Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?

[bascule]

But where do we draw the line? There are plenty of inequalities in life, and we don't try to solve all of those problems with laws. What makes this one necessary?

 

I think for the most part we do try to solve inequalities arising from race, gender, sexual orientation, physical disabilities, and other biological/non-social factors with laws.

 

In that regard, gay marriage stands out as a glaring case of inequity. We afford all kinds of social status on married couples, from hospital visits to tax benefits. Why can't gay couples receive these benefits as well?

 

Can you think of any other case of biologically-based inequity as glaring as gay marriage where there aren't laws in place to try to resolve it?

[mooeypoo]

IMO, it's a false comparison, since marriage refers to the relationship, and in the sense of a social contract there are not any relevant differences in the social contract between opposite and same sex partners (whereas there ARE relevant secular differences between males and females).

 

I agree with your conclusion that it's irrelevant to the discussion, but I think above I've more closely represented what he's trying to convey.

I see.

 

Well, if we were to discuss aspects of social behavior, that might've been an interesting point to make. Since we're discussing a term that involve equality in the eyes of the law (or, in this case inequality in the eyes of the law), the point is totally moot.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Is it really logical, though, to pass a law solely for its psychological impact?

Not sure if I'd call it a psychological impact, but to be fair, I don't think we're discussing passing a new law here.. there is a definition in the law that - by itself - does NOT exclude gay couples, does it? It's a manner of *including them* into the definition.

 

To be honest, I really don't get what the deal here is..

• Blacks were excluded from the definition of citizens and could not vote--- until they were included.
  
• Women were excluded from the definition of citizens and could not vote --- until they were included.
  

Those decisions to "Change the law" or "adapt society" or "make a new law" -- whichever one you choose to call it -- were done because social changes led to changes in our morality. Excluding women from voting was no longer considered moral because it's unequal... so we changed it. Excluding blacks from voting was no longer considered moral, because it's unequal, so we changed it...

 

How is the LGBT couples' argument any different? They wish to be included as citizens and hence recieve ALL rights given to citizens. The right to marry whomever they wish is included.

 

I see absolutely not a shred of difference between those cases. Not a difference that matters.

 

The excuse of 'infertility' with lgbt couples (which science makes moot btw, but whatever) is the same style of excuse that was used to say that biracial couples will produce children that will have much more trouble growing up in an intolerant society. Same excuses, same biggotry, it all stems from one simple thing: The horrifying thought of adding yet another "DIFFERENT" to our definition of normal society.

 

There is a decision to be made here: Are LGBT people included in the definition of citizenship - in which case regardless of what anyone may think or feel of their behavior they are to be treated as equal in the eyes of the law.

 

The naming is irrelevant. Call it oobapalooba if you want, really, that's not the issue; the issue is the same rights as others, period. Civil union does NOT yield the same rights Federally (the simplest example is that LGBT couples that have one member a non citizen does NOT get a green card or any process of immigration, as opposed to straight couples who do under the same conditions).

 

So, those who oppose Gay marriage, here's some food for thought: LGBT Couples, at the moment, are unequal in the eyes of the law.

The question is -- do you SUPPORT equality? If you do, then there should be no reason to oppose gay marriage. If you don't, well, our disagreement originates in a much deeper level.

 

~moo

Edited September 15, 2009 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

Okay. We’re now more than 100 posts into this thread.

Let’s review what has been shared in response to the core question of the thread:

 

“What relevant secular reasons are there to be opposed to same sex marriage?”

• I don’t know. I’m just against it.
  
  • Not relevant, nor is it useful in a discussion explicitly asking for reasons explaining the opposition

  [*]Tradition

  • Not relevant, as tradition alone is not a relevant reason to oppose same sex marriage. An injustice in the past is neither a valid nor useful argument for the continuation of that injustice in the present... Or, as Judge Kramer said, "The State's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional."

[*]The composition is different, so it needs a different name

• Is not itself a valid argument, since it implicitly suggests that this difference in composition is relevant enough to treat or name them differently, without ever supporting that this is the case. Further argument is needed for this suggestion to have merit (which, at present, it lacks). Such an argument should present a valid explanation of why this different composition (based on genitalia alone) is somehow relevant to the state recognition of marriage prior to the argument being accepted as relevant.

[*]The definitions should not be changed

• This one is also not relevant, and for several reasons.
  
