The costs of gay marriage

[One Brow]

Point is: most people now believe that differences in race should be rendered obsolete in our society. Obviously we don't want to dismiss those medications that work on Timmy, but won't work on Jamaal. However, a lot of people aren't so sure that we should render genders obsolete.

I agree with this general analysis. Note how heavy it is on concurrent cultural thoughts in various times.

I'm still not sure where I stand on this, but I'm saying that people who are attempting to preserve the current definition of marriage are not all "Chicken Littles". A lot of them are just not sure that rendering genders obsolete may not bring about unforseen consequences that, brace yourselves, may not be beneficial.

Any time a boat changes course, it will tend to lean, and sometimes that lean lets in a little water. I agree we want to turn the boat in a fashion so as to let in as little water as possible. However, we can't let our wish to stay dry keep us from turning the boat at all. The current direction of the boat is keeps us in the same rocky waters we've been in for centuries.

Like I said, I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this, but if needs be, feel free to lump me into the "bigot" column with Colton. Or maybe I would be better suited with the mysogynists?

I try not to lump anyone in to anything. You are you, colton is colton, Stoked is Stoked, Scat is Scat, etc. None of you deserves to caricaturized or treated as less an autonomous thinker. If you want to say you agree with colton specifically on any particular aspect of any issue, that doesn't make the two of you some group or unit.

So far, I don't see a reason to think you have settled into a comfortable prejudice (aka, not a bigot), and I don't label people as misogynists to begin with (feel free to go back and check, I talk about cultures, doctrines, and practices as misogynistic, not people). We all grew up in a misogynistic culture and we all (well, almost all) want to be fair and just.

 

[One Brow]

They all were, back in the 1960s, to the degree that you can often just substitute a word here and there.

Sorry, this is incorrect.

Prove it. Provide one argument used today against same-sex marriage that is not identical in form to an argument used against interracial marriage in the 1950s-60s. So far, I have seen clear analogues to all of them. I have no problem saying I was wrong, if you have a truly distinct argument in form.

You believe in a separate status that has no functional or practical purpose, over a condition most people have a choice in or control over.

Sorry, this is incorrect (talking about the first part, not the second).

In that you don't believe in a separate status (that is, you support gay marriage)? Because I may have misinterpreted this:

My view, short take: Marriage is wrapped up in the concept of heterosexual sex and child bearing/raising. Evidence for this is vast. For example, infertility is one of the possible grounds for divorce in many states. Lack of [heterosexual] consummation is grounds for an annulment in many states. The reason I cannot marry my sister or my daughter is because of the possibility of conceiving a child. I could go on and on.

What homosexuals want is not related to any of that.

It sure sounds like you want a separate status. Not to mention there is the factually wrong assertion that homosexual couples are not interested in child-raising (do you really need evidence provided against that?), or the claim that a lack of homosexual consummation would not be a grounds for divorce, etc.

So, I'm assuming you think there is a functional or practical reason to deny same-sex marriage. So, explicitly, what does society gain from denying same-sex marriage that serves some tangible benefit? If two gay men across the street from you are married, how is your marriage affected? If your marriage is not, what is the benefit?

The decision to deny the ability to marry based on same-sex attraction is intolerant and is based on your prejudices.

Sorry, this is incorrect.(*)

Basically, I conclude that you have no idea what I believe or what my arguments are. Granted I've only posted a couple of times in the thread, but one would think you'd read/understand them before calling me a bigot.

I certainly don't want to be unfair to you. So far, you've only presented arguments that were factually inaccurate ('gays are not interested in child-raising') or that gays would be able to get divorced for the same reasons straight people get divorced, so gays shouldn't be married (really, think about that). You might indeed have some arguments that don't sound bigoted and/or come across as a double-standard. I have apologized to other posters before when I misunderstood their arguments, I will of course extend you the same courtesy.

(*) Later edit - unless you're just saying it's intolerant by definition, your definition, in which case I'll just say you're free to define things the way you want.

