Yesterday, I showed you that email promising 77 secular reasons to oppose gay marriage. Now the same guy has written back.
My hope in suggesting this pamphlet to you was to get you to see that there is opposition,for sociological reasons, to the legislation signed by Gov. Dayton yesterday. I can accept that you have summarily dismissed these arguments against same sex marriage. However, I would like you to exposit reasons why I should support same sex marriage. I hope this will not be too much of an imposition of your time. Thank You.
No, the opposition is not “sociological” — it’s religious and dogmatic, and you’ve merely thrown out some very poor rationalizations that pretend to be sociological. And if you can’t see all by yourself the reasons why we should treat all of our fellow human beings equally, I pity you your morally impoverished Christian background.
But just for fun, I think I’ll sit back and let the commenters here generate some explanations. Maybe some will sink in.
Please! Spend you time trying to convince me, random internet dumbass, that I am wrong!
Take me by that hand!
I need your attention!
(By the way, would you like to know about the trans-formative power of my best friend?)
You should support marriage equality because someone you know (and quite possibly care deeply about) wants or will want to marry the person they love.
You should support marriage equality because you support liberty.
You should support marriage equality because children should be raised by people who love them, and not simply because they donated a gamete.
You should support marriage equality because it does not harm you in any way, but provides great joy to millions.
You should support marriage equality because there isn’t enough love in the world as it is. We should support anything that helps sustain love.
But mostly, you should support marriage equality because it’s the morally right thing to do.
I suggest that someone compile a list of arguments against HETEROSEXUAL marriage (it shouldn’t be too hard – the divorce rate would probably top the list) and invite Mr. Sociology to respond. Maybe that will keep him busy enough that he’ll stop sending pointless emails.
“exposit”, forsooth!
Like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expository_preaching
Can’t this moron read?
It wasn’t summarily dismissed. We dealt with the so called arguments in the comments. They were laughably dumb.
Already done yesterday.
This guy really needs to get himself a service animal, a thinking brain dog to read and explain simple English to him. Or find someone who graduated from the third grade.
Given that we, as a society, have decided to give legal recognition and special status to domestic partnership (ie: two people voluntarily forming a long-term social and economic union, usually including co-habitation, generally based on emotional and sexual attachment), there is no rational reason why such status should be conditional on the respective genders of the partners, and imposing such a condition is arbitrary and discriminatory.
Let’s be clear. You can be against gay marriage all you want — just don’t enter into a gay marriage. Problem solved.
The issue is not whether or not you can be against gay marriage, but whether you can impose your views on others. In this regard, gay marriage is none of your fucking business. Unless you are one of the two parties involved in the impending nuptials, shut your pie hole. We don’t want to hear it.
Because in a free country, activities are lawful by default, and only made illegal if they are shown to be harmful. Given that same-sex marriage does no harm to any person or thing, there is no reason to ban it.
When you ask, “Should we allow same-sex marriage?”, you are looking at it backwards. Really it’s a matter of “Should we ban it?”, and since there is no compelling reason to ban it, the issue should be closed.
You know, I remember back in the 80s and 90s, right-wing creeps like this guy were loudly decrying the gay community for being promiscuous.
And then, the gay community decided (by and large) to start settling down. To blend in. To be “responsible citizens”.
And still right-wing creeps like this guy gives them shit.
So, which is it? Bath houses, or Bed, Bath and Beyond? Anonymous sex in gay bars, or trips to Restoration Hardware? Which behavior do you wish to promote over the other?
Yo, guy, no one’s requiring you, or even asking you, to support gay marriage. You’re confusing not opposing something or tolerating something with having to support it. You’ve confused your right to your beliefs with the right to impose your beliefs on other people by denying them their rights.
If you really want to enshrine the protection of marriage in state and federal law or within the U.S. Constitution, your first steps should be to lobby to have adultery and divorce made a criminal offense. That should keep you busy for a while. Stop poking the nice Biologist and Bloggerman – he’s smarter than you and is a master of the fierce weapons of science and reason.