  • First, the proposer of this position conceded that definitions are arbitrary, defeating his argument the moment it was presented.
  • Second, definitions change with time, and for good reason. Arguing on the basis of a static definition is not relevant since definitions are not themselves static.
  • Third, the existence of a commonly held definition in the past is not a relevant argument against using a more inclusive definition in the present.
  • Fourth, the definition argument implicitly assumes that the definition which is used by a subset of the people is somehow a higher priority than the definition used by another subset of the people, without ever supporting why that one definition is more relevant than the more inclusive one. Again, further argument supporting the merit of this proposal is required prior to accepting it as a relevant reason to oppose same sex marriage.

[*]They can’t have children

• Not relevant, since marriage is not preconditioned on the ability to have children, as evidenced by the infertile, the elderly, and those who don’t desire children all being allowed to marry without challenge or opposition.

 

 

So… We’re now more than 100 posts into this thread, and still no relevant secular reasons to oppose same sex marriage have been proposed. I encourage people to keep trying, and if you cannot find relevant secular reasons for your opposition, I encourage you to stop opposing same sex marriage.

[Syntho-sis]

And therein lies the rub, eh?

 

When we are children we are essentially hardwired to accept what our parents do and say uncritically. So long as it hasn't been questioned, it can't be bigoted, as it's not yet intolerance any more than it's intolerance not to eat the vegetables as an adult your parents never served you.

 

However, once you have given it a look, and you choose to maintain that outlook but without rational cause... well, then we may well be looking at bigotry.

 

Yes bigotry is the awareness that you are commiting the action of-

 

- stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

 

A young child may not even be aware of what group he "falls" into. Therefore a child cannot know all the differences between their own group and "theirs." The child was taught from an early age to not like a specific individual for whatever reason. A false idea the child may have learned from their parents about a specific group or belief could be the predominating factor in this child's intolerance.

 

It is an opinion of mine that young children are not capable of bigotry or complete and utter hate.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Syntho-sis

[Dudde]

It is an opinion of mine that young children are not capable of bigotry or complete and utter hate.

 

while not really disagreeing, I don't really see anybody accusing children of hate or bigotry. I didn't see any children voting for that stupid California amendment, and I support JillSwift's point - children usually take their parents views, just because they want to fit in and don't usually fully understand the views being presented.

 

I fail to see how a child's innocence is a reason to oppose gay marriages however.

[Pangloss]

I think for the most part we do try to solve inequalities arising from race, gender, sexual orientation, physical disabilities, and other biological/non-social factors with laws.

 

True. But do we try to solve inequities that are perceived, or psychological, and not real in a legal sense?

 

I'm not saying the laws are presently unequal -- clearly they are. I'm asking why that problem can only be solved by widening the definition of "marriage".

 

 

How is the LGBT couples' argument any different? They wish to be included as citizens and hence recieve ALL rights given to citizens. The right to marry whomever they wish is included.

 

Is Saryctos actually arguing that they shouldn't have equal treatment under the law because they can't bear children, or is he arguing that they should call it something different, with equal legal status, based on the child-bearing issue? This is really his argument and you should stick with him on it, but it doesn't seem to me that he's arguing for inequality.

 

 

This debate seems to have broken down into two groups:

 

Group A: People who think it should be called "marriage".

Group B: People who think it should be called "a civil union".

 

Both groups seem to agree that it should be equal under law. There doesn't seem to be a Group C that wants gays and lesbians to have an option that is inferior to marriage.

 

Even worse, I think there is a tendency by Group A to imply that Group B does not want equality. The entire premise of this thread is that if no "relevant secular reason" can be found to support separate names, then separate names is not equality. But a purely logical connection between those two things has never been established.

 

The point of this thread seems to be finding a way to tell Group B that they're not being logical, when in fact Group A is not being purely logical either.

[Syntho-sis]

I fail to see how a child's innocence is a reason to oppose gay marriages however.

 

When did I once say..That a child's innocence has anything to do with gay marriage?

 

Seriously? I was talking about bigotry and using children as an example of what might be presumed as bigotry when in actuality is motivated by factors other than intolerance. i.e. What bigotry actually is.

 

In fact I didn't even mention my stance on gay marriage. And I did so purposely because I knew that something exactly like this would happen. You assumed that I oppose it, because I didn't agree with the OP's definition of the word "bigot."

