People of Maine, I feel your pain. You are being bombarded with information and emotional pleas on this. We Californians went through a similar situation a year ago, when we voted in the California Marriage Amendment. We adopted the amendment, it survived a challenge before the state supreme court, and California is still here. Gay people and same-sex couples are not suffering as a result.
Being a Californian, I can identify with that the folks in Maine are going through these days. People are being told they are bigots because they understand that marriage unites the sexes, and that state licensing of marriage should not be neutered to cater to the feelings of some people within a tiny minority. Don't surrender your vote to activists who try to guilt you with appeals to emotion. Vote to maintain marriage instead of allowing it to be redefined into meaninglessness. Affirm that both husbands and wives form the core of marriage. Do not go along with the devaluing of that important bride+groom dynamic. You don't have to disaprove of homosexual behavior to see that marriage unites a bride and a groom, and that is what the state licensing should reflect.
Our situation in California was a little different in that here, our supreme court imposed marriage neutering upon us, overriding our previous vote on a law that reaffirmed marriage, and then refused to stay their decision until after an impending vote to amend our state constitution could take place. In your state, it was the legislature that voted to neuter the licensing, and implementation was held back pending the vote by you.
Your time to be heard has come. You can have your say, and vote your conscience. There's nothing hateful or bigoted about honoring marriage in our state laws. Do not be intimidated or bullied.
Adapted from my blog entry, "The Case For Prop 8", here is a short case for "Yes on 1":
1. True rights do not obligate others without their consent.(1)
2. State licenses are granted by the people of a state per their consent.
3. The people of Maine have not directly consented to issue marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples.
4. Therefore, voluntary associations without a bride or a groom do not have a right to a state-issued marriage license.(2) Just as the legislature has sought to neuter marriage licensing, the people have the right to preserve bride+groom marriage licensing.
5. Voting "YES" on 1 restores marriage licensing requirements and preserves your self-government rights without hurting anyone.(3)
Please note that nowhere in this argument is there hatred or bigotry expressed, nor religion invoked.
For more, consult my Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant.
[Much more is right here after the jump.]
I suspect there will be harm if the official state policy is that there is no difference between a couple that unites the sexes and one that excludes one of the sexes. That would indicate that children are not the primary concern of the state involvement in marriage, and one less pressure for children to be born and raised within wedlock. After all, if marriage isn't about children, why bother to get married to raise them? How could adoption agencies give preference to placing a child in a home with both a mother and a father?
The main reason for the state to even be involved in voluntary personal relationships is because someone else can be brought into the situation without their own consent: children. Since it takes both a man and a woman to naturally produce children, that is where the state's interest is greatest. No same-sex pairings have ever produced children by themselves. The state has an interest in licensing and promoting bride-groom pairings that it does not have with other voluntary relationships. Yes, I'm well aware that not all man-woman pairings can or intend to produce children, but they are the only kind that can – and whether they want to or intend to are private matters, while your sex is on your government-held birth certificate.
We should not be doing things that encourage people to conceive or raise children without providing those children with one mother and one father who are in a healthy marriage together.
The state does not have an interest in promoting – or moral obligation to promote or celebrate – homosexual behavior, or treat the behavior the same as heterosexual behavior; namely, calling it marriage. Unlike heterosexual behavior, homosexual behavior does nothing to contribute to the larger society or perpetuate society.
Don't fall into these traps:
1. My [insert family relation here] is gay, and so I will vote "No".You have no moral obligation to vote "no" because you have a homosexual friend or family member, even if they have asked you to vote no. Do they vote according to your desires? Your vote is your vote. If you do not think a brideless or groomless pairing is marriage, vote "YES". Your loved one's happiness is their own responsibility.
2. I saw a really nice same-sex couple on TV, and they have children. I want those children to have married parents.Children do benefit from marriage, but mostly, if not entirely, because marriage gives them a mother and a father. Same-sex couples do not provide that. Whenever you see a same-sex couple with children, remember that those adults did something to create that situation, depriving those children of either a mother or a father. (The only other possibility was that the biological parent was widowed through actions that were not the fault of either themselves or their spouse.) They created that fatherless or motherless situation for the children by either using "third party" reproduction, or by one of them having sex with someone of the opposite sex outside of a stable, healthy marriage, or by otherwise picking the wrong person with whom to make children. You are under no obligation to change marriage laws for this reason. Other legal mechanisms can protect those children.
3. I'm tired of all of this. I just want it to go away. It is inevitable, so I'm voting "No" or just not voting.
It is not inevitable. Don't fall for the activist claims of momentum towards marriage neutering. Most states have recently affirmed traditional marriage. Even younger generations supposedly in favor of neutering marriage may change their understanding of marriage as they mature. Californians voted for their own California Marriage Amendment. Only a handful of states have neutered their marriage licensing, none by direct vote, most by court usurpation of power. It is entirely possible that the Supreme Court of the United States, as it exists today, would affirm traditional marriage. Marriage neutering activists suspect as much. You have to vote "YES" to preserve the status quo. Not voting gives your vote to the marriage neutering side.
The issue will not go away with a "No" vote, allowing the legislature's neutering of marriage licensing to stand. Marriage neutering advocates would not stop complaining even if neutered marriage became the law of the land written expressly in the Constitution, because someone is always going to realize, despite any changes to law, policy, school curriculum, etc. that there is a difference between the pairing of a man and a woman and the pairing of two men and the pairing of two women. As long as someone notes the difference, the advocates will be complaining about it. Don't embolden them by allowing Maine marriage licenses to be neutered.
4. I think goverment should get out of marriage entirely, so I am voting "No" or just not voting.That issue is not being put to direct a vote here, but if "No on 1" prevails, government involvement in marriage and personal relationships is increased, and a powerful coalition of activist groups will have incentive to keep the government involved in marriage. If you hold this position, you are better off voting "Yes" on 1.
See also:
What is the Harm of Neutering Marriage?
Sam Schulman on Kinship and Marriage
Stand to Reason (audio)
Dennis Prager on why doing things like voting "Yes" on 1 isn't like opposing "interracial" marriage.
Does the Constitution Disqualify Voting According to Religion?
Schools Aren't Required to Teach Marriage (But they will teach same-sex "marriage" and bride+groom marriage are one in the same.)
This blog entry of mine also gathers together some good links.
Hasn't Marriage Always Been Changing?
I Will Gladly Stay Out of Your Bedroom
Yes, Defending Marriage is Discrimination (all laws discriminate.)
Does Marriage Defense Create a Slippery Slope?
Notes:
(1)There is a right to free speech, for example, because each of us has been born with the ability to communicate. But that doesn't mean anyone has to listen to me, nor does Clear Channel have to provide me with billboard space free of charge.
(2)Under the principle of equal access/protection, some state and federal laws prohibit discrimination against individuals on the basis of certain traits, such as race, sex, and sexual orientation, so that a driver's license can't be denied to someone with darker skin if that person meets the same criteria as a person with lighter skin. However, bride-groom marriage licenses are available to all individuals, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation. It is not unconstitutional for the state to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently, as evidenced by numerous laws and regulations; monosexual couples are inherently a different kind of association than a couple uniting both sexes, because men and women are different. If men and women were not different, then the phrase "sexual orientation" would cease to have meaning, so it is impossible for anyone to argue that that there is no difference between men and women, and therefore same-sex and both-sex couplings, without removing their original argument. In other words, a homosexual man knows there is a difference – which is why he doesn't want to be married to a woman and instead wants to be "married" to a man.
That a homosexual man or woman does not want to obtain a marriage license under bride-groom marriage licensing does not mean that the licensing access is not equally provided or is flawed, nor does it necessitate change, any more than how we issue driver's licenses need be changed to accommodate a lifelong bicyclist. Since when does a segment of the population NOT wanting to use something other people are using obligate a universal change in that thing? Don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex? You don’t have to. Marriage is optional.
Equal access is provided with either a "Yes" or "No" vote, so the equal access argument is a red herring.
There is no natural right to a state-issued license – not a business license, not a professional license, not a driver’s license. State-issued licenses are issued on behalf of the people, because the people have chosen to issue them.
(3) California law treats same-sex domestic partners as spouses – with all of the legal attachments thereof that fall under state jurisdiction. Maine law can be changed to do the same thing. Voting "YES" on 1 will not stop anyone from living together, making vows and commitments, having ceremonies, exchanging rings, changing names, going on "honeymoon" trips, signing contracts, and asking other people (including business) to treat them as married. Such things all involve voluntarily consent and participation.
An added problem, I fear, is the language of Prop 1 that the state approved for the ballot. It reads “Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?”
