I really don’t see what is so hard for people to understand about cmkeller’s position.
It seems that his brand of anti-SSM contains two key thoughts:
Marriage is man + woman. You can no more change that definition with legislation than you can change the gravitational constant of the universe with legislation. Legalizing same sex marriage is thus nonsensical. It would be like having everybody pretend cats were dogs.
Marriage exists to produce more people to be married. Marriage is thus, literally, self serving. The allowance of infertile couples to be married was a mistake but it cannot be fixed, even though it degrades marriage by producing marriages that cannot produce marriages of their own. These marriages are dead ends in the social life cycle and do not add to the stabilizing effect on society that marriage has.
These points, which may not seem sensible to some, are not incompatible with gay rights in any arena. They just make for bitter feelings because gays, understandably, want to use the term marriage as it is the one they have grown up hearing.
Non-same-sex spouses don’t have that right either (if “both have been paying in”). Yes, a wife (usually) can get limited Survivors benefits, but any working spouse would usually have higher benefits on their own. That benefit is a hold-over from the days of “stay home housewives”. And, that could be extended someday, you know.
One THOUSAND??? :dubious: Let us go back to that cite- where the only significant right/benefit that wasn’t included is the rigth to file MFJ- which is an extremely dubiuos benefit, and generally it would WAY better for two working spouses to file both Single. Married couples can’t do that, but same-sex couples under the new CA law can. I’d say that for 80% of the population- the only “right” lost in that bill is really a significant benefit. I’ll concede Survivors Benefits as a another- for maybe 10% or so. And don’t link me to a list of 1000- show me what significant rights- other than those two (both of which are very minor, and one can seriously be argued as an advantage) you don’t get under the new bill.
Nope, I wouldn’t. I’d work hard for the rest. Did I say anywhere to give up? No. I did say you’ll lose, yes, but you have to keep trying. Just don’t be so strident about it- and don’t jump the gun. Make sure you DO get the 99% and THEN start demanding the rest. Don’t be “content” but do act smart, not up. All I am saying is wait for the entire 99%, then demand the rest. That last 1% is a big sticking point for many, and if you insist on it, you might not get the 99%.
Yes, it did. It did not get passed because dudes yelled & screamed. It got passed in spite of that.
“Reasonable”? Who said it was “reasonable”? It is understandable, not reasonable. Some dudes are traditionalists, they don’t want fast change. How long did it take after the 14th & 15th Ad for inter-racial marriages to be legal in all states? A century? I am talking about another decade, and you’ll have it.
And Marriage is not a “basic human right”- don’t get melodramatic. “Last rites” and “Baptism” are not “basic human rights” either. And that’s all marriage is- a traditional religious* rite*- not right. Now- the right to live with your partner of choice- that is a basic human right. And perhaps, maybe a small argument can be made for many of the things that come with a “domestic partnership”. But not the ability to call that partnership a “marriage”- that is NOT a “basic human right”.
It’s not 'trivializing" it’s me trying to get us to not be so serious. There is NOTHING- not even death- that isn’t better with a little levity. But- if it really pisses you off, I’ll stop it here…
Marriage exists in some form in essentially all societies and cultures. In some societies and cultures, it takes the form of a religious ritual. In some societies and cultures, it takes the form of a legal act (such as mine). In some societies and cultures, it takes the form of an economic transaction (see also “bride-price”). In some societies and cultures, aspects of all of these are present (such as the case of a couple where one provides the other with a valuable ring as a form of contract to marry, who acquire a legal document to certify their marriage, and have it witnessed by a religious official).
(I look forward to the day I don’t have to dig up this post.) Northern Piper documented how, in the tradition of English law, marriage was usurped by the Church from its original place as something a couple could do by and for themselves (and how the state nicked it back, though it failed to return it to its original owners).
My religion has no marriage rite; I am still married. (It has no baptismal rite either, but I managed to get born anyway.) As my Christian partner put it, the fact that some religions consider matrimony a sacrament has as much relevant to marriage as the sacrament of communion has to drinking wine with your bread.
As to the “basic right” question, it is in the United States.
Yes, it could be. That’s what we’re trying to do right now.
Which rights are significant varies depending on the needs of the couple in question. So what if “only” 10% of gay couples need a particular right? If you’re part of that ten percent, the fact that 90% of other gay couples don’t need it is cold comfort.
I disagree. If we push for marriage now, we’ll most likely get civil unions as part of the process. A stop-gap compromise while we continue to fight for the real prize. If we just demand civil unions, and we get them, then we have to start the movement all over again from the beginning to get marriage, because our more luke-warm allies and slightly sympathetic opponents will see the issue as settled. We want marriage. We’ll take what rights we can get in the process, but the ultimate goal remains the same.
