Noted. I don’t think there’s a position that compares to anti-marriage-equality, in terms of the number of supporters versus the weakness of their arguments. I was in the civil-union camp at one time (during my Young Republican days, before switching to libertarianism), until I really thought about it and could not articulate a single reason why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry other than “that’s not the way we’ve always done it” or “most people don’t want them to be able to” (which is no longer true, per Gallup). Both of those are terrible reasons to deny someone equal rights. I never hated gays, and I don’t think most anti-SSM people do either, which doesn’t leave them much to argue with.
Still, I changed my mind on this, so others can too.
It’s actually never answered by ANY marriage equality opponent, because they can’t answer it logically from their conceptual framework (wherein they SAY that gay and lesbian people are actually fully equal people, but obviously don’t fully believe it).
They never explain what it was that caused 50% of marriages to explode before any state allowed marriage equality, though. Frankly, the straight people have been doing a very efficient job of destroying marriage for a very long time before marriage equality was even a glimmer of an idea.
*Incidentally, they also fail spectacularly at explaining why the very first state to have marriage equality, the state where it’s been law the longest, has the lowest divorce rate in the country…
Two different groups: Blacks / Whites
Two different schools: Black schools / White schools
The two different schools were said to be “separate but equal”.
Contrast that with the SSM debate. What I’m talking about is,
Two different groups: Heterosexuals / Homosexuals
But only ONE set of laws. So every gay couple joined in a civil union would be able to enjoy all the legal privileges and benefits that every heterosexual married couple would be able to enjoy.
Absolutely. We’ve actually had some fairly prominent conservative posters whose minds have changed on the subject since it first became a reality (with the Massachusetts ruling), Bricker being a prominent name among them. I do think there are a few who are beyond hope, however, judging from how often we have exactly the same arguments over it with them.
And even if they are the same in every way but the name, they have different names.
If it’s only about the name, why care about the name? And if the name matters so much, then it must matter. If it doesn’t, then you wouldn’t be so concerned about it.
How else would you write the statutes? You’d have a statute for marriage, which was defined by the spouses being of different gender, and one for civil union, which was defined by the spouses being of the same (depending on how charitable you are to transsexuals) gender.
Your argument may differ from Shiloh’s, so if I’ve misstated your opinion, I apologize. How would you resolve civil unions as a statutory matter?
Natural rights are not contingent upon laws, customs, and beliefs. Let’s say you were a citizen of the Soviet Union in 1955. Do you have a right to publish your opinions? Yes, you do; you are a human being and all human beings enjoy such rights. Is this right infringed upon, meaning that you are unable to exercise it without reprisal from the government? Yes. But the right exists regardless.
Natural rights cannot be granted or removed by law, only protected or infringed upon.
If it’s the same freaking laws that govern the two, why the freaking freak are we giving them different names?! They’re the same damn thing, legally, as you admit, and yet you want to call them something completely different just so you and your fellow straight chauvinists can continue feeling special.
First, I have considered it from the alternate viewpoint. But it might surprise you to learn that doing so does not obligate me to agree with your position. If it did, than why are you not obligated to see things my way and ultimately agree with me? See the problem?
Hope that helps you in your future travels. If you’re able to digest it. If so, it’ll certainly be a nice change for all those who you might find yourself disagreeing with in life.
The idea of gay marriage *felt *wrong to me, but the innate moral sense, the gut-feeling of whether something is right or wrong, must in a thinking person be subject to your rational mind. Things that feel wrong sometimes aren’t, and things that feel right sometimes aren’t.
That subordination of reasoning to gut-feeling probably underlies some anti-SSM folks’ opinions.
Truthfully, I’m getting better at not letting the whole argument get to me since the balance has begun to tip. More people every day come down on the marriage equality side. Within my lifetime (a fact that I’m still trying to grasp) there WILL be nationwide marriage equality. All the people who try to keep their own straight privilege separate from the hordes of dirty fegelahs will be reduced to bitter muttering and subject to general ridicule as completely equally married couples of all sexes enjoy their rights.
Would you being willing to articulate what you view as the best argument for why Americans should, through their vote, oppose allowing same-sex couples to legally enter into marriages? What’s the best case you can make?
Thanks for the question. Easy: One statute. One set of laws. You’re able to tap into these laws if you’ve you been joined either in marriage or a civil union. Right any set of laws you want regarding property rights, inheritance, hospital visitation, insurance, etc. But the important thing is that there be just the ONE set of laws.
Make sense?
To “publish”? I’d say no. Freedom of the “press” is not a natural right.
On what basis do you say this? What about before publishing? Did some ancient Syrian have the natural right to publish his opinion? Before publishing was a possibility? No, of course not.
I think I’ve shown why this is not true.
This is correct. A person has a right to eat, the right to be compensated for his labor, the right to care for their children, etc. And good place to get a feel for natural rights is Antigone, by Sophocles. After the death of her brother and her desire to care for his body—against the king’s orders, and at risk of death—Antigone instructs King Creon they there are laws higher than those of kings.
Just because a right is a good idea, doesn’t mean it is a natural right. Similarly, not all rights enshrined in U.S. Constitution are natural rights.