Edited September 15, 2009 by Syntho-sis
misspelling

[iNow]

True. But do we try to solve inequities that are perceived, or psychological, and not real in a legal sense?

I'm confused as to the relevance of your point, since the issue under discussion right now very much IS real in a legal sense.

 

 

 

Is Saryctos actually arguing that they shouldn't have equal treatment under the law because they can't bear children, or is he arguing that they should call it something different, with equal legal status, based on the child-bearing issue? This is really his argument and you should stick with him on it, but it doesn't seem to me that he's arguing for inequality.

I agree, he is arguing for equal rights, but different names. However, as my intermission above suggests, his argument is not yet enough.

 

He has yet to establish the relevant need to call them different names, and why this is better than using just one term to describe both groups.

 

He suggested that "males and females have different names, so why not have different names for opposite sex and same sex marriages?" I demonstrated that there ARE relevant secular differences between males and females, but we have yet to see any relevant secular differences in the union of same sex and opposite sex partners. Until those relevant secular differences in the social contract of marriage are described, the argument falls flat.

 

 

 

Group A: People who think it should be called "marriage".

Group B: People who think it should be called "a civil union".

 

Both groups seem to agree that it should be equal under law. There doesn't seem to be a Group C that wants gays and lesbians to have an option that is inferior to marriage.

Group C most certainly exists, they simply have not participated in this thread. However, the subject of this conversation most definitely applies to that group as well.

 

 

Even worse, I think there is a tendency by Group A to imply that Group B does not want equality.

Again, I fear you may be misrepresenting the position. The implication is not that these people want inequality. The implication is that they have yet to share any relevant secular reasons to name the groups differently, and hence appear to be making an argument from ignorance, homophobia, and/or bigotry.

 

Once they make a relevant argument to name the groups differently, the implication will immediately vanish, but not until.

 

 

The entire premise of this thread is that if no "relevant secular reason" can be found to support separate names, then separate names is not equality.

Close. I'd phrase it somewhat differently, though. It's more about asking why a separate name is required if you are unable to provide a relevant secular reason for calling it a separate name.

 

From my perspective, the separate name is intended to do nothing more than to keep "them" separate, and has no real value or purpose. I'd welcome an argument to contrary, but no relevant arguments have yet been put forth in that regard.

 

 

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

When did I once say..That a child's innocence has anything to do with gay marriage?

 

Seriously? I was talking about bigotry and using children as an example of what might be presumed as bigotry when in actuality is motivated by factors other than intolerance. i.e. What bigotry actually is.

 

In fact I didn't even mention my stance on gay marriage. And I did so purposely because I knew that something exactly like this would happen. You assumed that I appose it, because I didn't agree with the OP's definition of the word "bigot."

 

Please read what I actually say before you start attacking my statements. This is getting annoying.

Okay. Chillax guys.

 

The broader point is this. Once that child (or adult) finally DOES look inward and examine their reasons for opposing same sex marriage, and once they realize they have no relevant secular reasons to maintain that opposition, something needs to happen. If they remain opposed despite having no relevant secular reasons, then they are being bigoted. If they wish to maintain their opposition, they should seek to find relevant secular reasons for their opposition, or they will remain bigoted. However, if they are unable to find relevant secular reasons to support their opposition, then they should quite simply stop standing in opposition, since they have no good reasons to do so.

Edited September 15, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

The entire premise of this thread is that if no "relevant secular reason" can be found to support separate names' date=' then separate names is not equality. [/quote']Close. I'd phrase it somewhat differently, though. It's more about asking why a separate name is required if you are unable to provide a relevant secular reason for calling it a separate name.

 

From my perspective, the separate name is intended to do nothing more than to keep "them" separate, and has no real value or purpose. I'd welcome an argument to contrary, but no relevant arguments have yet been put forth in that regard.

 

I'm asking why a separate name is the only way to achieve equality. You're using a premise that the same name is the only way to achieve equality, and requiring that evidence be provided to the contrary, and then leveraging that to accuse those who don't want the same name of also not wanting equality (or as you put it "giving the appearance"). As the lawyers like to say, it's boostrapping.

 

Put another way, even if this thread shows that there are no "relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage", it will not have shown that opponents can only logically conclude that they must stop opposing gay marriage.

[iNow]

Put another way, even if this thread shows that there are no "relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage", it will not have shown that opponents can only logically conclude that they must stop opposing gay marriage.

