Gay Marriage is not "Progressive"

[stromboli]

Oh do shut up already.

Ditto.

[Poison Tree]

You have implied that you think homosexuals should be allowed "civil partnerships" but not marriage; is this a correct understanding of your position? if so, what rights from marriage should not be included in these "civil partnerships"?

[trdsf]

What's the problem with redefining marriage?

Historically, marriage has been defined more in terms of the husband effectively owning the wife.  I have no problem with the redefinition away from that.  And this change is very recent, historically -- it hasn't yet spread to the entire world.  There are still places (Iran and Saudi Arabia come to mind in particular) where women are not legally an equal partner.  The recognition of women's rights, both on their own and within the context of marriage, is a very recent development in the West.

Biblical marriage was polygamous, and the wife was very definitely the property of the husband; modern marriage is very definitely a "redefinition" of that... and one wonders how many women who currently oppose "redefining" marriage would appreciate being in a really Biblical marriage, being one of multiple wives with few legal rights of their own, obliged to marry their brother-in-law if widowed, etc.

The fact is that as society grows up, we do redefine our definitions of social contracts, of which marriage is one.  We always have, and we always will.  Marriage has always been part of that, and it isn't immune to change now.

[Atheon]

I have an idea: instead of hating gay people, like the OP, how about NOT hating gay people?

(Sometimes my sheer genius staggers me...)

[Hydra009]

The fact is that as society grows up, we do redefine our definitions of social contracts, of which marriage is one.  We always have, and we always will.  Marriage has always been part of that, and it isn't immune to change now.

Exactly. Plus, Vlad's argument that we shouldn't redefine marriage by extending it to gays is pretty much exactly what racists said about mixed race marriages.  We've heard this before.

Far more fascinating to me, though, are the many, many cases before 1948, which upheld bans on interracial marriage. I have had the unpleasant task of immersing myself in this disturbing jurisprudence. The arguments made in these cases are strikingly similar to arguments made today against same-sex marriage. These arguments include religion and natural law, procreation, concern for the children, deference to the legislature, and the slippery-slope argument (that is, allowing interracial marriage will lead to polygamy and incest). The ultimate rejection of all these arguments in the interracial marriage context may speak to their long-term viability in the same-sex marriage debate.

Funny how Vlad rejects these horrendous arguments when they target mixed-race couples and champions them when they target gay couples.  It's almost as if these "rational" arguments are just a cover for an irrational disdain of homosexuals.

[Hydra009]

I have an idea: instead of hating gay people, like the OP, how about NOT hating gay people?

(Sometimes my sheer genius staggers me...)

Personally, I like to go with the "would an idiot do this?" test.  Saying that a loving couple can't get married because they have the wrong genitalia sure seems like the epitome of idiocy.

[Atheon]

Exactly. Plus, Vlad's argument that we shouldn't redefine marriage by extending it to gays is pretty much exactly what racists said about mixed race marriages.  We've heard this before.

Plus it's a tired canard that Christian fundies love to trot out. Great company he runs with, eh?

[trdsf]

Exactly. Plus, Vlad's argument that we shouldn't redefine marriage by extending it to gays is pretty much exactly what racists said about mixed race marriages.  We've heard this before.

Pretty much.  Granting that I Am Not A Lawyer, I was a poli sci major and have made a particular study of the Constitution, Constitutional law, and the Supreme Court... and quite frankly, I can't think of a way to uphold gay marriage bans without overturning Loving.

Granted, Scalia, Alito and Thomas are beyond hope on this issue and have demonstrated they will twist any law any way they like (read Scalia's dissents in Romer, and in the Windsor and Hollingsworth cases -- and despair that this man is actually on the Supreme Court).  Roberts may be reachable, but it would have to be a carefully crafted argument.  As before, it's all going to hinge on Kennedy.

Meanwhile, Alabama has just become the first "Deep South" state to get equal marriage... while here in Ohio, we're under one of the very few rulings to uphold the ban.  I am so fucking embarrassed for my state right now.  Having Utah go before us was embarrassing enough, but Alabama?  No wonder our state symbol is a buckeye -- that's just nuts.