ReplyDeleteThis was almost certainly written as such by those opposed to Proposition 1. Note that it attempts to confuse the less fully informed voter into believing that, just maybe, what a Yes vote on Prop 1 will do is thus require individuals and religious groups to perform same-sex "marriages" if asked. Or just totally confuse them about the meaning, thus causing them to vote No out of uncertainty.
If Prop 1 loses, the other side may rejoice, but they will if honest have to admit that there is a big cloud under it, due to this ambiguous wording, which renders any claim that the voters thus affirmed SSM highly uncertain.
Maine voters, just so you all understand: A No vote on Prop 1 will mean that marriage in your state is now gender-neutral. For everyone, not just gays. This is the image of marriage that will be ingrained into the minds of your children and grandchildren. Do you have any idea how this will affect them?
A Yes vote on Prop 1 will mean that marriage in your state is still man-woman only. Because it is still so, there will be no forcing of religious individuals or groups to perform same-sex "marriages". This will not change by voting Yes. Or by voting No, but remember that this clause was just a carrot to get more people to oppose Prop 1. Don't fall for it.
That carrot is not enough...it only restates what the First Amendment freedom of religion most undisputably means...that government can't tell religious groups how to practice their religion. It says nothing, however, about whether the government could (to use just one example) end the tax exemption of a religiously-affiliated group which refused to accept such "marriages".
A Yes vote on Prop 1 means no neutered marriage. A No vote means neutered marriage, and all that follows from that. That is the difference between Yes and No on this. Not anything else.
A Yes vote on Prop 1 means no.
ReplyDeleteThere's the problem.
Did Stand for Marriage take issue with the language on the ballot question?
I can see the potential for confusion. I would have been happy had the question been written as "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry?"
The shorthand for the issue is "Are you for gay marriage?" This may lead some very uninformed voters to vote "No" when they actually would have wanted to vote for this ballot question.
(I am not suggesting that stupid people are opposed to same-sex marriage, or that people opposed to SSM are stupid. I expect that a fair number of SSM supporters will cast "Yes" votes on the ballot question, just as I suspect a good number of SSM supporters signed the petition in Washington State.)
Okay, everybody, ENOUGH. Let's stop talking crap (no offense, but I'm just trying to be clear here). The fact that same-sex marriage was repealed is embarrassing. Why shouldn't gay marriage be allowed? It doesn't affect people who are straight AT ALL. Churches or other religious places don't have to marry gay people if they don't want to, all it means is that couples of the same-sex can get LEGALLY married.
ReplyDeleteIn the eyes of the government, marriage is pretty much a financial agreement. This way couples can join their bank accounts, insurance, etc.
The fact that people complain about it being called 'marriage' is also irrelevant. In calling it marriage, we are referring not to the Bible's definition, or even the dictionary's definition. It is the government's definition, by which we are all bound when it comes to legal matters.
All arguements against same-sex marriage that have to do with religion, mainly Christianity and the Bible, are completely unrelated. It is unconstitutional to bring up a religious point in this, because in the U.S. Consitution there is a big point of (first and foremost) clear separation between religion and state. It is a secular government (not non-religious, like communism, it just means that government and religion are separate matters and do not interfere with each other). Secondly, freedom of religion. Some religions accept gays, some don't, but saying that gay marriage is wrong or right by means of your religion should not even be brought up. So if you want to follow the Bible, go kill half the population of the world, because the Bible says that anyone who cheats or gets divorced should be stoned to death. Yes, you know as well as I do how horrible that would be (although I don't agree with divorce or cheating). That's because the Bible was written thousands of years ago! Times have changed, and many things cannot apply to society today.
Another argument that society's acceptance of gay couples is increasing the gay population is also untrue. There have been clear examples in history of same-sex attraction (for instance, Alexander the Great), but it has never been as openly accepted until now, so those who might have noticed an attraction to their same sex in themselves would have kept it to themselves. Just like people used to marry for political and financial gain instead of love is the struggle for gay couples to get married. People have just felt more comfortable admitting that they are gay in more recent times than ever before. Should people be denied happiness with someone they love? I don't think anyone should be denied true happiness. Should it be called marriage? Well what else should it be called? A civil union? What would a gay couple say on their wedding invitation: We cordially invite you to attend our civil union. Or over the phone to their parents: Hey Mom and Dad! I was just joined in a civil union with the love of my life! REALLY, GUYS?
What about land of the free? Let's give ourselves the freedom to love.
Welcome, Marian. Did you even read the entry on which you are commenting? Based on your statements, I'm guessing you haven't read it, or much of anything here. We take care to use logic and reason around here, not mere appeals to emotion or religious tradition.
ReplyDeleteWelcome, er...Playful Walrus? Anyhow, I appreciate you being decent to me, but I really would rather not be addressed condescendingly. I am not religious by any means, and I am completely straight. If this is to be a "mature" debate, then we cannot use this article. It is biased and by using inflammatory words and degrading adjectives it causes prejudice. I would really like to talk this over, but people just don't understand. My uncle was gay, and was constantly depressed. The sad part is, he was one of the brightest, most beautiful people I've ever met. But he was never accepted enough to be able to express himself. He wanted to get married to his partner and be happy, but could not. He was a flight attendant, and his wide use of sleeping pills and pain killers seemed normal, everyone thought it was just because of jet lag and tiredness. We soon found out that when he was in his low moods, he would take pain killers and drink. His sadness because he was incapable of being happy with his partner and was not socially accepted caused him to do this. One day, his liver gave out, he went into a coma, and after a week, he died. He was forty-eight. "Gay people and same-sex couples are not suffering as a result." This statement, quoted from the article, is untrue. I just proved it false. Sometimes logic and reason don't cut it, Walrus my friend. You have to dig deeper than that. Aristotle said, "Law is reason free of passion." I found that this is not true. To rule people, you must understand them, what drives them, what do they want. But people are driven by their emotions, and so you have to take into account emotions when it comes to making laws.
ReplyDelete@Marian,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. I have one question from this...
One day, his liver gave out, he went into a coma, and after a week, he died. He was forty-eight.
First, my condolances. To continue...
"Gay people and same-sex couples are not suffering as a result." This statement, quoted from the article, is untrue. I just proved it false.
Are you saying that your uncle died and suffered from Prop 8 passing as constitutional law?
"The fact that people complain about it being called 'marriage' is also irrelevant."
ReplyDeleteNo, it isn't. Words mean things. If it was irrelevant, California's Domestic Parterships law would be enough for same-sex couples, since it treats them like spouses.
"It is the government's definition, by which we are all bound when it comes to legal matters."
And who gets to determine the government's definition?
"All arguements against same-sex marriage that have to do with religion, mainly Christianity and the Bible, are completely unrelated."
I have made arguments defending the bride+groom requirement without invoking religion, Christianity, or the Bible.
"So if you want to follow the Bible, go kill half the population of the world, because the Bible says that anyone who cheats or gets divorced should be stoned to death."
You're taking this off on a tangent. But I will address this anyway. It's called studying the whole Bible. The Bible does NOT instruct ME to to kill adulterers or the divorced.
"That's because the Bible was written thousands of years ago!"
That doesn't negate anything it teaches.
"Times have changed, and many things cannot apply to society today."
Yes, but we still are a society comprised of both men and women, and that is the heart of the issue.
"Should people be denied happiness with someone they love?"
Someone chooses whether or not to be happy independent of anyone else. If someone chooses to make their happiness dependent on another, they are at the mercy of that other person's behavior or consent. If you are talking about a life partner, it is easier to get that consent. If you are talking about voters... you are basing your happiness on something you shouldn't.
"What would a gay couple say on their wedding invitation: We cordially invite you to attend our civil union."
That's their matter to deal with. There is no law against them calling it a wedding.
"Let's give ourselves the freedom to love."
Clearly, people have the freedom to love without a state license. It happens all of the time.
"My uncle was gay, and was constantly depressed."
That is sad.
"But he was never accepted enough to be able to express himself."
Ever been to the Castro District in San Francisco? West Hollywood? Long Beach? Those places are filled with homosexual people who receive lots of acceptance and affirmation. They celebrate. They express themselves plenty(just check out Halloween, or pride events). Guess what? Some of them are still depressed.
"He wanted to get married to his partner and be happy, but could not."
He could not be happy without a state license? Our with a domestic partnership?
"His sadness because he was incapable of being happy with his partner and was not socially accepted caused him to do this."
This is speculation.
"One day, his liver gave out, he went into a coma, and after a week, he died. He was forty-eight."
That's terrible. I wouldn't wish that on hardly anyone, and it is too bad he didn't live to be a ripe old age. You have my sympathies - sincerely.
"But people are driven by their emotions, and so you have to take into account emotions when it comes to making laws."
