Why should I care about gay marriage?

[Melchior]

@iiandyiiii

There are also people that have no problem with black people, but (for them) interracial marriage is something else altogether. Thankfully, the law doesn’t pay attention to old bigots like that. The law should also ignore bigotry against homosexual couples.

It’s not bigotry. What about laws forbidding bigamy? What foundation is there for them but custom?

[iiandyiiii]

@Inner_Stickler

Much like when religious people wonder how it is that atheists can not believe in a god and simultaneously not be thieving murdering rapists, I get uncomfortable and nervous when anti-marriage equalists start talking about bestiality. Why is that where they jump to?

Because most anti-gay-marriage folks are also “eww, gay sex is so icky” folks (or alternately, “gay sex is so incredibly tempting and evil that I must make sure no one ever knows I like it” folks).

[Inner_Stickler]

@Melchior

I said ‘ultimately based on’. In the past, couples were engaged first, and when a child was conceived they could marry. Offspring (especially males) were important, particularly after the Black Death reduced the population of Europe by roughly half. King Henry VIII went through several wives, you may recall, because he wanted a son.

So, gay marriage is wrong because rats carry fleas and monarchical dynasties? I’m not getting the link-up here.

[Miller]

@Melchior

I said ‘ultimately based on’. In the past, couples were engaged first, and when a child was conceived they could marry. Offspring (especially males) were important, particularly after the Black Death reduced the population of Europe by roughly half. King Henry VIII went through several wives, you may recall, because he wanted a son.

This may have escaped your attention, but we’re no longer living in the past. I don’t see a good reason why contemporary marriage practices should be constrained by how medieval peasants viewed the institution.

[iiandyiiii]

@Melchior

It’s not bigotry. What about laws forbidding bigamy? What foundation is there for them but custom?

Who cares? If you want to talk about bigamy, start a new thread. The only foundation for laws against gay marriage are (bigoted) custom, yes, but they are a bad and discriminatory custom that should be changed.

Gay people getting married hurts no one and helps lots of families.

[magellan01]

@iiandyiiii

What does that have to do with gay marriage? If you want to talk about those things, start another thread.

See Post 118.

[Melchior]

@Inner_Stickler

Much like when religious people wonder how it is that atheists can not believe in a god and simultaneously not be thieving murdering rapists, I get uncomfortable and nervous when anti-marriage equalists start talking about bestiality. Why is that where they jump to?

Why not? The only basis for forbidding it is custom!

[Melchior]

@iiandyiiii

Who cares? If you want to talk about bigamy, start a new thread. The only foundation for laws against gay marriage are (bigoted) custom, yes, but they are a bad and discriminatory custom that should be changed.

Gay people getting married hurts no one and helps lots of families.

It’s not marriage.

[Antinor01]

@Melchior

Why not? The only basis for forbidding it is custom!

I wondered how long it would take for this old trope to come up.

I suppose you’ve never heard of consent?

[iiandyiiii]

@Melchior

It’s not marriage.

According to you. I call it marriage, and so do many others… and pretty soon, a large majority of Americans will call it marriage. The definitions of words change all the time.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Melchior

Black men and Asian men and white men are all men and not women.

I still don’t understand. In what way, which is obvious to you, is race not a valid basis for banning marriage while gender is?

[Melchior]

@Miller

This may have escaped your attention, but we’re no longer living in the past. I don’t see a good reason why contemporary marriage practices should be constrained by how medieval peasants viewed the institution.

Then why have marriage at all?

[Miller]

@Melchior

It’s not bigotry. What about laws forbidding bigamy? What foundation is there for them but custom?

Bigamy is forbidden by law because it’s a form of fraud - it’s entering into a second marriage without telling either spouse about the other marriage.

I suspect you’re thinking of polygamy, which is the term for marriages where all partners are aware of each other. And there’s no particular good reason for polygamy to be against the law, so if SSM ultimately leads to legalized polygamy… well, so what?

[Marley23]

@Melchior

Why not? The only basis for forbidding it is custom!

I’m biting my tongue here. But no, there’s also the argument that it’s cruel to animals and that we should treat animals well.

@Melchior

It’s not marriage.

A dictionary is not an argument. The definition of marriage has changed many times; it’s changed again in recent years. The definition of “gay” changed, too, but that’s not an argument against gay marriage.

@Melchior

Then why have marriage at all?

Because people want to get married, and it’s arguably in society’s interest to promote stable families. Why do you think we have to choose between a 17th/18th/19th century version of marriage and no marriage at all?

[Melchior]

@ElvisL1ves

I still don’t understand. In what way, which is obvious to you, is race not a valid basis for banning marriage while gender is?

‘Sex’, not ‘gender’.

[Melchior]

@Miller

Bigamy is forbidden by law because it’s a form of fraud - it’s entering into a second marriage without telling either spouse about the other marriage.

I suspect you’re thinking of polygamy, which is the term for marriages where all partners are aware of each other. And there’s no particular good reason for polygamy to be against the law, so if SSM ultimately leads to legalized polygamy… well, so what?

I am simply pointing out the consequences of just throwing out the notion of custom having any force. Baby, bathwater…etc.

Bigamy laws have no stronger foundation than custom.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Melchior

‘Sex’, not ‘gender’.

Yes, couples, married or not and not always couples, do often have sex, sometimes of a kind that other people think of as icky. Is that your point somehow? And where do you address race as not being a valid basis for banning marriage?

[Miller]

@Melchior

Then why have marriage at all?

The social value in recognizing and encouraging long term pair-bonding.
An easy way to share assets between a couple.
An easy way to designate next-of-kin in legal and medical decisions.
Establishing a clear inheritance claim for the survivor of a long term relationship.
And, of course, love.

What are the values you perceive in matrimony? Why shouldn’t gay people be allowed to partake in those values?

[ElvisL1ves]

Because buttsecks, apparently.

[Marley23]

Anybody else think it’s ironic that Melchior thinks the dictionary is the highest authority in this discussion but he doesn’t seem to care that polyamory and bigamy aren’t the same thing?