"Proof’? No. You’re right. I stand corrected. I must have read over the word, assuming no one involved in a debate like this could possibly believe “proof” existed. My mistake.
I don’t think so. Look at the point he was trying to make.
I’m entirely curious why you believe this and based on what evidence.
(bolding mine)
Wait a minute, what? Aren’t you arguing that SSM will somehow “dilute” the concept of marriage, making it less attractive to heterosexual couples in the future? If you as a heterosexual make don’t think a gay relationship applies to you, why should your hypothetical couple? 
Oh, and by the way, you’re not the first person to opine that gay marriage will somehow destroy or dilute hetero marriage. But the evidence to date suggests the opposite. Allow me to point you to this 2004 article from Slate, from which the money quote is:
Despite what Kurtz might say, the apocalypse has not yet arrived. In fact, the numbers show that heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia, where same-sex couples have had rights the longest. In Denmark, for example, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century but turned around in the early 1980s. After the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they’ve been since the early 1970’s. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the partner laws were passed. Furthermore, in the 1990s, divorce rates in Scandinavia remained basically unchanged.
One more thing: my fair-minded state of Massachusetts, the first in the country to approve SSM, has the lowest divorce rate in the country. Just thought you might be interested.
Good point. So as I see it, either:
-
Hypothetical couple doesn’t look to gay relationships in defining their own.
—So it matters not a bit to them what same-sex relationships are called. It matters to same-sex couples. Allow gay marriage. -
Hypothetical Couple does look to their friends’ relationships, gay and straight, in defining their own.
–So there’s a great benefit to allowing gay marriage. If we do, hypothetical couple sees nothing but married couples. Without gay marriage, HC sees happy families getting along without marriage–and that influences their own decision as to whether to marry or not. Again, allow gay marriage.
That’s all I see. So Magellan, what’s the third option? You seem to think it’s obvious–but I don’t get it, and would love to have my ignorance fought.
Be specific–what is it about gay relationships that not only affect our hypothetical couple, but actively encourage their friends not to emulate them?
You might be aware that procreation involves two genders, no?
Heh. You mistake you trainload for a feather. “Trivial” variation? TRIVIAL? Get real. If it were trivial, no one would give a shit. And you might know that a small change in wording can make a HUGE difference. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m aware that one of the things to keep an eye out for in a contract of any kind is the use of “will” vs “may”. The ramifications can be almost night and day.
The part that confuses me is how you get from that statement to the conclusion that same-sex couples are not affected by this kind of difference themselves–and why you think they should “be just fine” with being denied it?
I think I’m done with this whole nonsense. No one is listening. No one is reading the words on the page. It’s astounding. I said ONE bus, I said ONE set of laws, still you and others come back with analogies I do advocate. I have endeavored to understand the opposition, and I do. I can argue it as well as you. Better, in fact. I feel that is incumbent upon me. I feel the passion of one’s position should be commensurate with their ability to argue the other side. You, and most others, Revenant, aside, have not made the slightest effort to understand my position. The number of times you (pl) come back insinuating that I, or my analogy, is advocating for two sets of laws, etc, is astounding. =This can only be attributed to rank imbecility or an obstinate refusal to even grant what I hold my position to be. And since I don’t think stupidity is the fault here, I’m left with obstinance. Which means this is a complete waste of my time.
You and I are done. The good news is that you’re about to have a lot of company.
That includes gays according to the evidence {you remember that right?} provided by Tom. If you’re limiting having children to couples each contributing DNA you haven’t provided any reason why that’s superior, or, how SSM would diminish that in any way. We all know the ability to create children doesn’t insure that they will be loved and nurtured into wonderful citizens.
Old traditions change and sometimes for the better. Nobody wants to slice it up. Rather they want it expanded out to include other consenting adults who love just as deeply and with just as much commitment as their peers.
I agree that’s an appropriate question. What’s been pointed out and what history consistently demonstrates is that the expansion of equal rights to include minorities previously excluded is a step forward not only for that society but for mankind in general. You have NOTHING to show otherwise. What exactly do you think will happen? Less couples will get married and raise healthy children because gays can also get married and raise healthy children?
Clearly false to anybody reading the thread. What’s been said is promoting equal rights for all citizens serves us best is the long term. You’ve been asked to show anything credible to indicate SSM will hinder society in any way long term and have provided ,…what’s that word again,…NOTHING in the way of credible evidence.
Your reference to welfare is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. They are not related or comparable.
You completely missed the point of MLK’s letter didn’t you?
So hetero love and marriage is sacred in a way gay love can never be? It’s reveals your prejudice if you believe that. You’re asking gays to “respect” the beliefs and feelings of some straights {what we’ve called homophobia and bigotry} while not asking the same of the opposition. As MLK described, pressing the issue of equal rights is an act of courage and bigotry should be challenged rather than disguised and offered respect.
Which in no way proves your point. Are you suggesting that by taking a passionate stand to support equal rights and being frustrated and angry about years of oppression and denial they are wrong by default? Nobody in this thread has driven over the edge. We’ve asked you to support your argument with something other than a personal opinion. We’re still waiting. BTW, I’m still waiting for you or someone who thinks the majority can justifiably choose different rights for the minority to give me an example of when that has worked out well for society.
Well, I’ve tried to understand your position. That’s why I’ve pointed out things I don’t understand about it, and asked you to clarify them. I haven’t had much success doing so, and for very objective reasons, think that’s not my fault.
