6 ms·

Banning gay marriage is ludicrous and bigoted. Also, it is the same thing at all.

by zanny 13y ago

humanrebar 13y ago
Just because I'm succinct doesn't mean my assertions of fact are less valid than the rest of them. I'll gladly go into more detail when I feel like I'll be given a fair hearing.
- aaronbrethorst 13y ago
  Just because I disagree wholeheartedly with you doesn't mean I'm not curious. Please go into more detail.
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    The gist of the argument is that it's a false equivalence. It's not a radical view -- it is supported by a majority of Californians (certainly a progressive state). Unfortunately, judging from the downvotes I'm getting, this forum isn't as inclusive as it would like to be.
    - aaronbrethorst 13y ago
      Regarding California: this is simply not true any longer. A poll conducted over a year ago found that over 60% of California RVs support legalizing gay marriage: http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/fivethirtyeight/2013/03/01/poll-finds-record-support-for-same-sex-marriage-in-california/ http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/fivethirtyeight/2013/03/01/p... Please explain why you believe that this is a false equivalence.
      - humanrebar 13y ago
        Regardless of the precise numbers, a large chunk of one of the most progressive states in the U.S. thinks that it's not the same thing, so it's not a fringe position. The other states in the U.S, It's a false equivalence because being a black person in the civil-right-era South isn't the same as being gay in California. Maybe they're both unpleasant experiences, but they're different both in kind and degree. Furthermore, there's no analog to "race mixing" (the real "crime" in interracial marriage) in the debate about gay marriage. Lumping current proponents of traditional marriage in with the likes of George Wallace is akin to breaking Godwin's Law and only serves to inhibit understanding, not promote it. This only undermines the inclusive ideals that gay marriage supporters claim to advocate.
        aaronbrethorst 13y ago
        OK, first off, when Loving v. Virginia made mixed-race marriages legal across the United States, only 20% of Americans supported mixed race marriages[1]. Secondly (and note that I'm switching off RV numbers from California and onto nationwide numbers without any reference to voter registration), 52% of Americans nationwide supported the legalization of gay marriage last year[2]. [A] large chunk of one of the most progressive states in the U.S. What percentage of Californians do you think should support it before it's made legal? A supermajority? Why? Maybe they're both unpleasant experiences, but they're different both in kind and degree. Please explain the credentials or personal knowledge that help you properly categorize the severity of one wrong vs. another. Furthermore, there's no analog to "race mixing" (the real "crime" in interracial marriage) in the debate about gay marriage. Patently false. Google 'regnerus' and 'michigan'. Lumping current proponents of traditional marriage in with the likes of George Wallace is akin to breaking Godwin's Law and only serves to inhibit understanding, not promote it. This only undermines the inclusive ideals that gay marriage supporters claim to advocate. Wait, let me get this straight. Are you implying that it is bad for me to claim this is discriminatory behavior because it undermines inclusiveness? That's an utterly absurd argument. You still haven't explained why you think gay marriage is bad. [1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-wh... [2] http://www.gallup.com/poll/163730/back-law-legalize-gay-marriage-states.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/163730/back-law-legalize-gay-marr...
        humanrebar 13y ago
        > ...it is bad for me to claim this is discriminatory behavior because it undermines inclusiveness? By definition, not allowing homosexual marriage is discriminatory, as are any limits on who may be married, no matter how just the reason. The only non-discriminatory view is to get government out of the whole business of marriage (a view that seems more and more like the best compromise). If inclusiveness is the ultimate goal here, then silencing critics by equating them to obviously terrible people is hypocritical. Otherwise, people should be honest and admit that inclusiveness isn't the goal, imposing a different worldview is. Reasons for traditional marriage: 1. I find a Burkean argument against rapid experimentation in our social fabric to be convincing, especially considering the ill effects of rapid social change in the U.S. in the 20th century and up to now. 2. Accidental pregnancy is a big problem. Creating mechanisms for heterosexual couples to pair of permanently, with compatible mates, is in the interest of society. This is especially true in the age of large social programs and the always-increasing extramarital birthrate, which is overwhelmingly due to unplanned pregnancies. 3. Defining marriage as a purely expressive act or as a bag of goodies is to miss a sine qua non of the institution: promotion of healthy, stable families. Families are much more spontaneous than we give them credit for, especially in the fertile ground of a heterosexual relationship. Ensuring smart pairings and then a permanence for those relationships is in the interest of everyone. 4. I believe that a family splitting itself up is much more costly than we want to admit. I believe difficulty in splitting up is a feature of good marriage tradition and law. 5. I we have already been trying to remedy the ills caused by broken homes with little success. I am not confident that a combination of birth control, social programs, education, etc. will solve this problem because we have been trying this for decades. To be clear, I'm not opposed to people expressing themselves. If two men want to call each other husband until they die, that's their right. I'm not opposed to figuring a way to simply bestow inheritance rights or power of attorney. Or to address the other practical hurdles of that lifestyle. But how do homosexual unions undermine traditional marriage? They don't, really, but that's not the issue here. The issue is an opposition to special privileges for straight couples (traditional marriage). Otherwise, we would be talking about civil unions or something (I'm sure some readers winced when I used the phrase civil union, which is the point). This is not about freedom; it's about acceptance. It's not just about rights and outcomes, it's about equal benefits and equal treatment. So my view, that straight sexual partners are fundamentally different, is incompatible with the goals of current court cases and legislation involving homosexual rights. I'm coming around to the hope that we can get government out of the regulating marriage business altogether and support families in other ways (child tax credits? some sort of earned income tax multiplier for families?). In the meantime, having government reduce marriage to simply another expression of love or a package of rights is something I will actively oppose. The stakes are too high and the damage is already being felt.