[VladK]

You have implied that you think homosexuals should be allowed "civil partnerships" but not marriage; is this a correct understanding of your position? if so, what rights from marriage should not be included in these "civil partnerships"?

Well with 200+ countries in the world each with their specific marriage arrangements, I'd have to say without anything that would count as positive right, anything that requires the government to actively "do something" for you, such as financial aid, access to surrogates or allow you more favorable tax arrangements that other people don't get. Given that the LGBT movement is a left-wing movement it's entirely possible that they would try to achieve such goals or take advantage of those that already exist.

Let me give you an example from my own country. Let's say two guys could marry. One's a big shot director, the other one is jobless or has a really low end job. They retire. If the director dies, the jobless/low end one gets half his pension, provided he's also past retirement age, even though he's either never worked a day in his life or worked low end jobs that would never justify such a high pension, paid for by the government from everyone else's taxes. Why exactly is that fair? What exactly does such a union produce for society to justify such an arrangement? I understand the point of tolerance, I don't understand why we need to subsidize it through various means.

If people just want to live together, share the same properties and inherit each other, those would be negative rights in my eyes.

As far as adoption goes, marriages should have absolute priority on adoptions over any other non-traditional arrangement or single people.

Likewise not calling it marriage would mean churches couldn't be forced legally to recognize such unions and make ceremonies. Why should they be forced to recognize it when it's against their beliefs? Nobody's forcing you to go to church if you think their values don't match yours. For example, I'm an atheist, I don't expect to be hired as a priest. That's yet another consequence of "marriage equality" that people haven't quite thought through.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/gay-couple-sue-church-of-england_n_3714609.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html

Exactly. Plus, Vlad's argument that we shouldn't redefine marriage by extending it to gays is pretty much exactly what racists said about mixed race marriages.  We've heard this before.
Funny how Vlad rejects these horrendous arguments when they target mixed-race couples and champions them when they target gay couples.  It's almost as if these "rational" arguments are just a cover for an irrational disdain of homosexuals.

I'll say this again and again until you get it.

There's no difference between the races.

There are tremendous differences between the sexes. We even segregate sexes in certain circumstances such as sports teams and bathrooms. Sure we don't segegrate as heavily as more culturally backward countries do, but we do have some of it. There aren't any women or men crying bigotry because they can't get into teams which are defined as strictly composed of male or female. We also don't date people of all sexes, unless we're bi. A lot of things you'd rightfully call racist / racial apartheid, like race-based sports teams and bathrooms or even selectively only dating people of your race (well maybe this is somewhat debatable, I think it's racist but I don't mind if people are discreet about it), simply don't apply when translated to gender or gendered groups.

I have an idea: instead of hating gay people, like the OP, how about NOT hating gay people?

(Sometimes my sheer genius staggers me...)

Why do you hate children to such an extent that you don't want them to be raised by their real parents?

What's the problem with redefining marriage?

Historically, marriage has been defined more in terms of the husband effectively owning the wife.  I have no problem with the redefinition away from that.  And this change is very recent, historically -- it hasn't yet spread to the entire world.  There are still places (Iran and Saudi Arabia come to mind in particular) where women are not legally an equal partner.  The recognition of women's rights, both on their own and within the context of marriage, is a very recent development in the West.

Biblical marriage was polygamous, and the wife was very definitely the property of the husband; modern marriage is very definitely a "redefinition" of that... and one wonders how many women who currently oppose "redefining" marriage would appreciate being in a really Biblical marriage, being one of multiple wives with few legal rights of their own, obliged to marry their brother-in-law if widowed, etc.

The fact is that as society grows up, we do redefine our definitions of social contracts, of which marriage is one.  We always have, and we always will.  Marriage has always been part of that, and it isn't immune to change now.

You do realize that even such changes are minor when compared to the kind of change you're proposing? The exact details have changed over time, but continuation of the human species has always been at the center.

[Atheon]

Why do you hate children to such an extent that you don't want them to be raised by their real parents?