The harm from preventing same-sex couples from taking advantage of the legal benefits of marriage (i.e. inheritance, immigration, adoption, power of attorney, health care benefits, social security benefits, hospital visitation rights, parental rights, tax breaks, etc., etc.) far outweighs the alleged harm of allowing them to do so. In fact neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated convincingly that allowing gay couples to marry would harm anyone at all.
Do you support the right of a man and a woman to have their relationship recognized by the state, with all the rights that includes?
There you go. Just substitute man or woman as appropriate.
The secret is in combining “it’s not any of my business who someone else wants to marry” and “no, it’s really not any of my fucking business who someone else wants to marry”.
As for the non-emotional reasons to support marriage equality, here’s the most convincing to me:
As recognized by the government, marriage is a well-understood social contract outlining the social and economic rights and responsibilities between two married people and the government. As marriage is not expressly about procreation, but about social and economic rights and responsibilities, there is no good reason to refuse the right of two people to marry just because they are the same sex.
This is strictly about upholding the political philosophy on which America was founded: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. When you deny two adults the right to marry simply because you find it distasteful, you are denying them two of those things (Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, in case you were having trouble figuring it out).
As the 1st Amendment specifically precludes the government from establishing a religion, and denying two adults the right to marry because of religious reasons is a de facto establishment of religion, we cannot deny the right to marry based on religious grounds.
The 77 reasons presented in the pamphlet were not a full 77 reasons. Most of the reasons constitute attempts at social engineering. As these 77 reasons were presented with no backing data, there is no good established reason for the necessity for this social engineering. The pamphlet even admits that current research indicates there’s no significant difference in later life between children raised by their genetic parents, and those raised by same-sex couples (or by adoption). Further, the pamphlet even admits socioeconomic factors are far more important to the raising of children than the genetic status of the parents.
So your argument stands like this: you are against same-sex marriage, though it will not affect you in any way, as you have the right to marry the one you love (assuming you are heterosexual, of course). Even if it is against your religion, same-sex marriage will not deny you in any way the right for you to worship the way you wish, no more than the ready availability of ham denies muslims or jews the right to worship as they wish. The claim of religious interference simply doesn’t stand up to logic.
Meanwhile, you are attempting to deprive loving adult couples both liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So you have to ask yourself: do you have the right to deny others a right you already have? Is that morally right? Further, should it be legally right?
Grrrrr, I have no idea why I come here. I enjoy the biology articles, but I read them all and every time I read one like this my stress level goes through the roof. So this asshole bigot wants to know why he shouldn’t discriminate against same sex marriage, I call bullshit. Fucking religious sheep, doesn’t even know he’s a fucking asshole cause you know, discrimination is only bad when it affects him and the rest of the persecuted religious pricks. Good thing I don’t have meetings this afternoon, I’d be intolerable. I’ll be a ranting lunatic the rest of the day.
To be fair, I don’t support the right of Americans to own cattle, since God gave all cows to the Maasai.
Because a minority should not be denied the same rights the majority takes for granted just because some people claim God doesn’t like what GLBT people do in bed.
Many of the “77 Reasons” have to do with children. Marriage involves a lot more than children. Also infertile heterosexual couples or couples who do not want children are allowed to get married and remain married so society in general recognizes marriage without children to be valid.
Just because gays or lesbians can get married has no effect on anyone else’s marriage, despite what the “77 Reasons” may claim.
Despite what many clerics claim, marriage is not primarily a religious activity. Marriage is basically a legal contract giving each partner specific rights and responsibilities. There is no legal justification for denying a same-sex couple the same rights and responsibilities as a heterosexual couple.
NtB/Avo, the ham analogy is Supreme-Court-argument perfect! Nice.
This person should drop by the blog if they want to argue their homophobia. I’m sure they’d get along here like a house on fire.
You should support same-sex marriage for the same reasons you support opposite-sex marriage: because whatever benefits society gets from the latter, it also gets from the former.
And if I have to elaborate on that, then they guy I’m talking to just doesn’t know squat about marriage of any sort.
Off topic but I have to ask this. Does anyone else hate the term “opposite sex” couple? Just how are men and women opposite?
Sorry but that term really annoys me.
