Yeah, that’s such an overly simplistic way of looking at it. It’s unfortunate that this is the mainstream view on it.
You can’t really blame the mainstream for thinking that. Since zero rational arguments for restricting marriage to heterosexuals have been raised… so far as I can tell, ever.
Care to make one? Because bigotry or being unable to understand the issues seem to be the only options left.
The arguments are made and they have nothing to do with that argument. You might think that the religious rationale is not rational, but why misrepresent it to make that point?
I did, way way back on the first page or two of the thread. They object because of an objection based upon a cohesive traditional moral system. That’s hardly reducible to ‘fags are icky’.
Religions aren’t rational and I don’t have much respect for making religious claims to support bigotry. However, that isn’t what I meant in this case. The religious arguments are moot, because:
- This is a government matter, not a religious matter.
- The government isn’t there to put religious biases into the law.
- There are religions that allow same sex marriage.
Since there are religions that allow same sex marriage, disallowing it favors one religion over others and I would say, endorses those religions that look down on homosexuality.
If your moral system suggests that groups of people have less rights than the mainstream, I might, with all due respect, suggest that said moral system is flawed and should probably be forgotten with the rest of the ignorant stupidity that history is littered with.
What you respect and what you don’t is irrelevant. There is still a reason, and it isn’t just ‘fags are icky’. The idea that it’s ONLY about ‘Fags are icky’ presupposes that people thousands of years ago singled out homosexuals for special treatment when they wrote the bible. There are many things the bible proscribes that I think should be legal. Gambling and Usury come to mind as well. In fact our society is built on a foundation of Usury, which I find to be an interesting paradox for social conservatives. There are plenty of deeper arguments to be made, but liberals in their endless drives toward making everyone else be tolerant oversimplify things and turn every answer into ‘bigotry’. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail right?
Agreed, but this thread is about the rationale for opposition to same-sex marriage and not, “Christians are Icky”.
Yes it is, it is there to put the biases of any group that can attain a dominant majority is able to enshrine into law. Moral judgments come from somewhere and we put our moral judgments into law all the time.
And they can vote as well.
We favor one moral ideology over others all the time. It just depends on which faction is victorious at the point of legislation.
No one is being given less rights here. Everyone has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and everyone equally does not have the right to marry someone of the same sex. You won’t find a single person in this thread who disagrees that we should discriminate against pedophiles. The law ALWAYS discriminates in favor of some people at the expense of others. The debate is about where to draw the line. I agree with the majority of posters in this thread about where to draw the line. What I disagree with is the mob groupthink that wants people not to question or consider that the opposition might be inspired by something other than bigotry.
“Christians are Icky”, is an uncompelling argument as far as I’m concerned and that’s what the argument, “It’s just based on bigotry.”, is saying in essence. Christianity = bigotry in some people’s minds. It’s always ironic to hear these people speak of religious tolerance toward Muslims, but then bigots are irrational in general are they not? They turn their hated group into a special case, and then often will single out someone who agrees with them about the topic but doesn’t hate the suspect class they are singling out, right Elvisl1ves?
Not the strongest argument around. Especially after 1967. Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia
Also, of course, if some hypothetical religion does elect representatives to put their preferences into law, the First Amendment will do some work to protect the public from laws that have no secular purpose.
It is uncompelling to argue that “Christians are Icky.”–and isn’t a particularly fruitful line of discussion to follow. For one thing, they aren’t. Bigots are icky–from whatever source their bias comes.
It is more compelling to say “it’s just based on bigotry because the reasons offered to ban gay marriage don’t make any sense.” Or, I suppose, “Oh, well that justification make sense.” That is what I, at least, am here to discuss–not to either reject or give extra value to justifications to oppose same-sex marriage because they are religious in origin.
Yes, but there is a long traditional basis for marriage being defined as it is by that faction. It’s not like they are suddenly trying to outlaw something that was legal for years.
Right but the argument is becoming “Christianity is bigotted”. Basically the term, bigot, is a barrier to understanding their rationale, and doesn’t help. It’s a catch-all well-poisoner. I agree, those who use this issue as a hobby horse to bash Christians are just as icky.
More compelling for those who find actually thinking about things to be tedious perhaps. It’s anti-intellectualism pure and simple. Because it’s not the reason. Certainly it’s the reason for many people, but it tells us absolutely 0 about the question posed by the OP.
So for bigots who want to oversimplify things because it hurts their brain to try and understand complex issues, sure, it’s more compelling. For people interested in fighting ignorance and learning about these things, it’s not even a relevant response.
