Yes, there was a such a time, but divorce is now commonplace because a lot of citizens wanted it and there was no real reason to deny it to them, especially once you acknowledge that some marriages don’t last until the death of one of the spouses - that a few years in, a married couple could feel their passions cool and both seek to end the relationship and move on. There’s no reason for the state to make this illegal.
Now we have the issue of gay marriage, and a lot of citizens want it and there’s no real reason (that I’m aware of) to deny it to them, once you acknowledge that homosexuals are perfectly capable of pair-bonding and there is no reason for the state to deny them legal recognition and the subsequent benefits while other pair-bonds get them without question, especially in a legal context that strives (or at least says it strives) to give all citizens equal treatment under the law.
I figure a tradition has to earn its keep. It’s not enough that is simply is a tradition - it has to serve a purpose or society will modify or discard it as needed.
Your continued accusation that I am not paying attention is becoming tiresome. I am paying considerable attention; I merely disagree with you. Please stop confusing the two.
A ‘rationale’ is the process whereby someone forms a conclusion. This process may or may not be 'rational", or progressing in a reasoned fashion that adheres to objective reality.
I have heard the rationale you describe, the process by which opponents reject SSM marriage. I summarize this rationale as irrational, since it is founded upon base fears that can only be viewed as homophobia, and/or derives directly from a religious dogma. Founding ones conclusions upon gut fears or upon mythological dogma can be a ‘rationale’ but it is not rational.
This rationale was supported by assertions that SSM would somehow harm society. Since that assertion, if true, might be persuasive evidence that opposition could be based upon something other than the hollow rationale above, we inquired further. Show us, we asked, any evidence of societal harm.
So far, no offer. Note, mind you, I did not request proof. I requested evidence, a far lower standard. A pile of good evidence might be taken as a proof, but zero evidence at all has been forthcoming.
So having heard the rationale, please don’t tell me I’m missing the point. The OP asked to hear the rationale for opposition to SSM. We have heard it.
If we have hijacked the thread by asking “Is there anything more? Is this the best you (opponents) can do?” – well, we’ve gotten away with said hijack for 16 pages. Humor me for asking yet again for evidence of harm sufficient to warrant denial of equal protection.
Oh, yes-- good riddance indeed to mythological dogma, and all those whose ‘civilization’ seems to depend upon it. It really, really IS about the ecckkk factor, isn’t it?
CannyDan What do you want evidence for exactly? That people believe what I claim they believe? Or do you want evidence that their rationale is valid. The first is one thing the second is entirely uninteresting to me.
Uninteresting. Continuously obsessing about one’s own opinions is banal.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means. A rationale doesn’t need to be rational.
Both sides arguments are irrational, they are based on emotion. Pro-SSM wants to recognize the love (irrational emotion) between two men or women as being equally valid. There is no rational argument to be made as to why we should support one emotion over another. Rationality just doesn’t factor in. This is a subjective issue.
I can’t speak for others, but that’s not my stance. I’m just pointing out that marriage, equal treatment and individual freedom are all concepts well-established in American law and the exception under discussion has no logical basis, just like earlier exceptions banning inter-racial marriages or, for that matter, women voters.
Besides, we don’t require that heterosexual marriages be based on love, just that the participants meet a few basic legal standards (i.e. of the age of consent and not still entangled in earlier marriages).
As a side note, this “both sides are irrational” position is similar to arguments in support of creationism or the paranormal, trying to drag science down to that level.
So what would you say is the criteria that determines acceptability? There are plenty of ways in which the government infringes upon individual liberty. Anywhere from eminent domain laws, to drug policy and prohibitions on gambling and prostitution. What determines acceptability?
No it’s not. Because we aren’t talking about science we are talking about social policy. This argument is facile, I sincerely hope you’ll abandon that line at this point.
Can you give me a link to that thread? I’m not challenging you…I want to read it but there doesn’t seem to be another recently active thread about same-sex marriage in GD.
I’m sure there are people who believe what you claim them to believe. The fact that they believe it is not an issue. Some people, after all, will believe anything.
In judging whether or not their rationale (e.g., system of beliefs and conclusions) is valid or not, I’ve asked for evidence that it derives from something – anything – other than homophobic fears and/or mythology.
Toward that end I’ve been asking for evidence of societal harm from SSM sufficient to justify the withholding of equal protection from same sex partners. But I’ll lower the bar.
I’ll take evidence of societal harm resulting from same sex relationships. We can then decide together whether or not such harm could form the basis for denial of equal rights.
In reply to this you have offered what I’ll call the “moral decay” argument. You and/or social conservatives appear to define moral decay as deviation from their hallowed “traditional” systems. We aqknowledge that today’s society, with its acceptance of divorce, adoption of children by non-related persons, sex without procreation, and all the rest of it is indeed different from that Biblical or historical “ideal” (your word). We are not convinced at all that the ancient “norm” (your word again) was in fact ideal, or that today’s version constitutes moral decay.
