I’ve been arguing that SSM is an existing right that is being denied for years. I see no reason to change my stance all of a sudden.
It’s not a game. If SSM ever gets looked at under strict scrutiny (which it should), then it will be demonstrated that it is the default position that SSM will be a federally protected right.
The default is that it does apply, unless the state has a “rational basis” for a discriminatory law. The “squirreliness” comes into determining the rationality of a purported basis and the determination of the proper level of scrutiny to apply - but only if the analysis gets that far…
They’re factually wrong.
You first have to have a rational basis before you even get to determining the required level of scrutiny. Anti-SSM doesn’t get that far - the state has no basis at all that is both articulatable, and remotely consistent as applied, for the existing bans in 46 states, much less a “rational” one. The closest we’ve seen ar claims that the state has an interest in promoting family life and procreation - but they have, as we have seen over and over, no connection with heterosexuality.
But it reveals the origin, and perhaps thereby the fervor with which this argument continues to be offered. That origin, of course, is a particular religious mythology which includes the admonition to “go forth and multiply…”. That mythology also includes the original condemnation of homosexuality.
Paranthetically, it makes one wonder why homosexuality should be so powerfully stigmatized and condemned even today, originating as it did from the rather tepid condemnation in the original text (‘The Bible’, whatever version). There are much more extensive Biblical condemnations of such acts as the wearing of mixed fibers than the references to homosexuality. Why are we not equivalently horrified at the violation of such proscriptions today?
Since this (acceptance of homosexuality, up to and including SSM) is in fact a religious argument, it is not surprising that more than one thousand rational posts have not overturned it for those to whom it wields some internalized power.
I disagree with your premise. I have found very few opponents of homosexuality whose position is formed from religious beliefs. Far more often, religious beliefs are used to cover a general ick response. In this thread, for example, there have been no serious religious arguments raised and the majority of the anti-SSM participants are not particularly religious.
I realize that in an environment in which scorning religion plays a large role, blaming religion for anti-homosexual attitudes will be prevalent, but that runs directly counter to my experience on this board and out in the world.
I do not scorn religion, and I think you draw a distinction without a difference. Or perhaps I was not clear.
I do not believe that the good faith offerings in this thread in opposition to SSM are consciously made “religious arguments”. Nor do I believe that the persons making those arguments are necessarily particularly religious and attempting to be coy.
I cannot though rationalize any other background for their position of “nature and tradition” emphasizing procreation alone, that does not derive from Biblical tenets.
I believe that for our debaters, as for much of American society as a whole, their ideas of “history”, of “tradition”, and their “Christian religious background” are subsumed below the conscious level, and are inextricably interweaved.
At that level, they are not amenable to logical argument. And so the discussion inevitably reverts, after some hundred or two posts, to a repetition of the procreation and history and tradition arguments. Because these form the subconscious background from which the debaters originate. And these remain, ultimately, of Biblical origin.
And yes, as I’ve said here several times before, because of the ecckk factor. Which derives from exactly those subconsciously held beliefs, that homosexuality is abnormal, sinful, therefore unacceptable.
I agree and disagree with this.
I agree that opposition to SSM (and to homosexual relationships in general) is frequently expressed in religious terms while being grounded in a general distaste for homosexual sex. This has been my experience on this board and in the “real world.”
I disagree that “there have been no serious religious arguments raised and the majority of the anti-SSM participants are not particularly religious.” There are only two participants - mswas and magellan01 - who have made significant anti-SSM contributions to this thread. mswas has made several references to the decline of Christianity as a dominating force in American culture, and he has cited the acceptance of SSM and/or homosexuality as evidence and cause of this decline. I understand that this isn’t specifically an argument from religion (i.e., he hasn’t said SSM should be prohibited because the Bible says it should be prohibited). However, he has asserted that SSM is detrimental to Christianity as a cultural force and he has suggested that this is a reason to continue to prohibit SSM.
Well, NaSultainne has 53 posts, but he left the discussion relatively early on. I’d have to check if there was any particular religious colour to his contribution.
I responded as constructively as the response warranted.
I never said anything even remotely resembling this. You continue to intentionally misquote me.