I suppose for those who have the luxury of being a freaking Vulcan this stance is fine. That would be, though, those who aren’t at all affected by the whole situation. Those of us who are being slandered and vilified for who we are (rather than what oppressive religious morality we follow) are a little bit closer to the problem than you. And again, I note that for someone who supposedly comes down on “our” side of this question, you’re fighting awfully hard for the other side.
Honestly, I don’t care if their precious religious feelings are hurt. I’m already 20 years down the road mentally, looking back at them and seeing Orval Faubus and Lester Maddox.
Right but you are participating in a thread that asks what the rationale is. You are welcome to deal with it irrationally, but I am sure you see how it might not advance the conversation in this thread.
I’m fighting for the other side because it’s pretty one-sided around these parts. If the balance were on the other side, the roles would be switched. If you really want I can post you cites where I’ve argued the other side.
You needn’t care about their feelings but, “Because their bigots”, is not a valid answer to the question in the OP. No amount of appealing to emotion changes that. You’re viewpoint is perfectly understandable, and I empathize, but that doesn’t obligate me to not try to understand what underlies the issue at the expense of really looking at it.
Can I ask you a serious question? In the 14 pages that this thread has ground on, have you heard any serious rational rationale for opposing same-sex marriage? I’m not talking about vague ickiness or religious belief (which is a) not rational and b) should not be used as a basis for secular law under our Constitution), but some sort of actual harm that same-sex marriage would cause society? Has anyone on the other side of this given you anything convincing to work with? Have you noticed that you’re pretty much reduced at this point to arguing that calling an irrationally held religious belief that gay sex is immoral and should be the basis for law on this point bigotry is wrong? Are we even talking about same-sex marriage anymore?
The opposition to SSM is an empty philosophy. There’s nothing there but hot air and blather. That the opponents of SSM continue to try spinning that hot air and blather into some sort of tornado of righteousness doesn’t make it any less empty. If they actually had anything, they’d have brought it out by now.
And I’d like to note that we are not calling religious belief on homosexuality bigotry in a vacuum. Most of us were raised Christian, of one form or another. Some of us still are Christian, of one form or another. I did not start arguing against Christianity until Christianity decided I was the enemy (and even now, I know that not all Christianity is against me). But I will be DAMNED if I’m going to turn the other goddamn cheek when I’m attacked. I’m no longer a Christian (or religious at all). I don’t have to be meek or turn the other cheek. Those can be virtues in the proper place, but this is not that place. Being meek only gets you ignored while your rights are being trampled. Turning the other cheek only gives them something else to punch.
Well, first of all, let’s distinguish the fact that same-sex marriage has historically been illegal, and the argument that marriage today is defined in religous terms. I’d make the same kind of arguments against a religious definition as I would against the “biological children” purpose set out earlier in the thread–the religious definition of marriage simply doesn’t seem to be all that consistent with the institution of civil marriage as it exists today.
Also, rationales based in history or tradition, while certainly not irrational or invalid, are immaterial when they come up against equal protection. I’d point you to the thread on the Iowa decision for a better description of how that works-- in short form, the whole point of a constitution is to not let “tradition” overwhelm a valid claim of another to a civil right.
As, in fact, happened in loving- bans on interracial marriage were longstanding, and the “right” of marriage was equally offered to blacks and whites–each could marry those of their own race, and not marry those of another race.
It’s not anti-intellectualism in any way-to argue that someone’s justification doesn’t make sense, or isn’t what it claims to be–and to call this understanding that simply disregards what we’re trying to do here. Going beyond that is unnecessary.
As someone who has put effort into debating this, I’m not suggesting anyone in this thread is a bigot. I do think it would be stupid not to accept that there are some people in the world who try to offer justifications for what is, at base, a bigoted opposition to gay marriage. I’m not going to suggest that anyone’s a bigot–I am going to ask them to tell me why they oppose gay marriage, and hope that they’ll actually tell me what they are. Since many (yourself included) contend that those reasons are (1) reasoned and reasonable, and (2) not based in unfair bias, and I have no reason to doubt you, I presume that the reasons you have make sense and support what they claim to support–which is why I question those justifications that do not.
Lots of justifications have been offered, but very few of their proponents have been willing to actually engage the criticisms of those justifications (either in terms of their internal consistency, or how well they justify a ban on same-sex marriage).
At some point you have to conclude that you do indeed understand that. Even if you’d rather give those who hold the position some credit for reaching it in a considered, reasoned, and loving manner, that just isn’t necessarily the case. Then you become obliged to act accordingly.