To a certain extent, yes, but feelings do not trump facts. Some of those facts:
1. Coitus is how we all got here. It is usually how new citizens are made. Even without coitus, it still takes a female's egg and male's sperm.
2. Homosexual sodomy and platonic activities never make new citizens.
3. All of society is comprised of two basic ingredients: men and women.
4. Men and women are different.
5. Both-sexes pairings, as a category, are a different kind of voluntary association than the pairing of two people of the same sex.
6. The state does not have the same interest in same-sex pairings, or trios, or quads that it does in uniting a man and a woman.
On Lawn, thank you for your reply. Yes, I am saying that my uncle's death was partially caused by society's refusal to accept gay people, and their should-be right to get married. His sadness and depression made him take more pain killers, which in turn damaged his liver and pancreas. This made him die.
ReplyDeleteMarian, it's always very easy to blame it all on society or the laws, or lack of them, in cases like your uncle's. The idea that "if only he could have been married, it all would have been so much better", may be emotionally tempting, but it may well not have been the case.
ReplyDeleteThere are many homosexual couples who live long lives without marriage licenses. The first thing I'd ask, therefore, is, what are they doing differently, and how might that have helped your uncle?
Secondly, even if marriage were neutered, that would not be a magic cure-all for society's prejudices against gays, as much as SSM advocates would like to believe that it would. The fact that there are very real differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality in itself guarantees that. You can only go so far in trying to force people to pretend that two things are the same when they are obviously not. Even if marriage were neutered, many in society would still not accept homosexuals and heterosexuals equally.
Indeed, my feeling is that many who are quite willing to accept their gay neighbors will be less willing to do so if they are declared "married". Because "live and let live" would then be replaced with "pretend there's no difference" as the correct attitude that people are supposed to convey. And while most people are quite willing to take the first position, getting them to take the second will take coercion of the mind which many will strongly resent and resist. Because of this, I feel that if SSM were legalized nationally, there may be a temporary period of euphoria among gays. But after only a few years that would wear off as they come to realize that sameness according to the law does not translate into sameness in reality, and that whatever caused the depression before was still present.
Indeed, the depression may be even worse when there is no cultural or political goal left that it is hoped will make things better.
I am sorry that your uncle was depressed. I am sorry he left your life way too soon. But I would strongly venture that more was involved in this than just society's prejudices, and that even if it were only that, being able to officially "marry" would not have made much difference, if any.
Marian, have you come across any of the following articles?:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/2932146.html
http://www.vtmarriage.org/resources/mstewart_duke_glmarriage_elision.pdf.
"No, it isn't. Words mean things. If it was irrelevant, California's Domestic Parterships law would be enough for same-sex couples, since it treats them like spouses."
ReplyDeleteYes, words mean things, but the fact that straight people won't "share" the title of "married" is sad. It doesn't affect them at all. If they don't like it, they can just ignore it. They will be just as happy in their relationship as they were before. In my opinion, if that is what they have to complain about, they need more problems in their lives, because the name of a union should be a very minor detail that is pretty much insignificant.
"And who gets to determine the government's definition?"
Uh, the government. The words in this thing called The Constitution. How old are you again?
"I have made arguments defending the bride+groom requirement without invoking religion, Christianity, or the Bible."
Good for you! But then why, if not religion, ARE your motives for your views? Give me some good reasons here, not just "it shouldn't be called marriage".
"You're taking this off on a tangent. But I will address this anyway. It's called studying the whole Bible. The Bible does NOT instruct ME to to kill adulterers or the divorced."
ReplyDeleteUm, well, actually, yes it does. And it's not a tangents, it's part of the Bible, so it's included in "THE WHOLE BIBLE". Who gets to say what we follow and what we ignore?
"That doesn't negate anything it teaches."
Well, perhaps not for you as an individual. But for modern society, some of the things the Bible says just cannot be applied to the modern world. I agree with the Ten Commandments, but things like discriminating against homosexuals are absolutely out of date. The Bible was written so that people would have morals and follow the law.
"Yes, but we still are a society comprised of both men and women, and that is the heart of the issue."
Wow, you really are an observer. Yes, no new genders have been added to the world. But just like forty years ago people discriminated against African-Americans because of their skin color, today people discriminate against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation. That is sexual harassment, and is against the law.
"Someone chooses whether or not to be happy independent of anyone else. If someone chooses to make their happiness dependent on another, they are at the mercy of that other person's behavior or consent. If you are talking about a life partner, it is easier to get that consent. If you are talking about voters... you are basing your happiness on something you shouldn't."
ReplyDeleteI doubt happiness is totally independent. If everyone around you has been degrading and mean all your life, you wouldn't be a happy person. So happiness IS dependent on other people, especially if they are people (or a person) you love. That's what love is (or partly what love is). If the other person isn't happy (and this might manifest in picking on others), you aren't happy. That's what causes broken hearts...you love someone and they cheat on you, break up with you, etc.
"That's their matter to deal with. There is no law against them calling it a wedding."
Good to know, but besides the point. And what are they going to say if someone asks if they're "together": Oh, yes, we've been joined in a civil union, thanks for asking?
"Clearly, people have the freedom to love without a state license. It happens all of the time."
Did you graduate from high school? It's a METAPHOR, so don't take it that literally. I just don't think it's fair that people are denied civil rights because of WHO they love. Also, millions of straight couples get married, yet 50% of them get divorced. And we're not allowing people who really love each other to even get married? That doesn't seem fair to me all. Before you can ban marriage, ban divorce.
"That is sad."
ReplyDeleteYes, it is, so help end it!
"Ever been to the Castro District in San Francisco? West Hollywood? Long Beach? Those places are filled with homosexual people who receive lots of acceptance and affirmation. They celebrate. They express themselves plenty(just check out Halloween, or pride events). Guess what? Some of them are still depressed."
That's great for them! My uncle lived in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, not the Castro District or Long Beach or wherever. And obviously some of them are still depressed, lots of straight people are allowed expression and marriage rights and are still depressed. I'm saying my uncle was depressed because where he lived he was not accepted. We can't just make every gay person move to the Castro District.
"He could not be happy without a state license? Our with a domestic partnership?"
Not completely, no. It was like women not being able to vote. Well can't they be happy without voting? Yeah, duh, obviously, but they still want to be able to legally vote!
"This is speculation."
No, actually. Because see, he was my uncle, so we knew what was going on. You can't just say it's speculation on my/my family's part when you don't know the situation or my uncle or even me.
"That's terrible. I wouldn't wish that on hardly anyone, and it is too bad he didn't live to be a ripe old age. You have my sympathies - sincerely."
Thank you, I'm glad you aren't totally against gay people.
"To a certain extent, yes, but feelings do not trump facts. Some of those facts:
1. Coitus is how we all got here. It is usually how new citizens are made. Even without coitus, it still takes a female's egg and male's sperm."
I'm glad to see you passed sex ed, but you are going off on a tangent. We're not talking about gay sex, we're talking about gay marriage. We're not talking about straight sex or straight marriage. I'm not saying straight people are bad at all, I'm just saying that society should accept homosexuals and let them get married like everyone else. And by the way, gays can still have sex without getting married, so that's besides the point. And there are plenty of orphans that need to be adopted. A gay couple can be as just good parents as a straight couple can.
"2. Homosexual sodomy and platonic activities never make new citizens."
That's right, they can't, so what's the problem? Again, there are hundred of kids who need to be adopted into loving families.
"3. All of society is comprised of two basic ingredients: men and women."
That's right! There are two genders in the world: male and female. Good one!
"4. Men and women are different."
Yes, they are. I already know that. Everyone's different. What's your point?
"5. Both-sexes pairings, as a category, are a different kind of voluntary association than the pairing of two people of the same sex."
Great! I know this too. WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
"6. The state does not have the same interest in same-sex pairings, or trios, or quads that it does in uniting a man and a woman."
"6. The state does not have the same interest in same-sex pairings, or trios, or quads that it does in uniting a man and a woman."
In this statement, you make gay intimacies sound trashy. They can be just as romantic as straight ones. And then you make straight people sound holy, like "uniting a man and a woman". Well men and women can have threesomes and foursomes too, by the way!
Marian: ...the fact that straight people won't "share" the title of "married" is sad. It doesn't affect them at all.
ReplyDeleteMarian, in your above post you complained about being addressed condescendingly.
Well, I'm sorry, but anyone who makes statements like this is very likely to be addressed condescendingly, because such statements indicate that they are totally clueless about what the issue is about. Either that or they know full well what the issue is about, but want to keep trying to deflect it away by returning to the tired "how does it hurt YOUR marriage" line.
It is NOT, I repeat, NOT about the present generation of heterosexual marriages. It is about the future generations and how their perception of what marriage means will be completely distorted.
