Often the debate about neutering marriage comes down to this fallacious and obviously manipulative argument. Sometimes it's stated overtly just as in the title. More often it's expressed more subtly as in "I know that you hate me, and that you hate and fear the acceptance of sexual minorities...And I know that the love that is in you is far more powerful than any sense of hatred or fear that can develop." Most often, however, the manipulation is expressed as the barely articulate and entirely unthinking epithet "Bigot!" But it is all the same manipulation: If you abandon your principles, you can gain the approval of the manipulator. Like dealing with terrorists, however, once the manipulator finds out you value their acceptance, they will never let you have it but rather continue to manipulate you with it.
It would be more honest for the manipulator to have said "If you loved me as much as I love me, you would." Someone pulling a manipulation like this is expressing no kind of love whatsoever for the other party, but rather contempt. The other's values, wants, and wishes are all supposed to be subservient to the manipulators own to prove their love. If that is how the manipulator is going to define love that's certainly not what they are expressing when they tell you their wants are more meaningful than your own.
It is only the most generous reading of the curse "Bigot!" that puts it in the same category as the simple manipulations, though. Most often the curse simply means that one wishes to quash thought rather than confront it. As humans, we are all flawed and so any decision can be based on a human foible. Finding a potential fault that could be hidden behind what someone else says therefore becomes easier than confronting the actual flaws in one's own motivations and arguments. That is typically what is meant when someone throws charged language about like "bigot" or "homophobe," but if that is not what is intended, the most that can be intended is as I have said. It is an expression of disapproval that can only be countered by giving in to what the person saying it wants.
Yes, it is possible that someone could be opposed to neutering marriage out of hatred. But in order to see that reason, one has to first be willing to look past the fact that it is a massive change that is being proposed. Marriage is and has been about procreation. It's not about social security benefits, hospital visitation rights, or a shortcut to writing a will. Turning it into something so much more trivial runs the very real risk of getting rid of marriage entirely. In fact, I have yet to talk to an activist for neutering marriage who wouldn't also be willing to just get rid of marriage entirely or at least from secular life, as if only religious society is impacted by disorder in reproduction.
Don't believe me? What do you think of marrying your sister? If your first thought is "Ick!" then you clearly tie marriage with procreation. There is nothing "icky" about your sister getting social security benefits, visiting you in the hospital, or inheriting from your estate. Further, concepts like hospitals, inheritance, and social security are also not nearly as universal across cultures as marriage has been therefore they cannot have been the motivations behind it.
So the next time someone throws a flavor of this manipulation at you, just remember what you are trading away, marriage, and what they are hoping you want more, their mere approval. Even if someone so manipulative were willing to give you something once they find out you want it, would you really want the approval of such a person? Would you be willing to sacrifice future generations to get it? Anyone truly interested in marriage would be willing to talk about the most important parts of it, not try to find a mote in your eye to discuss instead. Just walk away. That person has nothing to offer. If they did, they wouldn't be trying to manipulate you instead.
Op-ed, you hit the mark again. Voters, financial contributors, would-be marchers, and the like are asked to support marriage neutering by family, friends, and co-workers by insisting that one must agree with their approach to law or the only other option is personal hatred. If you think marriage unites the sexes and that law should reflect that, then you can't possibly love your nephew, who is attracted to other men. That is essentially the assertion.
ReplyDeleteThe majority is asked to set aside their feelings, their logic, their observations, their experience, their understanding, their religion, their opinion about what is best public policy and... and instead take their marching orders from the minority because of how the minority feels.
People who hate other people with homosexual feelings merely because those people have homosexual feelings are bigots. But those bigots are few and far between, thank God. Attempting to tar someone with that label does not address the facts and arguments at hand.
I suggest copying and pasting this paragraph wherever possible (or write your own version):
It is Constitutional, practical, and necessary to treat different behaviors and different kinds of relationships differently. All of our laws do so. The pairing of two men or two women is a demonstrably different kind of behavior and
different kind of relationship than the pairing of a bride and a groom. While not all will, the pairing of a bride and a groom is the only KIND that IS ABLE to naturally produce new citizens (who did not consent to the arrangement) AND
provide those new citizens with a legally, financially, and socially bound role model and bonding guardian from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society, cooperating with each other for the good of the children.
