The problem I have with Mr. Card’s (and many other SSM opponents) argument is this:
This is just factually incorrect. How do I know it’s incorrect? By the very fact that SSM opponents see it necessary, now, to pass laws explicitly defining marriage to be between a man and a woman. That gays are forbidden to marry is nothing but a convention that has been rigidly followed (except for that recent period in San Francisco). It has no legal standing. If it already had legal standing, there’d be no need to pass new laws forbidding it, would there?
So the reality is that it’s the opponents to SSM that are trying to redefine the meaning of “marriage”, in the legal sense.
*I’m from Missouri. We had the Constitutional Amendment referendum to prohibit gay marriage earlier this year. I abstained, because I can see & sympathize with the different sides.
…
Civil unions are one thing, but a court case could come down the pike that not only legalizes gay marriage, but prohibits discrimination against gay couples in all things! Now, there are a lot worse things than being raised by a gay couple, but as the son of a single mother, I know there is a sort of psychological difficulty in not having a parent of the same sex in the house. So I’m leery of gay-normalization in the courts.
I don’t have to be a bigot to see that two different things are not the same thing. A black man & a white woman have the same nature of marriage as a white man & a white woman. The category of “miscegenation” was based on a fallacy. But a relationship between two lesbians is a different kind of relationship, & perhaps does require a different legal standing. But marriage has a theory of duty to one’s spouse & one’s issue which is confusing to try to apply to gay couples.
My state’s amendment didn’t ban civil unions, or I would have voted against it. At least I hope that’s the case, or I screwed up reading it.*
I’m confused by this. Given that what you say is true, how does banning SSM help in any way? There are going to be single sex couples with or without marriage, and unless someone wants to require a parent of the opposite sex in the house (not likely) banning SSM won’t change anything.
What it will do is to increase the number of two parent families, assuming you think that marriage is a stabilizing influence. I’d guess that there is at least some difficulty in having only one parent, and legalizing SSM would reduce this.
Why? I agree with the duty part, but our friends who have adopted seem to feel the same duty to their children as we who have birth children do. In fact more than some people with birth children - around here, a good middle class town, it seems common for parents to expel their children at 18. I don’t see how the sex of a partner affects duty, not that we heterosexuals do such a great job in this area.
How is it different? Please explain that to me, I honest and truly don’t understand how it’s different, other than that they can’t conceive a child. Look, I started this thread because, believe it or not, I wanted to try to understand the objections to same sex marriage. Telling me that I’m “full of it” doesn’t help me to understand. How exactly is a lesbian relationship different from a relationship between a man and a woman? I’m not trying to bait anyone here, I really don’t see any difference, and I’d like to hear what you see as the difference.
Not to mention the following fallacy (which at least he hides a bit better):
Trot out the one argument that holds a few drops of water (the need to maintain basic structure for a child-rearing family).
This argument clearly applies with equal force to the case of a infertile heterosexual couple and the case of a homosexual couple (both of which are absolutely excluded, and should be denied the status of marriage, by this argument). :smack:
Attempt to distinguish between the two by arguing that the former and not the latter serve as an “normalizing role models that affirm the institution of marriage”. Hope like hell that nobody notices the circularity of this argument.
I’d like to address this in more detail. Where Mr. Card goes wrong is that he leaves off the true end of that sentence: “so they’re not denied to right to marry the person of their choice”. Which, of course, they are indeed denied. I mean, I hate to keep bringing this up, but “You can marry anyone you want, as long as they are of the opposite sex” and “You can marry anyone you want, as long as they are of the same race”; what’s the difference?
You have a situation where two men, adults, of legal age to enter into contracts, of sound mind, who mutually desire to enter into the legal contract known as “marriage”, are never-the-less denied the right to enter into that contract, for no reason other than their sex. Where else in our society is there a situation anything like that? I mean a case where the law is set up to recognize and validate a contract between two people, and any two adults are allowed to decide that they want to sign that contract, unless they are both <whatever>, or unless they are not both <whatever>.
Bisexuality is also a legitimate orientation, is it not? I mean, being able to be attracted to either males or females is part of the definition and I’ve never, although I’ve heard plenty of arguments against SSM, seen anyone say it’s because they want said person to make a choice between the two and stick with just that.