Show me even one opponent of SSM who has said that they oppose it because it somehow threatens their own particular marriage, or that they think that they will be more likely to divorce because of it.
This is a straw man. But it leads us to the question of this thread, that is, Maine (and California as well), and why the argument about the schools was effective, and why the attempt by SSM proponents to refute it fell flat.
In Maine, as in California and in other states, advocates of SSM tried hard to frame the issue merely as one of individual rights, that it was only about "allowing gays to marry", and that it was not going to change, let alone negatively affect, anyone else at all.
ReplyDeleteBut in order for that argument to be effective, it is also necessary to avoid as much as possible any implication that the issue is about how the cultural view of marriage is going to be changed or altered in the future, or to ask how different it is going to be for future generations of children growing up, when they have it ingrained from birth on that marriage is just between "any two persons".
Do you acknowledge that this IS what this issue is about, or at least that this is one of the questions that needs to be asked?
Do you acknowledge that it at least needs to be asked how this is going to affect children's perception of what marriage means (and all that that implies) in the future?
When the issue of what children were going to be taught in schools was raised, both in California and in Maine, it brought these questions into the debate. And let's be honest, those on the pro-SSM side did not want these questions entering the debate at all.
Because when these questions are asked, for all the arguments you may hear about whether the effects would be good or bad, the fact is that many people, including many people who have known gay people, or have gay friends, or are sympathetic to gay people in most other respects, have to admit that this is a radical change in the cultural understanding of marriage through human history, that we have no idea how such a massive change could affect future generations, and that in any untested radical change the possibility of negative unintended consequences is huge. In short, that neutering marriage is a huge step in the dark, and that even if Massachusetts, Canada, and the Netherlands have taken the first few steps, the many steps ahead are still dark.
Hence, when the issue was raised of whether or not children would be taught in the schools that marriage was now just "between any two persons", did the proponents of SSM simply say "Of course. Whay shouldn't they be?"
ReplyDeleteNo. Because they kew full well that this was taking the debate where they did not want it to go.
Thus some really curious, and ultimately lame, attempts at refutation were made.
The first was that according to state laws, it isn't even required that marriage be taught in the schools.
So were they saying thus that children were likely to go through their entire K-through-12 years without ever hearing any major discussion of marriage?
Naturally, the public, or at least those that gave it much thought, didn't believe that for a minute.
Or were they saying that when marriage was discussed, if it were officially between any two persons regardless of gender, that it would still be talked about in the schools as if it were just between men and women?
Well, the people that thought about it didn't buy that for one minute either.
Then there was the ad accusing supporters of Prop 1 of "scare tactics" and stating "Maine educators wouldn't do anything that was inappropriate".
As if most of the people did not know full well that that depends on whose definition of "inappropriate" we're talking about.
It appears that when these issues are brought up, and the question of how this will affect future generations is opened up as such, support for neutering marriage/SSM drops by several percentage points. This seems to have happened in California and Maine.
And it seems that advocates of SSM know this, which is why they do not want these very relevant questions to even be brought up, and constantly accuse those that do bring them up of "lying".
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMarian, your attempt to hyper-personalize the discussion is typical of SSM argumentation.
ReplyDeleteBut let's suppose that your anecdote is verifiable (not that it need be verified here in this discussion nor that verification is requested here), and let's suppose that your diagnosis of your uncle is correct (not that you have given any evidence beyond your speculation), and let's further suppose that the tonic for his recovery would have been a license to SSM.
Did you not encourage your uncle to visit Canada and attain for himself the necessary paperwork? Visitors need not reside in Canada to attain the license, to do the civil ceremony, and to register as SSM'd. Indeed, some people have visited for a few days and then returned claiming to be SSM'd and demanding to be treated as married in their place of residence. There is no evidence that these people are more -- or less -- suicidal than those who have not made the visit to Canada for this purpose. Those SSM'd in Canada either experienced the acceptance you demand or on return they experienced direct rejection of the SSM status in which you'd invest as the great psychological/emotional balm.
I doubt that you really meant that the paperwork was the solution. Nor that acceptance is the outcome.
Nor that the license was an actual pyschological or emotional remedy. Nor that suicide in Canada is nonexistent -- nor that the rate amongst the "gay" population has taken a sharp decline and that the imposition of SSM has saved the lives of depressed people.
Your anecdote can be fairly put aside as an attempt of yours to impose a false moral equivalence via emotivism. It is not nothing, but it is not the magic pill you might think.
Afterall, there are people who experience genetic sexual attraction, are very depressed due to that -- and feel that their malady is made worse by the social taboo on incestuous sexual relations -- and they wish that society would issue them a license to marry. They have children. 'Accept us', they plea, 'and make us whole.'
ReplyDeleteThere are polygamous families in much the same boat. And polyamorous people, too. Underaged people have made the same emotional appeal. Even lone individuals.
These examples openly exist in Canada where SSM has been imposed on all of society. Why did SSM get special treatment there? Gay identity politics. Nothing to do with suicide rates.
No, I think that you are placing yourself among the promise makers of the SSM campaign.
If you want to claim that issuing a license for SSM is the medical treatment for an emotional or psychological malady, then, you will need to provide evidence that such an imposition on all of society has achieved the results anyplace in the world. Otherwise, your promise is empty rhetoric.
You are instead asserting a social remedy to what you perceive to be a social malady.
The gay-straight dichotomy is false when it comes to the marriage law. You said that SSM is not about "gay sex". Fair enough. But marriage, at its core, entails a sexual basis that is extrinsic to all one-sexed arrangements -- gay or not. That basis is expressed in provisions for consummation, annulment, adultery, divorce, and, most importantly, the marital presumption of paternity.
SSM may not be about gay sex, in your view, but you have emphasized gayness throughout your comments. Why?
Gayness is not the basis for ineligibility to marry; nor is straightness the basis for eligibility. Marriage is neutral regarding identity groups but is not sex-neutral.
However, in your comments, you injected gayness into marriage eligibility/ineligibility; you injected gay identity politics even as you denied that SSM is about gay sex.
Please plainly state how SSM is different from the rest of the broad range of scenarios in the nonmarriage category -- the many types of relationships and many types of arrangements which are not defined as "gay". Most of the nonmarriage category is not sexualized, but some subsets are. Obviously neither romance, love, nor consent trump the lines drawn around the core meaning of marriage in our customs, traditions, and legal system.
Perhaps there would be no such lines drawn around SSM, whatever SSM might be?
Which takes you back to RK's comments and the reasonable challenge he has made to you.
I'll augment by suggesting you consider articulating the premise of your previous comments:
What do you think must be abolished from the law, and from the culture, if the imposition of SSM is to achieve the goal(s) or the purpose(s) you expect of it?
"It doesn't affect them at all."
ReplyDeleteCounterfeits do affect the authentic.
"Uh, the government. The words in this thing called The Constitution."
The Constitution doesn't define marriage. The people who wrote and adopted the Constitution knew marriage as a bride+institution, and the Constitution supposedly reserves responsibilities not assigned to the federal government to the people or states.
The people get to set their laws, either by direct vote or through electing legislators.
"But then why, if not religion, ARE your motives for your views?"
The state has an interest in promoting and regulating the bride+groom relationship that it doesn't have with other personal relationships - all personl relationships are voluntary associations. We should not invite government intrusion into personal relationships without a very good reason. In the case of bride+groom, it is the only kind of relationship that can naturally produce new citizens, who are minors and did not consent to the relationship, and provide them with a role model from each of the two basic components of society.
Conversely, give us a good reason why a brideless or groomless pairing should be called marriage by the state, which represents the people.
"Um, well, actually, yes it does."
No, the Bible does not instruct me, a Christian living in the U.S.A., to kill adulterers and divorcees. You may (although you haven't produced it here) find instructions to Isrealites living under a theocracy and a different covenant to do so. Conversely, Jesus Christ and Biblical authors reaffirmed marriage as a bride+groom institution, even under a new covenant.
"I agree with the Ten Commandments, but things like discriminating against homosexuals are absolutely out of date."
The Bible distinguishes sex between spouses (bride+groom) as holy and distinct from all other sex or pseudosexual behavior, which is sinful. Is that what you're talking about?
"But just like forty years ago people discriminated against African-Americans because of their skin color, today people discriminate against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation."
Some people do this, yes. I don't. But this doesn't prove anything. That some people did something in the past, does not obligate us to do something else differently in the present. More people used to use outhouses, too, but now use indoor plumbing with running water. Does that mean you shouldn't be able to listen to radio? It's unrelated.
"I doubt happiness is totally independent. If everyone around you has been degrading and mean all your life, you wouldn't be a happy person."
We have freedom of association.
"It's a METAPHOR, so don't take it that literally."
