Why Do People Care About Gay Marriage?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I also don’t get why so many gays want to be married.

Gay people want it because they can’t have it. They are right in their belief that they are not equal until they can have everything that straight people have.

They are ramming it down our throats because pressing for an extreme position is the quickest way to gain a compromise.

I say let them be married and call it a marriage. It’s time to let people be equal REGARDLESS of what they are.

Well, they’ve still fallen short. They can’t produce offspring on their own. They can have an analogous relationship, but it will never be the same thing as a relationship a husband has with a wife, so they should stop trying to emulate us. Let them do our thing, they do theirs, and quit changing definitions handed down in the tradition of Western civilization. [/quote]

Hasn’t Western civilization continued and grown precisely because it has allowed definitions to change and evolve?

22

[quote]makkun wrote:
Bestiality: marriage requires consensus based on sentience. Consensus cannot be secured. No slippery slope.

Makkun[/quote]

Why would you need consent from an animal? Does anyone ask the cow for permission to make a steak out of him? If you don’t need consent to BBQ it, do you really need consent to throw a wedding dress on it?

23

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I also don’t get why so many gays want to be married.

Gay people want it because they can’t have it. They are right in their belief that they are not equal until they can have everything that straight people have.

They are ramming it down our throats because pressing for an extreme position is the quickest way to gain a compromise.

I say let them be married and call it a marriage. It’s time to let people be equal REGARDLESS of what they are.

Well, they’ve still fallen short. They can’t produce offspring on their own. They can have an analogous relationship, but it will never be the same thing as a relationship a husband has with a wife, so they should stop trying to emulate us. Let them do our thing, they do theirs, and quit changing definitions handed down in the tradition of Western civilization.

Hasn’t Western civilization continued and grown precisely because it has allowed definitions to change and evolve?[/quote]

Sure. But not on things like this. Like it or not, Western civilization grew out of a certain Judeo-Christian moral consensus, (with the Enlightenment borrowing considerable Judeo-Christian intellectual capital), up until about the mid to late 1800s. Ultimately, you’ve got to have some way of saying what is right and what is wrong according to some standard, or “right” is just what everyone feels like at the time, which is what we have now. That’s why I’m in favor of leaving the historical Western definition of marriage as it is.

We can certainly depart from the values that made the West the West, but then it will no longer resemble the West.

24

[quote]Sloth wrote:
makkun wrote:
Bestiality: marriage requires consensus based on sentience. Consensus cannot be secured. No slippery slope.

Makkun

Why would you need consent from an animal? Does anyone ask the cow for permission to make a steak out of him? If you don’t need consent to BBQ it, do you really need consent to throw a wedding dress on it?[/quote]

Yeah, I’m not sure why consent is required either. Right now, consent is required because everyone agrees it’s “right.”

I’m playing devil’s advocate, obviously, but there’s a considerable amount that’s assumed now in our laws that probably won’t be assumed in time.

25

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Well, they’ve still fallen short. They can’t produce offspring on their own. They can have an analogous relationship, but it will never be the same thing as a relationship a husband has with a wife, so they should stop trying to emulate us. Let them do our thing, they do theirs, and quit changing definitions handed down in the tradition of Western civilization. [/quote]

Reproduction isn’t the reason why most people have sex. Plus sterile people get married all the time.

26

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I also don’t get why so many gays want to be married.

Gay people want it because they can’t have it. They are right in their belief that they are not equal until they can have everything that straight people have.

They are ramming it down our throats because pressing for an extreme position is the quickest way to gain a compromise.

I say let them be married and call it a marriage. It’s time to let people be equal REGARDLESS of what they are.

Well, they’ve still fallen short. They can’t produce offspring on their own. They can have an analogous relationship, but it will never be the same thing as a relationship a husband has with a wife, so they should stop trying to emulate us. Let them do our thing, they do theirs, and quit changing definitions handed down in the tradition of Western civilization.

Hasn’t Western civilization continued and grown precisely because it has allowed definitions to change and evolve?

Sure. But not on things like this. Like it or not, Western civilization grew out of a certain Judeo-Christian moral consensus, (with the Enlightenment borrowing considerable Judeo-Christian intellectual capital), up until about the mid to late 1800s. Ultimately, you’ve got to have some way of saying what is right and what is wrong according to some standard, or “right” is just what everyone feels like at the time, which is what we have now. That’s why I’m in favor of leaving the historical Western definition of marriage as it is.

We can certainly depart from the values that made the West the West, but then it will no longer resemble the West. [/quote]

Slavery.Serfdom.Fealty.Birthright.Nobility.Commoner.Divine right.Heresy.