Marriage is and has been about procreation.
ReplyDeleteThen please work equally hard to prevent infertile straight couples from marrying. Otherwise it appears that you have a special animus against certain types of infertile couples.
While not all will, the pairing of a bride and a groom is the only KIND that IS ABLE to naturally produce new citizens.
My husband and I are as unlikely to produce children as a gay or lesbian couple. Our marriage is a marriage that the medical community can certify is UNABLE to EVER produce children.
Medically infertile straight marriages -- don't they "neuter" marriage too? What is it that makes the scientific impossibility of two men reproducing somehow more powerful than the scientific impossibility of a medically infertile straight couple reproducing?
Sviv: Otherwise it appears that you have a special animus...
ReplyDeleteYou mean, if we loved them we would? Thanks for proving the point of the post, Comrade. One has to look past an awful lot of obvious differences to pretend animus is the only possible explanation.
Our marriage is a marriage that the medical community can certify is UNABLE to EVER produce children.
Just how intrusive do you expect government to be? Isn't the slogan "Get the government out of my womb?" Yet here you are proposing government should be in the business of exploring around in yours.
Of course since you like the idea of the government inspecting your reproductive parts, everybody must. That's why the only possible reason to reject your proposal is "a special animus against certain types of infertile couples."
Medically infertile straight marriages -- don't they "neuter" marriage too?
Let's see. Do they remove the gendered basis from marriage?
What is it that makes the scientific impossibility of two men reproducing somehow more powerful than the scientific impossibility of a medically infertile straight couple reproducing?
Were you trying to be funny? Just in case you weren't, this has already been touched on, above. More than that, there are lots of obvious answers like degree of difficulty, degree of certainty, degree of invasiveness required, etc. Not seeing these differences would have taken some real work. Again, assuming you weren't just making a joke you can read more under the Sterility Strawman heading on this blog.
Do they remove the gendered basis from marriage?
ReplyDeleteHaha, I like your tautology: marriage requires different genders because different genders are the basis of marriage.
Nice work!
And you're welcome, I'm happy to prove that -- until a convincing and logical (not tautological) distinction is made between SSM and infertile straight marriages -- many people (like myself) will be inclined to think that such a passionate dedication to discriminating against LGBT people is motivated by bias.
I've read some of the Sterility Strawman threads and was very interested in the thread where you draw a distinction between the infertility of the couple and the infertility of the individual.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in (most) infertile straight marriages, an individual chose to marry someone sterile, someone with whom he or she would be biologically unable to have children, although with another partner, the fertile individual would have been able to conceive. In SS unions, each individual has, likewise, chosen to be with an individual with whom he or she is unable to have children, although in an different arrangement, procreation would be possible. Looking at the choices of these individuals, why is one choice acceptable and one not? If I could just as easily marry someone besides my husband and have children, isn't my choice to marry him as much a "neutering" of marriage as would be my choice to marry another woman?
A citizen's sex is on their government birth certificate. Whether or not he or she is willing or able to procreate is a PRIVATE matter.
ReplyDeleteWe KNOW procreation will not naturally happen absent a male or absent a female. That is why a government has the most interest in issuing a marriage license only when there is bride AND groom.
Sviv: Haha, I like your tautology...
ReplyDelete0 for reading comprehension. My comment addresses the definition of "neuter," not "marriage."
until a convincing and logical (not tautological) distinction is made between SSM and infertile straight marriages
And even after such a distinction has been made, obviously, which only further proves my point. You are not interested in discussing the actual subject matter but in pressing your manipulation. I pointed out many obvious distinctions and you failed to address any of them. Instead you just went back to the "If you loved me you would" manipulation.
...an individual chose to marry someone sterile...