Surely the economy needs all the stimulus it can get. Think of all the extra demand for clothes, food, flowers, musical and photographic services, prenuptial parties, receptions, honeymoons, and legal services for subsequent divorces that same-sex marriages generate!
Little I can add to the previous posts.
But here is one of my “personal” reasons: I’m tired of hearing about it. With all the other problems the human race has, obsessing about gay men and women is a fucking distraction. Try worrying about ocean acidification, or inventing a slow discharge capacitor, or curing cancer. People falling in love who have the same genitals is your biggest fucking worry? Grow up asshole.
Goodbye Enemy Janine@20,
I never thought about it, which I guess is my het privilege showing, but in future I will try to remember to refer to “mixed-sex” couples/marriages – which also has the advantage of not assuming there are only two sexes!
Like Bizarro Superman—Superman’s exact opposite, who lives in the backwards Bizarro world. Up is down; down is up. Men say “Hello” when they leave, “Goodbye” when they arrive.
I know some women are thinking: Shouldn’t men say “bad bye”? Isn’t that the opposite of goodbye?
No, it’s still goodbye.
Anyway, me so happy for Minnesota. Me want to cry.
Because when two consensual, single adults get married it isn’t actually any of your business, unless you happen to be one of them. If they decide to make you part of the wedding, that’s up to them, not up to you, and in either case you don’t get to decide if they can marry or not.
Seriously, you don’t have to be in favour of SSM, just not be against it. It’s not that difficult, although you’ll find that most people manage to be in favour of SSM without any problems whatsoever.
There you go. Reasons, and one hellava lot less windy and pointless than your
50 Shades of Grey77 Shades of a Gaseous Windbag.Why to support same-sex marriage:
Marriage is a secular institution, not a religious one. While every state permits clergy to officiate at a marriage, there is no legal obligation to allow this. Every state also recognizes that marriages can be officiated by judges, and many permit county clerks, city clerks, mayors and other civil authorities to do so as well. In Maine, North Carolina and Florida, any notary public may solemnize a marriage. There is no rational basis for making religious arguments of any kind with regards to civil marriage.
Marriage is a legal state carrying profound legal rights, privileges and responsibilities. Recent counts have shown almost a thousand specific federal laws that recognize marriage rights, including pension rights to federal workers, Social Security benefits and the rights of a spouse to shop at a military PX. Every state and territory has between 900 and 1200 statutes touching on marriage including inheritance, join property and mutual obligations in the event of separation and divorce. These do not include the thousands of court rulings and legal precedents establishing spousal rights and responsibilities, nor the uncountable number of rights recognized under local law and company policies, all of which come from payment of a small fee to a civic authority, an oath before someone authorized by law to take that oath, and the filing of the appropriate paperwork with the appropriate civil office. There is no rational basis for denying these many, MANY rights solely on the basis of gender or sexual orientation.
Many same sex couples DO have children that they are raising together. Some adopt. Some use surrogates. Some have children from previous heterosexual relationships. If we assume that the sole purpose of marriage is to protect children — a point that opponents of marriage equality love to make — then there is no rational basis to deny marriage equality to any couple who are raising children together.
Many different sex couples DO NOT have children. Maybe they do not want to be parents. Maybe one or both of the couple are biologically unable to be a parent, either because of prior illness or genetic issues or surgical sterilization. And yet, no state denies a different sex couple the right to marry because of their ability or inability to have children together, nor does any state make it a requirement for couples to procreate if they wish to remain married. There is no rational basis for holding same sex couples to a different standard than we hold different sex couples.
I could probably go on, but I think anything more would just be a reiteration of these four points.
If two heterosexual adults who feel romantic love for each other can get married, then two homosexual adults who feel romantic love for each other should be able to get married.
In a free society, the burden of proof should be on the person who wants to restrict freedom, not the person who wants to expand it.
Also, PZ didn’t “summarily” dismiss those 77 reasons, he linked to a long explanation of reasons to dismiss them.
@22: Yes. The real issue is that gay marriage is one of the issues the right wing has decided to gin up in order that it can forestall actual work on the real problems facing the world.
It’s a faux issue. One that shouldn’t even waste a second of our precious time. Because any thinking person can see in an instant that equality = equality and inequality = inequality.
