I want to clarify something here, turtles, are you asking to be talked into supporting SSM, talked into opposing it, or talked into taking any position at all?
I’m neutral-in-favor, and I get the sense you are too, but some posters seem to have a different take.
On that specific example, I can think of arguments against recognizing polyamorous marriage that do not apply to SSM and do not depend on it not being recognized, and so there’s no reason recognizing SSM would threaten those arguments.
Ah. I’ve been waiting for someone to make that argument. I’m a lot more open to “we must either allow SSM or create a system in which the government assigns everyone a spouse” than simply banning SSM but otherwise letting people pair off more or less willy-nilly.
(I’m not really in favor of a Department of Matchmaking, but it’s at least consistent.)
This seems like one of those threads where the OP demands certainty.
Look, ask a question and take an answer. If you’re genuinely unclear on something, ask for clarification, but this whole thing of “Hey I need an iron-clad argument” is bullshit.
Voting for SSM/against a ban is a good start, but I would encourage you to go one slight step further. The impression you give is that while you may vote for SSM if it came to a ballot, if tomorrow a neighbor or coworker asked your opinion on the topic you would yawn and go right back to the “I have literally not one care in the world whether same-sex marriage is legalized or not” thing.
I think that attitude contributes to the moral failing you say you’d like to avoid. If you believe SSM should be legal, then just say so if it comes up. It doesn’t have to become your passion, you don’t have to attend rallies or wear a rainbow pin or do anything else - just affirm your stance when the topic arises. Something as simple as that can make a difference.
This blase attitude may be what irked your acquaintances. If one of them said, “Man, it sucks gay people can’t get married,” it would be jerky if your response was, “So what? That has nothing to do with me - I don’t care about gay marriage.” Instead just say, “Yeah, I agree - same sex marriage should totally be legal.” That’s it. Odds are they’re not going to try to “rally you” to do anything more, and even if they’re real activists and invite you to march on the capital over the weekend, just say you have other plans.
It’s not so much that I need an iron-clad argument, I just found that argument ( the one to which I was responding) particularly weak. That poster suggested that opposing SSM was wrong because it’s always been considered wrong, and that equates to intellectual stagnation, which is bad. I simply pointed out that some things that have been considered wrong for a long time (murder, for example) are still considered wrong and no one considers that intellectual stagnation. If the poster meant something else, they can of course respond to clarify.
I apologize for a poorly worded OP, but if you read the whole thread you’d see I have already clarified my intent, and my personal position. My intent was a conversation about the morality of remaining neutral on the subject of SSM.
How about because you might have a child or other family member who is, or turns out to be, gay, and you care about them? Or friends who are gay? If you need a reason that’s more self-centered, there you go.
As a person who is not partnered up with anyone, you should be concerned with laws giving those with a partner special treatment which you are not entitled to.
I think that there is an assumption on the part of a lot of posters that the opposition to same sex marriage is discrimination and bigotry and these charges may seem overblwon (especially when people start comparing SSM to segregation and the holocaust). Gay rights activists have recently acknowledged the strategic mistake of trying to compare themselves to blacks during segregation or Jews during Nazi Germany and have started portraying SSM as an issue of fairness and people who love each other wanting to make a committment to each other.
But that’s just PR. They still haven’t proven their assumption that the main driving force opposing gay marraige is bigotry.
For me, the turning point between being indifferent (and frankly a bit annoyed at all the caterwauling about SSM) and being in favor of SSM came during the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell congressional hearings. The top brass (I think except the marines) all testified that gays in the military were OK, so the congressmen decided that the opinion of the generals didn’t really matter, what really mattered was the opinion of the rank and file military. And when every service reported back support for gays among the rank and file (once again except for the marines), they started saying that the only service tha really mattered was the marines because they were the ones on the front lines. It became clear to me then that the driving force behind the opposition to gays in the military wasn’t some concern over esprit de corps or unit efficacy. They just didn’t like gays and didn’t want to cut them a break even if they were actually reducing their capability by cutting out sorely needed language experts and other specialists.
Thats when i started to see the SSM debate in a different light. Whats when the gay marriage bans strarted to look a lot more like the anti-miscegenation laws. SSM wasn’t about a bunch of self entitled gay folks who were demanding stuff because they thought they were being treated like blacks during segregation or Jews during the Holocaust, it was about a bunch of bigots who hated gays so much that justice and fairness didn’t matter to them.
You knew gay people, you just didn’t know they were gay until they came out, subtle but important difference.
Ahh, the Dick Cheney effect.
If you support rule of law and protection of minority rights, then I think you should proabbly support it at the polls even if you don’t send money to organizations that support gay marriage.
Homosexuals are not a ‘minority’. The word ‘discrimination’ is often misconstrued. We discriminate between children and adults, between humans and animals and furniture.
Marriage laws do not unfairly discriminate against homosexuals. Homosexuals are free to marry any member of the opposite sex they choose.
It’s not ‘unfair’; that’s what marriage is.
All marriage laws (including laws barring bigamy) rest ultimately upon custom. If you reject any part of them, the rest can fall too, as they have no firmer foundation. Our custom is that marriage is between one man and and one woman, one at a time. That is not 'unfair; that is our custom.
That’s not true. One may believe, as I think you know I do, that while committed SS couples should be extended all the rights and privileges of committed OS couples, that we should keep the traditional definition enshrined as it has been, as it represents a cornerstone of society and sets the stage for the ideal environment in which to raise children. Religion has nothing to do with that particular argument.
Yes, and in those cases, there are good and valid reasons to discriminate between children and adults, or humans and animals.
What’s the good and valid reason to discriminate between straight people and gay people?
This is an absurd and tautological argument. Yes, right now, marriage “is” between opposite sex couples. The purpose of the SSM movement is to change that definition to include same sex couples. If you think there’s a good reason not to change the definition, feel free to suggest it, but “Just because,” is not going to cut it.
It is a straw man argument to complain that they are unfairly discriminated against, or that they are an ‘oppressed minority’. What about bigamy?
What many of us object to is the attempt to circumvent custom through judges.
Marriage is a special relationship ultimately based upon biology and procreation, not romantic feelings. It has nothing to do with romantic attachments, and until the 19th century arranged marriages were the norm. My grandmother may have had an arranged marriage (I am not sure).
That’s kind of true. So the debate isn’t whether this is discrimination or not - it plainly is - it’s whether the discrimination makes sense and serves any kind of purpose or public interest. It doesn’t.
Oh no! Melchior has discovered an argument that defeats all pro-SSM arguments! We’re all stumped!
Just kidding. The technical term for this argument is “bullshit.” You can read Brown v. Board of Ed to find out how impressed the Supreme Court was by this logic 60 years ago. The claim, of course, is that it’s unfair that a heterosexual couple in love can get married and have the state recognize their relationship and a gay or lesbian couple can’t do the same thing. Citing the dictionary and the Bible - and when that fails, saying “Because I said so!” - doesn’t advance your argument.
You don’t know what a strawman is.
And marriage today is not the same thing it was in the 19th century (or the 15th century). That’s pretty much the entire discussion right there. You can’t just pick one version of marriage and end the argument by saying “marriage has always been this” because that’s flat-out wrong.