Now you've pointed out at least two more distinctions - a "sterile" individual and one person making the choice. Not to mention you again tread into the distinction I already pointed out about presenting reproductive tracts to the government for inspection. That alone is such a "convincing and logical distinction" you just keep smacking into it in your effort to try and prove you don't see it.
You're not even attempting to deal with the points I have raised. Instead you're just doubling down on the "if you loved me..." manipulation. So all you're doing is proving this last statement from the post:
"That person [the manipulator] has nothing to offer. If they did, they wouldn't be trying to manipulate you instead."
Hmm, you wrote about the "gendered basis for marriage" which I took as an allusion to your belief that (the) (a) basis for marriage is complementarity of the male and female genders.
ReplyDeleteIs that not your position? That marriage should be between a man and a woman because marriage has a "gendered basis"?
Comrade propagandist,
ReplyDeleteI take it that by taking on that name you have somewhat of a worship of the art of propaganda and manipulation.Your name-sake pioneered the art of propaganda by associating random pictures with otherwise neutral photos. For instance, a man who was simply staring into the camera, your namesake found, would be considered hungry by the audience if pictures of a feast were mingled with it.
I'm afraid that won't work here, however, where the association is based on much stricter logic.
So I'll correct your statement, as a service to you and our readership.
[M]arriage should be between a man and a woman because marriage has a "gendered basis"?
That marriage is between a man and a woman means it has a "gendered basis". Hence Op-Ed's correction to your previous statement where he stated that he 'addresses the definition of "neuter," not "marriage."' To remove the gendered basis of a term is to neuter it.
Its definitional, not tautological. You could no more argue that water should be H20, or that trees should be made of wood, than marriage "should" be a combination of both genders.
If you need a "should" statement, I suggest this one... marriage should be between a man and a woman, thus it has a gendered basis.
But both of those statements miss why marriage requires equal representation from both genders. For that, feel free to peruse our archives.
But it is just as distasteful and manipulative propaganda to remove that reason even after it is plainly stated to you, and then falsely assert that it was never there (as a tautology) as to insert falsely associative pictures.
You're thinking of Vsevolod Kuleshov, not Dziga Vertov; not even a material distinction, since Yelizaveta Svilova's work -- although at times in collaboration with her husband, Vertov -- was actually in a different direction in general, and not principally in research into montage affect, either as Kuleshov or as Vertov understood it.
ReplyDeleteImagine, a woman with an identity and ambitions separate from her husband's.
From reading your archives, I realize that -- given this blog's belief in gender essentialism and the (to me, absurd) fear of the Ceasing of Human Reproduction Because of Teh Gays -- we simply have no values in common and continuing this discussion will be fruitless. Farewell, and enjoy your traditional gender roles (at least until homosexuals eliminate reproduction and human society and we are all forced to try to clone ourselves in a desperate attempt to avoid extinction).
Sviv: Is that not your position?
ReplyDeleteNot even close, Comrade. Zero for reading comprehension, again.
It never ceases to amuse how many on the other side in this debate consider feigning a lack of reading comprehension as making their position more credible. It shows how little they think of their own arguments.
That marriage should be between a man and a woman because marriage has a "gendered basis"?
Not because marriage has a "gendered basis," but because procreation does.
What you are attempting here is called a straw man argument, and you wouldn't be trying that if you had a response to the actual arguments presented.
Imagine, a woman with an identity and ambitions separate from her husband's.
Straw man, but thanks for proving yet another point from my article:
"In fact, I have yet to talk to an activist for neutering marriage who wouldn't also be willing to just get rid of marriage entirely..."
Good thing some women were able to overcome the oppressive, ugly institution of marriage, eh Comrade?
...given this blog's belief in gender essentialism...
Straw man.
...fear of the Ceasing of Human Reproduction Because of Teh Gays [sic]...
Straw man. We actually argue the opposite, sans the appeal to identity politics.
Farewell,...
And good riddance. Because other than providing an example to underscore everything I said in my post, you have not contributed anything to the debate.
Sorry late to the posting, I've been busy.