You’re absolutely wrong. If we hadn’t yelled and screamed (and argued and marched and voted and everything else that is integral to any civil rights movement) we would have got nothing. Again: what we have now is the result of forty years of yelling and screaming.
We may be using these words in different ways, because as I use the term, something that is unreasonable is not understandable. Unreasonable is a rough homonym for irrational, and the irrational, by definition, is immune to rationalization.
And what I want is for gay marriage to be legal in all states. And I would not be at all surprised if that took another century. But the sooner we start fighting for it, the sooner we get it. This is not something that is going to happen on its own. Not under any circumstances. It will only happen if we fight for it, and it will be a long, bitter fight. But it’s something that is worth fighting for.
That’s a false analogy. Baptism and last rites are purely religious services, that offer nothing to someone who is not a member of that religion. Marriage, historically, has been a secular institution, and offers tangible benefits to anyone who partakes of it, regardless of the spiritual/philosophical beliefs. And it is absolutely a basic human right, and is legally recognized as such, as per Lilairen’s cite.
Look, if marriage is a religious rite, what religion does it belong to? Baptism and last rites are specific to various Christian denominations. Kosher is a Jewish ritual. Making a pilgrimage to Mecca is a Muslim ritual. What religion owns the marriage right? And why does that religion allow athiests and agnostics to marry?
It’s not just about being able to call it a marriage. I already have that right. Hell, I can call my relationship with the guy in the next cubicle marriage, and there’s no law against it (although I suspect he’d be less than thrilled at the prospect). What’s at issue here is the legal recognition of that relationship. If I fall in love with a guy, according to my own government our relationship is by definition inferior to a heterosexual relationship. That’s where basic human rights come in: equality under the law. And civil unions, even if they have 100% of the rights accrued to marriage, will never be equal so long as it is a legally seperate institution.
I understand that, and even agree in principle. It’s just that, right now, this is not a subject I feel like laughing about. I appreciate your consideration, though. Thank you.
(Besides, that Princess Bride quote is getting really tired.)
How about being able to bring your foreign-born love back to the United States so you can live your lives together? Imagine falling in love on a work assignment overseas, and then having to just abandon the relationship because there is no way for you two to be together. It’s heart wretching. And yet this happens all the time, while straight men are still importing mail-order brides by the dozen (and we’re trying to protect marriage here…)
That question is the real kicker, isn’t it? Miller’s latest post sheds some light on this, but I’ll attempt to address it a little myself.
No, a defintion of marriage that includes only one man and one woman is nonsensical. Gravity, you see, doesn’t change depending on what culture you come from. “Marriage”, however, means different things to different peoples. Procreation is not always an essential ingrediant. Some marriages are purely economic. Some are purely political.
It is easy to understand why people like cmkeller believe their own ethnocentric definition. Their definition is nevertheless irrational. It is not easy to understand why anyone would cling so tightly to an irrational defintion. Irrationality, as common as it is, can still be inexplicable.
Again, this is easy to understand in one way, and not easy to understand in another. Sex exists to produce more people. Marriage often produces an environment where people can have more sex and more babies, but that has never been its sole purpose. Marriage is about relationships between people, not just procreation itself, and this is demonstrated, again, by a cross-cultural or historical perspective. Just look at Cerri’s post for an example from our own history.
I have absolutely no patience with anyone who would deny the rights of marriage to same-sex partners. This is bigotry, pure and simple, and there’s no arguing with it. I do try to have patience with those who are uncomfortable with a more open definition of marriage. People who are willing to give gays equal rights, if not equal terminology, are not bigoted. Their arguments aren’t reasonable, but they can be reasoned with.
These are some fine distinctions, I know. Too often it’s too easy to paint with a large brush, and label everyone who’s against SSM as a bigot. I’m sorry if this has happened to you, but I happen to agree with Miller about being vocal about your rights. The best strategy for gays is to demand, loudly and often, equal treatment. It isn’t yet time for gay marriage in America, but I can’t imagine the time coming more quickly if gays are less vocal. That just doesn’t make sense to me.
I agree Miller’s latest post clarifies things. Previously in the thread people were either not responding to what was said or not getting it at all. I understand that it may be hard to wrap your head around nonsense*, but if you want to understand the vast majority of human beliefs and opinions you have to be able to do just that.
More accurately nonsense you don’t agree with. Nonsense you do agree with is what makes your head incapable of being wrapped around somebody else’s beliefs.
