I’m gonna assume you meant not to have a comma in that last sentence–that you’re talking only about the majority of those people who oppose SSM. As far as that goes, it’s pretty common to hear them talk about gay people as sick, deluded, self-destructive, etc. There’s a MPSIMS thread right now about shit homophobes say. Others don’t say that kind of thing.
And this is a very close parallel to what happened around the time of Loving v. Virginia. There were plenty of people who knew how deeply non-PC it was to be a racist, and who therefore defended anti-miscegenation laws as protecting the natural order of things. Blacks weren’t inferior to whites, they were just different, and they should keep to their own just as whites should keep to their own. Traditional, don’tcha know, no reason to stir the pot.
Well, magellan himself in past threads estimated 40 years, which I guess is 1.5 generations or so. I’ve no idea how common an estimate it is among other SSM opponents.
I’ve read a bit from the dude who thinks that the British Royal family et al. are lizard people, so I’m okay with, uh, awesome political theories. How exactly will gay marriage destroy the world within 40 years?
I was never able to tease that information out of magellan. I’ve even asked him to describe the early warning signs for me to keep an eye out for in case disaster comes to Canada (gay marriage legalized in 2005), but no joy there, either.
But you make the same error as rat avatar, but on a different point. You’re attempting to use “the natural order of things” as a common denominator, assuming that the explanation for both is the same. It’s not. With inter-racial marriage, it was an odd thing in the particular culture of America. There were plenty of places—Italy and points east, for example—where inter-racial relationships were no so odd. The “natural order of things” as it applies to SSM is much more sweeping. As we know of zero cultures in a few thousand years of history in which anything like SSM was accepted. The best we have are the much more permissive attitudes of the Greeks and Romans for a time. But the accepted relationships there were sexual ones, not ones that were viewed to be on par with marriage.
No. The problem with the “natural order of things” argument isn’t that factually, gay marriage IS the natural order of things. The problem with it is that the “natural order of things” is totally irrelevant to what we SHOULD do.
Nature is nasty, brutish, and short. It’s not a good guide to how we should live our lives.
We know of zero cultures in a few thousand years of history where people watched TV. Where people had good birth control. Where people talked on cell phones. Where common folks voted. Where people could expect to die of old age in their bed.
We do lots of stuff that people didn’t used to do. The question I have for you, is so fucking what? There are ten countries that allow SSM. So it’s not like we don’t have records of Same Sex Marriages. We’ve got lots of them, they’re just new.
Wait, first you say that SSM is the natural order of things, implying that it is a fair metric (which I think is an an absurd statement), then you say that we should ignore brutish nature. Which is it?
You totally misunderstood the first part, due to admittedly ambiguous phrasing. Let’s try that first part again:
The problem with the “natural order of things” argument isn’t that factually, gay marriage IS the natural order of things. By this I mean that when I’m objecting to your “natural order of things” argument I’m not doing so because I believe that gay marriage is the natural order of things. I’m objecting because I believe the natural order of things is irrelevant.
Of course, you’re wrong. But if it the difference between bringing up a lack of SSM over a few millennia and the lack of people using cell phones over that same time escapes you, I’m not sure there’s much worth discussing. But here’s a hint: People in ancient Greece or Rome didn’t have the ability to use cell phones. They certainly had the ability to embrace homosexuality to the degree that it would be on par with normal marriage. But they didn’t. In fact, we know of zero civilizations that had the equivalent of SSM. And we do know that there were people who were openly gay and bisexual. The act itself had no stigma to it (as long as class ranks) was observed, yet, zero civilizations thought it wise to embrace something like SSM.
Again, so what? It was only relatively recently that you had a significant number of civilizations with no death penalty, with universal suffrage, or with freedom of speech. The move toward justice is slow, and past injustice should give no solace to current perpetrators of injustice.
You do realize that “Appeal to tradition” is a logical fallacy right?
What is the social benefit of outlawing SSM, as others have said that is how it and race based laws are the same, society gains nothing from the law yet it causes great pain and suffering.
Yes, thanks for the clarification. My response is that we are, in fact, animals. We share more with them than separates of. In the natural world, you see male-female pairing as the default situation. You see countless examples of what look like “families”. No, not exclusively, as many times the female is impregnated and left. But there are enough examples of male-female pairings, and “family” situations, for male-female sex to be viewed as the natural order of things. This is true now, it was truer during the time that Western culture was being established. Add this to the fact that there are zero instances in where long-term, exclusive SS pairings are known to be common and the individuals involved having a heterosexual option. We see homosexuality in bonobos and a couple of other species, but equating that to SSM is more than a huge stretch.
Now, I do agree that we are able to think and choose to act in ways that beasts do not. I also believe that homosexuality is part of the natural order of things. By that I mean the urge and the act. The Greeks andy Romans realized this and were fine with it, but stopped there. So, one can be accepting of homosexuality as a fact of nature, but not jump to the conclusion that society should embrace it to the degree that SSM should be accepted, putting it on the same footing as traditional marriage.
But you’re begging the question, assuming that 1) it is an injustice and 2) even if it is, it is not overridden by larger concerns for society. This argument that as time moves on that society will get more permissive and that is proof of the rightness of specific positions is fun to wallow in if you look forward to a particular change, but in essence, weak.
Again, so what? We’re animals. Traditionally we pair more-or-less serially in opposite-sex pairings. We rape and steal from one another. We band together in gangs and murder other gangs. Historically and naturally, we do all kinds of totally appalling shit.
We’re animals. Thanks for the news! But nowhere in your post do I see any relevance of this fact to the question at hand. The question isn’t whether legalizing SSM is natural or historical. The question is, is it right?
No, I’m not. This series of posts isn’t intended to argue that SSM is just. It’s intended to stick a fork in two of the arguments against SSM–the naturalistic fallacy, and what I’ll call the historical fallacy.
I’m guessing you’re not ready to do so, but if you concede that neither the absence of common long-term same-sex pairings in other species nor the absence of SSM in historical societies has any relevance to what we should do now, then we can drop this point and actually get to the reasons that SSM IS just. But you’re the one who’s emphasizing these two points, so I want to address them before moving on.
I’m not using an appeal to tradition to prove anything. I’m offering the sweep of history as evidence that with the countless civilizations that have risen and fallen over the millennia, we know of zero that have embraced anything like SSM. Surely, you don’t think that any look back to history is fallacious. Now, if my argument was: we shouldn’t allow SSM because we never allowed it. That would, indeed, be fallacious.
I’m having trouble with your rephrasing here. Can you put it another way?
The point is not that being human means we have to surrender to the worst of being animals. We can choose other paths. I thought that was a point of agreement for us? No?
The questions is, is it the right thing to do? I think not. While it would be one avenue to give SS couples the rights and privileges I think they should rightly have, I think it un healthy and unhelpful to society to not hold a special place for traditional marriage. I find it astounding that people are arguing for a society in which the institution that has proven so beneficial to our flourishing holds no special place.