ReplyDeleteDemographically speaking the redefining of marriage can indeed reduce fertility, but communities who have already embraced the definition that marriage is simply about two people already have their own demography concerns. As mention several times here at Opine, Massachusetts has had a population decline, and the population that stabilizes the state is getting old. Demographic downward spiral. Massachusetts for the life of itself, fails to see the connection.
As much I would never want to force a woman to marry and have children, marriage and children do indeed matter. The basis of one's ability to survive is the based on our parents' willingness to care for us. So how can we help promote and protect the ability to have children without fear for both men and women?
A woman's fear of pregnancy disappears when pregnancy of a child is embraced as a blessing, rather then a curse. Being a woman isn't a curse, yet it is always 'radical feminism' that is damning a woman's body for being at fault because it can bear a child. Marriage can be and has been the way we make men equally accountable to his own children. Isn't that what feminism should be promoting?
Personal opinion here...
I guess I came to the conclusion, that radical feminism isn't feminism at all. In fact radical feminism looks more like misogyny then anything else. Why do women need to 'neuter' their bodies chemically with the Pill, and various other forms of birth control that permanently mutilates the function of her sexual organs? Why are women fed the lie that somehow killing her unborn child is empowerment? If nothing bad comes from human sexuality, then why are the radical feminists so keen in the denial that the natural outcome and purpose of sex is life itself?
Op-ed,
ReplyDeleteThe quote you took out of context to build your post around was in a personal, private correspondence with a different person. I don’t know how, why, or when it ended up in your mailbox, but I do wish to assure all opiners that I will continue to respect your privacy in any personal correspondence you may have with me; that if I have an issue with you in that correspondence, I’ll deal directly with you about it; and that, if I do share it or post anything about any one of you, I will notify you of it as soon as I have done so, if not before. (I found out about this one only because I followed a link on someone else’s blog.) I ask that you all extend the same courtesy to me in the future.
In that letter I expressed quite a bit of my own personal religious convictions. When I speak of the love manifest in that person, I refer to the spirit, not to the flesh; to our higher nature, as the “image and likeness” of a God Who is Love (see 1 John 4:8 in the Bible). It is, in my personal conviction, not something that is conditional. If that person were to join the KKK, that love that is divine and manifest in him would still be there. I have no need for you or the recipient or anyone else to “prove their love.” That love is already proved in our common humanity, the connection each of us owns with our Creator. A change of view to agree with mine would not change that love one bit, either for better or for worse. Honoring that divine aspect does not express contempt, but respect.
As for hatred, I fully recognize that many – probably most – people who oppose marriage equality do not do so out of hatred. For instance, I’ve seen no reason to believe that your poster Renee has any of that. It takes far more than that for me to infer that kind of animus. However, it does sound like the recipient of the letter feels very offended by my statement that he hates me. I apologize for that, and retract it. In fairness, I can't know that; my inference drawn from our previous dialogue may well be inaccurate and unfair. I hope that it is.
And I think that if you review the archives of your blog, you’ll find far more effort on my part to honor your “values, wants, and wishes” than you have ever extended to me. Including notifying you when I’ve posted about you.
Seda: The quote you took out of context to build your post around was in a personal, private correspondence...
ReplyDeleteWhich quote? "If you loved me you would," "I know that you hate me," or "Bigot?" I did not attribute any of those quotes to anybody, but if you wish to claim one of them as your own, feel free.
You know, Op-ed, you offer some good advice for this kind of situation in the last paragraph of your post. So I'm going to take it. And just walk away.
ReplyDeleteSeda: Op-ed, you offer some good advice for this kind of situation...So I'm going to take it. And just walk away.
ReplyDeleteYou must be referring to this statement:
"Anyone truly interested in marriage would be willing to talk about the most important parts of it, not try to find a mote in your eye to discuss instead. Just walk away."
Seems apt... considering what you came into this thread to discuss rather than marriage. Scroll back and read your comment... then just keep on walking.
Hi Op Ed,
ReplyDeleteIn a discussion at Family Scholars blog, I linked to your blogpost. You might be interested in one SSMer's objection.
