Why?
It’s a corner stone of society. It lays the groundwork for the ideal environment for raising children. While I’m sure it was contemplated, maybe even tried, no societies—even those very embracing of homosexuality, like Ancient Greece—found it wise to embrace SS marriage. And since we can have SS couples tap into the same set of legal benefits and privileges, it’s not even needed. So, why should we strip marriage of it’s 1 man + 1 woman componentry?
No, in quite a few places in this country, gay people are not able to partake in the custom of making medical decisions on the long-term health of their partner, nor can they partake in the custom of automatically inheriting the estate of their partner. Nor, obviously, can they take part in the custom of having society publicly recognize their relationship.
They can do the love part, though, so that’s one part of my post that you got right.
Except for the part about the public recognizing the worth of their relationship - inherent in your position is the idea that homosexual relationships are not as good as heterosexual ones.
Ah yes, the famous study that proved heterosexual marriage is superior. I believe it was run by the world renowned Nobody Clinic.
Where did you get the idea that homosexuals are just as desirous as heterosexuals of forming ‘long term pair-bonds’? In college (late 1960s to early 1970s) I was involved in a student organization which just happened to have several male homosexuals, and we were all good friends. I had no knowledge of the fact, but eventually one of them told me what was what. He also told me about the homosexual life style, and of the fleeting nature of homosexual relationships. Since AIDS was discovered, things have changed to some extent, but more out of necessity. I am not an expert on homosexuality, but I believe it would be a mistake to *assume *that homosexual relationships are ‘just like’ heterosexual ones.
Studies have repeatedly shown that there’s no particular advantage to having opposite sex parent over same sex parents, so the idea that heterosexual couples are an “ideal” is bunk.
The Greeks also never gave women the right to vote. Should we take that as evidence that women’s suffrage was a bad idea?
Because there’s no reason to maintain the distinction, except to demonstrate prejudice against homosexuals.
Miller, Marley23,** et al, **
Please. The argument that because things, generally, change, that that is a convincing argument for why any particular item should change is extremely weak. Even if you keep the items focused rather tightly, a history of past change surrounding X does not prove the case for a subsequent change of X.
Melchior gets more and more hilarious with each post.
Oh, ‘studies’? yeah, ‘studies’
Yes
Several fallacies, including ‘excluded middle’.
Please provide this excluded middle.
From reading prominent gay writers and philosophers, from talking to my gay friends about their relationships, and from my own personal romantic experiences.
So, you’re basing your understanding of homosexuality on this one guy you kind of knew forty years ago? In college?
Yeah, no shit.
I’m not assuming. I’m speaking from intimate first hand experience.
If your only reason to oppose a given change is “change is bad,” yeah, it’s a pretty strong argument.
That’s not the argument. Proponents of “traditional marriage” argue that marriage has always been defined a certain way, and therefore it must always be defined that way. The fact that the meaning of marriage has changed many times shows that this is false. The arguments for recognizing SSM are separate, and you’ve seen those hundreds of times, I’m sure.
With a sudden swerve into outright incoherence.
No, I had lots of conversations with almost all of them. I went to gay bars with them and they explained the dynamics.
My point, as you know, is that there is a mechanism by which they could enjoy all those things you outline. But God forbid that the gay community actually focus on the the legal benefits and privileges they’ve claimed they’ve wanted all along and argue for another type of civil union that would gain them that—without contorting the meaning of a word and changing an institution that has been a cornerstone of our society.
No, that’s just beyond the pale.:rolleyes:
Maybe they’re not. Like anything else, it depends what criteria you use. If the criteria is that you create the possibility of children being raised in the ideal environment, then, no, they’re not as good. As you know, I favor pretty much all you do, including gay adoption. I personally know gay singles and gay couples who are terrific parents, but that dies not negate the point that the ideal environment for raising a child is in a loving home with a married mother and father.
As far as the public recognition, if you believe that SS couples are every bit as deserving of all the good associations that come with the traditional meaning of the word, then whatever they call it, they would prove themselves to be every bit as worthy, right? But your argument here is one of wanting to get a free ride on the coattails of traditional marriage. I really think it reveals the doubt the gay community has about itself. So rather than allowing SS Unions receive the positive respect and acclaim they deserve (and I personally think will follow) they say “fuck it—grab those coattails and don’t let go”.
I remember when the argument for SS inclusion and acceptance had the moral high ground. Doesn’t seem that long ago…
Because it’s going to make a lot of people happy while not hurting anyone* in the process.
*At least, not hurting anyone more than having every gay person turn into a straight person and marrying someone of the opposite sex. If you want to argue that more marriages are a bad thing, knock yourself out.
“If”.
And that would simply make it a good counter argument negating that one point. Not an argument going to the heart of the matter.
Do go on.
This is an unsupported generalization. There have been many societies where homosexuality was openly practiced and not regarded as shameful in the least, but that should not be confused with what you are talking about.
In one African(?) tribe, boys interact with only the male elders until they are married, and then they no longer have any homosexual interaction.
I know of at least one society (African?) where the bride stays with her parents and her ‘husband’ comes just to visit. The children are raised by the bride’s family and the ‘father’ or ‘husband’, so far as I know, has nothing to do with his children.
And once again the concept of relevance eludes our poor marriage defender.