It's called bait and switch. You want us to believe that we are somehow preventing two people from loving each other. You put it forth as an appeal to emotion, and then when we call you on it, you call it a metaphor. There is a HUGE difference from NOT issuing a state license vs. invading someone's home with guns drawn to break two people up from being together.
>>6. The state does not have the same interest in same-sex pairings, or trios, or quads that it does in uniting a man and a woman."<<
"In this statement, you make gay intimacies sound trashy. They can be just as romantic as straight ones. And then you make straight people sound holy, like "uniting a man and a woman". Well men and women can have threesomes and foursomes too, by the way!"
Yes, I was not excluding heterosexual treesomes and foursomes. I was saying, and it still stands, that the state does not have the same sex pairings, or trios, etc. (of ANY combination) that it does in the uniting of a man and a woman.
Should we, via the state, issue marriage licenses to two heterosexual men?
“Marian, your attempt to hyper-personalize the discussion is typical of SSM argumentation.”
ReplyDeletePerhaps, but I could care less if I’m typical or not. I am not trying to personalize the discussion. I am just bringing up a real life example of the tolls of people not allowing same-sex marriage. “But let's suppose that your anecdote is verifiable (not that it need be verified here in this discussion nor that verification is requested here), and let's suppose that your diagnosis of your uncle is correct (not that you have given any evidence beyond your speculation), and let's further suppose that the tonic for his recovery would have been a license to SSM.”
Why are you treating my uncle’s death like it was some sort of business contract? Verifiable? Death is a very real thing. Happens everyday, in case you didn’t know. I am not speculating, and I’m truly offending at your treatment. If you think I’m lying about my uncle, I have some of his ashes. I also have the hospital papers that my father signed to take him off life support after he was in a coma for a week.
“Did you not encourage your uncle to visit Canada and attain for himself the necessary paperwork? Visitors need not reside in Canada to attain the license, to do the civil ceremony, and to register as SSM'd. Indeed, some people have visited for a few days and then returned claiming to be SSM'd and demanding to be treated as married in their place of residence. There is no evidence that these people are more -- or less -- suicidal than those who have not made the visit to Canada for this purpose. Those SSM'd in Canada either experienced the acceptance you demand or on return they experienced direct rejection of the SSM status in which you'd invest as the great psychological/emotional balm.”
YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT. Homosexuals shouldn’t have to go to Canada to get married! Why can’t their right to be legally joined happen HERE? My gosh, you all scare me with your discrimination. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH GAY MARRIAGE. It doesn’t affect anyone BUT THEMSELVES.
“I doubt that you really meant that the paperwork was the solution. Nor that acceptance is the outcome.”
ReplyDeleteI don’t think any of you understand how discrimination works. You cannot say that you do not discriminate against homosexuals unless you allow them all the rights that you have as a straight person. In order to end gay discriminations, all rights that are given to straight couples must be given to same-sex couples.
“Nor that the license was an actual pyschological or emotional remedy. Nor that suicide in Canada is nonexistent -- nor that the rate amongst the "gay" population has taken a sharp decline and that the imposition of SSM has saved the lives of depressed people.”
Perhaps not lives, no, but if happiness could be measured just like lives, I’m sure you’d see a big difference.
“Your anecdote can be fairly put aside as an attempt of yours to impose a false moral equivalence via emotivism. It is not nothing, but it is not the magic pill you might think.”
Oh, wow. Have you not read all my past arguments? I’m not going to restate everything again and again from every person who comes to claim that straight couples are superior to gay couples. I don’t care if SSM is a “magic pill” or not, but it should be allowed nationwide (worldwide, even). And by the way, ‘emotivism’ is not a word. Check your dictionary!
“Afterall, there are people who experience genetic sexual attraction, are very depressed due to that -- and feel that their malady is made worse by the social taboo on incestuous sexual relations -- and they wish that society would issue them a license to marry. They have children. 'Accept us', they plea, 'and make us whole.'”
ReplyDeleteThat’s great…Your point?
“There are polygamous families in much the same boat. And polyamorous people, too. Underaged people have made the same emotional appeal. Even lone individuals.”
If them getting married doesn’t affect me, then I don’t care what they do. Under-aged people might be the only exception, because all they have to do is wait to become old enough. There is a reason why minors can’t get married, because a person’s frontal judgmental lobes in their brain aren’t fully developed until they’re 25.
“These examples openly exist in Canada where SSM has been imposed on all of society. Why did SSM get special treatment there? Gay identity politics. Nothing to do with suicide rates.”
That’s great for them. We’re not in Canada. What’s your point? You really are garrulous.
“No, I think that you are placing yourself among the promise makers of the SSM campaign.”
What is that supposed to mean to me?
“If you want to claim that issuing a license for SSM is the medical treatment for an emotional or psychological malady, then, you will need to provide evidence that such an imposition on all of society has achieved the results anyplace in the world. Otherwise, your promise is empty rhetoric.”
ReplyDeleteIf you really can’t handle it with maturity, we can totally ignore my uncle’s example.
“You are instead asserting a social remedy to what you perceive to be a social malady.”
What on god’s green earth are you talking about?
“The gay-straight dichotomy is false when it comes to the marriage law. You said that SSM is not about "gay sex". Fair enough. But marriage, at its core, entails a sexual basis that is extrinsic to all one-sexed arrangements -- gay or not. That basis is expressed in provisions for consummation, annulment, adultery, divorce, and, most importantly, the marital presumption of paternity.”
I don’t care what marriage “implies”. In the law’s terms, it is a financial transaction.
“SSM may not be about gay sex, in your view, but you have emphasized gayness throughout your comments. Why?”
Because if we (meaning, straight people) consider homosexuals as our equals, they must be allowed all the same rights as we do. Including martial laws. I don’t care what they do in private. SSM is not about gay sex, in my view or in any view, because homosexuals can have sex without getting married. Straight people can have sex without getting married. So that is completely irrelevant.
“Gayness is not the basis for ineligibility to marry; nor is straightness the basis for eligibility. Marriage is neutral regarding identity groups but is not sex-neutral.”
ReplyDeleteYou are basically saying: Well marriage is for all sexes, but you can only get married with the opposite sex. Understand that in a gay couple, one person will feel more like a woman, and the other will feel like a man.
“However, in your comments, you injected gayness into marriage eligibility/ineligibility; you injected gay identity politics even as you denied that SSM is about gay sex.”
No, actually, I didn’t.
“Please plainly state how SSM is different from the rest of the broad range of scenarios in the nonmarriage category -- the many types of relationships and many types of arrangements which are not defined as "gay". Most of the nonmarriage category is not sexualized, but some subsets are. Obviously neither romance, love, nor consent trump the lines drawn around the core meaning of marriage in our customs, traditions, and legal system.”
We are not talking about other scenarios. We are talking about SSM. So no, I will not go off on your tangent and talk about other scenarios, although as I previously said, as long as them getting legally married doesn’t affect me, I don’t mind.
“Perhaps there would be no such lines drawn around SSM, whatever SSM might be?”
I’m talking about SSM. SSM is same-sex marriage…what are you talking about?
“Which takes you back to RK's comments and the reasonable challenge he has made to you.”
Please enlighten me, as I have been argued against by so many people, that I really don’t remember names, nor do I have the time to read back through every person’s arguments.
“What do you think must be abolished from the law, and from the culture, if the imposition of SSM is to achieve the goal(s) or the purpose(s) you expect of it?”
ReplyDeleteAll humans are equal. We cannot say we consider homosexuals and straight people equals until we give them the same rights, including the right to be legally married.
Playful Walrus:
“Counterfeits do affect the authentic.”
Are you saying that love between people of the same sex is invalid and false?
“The state has an interest in promoting and regulating the bride+groom relationship that it doesn't have with other personal relationships - all personl relationships are voluntary associations. We should not invite government intrusion into personal relationships without a very good reason. In the case of bride+groom, it is the only kind of relationship that can naturally produce new citizens, who are minors and did not consent to the relationship, and provide them with a role model from each of the two basic components of society.”
In a homosexual couple, one person will feel more like a man, and the other like a woman (like I stated previously). So if they adopt a child, that child will get the same “role models” or influences as they would with a heterosexual couple as parents. The science part about breast-feeding etc., most baby orphans are weaned by the time they are adopted, and if they aren’t, there are plenty of suitable substitutes for a mother’s milk. But we are not talking about a gay couple’s rights to adopt children (which they can do without being married), we are talking about their right to be married.
“Conversely, give us a good reason why a brideless or groomless pairing should be called marriage by the state, which represents the people.”
ReplyDeletePlease see above. Additionally, you just stated that the state represents the people. That is true. But the people is composited of EVERYONE, including minorities, no matter how small.