See:
http://familyscholars.org/2010/10/22/dont-blame-me-for-gay-teen-suicides/comment-page-1/#comment-12517
Chairm: You might be interested in one SSMer's objection.
ReplyDeleteThat really is funny. Chris uses the terms "gay marriage advocates" and "manipulator" as synonyms. That's a very frank admission.
Even if you think Chris doesn't believe what he says it leads to the same conclusion. If Chris didn't believe it, then he said it only to manipulate, in this case, to shut down the discussion.
Family Scholars Blog's comment sections close automatically after a preset number of day or after a preset number of comments. So at this time the comment section under that blogpost is closed.
ReplyDeletePeter Hoh made a comment that people may remarry even if they had ended their previous marriage with adultery. So he said that there is no test for sexual morality.
Except that did not address the point I had made. Peter thinks that society issues licenses for adultery, contrary to the fact that adultery provides legal grounds for divorce. So remarriage is not a reward for adultery. On the other hand, given the SSMer's gay emphasis and argumentation, society is supposed to license same-sex sexual behavior.
Society does not issue licenses for sexual immorality, in contrast to Peter Hoh's oddly self-contradicting comment. Since the union of husband and wife is a type of sexual relationship, at law, society also does not license incestuous sexual behavior nor does it license underaged sexual behavior, and so forth.
Meanwhile Peter managed to illustrate my point: he presents moral neutrality as his proposed societal response to the immorality of same-sex sexual behavior. He does not offer a moral argument but rather an argument that would negate moral arguments. This is because there is no substantive argument to make for the morality of same-sex sexual behavior on a societal level. Public morality is suposedlh exiled from lawmaking. That stands in contrast to the moral dynamite that SSMers like to toss around when accusing marriage defenders of the legal equivalent of racism or hatred.
These tangenets help to further illustrate your main point, Op Ed: the manipulator is not bound by normal rules of behavior and argumentation.
“he presents moral neutrality as his proposed societal response to the immorality of same-sex sexual behavior. He does not offer a moral argument but rather an argument that would negate moral arguments. This is because there is no substantive argument to make for the morality of same-sex sexual behavior on a societal level”
ReplyDeleteHomosexuality, and therefore same-sex pairings, is morally neutral. There’s nothing immoral about homosexuality, at least using standards that all can agree on. Some religions consider homosexuality immoral and adherents to those religions are free to abstain from homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.
It is hard to make the argument that same-sex marriage, the choice of gay people, deserves to be prohibited so long as convicted murderers, rapists and pedophiles are free to enjoy the many benefits, tangible and intangible, of marriage. This is quite offensive to law-abiding gay people, who are responsible citizens, break no laws, pay their taxes, etc. Why would society insist that convicted murderers maintain the right to marry, despite their misdeeds and burden to society, yet gay people aren’t worthy of marriage? It is surely immoral to condemn a group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens to legally uncertain relationships, when the right to marry is considered so fundamental that convicted murderers can’t be denied it. It is also immoral to deny the children of same-sex couples the security of having married parents, while providing that security to the children of opposite-sex couples.
RO, you confirmed that the best the SSM side can offer is a demand for moral neutrality and not an argument for the morality of same-sex sexual behavior.
ReplyDeleteNote: you talked of homosexuality rather than same-sex sexual behavior. Please explain your purpose for doing so. I don't object, but I think you need to clarify your meaning.
* * *
RO, please state the "standards that all can agree on" by which you adhere in your pro-SSM viewpoint? Please explain how agreement on these standards are known to be agreed on by all (as per your statement).
* * *
The last paragraph in your comment above would include the vast nonmarriage category.
Also, it is a dodge. You have not made a morally neutral argument; and you have already conceded that the best you can do is make a morally neutral demand. This relieves you of the burden of argument for a basis by which society must treat same-sex sexual behavior as the moral equivalent of conjugal relations of husband and wife. But it also ties your hands in that absent an argument for the morality of same-sex sexual behavior there is a lack of rationale for a special status for same-sex sexual behavior.
Thus you argue for a nonsexual basis for a special status. That is apparent in your comments. Please confirm.
