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

[CannyDan]

Max, I’d hate to allow such a thoughtful contribution to this thread to go without positive comment, so first let me say that I am glad you reach the same point of agreement in favor of allowing SSM.

However, I think your hypothetical is wanting, being far less compelling than reality. You posit “short span marriage (SSM)” specifically to allow sex. Then you suggest these may “take on some of the accouterments of a “real” marriage… ie, they’d have dinner parties, maybe (since this is a crazy hypothetical after all) the woman would temporarily change her last name, or whatever.” And here is the failure of your analogy.

The struggle to attain same sex marriage is not a struggle to attain sex. Nor is it a struggle to attain the accoutrements you mention, for these are shallow and cheap. Instead the struggle is important because it strives to obtain all those legal rights and responsibilities (i.e., survivability, inheritance, etc.) that “marriage” confers. (Again, I think you know that. I quibble with your hypothetical, not with your basic understanding of the issues.)

I can envision a temporary marriage of convenience including ephemeral name change being undertaken for other reasons, including sex. However, I am at a loss to resolve the complications attendant to “temporarily” making a lifetime commitment of those legal powers noted above.

Nor am I persuaded that your short timers would have few(er?) children. If their primary motivation for that union was to “move in together and fuck like bunnies”, unless they are especially careful and amazingly diligent, children would seem more rather than less likely.

Your final paragraph repeats an argument made many times before, correctly it seems to me. We have asked the other side to provide any evidence at all that would support the contrary conclusion, that SSM would actually reduce committed marriages. To date (23 pages of posts) there is not a shred of such evidence (beyond claims of “it must be so because I believe that”).

Thank you again for making a positive contribution to what had become a rather sorry discussion.

[CannyDan]

@mswas

I don’t see how it’s a dodge to not address those issues, it’s fairly straight forward. I don’t want to discuss or defend whether or not these positions are defensible. It doesn’t interest me, that’s not ‘ducking’ anything.

Fine then.

Having though reached some understanding of the mental gymnastics undertaken by SSM opponents, I myself cannot fathom NOT wanting to explore the defensibility of that position. How else to know whether I ultimately agree with it or not? That’s analysis.

If you are instead satisfied with taking your position merely at the whim of your gut feelings, well, I guess I accept that.

[mswas]

@CannyDan

Fine then.

Having though reached some understanding of the mental gymnastics undertaken by SSM opponents, I myself cannot fathom NOT wanting to explore the defensibility of that position. How else to know whether I ultimately agree with it or not? That’s analysis.

If you are instead satisfied with taking your position merely at the whim of your gut feelings, well, I guess I accept that.

Here’s something that might interest you.

http://spengler.atimes.net/viewtopic.php?t=13220

It’s a topic that has people arguing the positions I outlined sincerely. I feel quite vindicated by it as I think I nailed the arguments.

I am posting as Tinker and stating my real opinion there.

[CannyDan]

@mswas

Here’s something that might interest you.

http://spengler.atimes.net/viewtopic.php?t=13220

It’s a topic that has people arguing the positions I outlined sincerely. I feel quite vindicated by it as I think I nailed the arguments.

I am posting as Tinker and stating my real opinion there.

WHAT?!!?!!?

OK, I read that whole thread. <twitch> (Synopsis for others-- 2 page version of this thread but lacking SDMB-like rigor. Could be condensed to less than a page.)

Do you **mswas **want me to again agree that “you nailed it” in explicating the beliefs of SSM opponents? Will this allow you to feel “vindicated”? All right then, as I’ve said now multiple times, you seem to be correctly stating in this thread the rationalizations offered by opponents to SSM, as evidenced by posts from opponents in the thread you quoted.

You also claim in that other thread to be a supporter of SSM yourself. Shall I shout hooray? All right then, HOORAY!! Happy now?

I still do not understand why, in this thread, you claim interest only in the mental operation of SSM opponents (and of supporters?) and continue to insist “I don’t want to discuss or defend whether or not these positions are defensible”.

