4 ms·

Unlike most other politicized topics, I don't think there is a rational position on opposing gay marriage in the US. At least none I have heard yet.

snowwrestler 13y ago
It's very easy to think that the other side of an issue does not hold a rational position. We use the same brain to hold hold our own opinion, and to evaluate the opinions of others. In situations outside the scientific method there is little way to objectively know which is the "right" or "rational" position.
001sky 13y ago
kenjackson 14 hours ago | link | parent | Anyone with half a brain knew that Obama did not really oppose gay marriage. When he switched views no one was really surprised... At least of those with half a brain.
- kenjackson 13y ago
  Can you explain what that is supposed to mean?
danudey 13y ago
This is an important point that I've been bringing up whenever someone tries to discuss this: what reason is there to prevent someone else from getting gay married? The only reason that I've seen is 'my beliefs say it's not okay, so you're not allowed to do it even if you don't share them'. Which comes across as spite, more than anything. 'I'm going to prevent you from getting married even though it costs me nothing to allow it', and in fact it cost Eich a thousand dollars to try to prevent it. I can't imagine spending a thousand dollars to prevent someone from doing something they wanted to do if it wasn't going to affect me in any tangible way. That's why Eich seemed like an untrustworthy choice for CEO: this doesn't seem like a rational decision for a person to make.
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  a) Opposition to all marriage. b) Insistence on having marriage be concretely defined as "one man and one woman" and potentially introduce similar but differently named unions for non-traditional couples. This actually has some basis, as marriage used to be widely defined as such (even in dictionaries) until the debate of gay marriage led to a shift in terminology. Those are two that I can name of. Note that I personally belong to argument A. Not that it's a vehement opposition, just a personal view on the futility of it.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    I can tell you the position of some of the churches that funded Prop 8[1]. It has very little to do with the rights of others. It is basically the fear of the chain that goes from: suing a wedding photographer and cake designer who did not want to be involved in a wedding that violated their religious beliefs[2]. The attack on Catholic Family Services and other churches providing adoption services. Next, Catholic Nuns and other church organizations being forced to buy healthcare that provides for abortions. With the thought it will lead to a church being sued to allow a marriage that does not meet their doctrine. The churches have learned a great deal from the ACLU given its constant suing of any religious display. They know you fight every inch of the way and don't compromise, since your opponents won't. They are fearful of the state forcing doctrine on them. The 1st amendment is very fragile given what has happened to the 4th, 5th 1) once again, I don't believe in state sponsored marriage of any type beyond basic contractual law between 2+ people meeting certain biological conditions (no possible inbreeding). I also have some problems about lack of consideration for the situation of conjoined twins and current rules given our ability to allow them a healthy life will exceed our ability to separate them in vitro. 2) an artist is a different discussion then a restaurant, motel, hospital, etc.
    - bashinator 13y ago
      The thing about the wedding photographer and cake designer who did not want to be involved in a wedding that violated their religious beliefs, is that the United States has already been there on a wide scale. Go back fifty or sixty years, and you'll find vast numbers of businesses that refused to serve non-whites, often for sincerely held religious reasons.
paulhodge 13y ago
Instead of bloviating you could always look up what the arguments in favor were: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Proponents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)... And for any proposed law change, there's always some annoying folks who agree with the overall spirit of the change, but oppose because they disagree with some specific details. Like, maybe the new law doesn't go far enough, or doesn't have the right wording. Or maybe they just object to the process by which it was created or campaigned for.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  From your link: heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society", that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay", and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Apparently the prop 8 argument is basically a massive appeal to tradition fallacy?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- aaronbrethorst 13y ago
  OK, will do: Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society" Totally baseless assertion. So was the right to vote only belonging to white male landowners at the end of the 18th century. [T]hat leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay" In my 13 years of public schooling I don't remember any of my teachers ever discussing marriage. [And] that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." If you don't like gay marriage, you don't have to get gay married. You're more than welcome to get married to a member of the opposite sex, like I—ostensibly—will do at some point.
- bashinator 13y ago
  Let's do look at those arguments you referenced. > Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society." This is not an argument, it's a statement of opinion. I'd be interested in seeing what facts back it. > that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay" This is making the presumption that gay marriage is not okay, which again, is an opinion without any backing facts. > and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." This is a non-sequitur - gays are not trying to redefine marriage for everyone else. Nothing pertaining to hetero marriage would be changed in the slightest by allowing gays to participate in the institution.
hippoman 13y ago
There isn't a rational position on opposing marriage between siblings, yet it's still illegal in the US. Of course there are reasons about damage to children, bullying of children, etc but fundamentally people are just repulsed by the idea so they don't want anyone to do it and it's still illegal. Gay marriage is only one of various types of marriage that are unfairly discriminated against. Fortunately gay marriage might now allow a father and son to marry each other, which may help open the minds of the mob.

snowwrestler 13y ago

It's very easy to think that the other side of an issue does not hold a rational position. We use the same brain to hold hold our own opinion, and to evaluate the opinions of others. In situations outside the scientific method there is little way to objectively know which is the "right" or "rational" position.