Banning gay marriage is ludicrous and bigoted. Also, it is the same thing at all.

by zanny 13y ago

Banning gay marriage is ludicrous and bigoted. Also, it is the same thing at all.

Just because I'm succinct doesn't mean my assertions of fact are less valid than the rest of them. I'll gladly go into more detail when I feel like I'll be given a fair hearing.

aaronbrethorst 13y ago
Just because I disagree wholeheartedly with you doesn't mean I'm not curious. Please go into more detail.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  The gist of the argument is that it's a false equivalence. It's not a radical view -- it is supported by a majority of Californians (certainly a progressive state). Unfortunately, judging from the downvotes I'm getting, this forum isn't as inclusive as it would like to be.
  - aaronbrethorst 13y ago
    Regarding California: this is simply not true any longer. A poll conducted over a year ago found that over 60% of California RVs support legalizing gay marriage: http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/fivethirtyeight/2013/03/01/poll-finds-record-support-for-same-sex-marriage-in-california/ http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/fivethirtyeight/2013/03/01/p... Please explain why you believe that this is a false equivalence.
    - humanrebar 13y ago
      Regardless of the precise numbers, a large chunk of one of the most progressive states in the U.S. thinks that it's not the same thing, so it's not a fringe position. The other states in the U.S, It's a false equivalence because being a black person in the civil-right-era South isn't the same as being gay in California. Maybe they're both unpleasant experiences, but they're different both in kind and degree. Furthermore, there's no analog to "race mixing" (the real "crime" in interracial marriage) in the debate about gay marriage. Lumping current proponents of traditional marriage in with the likes of George Wallace is akin to breaking Godwin's Law and only serves to inhibit understanding, not promote it. This only undermines the inclusive ideals that gay marriage supporters claim to advocate.
      - aaronbrethorst 13y ago
        OK, first off, when Loving v. Virginia made mixed-race marriages legal across the United States, only 20% of Americans supported mixed race marriages[1]. Secondly (and note that I'm switching off RV numbers from California and onto nationwide numbers without any reference to voter registration), 52% of Americans nationwide supported the legalization of gay marriage last year[2]. [A] large chunk of one of the most progressive states in the U.S. What percentage of Californians do you think should support it before it's made legal? A supermajority? Why? Maybe they're both unpleasant experiences, but they're different both in kind and degree. Please explain the credentials or personal knowledge that help you properly categorize the severity of one wrong vs. another. Furthermore, there's no analog to "race mixing" (the real "crime" in interracial marriage) in the debate about gay marriage. Patently false. Google 'regnerus' and 'michigan'. Lumping current proponents of traditional marriage in with the likes of George Wallace is akin to breaking Godwin's Law and only serves to inhibit understanding, not promote it. This only undermines the inclusive ideals that gay marriage supporters claim to advocate. Wait, let me get this straight. Are you implying that it is bad for me to claim this is discriminatory behavior because it undermines inclusiveness? That's an utterly absurd argument. You still haven't explained why you think gay marriage is bad. [1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-wh... [2] http://www.gallup.com/poll/163730/back-law-legalize-gay-marriage-states.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/163730/back-law-legalize-gay-marr...
        humanrebar 13y ago
        > ...it is bad for me to claim this is discriminatory behavior because it undermines inclusiveness? By definition, not allowing homosexual marriage is discriminatory, as are any limits on who may be married, no matter how just the reason. The only non-discriminatory view is to get government out of the whole business of marriage (a view that seems more and more like the best compromise). If inclusiveness is the ultimate goal here, then silencing critics by equating them to obviously terrible people is hypocritical. Otherwise, people should be honest and admit that inclusiveness isn't the goal, imposing a different worldview is. Reasons for traditional marriage: 1. I find a Burkean argument against rapid experimentation in our social fabric to be convincing, especially considering the ill effects of rapid social change in the U.S. in the 20th century and up to now. 2. Accidental pregnancy is a big problem. Creating mechanisms for heterosexual couples to pair of permanently, with compatible mates, is in the interest of society. This is especially true in the age of large social programs and the always-increasing extramarital birthrate, which is overwhelmingly due to unplanned pregnancies. 3. Defining marriage as a purely expressive act or as a bag of goodies is to miss a sine qua non of the institution: promotion of healthy, stable families. Families are much more spontaneous than we give them credit for, especially in the fertile ground of a heterosexual relationship. Ensuring smart pairings and then a permanence for those relationships is in the interest of everyone. 4. I believe that a family splitting itself up is much more costly than we want to admit. I believe difficulty in splitting up is a feature of good marriage tradition and law. 5. I we have already been trying to remedy the ills caused by broken homes with little success. I am not confident that a combination of birth control, social programs, education, etc. will solve this problem because we have been trying this for decades. To be clear, I'm not opposed to people expressing themselves. If two men want to call each other husband until they die, that's their right. I'm not opposed to figuring a way to simply bestow inheritance rights or power of attorney. Or to address the other practical hurdles of that lifestyle. But how do homosexual unions undermine traditional marriage? They don't, really, but that's not the issue here. The issue is an opposition to special privileges for straight couples (traditional marriage). Otherwise, we would be talking about civil unions or something (I'm sure some readers winced when I used the phrase civil union, which is the point). This is not about freedom; it's about acceptance. It's not just about rights and outcomes, it's about equal benefits and equal treatment. So my view, that straight sexual partners are fundamentally different, is incompatible with the goals of current court cases and legislation involving homosexual rights. I'm coming around to the hope that we can get government out of the regulating marriage business altogether and support families in other ways (child tax credits? some sort of earned income tax multiplier for families?). In the meantime, having government reduce marriage to simply another expression of love or a package of rights is something I will actively oppose. The stakes are too high and the damage is already being felt.