The problem here is that you have not demonstrated one iota that it was a right that has been denied for years. It has not as yet ever existed as a right. You are arguing that it has been so the burden of proof is upon you to prove that it has.
Regarded the bolded. No I haven’t. This is why I didn’t respond to you before, your posts aren’t actual responses to what I have said. You are just making stuff up and claiming I said it.
What would satisfy you? The first court decision after an application for a same sex marriage? If wikipedia is to be trusted, Baker v. Nelson goes back to 1972, so that’s 37 years.
That proves that it was NOT a right. How does a prime counter-example prove his argument exactly?
Or it’s a right that was unfairly denied, if one wants to get pedantic about it. We could supply battling dictionary quotes offering up various definitions of “right”, but I’ve always felt that was a waste of time.
If there’s a lesson in Baker, I’d guess that it’s the 14th Amendment and the Loving decision weren’t enough. Since 1972, there have been other court decisions striking down various discriminatory laws and reinforcing “equal treatment” policies, so the time may have finally come.
The lengthiness of this process, I feel, makes moot any slippery-slope arguments.
You have a progressive agenda. Stop pretending like it’s something that’s always existed that is suddenly being denied. That’s propaganda and has no place in a rational discussion. It’s simply not true.
Right, not everyone agrees that race and sexuality are equivalent.
It doesn’t, because you use slippery slope arguments to justify your side. ‘Why shouldn’t we allow homosexuals to get married, it’s not like heterosexuals are preserving the sanctity of marriage?’, the bulk of your argument has been to refer to how far down the slope we’ve slipped.
Only if we grant that some historic point was a benchmark of “ideal” or “normal”, as you and/or magellen01 have argued. (I’m not digging back through all these posts to check who used which term.)
We argue instead that the civil application of marriage has not yet achieved “ideal” or even “normal” since it continues to be unavailable to a significant number of disenfranchised persons. We want it to continue to change until such broader applicability is reached.
That’s not an argument, that’s a rebuttal to the other side’s argument. Nobody’s saying the dilution of the sanctity of marriage by hetero shenanigans is the driving reason behind legalizing SSM, they’re saying that because of said hetero shenanigans, sanctity of marriage is not a sufficient argument against legalizing SSM.
My “agenda”, if you insist, is to void laws (and discourage the creation of new laws) that serve no purpose, and I don’t see the purpose of opposing gay marriage.
Whether or not gay marriage always existed and is being denied, or it’s something new that is being resisted… I don’t care. As far as I know (and you remain invited to demonstrate otherwise) there wasn’t a good reason to block it in 1972 and there isn’t one now.
I’m not arguing that they are, only pointing out that there are numerous court decisions striking down laws that discriminate on the basis of race, and others that strike down laws that discriminate on the basis of sex and (more recently) still others that strike down laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The first two allowed for the expansion of rights and the third is about to as well.
I wasn’t aware of it. Rather, “sanctity of marriage” arguments rely on the notion that marriage has some ideal form (marriage produces children and lasts “til death do us part”) that will be undermined by gay marriage. It’s a trivial effort to point out that social acceptance in recent decades of childless couples, legal divorce and children born out of wedlock has already undermined this ideal, thus the ideal is not a strong basis for an argument. How gay marriage will affect the ideal at all, let alone as much as any of the above-mentioned concepts, remains unclear. I don’t get the “slippery slope” aspect of this, since I’m not making any dire predictions, just citing things that already exist, like no-fault divorce (in the U.S. since 1970).
If I was saying something like “Deny gay marriage today, and next thing you know, the state will deny all marriages!”… that would be a slippery slope argument.
Right, you are debasing the English language by using ‘Normal’ in an idiosyncratic fashion as though ‘Normal’ is a mark of distinction that is awarded for good behavior.
No, heterosexual marriage is normal, homosexual marriage is not. if we legalize homosexual marriage then in about 15 years, it’ll become ‘normal’, but right now it is not, and a world without homosexual marriage is, ‘normal’. This sort of newspeak debasement of language really bothers me.
Shrugs But that’s exactly saying, “We’ve fallen in our standards this far, why not fall a little further?”, while turning around and arguing against slippery slope arguments. It’s double-talk. When it benefits your argument you use the slippery slope to your benefit, when it hinders it, you scoff.