Well, you're right. They could also conclude that they are being bigoted and have no relevant secular reasons for their opposition other than ignorance or hatred, but I think I covered that already back in post #1.

[mooeypoo]

Is Saryctos actually arguing that they shouldn't have equal treatment under the law because they can't bear children, or is he arguing that they should call it something different, with equal legal status, based on the child-bearing issue? This is really his argument and you should stick with him on it, but it doesn't seem to me that he's arguing for inequality.

I was trying to make sure we differentiate between both arguments. It was unclear to me why we even talk about infertility.

 

This debate seems to have broken down into two groups:

 

Group A: People who think it should be called "marriage".

Group B: People who think it should be called "a civil union".

Without getting into the fact that there's a huge lobby against homosexuals in general in this country, which would comprise groups C, D, E and probably F, I would point out that in practice, there is a huge difference under the law between "marriage" and "a civil union".

 

A civil union holds less rights than marriage.

 

This, then --

There doesn't seem to be a Group C that wants gays and lesbians to have an option that is inferior to marriage.

-- is a bit meaningless, seeing as what group B is arguing for is something that already is inferior to marriage.

 

 

Even worse, I think there is a tendency by Group A to imply that Group B does not want equality.

Correct. Group B, opposing marriage and supporting Civil Union - as they both are defined currently, are either contradicting their own logic, or are against equality.

 

Here's why:

 

Mark and Jenny got married. Mark is Australian, Jenny American. Mark will be getting a green card soon because of Jenny's citizenship.

 

David and Donald got civil union. David is British, Donald is American. David will be kicked out of the country if he doesn't find a company to sponsor him, because he will not be getting a green card -- or any form of permit to stay in the USA, regardless of his civil union.

 

You tell me, Pangloss, is that equality?

 

 

If the argument is that both couples should get the same rights but the ceremony should be getting a different name, then I would argue that this is semantics. I still wouldn't agree with its motives, and would claim that there is some underlying factor behind the notion but I would not make too much of a fuss over this.. it would be a good step towards equality.

 

It seems, however, that people argue specifically about the notion of civil union which does not hold the same rights as a marriage. It is inferior to a marriage. By law.

 

Then yes, whoever argues against marriage and for civil union -- the way they both are defined by law at the moment, in practice -- is promoting a system that will result in LGBT couples having INFERIOR benefits than straight couples, and is not following concepts of equality.

 

I believe that's the very definition of inequality.

 

The entire premise of this thread is that if no "relevant secular reason" can be found to support separate names, then separate names is not equality. But a purely logical connection between those two things has never been established.

Well, I didn't think it was about the specific names, Pangloss, that's not how I understood it. If it was just about the name, then - as i said before - you can call it oobapalooba for all I care, as long as both oobapalooba and marriage are equal in the eyes of the law. That is, as long as both mean the same benefits to both couples.

 

That's not what is going on here in the past 100+ posts, though.

 

 

The point of this thread seems to be finding a way to tell Group B that they're not being logical, when in fact Group A is not being purely logical either.

They're not being logical because in PRACTICE civil union is inferior to marriage, and hence if they claim they want equality but they are only willing to give LGBT couples civil union they contradict themselves, and are being illogical.

 

I haven't seen anyone yet saying that they want to change the benefit coming out of civil union.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

[*]The definitions should not be changed

• This one is also not relevant, and for several reasons.
  
  • First, the proposer of this position conceded that definitions are arbitrary, defeating his argument the moment it was presented.

 

False. And deliberately ignoring something because you can't refute it makes for bad debate. Go back and do your homework.

 

• Second, definitions change with time, and for good reason. Arguing on the basis of a static definition is not relevant since definitions are not themselves static.

• Third, the existence of a commonly held definition in the past is not a relevant argument against using a more inclusive definition in the present.

 

The existence of reasons to change a definition, does not magically make the reasons for keeping a definition disappear. Even if they are better reasons.

 

• Fourth, the definition argument implicitly assumes that the definition which is used by a subset of the people is somehow a higher priority than the definition used by another subset of the people, without ever supporting why that one definition is more relevant than the more inclusive one. Again, further argument supporting the merit of this proposal is required prior to accepting it as a relevant reason to oppose same sex marriage.