If indeed you are a supporter, I congratulate you for coming down on what history will surely declare to be the “right” side of this debate. However, since you refuse to even consider the merits and demerits of the issue, repeatedly claiming that such an exercise “doesn’t interest” you, I must conclude that you arrived at your supporting position purely by chance. You must understand, from that perspective you have zero credibility to influence those of us who would rather apply analytical technique in the process of making up our own minds.

[mswas]

Cannydan Apparently you rate your approval far far far higher than I do. To me your personal approval is not worth anything. I succeeded at my goal, which was as you said, correctly stating the rationalizations.

But don’t let my lack of admiration for your skill at judging me deter you from admiring yourself.

I look on this thread with continued bemusement at how angry you are at me for staying on topic and not seeking to satisfy your ego by giving you a convenient target for your judgments.

[ElvisL1ves]

It’s enough to see you acknowledge that the “rationale” really does consist of just rationalizations.

[CannyDan]

@mswas

Cannydan Apparently you rate your approval far far far higher than I do. To me your personal approval is not worth anything. I succeeded at my goal, which was as you said, correctly stating the rationalizations.

But don’t let my lack of admiration for your skill at judging me deter you from admiring yourself.

I look on this thread with continued bemusement at how angry you are at me for staying on topic and not seeking to satisfy your ego by giving you a convenient target for your judgments.

M’kay. Sure. Fine. I’ll go off and hug myself, then. You carry on.

[mswas]

@CannyDan

M’kay. Sure. Fine. I’ll go off and hug myself, then. You carry on.

Good you deserve a hug!

[Bryan_Ekers]

I don’t suppose anyone would care to take a shot at:

Given a hypothetical person who was completely indifferent to gay marriage and ignorant of the various legal battles, can anyone suggest a line of reasoning one would use to convince them to oppose it?

…because it might be a useful return to the thread’s intended purpose and dispense with all this personal criticism and self-congratulation.

[mswas]

As I said, start a new thread. The people saying, “Convince Me”, are not going to be convinced by any of the arguments, so it’s really an exercise in futility.

[Bryan_Ekers]

So that’s one “no”. Anyone else?

[Northern_Piper]

@Bryan_Ekers

Saskatchewan and Alberta put up some token resistance, but it was futile and they knew it and the Federal Civil Marriage Act of 2005 sealed the deal, though by then every other province had already approved gay marriage within its borders.

what token resistance are you referring to in Saskatchewan?

Also, at the time of the Civil Marriage Act (July 2005), the four jurisdictions that did not have same-sex marriage as a result of court-order were Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, as shown in this wiki chart.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Northern_Piper

what token resistance are you referring to in Saskatchewan?

Funny, I’m quite certain I based that on another cite that said that Saskatchewan had put up some pre-2004 resistance, though not nearly as much as neighbor Alberta.

Since I can’t find the supporting cite, I withdraw the claim.

[Northern_Piper]

Fair enough.

[MaxTheVool]

Bump in hopes that magellan01 will respond to post 1138.

[magellan01]

Max,

I’m tired of this discussion, but wanted to give you answers that you specifically asked for. This may be it for me in this thread though.

@MaxTheVool

If you get down on one knee before your opposite sex lover and ask him or her to marry you, does the fact that Adam and Steve can now legally do the same thing mean that the commitment or specialness of what you are undergoing is lessened?

Yes. Traditional way: Two people are in love. So much so that they want to spend their lives together and raise little babies that are half one and half the other. They want to mingle everything, including there genes. This is a normal case of affairs and society has a way to recognize their desires. it’s called marriage.

Once you include gays, or any other option, under the banner of marriage, the meaning of the word is diluted, less specific, less special. That’s simply a fact.