For one thing, if you think I didn’t understand what you suggest, you didn’t read my post describing exactly how “civil unions” and “marriages” with exactly the same rights would get different treatment today.
One fun thing about a debate is you’re not just writing for the other side–but for the readers as well–and I think they will be able to fairly well determine who’s refusing to engage.
In any event, it doesn’t matter–this is a question we’ll look back on in thirty years, and wonder why we made such a big deal about denying perfectly nice couples the right to be treated exactly like everybody else. I’m comfortable with how they’ll think about what i’ve said here.
I think both are true. If asked if I would compare my pending marriage to a specific example, I don’t think I’d see that relationship as relevant. I also think that if SSM existed, that over time the institution would be viewed as less special, resulting in fewer marriages down the road.
And you’re not the first to point this out. I’d ask you to keep a few things in mind:
- this, from Wikipedia:
-that those countries have differetn cultures, and whatever the effects there they may or may not translate to the U.S.
- my position is that it will change things years from now 20-40 years from now.
Uh, you might have noticed that I’m trying to respond to quite a lot here. I’m not avoiding you. Can you point me to what you’d like me to comment on? I’ll get to it next round. But I have to go now.
Have a nice night, all. Well, all except…well, you know who you are.
How lovely and utterly irrelevant. A group of people doesn’t want someone different than them in their group. Doesn’t that sum it up?
Well it is stupid and bigoted, so I think I’m on safe ground there. Your argument is that it would dilute marriage, yet you’ve been unable to explain why.
I don’t care that you dislike SSM and it’s amazing for you to support enforcing your bigotry as the law of the land. You haven’t yet posted any reason for how this will weaken marriage.
Various points throughout history up to the present day. Forced marriage - Wikipedia
But only those guys were bigoted, not you, right?
You’re aware of the technologies of artificial insemination and surrogates, no? You’re aware of the concept of adoption, no? You’re aware of heterosexual marriages that have no children by choice, no?
What are the ramifications of this apparently nontrivial change?
Sincerely, I don’t think the problem is the opposition not reading your words or not understanding your proposition. Some of us understand it and still disagree in strong terms.
Well, he seems to have said that it’s the lack of ability to have biological children together.
Is this directed at me, or magellan?
We haven’t? I don’t see that as being established. I certainly have questions along those lines for him, and it may well be that he is mistaken, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t honestly believe those things to be good reasons.
And I imagine a person confronted with accusations of bigotry likewise may have an emotional reaction.
Truth hurts, don’t it?
I remain curious what disaster is supposed to happen after gay marriage becomes legally recognized in the the U.S.
Heterosexual marriages will start ending in divorce? They have that already.
Hetero couples choosing to live together instead of getting married? They have that already.
Married people choosing not to have children? They have that already.
Children born out of wedlock? They have that already.
I’ve never heard of any heterosexual person declaring “If gays can get married, then I won’t!” or words to that effect. Surely examples can’t be hard to find if this attitude is prevalent enough for gay marriage today to cause a measurable drop in hetero marriage five years from now.
Yet heterosexual couples with no intention or ability to have children can get married and he as no problem with it. So it can’t be that, right?
If you feel you understand his argument and that it isn’t either stupid or bigoted, feel free.
White supremacists honestly believe their ideas about race to be good reasons to live apart from blacks. Are stupidity and bigotry not a part of that ethos?
He’s starting from an emotional reaction. He doesn’t want gays in his club. His emotions are meaningless, he has no logical arguments to make. It’s pathetic.
Well, the “it has been around long enough with those included” argument does not to me make a reasonable argument, since, were we to accept gay marriage, then in hundreds of years it too would have been around for a long time. As far as confusion goes, I honestly do not see it as adding to confusion more than the current situation. And, just to be clear, this isn’t what I want the word to mean, just an example of what I would see as logically following your own arguments.
The meaning of a certain thing. I think what marriage means to people has changed considerably over time, and I reckon that even today, were I to go out onto the street and ask passers-by what marriage meant to them, I would get many different answers.
By the same token, does the marriage of infertile couples too reduce the incidence of marriage among fertile ones?
In all honesty, I can’t see why this would cause straight marriage to decrease. And, beyond that, increased marriages are not in and of themselves more valuable; the question would be, if marriage incidence would go down, whether it is because of a good or bad reason.
The characterisation expressed here;
…and here;
I’ve already given one reason I feel your characterisation of gays in these kind of threads as short-sighted and selfish is inaccurate; just as I would be incorrect to characterise you as uncaring for individual gay people because your arguments primarily talk about society at large. Nor can I really think of any posters i’d be happy calling “militant” on this particular issue.
He appears to have reasons for it, though i’m questioning him on those. Nevertheless, I have little doubt that he feels he has reasons for it, so it can “be that”.
Primarily being brought it would seem to be the lack of biological children raising. He also appears to feel that there would be additional negative side-effects indirectly from including gay marriage; I tend to find those arguments unconvincing.
Yes, certainly. But, as i’ve said before, that doesn’t mean that all cases of reasons for exclusivity are motivated by stupidity or bigotry. Here’s an example; you aren’t including any reasons for exclusivity beyond those two. By your logic, you’re either stupid or a bigot. See how bad an argument this is?
And you know this how? Besides, on the logical argument front, you aren’t doing too well yourself.