Then explain how the rest of nonmarriage is distinguishable from your SSM idea. Does it depend entirely on the Government's arbitrary use of power to show favor, for example, without a societal purpose?
It is hard to make the argument that same-sex marriage, the choice of gay people, deserves to be prohibited so long as convicted murderers, rapists and pedophiles are free to enjoy the many benefits, tangible and intangible, of marriage.
ReplyDeleteAgain, gays are not denied marriage for being gay. You keep using this terminology although it is false.
Murderers are able to marry, but they are not able to commit a murder and call it a marriage.
Rapists are allowed to marry, but they are not able to commit a rape and call it a marriage. Both parties to a marriage must consent.
Pedophiles are allowed to marry, but they are not allowed to marry underage children.
Oh, I can just hear Royal Oaker screaming already: "How insulting! You are comparing homosexuality to murder, rape, and pedophilia". No, I am not. I am simply showing the fallacious comparison which Oaker makes. If murderers, rapists, and pedophiles could legally call murder, rape, and pedophilia marriage (or, also, if they could call a partnership made for the purpose of committing murder, rape, or pedophilia a marriage) while homosexuals were not able to call a same-sex sexual relationship marriage, then Oaker's claim of unfairness would be valid. But the claim is not valid the way he states it.
“Again, gays are not denied marriage for being gay. You keep using this terminology although it is false.”
ReplyDeleteYes they are. Gay couples are denied marriage licenses in 44 states. That’s why we’re having this discussion. If it were as simple as pointing out that gay people should just marry opposite-sex partners, you wouldn’t have bothered to set up an anti-gay marriage website! Opposite-sex only marriage affords a right to straight people, who form opposite-sex couples, and denies a right to gay people, who form same-sex couples.
“Murderers are able to marry, but they are not able to commit a murder and call it a marriage.”
Clever, I guess, but not the point. Here’s the point: when society places so much importance on marriage that the US Supreme Court insists that even convicted murderers have an inviolable right to marry, it is incomprehensible that same-sex couples could be perceived as unworthy of marrying. So long as you’re straight, no matter what other horrible things you do, you still get to choose a life partner, and have the relationship legally recognized. If I were a gay person, and law-abiding, paid my taxes, was raising children, etc., I would be enormously offended that my relationship was not worthy of legal recognition, but the murderer in the state penitentiary’s was. This is why people, even straight people, object to this kind of marginalization of gay people, in what appears to be nothing more than a perpetuation of straight supremacy.
“Oh, I can just hear Royal Oaker screaming…”
I’m not screaming, I’m calm as can be. Why do you guys do that? Why do you need to portray supporters of marriage equality as raving lunatics, wild-eyed and anxious to tear down society piece by piece? I think a lot of gay people are frustrated but they want to get married and they’re tired of having to beg for a right straight people seem to think they own.
Yes they are. Gay couples are denied marriage licenses in 44 states.
ReplyDeleteFor being the same sex, not for being gay. You either don't get the difference, or you do but think that the erroneous terminology makes for better polemic so you keep on using it.
Clever, I guess, but not the point.
By analogy, yes it is. Let me demonstrate further.
You mentioned pedophiles. Frequently, they are people who feel that they cannot be sexually attracted to adults, only to children.
Now, if pedophiles were to argue that because they can only be sexually attracted to children, therefore they should be allowed to marry children (and not be pushed into "sham" marriages with adults), and thus such "marriages" to children were legalized, then your use of their case as an analogy to demonstrate the unfairness of denying marriage to same-sex couples would be on better ground, as pedophilia is much worse than homosexuality. But to say that it is morally much worse does not make the pedophile argument for adult-child marriage any less analagous to your argument for same-sex marriage.
You mentioned rapists. Frequently, they are people who feel that they cannot be sexually aroused under consensual situations, because the act of force is what excites them.