It isn’t as if we haven’t been begging to find out what these “ideas” could be, other than mere totemization of a tradition, and fear that “something” bad might happen if it’s changed while dismissing the real badness that has happened because it hasn’t. Those “ideas” haven’t been drowned out, they haven’t been offered. At what point must a reasonable person conclude they just don’t exist? That what underlies the position is not reason or principle at all, but mere base emotion?
mswas, if you really do think morality is enforceable by majority vote, and that government really is there to enforce religious doctring, you absolutely need a refresher in the history and purpose of the Constitution, okay?
First off, I didn’t say calling it bigotry is wrong, I said it’s insufficient, there’s a difference.
Second, a religious basis may be irrational, but that doesn’t make it bigotry. Ultimately there is a basis, and there are likely many people who do not personally hate homosexuals who are opposed to it on religious/moral grounds.
Third, your arguments are why I agree with you. I just think that there is a lot of opportunity lost when people don’t think they need to understand their enemies. The fact that Jesus was emphatically against Usury and that our system is based off of usury is the perfect entry-point for arguing that people are picking and choosing how they apply Christian morality to the law. That’s the tactic I use when arguing the pro-Gay Marriage position.
Well it’s not a philosophy in and of itself. It’s a position based off of a particular tradition, there are other aspects of the religious tradition that are contained within their cohesive ethic that lead them to be opposed to other things besides homosexuality. You don’t think their religious reasons are valid, but that’s a non-starter for many people. They are dismissing your position as anti-religious bigotry the same way you are dismissing theirs as anti-homosexual bigotry. It’s not just about feelings but has a practical application to the argument in that calling each other bigots reduces it to ‘nuh uh - uh huh’ politics, where people then ponder the issue from within the echo chamber with people who they already agree with. For me personally, I seek debates with people whom I disagree with, which is why I like to argue the contrary side so much, because it helps me to understand an issue in its fullness.
Well turning the other cheek isn’t meek first of all, it’s meant to humiliate your opponent. “Is that all you got, here lets have another.”, it’s the equivalent of calling your enemy a pussy. Jesus wasn’t a meek dude, he was a bombastic rabble-rouser. His message when he turned the other cheek was, “I am not afraid of you at all.”
I’m not suggesting you follow the advice to turn the other cheek. In fact I am not offering you advice at all, I am just participating in the debate as it was formulated. I think of all the people participating in this thread you are one of the more self-aware in your approach to the debate. I have a lot of respect for how you have approached the issue.
All that being said, yes a lot of gay marriage opponents are a bunch of unthinking homophobes.
No I don’t. I think you need to pay a little deeper attention to how politics actually works in the real world, and not based on some idealistic preconception of how you think it SHOULD work. Go read a lot of what Barack Obama has written on the topic. He has spoken quite eloquently on the relationship between religious morality and political involvement.
You know, it’s not like a lot of us aren’t trying, over here. Folks like whorfin, and Polycarp and myself, we’re not deliberatly trying to misunderstand you. It just keeps happening all by itself. This whole argument of yours that having marriages for straights, and civil unions for gays, for example, simply does not make any sense to me. From where I’m sitting, you are literally trying to convince me that 1 = 2. It’s not a matter of, “I don’t agree, but I understand where you’re coming from.” I don’t even understand how someone can take the position you do. Not in any moral or ethical sense, but from a purely logical standpoint, it just baffles me.
Well the argument goes beyond religious terms and recalls thousands of years of tradition in multiple nations on multiple continents. But I agree with you about the new conception of marriage as it exists today.
Can you post a link to the precise post you are referring to? And yes, I agree the constitution does do this. Though we are arguing about what the rationale is, not whether the rationale is constitutionally viable. Ultimately the Pro-SSM faction is going to win this debate and I think both sides know it. But there is a difference between reducing the rationale to simplistic terms and discussing its legal ramifications.
Right, and then we changed where we drew the line as we are doing now.
It’s anti-intellectualism to shout down any argument that can’t be reduced to ‘it’s bigotry’. Arguing that it doesn’t make sense is a completely different thing. A person can be convinced that the religious rationale is appropriate and oppose that without being hateful toward homosexuals.
Oh there certainly are bigots, but bigotry in and of itself is not an explanation most of the time. There are reasons, whether or not they are good or compelling reasons is a different matter. Calling out bigotry is just a tactic to stifle dissent that the left overuses. What you are essentially arguing is that if the counter-arguments fail to sway you they are then invalid arguments. One argument can be BETTER than another without the other one being entirely without merit. 20 is worth more than 10, but that doesn’t mean I toss out my tens when I get a twenty but it does mean that I will win a bid in an auction if I bid twenty when you bid ten.