Let me ask you, would you consider someone of different race as a potential mate? would you consider someone of the same gender as a potential mate? Can you still say there is no difference?
I have no problem with people not liking change; heck, there are lots of changes I don’t like or don’t want to see. I’m a huge believer in “live and let live” and that everyone has a right to whatever opinions they have; people have every right to feel whatever way they feel.
But I also strongly believe that “your right to swing your fist ends at my face.” When people’s beliefs and opinions have an effect on other people’s lives, then those beliefs have to come under scrutiny. In this case, people’s beliefs that marriage has traditionally been for a man and a woman and that that shouldn’t change is interfering with the right of other people to the quiet enjoyment of their lives as they want to live them.
So what you have is a situation where two things are in conflict and can’t both exist: one group of people wants the traditional view of marriage to remain intact, and one group wants marriage to include them and their chosen life partner.
Now, maybe I’m just a wacko, but when I see a conflict between two groups’ desires like that, I look at it in terms of “where’s the harm?”
On the side of “keep marriage as it has traditionally been”, I can easily see the harm: people are being denied the right to live their lives as they want. They are being denied the right to enter into a legally binding relationship that is open to many other people.
On the side of “allow people of the same sex to get married”, I just don’t see any harm, not even a little bit. I started this thread to see if there was a harm or downside that I hadn’t seen. I’ve asked the question repeatedly, in different forms, and I still have yet to see any one indicate that there is even the slightest harm in allowing SSMs.
So, on one side there is an easily seen harm, and on the other side there is no harm. To me, that makes it a no-brainer.
Excuse me, but where did this come from? I have called no one a bigot. What I said was this:
Please read that, and then tell me where I called Chaim – or anyone – a bigot. You, in fact, answered that question by saying that such people are just traditionalists. Ok, fine. But they are still harming other people by not allowing them the right to simply live their lives as they want. So they’re not bigots, they’re old-fashioned people whose old-fashioned beliefs are hurting a particular group of people. That’s just wrong, whatever words you use.
OK, Saturday night didn’t work out, but here I am on Sunday.
filmgeek:
That’s half of my argument - the half describing why we don’t disallow infertile people from marrying.
Roadfood:
Yes, I can, and of necessity I have. The fact that I brought an example of something from a religious marriage ritual does not negate this.
It’s the former. “Marriage” is not merely a relationship, it’s a relationship which is presumed to be for the purpose of supporting the creation of a certain product (children of the next generation), and that product has certain INHERENT rights and obligations vis a vis the partners and assets of the relationship based on that. For all that non-married people are capable of producing children, and for all that gays and even single people are capable of doing a creditable job of raising children created with the help of others, there has always been a distinction in regards to, for example, inheritance (of both property and, in countries/cultures where this applies, of social status) between children that are the product of marriage and children that are not. It has clearly been the children that the institution of marriage is meant to “legitimize,” not the adult relationship.
jk1245:
I certainly wouldn’t be opposed to it and quite frankly I have no idea why it was constitutional for the US to make abolishment of polygamy a condition for Utah’s statehood.That said, I’m not about to organize a “Million-Man and Five-Million-Woman March” on the Capitol over it.
Yes, it’s somewhat contradictory.
I never said that. Whether two gay partners happen to have become parents previously is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not their relationship with one another should be called a marriage.
You’re right, though…for all intents and purposes, a marriage without children is essentially just a “civil union” (as the theorerical institution might be). The fact that there is no practical or non-onerous way to implement such a distinction, though, should not stop us from adhering to the basic purpose of a marriage where it is practical.
Orbifold:
It is certainly to a child’s advantage to allow a second person to share legal guardianship rather than see him or her raised by only one. But as long as there had been another hand in the child’s creation, that means that there is some other force which exercises authority over the child and/or bears responsibility for his or her well-being.
Biology is seldom ignored by the law. How many well-publicized cases have there been of babies switched at birth returned to their biological parents even though the others were the ones who raised them? Or of surrogate mothers who, despite signed contracts, suddenly develop feelings for the creature in their womb? Marriage as a self-contained propogation structure establishes a degree of social stability not achievable by a structure that relies on the good graces of an outside entity.
TeaElle:
In the short term, probably no one. In the long term, though, I think children will end up losing out. Because it’s not so much a redefinition of marriage as it is a repurposing or refocusing of marriage. It’s changing it from a structure that was meant to serve the children to a structure that was meant to serve the adults and their relationship.