It's so funny how everyone in here pretends that I think I'm some sort of wordsmith. I'm just using the words the way the dictionary defines them. It's not my fault that the dictionary definitions are not as narrow as you want them to be, so you can stay comfortable in not being labeled.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intolerant

1: unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
2 b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted
3: exhibiting physiological intolerance <lactose intolerant>

You are unwilling to grant or share the social right to be married to an adult of your choice (2b). Note the offered synonym is "bigoted".

 

[One Brow]

People like One Brow have completely undermined the meaning of words like: bigot, racist, mysogynist, xenophobe, homophobe, etc. Those are mighty strong words that are now thrown out there without even batting an eye.

I don't used racist/misogynist as a nouns describing a people, nor use xenophobe or homophobe at all. I use them as adjectives describing cultural images, actions, behaviors, and effects. The words are strong, but then the images, actions, behaviors, and effects are also strong and offensive.

Further, my usage of the words I choose is carefully, strictly, and strongly within the actual meanings of the words.

 

[Stoked]

It's so funny how everyone in here pretends that I think I'm some sort of wordsmith. I'm just using the words the way the dictionary defines them. It's not my fault that the dictionary definitions are not as narrow as you want them to be...

Just a thought.

If "everyone in here" is telling you the same thing then perhaps there is something there. Perhaps there really is a problem in the way you present yourself and your opinions. Perhaps there is a problem with the way you try to disect every single sentence in an attempt to find hidden meanings.

 

[One Brow]

Just a thought.

If "everyone in here" is telling you the same thing then perhaps there is something there. Perhaps there really is a problem in the way you present yourself and your opinions. Perhaps there is a problem with the way you try to disect every single sentence in an attempt to find hidden meanings.

You are correct that I need to give this consideration, and I try to.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Any time a boat changes course, it will tend to lean, and sometimes that lean lets in a little water. I agree we want to turn the boat in a fashion so as to let in as little water as possible. However, we can't let our wish to stay dry keep us from turning the boat at all. The current direction of the boat is keeps us in the same rocky waters we've been in for centuries.

It takes on water especially when there are people fighting to take over the oars from other people. Not out of rocky waters, but a course change from heading to Aslan's country to The Lone Islands. Some people can only see the land right in front of their eyes, and cannot seem to fathom the ultimate destination. It's a good analogy with a few changes, nice effort One Brow.

I try not to lump anyone in to anything. You are you, colton is colton, Stoked is Stoked, Scat is Scat, etc. None of you deserves to caricaturized or treated as less an autonomous thinker. If you want to say you agree with colton specifically on any particular aspect of any issue, that doesn't make the two of you some group or unit.

So far, I don't see a reason to think you have settled into a comfortable prejudice (aka, not a bigot), and I don't label people as misogynists to begin with (feel free to go back and check, I talk about cultures, doctrines, and practices as misogynistic, not people). We all grew up in a misogynistic culture and we all (well, almost all) want to be fair and just.

I also do not call people names or label them, that is rude. I will not call One Brow any names, but everything he says and does as a foolish, a lie, or immoral. It's not One Brow himself, it's just everything about him everything he believes or does not believe. It is his language, his thoughts, his false demeanor of respect. His actions show having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof. His words are like unto a whited sepulchre which indeed appears beautiful outward, but inside is full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

Is that fair? I would hate to call someone out directly.

 

[Stoked]

It takes on water especially when there are people fighting to take over the oars from other people. Not out of rocky waters, but a course change from heading to Aslan's country to The Lone Islands. Some people can only see the land right in front of their eyes, and cannot seem to fathom the ultimate destination. It's a good analogy with a few changes, nice effort One Brow.




I also do not call people names or label them, that is rude. I will not call One Brow any names, but everything he says and does as a foolish, a lie, or immoral. It's not One Brow himself, it's just everything about him everything he believes or does not believe. It is his language, his thoughts, his false demeanor of respect. His actions show having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof. His words are like unto a whited sepulchre which indeed appears beautiful outward, but inside is full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

Is that fair? I would hate to call someone out directly.