“The Bible distinguishes sex between spouses (bride+groom) as holy and distinct from all other sex or pseudosexual behavior, which is sinful. Is that what you're talking about?”
Yes, that is exactly what I’m talking about.
“Some people do this, yes. I don't. But this doesn't prove anything. That some people did something in the past, does not obligate us to do something else differently in the present. More people used to use outhouses, too, but now use indoor plumbing with running water. Does that mean you shouldn't be able to listen to radio? It's unrelated.”
No actually, it is completely related. I will once again state that in order for everyone to be equal, everyone must be given the same rights.
“We have freedom of association.”
Yes, but you cannot choose who is around you. You can’t choose who your parents are, your siblings, teachers, co-workers, bosses...the list goes on and on.
“Yes, I was not excluding heterosexual treesomes and foursomes. I was saying, and it still stands, that the state does not have the same sex pairings, or trios, etc. (of ANY combination) that it does in the uniting of a man and a woman.”
Which is wrong, that is why we are trying to CHANGE THE LAW.
Marian, in this comment section you immediately tried to hyper-personalize the discussion. Now you denied it ...
ReplyDeleteBut then you did it again: " If you think I’m lying ..."
As I said, no one has asked for verification and we can proceed with the example on its face value. I did just that in my response to you.
Your reaction is to hyper-personalize all over again.
Death does occur all the time, sure, but you insisted that your acedote was a specific example of death caused by lack of a license to SSM. Your notion was discussed in my previous comment in which I treated it as a real life example.
In your subsequent comment you missed the point. Where there is no license to SSM, suicide rates and the lack of a license to SSM do not correlate the way you suggested. And, in Canada, where residents (and nonresidents) can get a license to SSM, there is no correlation in the opposite direction -- neither in Canada nor here.
Furthermore, the participation rate in SSM in Canada by the homosexual adult population is very, very, low and declining. This is so even in locations, such as Toronto, which boast about a high concentration of homosexual adults and a high degree of social acceptance and, indeed, positive reinforcement. Suicide -- and health measures too -- in such places are no different than in places in the USA where marriage amendments have been ratified.
In reality, your anecdotal example does not illustrate what you claimed. Maybe you think it serves a purpose other than an opportunity to hyper-personalization, but you haven't illustrated that either.
It might have been just rhetorical excess on your part. That's no crime.
But neither is it a substantive argument.
Marian you asserted that, "In order to end gay discriminations, all rights that are given to straight couples must be given to same-sex couples."
ReplyDeleteNot all 'same-sex couples' are gay couples. Most are NOT.
You are confusing categories. Perhaps you would invest sexual meaning in the word 'couples'. But most one-sexed arrangements are not sexualized.
Please be specific about what the term, 'same-sex couples', means to you.
Marian said: "claim that straight couples are superior to gay couples"
ReplyDeleteStrawman.
Please try to do better at accurately represent what others have said here.
Marian said: "I don’t care what marriage “implies”. In the law’s terms, it is a financial transaction."
ReplyDeleteWrong.
You are falling into your own trap. This, too, is typical of SSM argumentation. The SSMer will say that because there are financial considerations, then, marriage is only a financial transaction in legal terms. No such narrow view is implied in the law. Nor is it made explicit in the law.
Meanwhile, you have implied in your comments that gay identity is at the root of the demand for SSM. Yet you also have explicitly denied that this is the basis of your view of SSM.
Besides, as I said, in terms of the law there is a sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery-divorce, and most importantly the marital presumption of paternity. These provisions are not merely implied. They are entailed in the consent to marry. The sexual basis is opposite-sexed, not one-sexed and not sex-neutral.
This sexual basis is NOT a financial transaction. Not between the husband and the wife; and not between them and the government (on behalf of society).
That there are financial considerations does not imply that marriage is just a financial transaction in legal terms. It implies no such thing.
But you have also distanced your claims about the law from the sentimentalism that you have repeatedly invoked as the basis for SSM. Please reconcile this apparent contradiction, if you can.
Marin said: "Understand that in a gay couple, one person will feel more like a woman, and the other will feel like a man."
ReplyDeleteIs that a joke?
I dunno. If you say so, okay, for the sake of discussion...
Now, how does that answer what I said about your injecting gayness into eligibility/ineligibility?
I will note that you have declined to show that SSM is different from the rest of the nonmarriage category. And that you shrugged -- without much consideration -- at the prospect of including the rest of that category along with SSM.
ReplyDeleteThat is the logical conclusion of SSM argumentation. In effect, you are not really arguing in favor of SSM but rather against the special status of marriage.
* * *
Marian said: "SSM is same-sex marriage…what are you talking about?"
What are you talking about when you refer to "same-sex marriage"? What differentiates it from the rest?
Nevermind. As noted above, you'd shrug and assert that there is no difference between marriage and nonmarriage.
Sure, you talk about the stuff that flows from marital status, but you don't have much to say about the thing from which that stuff flows. It must be rendered as meaningless as SSM, in your view, perhaps.
Still, what is SSM? You haven't been clear, specific, and forthright on that quesition, yet.
I had asked: “What do you think must be abolished from the law, and from the culture, if the imposition of SSM is to achieve the goal(s) or the purpose(s) you expect of it?”
ReplyDeleteMarian did not answer but offered this instead:
"All humans are equal. We cannot say we consider homosexuals and straight people equals until we give them the same rights, including the right to be legally married."
There is no "straight" criterion for eligibility and no "homosexual" criterion for ineligiblity.
You mean to say that SSM should be made the equivalent of marriage in the law, right?
To do that you will need to begin with what you mean by SSM. No circular thinking. Just state what you mean by the term. That way the thing you have in mind can be compared with the nonmarriage category of relationships and arrangements.
If there is nothing to differentiate them, except for your favoritism based on gay identity (and homosexual orientation),then, it would be you, Marian, that would transgress the goal you supposedly have just expressed in the quote above.
Marriage law -- as per the social institution's core meaning -- is not sex neutral even though it is neutral regarding sexual orientation and identity groups. It would be you, Marian, who'd inject gayness into the law via a merger of nonmarriage (of which SSM is just a subset) and marriage. And your emphasis has clearly been on gayness so it is up to you to explain this contradiction that stands out in your remarks.
Anyway, please try to answer the question that was asked.
When I refer to 'SSM' I mean the specious substitution of marriage. I do not mean that SSM is a form of marriage. It is a subset of nonmarriage. Its core -- the essential that distinguishes it from the rest of nonmarriage -- is yet to be established by SSMers.
ReplyDeleteHowever, given the hyped emphasis of its advocates, gayness is central to SSM and as such the thing that drives the SSM campaign is identity politics of the gaycentric variety. Indeed, this is presented, repeatedly, as a trump card. SSMers depend on emotivism to press for something that on its own two feet cannot withstand the scrutiny that SSMers play at when they attack the core of marriage.
The upshot: SSM is a vehicle for moving the big hairy hand of Government to innoculate gay identity politics from dissent and opposition -- in law, in social policy, and in the culture. As such, the SSM idea is specious; the SSM-merger would be an unjust substitution of marriage itself. Pro-gay favoritism has no place in marriage law.
Marian, did you read any of my above posts, let alone the articles I provided links to?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you keep using the tired "it doesn't hurt YOU (or your marriage)" argument indicates that either 1) you have not, or 2) you have, but want to pretend as if you haven't simply to avoid acknowledging that that argument is clueless as to what the real issue is.
Again, as I wrote above, in order for that argument to be effective, it is also necessary to avoid as much as possible any implication that the issue is about how the cultural view of marriage is going to be changed or altered in the future, or to ask how different it is going to be for future generations of children growing up, when they have it ingrained from birth on that marriage is just between "any two persons".
So, again, my questions to you (and all other advocates of SSM who want to sidestep the issue of whether it should be taught in schools, at least in the days before a public vote on a referendum on SSM):
Do you acknowledge that this IS what this issue is about, or at least that this is one of the questions that needs to be asked?
Do you acknowledge that it at least needs to be asked how this is going to affect children's perception of what marriage means (and all that that implies) in the future?
RK, I'll step-off because I think Marian has little else to offer on the main points I've raised. I don't fault her for that; I take it that she has internalized the quite common view among SSMers that produces the conclusion that the special reason for the special status of marriage must be removed from the law, social policy, and even the culture. In this sense, she exhibits what the future may hold should the SSM-merger be imposed.
ReplyDeleteHopefully Marian will respond to you with concentration on your challenge, one step at-a-time.
Cheerio to you both,
Chairm
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou put it well, Chairm:
ReplyDelete"I take it that she has internalized the quite common view among SSMers that produces the conclusion that the special reason for the special status of marriage must be removed from the law, social policy, and even the culture. In this sense, she exhibits what the future may hold should the SSM-merger be imposed."
