What is the rationale for opposition to same-sex marriage?

Great Debates
801

800 posts. Lets all say that together…eight…hundred… And we still have no legitimate reason to ban gay marriage. Not even one that can be thought of as well thought out, or interesting. There’s just nothing. I truly with I was half as good with words as most of you are. I’ve been following this thread for a while now, and was really enjoying the debate (as sick as that sounds). And I now also have a lot more ammunition to shoot back at a lot of people I personally know that are against gay marriage. Thank you guys soooo much for that.

again…800…just wow…

802

I certainly agree that there is no legitimate reason to ban gay marriage.

However, that was not the question posed by the OP.

The question was: What is the rationale for opposition to same-sex marriage?

There is a rationale, as has been discussed ad infinitum, but it is not rational.

A rationale doesn’t have to be reasonable. It just has to explain a motive.

Ed

803

We coulda saved a lot of time opponents had just said “being gay is sinful and unatural and I don’t care to discuss it further.” However, magellan and NaSultainne and others tried to argue that their position was rational, throwing in argumetns about the need for childbearing and whatnot. They just couldn’t prove it, as far as I can tell.

804

We kept asking for that rational factual basis for the rationale. Nada.

Eight hundred posts-- and it’s STILL all about “eeckk”.

At least now we know for sure.

805

Here’s the quote you find so magical:

First, as I pointed out, from the same Wikipedia page you cited, the FIRST country to legalize SSM in Europe was the Netherlands, and that was in 2001. According to that page, Denmark still does NOT have SSM, though they do have Civil Unions. So, aside from the fact I’ve been arguing FOR extending the rights of marriage through Civil Unions (like Denmark has):

The Netherlands does not equal The United States.
Denmark does not equal The United States
“Marriage” does not equal “Civil Unions”
15 years doe not equal 30-40 years

Hope that helps.

806

LOL I didn’t even see what you posted, I just left because I got tired of people ignoring what I said in favor of making me justify their strawmen.

People want to believe it’s ‘Fags are Yucky’ so badly that they don’t even read the posts they respond to.

807

People want to believe it’s ‘Fags are Yucky’ so badly that they don’t even read the posts they respond to.

The rationale is not based on ‘Fags are Yucky’ it’s a religiously based socio-political theory based upon a method of moral ordering that relegates sexuality subordinate to a procreative role. It’s a wholistic system, and homosexuality is actually incidental, the are just as opposed to divorce, fornication, masturbation, abortion, and rape. They aren’t even opposed to homosexuality specifically, they are opposed to sexual activity without the purpose of procreation.

That’s been explained over and over, but the people who desperately want to believe it’s about, “Fags are yucky”, don’t care and don’t even respond to that. It’s a fundamental dispute about the principles around which we order our society, and doesn’t even actually single homosexuals out in any way, they are just resisting the attempts to legalize gay marriage the same way they have resisted other modifications to the sexual mores of our society.

-This in a nutshell sums up every post I have made in this thread. There is nothing to pursue about this. The thread is not about whether or not it is valid. We cannot even have a real debate because people won’t even address the actual issues in the debate, they are too busy seeking ways to say, “Christians are yucky”. Whether or not this is valid is irrelevant to this thread.

808

So in other words, “Fags are yucky”?

Kidding. :smiley:

If it’s similar to sexual mores being changed as you say, don’t the self same religious people think blowjobs are yucky? Or cunnilingus? Or heterosexual anal? Or threeways with two dudes? Or facial cumshots? Or double-sided baby jesus dildos? Evangelical religions build people who find stuff yucky.

And as I said, even if we accept your stance, it’s still not a rational argument for outlawing SSM.

809

I actually don’t think it is true that people are trying to understand my position. Even you seem to deny me the simple courtesy of accepting my analogy as descriptive of my own position. I don’t mean accepting it as being a convincing argument, but merely “Oh, that’s the way you see it. I get it.” Your childish insistence in typing" except one" over and over again is indicative. Do you think I didn’t understand that was your position before coming into the thread. Or after the first five times you typed it here. So, no, I think you’re either being dishonest or are simply grossly mistaken. I don’t think you to be a dishonest poster, so I’m kind of surprised that I feel the need to include it as even a possibility. But I feel I do.

I have no doubt that we will not agree on this issue, but to deny that my thinking adheres to logic indicates closed ears on your part. I understand the logic on your side. And I KNOW my position is logical. Where we run into a problem is that weight we place on different things. That, and us holding different assumptions on things that are unknown and unknowable. I think we also differ on some basic opinions about homosexuality. We both believe it to be naturally occurring, but you seem to jump from there to “naturally occurring means that we can’t discriminate (non-pejorative) at all between it and heterosexuality, which is also naturally occurring”.

As you mentioned in another thread, this IS a more emotional issue for you, and you may not be coldly rational in discussing it. I think that is the case. I assure you that my position is completely rational, logical. Granted, it still may be incorrect or fail on some other level, but it is valid answer to the OP.

Unless you can get yourself to see that my position is logical, rational, I don’t think there is much point to you and I (and some others) discussing the merits or lack of merits of the position. Not that I wouldn’t mind discussing it with you, but right now there seems to be a wall that gets in the way.