 

The definition used by the lawmakers at the time the law was made has priority over any other definition no matter how good or popular it may be. I assume you can figure out why.

 

I do not wish to commit to any claim that the definition they used was the more exclusive one, though I will point out that some people do and as such they have a relevant secular reason to oppose gay marriage.

 

Unless they are wrong, that is. Since your broader claim requires that they be wrong, I shall leave it up to you to demonstrate that they are wrong.

 

So… We’re now more than 100 posts into this thread, and still no relevant secular reasons to oppose same sex marriage have been proposed.

 

Only because you ignore all such that are presented.

 

I encourage people to keep trying, and if you cannot find relevant secular reasons for your opposition, I encourage you to stop opposing same sex marriage.

 

Just to clarify for newcomers such as JillSwift, I do not oppose gay rights. But I most definitely oppose iNow's claim that anyone opposing gay marriage has no reason to do so (other than bigotry) and that he can use that as an excuse to be intolerant. Even more so, he uses it as an excuse to call his intolerance a good thing.

[Dudde]

When did I once say..That a child's innocence has anything to do with gay marriage?

 

Seriously? I was talking about bigotry and using children as an example of what might be presumed as bigotry when in actuality is motivated by factors other than intolerance. i.e. What bigotry actually is.

 

In fact I didn't even mention my stance on gay marriage. And I did so purposely because I knew that something exactly like this would happen. You assumed that I oppose it, because I didn't agree with the OP's definition of the word "bigot."

 

 

My mistake. Are you trying to defend other positions however by stating that they're merely copying someone else because they can't make up their own mind? I might be missing the relevence, however, I never said you thought there was a correlation between children's innocence and same sex marriage. I was trying to relate your point to the thread. The only one I can see is that some people may not hold their own opinions and just accept those of society. If that's it, then it's still wrong to deprive a minority of rights for the beliefs of a larger majority (assuming no harm is being done to either party)

 

I meant no attack previously however, though my statement was written in haste and may have been worded better.

 

The existence of reasons to change a definition, does not magically make the reasons for keeping a definition disappear. Even if they are better reasons.

 

But we really haven't given any solid reasons for keeping the definition. Religion, personal beliefs, tradition, I don't really see any water against allowing a large group of people a freedom to get the same specific legal rights as their heterosexual counterparts

 

sorry I forgot this part:

 

I do not wish to commit to any claim that the definition they used was the more exclusive one, though I will point out that some people do and as such they have a relevant secular reason to oppose gay marriage.

 

I encourage anyone wishing to use this as their argument to present the original exclusive writing, and none of that stuff about how they would have banned it if they'd thought about it...

Edited September 15, 2009 by Dudde
forgot

[StringJunky]

A case was fought in the UK courts in 2006 by 2 lesbians who were legally married in Canada but wanted their status recognized in England as 'married' and not 'civil union' which is the case here. This was the presiding judge's conclusion:

 

The High Court announced its judgement on 31 July 2006, finding that the marriage would continue to be recognised as a civil partnership in England and Wales, but not as a marriage.[2] In handing down his ruling, the President of the Family Division, Sir Mark Potter, gave as his reason that "Abiding single sex relationships are in no way inferior, nor does English Law suggest that they are by according them recognition under the name of civil partnership." [3]. and that marriage was an "age-old institution" which, he suggested, was by "longstanding definition and acceptance" a relationship between a man and a woman. He described this as an "insurmountable hurdle" to the couple's case

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

What ap;peared to me to be nothing more than a semantic argument obviously runs deeper than that, in both the UK and the USA.

 

Thinking about this, being pragmatic, given that the idea of lesbian and gay marriage is a novel one for both our societies, would it not be best for the L&G (lesbisan and gay) community to just enjoy the fruits of what they have already achieved, and just sit tight, for now, until society in general catches up philosophically,..the concept of gay civil union relationships will be normalized through everday exposure. After some years, the idea of same sex marriage will not seem so difficult in the minds of the majority of heterosexual people ie it becomes a natural progression and all the social and legal rights conferred on a heterosexual 'married' couple will transfer to them eventually.

 

The Law tends to reflect the prevailing public consensus, in matters like this, and the judge in the above article was most likely echoing this...that's why I say it is a waiting game for change. I would think US judges work on the same line of thought when issuing judgements of this nature that have social consequences.

 

It's a case of Evolution not Revolution.

