And, I will reiterate, it is not the job of the anti-SSM person to correct your biases and fix your prejudice.
It’s especially not my job as I an not anti-SSM.
In any event you start with the guilty-until-proven-innocent paradigm, and if only raindog, or someone else would just relieve you of your prejudice than the anti-SSM person would be somehow absolved of the crimes that they didn’t commit. This mindset is the very definition of prejudice.
Nobody makes this argument. It’s retarded and obviously untrue. Classic strawman.
Absolutely correct. And they should call this contract “marriage”, because that is what the word “marriage” means.
That it’s not reasonable to assume that people who oppose SSM lack non-bigoted rational reasons for doing so.
That’s a big part of the argument in favor of gay marriage, but it’s hardly the only part of the argument in favor of gay marriage. Another large part of it is that gay relationships tend to map pretty well to straight relationships. There are essentially no aspects to straight relationships that can’t be found in gay relationships, and vice versa. This is obviously not going to be the case in marriages consisting of more than two people.
The other aspect to this is that “consenting adults” does not necessarily trump all other concerns. I mean, if it could be shown that gay marriage had a direct, causative link to spontaneous human combustion, I think that would be a powerful argument against SSM, regardless of the consenting adults angle. However, we can look at the hundreds of long-term, stable gay relationships, and see that these have not caused any sort of social collapse or catastrophe. It’s reasonable to assume that adding a legal imprimatur to these relationships is not going to be the tipping point into mass hysteria and rampant mob violence. We do not have nearly as good a sample of polygamous relationships to draw from, and a large portion of those we do have are distinctly negative. Of course, those examples are largely confounded by extremist religious views that aren’t going to be a factor for wide-scale implementation. Certainly, whatever form of polygamy that might be adopted in the US will bare precious little resemblance to how it’s practiced in Saudi Arabia, for example.
But that leads us to the biggest difference between the two: gay marriage requires virtually no new law. The existing statues regarding marriage can be ported over wholesale to the newly recognized relationships, with no translation necessary beyond changing “man and wife” to something more gender neutral. But with polygamy… well, what do we even mean by polygamy in this context? If I marry you, and then I marry Polycarp, does that mean that you and Polycarp are married? What if you don’t want me to marry Polycarp? Do you have the right to veto additional spouses? What about division of property? Parental rights? Government benefits? All of these are areas of law that would need to be completely revamped to accomodate polygamous marriage. That’s not to say that it isn’t worth revamping all of that, just that the challenges in front of poly marriage are an order of magnitude more complicated than those in front of gay marriage.
Well, I’m a bit confused now, because I don’t see how this solution addresses the issue of polygamy at all. If, as you say, the arguments in favor of gay marriage are as compelling when applied to polygamous marriages, why then do you so cavalierly dismiss the concept of polygamous civil unions?
Why would we need this provision? Would it even be legal? If my church says I can be married to both Sally and Jane, how is it the government’s business if I do so, particularly if the government doesn’t recognize the concept of marriage in the first place?
Anyone except atheists, of course.
Why couldn’t they use marriage to do exactly the same thing?
So what are they? :dubious: Why are you keeping something so basic a secret?
Prejudice means Pre Judice. Judging in the advance of information.
But there is evidence that it’s impossible to be anti-SSM for rational non-bigoted reasons: no such reasons exist.
This could be argued against - you could argue that they’re stupid, or thoughtless, or ignorant, or decieved; in those cases they would be not bigoted, but mistaken; that is, beleiving based on such reasons is irrational, but not bigotry. However, the longer this discussion goes on, the less likely that that is the case for any given individual becomes. After a certain point you have heard the arguments, and must be deliberately ignoring them to be able to believe.
A significant segment of the population is being denied equal rights solely due to their sexual orientation. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation, and therefore irrelevant. If you believe one cannot support SSM while opposing polygamy, start another thread and make your case there. If you believe polygamists are being denied equal rights, or otherwise being marginalized the way homosexuals are, start another thread and make your case there.
I got exactly what I was expecting. At this point, you offering up one of the well-reasoned anti-SSM arguments you claim exist would be the surprise.
And at this point, you’ve gone from refusing to answer because you cannot, to refusing to answer out of spite. Either way, contributing nothing.
Does anyone other than raindog know of a valid anti-SSM argument?
If only you understood mine as well.
It is quite clear that you don’t care. The more interesting question is why you don’t care. As I’ve pointed out, stating a reasonable reason exists, and then not telling us what it is makes your argument far less credible, and makes people more likely to think such a reason just doesn’t exist. Do you intend to cause those results?
Many SSM opponents, and you (who I am careful to list separately), have made a claim–that being that there is a reasoned objection to same-sex marriage.
The entirely reasonable response to that claim is to ask “what is that objection?”
You may not feel it’s your job to educate others, or to back up an assertion you make–but failing to do so just makes you look bad. I’ll ask this at the end as well–but what, then, do you think I should conclude based on (1) your strong assertion that such a reason exists, and (2) your total refusal to tell us what it is?
Yes, that would be bad. You would have a great point there—except for the little problem that that just isn’t the position I have argued. On the other hand, if those opponents of SSM, who claim to have a justification that isn’t driven by fear and hate, refuse to tell us what it is, many reasonable people might question why they aren’t disclosing their reason. One reason not to do so would be if no reason existed.
IF you find such discussion interesting, I’m glad. You would then obviously understand that such a debate necessarily turns on what drives SSM opponents. For if SSM opponents are in fact driven by fear and hatred, it would be appropriate to call them out on it. The “compelling reason” to make such an assertion would be because it was true.
Now I don’t know if it is true or not. The way to find out is to find out why SSM opponents oppose same-sex marriage. So please, help us out on that one. Again, I am not asking you to do so randomly–I am asking you to do so because you, yourself have stated that you know of such a reason.
