“Marriage” doesn’t have a “nature.” Marriage is a human concept, and it has only those attributes we choose to assign it. Can you give me a good reason why “only for heterosexuals” is a good attribute for marriage to have?
The quote your responding to doesn’t say anything about love or affectionate relationship. It just says that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships, and should be treated the same under the law. Do you have a response to that argument?
Right. And when social mores changed, and incest became seen as unacceptable, those cultures changed their marriage practices, and outlawed incest.
In the US, social mores have changed, and homosexuality is no longer (for the most part) seen as a bad or shameful thing. So why shouldn’t marriage laws change to reflect social attitudes?
How so? If I tell you, “I’m marrying my boyfriend tomorrow,” what part of the sentence doesn’t make sense to you? Do you hear the word “marrying,” and go, “Wha?! How is that even possible?!” Or do you go, “That guy’s probably in love with his boyfriend, and wants to spend the rest of his life with him.”
If it’s the latter, then the definition of the word “marriage” has been altered to include same-sex couples. That’s how language works.
I didn’t see where you’d brought it up. But I don’t have any serious objections to polygamy, so if SSM means we also have legalized polygamy, so what?
If I say, "Marriage used to only mean "heterosexual couples, but starting today, it means “hetero and homosexual couples,” how is that a lie? What fact have I obfuscated or ignored in that statement?
What part of your argument is that cite meant to bolster?
Melchior-
This thread is about the ethical concerns surrounding same sex marriage. Your harping on the definition of marriage constitutes a hijack. Any further such will earn you a warning. If you truly must discuss the side issue please start a new thread and let this one go on its way.
Especially when you consider that in times past marriage meant ‘between people of the same race’ or ‘between people of the same race AND same religion’ or even ‘between people of the same race, religion and social class’…or ‘between brother and sister, close cousins or other close relations’. It’s morphed many, many times and has never been cast in stone, but instead has followed the customs and sanction of the broader society…just like in this case. Which is pretty obvious, since all ‘marriage’ mean is a contract between two people (or more depending on the society) and society, where society gives its sanction to the union and where a set of expectations is places on the couple by society to conform to certain norms.
Polygamy? It might happen, or it might not…it will conform to exactly the same societal attitudes and changes that SSM is currently undergoing. Personally, I’m fine with it even if I recognize that, unlike SSM, it WILL have some additional pain in the ass legal implications. But nothing that’s outside of the realm of what we as a society could do, if we wanted too.
I am just pointing out that one should be careful what you ask for. You just might get it. Laws prohibiting polygamy are supported by nothing more than custom.
What? What is a hijack? what I am discussing is directly and inextricably connected to the topic.
One should care about ‘gay marriage’ out of concern regarding the way courts have been used to override the clear expression of the voting public.
Ding. Warning.
Congrats, that might be the shortest time between Mod Note and Warning.
Enough. Or it will go badly for you.
Fine. Just don’t be a dick by voting against it.
Pretty much should have been the closing argument, and post #2.
Gay marriage allows for gay divorce. That’s a good reason to vote in favor of gay marriage.
And who doesn’t like Ginger Rogers?
And there’s already considerable variation from culture to culture, and within a culture over time. This is just ordinary cultural change, and the change in law is merely a reflection of that change, not the cause of it.
And again, let’s not forget the numerous cultures (including, for example, many indigenous North American groups, especially west of the Mississippi) for which same-sex marriage is nowhere near being a new thing.
Deleted my post. I see that Melchior has been warned not to discuss the definition of marriage. So it’s unfair of me to continue to debate.
Best argument I’ve seen so far (others have stated similar, but I like the concise,no nonsense logic exhibited here.)
FTR, I would vote in support of same sex marriage (or vote against an attempted ban), I guess my question is really “is that enough?”. During the Civil Rights Era surely there were plenty of people who thought that it was a shame how black people were treated…and could you please pass the salt? (Someone upthread called that being a “slacktivist” which tickled me to no end).
So if you’re not going to DO anything about the injustice, is that really any different than not caring about it at all?
My OP was prompted by two different instances of acquaintances trying to “rally me” to their cause (supporting same sex marriage), and me just not being able to summon up enough give-a-damn to suit them. Both seemed to imply that it was immoral (amoral?) For me to not care about their cause ( both were straight, but have gay friends)
So don’t get me wrong…I believe same sex marriage should be legal, I just don’t care enough to do anything about it. Please don’t judge me for that, for surely there are things I care about that make you yawn.
I can’t speak for the people of Queeristan as a group, but in my book, you don’t have to do anything except vote to be okay on gay rights
If the OP is looking for a “close to home” reason to care, do you have kids? Grandkids? What happens when one of them comes out, and asks you how much did Grandpa support same-sex marriage, back in 2014, when it really mattered?
To be honest, as long as you vote for it when you can and aren’t actively against it, you’re good. There are only so many issues any one person can but their energy into. If this isn’t one that revs your motor, that’s cool. Just please don’t actively work against it.