001sky 13y ago

kenjackson 14 hours ago | link | parent | Anyone with half a brain knew that Obama did not really oppose gay marriage. When he switched views no one was really surprised... At least of those with half a brain.

kenjackson 13y ago
Can you explain what that is supposed to mean?

danudey 13y ago

This is an important point that I've been bringing up whenever someone tries to discuss this: what reason is there to prevent someone else from getting gay married? The only reason that I've seen is 'my beliefs say it's not okay, so you're not allowed to do it even if you don't share them'. Which comes across as spite, more than anything. 'I'm going to prevent you from getting married even though it costs me nothing to allow it', and in fact it cost Eich a thousand dollars to try to prevent it. I can't imagine spending a thousand dollars to prevent someone from doing something they wanted to do if it wasn't going to affect me in any tangible way. That's why Eich seemed like an untrustworthy choice for CEO: this doesn't seem like a rational decision for a person to make.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
a) Opposition to all marriage. b) Insistence on having marriage be concretely defined as "one man and one woman" and potentially introduce similar but differently named unions for non-traditional couples. This actually has some basis, as marriage used to be widely defined as such (even in dictionaries) until the debate of gay marriage led to a shift in terminology. Those are two that I can name of. Note that I personally belong to argument A. Not that it's a vehement opposition, just a personal view on the futility of it.
- protomyth 13y ago
  I can tell you the position of some of the churches that funded Prop 8[1]. It has very little to do with the rights of others. It is basically the fear of the chain that goes from: suing a wedding photographer and cake designer who did not want to be involved in a wedding that violated their religious beliefs[2]. The attack on Catholic Family Services and other churches providing adoption services. Next, Catholic Nuns and other church organizations being forced to buy healthcare that provides for abortions. With the thought it will lead to a church being sued to allow a marriage that does not meet their doctrine. The churches have learned a great deal from the ACLU given its constant suing of any religious display. They know you fight every inch of the way and don't compromise, since your opponents won't. They are fearful of the state forcing doctrine on them. The 1st amendment is very fragile given what has happened to the 4th, 5th 1) once again, I don't believe in state sponsored marriage of any type beyond basic contractual law between 2+ people meeting certain biological conditions (no possible inbreeding). I also have some problems about lack of consideration for the situation of conjoined twins and current rules given our ability to allow them a healthy life will exceed our ability to separate them in vitro. 2) an artist is a different discussion then a restaurant, motel, hospital, etc.
  - bashinator 13y ago
    The thing about the wedding photographer and cake designer who did not want to be involved in a wedding that violated their religious beliefs, is that the United States has already been there on a wide scale. Go back fifty or sixty years, and you'll find vast numbers of businesses that refused to serve non-whites, often for sincerely held religious reasons.

paulhodge 13y ago

Instead of bloviating you could always look up what the arguments in favor were: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Proponents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)... And for any proposed law change, there's always some annoying folks who agree with the overall spirit of the change, but oppose because they disagree with some specific details. Like, maybe the new law doesn't go far enough, or doesn't have the right wording. Or maybe they just object to the process by which it was created or campaigned for.

Karunamon 13y ago
From your link: heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society", that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay", and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." Apparently the prop 8 argument is basically a massive appeal to tradition fallacy?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
aaronbrethorst 13y ago
OK, will do: Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society" Totally baseless assertion. So was the right to vote only belonging to white male landowners at the end of the 18th century. [T]hat leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay" In my 13 years of public schooling I don't remember any of my teachers ever discussing marriage. [And] that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." If you don't like gay marriage, you don't have to get gay married. You're more than welcome to get married to a member of the opposite sex, like I—ostensibly—will do at some point.
bashinator 13y ago
Let's do look at those arguments you referenced. > Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society." This is not an argument, it's a statement of opinion. I'd be interested in seeing what facts back it. > that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay" This is making the presumption that gay marriage is not okay, which again, is an opinion without any backing facts. > and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else." This is a non-sequitur - gays are not trying to redefine marriage for everyone else. Nothing pertaining to hetero marriage would be changed in the slightest by allowing gays to participate in the institution.

hippoman 13y ago

There isn't a rational position on opposing marriage between siblings, yet it's still illegal in the US. Of course there are reasons about damage to children, bullying of children, etc but fundamentally people are just repulsed by the idea so they don't want anyone to do it and it's still illegal. Gay marriage is only one of various types of marriage that are unfairly discriminated against. Fortunately gay marriage might now allow a father and son to marry each other, which may help open the minds of the mob.