Pros and cons of SSM as it pertains society

So you’re saying that proponents of same-sex marriage should bill it as a tax cut to try to get conservatives to support it?

To me, this smacks of the ‘equal but separate’ stance attempted during the early days of expanding civil rights in the US. It basically doesn’t work, since you never actually GET ‘equal but separate’…merely institutionalized discrimination sugar coated or whitewashed into something that, on the surface, looks more palatable. The only upside to that stance is it’s easier in the short term…you don’t have to shift people as much from their status quo comfort zone, and it takes less effort, since the bigots will rightfully see this as a small concession on their part to give them that de facto institutional discrimination.

The pros to doing it the right way are that, well, it’s the right thing to do, and in the long run it’s going to happen, so we should bite the bullet and get on with it, so that the healing part, which takes decades or longer anyway can begin. Look at how this has worked out for minority issues in the US wrt Civil Rights and you can see all the up side of doing this the right way…and you could project what the down side WOULD have been had we not (race riots and the like on a regular basis…plus, just the general feeling that we were less than we SHOULD be, as a people, and that it just wasn’t right or just to do what we were doing).

The interesting thing here though isn’t the assumption that it is absurd. It is the jump from making that personal assumption to actively voting against or denying someone else their right to be absurd. Where does that come from?

If being absurd were illegal, I would be serving five or seven consecutive life sentences.

Well, it would help if we could recast it that way. Maybe point to some high-profile wealthy gay job creators. When’s Elton John’s next album out?

While it is all fun to describe any opinion with which we disagree as bigotry, I would note that magellan01’s specific response to the idea of SSM is a civil union that, by law, was declared equal to marriage in all regards except the word.

Unless one has a specific example of a statement that denigrates homosexuals or indicates that they should have a lesser status in society, I think that throwing around the terms “bigot” and “prejudiced” and similar epithets are not appropriate to this discussion–particularly when we have not yet heard from anyone in this thread who actively disapproves of SSM.

[ /Moderating ]

With all due respect to the moderator (all hail the great moderation on this board without whom we would be wallowing in the chaos and filth of our own making), I am wondering how we should argue against views whose underlying basis seems to be the belief that homosexuals and homosexual relationships are lesser than heterosexual and heterosexual relationships, without pointing out that such a view is based on prejudice. It would be like having a discussion about abortion, but disallowing the pro-life view that a fetus is a person at conception.

Tom, if anyone, magellan01 or otherwise, *can *offer a “specific example” of a reason other than bigotry to deny SS couples the use of the word “marriage”, it would be welcomed. If there is another possible inference that can be drawn that can be articulated, that too would be welcomed. The fact that it hasn’t happened yet is certainly relevant to the discussion, and to discourage or ban the point is hardly conducive to exploring the topic.

Sometimes you do have to call a thing by its own name, and not simply because it’s “fun”, as you so contemptuously describe it.

He never said it would negatively influence society, you did (and a few others)
He may dance around the issue quite a bit but he specifically used traditional marriage roles provide a “greater benefit” rather than what you are supposes he said.

Basically you reading into what he wrote for your “calling out thread” is based upon your own interpretation of what he said, good luck in that endeavor.

I hate taking this side of the issue, but one valid reason is that abrupt changes in law are divisive and sometimes things need to be eased in. I didn’t like DADT, but it may have been the path leading to the elimination of discrimination based on sexuality. Also, I don’t think the government shouldn’t be in the marriage business to start with.

Now to cleanse my soul, nobody is using valid reasons in the real life political argument, it’s all based on intolerance and political pandering.

I don’t see the fact that some people feel that ‘marriage’ is only between a man and woman as being 'one who regards or treats the members of a group ‘as a racial or ethnic group with hatred and intolerance’ (from Webster online). I disagree with people who make that distinction, but I don’t think that automatically equates to them being a bigot. And calling someone honestly engaged in a debate like this a bigot serves no freaking purpose except to inflame the discussion to no point and stifle the debate by turning off those who might otherwise engage.

Seriously, do you WANT a freaking echo chamber on this board, or do you want folks to debate points that might not be the main stream thinking of the majority on this board?? I think Tom made a good call there.

Divorce lawyers will reap a bonanza from the additional work in a few years as SS couples decide to terminate their relationships. I don’t know it that’s a plus or a minus.

Then, as I said, if there is another articulatable reason, it would be welcome. Do you have one? Can you point us to any?

There can only be debate if there are differing articulatable views based on more than visceral emotions. The fact that we aren’t getting any of that from the anti-SSM faction is not the fault of those who do have articulatable positions. At what point are you willing to conclude, and state, the obvious?

He has expressed this opinion a number of times. It’s not like people are reaching when we say Magellen01 believes SSM would negatively influence society.

Here are a few.

Sounds nice, but what that generally boils down to in the real world is discrimination being written into law, and the supposed stepping stone to greater equality becomes just another roadblock that has to be destroyed before progress can be made. DADT for example simply led to greater levels of persecution and to more people being thrown out of the military for their sexuality. If anything, I think it significantly slowed down the elimination of discrimination, and that was why it was created in the first place. And it was immensely divisive.

Trouble is, I don’t have the heart to put up a fight on this (Skald’s took it I think). In general, I’d say there are some legitimate reasons to make distasteful compromises in furtherence of a goal. I just don’t feel like defending these particular cases on those grounds. But it could be an argument that’s not based on some type of intolerance.

Might magellan01 simply be looking for an excuse to have a chicken sammich?

I agree that disruptive new laws should be phased in, but is there any evidence that legalization of SSM is disruptive? It hasn’t appeared to be in the states which have legalized it. (Except for the rush to get married in the short time it was legal in California.) If the problem is with people not being to stand the idea, it is much less disruptive than civil rights laws were.

I live in a state where SSM is legal. I see the ramifications to society everyday.

There haven’t been any.

The only obvious disruption has been in the state of spontaneous undergarment massing in those who oppose it.