 

To corrupt a famous phrase:

 

Viva la Evolution!

 

 

Afterthought: A relevant secular reason against gay people marrying is that more people don't like the idea...this is democracy in action...it is the will of the majority,,,for now.

[iNow]

Thinking about this, being pragmatic, given that the idea of lesbian and gay marriage is a novel one for both our societies, would it not be best for the L&G (lesbisan and gay) community to just enjoy the fruits of what they have already achieved, and just sit tight, for now, until society in general catches up philosophically,..the concept of gay civil union relationships will be normalized through everday exposure.

Well... Except that in 74% of the United States, not even civil unions are legal... So, there's always that problem with which to contend (only 13 of our 50 states recognize civil unions/domestic partnership, and even when civil unions are recognized the laws are not equal with marriage laws, neither at the state nor the federal level).

 

 

 

Afterthought: A relevant secular reason against gay people marrying is that more people don't like the idea...this is democracy in action...it is the will of the majority,,,for now.

 

We are a constitutional republic, with constitutional guarantees of equality for all citizens... regardless if they are part of a minority or a majority. We are not a direct democracy, so the "tyranny of the majority" opinion, I contend, is not relevant whatsoever. The only way that opinion becomes relevant is if there is a valid secular reason for the opposition/differential conferment of privileges and benefits (as per the Enumeration Clause of the first amendment, the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th amendment, and the "Lemon Test" put forth by the SCOTUS in Lemon v. Kurtzman [1971]).

 

 

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Go back and do your homework.

<...>

I assume you can figure out why.

<...>

I most definitely oppose iNow's claim that anyone opposing gay marriage has no reason to do so (other than bigotry) and that he can use that as an excuse to be intolerant. Even more so, he uses it as an excuse to call his intolerance a good thing.

 

If you find yourself unable to respond politely, Mr. Skeptic, then please do not respond at all.

 

Further, this is like the seventh time I've asked that posters stop deflecting the conversation on to me, my qualities, or my contributions, and answer the root question of the thread, or adequately address the criticisms of their offerings.

 

Your post was merely you repeating yourself, without ever addressing the criticisms of your "because the definition used to be this" argument in favor of opposition. So, I really don't feel the need to respond to any of it until you bring new information to the table... new information elucidating why "the definition used to be this" is a relevant argument to oppose gay marriage, one which is not directly rooted in bigotry... one which is not merely an argument from tradition... an argument which has also already been shown to be irrelevant.

Edited September 16, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[JillSwift]

would it not be best for the L&G (lesbisan and gay) community to just enjoy the fruits of what they have already achieved, and just sit tight, for now, until society in general catches up philosophically

 

Nothing changes unless people change it. Inertia is the cornerstone of societal stability, dissatisfaction is the motivator to overcome inertia, and only action can make it happen.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just to clarify for newcomers such as JillSwift, I do not oppose gay rights. But I most definitely oppose iNow's claim that anyone opposing gay marriage has no reason to do so (other than bigotry) and that he can use that as an excuse to be intolerant. Even more so, he uses it as an excuse to call his intolerance a good thing.

This depresses me.

 

You've used repetition of a baseless assertion to keep your definitional argument going not because it really makes sense, but because you've an axe to grind with iNow.

 

Given the number of people the issue effects, perhaps it would be wise, or at least kind, to let go of your bone with iNow and look at the problem dispassionately.

[Pangloss]

A civil union holds less rights than marriage.

 

They don't have to be unequal, they just presently are (but see my point below).

 

 

If the argument is that both couples should get the same rights but the ceremony should be getting a different name, then I would argue that this is semantics. I still wouldn't agree with its motives, and would claim that there is some underlying factor behind the notion but I would not make too much of a fuss over this.. it would be a good step towards equality.

 

I share this concern. I imagine that part of the motivation behind the push to call it marriage is to cut right through this possibility and just put it behind us before it can even happen. Consider, for example, that a civil union can only work as an equal option if employers (ALL employers!) fully support it, and don't split hairs and parse the meaning of a large and complex new federal law. And then there's the question of who would catch these people, and how much would it cost.

 

If we call it marriage we'll still have discrimination, but at least then any prosecution can take place using existing manpower, existing legal apparatus, and a very familiar set of laws. If, for example, an employer allows a straight employee to utilize a benefit but disallows a gay employee from doing the same, they can probably be caught more easily, prosecuted more readily, and will not have a defense of "oh, what new law?". Everybody already knows about marriage and its basic set of expected benefits.

