South.
Posts with this kind of vitriol belong in the Pit. This has been brought to your attention before.
I was too sensitive to attacks on the South, and apologized for the misinterpretation in post 203.
Ok, what is the other side, then? What’s the rational argument for prohibiting same-sex marriage?
There isn’t any. I get this a lot; I condemn the anti-SSM side for having no non-bigoted, rational arguments for their position, I get accused of being unfair or “just as bad as they are” or “painting with too broad a brush”…the one thing that never happens is them actually coming up with that non-bigoted, rational argument against SSM.
It is like it or not one of the most one sided arguments ever seen, morally and rationally speaking. There are no good arguments for the anti-SSM side.