For some reason, this reminds me of one of the more entertaining SDMB meltdowns about a “fake” divorce.
Well, if it’s anything like the bad things that happen when hetero couples get married, it will be that there will be a lot less same sex sex.
After deep consideration, I am sorry to admit that I don’t have an answer to the OP’s question. I am very interested in hearing from someone who does, though.
Sadly, magellan01 has only seen fit to tantalize us, cruelly hiding his formidable wisdom under a barrel. But surely someone who opposes SSM has the clarity of thought, and the courage of conviction, to explain to us what specific harm would result from its legalization? Are there no heroes left anywhere?
I thought the answer here was “Groomzillas” or “Platinum Gay Weddings” or whatever show WeTV can put on to squeeze yet another buck out of the “who can act the stupidest over an overblown wedding that nobody will remember tomorrow, but the couple will remember for a hell of a long time because they just spent the equivalent of a down payment on a house on flowers” genre.
Seriously.
Heh. I misread that as Rob Schneider playing Bob Fosse.
Anyway, magellan has said, repeatedly, what bad thing will happen if we allow gays to marry: the definition of the word “marriage” will change to include same-sex couples. That’s pretty much it. The mistake a lot of us keep making is assuming that there’s something more to it than that, but at this point, I honestly don’t think there is.
And, while I’m being honest, I’ve got to say that compared to a hell of a lot of people in this country, he’s actually pretty progressive on gay rights. It’s only here in California that he’s a problem, because we’ve already got what, to him, is the ideal solution to the issue, and he’s fighting any further change.
So, you know, as frustrated as I get with the guy, I don’t view him as the slavering hate-monster he often gets painted as. Not to say I don’t have issues with him, obviously. The whole “one law” thing is just… surreal. But I try to keep perspective by remembering that the majority of the human race would be unable to discern a meaningful difference between his views on gay rights and my views on gay rights.
Sadly, tomndebb closed the related GD thread before I could comment on this post, which I quote in its entirety as a classic example of mswasian doublethink:
In review, then:
[ul]
[li]SSM is a radical redefinition of a concept that has been meaningless since the 16th century. [/li]
[li]Members of this board who support SSM exhibit “herd behavior,” which is solely about self-aggrandization. (Implication: this is somehow different from mass opposition to SSM, which we instead label “tradition.”)[/li][/ul]
That post is a classic, though–where else can you get someone earnestly claiming that Henry VIII and Ronald Reagan are jointly responsible for the erosion of “conservative, traditional” values?
The horrible society-destroying thing that will happen is this: some people will marry people of their same sex, even though people like magellan do not want them to use the word “marriage” for that type of union.
Just like if I decided that I do not want left-handed people to be able to fly planes, unless they use a different word than the word “pilot” to describe themselves. Goddamn, those lefty plane-flyers piss me off, using a word I do not want them to use!!!
It had GOOD grammar and PROPER spelling - that’s why he edited it. :dubious:
Take that back or I’ll give such a pinch. :mad:
actually, I have no idea. I assumed they might be into Freddie Mercury.
Well, certain gay people were probably IN Freddie Mercury at some point, at least.
Someone’s asking for a spanking.
There’s also the related complaint that marriage will be ‘diluted’ as a result. Which brings up a different question: if diluting marriage is going to cause unspeakable* damages, will concentrating marriage improve it? Magellan01 has mentioned that a couple capable of procreating is the marital ‘ideal.’ Once we have his civil unions that will be equivalent to marriage because there’s ONE set of laws behind them, would magellan01 be in favor of making straight couples that are unable to have kids join via civil unions instead of marriages? Thus, we reserve ‘marriage’ solely for the ideal cases, which should improve the institution in the same sort of ineffible way that expanding the institution will harm it.
*Or at least magellan01 has so far been unwilling to speak them
Let’s see, first magellan01’s head will implode.
Wait, you said bad things. Scratch that one.
Umm. Cats and dogs will start living together.