It shouldn’t be this difficult. It shouldn’t even be an issue. XXX years ago, some gay couple should have come to the courthouse, the court clerk should have looked at them and shrugged. And stamped the stamp or whatever it is that courthouse clerks do.
Rinse and repeat several million times.
I have an old blog entry that I think covers it fairly nicely…
http://jimgphynn.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/marriage-equality/
But what about all the income tax funds we’ll lose if we let those ‘gays’ get married! That loss will be a real detriment to society. Why should they get a tax break for their dirty sex routines anyway? Don’t normal couples deserve a tax break, isn’t it really hard for a woman to support her dear husband’s “playfulness”, and the man to tolerate his wife’s “headaches”? {/snark}
But really; taxes are the only thing I can think of that is a “downside” to letting gays marry. Why do straight couples get a tax-break, anyway? ({snark} to encourage straight marriage, else boys will marry other boys and girls will marry girls {/snark})
Single sex parenting that worked out fine on TV:
– “The Rifleman”
– “My Three Sons”
And what does every clergyman say at the conclusion of the marriage ceremony? “By the power invested in me, by the state of X, I declare you {man|husband} and wife”. It isn’t God that gave him that power, but the State. Why do legislators keep saying marriage is purely a religious convention (i.e. “sacrament”), when religion itself says it got the power from the State?
Isn’t that the definition of hypocrisy?
But No One, what of those four men living all together, yet they were all alone.
Anything I could say has already been said and better; but in a nutshell – any decent human being should support SSM because it’s the right thing to do. What kind of mean-spirited, bigoted insanity does it take to actually believe that one of my nephews should have the right to marry someone he loves while the other, his brother, should not? What kind of twisted morality is that?
.
Keep your religion to yourself; believe all you like, but don’t try to force others to suffer for your beliefs.
That goes against the christian creed of spreading the gossip of Jesus.
(Yes. I used that word on purpose.)
Nigel@13 I just wanted to join anbheal @17 in appreciation of the ‘ham analogy’. So brilliant I’m going to steal it.
I knew it. Fucking knew it!
Fucking sociologists. *spits*
Even shorter answer: liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Tell me why you should support inter-racial marriages. Or tell me why you should support marriages between those sinister, socially-subversive, freakish, utterly disgusting left-handed people. That’s why you should support same-sex marriage.
anbheal @17, marcus @37:
Ahh, shucks. Y’all make me blush.
I wish I could claim complete credit, but I can’t. I thought I thought it up on my own, but I found out that several folks have come up with similar arguments independently. Realize, there is a religious defense against this line of argument (but SEE Gregory in Seattle @26 for a rebuttal of that defense). So the analogy isn’t perfect. But it’s damned good, especially for folks who think they have a “gotcha” moment when their blindness to privilege makes them think, “But them I’m being oppressed.”
It’s mostly a gotcha rebuttal to a gotcha moment of privilege.
But please do, steal away. It’s been an effective rhetorical device for me, so please go forth and propagate (that meme).
In looking at the parenting situation in the most negative way, one can still see advantages to same-sex marriage, given the facts about same-sex relationships. Given the fact that homosexuality exists, that pair bonds do develop between homosexuals and that children are sometimes involved: for society and the children, which is a better situation, marriage or not? Even if the hypothetical assertions [as yet unjustified] that there might be some negative consequences with same sex parents as compared with male/female parents, what is the better situation given certain facts on the ground?
Given that homosexuality exists, but that it may not recognized by the person involved until after a heterosexual relationship has produced a child or children, what is a better situation for the children for a custodial homosexual parent, to have another adult with legal rights and responsibilities towards the children or have no one involved, except for a disinterested non-custodial biological parent?
Given that some partners in a stable homosexual relationship may want a child and the technology and legal situation easily allows them to produce one, what is better for the child – to have two adults with legal responsibilities or one?
Even when there are no children involved, where is the greater harm when two people share a long-term commitment to each other – marriage or a lack of the same?
Of course this is all about them slippery slopes, you know. The same sex denialists want to deny you the right of having a great time sliding down slippery slopes. That would be fun and you can’t have that, the fundies will froth and frown.