Whack-a-Mole:
Of course not. I said that the purpose was to provide a social structure to support it. Big difference.
lee:
I imagine that means one of them is an M-to-F transsexual? If they were married when the “sperm” parent still had functioning male genitalia (how’m I doing on the wording, Eve, et al?), was the marriage somehow legally terminated when that parent’s genitalia were altered?
That was not directed specifically at you- or any one other poster. But read this- or any other thread about this issue- and you’ll see the term “bigot” and “homophobe” casually tossed at anyone who has any sort of issue with same-sex marriage.
Here’s a few quotes from right here in the SDMB, over the last month: No one has put forth a reason that is not, in reality, based on bigotry.
His bigot amendment would have banned all civil unions in all states* f you can’t put forth an argument for your position that’s worthy of respect, what choice do you leave me but to think that your reasons arise from nothing but bigotry? But, in the Bigot State of Ohio, the Hate Amendment won by a huge margin,The people I know who oppose gay marriage oppose it either because homosexuality is sinful, as revealed by the Word of God, or because they are overtly homophobic bigots.
Read this. This is good. The answer to the OP.
Honestly, I’m suprised why this is so hard of a question to answer. It’s painfully obvious, to me anyway.
AFAICT there are two reasons why certain people are opposed to gay marriage.
#1) You want my money. You want marriage rights. You want to pay fewer taxes. You want health benefits. You want to be charged less because you are in a committed relationship with someone of the same sex. So my benefits go down or my rates/taxes go up. When I get married I give back to the country by creating a healthy vibrant supporting nurturing family. But you don’t.
#2) We believe that you are messing up the world. (Don’t worry, it’s not only you. Most of the world is contributing to the negative impact) God created the family in a particular way, because it works. Men are the best leaders. Men are the best at protecting and providing for their families. Women are the best at taking care of their children. Children become mothers and fathers. Male/Female couples that can’t have children can adopt and still raise a healthy family because mother and father roles are still there. Gay unions don’t subscribe to this theory. Gay couples don’t have the mother/father roles as strongly as Male/Female couples. So people that believe that the “worldly” people are messing up “traditional” family values want their world back.
And it’s not enough to say that it’s about maintaining the status-quo. It’s not just inertia. I absolutely positively believe that the male/female marriage is the best method for raising children. It’s best when the children are the actual children of the mother and father, because of the extreme bond created through the stress and miracle of pregnancy and childbirth. But when having your own children isn’t possible, adoption is an option for male/female couples because of the differences between men and women. A healthy* family needs both. Children NEED strong fathers and loving mothers.
Now, does religion have to be a part of #2? NO! You don’t have to believe in God to believe in traditional family values.
*You may have arguments about what makes a healthy family. Well I will then argue with you about what a healthy family is. Premarital sex, for example, is a terrible thing (if you want to argue let’s start a new thread), but it’s practically expected in this world. My healthy family will STRONGLY encourage my children to abstain.
Oh! I’d like to say that I am not opposed to gay marriage or civil unions because of benefits or taxes. I believe that I am like most who are against gay marriage or civil unions, that it discourages traditional healthy family values and devalues the strength of marriage.
Dare I ask how the marriage of two homosexuals has any effect on the health, values and strengths of a “traditional” (i.e. heterosexual) coupling? Would it discourage the health, values and strengths of YOUR (presumably heterosexual) marriage? If not, why assume other (presumably heterosexual) marriages would be affected?
For that matter, by that logic you should be for outlawing divorce.
I thought I talked about this in the first post I wrote. I guess I wasn’t clear enough.
People that believe that a traditional family is the best way to raise a family want their world back. It’s not about my family, but the world around me. The world has gotten FAAAAR out of hand. In the example I gave, premarital sex is practically expected now. “Sinful” activites are encouraged now. It is the slow disolving of traditional family values that has been a big factor in this degredation of society. Gay marriage is yet another step away from traditional family values. It’s another way that is making people believe that traditional family values aren’t the best. Obviously, most in this message board would argue with my opinion that “traditional” family is the best at raising a family. Again, I’d like to point out that childbirth is the key. The danger involved and the relief of a healthy wife and child is extremely important. You don’t get this with gay couplings.
Oh, and YES!!! I would definately outlaw divorce. Of course that’s biblical. BUT for reasons that aren’t pertanent to this discussion I believe that you shouldn’t marry someone until both of you are emotionally and spiritually (even if you aren’t religious) mature. It’s all about trust, faith (in your spouse), love, compassion, willingness to compromise, putting God first, spouse second, children third, world fourth and yourself last. Most “worldly” people aren’t willing to put anyone above themselves, and even if they do they probably believe that children should come before the spouse, which is wrong. Spouse first. Children will follow.