@MaxTheVool

And addressing the issue of children, in our hypothetical case, a Short Span Marriage is less likely to result in children. And if Short Span marriages are legalized, and thus presumably become more common, then more heterosexuals are going to enter into them, thus presumably fewer will enter into real marriages, thus presumably fewer children. But in the real world, Adam and Steve who want to get married to each other aren’t, if they can’t legally marry each other, going to go marry women and start fathering babies, instead. In fact, as many have argued, they are MORE likely, as a legally married and committed couple, to want to raise children, either adoptive or through a surrogate. More stable families raising kids = good (at least by magellan’s general argument).

While I think it true that those gays who have gotten married are, in average, in more stable relationships, I don’t think that’s comparing apples and apples. Gays that have gotten married have had to jump through many hoops in order to do so. As time moves on in a SSM world, those relationships wold be as prone to divorce as hetero marriages are now. Once the “specialness” fades away, they’ll have their poster failures like Brittany Spears just like we have now.

@MaxTheVool

Finally, (and I’m basically restating an argument made eloquently by whorfin and then ignored), the real question, if we view committed marriage as a good thing and want to perpetuate it, is what people growing up and achieving marriageable age will do, and what will influence them. Now, gay people exist. Most people growing up will know some. So young Jack is 25 and has met Jill and they are madly in love. One of Jack’s favorite people while growing up was his wacky uncle Adam, gay lover of Steve. Now, regardless of whether SSM is legal or not, Jack knew and respected Adam, and knew that Adam and Steve were in a committed relationship. Seems to me that if Adam and Steve were happily married, that’s one more example of a good solid healthy marriage which Jack and Jill can look at while deciding to get married vs just shacking up. The more people who are happily married – and it’s clear to me (and even Magellan doesn’t seem to dispute this, except on a semantic level) that gay people can be happily and stably married – the more good role models of happy marriage Jack and Jill will have, the more likely they will be to get married themselves, and the more straight marriage will continue to hold a special and fundamental position in our society.

While Steve and Adam might serve as great examples of people, or what it means to be a committed couple, it is not possible for their relationship to be equal to a man and woman in marriage. As in my previous paragraph, the more scenarios that are included under the banner of marriage that are not one man and one woman, the less the word will represent the institution that has been at the foundation of our civilization.

Once again, rather than attempt to gain acceptance and respectability for SS relationships, gays should start their own institution. If these SS relationships are going to be so great, why not call them Civil Unions or something else and show the world just how great they are, on their own merits. If this new institution is so fantastic, it will be embraced. If it is not, it won’t. This attempt to crowd under an umbrella they have no business to be under, I think, reveals the doubt they have of the quality of these relationships writ large over time.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@magellan01

Yes. Traditional way: Two people are in love. So much so that they want to spend their lives together and raise little babies that are half one and half the other. They want to mingle everything, including there genes. This is a normal case of affairs and society has a way to recognize their desires. it’s called marriage.

So, in your view, that means:

• couples with no intention of conceiving aren’t normal and aren’t truly married
• infertile couples aren’t normal and aren’t truly married
• adoptive parents aren’t normal and aren’t truly married
• parents who conceive via donor egg or sperm aren’t normal and aren’t truly married

So it isn’t just gays you would deny the benefits of marriage, but anyone who is unwilling or unable to exercise their reproductive equipment, even though they have been considered “normal” under the law for centuries? This doesn’t sound just a little stupid to you, after stepping back and thinking about it?

[magellan01]

@Cosmic Relief

So, in your view, that means:

• couples with no intention of conceiving aren’t normal and aren’t truly married
• infertile couples aren’t normal and aren’t truly married
• adoptive parents aren’t normal and aren’t truly married
• parents who conceive via donor egg or sperm aren’t normal and aren’t truly married

So it isn’t just gays you would deny the benefits of marriage, but anyone who is unwilling or unable to exercise their reproductive equipment, even though they have been considered “normal” under the law for centuries? This doesn’t sound just a little stupid to you, after stepping back and thinking about it?