You know a person is arguing in good faith when they completely ignore the extensive analysis and refutation of their points, then turn around and airily accuse you of summarily dismissing them.
Because treating people like they’re not people makes you a jerk.
Good grief, 45 comments and nobody has proffered The. Number. One. Reason to support same-sex marriage; it pisses off conservatives. If that was the only thing going for the idea it would still be worth pursuing.
Of course, if we adopted Janine’s point in #20 we might refer to ‘mixed marriages’ for het couples. That could have the advantage of blowing the ‘minds’ of race bigots too.
I’m for marriage equality, but even more broadly than that, I think the legal issues surrounding marriage should be separated away from the sex and love part.
State sanctioned marriage comes with a whole laundry list of legal rights and duties – you share tax benefits, powers of attorney, rights to visit in the hospital, enter certain contracts together, joint checking accounts, making medical decisions, even attend the funeral, etc. However, why should your spouse automatically get all of these? You might be married to someone that you don’t want to share financial control with – maybe the love of your life is hopeless with money or a recovering gambler. Conversely, why couldn’t you share some of these rights with people who you aren’t having sex with? You might have several close friends that you want to have a say in the big decisions. Why would I not want my best friend, who is a doctor, to have at least as much say as my partner, who faints at the sight of blood, when making medical decisions about me if I should become incapacitated? I think we should be able to share certain rights with a variety of people we are close to and trust in our lives, not just the person in our bed.
People think that “getting married” is about getting up in front of friends and family and expressing your love and desire to spend your lives together, and it should be. However, the actual contract that gets signed barely mentions the love and cherish and honor parts, and instead entangles both of your legal rights together in exceedingly complicated ways, with ramifications most folks don’t understand (and keeps divorce attorneys in business!).
Then it wouldn’t matter if folks were straight or gay. The “marriage” (state, church or otherwise) would be about the promise to love and honor and cherish or whatever. But the legal contract(s) would be separate, and tailored to your particular relationship(s). The huge “package” of legal rights that comes with marriage is too broad, too big, too complex. I want an “a la carte” menu.
Come to think of it, my marriage to an other-sexed person is “mixed” in a couple of senses; not only different genders, but different ethnicities (yes, we’re both “white” for some values of white, but only one of us is an ethnic Jew).
I didn’t see any sociological reasons. I saw lots of
imaginationredundancy and empty claims. If the glass is totally empty, it is a waste of time talking about how full it is!Huh. Sal Paradise has apparently runnnd off.
Shit, wrong tab.
For sociological reasons, people who believe that arguments between human beings are rightfully settled by referring to your invisible friend should be removed from the voting and parenting population.
Also, I should not have read a thread where straight people were invited to make their arguments, even pro-me arguments. Holy crap, what a depressing exercise that is.
barbyau:
We’re doing our best. Honestly.
Please let us (me) know how we (I) can do better. Truly and honestly.
Sincerely,
A straight person.
(I really do mean it. I hope to represent as best I can. If you want me to shut up, I’ll do that, too.)
*grabs sociology handouts*
*rolls them up*
*smacks christoid on the nose*
no! bad christoid homophobe! bad!
*eyes chas, still holding the rolled up handouts*
Heh, whatever. We just got same sex marriage in Minnesota. We don’t owe you shit. Crawl back into the hole you came out of and just keep shaking your tiny impotent fist at all the happy same sex couples. We don’t are.
We don’t CARE.
I agree with cricketbird #47
Everything we do should be run by the lawyers first.
(including commenting while drunk)
What about the children?
A lot of gay people try to be straight, and marry someone they like a lot in the hopes it will turn into true love. It doesn’t, but they have children. Finally, they realize that a loveless marriage only hurts their families. They still try to be good parents. They spend time with the child and pay support if they aren’t the custodial parent. I know people in that situation.
And if they got remarried, then the child would have more adult role models, more care-givers, more people who could sign permission slips for school outings and pack lunches and help with school projects. And if the biological parents got killed in an accident carpooling to a parent teacher conference, the child would have a step-parent they already are used to seeing as a parental figure who can look after them.
Also, as a childless, married, heterosexual woman, I find people who imply I have no right to be married EXTREMELY offensive.