810

Bolding mine. This is lovely, but it’s incomplete. A significant portion of these people fight very hard to make and/or keep rape, abortion, and homosexual marriage illegal. They do not attempt to make masturbation, fornication, or even homosexual fornication illegal. And a large percentage of those in favor of litigating against homosexual marriage would panic if you tried to litigate against divorce.

So the claim that it’s “wholistic” is uninformative; this same holistic system argues strongly against the acquisition of wealth, a belief which nobody follows. The real question is why people care about the homosexual marriage part of their “holistic system”. It’s pretty easy to see why they care about the rape and abotion parts; there are actual arguments to be made for banning those practices.

It’s blatantly obvious that a significant portion of the marriage opponents pick and choose which parts of their theological system to follow. The question is, what is their rationale? They may claim it’s the theology talking, but that doesn’t answer why they give such import to that part of the theology. Can you answer that?

Because it seems pretty clear that the ONLY reasons such people care about the (flimsily-supported) religious proscriptions against homosexual marriage are bigotry and ‘Fags are Yucky’.

811

Yawn.

Mswas and magellan01, pull-e-e-e-e-z-z-e-e quit telling me I’m not listening. It’s become annoying.

We got it. We understood the rationale. It is indeed a socio-political theory based upon moral ordering that derives from a religious tradition. (BTW, the fact that it comprehensively condemns any sex except procreative sex does not make it holistic, nor wholistic either.)

We got all that, and accepted that it is indeed the rationalization, or the rationale, by which some people reject same sex couples, same sex civil unions, and same sex marriages. And we get (though we don’t necessarily believe) your assertion that the people who cling to this belief system follow a distribution or bell curve wherein some accept same sex couples, some others accept same sex civil unions, and none or a vanishingly small number accept SSM. And we also get (though again do not necessarily believe) your assertion that homophobia should not be ascribed to people who hold these beliefs.

Yes, indeed, we heard you.

We just reject your assertions.

We asked for demonstration of social harm, and you provide none. When lack of harm, perhaps even demonstrated good, is cited to you, you reject it because its time line isn’t long enough for your arbitrary statistical analysis. But you still cite no demonstration of harm.

So we counter your assertion with our own-- that failure to find any societal harm in same sex relationships means that your “socio-political theory” fails the test of rationality, and is revealed for what it is. A rationalization based upon a quaint framework of religious beliefs, and not a rational representation of the real world at all.

You are correct that the OP asked merely for the rationale, and this was provided. Again, we heard you. We just chose to go farther. We performed an analysis upon the rationale, and found it wanting. Nothing you have been able to offer has reversed that analysis.

The fact that some of us have gone beyond the propounding of this rationale may be a hijack. If the OP has any problem with us going beyond merely elucidating the rationale, I offer him/her my apology.

Still, the fact remains that after more than 800 posts there has not been any rational reason offered to reject SSM.

812

As soon as I finish my time machine I’ll wait for SSM to be legalized in the U.S., jump ahead forty years, then come back and report to you. Sound good?

And as mswas has tried to get you to understand, there is a difference between a rational argument, evidence, and proof. I certainly hope her patient efforts haven’t been for naught.

813

And since you’ve brought none of the three why does that matter? Your failure to provide anything close to a rational argument is pretty telling.

Also, can I borrow your time machine? I wanna try some of those Gros Michel bananas that supposedly tasted better than our modern variety.

814

What’s wrong with other countries? There’s already 15 years of data in places. (Do you really need two generations of data before you stop fallaciously arguing from ignorance?)

We’ve seen no rational arguments against SSM that don’t presume legislatively unpalatable prior religious assumptions, the evidence (which is not nonexistent) does not give reason to ban SSM, and until we see rational arguments or evidence, I don’t think we need to worry about “proof”.

815

What makes you choose 40 years as your benchmark? Just the fact that it is safely in the future? And do you really think that the trend clearly demonstrated by the 15 year study cited above would be so thoroughly reversed given additional time?

I was trained as a scientist. I know the difference between these three terms.

As I said above, no one has offered proof of any societal harm.

Neither has there been any offering of evidence of societal harm, a far lower standard.

Contrary to this, a number of citations have been offered showing zero harm, and sometimes actual benefit.

When the theorem proposed, the rationale as you call it, is supported by zero proof, zero evidence, and has actual evidence to counter it, then that rationale does not conform to the real world. It is, by definition, not rational.

It may continue to be offered as a rationale, or rationalization, but it cannot be termed a rational argument. It belongs on the ash heap occupied by other failed theorems and world views.

816

False. Reread the entire thread if you must. Maybe in reverse, as mswas comments may help you recognize it.

817

I’m lazy. Link it or repeat it, or I’ll think you’re lazy too.

818

I’ve read the entire thread. All I see is a bunch of whiny special pleading and outright stupidity. You are on the wrong side here, you’re arguing based on emotion not intellect.

819

Nothing is wrong with them. And if we were talking about what MIGHT happen in DENMARK IF they legalized SSM, it would be somewhat relevant as to what the effects would be 40 years down the road. But we’re not talking about that, are we?

Also, you are aware that correlation does not indicate causation, right?

The “proof” you want is not available. I’ve said that all along. Yet, some people keep crying for it. Odd, that.

How about this" why don’t you give me proof that legalizing SSM in the U.S. will be a benefit to society. I’ll wait.

820

It will make SS couples happier. Your turn.