These are all just some of the institutions and definitions that have altered,some of which were held,at the time,to be crucial to the continuity of Western civilization at a given juncture.All were supported by Judeo-Christian concensus . What made any of those of those any different to the definition of marriage?

Apart from our own personal opinion,of course.

27

[quote]905Patrick wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Well, they’ve still fallen short. They can’t produce offspring on their own. They can have an analogous relationship, but it will never be the same thing as a relationship a husband has with a wife, so they should stop trying to emulate us. Let them do our thing, they do theirs, and quit changing definitions handed down in the tradition of Western civilization.

Reproduction isn’t the reason why most people have sex. Plus sterile people get married all the time.[/quote]

But providing an intact family unit for offspring is the most important use of marriage.

28

[quote]905Patrick wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Well, they’ve still fallen short. They can’t produce offspring on their own. They can have an analogous relationship, but it will never be the same thing as a relationship a husband has with a wife, so they should stop trying to emulate us. Let them do our thing, they do theirs, and quit changing definitions handed down in the tradition of Western civilization.

Reproduction isn’t the reason why most people have sex. Plus sterile people get married all the time.[/quote]

Your argument is that they wanted to be equal, but they can’t be equal because two men getting married is inherently qualitatively different than a man and a woman getting married. Functional anatomy and reproductive possibilities are just one example. If a man/woman couple is sterile, they can’t have kids, to be sure, but two men aren’t possessive of the functional anatomy to even think about producing children.

On top of that, women have different qualities that complement a man and vice-versa (I hope this is non-controversial). Men-men “marriages” are therefore qualitatively different from the get go and therefore unequal.

29

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Well, they’ve still fallen short. They can’t produce offspring on their own. They can have an analogous relationship, but it will never be the same thing as a relationship a husband has with a wife, so they should stop trying to emulate us. Let them do our thing, they do theirs, and quit changing definitions handed down in the tradition of Western civilization.

Reproduction isn’t the reason why most people have sex. Plus sterile people get married all the time.

But providing an intact family unit for offspring is the most important use of marriage.[/quote]

In an ideal world a child will have both a mom and a dad living together as a family unit but close to half of all marriages end and most of the offspring develop into good tax payers and complete individuals. Some of my friends grew-up with parents who did not get married and they turned out fine.

Marriage is not required for reproduction or effective child rearing therefore any arguments that gay marriage hurts families are not valid IMO.

30

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I also don’t get why so many gays want to be married.

Gay people want it because they can’t have it. They are right in their belief that they are not equal until they can have everything that straight people have.

They are ramming it down our throats because pressing for an extreme position is the quickest way to gain a compromise.

I say let them be married and call it a marriage. It’s time to let people be equal REGARDLESS of what they are.

Well, they’ve still fallen short. They can’t produce offspring on their own. They can have an analogous relationship, but it will never be the same thing as a relationship a husband has with a wife, so they should stop trying to emulate us. Let them do our thing, they do theirs, and quit changing definitions handed down in the tradition of Western civilization.

Hasn’t Western civilization continued and grown precisely because it has allowed definitions to change and evolve?

Sure. But not on things like this. Like it or not, Western civilization grew out of a certain Judeo-Christian moral consensus, (with the Enlightenment borrowing considerable Judeo-Christian intellectual capital), up until about the mid to late 1800s. Ultimately, you’ve got to have some way of saying what is right and what is wrong according to some standard, or “right” is just what everyone feels like at the time, which is what we have now. That’s why I’m in favor of leaving the historical Western definition of marriage as it is.

We can certainly depart from the values that made the West the West, but then it will no longer resemble the West.

Slavery.Serfdom.Fealty.Birthright.Nobility.Commoner.Divine right.Heresy.

These are all just some of the institutions and definitions that have altered,some of which were held,at the time,to be crucial to the continuity of Western civilization at a given juncture.All were supported by Judeo-Christian concensus . What made any of those of those any different to the definition of marriage?

Apart from our own personal opinion,of course.

[/quote]

We ended slavery because we felt it didn’t agree with the Biblical ethic of “love your neighbor as yourself,” and abolition movements were spearheaded in several instances by Christians (Wilberforce, et al). Birthright, nobility, commoner, serfdom, etc. likewise don’t agree with the Biblical principle that we are inherently equal with one another because we are all made in the imago Dei according to Genesis 2 and again don’t agree with the “love your neighbor as yourself” principle.

Again, direct appeals to the Bible were probably not made during the Enlightenment amongst many fashionable philosophers of the time, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t borrow Christian capital, wittingly or unwittingly. Our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution are probably good examples of this.