All I can say is that if you think people who hold such a belief are misguided, it would be easy to fix. Just tell them a reason for opposing SSM is not due to fear and hatred.
According to you, it should be easy–since you’ve said often enough that you’ve seen such reasons, and have argued repeatedly that opposition to SSM is not due to fear and hatred.
I have tried very carefully not to say what I believe about the opponents to same-sex marriage in my post, and I have continued to try not to do so in this post. I will, instead, ask you what you think I ought to conclude, based on your arguments.
So, I ask the quite obvious question–what do you think I should conclude based on the fact that you have (1) asserted that it would be very easy to present a reasoned argument against SSM, and (2) then have very carefully refused so to do.
I was/am half inclined to ask you to provide the “evidence that it’s impossible to be anti-SSM for rational non-bigoted reasons…” but I know that the only thing you could possibly offer was your own take on “reality”; your own fears and biases projected onto a whole class of people.
But it occurred that you would be oblivious to the fact that in effort to refute the notion that your paradigm is inherently prejudiced, you’d be offering up your own prejudice.
This kind of mindset boggles the mind.
I don’t quite understand what you are getting at here. There are plenty of people in a lifelong committed relationship that are not married. We don’t just ASSUME they are married due to their relationship. Conversely, there are plenty of married people that are not in committed relationships but, instead, are married for convenience, have open marriages, stay together for the kids, etc.
Also, as I’ve stated earlier, if two men or two women tell you they are married then you know that this cannot be the case. You conclude that, for all intents and purposes, they have decided to be in a committed relationship but are not legally married. I don’t find it useful to think of the definition of marriage, as others here have, as being what we can imagine…i.e. it is not a change of definition unless the word no longer makes sense in a particular context.
I posted an answer to him that I think was promptly missed as the last post of the page and a new page forming almost immediately afterwards. Anyway, if anyone is interested here is the linky (more there than what I quote below):
Nonsense; we can, for example, use you as evidence. Your constant insistence that a non-homophobic argument exists while refusing to produce one makes you look both foolish and dishonest. Why would you do that, if such an argument existed?
Why do NONE of the opponents of SSM come out with such an argument, unless it doesn’t exist?
I know no such thing; they could be from a place that legally allows it.
Unless, of course, they’ve recently spent time in Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain or several other European countries. Especially if you happen to meet them in one of those places.
I hate to break it to you, but this statement just isn’t true. To argue that you “know that this cannot be the case” is simply inconsistent with reality. To tell two women walking out of city hall in boston, and announcing that they just got married, that “they have decided to be in a committed relationship but are not legally married” is just plain factually wrong.
Or do you have some counter-argument? Why, do you think, is that nice couple in boston not married?
ETA: Just like others have pointed out. People are quick here.
I did notice it - but still, polygamy is nothing more than a distraction brought up by SSM opponents to avoid admitting they have no cogent argument to support continued denial equal marriage rights based on sexual orientation.
There is some logic to this, but only about as much as the idea that gay people cannot now be permitted to marry each other because historically they have not been permitted to marry each other.
This is because there has historically existed a simple English language term, known to hte law, for that relationship in which two people commit to permanently and exclusively live together as spouses, and that term begins with a m- and rhymes with horse-and-carriage.
I am a Christian in a long-lived heterosexual marriage. I value the spiritual and social value of my marriage, and would not willingly give it up to please your terminological whims. Rather, I believe that justice and mercy alike combine to warrant extending the benefits of that relationship to others unjustly prohibited by law from contracting such marriages.
No it is not a violation of civil rights. As I’ve stated the law discriminates against and act and not certain people. What are laws if not discrimination based on action. Laws agains interracial marriage were a ban on actions permitted to others based on skin color. Here the act is not allowed by anyone.
IF we allow them to be married. IF we change the established definition of marriage…this is the only way the term makes sense.
Don’t project your fears and biases on me - I HAVE evidence that it’s impossible to be anti-SSM for rational non-bigoted reasons - it’s the same reason it’s impossible to ride to work on a unicorn. It’s because the things in question don’t exist.
How do I know they don’t exist? Because if one existed, somebody would have mentioned what it was by now. Not all of the opposition are coy fools; some are seriously trying to oppose SSM, which requires that they state their arguments, if they have them. All they’ve shown us is crap. Which means that if they have arguments they haven’t shown us, it’s for a reason. And I suggest that reason is because they know their arguments won’t be well recieved, because they know their arguments will be perceived as bigoted or stupid.
So lets reiterate: these secret arguments that you’re all coy about? They’re secret because the people who hold them know they’re bigoted or stupid. And who am I to dispute their judgement in this matter?
Maybe it boggles you because it’s grammatically scrambled gibbering nonsense.
Perhaps you need to get out more, you know…in the virtual way.
If you’re looking for thoughtful, reasoned arguments in opposition to SSM you won’t find them here. But maybe you and whorfin are simply trying to draw people into the SSM debate. I mean, unless you’re from Planet Zero you’ve had to have heard them, right? Are you that ill informed? I think not.
Still, I was half tempted to simply take the position most advocated by anti-SSM people—on moral grounds. Because my point------that you and “people like you” 
are conveniently ignoring as well-------is position neutral. I can make my point from either side of the position.
Because at the end of the day even with a less than compelling argument you can’t connect the dots to fear and hatred without a healthy dose of bias and prejudice. And I just don’t think “you people” (hehe) get it.
The anti-SSM might be wrong. But when you take that a step further and state that you know what they’re thinking; and that they’re full of fear and hatred you’re committing the exact same crimes that some anti-SSM people do.
Share with me the evidence, k?