My first other question to Marian is: Would you be willing to openly and honestly state this position before the voters the next time a referendum on SSM comes up?
And would you encourage the leaders in the pro-SSM movement to openly and honestly state this position before the voters?
Would you also openly and honestly state your position that you stated above (regarding polygamy and sibling marriage)?:
I will not go off on your tangent and talk about other scenarios, although as I previously said, as long as them getting legally married doesn’t affect me, I don’t mind.
Would you be willing to be honest with the public about this position, and encourage others in the pro-SSM movement who feel the same way to also state so honestly and openly?
Would you be willing to be honest with the public that you believe marriage, when discussed in the schools, should be taught as merely between "any two persons", and encourage leaders of the pro-SSM movement to also openly and honestly state this position, if they in fact truly feel this way?
Without going back over everything in point by point detail, it seems to me that the core issue raised in the comments is whether or not society is reponsible for the happiness of individuals.
ReplyDeleteNo, we are not obligated to change our laws to make someone happy.
A while back Ed Brayton made a similar plea. I have to admit that I am very sympathetic to the cause of helping people feel better about themselves. I want people to be much more accepting and helpful towards others, especially those who they are closest to.
ReplyDeleteThat said, this response to Brayton is exactly my response here.
Only I'd also add that I see great harm in neutering marriage, I watch it all the time.
You people sicken me. Obviously you don't understand. And you abysmal at practically everything you have shown me here: forming arguements and counterarguements, addressing the topic at hand, NOT digressing, recognizing just and unjust laws, and spelling. Please go get an education, and then come back and participate in REAL discussion. I will not continue until you will make legitimate points. In making my final arguement, go pick it apart if you want, but you know very well what I mean, and that I am right. So, final point:
ReplyDeleteNo one can argue against the following: all human beings are equal. We say we consider gays/lesbians our equals, yet we do not grant them the same rights we have. Until this happens, we will not be treating everyone as equals, which they are.
And if you think that children will be messed up because they are raised by a gay/lesbian couple, think about the 50% divorce rate, the single moms and dads. There are millions.
ReplyDeleteYou are all being hypocrites. How old are you people anyways? Five?
Oh and by the way, "Stanberg Hall" (a google account from which I am writing right now) is just a different account as "Marian"..I am the same person. :)
ReplyDeleteYour desperation is showing, Marian.
ReplyDelete....and spelling
And you abysmal.....
Hey, that happens when you type too fast.
I will not continue until you will make legitimate points.
Since in your mind, we couldn't possibly make any legitimate points because there could not possibly be any legitimate points against your position, we'll have a long wait, I guess.
No one can argue against the following: all human beings are equal.
And your test of whether or not we regard a human being as equal is whether or not we grant them all the same rights. But if you don't believe that, say, an intelligent 14-year-old must be granted a driver's license if they pass a test for it, you don't really believe in your own stated way of measuring "equality".
You have not thought through your arguments logically.
And if you think that children will be messed up because they are raised by a gay/lesbian couple, think about the 50% divorce rate, the single moms and dads.
This is the standard "Things are already bad enough, so how could they get any worse" argument. Any ten year old who knows how to think independently should see the fallacy in it.
Marian, I know my above posts read as a little hard. Still, I had to say what I said.
ReplyDeleteI am very sorry that your uncle was so depressed. But I do not think that any individual is really the best judge of what would relieve their depression. Nor, for that matter, are their loved ones, necessarily. Many elements enter into an individual's depression.
And I don't think anyone can be so sure that marriage would have been the cure for that depression. Let alone that, even if it were, it would be the only way of curing it.
Stanberg: [aka Marian] We say we consider gays/lesbians our equals, yet we do not grant them the same rights we have.
ReplyDeleteSo if "equality" is your standard, why is it not okay for a man to redefine marriage, to neuter it, because he is "straight," but it is okay for him to neuter marriage because he is "gay?"
We do grant "gays/lesbians" the same rights. You seek to change that, as noted above. Marriage serves a purpose in society and treats all of us equally. "Gays/lesbians" marry today and marry happily. There is no law forbidding the practice.
There are many out there who would be interested in marriage if it were just different, i.e., involved more than just two, involved more than just humans, or required less commitment. We don't redefine marriage just to interest these people, however, because the redefinition would not be in line with the purpose of marriage. Instead we let these people live their lives as they see fit, without redefining all of marriage. Choosing not to marry is a liberty exercised, not a right denied.
I will restate my point: To provide equal justice, all marriage civil rights that are granted to straight couples under the law should also be granted to gay/lesbian couples.
ReplyDeleteRK, to answer your questions: Yes, I would openly, honestly, and publicly share my opinion (the one I stated above).
ReplyDeleteI do not have enough context to have an established opinion on marriages involving siblings/close relatives or more than two people.
I would say that marriage civil rights between a human and an animal should not be permitted because the law only pertains to humans. Animals cannot have bank accounts, wills, retirement accounts, etc. Animals cannot be convicted for murder, robbery, cannot be put in prison, because they cannot understand the law, and therefore cannot abide by it.
RK, to answer your questions: Yes, I would openly, honestly, and publicly share my opinion (the one I stated above).
ReplyDeleteWhich one, the one you stated immediately above at 5:11, or the one immediately below?
Marian before: I will not go off on your tangent and talk about other scenarios, although as I previously said, as long as them getting legally married doesn’t affect me, I don’t mind.
(Also, note my more specific question from further above: "Would you be willing to openly and honestly state this position before the voters the next time a referendum on SSM comes up?")
Marian now: I do not have enough context to have an established opinion on marriages involving siblings/close relatives or more than two people.
But if we don't grant closely related couples all marriage civil rights that are granted to non-related couples, or grant to three or more persons all marriage civil rights that are granted to twosomes, are we thus not providing them equal justice? You (or I) can give all the reasons why you think it is not a good idea, but is it not the bottom line that they are being denied equal justice? That, after all, is your base criteria for whether or not something is right, is it not?
Marian: I would say that marriage civil rights between a human and an animal should not be permitted because the law only pertains to humans.
ReplyDeleteI think Op-ed's point in linking to that article is that there is nothing so absurd that there cannot be found somewhere some people who are seriously considering it. We often get the retort "I'll worry about that when I hear of some group actually claiming it as a right". Well....
Still, I'd point out that I don't think anyone here has ever argued that "SSM will lead to human-animal marriage". I don't argue that. Though the subject may often come up (and I will at times bring it up) in trying to feel out the logic (or lack thereof) of certain common pro-SSM arguments, particularly the argument that "if you can't prove exactly how it's going to harm society you must allow it". Using analogy to show the weakness of an argument is not the same thing as a slippery-slope argument.
But if it depended merely on your reason for not allowing it I'd be a lot more worried about it. "Because the law only pertains to...." does not hold nowadays. People can always ask "why, why, why?" Had you said "because animals can't consent", that's an argument far more likely to hold.
Stanberg: [aka Marian] ...all marriage civil rights that are granted to straight couples under the law should also be granted to gay/lesbian couples.
ReplyDeleteSo exactly what "civil rights" do same-sex "straight couples" have that same-sex "gay/lesbian couples" lack? Likewise, exactly what "civil rights" do man-woman "straight couples" have that man-woman "gay/lesbian couples" lack?
I do not have enough context to have an established opinion on marriages involving siblings/close relatives or more than two people.
Exactly what context is needed for your "equality" argument?
Op-ed,
ReplyDeleteAll marriage civil rights. For instance, though a gay couple may be married, if one of the pair dies, the other would not have any claims to their partner's property, because by the law they have no rights as a married couple. If this happened with a straight couple, the spouse would have first priority if their partner died.
...This is just one example, there are many more marriage civil rights gay couples do not have that straight couples do. Do you understand now?
RK,
ReplyDeleteI was just responding to the human-animal marriage part because it was brought up. I agree with you that there are absurd things trying to be done everywhere, but there are only so many I've heard of, such as human-animal marriage. My arguement is not "if there's no harm then why not?" So let's close that tangent, please?
For instance, though a gay couple may be married, if one of the pair dies, the other would not have any claims to their partner's property, because by the law they have no rights as a married couple.
ReplyDeleteThis (and other tangible things) can be corrected without redefining marriage, or a stepping stone to that goal. And yes, I and many others would be willing to work out a way of doing so, if those on the other side would set aside the plan of redefining marriage long enough that all could get together and discuss it.
My arguement is not "if there's no harm then why not?" So let's close that tangent, please?
And I didn't say it was your argument, though it is an argument frequently used.