It’s only stupid if suddenly become hyper-technical and create confusion where there is none. We have a great understanding of what marriage is, even if there are exceptions. You look at two elderly people who get married and you understand that there procreative days are behind them. Similarly we accept that some couples have problems with the plumbing and are unable to have children. Or many they just don’t want them. We’ve had this for as long as we’ve had marriage, and there has been zero confusion. Fact is that children are an option, a Tier 2 criteria. The number of people and the sex of them is Tier 1. You may want to change that, and that’s an argument you can make. But I, and the majority of Americans, don’t. For various reasons.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@magellan01

Yes. Traditional way: Two people are in love. So much so that they want to spend their lives together and raise little babies that are half one and half the other. They want to mingle everything, including there genes. This is a normal case of affairs and society has a way to recognize their desires. it’s called marriage.

…

Once you include gays, or any other option, under the banner of marriage, the meaning of the word is diluted, less specific, less special. That’s simply a fact.

Any option other than a hetero couple who intends to reproduce is a dilution?

While I think it true that those gays who have gotten married are, in average, in more stable relationships, I don’t think that’s comparing apples and apples. Gays that have gotten married have had to jump through many hoops in order to do so. As time moves on in a SSM world, those relationships wold be as prone to divorce as hetero marriages are now. Once the “specialness” fades away, they’ll have their poster failures like Brittany Spears just like we have now.

So?

While Steve and Adam might serve as great examples of people, or what it means to be a committed couple, it is not possible for their relationship to be equal to a man and woman in marriage. As in my previous paragraph, the more scenarios that are included under the banner of marriage that are not one man and one woman, the less the word will represent the institution that has been at the foundation of our civilization.

And this will result in what, exactly?

Once again, rather than attempt to gain acceptance and respectability for SS relationships, gays should start their own institution. If these SS relationships are going to be so great, why not call them Civil Unions or something else and show the world just how great they are, on their own merits. If this new institution is so fantastic, it will be embraced. If it is not, it won’t. This attempt to crowd under an umbrella they have no business to be under, I think, reveals the doubt they have of the quality of these relationships writ large over time.

What they want isn’t fantastic, it’s the same mundane legal protections and privileges other citizens have. Besides, it’s not just a matter of taking their ball and going home, they need the full recognition and cooperation of people who are for the most part straight in order to ensure they get the protections. Simply creating a “civil union” and declaring it as equivalent to marriage in no way guarantees that anyone else will. What you propose is comparable to telling blacks who were being prevented from voting to just hold their own elections and send their representatives to Congress, with no guarantee that the existing Congress will recognize these elections.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@magellan01

It’s only stupid if suddenly become hyper-technical and create confusion where there is none.

I’m just using your definition. You were extremely specific in your description of what constitutes normal and married, thinking you were enumerating “facts” that plainly illustrated your position.

We have a great understanding of what marriage is,

More correct to say that you have a strong opinion of what marriage is.

You look at two elderly people who get married and you understand that there procreative days are behind them. Similarly we accept that some couples have problems with the plumbing and are unable to have children. Or many they just don’t want them. We’ve had this for as long as we’ve had marriage, and there has been zero confusion. Fact is that children are an option, a Tier 2 criteria. The number of people and the sex of them is Tier 1. You may want to change that, and that’s an argument you can make. But I, and the majority of Americans, don’t. For various reasons.

Alright, so what I’m still hearing is that these cases are “exceptions”. In other words, they shouldn’t really be considered married because they can’t have children, but we’ll permit them anyway because they are heterosexual? And these heterosexual childless couples can have the civil rights intended to promote good child-rearing even though they’ll only be used for the enrichment of adults? And then you want to exclude that same right to same-sex parents, even those who wish to adopt and raise children? Do I have that about right?

If you want to say “this is how I see it and I feel very strongly about it”, please do so, but please stop saying “fact” when you mean “a very commonly-held opinion that I happen to strongly agree with”.