 

Make THAT argument with the "I just want it called something else because marriage is a tradition that means man-and-woman" crowd and I think you might have more success than saying "You're a homophobe, be ashamed."

 

But hey, that's just my opinion.

[mooeypoo]

The problem is that the vast majority of the loud voices against gay marriage use the "strict" definition of marriage as an excuse.. for that matter, they* shout and scream against any form of homosexual-couples unification (adoption of children, living together, the gay parade, you name it) and so the claim about definition isn't really going to be solved by replacing the name to something else. They will oppose anything gay-marriage'y.

 

Hence the request to get secular reasoning (that is logical) for opposing gay marriage. It's not really about the strict definition; it's about the concept.

 

Heck, if it helps, call it whatever you wish to call it.

 

To be fair, it would still be considered bigoted to split the meaning here. If you compare to any other social group, such split in names would be considered utter bigotry, would it not? Can you imagine what the outcry would be like if people insisted that blacks could not be *married* but rather "bound by love" or something like that? Even if the definition held the same exact rights, the mere fact you are separating the two is hint of biggotry by itself.

 

But if it gets the job done, whatever. Call it poopsieroll. Just give the same rights.

 

 

* Note: By "they" I mean the loud voices not all those who oppose gay marriage, tho I'm still waiting to hear good reasons to oppose it that have nothing to do with religion.. am not convinced yet.

 

~moo

[Syntho-sis]

My mistake. Are you trying to defend other positions however by stating that they're merely copying someone else because they can't make up their own mind? I might be missing the relevence, however, I never said you thought there was a correlation between children's innocence and same sex marriage. I was trying to relate your point to the thread. The only one I can see is that some people may not hold their own opinions and just accept those of society. If that's it, then it's still wrong to deprive a minority of rights for the beliefs of a larger majority (assuming no harm is being done to either party)

 

I meant no attack previously however, though my statement was written in haste and may have been worded better.

 

I can empathize with why it may have came off that way, but in no way was I defending bigotry in any form (Even if it is born out of ignorance). The relevance I suppose was in correlation to the definition of what a bigot actually is and some examples of what might be considered bigotry but is really not.

 

I do not choose to defend someone who is intolerant of someone else for trivial reasons. Bigotry and hate have no place in an advanced society like our own.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Here's a perfectly good example of what bigotry actually is.

 

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/SexualImmorality/Homosexuality/Queers.htm

 

You notice how the hate is being rationalized by use of a certain manuscript?

 

Thing is I know people who apply these words to their own life...It's sad.

 

Better word...it's devastating.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Syntho-sis
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

Bigotry doesn't have to include hate. It can also come on its own as an irrational (meaning, without a justified logical reason) reaction.

 

The word bigotry can cause people to flinch a lot, and get them to go on the defensive. It's totally understandable, but maybe we should take into account here that bigotry does not necessarily mean hate or ignorance. I have a few issues I used to be bigoted about, too, for various social reasons; the first step, in my opinion, to becoming a more rational and socially moral person (yes, taking into account that morality is generally subjective) is acknowledging where some of my opinions come from.

 

Here's a generalized idea (the 'you' here is general, not meant for anyone in specific):

Forget about the thread and a debate about this subject in public. If you ask yourself why you believe what you believe, truly, in your heart, you might find that your stances have a deeper cause.

 

You don't have to have hatred for blacks to have bigotry towards blacks, just like you don't have to have hatred to homosexuals to be bigoted against homosexuals.

 

But if your stance is that homosexuals cannot be equal citizens, that is a bigoted position. Unless someone brings forth some better explanation as to why this isn't true, maybe the next best step for those of you who argue against equality is to think a bit more about where your stances originate.

 

I am definitely open minded to hearing of reasons that might show they stem from a rational explanation about gay marriage; so far, I've heard none, but worse than that, it seems that even those who argue "just about the definition of the word" seem to neglect the issue of practical equality by themselves.

 

I know posts disappear in long threads, but this is an important issue, and for those who claim they have rational positions against gay marriage, I believe you're still missing an answer to these two basic questions:

 

1. Regardless of definitions (that is, lets say that we all agree that gay marriage should have a different name, whatever it may be), do you support *total* equality in the eyes of the law?
   Take into account this equality does not currently exist.
   