Are you really this stupid?

First, by far the majority of gay couples will NOT have children, and in such cases, the "point" your trying to make is totally moot.

Second, children are raised all the time in families that are not bio-mom and bio-dad. There are adopted children... guess you must hate them.. There are foster parents, single parents, relatives raising orphaned children, etc. All out the window in your view.

Third, gay people can and do raise children, and studies show over and over again that children raised by gay couples fare just as well, of not better, than children raised by opposite-sex couples.

Fourth, the existence of gay marriage has no bearing on all those bio-mom, bio-dad and bio-children families that already exist. Those families will not automatically disintegrate when gay couples get hitched.

But if you weren't so blinded by bigotry and hatred, you would realize this stuff.

[SGOS]

Vlad:  Nobody's forcing you to go to church if you think their values don't match yours. For example, I'm an atheist, I don't expect to be hired as a priest. That's yet another consequence of "marriage equality" that people haven't quite thought through.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/gay-couple-sue-church-of-england_n_3714609.html

OK, so the Church of England is being sued for not performing gay weddings.  It has to go to court to be tested, so everyone knows what obligations Churches have.  It will be interesting for us to watch.  I can't possibly predict the outcome, but I'd be interested in hearing the arguments from both sides.  We've had somewhat similar discrimination suits taking place here in the US, and I think it's a good thing that the courts provide clarity on the issue.  Don't you?  Or does it just upset you that churches are being sued?  Would you rather continue on never knowing if the state condones religious discrimination or not.

[VladK]

Are you really this stupid?

Are you? Prove that I "hate" gay people.

First, by far the majority of gay couples will NOT have children, and in such cases, the "point" your trying to make is totally moot.

Oh thanks a lot. You finally admitted that the goal of gay marriage has nothing to do with human reproduction for the most part, which only just goes to show you that activists at best don't understand why we have marriage in the first place or at worst they are trying to subvert the concept of marriage and undermine natural parenthood.

Second, children are raised all the time in families that are not bio-mom and bio-dad.

And that is not a good thing. The bond between natural mother/father and child once broken can never be fully replicated. Did you know for example that one of Elliot Rodger's greivances was that he could not relate to his step mom Soumaya and could never regard her as a "real mom"? In less extreme cases children of foster parents (even straight foster parents) still have an urge to seek out their real parents, or at least find out what happened to them if they're no longer alive.

Your ideology denies all of this in the name of "equality" and "not offending people".

Now children being raised by non-biological parents, sometimes this is inevitable due to parents dying or otherwise becoming unable to parent effectively (disabilities, jail, mental illness etc.) But as a society we should not deliberately encourage circumstances where children are separated from their biological parents. Surrogacy and sperm donation being examples. These are not accidents or unfortunate circumstances, these are deliberate actions and people need to be called out for it.

There are adopted children... guess you must hate them.. There are foster parents, single parents, relatives raising orphaned children, etc. All out the window in your view.

You're an idiot. Read my posts again.

Third, gay people can and do raise children, and studies show over and over again that children raised by gay couples fare just as well, of not better, than children raised by opposite-sex couples.

Don't you mean studies done by gender ideologues using poor or selective sampling, with the promise that they'll end up like Mozilla CEO if they don't reach the "correct" conclusions?

Fourth, the existence of gay marriage has no bearing on all those bio-mom, bio-dad and bio-children families that already exist. Those families will not automatically disintegrate when gay couples get hitched.

No, but they do diminish their importance. In some countries for example parents are no longer reffered to as "mother" or "father", just parent.

It's not equality, it's subversion.

[Atheon]

It's a little different in the UK, since the Church of England is the official state church.

[Atheon]

Are you? Prove that I "hate" gay people.

You want to deny them equal rights.

QED.

[SGOS]

It's a little different in the UK, since the Church of England is the official state church.

Yes, that makes it even more interesting to watch.  Who will determine British policy?  The state or the church?  How can the state endorse a church, but not it's policy?  I find these questions interesting and important. Can they be ignored?