I’ve long despaired that almost all of the bigots’ objections to SSM are actually objections to same sex couples raising kids. They’re still bullshit arguments, but I always want to ask these people if they’d support same sex marriage if the law also included a ban on same sex couples having children, because I really can’t see any reason for their objections other than “ick – god hates the homos” that don’t boil down to “won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?!?!”
Reasons why you should support same-sex marriage? You’re assuming your premise there.
No one gives a shit if you personally support marriage equality or not. Social justice isn’t something you possess and hold the power to dole out to whatever marginalized groups give you the best “reasons”.
Get over yourself. The way it works is this- if you and whoever else you can wrangle up into your mob want to petition to deny any group some legal right or other, the onus is on you to lay out a clear, logical series of reasons that demonstrate how you would actually be harmed were Group X allowed to exercise said right.
The anti-marriage equality side has had plenty of time to amass such reasons and have plead them before the courts. They have failed again and again. Why? Because the anti side hasn’t been able to come up with anything that stands rational scrutiny. The anti arguments basically come in two flavors-
1) Religious (not allowed in a secular democracy)
2) Lies about gay people (both in their character as individuals and as parents)
Everything about the anti-marriage equality position is made of 100% pure-grade fail.
So stop thinking we or anyone else owes you reasons why you should support anything. We don’t. Fuck off.
You should support homosexual marriage because it will make all those gay couples who wish to marry very, very happy while having absolutely no negative impact on anyone else whatsoever, thus resulting in a net increase in human happiness and thus being the morally right thing to do.
And if you can’t wrap your head around that then, to quote PZ, “I pity you your morally impoverished Christian background”.
They weren’t summarily dismissed, they were considerately placed in the toilet. Then, not having enough weight to go down on their own, they were shit on to help them to their final resting place.
People evolve.
Some behaviors that were considered imoral, impious, against God, are being, slowly but surely, considered human, not an abomination, something that is no more a shame to be hidden.
Books, tv, cinema, newspapers, magazines, internet, some of the people you love and respect are transforming the way of thinking and seing the world .
People change and is also our duty, good citizens, with a ethic that doesn´t rely on some holy book, to point the fails of the religious mind regarding several things.
We don´t need to be gay to suport their rights, we need to be decent people to suport their rights, because is the right and human thing to do.
We change opinions, we can admit that we were wrong in some ways.
In the past, i had very traditionalist opinions regarding several problems:
I was against abortion.
I was against gay marriage.
I was against gay adoption.
Why? A mixt of religious influence and the general social feeling towards that subjects.
But today i full suport the right to a woman abort, the right of a gay couple to marry or to adopt a child.
Why i changed? A mixt of puting myself in their place (thinking what i would think and feel, if i was on the other side) and informing me about the abortion theme and the gay theme regarding marriage and the adoption.
And i changed because i saw then that was the right thing to do, and that the hapiness of others should be defended, instead of some old, and cruel, social and religious rules.
@fernando
Sincerely, well done. It’s never too late to change, and all that.
@ fernando
Thank you for “coming out” as a decent human being.
(Stronger: I think you will be an even better asset to our cause for having run the entire gamut, from opposition to ally. Don’t go away!)
Since I get the feeling this person would like a ‘sociological’ explanation from the right wing of politics, I’ll give him the words of the Conservative British Prime Minister:
@ethicsgradient
Ooh, good idea. Hell, his party is named after conservatism, you can’t get much better conservative credentials! And he’s for it. Therefore, any self-described conservative who is against it is at best inconsistent.
QED.
@ barbyou
I am very selfish in making pro-me arguments. I personally find the lack of marriage equality extremely offensive on many levels. It angers me no end and I mean to ceaselessly fight it wherever it appears. I am sorry if my position is upsetting to you, but there it is.
fernando
Thank you.
Thank you for becoming a better person, it’s no mean feat that. Many never manage it.
And thank you for sharing your story. It give me hope.