2. Would you support invent a new name for the marriage of blacks, jews, biracial couples, small people, mentally retarded couples, asian couples or any other "different" couples?
   If so, then surely you acknowledge that the debate is shifting towards a much deeper issue here.
   And if not, then what logical reasoning would you offer to disagree with #2 but still push for the same statements only regarding LGBT couples?
   

I have asked these two questions in a few different methods twice in this thread, and while some answered, I didn't seem to get a satisfactory attention to these issues.

 

It seems to me that if we're arguing about a logical reasoning, those two questions must be answered and addressed before we continue to nitpick about the value of a specific word or definition.

 

~moo

[Syntho-sis]

I am definitely open minded to hearing of reasons that might show they stem from a rational explanation about gay marriage; so far, I've heard none, but worse than that, it seems that even those who argue "just about the definition of the word" seem to neglect the issue of practical equality by themselves.

~moo

 

I have nothing against homosexuals and I do consider them equals. If you assumed that I thought otherwise that is. I agree with most everything that has been put forth in support so far.

[mooeypoo]

I have nothing against homosexuals and I do consider them equals. If you assumed that I thought otherwise that is. I agree with most everything that has been put forth in support so far.

I don't assume anything, I asked for everyone (not just you) to address the questions I'm putting up for the third time.

[Mr Skeptic]

If you find yourself unable to respond politely, Mr. Skeptic, then please do not respond at all.

 

If you find yourself unable to counter the points I make, iNow, then please do not respond at all.

 

Further, this is like the seventh time I've asked that posters stop deflecting the conversation on to me, my qualities, or my contributions, and answer the root question of the thread, or adequately address the criticisms of their offerings.

 

And once again, you are ignoring all relevant content in my post and instead complaining that I am deflecting the conversation. It is in fact you who are deflecting the conversation because you cannot reply to it.

 

Your post was merely you repeating yourself, without ever addressing the criticisms of your "because the definition used to be this" argument in favor of opposition.

 

Just because you ignored it doesn't mean you can say I didn't counter it. Stop deflecting the conversation and answer, then I can reply to your new contribution rather than point out that you ignored mine.

 

So, I really don't feel the need to respond to any of it until you bring new information to the table... new information elucidating why "the definition used to be this" is a relevant argument to oppose gay marriage, one which is not directly rooted in bigotry... one which is not merely an argument from tradition... an argument which has also already been shown to be irrelevant.

 

Then respond to it instead of complaining how I am deflecting the conversation.

 

---

 

iNow, from observing your responses I have noted the following: your claim is that "there are no relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage". However, you are not at all supporting that claim. Instead whenever presented with a relevant secular reason, you are claiming that it is irrelevant because there are better (in your opinion) reasons on the other side. It therefore follows that you are actually defending claim, "there are no secular reasons good enough in my opinion to oppose gay marriage" which of course no one can present.

[mooeypoo]

iNow, from observing your responses I have noted the following: your claim is that "there are no relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage". However, you are not at all supporting that claim. Instead whenever presented with a relevant secular reason, you are claiming that it is irrelevant because there are better (in your opinion) reasons on the other side. It therefore follows that you are actually defending claim, "there are no secular reasons good enough in my opinion to oppose gay marriage" which of course no one can present.

Actually, seeing as the claim says there are none, the way to disprove it is to show that there actually are any such claims. That would mean someone coming up with those reasons...

 

I don't think iNow's claim is that there are better claims on the other side, I think his claim is that the reasonings are either not secular (they are superstitious, or religious in origin) or not rational (are inconsistent, for instance).

 

And I am still waiting for my two simple questions to be answered.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

This depresses me.

 

You've used repetition of a baseless assertion to keep your definitional argument going not because it really makes sense, but because you've an axe to grind with iNow.

 

No, but because it is an accurate argument and iNow is ignoring it. Before you accuse me of being the one arguing from repetition, I invite you to look up how many times iNow has repeated his claim and what evidence he has presented to support it when asked to support it.

 

Given the number of people the issue effects, perhaps it would be wise, or at least kind, to let go of your bone with iNow and look at the problem dispassionately.

 

My posts here will have little effect on the outside world, whereas iNow's intolerant behavior has a large effect on this forum. I do not go picking a fight with iNow, only correct him when he once again repeats his silly claim.