Tell us how you really feel. I do not have that opinion of One Brow. Things like the above are highly foolish to me. I just would not like to have One Brows view of things.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

How many times does religion need to be on the wrong side of history before it figures this stuff out. People not better than anyone else because of their faith. They don't know anything more than the faithless, they may think they do but they don't and vice versa. On the issue of human rights religion stumbles over and over again.

Do any of you want to be crazy grandpa or grandma that actually supported the stance against gay marriage? How many generations have to make the same mistake over and over before they learn?

Some of you like to throw out the insanity cliche; doing stuff over and over again blah blah blah. Well, are you insane?

 

[colton]

Prove it. Provide one argument used today against same-sex marriage that is not identical in form to an argument used against interracial marriage in the 1950s-60s. So far, I have seen clear analogues to all of them. I have no problem saying I was wrong, if you have a truly distinct argument in form.

I think the onus is on you, since you're the one using such charged words such as "bigot". Read my posts earlier in the thread. YOU prove that those arguments also apply to interracial marriage. It's clear to me that they don't.

In that you don't believe in a separate status (that is, you support gay marriage)?

It was the "that has no functional or practical purpose" part of your statement that was incorrect. That is, I'm against gay marriage, but for reasons that have functional and practical purposes.

So, I'm assuming you think there is a functional or practical reason to deny same-sex marriage. So, explicitly, what does society gain from denying same-sex marriage that serves some tangible benefit? If two gay men across the street from you are married, how is your marriage affected?

That's a complete straw man.

...

OK, I started typing out a line-by-line response to the rest of your post, but frankly I don't have the time. I'll jump to the end.

It's so funny how everyone in here pretends that I think I'm some sort of wordsmith
....
Note the offered synonym is "bigoted".

So, do you REALLY feel that the words "intolerant" and "bigoted" are interchangeable? Are they REALLY synonyms in every sense? Do they REALLY have the same connotations?

I will freely admit I am intolerant of gay marriages. I will deny that my reasons for being intolerant of them are related to bigotry. Your claim that I am a bigot by definition is both ludicrous and impolite. And just plain dumb.

 

[colton]

Just a thought.

If "everyone in here" is telling you the same thing then perhaps there is something there. Perhaps there really is a problem in the way you present yourself and your opinions.

+1

 

[colton]

Do any of you want to be crazy grandpa or grandma that actually supported the stance against gay marriage?

Absolutely. That is, I want to be on record as being opposed to gay marriage. If that makes me crazy, then so be it.

But this whole "wrong side of history" argument is completely fallacious, by the way. Of all the arguments I hear from the pro gay marriage people, it's definitely among the ones I respect the least.
https://wisdomandfollyblog.com/2012/08/23/the-hidden-fallacies-of-the-wrong-side-of-history/

 

[moevillini]

I can probably find lots more to say, but I'll limit it to this for now:

Many who oppose gay "marriage" in this thread are doing so on the basis of procreation. I can't argue that differences between males and females don't exist, and so my personal opinion is that a legally sanctioned union that has the ability to procreate is in some ways different from a legally sanctioned union that does not have this ability. I personally don't feel that that should be a determining factor, but I can understand that some of you might.

However, aside from issues of infertility that are personal, only if a woman is younger than age 45 or 50 is she reasonably able to participate in the process of procreating. So I guess I take issue with those of you who feel that only unions able to procreate deserve the legal privileges that come under the "marriage" umbrella yet apply that designation equally just on the basis of a male-female union - even when the ability to procreate is absent. So I see those of you who feel that way are basing a decision on the particulars of the sex act itself, and not on the idea of procreation, for all you may huff and puff on that aspect of the topic.