Either way, my line of reasoning at least falls somewhere in the Western intellectual tradition.

31

[quote]Sloth wrote:
makkun wrote:
Bestiality: marriage requires consensus based on sentience. Consensus cannot be secured. No slippery slope.

Makkun

Why would you need consent from an animal? Does anyone ask the cow for permission to make a steak out of him? If you don’t need consent to BBQ it, do you really need consent to throw a wedding dress on it?[/quote]

The cow can’t say ‘yes, I do’ - and you can’t slip a ring on its finger. You can BBQ it because the cow is not a person who has rights as an individual - that also prevents you from marrying it (and I hope a few other things). :wink:

Makkun

32

[quote]905Patrick wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Well, they’ve still fallen short. They can’t produce offspring on their own. They can have an analogous relationship, but it will never be the same thing as a relationship a husband has with a wife, so they should stop trying to emulate us. Let them do our thing, they do theirs, and quit changing definitions handed down in the tradition of Western civilization.

Reproduction isn’t the reason why most people have sex. Plus sterile people get married all the time.

But providing an intact family unit for offspring is the most important use of marriage.

In an ideal world a child will have both a mom and a dad living together as a family unit but close to half of all marriages end and most of the offspring develop into good tax payers and complete individuals. Some of my friends grew-up with parents who did not get married and they turned out fine.

Marriage is not required for reproduction or effective child rearing therefore any arguments that gay marriage hurts families are not valid IMO.[/quote]

I think a discussion of data would be good at this point.

33

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Your argument is that they wanted to be equal, but they can’t be equal because two men getting married is inherently qualitatively different than a man and a woman getting married. Functional anatomy and reproductive possibilities are just one example. If a man/woman couple is sterile, they can’t have kids, to be sure, but two men aren’t possessive of the functional anatomy to even think about producing children.

On top of that, women have different qualities that complement a man and vice-versa (I hope this is non-controversial). Men-men “marriages” are therefore qualitatively different from the get go and therefore unequal. [/quote]

Wanting equal rights and wanting to be the same are two different things.

The term marriage is arbitrary at best because there is no definition of marriage that applies to EVERY marriage.

There are places in the world were a women becomes the property of a man once she marries him.

Some people have an open marriage.

Some people have a green card marriage.

Gay individuals are now asking that the broad definition of marriage be altered to include people of the same sex.

34

[quote]905Patrick wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Well, they’ve still fallen short. They can’t produce offspring on their own. They can have an analogous relationship, but it will never be the same thing as a relationship a husband has with a wife, so they should stop trying to emulate us. Let them do our thing, they do theirs, and quit changing definitions handed down in the tradition of Western civilization.

Reproduction isn’t the reason why most people have sex. Plus sterile people get married all the time.

But providing an intact family unit for offspring is the most important use of marriage.

In an ideal world a child will have both a mom and a dad living together as a family unit but close to half of all marriages end and most of the offspring develop into good tax payers and complete individuals. Some of my friends grew-up with parents who did not get married and they turned out fine.
[/quote]

Kids have a much better chance in life if their parents stay married. The function of marriage is to provide an institution that helps keep parents and family together.

The rest is just fluff.

Nope but that is not an issue with gays.

Not required but it is a huge help.

[quote]

therefore any arguments that gay marriage hurts families are not valid IMO.[/quote]

non sequitur.

35

Yes, they have equal rights. They can marry a woman just as easily as a straight man. They just want the definition of marriage changed to suit them.

In the history of this country, there is: 1 man, 1 woman.

Exactly. And I don’t want to emulate them. The US is fine as it is.

36

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

non sequitur.
[/quote]

The entire thread is Zap, it has to be because it’s about gay marriage.

There’s no way to have the discussion about it without it becoming a series of unrelated points (the pros can’t see the cons POV and the cons can’t see the pros POV).

We’re human beings and we have a tendency towards binary thinking.

37

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I also don’t get why so many gays want to be married.

Gay people want it because they can’t have it. They are right in their belief that they are not equal until they can have everything that straight people have.

They are ramming it down our throats because pressing for an extreme position is the quickest way to gain a compromise.

I say let them be married and call it a marriage. It’s time to let people be equal REGARDLESS of what they are.

Well, they’ve still fallen short. They can’t produce offspring on their own. They can have an analogous relationship, but it will never be the same thing as a relationship a husband has with a wife, so they should stop trying to emulate us. Let them do our thing, they do theirs, and quit changing definitions handed down in the tradition of Western civilization.

