Actually, it **is ** marriage if society says it is marriage. There is no free-standing definition of marriage existing independently of society’s understanding of it. And a growing proportion of society is beginning to realize that withholding the benefits of marriage from people who are already upholding the values of a married relationship is unfair, unjust and un-American.
My ‘mistunderstanding’ was intentional. The point is: The differences between a healthy straight marriage and a healthy gay marriage are slight.
I’d also be willing to bet if a gay couple were to adopt, artificially inseminate, or have a host mom, that the child would grow up with a much better balanced (or at least less judgemental) view of sexuality.
The reasons these people would give against gay marriage are not necessarily the “real” reasons. I think they just are uncomfortable with the concept of homosexuality, and want to live in denial that gay people exist or that they could have anything in common with them. So the “real” reason is – big surprise! homophobia!
The following statements are expressions of bigotry. One is legally obsolete, and the other is currently fashionable. There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between them.
Those are OUR women, and you niggers can’t marry them, by God.
Those are OUR women, and you dykes can’t marry them, by God.
In response to the OP: the argument goes something like this.
The primary and most important institution that shapes children is the family. For instance, studies indicate a strong correlation between fatherless households and criminal behavior, especially in male children. The problem is that lasting stable heterosexual relationships don’t just happen naturally. They have to be fostered and encouraged by the culture. The marriage relationship has to be given a unique status within the culture. To overcome the difficulties inherent in the relationship, the couple have to feel the importance when entering it, that they have entered into something greater than themselves which is likely to demand sacrifice. The culture has to condition them to that attitude.
When raised in a society that enshrines marriage as such and stigmatizes divorce, couples enter into the relationship with a deep sense of the nature of the commitment, one that will carry them through the rough spots. It is not just that they are better able to stoically suffer because of fear of stigma. They genuinely suffer less because the proper attitude has prepared them. This is why you can have a low divorce rate even in a country which practices arranged marriages. Couples may not be “compatible” but the proper attitude they have towards the relationship shapes their emotions about it and therefore the marriage itself.
An intellectual commitment without this culturally-fostered attitude is not enough to support marriages in practice, as can easily be seen.
The 20th century saw a shift in attitude, placing the significance of marriage in self-fulfillment of the individual rather than his relation to society. That and placing the normative value of sex on pleasure instead of procreation have led to the staggering divorce counts.
The fact that we are even having this discussion means, I believe, that the battle has pretty much already been lost. Society does not regard marriage as something sacred any longer, so what difference can the sex of the participants make? Allowing homosexual marriage a hundred years ago would have been harmful to institution of marriage. But now there is very little left to harm.
You forgot to mention reality television. Shows like Joe Millionaire aren’t winning any points in the dignity department.
Just a point of clarification here:
I think people are opposed to homosexuality because of the “ick” factor.
They are opposed to same-sex marriage because it means that the government recognizes, in some way, that homosexuality is legitimate, and not wrong wrong wrong. More than a threat to marriage (a canard, IMO), the opponents of SSM recognize, quite correctly, that gay marriage will destigmatize gay people more generally, and lead eventually to wider acceptance and normalcy in society. Which they do not want, any more than those fighting to uphold segregation wanted those “icky” black people walking around thinking that they were “normal”.
Hijack: I find the quoted statement mildly ironic…
Throughout the southern US (where the rights of gay people are most severly abridged), ‘coke’ is used as a generic term for cola drink.
So, in some cases, a pepsi is a coke.
Meh. I think you folks are underestimating the religious factor. The correlation between opposition to SSM and adherence to religious beliefs is too strong to ignore.
You have here a situation where adherents to various faiths place enormous trust and place great legitimacy on the word of whatever shaman is in charge of their particular sect or group. They are being told by said holy men that an all-powerful, all-seeing invisible being will use its magical powers to punish people for being homosexuals and, in some cases, punish those who fail to oppose homosexuals. Remember, what you might think is myth and superstition can be absolute truth and reality to someone else.
If you legitimately believe in vengeful Gods and magic, it’s a heck of a motivator.
I’m curious as to what other arguments you would accept backed up by nothing other than “it just isn’t.”
“The sky isn’t blue. It just isn’t.”
“Cocaine isn’t addictive. It just isn’t.”
“Armed robbery isn’t illegal. It just isn’t.”
“Armed robbery isn’t wrong. It just isn’t.”
“George Bush isn’t a good president. He just isn’t.”