Too late. Been doing that for years.
Doing what cats and dogs do.
Leading to the unavoidable unnatural result.
Don’t say you weren’t warned!!
I am not opposed to SSM at all. In fact, if it starts to allow loved ones time at a hospital bedside and all that…then I am all in favor of it.
However, I am related to someone that is against it. I believe his points regarding “bad things that will happen” go something like this:
- Opens door to ‘other’ things, like men marrying little boys (ala nambla)
- People marrying pets or other animals.
- People marrying inanimate objects.
I believe he thinks all libruls are in favor of no rules whatsoever; so of course if we’d allow SSM, then the other types of marriage will follow along shortly. Being purely subjective, and anything goes and all that, what possible code could we libruls or would we libruls use to stop people from marrying anyone or anything they chose, he might say.
I try to counter with, common sense says leave minor children our of it…and his response is always “If you allow SSM you have to allow everything, or you are a hypocrite.” :dubious:
From that point on, if I try to counter argue, he simply gets louder and louder and repeats himself.
And as far as people wanting to marry animals or inanimate objects…my son came up with what I thought was a fine answer to that…"Let them. And publish the marriage info. So we know who they are. Wouldn’t you like to know who wants to marry their cat? "
Ah what the heck, I suppose I’ll be derailing a train wreck by addressing the OP…
I believe…
-
Same-sex couples do have a strong argument in favor of being allowed to marry. So strong, in fact, I agree with them. According to this logic, two guys should be allowed to get married.
-
The exact same arguments in favor of same-sex marriage apply, with equal validity, to plural marriages. So strong, in fact, I agree with them. According to this logic, three guys should be allowed to get married.
-
In equality between the sexes, so if we allow a man to have multiple wives I think we must allow a woman to have multiple husbands. According to this logic, three guys and three gals should be allowed to get married.
-
The number of spouses in a plural marriage should be the judgement of the people being married. (Some) Muslims take four wives, (some) Mormons take five, six, or more wives. If we allow six why not seven? If seven why not eight? Nine? Twelve? More? According to this logic, 2034 men and 2061 women should be allowed to get married.
Therefore, I think… same-sex marriage = yes, plural marriage = yes, gender equality = yes, no limit on the number of spouses = yes. The resulting mess?
Every Scientologist will marry each other.
On a more realistic note - any “family” benefit would need to be extended to all 4095 married people in the above example. “Family” court (divorce court). “Family” rates on goods & services (health insurance). “Family” leave when one of them gets pregnant.
I think 4095 people in a “marriage” is absurd. But… my line of reasoning logically leads to that result.
Do you think 4095 people in a “marriage” is realistic? Absurd? Do you agree with my four points? Do you agree they lead to where I think they lead? The potential for literally thousands of people to be “married” to each other. And what about the Scientologists?
No, they don’t. One of the major arguments for letting two dudes get married is that it’s the same legal structure; all we have to do is cross out the words “bride” and “she” where they occur on the forms. Polygamy brings up a whole mess of new legal questions.
3 does not follow from two. A polygomous marriage is not three people getting married, for example, it is one person getting married to two different people.
It does sound as if your friend is a moron, so this probably won’t help, but…
The reason gay marriage won’t lead to legalized pedophilia is that pedophilia causes real, measurable, and inarguable harm to the victim. If someone could actually demonstrate that allowing gays to marry caused real, measurable, and inarguable harm to anyone, then I’d be against it, too.
As for people marrying pets or inanimate objects, it’s not going to happen primarily because no one is asking for it. There is no lobby for people who want to marry their end table. But let’s say that there were. So what? Being married to someone means you get to make medical and legal decisions for them, you get to inherit their property, and you get certain state and government benefits when they die. If someone marries their cat, none of those benefits are going to apply, because animals can’t make legal or medical decisions, and they can’t own property. A marriage between a human and a cat would be purely a legal fiction. It can’t possibly have the force of law, because one of the parties is not a person. This obviously goes double for end tables.