Ya know, I was raised believing that gay people were deviant, unrepentant perverts. I didn’t start changing my opinions until I was in my early to mid 20s. Needless to say, due to what I’d originally thought, it was quite something to overcome. The way I did it though? By taking note of things (in movies, plays, books, in real life) that made me uncomfortable. See, I felt the impetus was on me to understand them, rather than they change their innate nature or go back into hiding so their affections for their lovers wouldn’t make me feel icky. Not that you’re saying that, but it just seems that everyone is expected to be patient and wait for those opposed to come around, when in reality, it sometimes is necessary to force the issue. Like with de-segregation or women’s right to vote. Because otherwise, the powers that be who are IN control, don’t want to lose it.
I’m not really certain how an outsider can claim to know the motives of another’s heart, so I won’t go there. But I feel that many of the posts on this board reflect those who sorely DO want marriage, much like everyone else, so that they may honor, celebrate and commit to their mutual love for one another. And the second sentence honestly baffles me. Why wouldn’t any human being NOT want to be considered an equal?? Furthermore, why would any other human being wish to deny them that or at least give them the opportunity to try? Isn’t that the American spirit?
I must admit, I simply don’t understand. Try as I might, I don’t know if I ever will.
Reluctant as I am to dip a toe into this thread, I do have an opinion. Unless I remember it wrong, there’s a thingie in the US Constitution stating that each state must afford its citizens the equal protection of the laws, and it doesn’t say “except homosexuals”. This alone is the best argument in favor of SSM. As to the moral aspect, saying it’s immoral like adultery and therefore should be illegal, then by that reasoning adultery should be illegal, and yet no one seriously suggests that. If it shouldn’t be allowed because marriage is a sacred covenant binding a man and a woman together for life and this is moral, then by this reasoning perhaps divorce is immoral and should be illegal. Which illustrates that morality has very little to do with the issue. Personally, I can’t help but ponder that straight people haven’t done such an bang-up job of honoring this sacred ritual to love and honor, 'til death do they part, before God and everyone, because half of them get divorced, even half of the Christians who put a religious spin on marriage. Surely the gays can’t screw up marriage as an institution any worse than that. I think the reason these amendments and initiatives are being passed is because people can do it, whether they have a good and logical reason or not. The gay population is a small segment and they don’t have a recourse if others want to treat them like third-class citizens or worse. No point in looking for it to make sense. It’s not a moral issue at all. Everyone just likes to pretend that it is.
There is no such thing as hetero marriage. It’s just marriage. It exists as defined because that is what society wants it to be. It is based on custom and it is based on the natural behavior of the masses.
The question is do gay people want civil unions or do they want the moniker of “marriage” for the purposes of perceived social acceptance?
Nobody has approached the subject from the aspect that if marriage is secured as the institution that exists today there will be greater acceptance of civil unions.
Does the term civil unions have a standard meaning?
If it’s just marriage for gay folks, then I’m against it. It should just be marriage whether you’re straight or gay. But, I don’t think we will see that anytime soon because much of dispute isn’t solely about the word – it’s about the idea.
What I think we should have, which is less than some want, is a simplified contract of exchange of rights, which two single people have now but must have multiple written contracts. It would ignore the gender or motiviation of the two parties, so say a brother and sister depend upon each other, etc etc, so the political support would be there. Does such an idea add rights to anyone? No, but it gets some issues off the table and might eventually led to greater political support along the lines now in the public discusssion.
If you go for everything at once, it might be a very long time getting anything. Just look at those votes Tuesday.
They’re in the minority and correctly considered nutjobs and a danger to society, as well as a danger to the pro-life movement. They’re not considered normal or mainstream.
A better choice would be equivalence. Men and women are different. Pretending they’re equivalent is ignoring reality. Similarly, male-female relationships are different than same-sex relationships.
So you missed the fact that the Massachussetts supreme court has legalized same-sex marriages, and that they’re happening right now? That was in fact what instigated Bush’s call for an amendment to the constitution.
The definition of marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman (I just checked our OED–it’s been that way at least since 1290 in English). That’s so basic an assumption that it’s only been in the past few years that it’s been seriously questioned. The effort to pass laws was in response to activist efforts to push the idea of same-sex unions as “marriage”. Proponents of such laws have wondered aloud how many dictionary definitions will have to be explicitly defined in law in coming years.