“There is no God. There just isn’t.”
Are you legally married? Absent the paperwork, if someone said to you “you’re not married. You just aren’t” would you accept that or would you perhaps expect there to be some rational basis for that statement? And please spare me the “men and women are different” argument. Identical twins are about as close to, well, identical as humans can get and the interests, loves and sexualities of identicals can and do vary widely. If two identical people can be so different, “men and women are different” is an extremely slender reed upon which to lean.
Nicely put.
I don’t think the issue is that people are mad about losing women to lesbian marriages, though… it’s the men that bother people, for whatever reason.
I bet you’re right…probably a lot of the objection is the “Ewww, ick!”
factor buried by a lot of rationalization.
There was a thread a little while back, Gay marriage - non-religious objections? It’s an interesting read, though some of the arguements seemed a bit—how to put it delicately? ::Twirls finger aside temple, rolls eyes, whistles.:: (GOD, that needs to be a smiley.)
Oh, and if I may say so; while “Pepsi” may not be a “Coke,” both Coke and Pepsi are both “Colas.” And that’s close enough for me.
I personally find it very telling that you continue to harp on my 1st post and throwing terms around like homophobia while ignoring follow up post.
If they are not addressed I will have to claim victory in this post and declare that same sex ‘marriage’ is not marriage.
I know you guys are better than that!!!
Would it help if we called it “Diet Marriage”?
Seriously though, kanicbird, your declaring that same sex marriage is not “real” marriage is about as useful an argument as your declaring yourself the “winner” of this debate: saying it doesn’t make it so.
Yes, men and women are different. In various ways, blacks and whites are different, Christians and Muslims are different, Americans and Pakistani people are different, tall people and short people are different and so forth. Some of these have been “valid” reasons to forbid a marriage in the past. In retrospect, the differences are no longer seen as insurmountable. Various people have already said this in this thread.
Frankly, you’re the one who needs to come up with a more substantial argument than “it just isn’t”. Why shouldn’t same-sex couples marry?
I find it very telling that you ignored my post in its entirety. If you declare victory, then I declare shenanigans!
Well, no, of course not. But my definition of MARRIAGE does not include the fact that the participants must be of the opposite sex. I’ve known several gay couples that had been together for 20+ years, and I see absolutely no difference between their relationships and the relationships between married straight friends, except that at in at least one case, the whole neighborhood pretty much shunned these guys.
Their loss. They’re a lovely couple.
OK Good, we are finally getting somewhere (I knew you guys wouldn’t let me down 
).
And Otto I ignored your post because it is you who wish to change the definition, not me, and the burden is yours.
When I made the Coke / Pepsi augument, I didn’t realize how fortunate it was. They both are colas, like marriage and gay marriage are both civil unions. Perhaps Gov’'t should get entirely out of the marriage business and just have civil unions for now on, which would include F/M, M/M, and F/F unions.
Someone mentioned, in a anti-homophibic remark that the reason that some people are against gay marriage is because of the sh!t factor during sex. Well I think this is a non-issue as hetrosexuals engage in anal sex, and I would think would be less of an issue for f/f couples then f/m.
Since I think we are in agreement that men and women are more different then just a plumbing change, I would like to investigate whierabbits observation:
I’ve seen most use of personal observations rejected here, but even if I accept it at face value, I don’t see how it really proves your case. I have already said that a SSM could be a loving / life long commited relationship…
Need to sign off right now, have to get back to this later…
Women are soft and gorgeous. Anything ugly the world can dish out, the loving gaze and touch of a woman can make feel better. They are just infinitely appealing!
Whereas men are absolutely unattractive. They are great friends and can be understanding and warm, and can do wonderful things - but wow! There is just nothing desireable about them.
It’s horrible for the government to tell entire big segments of the population that they could not marry women, and could only marry men.
And as weird and unpalatable as it may seem to me, I also guess it wouldn’t be right for the goverment to prohibit people (who for some reason wanted to) from marrying men, and force them to marry only women.
The proposal of a constitutional amendment prohibiting “gay marriage” (which should really not even have a name to call it by) makes me ashamed to be married. If I was deciding now, I’d try to do something different, maybe get a civil union or just keep living in sin.
Personally, I think Toadspittle has it most right. A same-sex marriage is a legal recognition of a homosexual relationship. Opponents of same-sex marriages don’t want the government legitimizing the existence of homosexual relationships. Opposition to same-sex marriages is just one facet of a general discrimination against gays.