Pros and cons of SSM as it pertains society

In THIS THREAD, Magellan01 asserts that once can hold the position that SSM is a negative influence on society and thus should remain banned while simultaneously allowing gay couples most of the same rights as hetero couples currently enjoy. I disagree that this position is logically supportable on any rational basis. Further, I assert that attempting to hold such a position is nothing more than masking a subtle or overtly held type of bigotry; the basis of which is either religious or ignorant in nature.

(ETA I will be at work for several hrs and unable to respond for a while, I will return this evening to address responses)

Good luck. magellan has led this merry chase before, with no discernible result other than massive cranial-mural injury on the side of the angels.

I agree with jayjay. But just keep in mind that many, many people hold such views, including Obama until a few months ago.

ETA: Can you quote the specific post so we don’t have to wade through that entire thread?

Most? Which rights ought still to be denied? Maybe if we can fish those needles out of the haystack, the discussion might go somewhere.

Magellan01 firmly believes something bad may happen if SSM is completely legal. He doesn’t present any argument as to what that great evil may be but he’s sure it’ll come.

His argument is pretty consistently we can’t change the status quo because we don’t know what the all results might be.

It’s kinda like someone protesting the first airlines because their actions were changing the definition of travel and we couldn’t possibly predict what changes to our society that might cause.

I think it’s perfectly true you can be anti-SSM without being homophobic. You have to be a different kind of bigot you see :wink:

If you believe men and women are fundamentally different in some important ways then you could certainly argue that the current institution of marriage reflects that and so a same sex marriage could never be the same thing.

I expect that subconciously a lot of the pro-civil partnerhsip and anti-gay marriage lot believe this at some level.

In other words: maybe many of these alleged homophobes are not homophobic at all, they’re just ragingly sexist :smiley:

It really seems like Magellan’s stance is based on the notion that gays are inferior or dirtier than straights. The same sort of thinking that prejudiced people use to justify keeping blacks, Jews and Irish from joining a country club. It just won’t be as special if you let *them *in.

I might rethink that if he ever posted an actual argument for his position that was cogent.

Pro SSM: More happiness, justice and love in the world.

Con SSM: Bigots will be angry.

Well, my mother is surprisingly lacking prejudices against homosexuals given her generation (she’s 87) and her prudishness. Still, she’s opposed to SSM. The concept seems ludicrous to her. She can’t fathom the idea of two men leaving the town hall hand in hand with people throwing rice on them.

It’s not the result of her religious beliefs, of an inexistent hate of homosexuals, or of deeps thoughts about the possible bad consequences of SSM. It’s just that the idea is plainly absurd from her point of view. You won’t get any argument from her justifying her position. It’s just obviously idiotic and not worth discussing, period. She expects that it should be equally obvious to everybody else. The sun doesn’t rise in the west, and men don’t marry men.

I suspect there might plenty of people like her who might or might not be otherwise prejudiced. People who don’t even understand that a reason should be provided for opposing SSM and would feel that insisting on getting one is just annoying hair-splitting about an obvious fact.
SSM should be passed into law next year in France and my mother’s reaction will probably be : :rolleyes:

You can be prejudiced without know it. You mother is prejudiced against homosexuals with respect to marriage.

Maybe she just hates rice.

As **magellan01 **(the thread subject, remember?) has explained to us at great length, the right to be considered normal. He’s in favor of every legal right and responsibility for same-sex couples, but he doesn’t want them to be able to call themselves “married”. Apparently measures that lead toward general acceptance of homosexuality as normal will undermine civilization. Somehow, undefinably, eventually. It’s an amusing minor variation on the trope that “Opposing bigotry is bigoted against bigots!”, but nothing more.

Here you go:
[li]Some entries in dictionaries will have to be changed. The definition of marriage seems very important to some people[/li][li]From a comment in the Times last week, people with lots of gay friends run their feet off going to marriages[/li][li]Also from two, there will be an increase in spending on wedding presents. Good for the economy, maybe not for the givers[/li][li]Preachers opposed to SSM lose out to preachers for it and secular officials in the important wedding fee race[/li][li]Massive employment of lawyers figuring out the legal implications. (Yes, it is a negative!)[/li][li]I’d like to say fundamentalists heads exploding when the world does not end, but their heads seem intact dsepite the many states which have legalized it[/li][/ol]

Besides this, I got nothing.

Pros: People who want to be married will be able to, their relationships will gain the protections and privileges of marriage. The bigots will be humiliated, offended and enraged. And further discredited, when no disaster come from it.

Cons: Pretty much nothing, save the already existing downsides of marriage.

No, I think she’s against both of the San Francisco treats.

Well, as I’ve said before on this board, if the idea is that Marriage is all about procreation, then I have no problem with denying gays the right to marry.

As long as we immediately void every existing marriage that doesn’t involve children of that marriage living in the same household.

Pros/Cons: Some homosexual couples will end up paying more in income tax due to the marriage penalty.

Cons/Pros: Some homosexual couples will end up paying less in income tax due to tax treatment of married couples. Ditto for estate tax.

Which is which I guess depends one how you might view government. Government may need to review the tax code if by some chance tax revenues are significantly affected.

Of course, this ignores that marriage is optional. :wink: Just sayin’.

It did to me too the first time I heard of it, which was (no lie) from reading one of the Chick tracts my parents had when I was 7 or 8 years old. My parents, at the time being the sort of folks who had Chick tracts lying around unironically, unsurprisingly said little to make it seem less bizarre and unnatural an idea.

Even in my adolescence when I quickly stopped giving a shit what gay people did and stopped thinking of them as deviants at the top of God’s most wanted sinner list, the idea of marriages with two grooms and two brides continued to seem like an odd idea.

It may be too late for your mother, but people’s opinions can change over time. I wish I could say my own mother’s did, but I suspect she’s just as opposed to gay marriage as she ever was, despite being a genuinely kind person and having had friendly personal relationships with gay people.

To sum up the plausible, empirically verifiable cons mentioned: it may result in a small reduction in tax revenues, and it will result in an increase in litigation.

Less plausible/empirical cons include the “redefinition” of marriage.

Since I will not argue one side of an issue without knowing the other side, I read Peter Sprigg’s book “Outrage.” It was one of the biggest piles of bullshit I have ever had to read. The biggest pile is that most homosexuals are pedophiles. And how does Sprigg know this? Because a study shows that 80% of men in prison for pedophilia self-identify as “homosexual or bisexual.”

Sprigg tries to argue that SSM will change marriage and society in horrible ways. It does not work.