Dontcha just love it when right-wing trolls ask for “evidence” to prove them wrong. Swimming in oceans of ignorance and ideological rigidity, the request simply means “Hey, you elites, come on down to the oxygen deprived level, where I live”! Unfortunately, to do a thorough explanation of the world as it really is, one must overhaul these attenuated brains: change the ontologically challenged worldview and install an epistemology more suited to the world of science and knowledge – a daunting task, indeed. Just remember, when arguing with a fool, sooner or later, you become one!
I’m impressed.
As Americans we are all entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under the Ninth Amendment, we are entitled to any rights we claim unless the government can show a compelling reason otherwise. Homosexuality is something that exists in nature. It has always existed and always will exist. The only question then is how we as a society will treat this minority group. Will they enjoy the same rights as all other citizens as required by our Constitution, or will we allow superstition and fear to pervert those rights to justify our own prejudices. The reasons to deny equal rights to same sex couples fall into three categories:
1. My deity says it’s wrong.
In that case, then you shouldn’t engage in such activities. That doesn’t give you the right to impose your unproven beliefs on others.
2. It’s icky.
Then don’t do it. That doesn’t give you the right to restrict the freedoms of others. Lots of people do things we find icky. So long as they pose no harm, those things are allowed.
3. What about the children?
Perhaps the most nonsensical argument of all. Gay people already have children. They have been raising children, either alone or as couples, for decades now. Some of those children now have children of their own. This has nothing to do with children. Adoption and access to surrogacy and artificial insemination by gay couples is a completely separate issue. There’s no reason to believe that gay people are better or worse parents than straight couples. (Actually there was one study that showed better outcomes for lesbian couples, but it was a small study and hasn’t been replicated.) People are either good parents or they are not. Adoption agencies are entrusted with the responsibility of checking out potential parents. If only someone did that to people who had children the old fashioned way. I realize there have been cases where bad people adopted children, but by and large people who adopt want children very much or else they wouldn’t be willing to jump through the hoops required or pay the many outrageous expenses involved in adoption. Whether or not people are suited to being parents should be taken on a case by case basis. Even if there were only one gay couple who would be good adoptive parents, the fact that the others wouldn’t be good is no reason to deny that one couple the ability to adopt. This argument is just a junk pile of logical fallacies, all of them unworthy of anyone who considers him- or herself to be a freethinker, atheist or skeptic.
In short, there are no arguments against same sex marriage EXCEPT for anti-gay bigotry. None were offered in the Prop 8 case, which is why the gay couples kept winning. For a conservative argument for gay marriage, I recommend reading Ted Olson. I may disagree with Olson on a great many things, but I can’t discount that he is a brilliant attorney and I must say I’m happy to have him on my side for once! Children are already being raised by gay couples. The question is not whether they will be parented by homosexuals, but whether or not we will allow those children to have parents who are married. There is no logical reason to prevent those marriages. None.
@David Marjanovic
With ethicsgradient or the PM?
Yeah, but the worst part of the 77 Reasons? The very, very worst part? In addition to the bigotry? It’s just badly, oh, so, so badly, written. Did you check number 38? “When a child is born a mother is always somewhere close by.” You know how viviparous animals are. Like to be close by when giving birth. I myself chose to be in the same room with my daughter when giving birth to her. Made things so much easier.
I know I’ve said this before, but remember how badly to the right America’s Overton Window is shifted. The UK Conservative party sits, I’d say, a little to the left of the US Democrats.
@Dr. Marcus Hill
Being from the UK I have only a basic knowledge of US politics, but I would say that taken as a whole the Tories are roughly equivalent to the Democrats. Some policies (foreign policy, mostly) are slightly to the left, some (their position on welfare, for example) are slightly to the right of the Democrats. But overall, as I said, roughly equivalent.
Which is why I get annoyed with Tory supporters who support the Republicans out of some sort of ideological loyalty to “the right” (but not the far right). There is nothing inconsistent about supporting the Tories in the UK and the Democrats in the US, but they seem to think they have to support the furthest right mainstream party, for some reason.
With Namesake Cameron. The conservatives elsewhere in Europe, by no means all to his right, are still where Obama was in 2008: separate but equal – “OK, but let’s not call it marriage”.