But that’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying that there is no test for “straightness” when you apply for a marriage certificate. Now, critics say, “Well duh–the fact that one applicant is male and the other is female is a de facto test of ‘straightness’”. (Card points out that some SSA-people have in fact had straight marriages, so that objection has its caveats as well.) The point is that the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. What same-sex couples are asking for isn’t marriage. It’s something else that looks like marriage. Which was Card’s point IMO.
So are you saying that same-sex couples don’t currently honor, celebrate and commit to their mutual love for one another?
Again, this points to a legislated validation. It’s not about rights, it’s about appearances. If a same-sex couple believes their relationship is valid, why do they care about that?
Apologies. I should have used the term “equivalent”. Aside from that, passing a law or getting a judge to rule in your favor won’t make something that’s opposed by so many people suddenly become acceptable to them.
We’re witnessing the backlash this week. If the Massachusetts SC and Gavin Newsom (and the city officials that followed) hadn’t done what they’d done, we wouldn’t have seen 11 states amend their constitutions.
Furthermore, if proponents of same-sex marriage were really after results instead of appearances, they’d go after civil unions first–which far fewer people oppose.
This makes like… negative sense. I’m a bisexual man. Does anyone really believe that if I met and fell in love with another man, and we were going to live together forever, that I’d dump him and find myself a woman, just because gay marriage is outlawed? Would any of you leave a life partner if, for whatever reason, you couldn’t get married?
Umm, YES! And you just don’t get it, do you? That’s why you keep losing. Now look- I personally have absolutely no objections to gay marriage. But I understand why the older generation does- it is too much, too damn fast. It’s simply not traditional. But- note that few, if any have problems with “civil unions”- or giving “same-sex unions” all, I mean every single thing that goes with marriage- except the name . In other words, the Conservatives and Traditionalist are willing to give up 99%. Can’t you wait a generation for the other 1%? And if you can’t - you could lose it all. You’re pushing too hard, and going too fast, and the Tradionalists, the Deeply Religous and the Conservatives are about to push back. Look here at CMKeller, a mostly liberal poster- but he is opposed to Same-sex marriage. But not- if I have read him right- to “civil unions”. (Right CM?).
And then there is us Moderates. Yep, that’s me. Now, “same sex marriage” is OK by me- but I really don’t care much one way or the other (crime rates, taxes, the Deficit, and Terrorism are a bit higher on my list, thatnkyouverymuch). But if you dudes have a policy of “either you agree to & support our agenda 100% (NOT 99% mind you, it has to be 100% ) or you are a homophobic Bigot.”- then you start to lose ME. Because CMKeller isn’t a homophobic Bigot, or anything close to it. He is simply very Traditionalist. Caling a great dude like him a "homophobic bigot " (and AFAIK, no one has quite said that yet)- and you turn me against you. So- you lose the tradionalists & Conservatives by demanding 100% and you lose me by name-calling. The term “homophobic” is tossed around WAY too much here.
Why do you have to settle for 99%? That’s not fair? Yes, it’s not fair- and you *do *have to settle for 99%- as that is a simple political reality. Sometimes that’s the way it is is, fair or not. Get used to it.
Look- settle for 99% now, and a generation from now (maybe less) you’ll get the rest. Push it, and you may set “the movement” back a decade. Your choice. “Choose wisely”.
In England, it was a separate thing before 1200, at which point the Church started usurping the power of the people to marry themselves.
In history, it was also a separate thing; the Egyptians, generally considered the most religious people in the ancient world (at least by the Greeks), had no religious marriage ceremony at all. It was a legal contract.
Um, but I can’t understand how a woman could be attracted to a man, either. To me, the only things that make any sense whatsoever are lesbian couples (note that I’m a heterosexual man)… and yet plenty of people are attracted to men, so I accept that (and, in the case of women attracted to men, am quite pleasantly surprised by it). Why is a heterosexual man expected to accept that women can be attracted to men just as said hetero man is attracted to women, but not accept any of the other combinations?
That part is heartening. Things may continue to not make sense to some of us for a while, but, in the long run, it’ll take a theocracy to stop us from moving forward, and I don’t think we’re going to actually go there (knock on wood).