Well this thread isn’t about how justifiable those reasons are. It’s been hijacked in that direction, but that’s not what the OP was asking. He was asking what the rationale was, not whether it was justified.
I think that you’ve dismissed any chance of hearing the other side by declaring that their understanding of the world is “mere totemization” and “mere base emotion”.
I think your statement about thousands of years of tradition is a little overstated–at the very least, many of those traditions did allow polygamy, arranged marriages/marriages only within certain religions/social classes/other structures, and so on–the historical definition, as actually used in the past, has lots of elements I don’t see anyone arguing it’s essential to keep in the “definition” of marriage. Because of those historical facts, i find that argument difficult to agree with unless it includes some justification as to why THIS bit of the historical definition is worth keeping, unlike all the other parts that have been abandoned–otherwise, it seems like the argument is just cherry-picking the parts of the historical form of marriage that support its conclusion.
Sure. Here are two of my posts from the thread, looking at the Court’s analysis.
The first one is more or less an overview, and the second is (in part) responding to the specific contention that the length of time before gay marriage was recognized should count for anything.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11005856&postcount=51
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11009094&postcount=75
I agree that the constitutional argument shouldn’t be (and for the majority of this thread, isn’t) the focus of this thread.
I disagree with you that the OP suggested that this thread was just to be for the reasons people dislike gay marriage: it was focused on the reasons for opposing others being allowed to do so. Here’s the relevant segment of the OP (emphasis added).
So there are two issues: (1) why people think gay marriage is problematic, and (2) why they think that reason ought to lead us to ban gay marriage.
While the two are often linked, I think that in this context, the issue of whether a reason for being against gay marriage justifies forcing same-sex couples and others who don’t share that conclusion to also be unable to create or recognize same-sex marriages.
Certainly. IMHO, this thread has had more instances of people discarding challenges to their argument to oppose same-sex marriage, than it has had people accusing others of bigotry. I agree that we ought to be against challenges of bigotry–but if someone comes out with a reason, and that reason is rebutted, or at least shown not to be what it is claimed to be, then I assume someone reasoning through their opposition will engage with those criticisms. That is what I’m in this thread looking for.
Well, or I’m arguing that many of these rationales, when looked at carefully, don’t do what they are purported to do. The second argument may not be without merit, but (to take the example of defining marriage with a purpose of encouraging natural, old-school conceived children), it may not relate to the issue we’re talking about–it may be a perfectly good reason to have a concept of marriage that is limited to only those trying to have natural children–but that’s not the marriage we have today—the thing that the argument is put forward to “preserve”
Similarly, if we expand the definition just a little past the dark ages, to include adopted children, and children conceived using modern medicine as the kind of children the definition of marriage should encourage, then it isn’t really an argument to keep gay couples out–because they can, and do have and raise children through those methods, too.
Again, I disagree both about your characterization of the OP, and the purpose of this thread. If that was the purpose, I could come in and say “Honestly, I oppose same-sex marriage because I don’t like peanuts”–It makes no sense, isn’t an argument to ban gay marriage, but under your conception of this thread, if honestly held, should not be questioned on those grounds. That isn’t why I’m here.
Well you have to respect your opponent enough to hear them out, and that’s generally lacking. The people are making the arguments, because they aren’t talking about what it was like in Ancient Babylon, but what it’s been like in our highly successful culture for quite a while.
Thanks I’ll take a look.
Fair enough, but a lot of people are trying to pound 1 into the dust so they can recite their opinions on the validity of number 2. Though, the argument is getting back on track here so there isn’t any reason to go further into this particular tangent.
That is what I am looking for as well. Bigotry is an ad hominem.
Well I think a lot of it relies on unintended consequences. Believe it or not people really are afraid that we’ll stop breeding and our culture will die off due to lack of interest. IE, we’ll be too busy fucking to make babies and continue our species.
Right, the argument against gay adoption is that it is imbalanced in that it doesn’t give them a Mother and a Father but two Fathers or two Mothers. The Gay adoption argument is that it only matters that they have a team working in tandem to accomplish this goal, that gender balance is irrelevant. I disagree that gender balance is irrelevant, but I don’t think it’s a dealbreaker.
Right well then just dismiss the religious arguments but don’t hide behind the banner of tolerance because tolerance is irrelevant. Your position isn’t tolerant, so don’t use tolerance as a buzzword. (I mean the General You, not you specifically)
I thought that was exactly what this thread was about. I keep waiting for someone to say “I’m against gay marriage because I have these reliable statistics from this other country that legalized gay marriage and ten years later suffered massive socioeconomic problems directly related to gay marriage.” That would be, pending verification, a good justification to be opposed to gay marriage.
So far, though… not.