 

[Scat]

I can probably find lots more to say, but I'll limit it to this for now:

Many who oppose gay "marriage" in this thread are doing so on the basis of procreation. I can't argue that differences between males and females don't exist, and so my personal opinion is that a legally sanctioned union that has the ability to procreate is in some ways different from a legally sanctioned union that does not have this ability. I personally don't feel that that should be a determining factor, but I can understand that some of you might.

However, aside from issues of infertility that are personal, only if a woman is younger than age 45 or 50 is she reasonably able to participate in the process of procreating. So I guess I take issue with those of you who feel that only unions able to procreate deserve the legal privileges that come under the "marriage" umbrella yet apply that designation equally just on the basis of a male-female union - even when the ability to procreate is absent. So I see those of you who feel that way are basing a decision on the particulars of the sex act itself, and not on the idea of procreation, for all you may huff and puff on that aspect of the topic.

Without additional government resources to weed out those who are infertile, too old or simply don't want kids, it is reasonable to assume that a hetero marriage may result in a pregnancy. If your solution is to start a new program to monitor all hetero married couples to determine if they are fertile is a waste of money and resources. A gay couple is not getting pregnant. Period.

 

[nightmare3983]

Here's my thought on the matter. To me, marriage is between a man and a woman. People who I consider to be prophets, seers, and revelators (aka the LDS First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) have said as much. Now, does that mean gay people and other supporters of gay marriage are bad people? Of course not. Are there enough arguments that can be made to persuade the courts to keep marriage as being between a man and a woman? We'll find out soon enough. Either way, I'll still go about living my life trying to improve myself day by day and trying to be respectful of everyone.

 

[NAOS]

^ it is the masquerade of a supposedly 'fair and balanced' position like this one which has kept me far away from participation in this thread.

When you are able to convince yourself that abusing categories is right, then douchenozzle you are.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Tell us how you really feel. I do not have that opinion of One Brow. Things like the above are highly foolish to me. I just would not like to have One Brows view of things.

You seem to have missed the point entirely... was I really saying those things about One Brow, no.

Was I pointing out how lame it is to claim you are not calling someone a bigot, but just calling their beliefs bigoted which by default implies that anyone that believes such is a bigot. Yes I was doing this in an over the top manner in hopes that somebody would catch on. I did not call him any names directly, just as he "would not" call anyone a bigot directly.

I also think you caught something from One Brow in your conversations with him. Your sarcasm detector did not go off at all.

 

[nightmare3983]

^ it is the masquerade of a supposedly 'fair and balanced' position like this one which has kept me far away from participation in this thread.

When you are able to convince yourself that abusing categories is right, then douchenozzle you are.

Thanks for your "non participation". I don't recall saying my position is "fair" or "balanced", just that it is my position.

 

[Stoked]

You seem to have missed the point entirely... was I really saying those things about One Brow, no.

Was I pointing out how lame it is to claim you are not calling someone a bigot, but just calling their beliefs bigoted which by default implies that anyone that believes such is a bigot. Yes I was doing this in an over the top manner in hopes that somebody would catch on. I did not call him any names directly, just as he "would not" call anyone a bigot directly.

I also think you caught something from One Brow in your conversations with him. Your sarcasm detector did not go off at all.

I missed the point. My bad.

Damnit, now I need a tetnus shot.

 

[Stoked]

^ it is the masquerade of a supposedly 'fair and balanced' position like this one which has kept me far away from participation in this thread.

When you are able to convince yourself that abusing categories is right, then douchenozzle you are.

I think that position very much exists and this is it:

The government, at all levels, should remove itself form the marriage business. They should only grant civil unions to people, regardless of sexual orientation. The rights of a civil union should be the exact same as those under a marriage are now.

Only churches and/or religions should be marrying people. If a gay couple finds a church that will marry them than fantastic. Get married. The governement should recoginize marriages as the same as civil unions as far as rights under the law go.

 

[Scat]

^ it is the masquerade of a supposedly 'fair and balanced' position like this one which has kept me far away from participation in this thread.

When you are able to convince yourself that abusing categories is right, then douchenozzle you are.

Abuse?