That reason – inability to think outside the box of their own experience – is also the only reason why Schwarzenegger is a Republican. It’s no surprise at all how he was able to stand marrying a Kennedy: he believes he’s a Republican simply because he’d fit fairly well into Austria’s conservative party.
@David Marjanovic
Yeah, me too :) I was well happy when he came out with that. That said, most of his backbenchers disagree and the more cynical part of me wonders whether that’s his opinion or a simple acknowledgment of which way the wind is blowing. But hey, whichever it is the bill went to Parliament and got past the Commons, so I’m happy so far :) Now we just need to worry about the Lords (I believe they’re meant to vote on it later this year) but it’s rare that they overule the Commons, so I reckon we’re sorted :)
And yes; people fail to take the Overton Window into account. Mainstream conservatism in the UK is not the same as mainstream conservatism in the US, or even in France. They simplify everything to left and right and then allign themselves with whichever party is closest to theirs based on that simplistic binary division. It’s infuriating.
Here are the top three answers I can come up with to this question, usable alone or in conjunction with one another:
1. “Seriously, go fuck yourself.”
2. “Why support same sex marriage? Why not. There is no fucking reason not to.”
3. “Did you not read the fucking reasons why those arguments were dismissed? They contained the fucking reasons for supporting same sex marriage!”
But really, “go fuck yourself” is the only answer that these ignorant, disingenuous assholes will register. Anything less will be distorted or shoved down the memory hole.
The 77 reasons amount to this:
“Only people who are willing and able to have children together should be allowed to marry because that’s the only real purpose of marriage and there is some not-so-great evidence that children raised by their two biological parents will do better than other children.Once the children exist, the parents should not be able to divorce because that’s bad for children also.
Except when it’s worthwhile to make an exception. Worthwhile exceptions are kind like pornography. I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it. Being gay is not a good exception because…well, I can’t say but I’m sure it’s not religious because this is a non-religious argument!”
Ignoring the simple fact tthat if we as a nation are going to pay more than lip service to the rule of law and the US constitution’s 5th adn 14th amendment guarantees re: substantive due process of law, you should support same sex marriage because we all, as a nation, will benefit from such recognition, in exactly the same manner and to exactly the same degree we’ve benefited from recognizing ‘traditional’ civil matrimony. All the benefits society accrues by recognizing opposite-sex marriages it also accrues through recognizing same sex marriage: promoting the creation of stable social units (i.e., ‘families’); providing for the welfare of dependent children and other dependent individuals; clarifiying ownership of joint porperties and common;y-held resources; establishing and clarifying legal lines of inheritance; establishing and clarifying next-of-kin relationships for the purpose of medical and legal guardianship in the event of disability; promoting economic growth through economies of scale, shared capital investment, etc.
I doubt you’d argue that “traditional’ mariage has benefited both those recognized as partners inmarraige as well as society as a whole–can you offer any rational argument why it would not equally benefit from recognizing same sex marraiges?
Maybe I’m misreading, but I’m sensing that the real question is “why should I give a crap about an issue that doesn’t affect me directly?” If I’m wrong, please say so.
Here’s why it’s good to care about issues that affect other people but not you. Because we care about the welfare of others and we hope that some day when that situation is reversed that they will care about ours. it’s not just about having a party and cutting a cake. There are real world consequences for couples who are not married. Straight couples have the option of getting married. Gay couples in most states do not, and their marriages are not recognized by the federal government. In real terms that means that the person you have chosen as your partner in life is not your next of kin. A family member can override their wishes. They can bar you from seeing them in the ICU. A hospital can ban you from being with them in the emergency room because it’s “families only”. The horror stories are endless. The alternative to marriage is spending thousands of dollars to have lawyers draw up papers that you have to have with you when you travel. Imagine that. And why? Because some people’s prejudices are more important? Would you like that if it applied to you? Then why is it okay for someone else?
You should be for gay marriage because it’s the right thing. I’m not asking you to write a check or go to a demonstration, but at least vote for marriage equality if it comes up for a vote in your state. I don’t think that treating other people with the same dignity and respect you’d want for yourself is too much to ask. Hopefully one day gay people will return the favor, assuming they already haven’t many times.
savpunk wrote:
At least until we develop either transporter or portal technology.