Now, if rapists were to argue that because they can only be sexually aroused by forcing a woman into sex, therefore they should be allowed to force a woman into marriage against her will (and not be pushed into "sham" marriages with consenting women), and thus such nonconsensual "marriages" were legalized, then your use of their case as an analogy to demonstrate the unfairness of denying marriage to same-sex couples would be on better ground, as rape is far, far worse than homosexuality. But to say that it is morally far worse does not make the rapist's argument for nonconsensual marriage (due to the fact that he can't be attracted any other way) any less analagous to your argument for same-sex marriage.
You mentioned murderers. In the case of murderers motivated by sexual lust, often they are people who feel that they cannot be sexually aroused unless they kill the object of their sexual attraction
Now, if murderers were to argue that because they can only be sexually aroused by killing, therefore they should be allowed to marry someone just so they can kill them (and not be pushed into "sham" marriages with someone they are not allowed to kill), and thus such "marriages" (to kill) were legalized, then your use of their case as an analogy to demonstrate the unfairness of denying marriage to same-sex couples would be on much better ground, as, needless to say, murder is incomparably worse than homosexuality. But to say that it is morally incomparably worse does not make the murderer's argument for marriage-to-kill (due to the fact that he can't be attracted any other way) any less analagous to your argument for same-sex marriage.
But we don't allow any of the "marriages" above. So there is nothing in the analogy to demonstrate an "unfairness" with.
ReplyDeleteWe allow murderers to marry but do not allow them to kill the spouse, as any decent society requires they must not, and not just in regard to marriage. We allow pedophiles to marry adults, as we today in our culture define marriage to require. We allow rapists to marry women who consent, as we today in our culture define marriage to require. We allow homosexuals to marry an opposite sex partner, as every culture throughout history has defined marriage to require.
We don't allow pedophiles to marry children, rapists to force women to marry them against their will, or murderers to marry someone just to kill them. If we did, yes, I'd see how it was unfair to not let homosexuals change the requirements of marriage so they could marry those they are most sexually attracted to. If people of far worse sexual proclivities were allowed to change the requirements of marriage for the sake of their proclivities while homosexuals were not, I'd agree with you and support same-sex marriage too.
But those are the actual analogies, and they don't demonstrate an inconsistency.
Why do you guys do that?
You don't know how often we make an argument in regard to analogy and get the charge that we're "morally equating" homosexuality with something much more offensive. It's a way of evading the logical argument.
Royal Oaker, please attempt to answer the questions I asked of you. You keep ignoring our responses not to make new arguments, but just to rehash the same ones you've already made, and which we've answered.
Though I shouldn't need to, I still want to clarify something about the above two posts.
ReplyDeleteI am not by any means arguing that if same-sex marriage is legalized, it will lead to the things mentioned (adult-child, nonconsensual, or murder marriages).
I am also not arguing that if same-sex marriage is legalized, it logically should lead to them. Just in case anyone thinks otherwise. As I've stated many times before, the issue of consent, let alone illegal acts, is a qualitative difference between things like that and same-sex marriage (or sibling marriage and polygamy).
My purpose was to point out the logical flaw in RO's reasoning, which is really this: "Those very bad people are allowed to get married within the definition of marriage, so why can't gays, who are not evil at all, change the definition of marriage so they can marry each other?" This doesn't follow logically.
Now there may well be good arguments why the bad people Oaker mentions should not be allowed to get married, but they should be made without resort to false analogies. Oaker's argument is that because they are not denied marriage as punishment for who they are, it's therefore unfair for gays to be denied marriage as punishment for who they are. But gays are not denied marriage as punishment for being gay, anymore than brothers and sisters are denied marriage as punishment for being brothers and sisters (or for being in love with each other), or three people are denied marriage as punishment for being three people (or for all loving each other).
I've tried to respond but it doesn't let my post. Sorry.
ReplyDelete“For being the same sex, not for being gay.”
ReplyDeleteIt’s the same thing, as the Iowa Supreme Court noted. Gay people form same-sex couples; straight people form opposite-sex couples. Ergo, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples discriminates against gay people.