Hasn’t Western civilization continued and grown precisely because it has allowed definitions to change and evolve?

Sure. But not on things like this. Like it or not, Western civilization grew out of a certain Judeo-Christian moral consensus, (with the Enlightenment borrowing considerable Judeo-Christian intellectual capital), up until about the mid to late 1800s. Ultimately, you’ve got to have some way of saying what is right and what is wrong according to some standard, or “right” is just what everyone feels like at the time, which is what we have now. That’s why I’m in favor of leaving the historical Western definition of marriage as it is.

We can certainly depart from the values that made the West the West, but then it will no longer resemble the West.

Slavery.Serfdom.Fealty.Birthright.Nobility.Commoner.Divine right.Heresy.

These are all just some of the institutions and definitions that have altered,some of which were held,at the time,to be crucial to the continuity of Western civilization at a given juncture.All were supported by Judeo-Christian concensus . What made any of those of those any different to the definition of marriage?

Apart from our own personal opinion,of course.

We ended slavery because we felt it didn’t agree with the Biblical ethic of “love your neighbor as yourself,” and abolition movements were spearheaded in several instances by Christians (Wilberforce, et al). Birthright, nobility, commoner, serfdom, etc. likewise don’t agree with the Biblical principle that we are inherently equal with one another because we are all made in the imago Dei according to Genesis 2 and again don’t agree with the “love your neighbor as yourself” principle.

Again, direct appeals to the Bible were probably not made during the Enlightenment amongst many fashionable philosophers of the time, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t borrow Christian capital, wittingly or unwittingly. Our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution are probably good examples of this.

Either way, my line of reasoning at least falls somewhere in the Western intellectual tradition. [/quote]

You’re stretching when you attribute the demise of those institutions to purely Biblical ethics being followed,when at the time religious dogma supported those very structures,don’t you think?

Divine right of monarchs ring a bell?The ever fluid definitions of heresy?Witchcraft?

What did away with all of the examples I mentioned was more a secular movement to the recognition of the individual and his dignity.While Christianity may be seen to stand in parallel to these movements and have altered its positions in sync with the popular movements of their time,in the majority of instances it would be fair to say that the Church was dragged forward kicking and screaming,resisting every step of the way.
In others,it led from the front.

I don’t think anyone would postulate that the only source we all have for determining wrong from right is Biblical.It is just one of many sources.

38

[quote]makkun wrote:
Sloth wrote:
makkun wrote:
You can BBQ it because the cow is not a person who has rights as an individual [/quote]

Right, IT has no rights. Therefore, no need for it’s consent. All you need is the consenting adult male.

39

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[…]

Yeah, I’m not sure why consent is required either. Right now, consent is required because everyone agrees it’s “right.”

I’m playing devil’s advocate, obviously, but there’s a considerable amount that’s assumed now in our laws that probably won’t be assumed in time. [/quote]

My argument is that the ‘slippery slope’ wrt gay marriage leading to bestiality marriage et al. doesn’t work on the basis that in the scenarios described above, only gay adults are able to consent to the act of marriage. That’s indeed a fundamental difference from any other of the usual slippery slope cases (animals, vegetables, items of furniture). It would require us to make a far greater change to our understanding of sentience to allow the above into the same category as people. Gay people are people already (and only they are able to consent), so the argument that accepting gay marriage leads to a change in our view on human-cow marriage is rather weak.

Even in the case of children (the often used paedophilia ‘argument’) it doesn’t hold, as we define (quite substantially different) ages of consent for various legal activities, including sexual activity and marriage. It does however demonstrate that indeed our laws and what we define as morally acceptable are pretty much based on consensus and tradition. That’s called culture: we have defined what is acceptable to us.

You can rest assured (or be alarmed for what it’s worth) that our successors will make moral judgments which we will find horrendous and repulsive: Our ancestors would do exactly the same thing about us on issues such as universal suffrage, the abolition of slavery, sex before marriage, romantic love, religious freedom, interracial relationships, democracy and questioning the christian churches. Practice of pretty much any of the above got people sanctioned at some point within ‘western culture’ or even killed.

To summarise, my argument is that while societal change is to be expected, but that due to the value of self-determination we have come to embrace (leading to consent being required for marriage) that are based upon it, gay marriage does not constitute a danger of letting society slide into any of the horror scenarios often falsely associated with it.

Makkun

40

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

But providing an intact family unit for offspring is the most important use of marriage.[/quote]

I fully agree with that. It’s just amazing how differently intact family can be defined. The nuclear family as the main trend of the 20th Century, though often romanticised, doesn’t seem to be up for the task lately.

Makkun