But even if we drew such a conclusion, this says absolutely zero about SSM, or even about homosexuality itself.
So…
Is there any evidence of any kind demonstrating a significant societal harm from homosexuality, or from homosexual relationships, or from same sex marriages?
Many of us, after 16 pages, have concluded that there is not. We do though remain open to actual evidence otherwise.
No it’s not. You want both sides to be irrational because it is the only way your irrational stance is defensible.
To repeat my previous post, it doesn’t matter *why *someone is bigoted. If they believe other people are unworthy based on Christ’s teachings or Hitler’s ramblings. This thread is like a gajillion pages long and exactly *zero *rational arguments for restricting SSM have been made. Zero. It’s pathetic.
Seriously, do you contend that white supremacists aren’t bigots because they really, really believe it? How is that different than a Christian being against SSM because butthole delights “are an abomination”?
Bigotry isn’t a rational argument. There is no rational argument against SSM so far as I’ve seen. But go ahead, prove me wrong.
It derives from religious doctrine or what you refer to as ‘mythology’. Your opinion on validity is irrelevant to the discussion IMV.
And I have said there is a dirth of evidence due to the timeline being too short to examine effect.
It is deviation from hallowed ‘traditional’ systems and that encapsulates it, so while it is accurate it is not precise and tells us almost nothing about what we are discussing, but if that’s as shallow as you want to dig why are you seeking me to convince you to dig deeper?
You really aren’t listening, I’ve answered this REPEATEDLY.
No, you remain open to nothing because you are more interested in your own opinion that you are familiar with than the one you are not familiar with.
You’ll have to point me as specific posts because under the piles of special pleading, hand-waving and all around illogical poop you’ve been flinging around I can’t find what you’re referring to.
And with no reason whatsoever being raised as to why it is not. Not that love is a prerequisite for marriage anyway, unfortunately - that “societal decay” is well-established already.
For the homophobe defenders, it is. For those interested in the legal rights and responsibilities that the institution entails, in the principle of equal protection that our Constitution requires by law, it is hardly “subjective” at all. Those are real, tanigible considerations with real, tangible effects In opposition is nothing, nothing at all but fear and hatred. To equate them anyway is, in your word, “anti-intellectual”.
Do please refrain from further misrepresenting the view you’re arguing against - you’ve been shown its falsity enough times by now that to continue would only further undermine what’s left of your credibility.
ElvisL1ves I know, YOUR opinion is objective fact. I understand.
LOL my credibility, you are remarkably in love with yourself aren’t you? Do you think I give a toss about my credibility? You have none with me, why would I care about what you think?
There are people who understood my argument and said so. Their opinions I care about. Yours? Not one bit.
The problem is not just a dearth of evidence, but an utter lack even of specific speculation as to what the effects might be. There is not even a *hypothetical *negative with any definition being offered. You have been asked repeatedly, but insist only that you have answered the question. You have not. You have ducked it every time (So has everyone else who’s been asked too, though).
At what point can the rest of us fairly conclude that there is no negative effect to be considered at all?
We have all begged and begged for you to support your view with something of substance, anything at all. We all do remain open, but it is quite evident by now that you just don’t have anything to offer.
Well, the two people entering a marriage should be able to consent to it, i.e. they are legal adults (or older teenagers who can secure parental consent). Neither should be currently operating under a judgement of incompetence. Neither should be withholding critical information from the other (like one’s real name). Neither should be already married. I’m willing to consider that the pair should not be blood-related closer than first cousin. There are a few other elements worth considering. Since discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation has been discouraged by law, I don’t see why gender or sexual orientation should be an issue, as long as both partners are making an informed choice and the gender and orientation of the spouse is known (at least as far as the spouse can honestly state - I’m not eager to invalidate a marriage because years later one of the spouses finally came to terms with their orientation, given the social climate).
To me, the key isn’t to demonstrate acceptability, it’s the need by government to demonstrate harm. If you want to call that an irrational position, I can’t stop you. I can only demonstrate the differences between states where the government control is the default versus states where individual freedom is the default. I have a reason to prefer the latter - it is not logical to live in fear of my government.
You’ll have to abandon the “both sides are irrational” line first.
In your reply to me you admit objection is entirely based on religious doctrine. You admit there is no evidence of societal harm. And yet you have the temerity to tell me this is insufficient for me to draw any conclusion. And you tell me once again that I’m the one not listening. Because I haven’t allowed an eternity of time in which to see some negative effects.
Your “arguments” are merely hand waving apology for disgusting bigotry. If you are indeed only acting as the Devil’s advocate, you’ve sidled right up next to that named party. Best be careful that some if him doesn’t rub off on you.
There’s little point in dragging this along further. If you have evidence, show it. If not, you are now offering nothing but the circularity of your own arguments. There is some entertainment value in watching a dog chase its own tail, but there is a certain sadness too.