“if pedophiles were to argue that because they can only be sexually attracted to children, therefore they should be allowed to marry children”
Children can’t get married, whether pedophiles want to marry them or not. In any event, your analogies fail, because marriage is available to people in relationships, not to people with sexual longings. Gay couples are getting marriage rights, not because they’re gay, but because they’re in committed relationships, just like straight people. Since there’s no logical reason to limit marriage to straight people, gay people are winning the right to marry.
“pedophilia is much worse than homosexuality”
What you meant to say was, “pedophilia is bad.” There’s nothing wrong with homosexuality.
“We don't allow pedophiles to marry children, rapists to force women to marry them against their will, or murderers to marry someone just to kill them. If we did, yes, I'd see how it was unfair to not let homosexuals change the requirements of marriage so they could marry those they are most sexually attracted to.”
Do you think gay people are bad or something? You’ve carelessly grouped them with people who have done something wrong, and want to marry based on that wrong. Again, you missed the point. Gay couples are just like straight couples: committed, loving, often raising children, sharing resources, etc.
“You keep ignoring our responses not to make new arguments, but just to rehash the same ones you've already made, and which we've answered.”
My arguments aren’t any less persuasive because I have to repeat them so you’ll understand. I’d rather not have to repeat them but I keep getting the same false arguments back and I consider myself patient and considerate to repeat.
It’s the same thing, as the Iowa Supreme Court noted.
ReplyDeleteNo, if they were denied marriage because of being gay in the analogous way that you find it unfair that murderers, pedophiles, and rapists are not denied marriage, it would mean denying gays the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex as well as of the same sex.
What, Sean, is your opinion of the rulings by the New York, Maryland, Washington State, and Arizona Courts that decided limiting marriage to opposite sex couples was not unconstitutional? If you thought that public opinion would overturn those rulings, would you be against such a vote?
Children can’t get married...
True, though that alone does not stop an argument from being made as to why they should, unpersuasive as that may be to a court, but more to the point of the argument I was making. Actually, some adults are in what they would argue are "committed relationships" with children, with children who will say they consent.
And believe it or not, there are even people who have consented to be murdered for sexual gratification:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Lopatka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes
As perverted and twisted as they are, these were "committed relationships".
Please note that the analogous nature of the arguments that might be made for these situations, in relation to your argument, is not dependent on the likelihood or unlikelihood of a court accepting them. That was never my argument.
Since there’s no logical reason to limit marriage to straight people....
There’s nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Well, then it wouldn't be bad for society even if 100 per cent of its people were homosexual, right? Is that your position?
Sorry, but based only on that, my "far worse than" language stands.
Do you think gay people are bad or something? You’ve carelessly grouped them with people who have done something wrong, and want to marry based on that wrong.
But an analogy is not a moral comparison. I've explained the purpose of the analogy above.
Still, I'm curious about how you would in the future handle people who believe it is wrong, for religious reasons.
My arguments aren’t any less persuasive because I have to repeat them so you’ll understand.
We do understand, but there's flaws in your arguments and we've pointed them out and you haven't addressed this.
I’d rather not have to repeat them but I keep getting the same false arguments back and I consider myself patient and considerate to repeat.
Then why not, for starters, answer the questions I posed to you in my 4:47 PM post of 10/29 under "False Claims Of Equality"?
By the way, Sean, in spite of our disagreement, I do really respect and commend you for being civil and respectful here.
Is this website having problems? I can't seem to post anything longer than a couple of sentences.
ReplyDeleteAre you getting a message when you try to post? A "too large to process" message? I get that a lot, but usually I find that the message really did post.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, I'm not sure what's wrong.
“By the way, Sean, in spite of our disagreement, I do really respect and commend you for being civil and respectful here.”
ReplyDeleteI wish I could feel similarly inspired in return. But knowing that there are people out there who value a notion of marriage that excludes same-sex couples, renders children less secure by preventing their parents from getting married, adds to an already homophobic society where weak-minded individuals assume it’s ok to beat up gay teens or wish for their suicides, and shows disregard for the nation’s constitution, well, being civil seems too small a thing.
The civility of the discourse seems unimportant compared to what’s at stake.