My point in bringing it up was to point out that there is a much more solid argument as to why that is unlikely to happen than the very weak one you gave, that "the law only pertains to...". If that were the only reason, it would give me no confidence. Do you understand now?
Also, Marian, please carefully reread op-ed's question above. I'm sorry, but from the terms you used in your response to him it is obvious you have not done so.
ReplyDeleteStanberg: For instance, though a gay couple may be married, if one of the pair dies, the other would not have any claims to their partner's property, because by the law they have no rights as a married couple. [emphasis added]
ReplyDeleteMarian is just flat out wrong, even if one limits what she is saying to jurisdictions that have neutered marriage. Marian describes what would effectively be the opposite of California's marriage-in-all-but-name civil union where the state treats civil unions the same as marriages. Instead, Marian imagines some sort of marriage-but-only-in-name jurisdiction where certain relationships would be given the name marriage but none of the same treatment.
Her misstatement, wrong as it is, is also entirely irrelevant to the question asked, which I will repeat, with emphasis:
"So exactly what 'civil rights' do same-sex 'straight couples' have that same-sex 'gay/lesbian couples' lack? Likewise, exactly what 'civil rights' do man-woman 'straight couples' have that man-woman 'gay/lesbian couples' lack?"
Op-ed, I am not describing marriage-but-only-in-name. I could care less if it is called a marriage or civil union at this point. It's the rights and treatments that go along with the marriage that are important. That the government recognizes a gay marriage the same as a straight marriage.
ReplyDeleteAnd if I am not answering your question, please clarify because I haven't the slightest idea of what a same-sex 'straight couple' is or a man-woman 'gay/lesbian' couple is. To me, gay/lesbian=same sex, and man-woman=straight.
Stanberg: I am not describing marriage-but-only-in-name.
ReplyDeleteThen what are you describing? Here, again, are your words: "though a gay couple may be married... by the law they have no rights as a married couple."
How could the "gay couple" in your example be anything other than married-but-only-in-name? Unless you can identify a jurisdiction that recognizes such a status, your example is false.
Stanberg: I haven't the slightest idea of what a same-sex 'straight couple' is or a man-woman 'gay/lesbian' couple is. To me, gay/lesbian=same sex, and man-woman=straight.
So if "same sex" does not equate to "gay/lesbian" or "man-woman" does not equate to "straight" then your argument is wrong. Do you really want to commit to that, or would you rather just answer the question?
That's my point, I THINK I'm answering your question, but you say I'm not, so clearly, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. Can you clarify please?
ReplyDeleteAnd this whole deal about "you're describing marriage only in name"...no, actually, I'm not. Right now, I don't think society is ready to call gay/lesbian/same-sex/WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT marriage by that term: MARRIAGE. So, I won't argue the name at this point. What I AM arguing is the MARRIAGE RIGHTS. How much clearer do I need to be?
ReplyDeleteRESTATED POINT YET AGAIN: To provide equal justice, all marriage civil rights that are granted to straight couples under the law should be granted to gay/lesbian couples under the law.
Marian, it's simple. There is nothing in the law that states that gay men cannot marry women, or that lesbian women cannot marry men, or that gay men cannot marry lesbians.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there is nothing in the law in states that do not permit SSM that makes an exception for two heterosexuals of the same sex.
And there is nothing in the law in states that DO allow SSM that says that two heterosexuals of the same sex cannot "marry".
Op-ed can clarify this himself, of course, but it's pretty easy for me to understand what he was saying, so I don't know why it's so hard for you.
"Same-sex" is not synonymous with homosexual or gay. Granted, I agree most of those who enter into same-sex "marriages" will be gay. But would you object to two of the same gender who are not even sexually attracted to each other, but consider themselves committed to one another, to "marry" in SSM states if they wish to?
Now, I fully expect that at least part of your response will (or would have been) about how everyone should have a "right" to be married to someone they're sexually attracted to. And thus that they shouldn't have to be married to someone they aren't.
Well, how much difference is there between saying that "I shouldn't have to be married to someone I'm not sexually attracted to", and saying that "I shouldn't have to be married to someone I'm no longer sexually attracted to"?
See the problem?
And yes, I know, way too many heterosexuals already think that way. But please don't argue that because they already do, we might as well make it even worse.
Stanberg: That's my point, I THINK I'm answering your question...
ReplyDeleteOK, so if "same-sex" equates to "gay/lesbian," then what does that make a same-sex couple like a mother and daughter raising a child together?
Stanberg: So, I won't argue the name at this point. What I AM arguing is the MARRIAGE RIGHTS.
Then why did you claim the "gay couple" in your example was "married?"
R.K.: ...there is nothing in the law in states that do not permit SSM that makes an exception for two heterosexuals of the same sex.
Thank you, R.K., I thought it was pretty clear, myself. I am not surprised Marian didn't, however.
Proponents of neutering marriage know there is no legitimate case for treating a same-sex couple the same as a man-woman couple. Instead they resort to that bastion of irrationality, identity politics.
To move the debate onto the terrain of identity politics activists for neutering marriage have to inject identity political labels like "gay" into the debate by pretending it is synonymous with "same-sex." The tactic is pretty transparent, but if it never worked, nobody would use it. There are always going to be the few who get caught by the simple trick.
So to someone who has been sucked in, a simple phrase like:
"same-sex 'straight couples'"
ends up being interpreted as:
"'gay/lesbian' 'straight couples'"
Which is, of course, complete gibberish. At this point one would expect it to be clear the substitution doesn't work, but I don't doubt for some the substitution is simply too deeply ingrained to doubt.
R.K.: [Marian's argument will likely be] everyone should have a "right" to be married to someone they're sexually attracted to.
No such right exists for man/woman couples. A woman could be "sexually attracted" to a married man. She certainly has no right to redefine marriage to accommodate her "sexual attraction."
Alright, well since you have to be so knitpicky about terms then ignore my mistakes. YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN. If not, then I won't even argue with you on this topic, because you obviously don't have the mental capacity and inference skills to have a legitimate discussion.
ReplyDeleteRK, why would you predict my arguement? That is so typical. Then why don't I guess...you both voted for McCain, and George Bush Jr?
Op-ed, please focus on the MAIN POINT of my arguement. I have stated it in one very clear sentence several times. Why can't you argue against that? Right now, I'm calling it "marriage rights" because that's what the rights I'm (and many others) are fighting for right now. If you have a problem with this, please tell me what you would like me to refer to those rights as, and how you would like me to say "a married gay couple" etc. Obviously this is a problem, because that seems to be the only thing you bring up.
And I'm sorry I use same-sex/gay/homosexual interchangeably...to me, they all mean the same thing. I'm not trying to be sly...that's not my tactic. In fact, I don't really have any. I'm arguing cold hard logic, morals, and points. No tricks.
RK: You think it would be easy for me to understand things that you do? Before I answer that question, I have some for you. How old are you? What is your highest level of education?
ReplyDeleteSame goes for you, Op-ed.
RK: I agree with you, divorce is bad. Especially with children involved. But until everyone in this country can have marriage rights...when can we talk about divorce?
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm sorry I use same-sex/gay/homosexual interchangeably...to me, they all mean the same thing.
ReplyDeleteAnd as both I and Op-ed have demonstrated, they DON'T mean the same thing.
I'm not trying to be sly...that's not my tactic.
Actually, I don't think either I or op-ed have accused you of being "sly" here.
We have said you've been sucked in by bad argument, yes.
If not, then I won't even argue with you on this topic, because you obviously don't have the mental capacity and inference skills to have a legitimate discussion.
Then why don't I guess...you both voted for McCain, and George Bush Jr?
Before I answer that question, I have some for you. How old are you? What is your highest level of education?
Same goes for you, Op-ed.
Marian, from these responses, it's obvious who's run out of arguments here.
Let me just say that my answers to a couple of your questions would have surprised you. But in relation to our argument I have no interest in your age, level of education, or who you voted for. Nor do I think you lack mental capacity. For now, enough said.
R.K.: For now, enough said.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't have said it any better.
I have not run out of arguements. But I really would like answers to those questions, just to see. I've discussed this topic with many different people, all of different age groups, political parties, etc. and I have seen quite a correlation: people who voted for George Bush Jr. don't support gay marriage rights, these are mostly middle-aged parents who affect their childrens' views. However, I have seen many students who are much more liberal than their parents...that's why I was asking, not because I've run out of arguements. So I would really like an answer, if you would.
ReplyDeleteStanberg [aka Marian]: So I would really like an answer, if you would.
ReplyDeleteTell you what. Since you have not yet "run out of arguements," [sic] give me two different arguments based on the answers to your questions. What would you argue if every answer were what you expect? What would you argue if every answer were the opposite of what you expect? If there is no difference, then the answers are irrelevant.