4 ms·

You seriously don't get it. This isn't about the actual ability to marry; it's about the symbolic message it sends. There _is_ a difference between being gay a

by mtrimpe 17y ago

You seriously don't get it. This isn't about the actual ability to marry; it's about the symbolic message it sends. There _is_ a difference between being gay and straight and this is just one of the many, many ways we're exposed to it. It's just the most poignant one and in many ways it's just low hanging fruit. This is quite similar to the Civil Rights Movement. Nobody in their right mind would claim that African Americans are getting the same chances today, on average, that Caucasians are getting; but none the less changing the laws meant a great deal. The same goes for same sex marriages; and we're generally OK with that. At least I am OK with having to struggle for decades and probably centuries before my sexuality is accepted, but it's important to have a feeling of progress, and symbolically speaking the most important step is legalizing gay marriage...

axod 17y ago
>> "it's about the symbolic message it sends." eg trying to convince society that you're right and they're wrong. Why waste so much time trying to convince people that don't agree with you, and likely never will. Why do you need everyone to accept your sexuality? Why care? As long as the people you care about are fine with it, why does it matter? Legalizing gay marriage won't make a blind bit of difference to peoples attitudes and beliefs. In fact, it'll probably make them hold their position even more strongly.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Making discrimination according to race illegal won't make a bit of difference in peoples attitudes and beliefs. It'll probably make them hold their position even more strongly...
  - kingkawn 17y ago
    The side of a debate that has the power of the state behind it is at a distinct advantage.
gaius 17y ago
But I do get it. Marriage means different things to different institutions. To the couple themselves, it's about love. For the Church, it's about God's will. For the government, it's about a steady supply of new citizens. For most of history - perhaps even still - a single woman with a young child is not a viable economic unit. A couple is. The third point is the one that's being contended here. All the legal aspects of marriage - tax, immigration, inheritance, etc - were put in place by the government in support of the government's interest in marriage. If there are no kids involved, it's not at all clear why the government should offer the perks. As for the other points, the first I have already addressed and the second is only relevant if you really want to get married in a church, and like I say, you can hold the ceremony on a beach if you want to.
timr 17y ago
"This isn't about the actual ability to marry; it's about the symbolic message it sends." You're conceding too much. Of course this is about the actual ability for gay people to marry. This is not only about the ability for gay people to get married -- it's about the ability of gay people to marry, to adopt children, to file taxes jointly, to visit each other in the hospital when sick, take medical power of attorney, and all of the hundreds of other benefits that straight couples take for granted. The US Constitution doesn't guarantee any of those benefits to straight people, either. The "it's not in the US Constitution" argument against equal marriage rights is so transparently specious that no self-respecting high school debater would bother making it. Same goes for the argument that "any people can hold any ceremony they want". The name of the institution isn't what's important; the societal benefits of the institution are what's important. The parent can wax poetic on his theories for why the state makes marriage a legal institution, and whether they should do so, but it doesn't matter a bit. At the end of the day, marriage is a legal structure, that fact isn't changing, and the argument remains that there's no compelling reason that homosexuals shouldn't expect the same legal protections offered to straight couples.
Jimmy 17y ago
>Nobody in their right mind would claim that African Americans are getting the same chances today, on average, that Caucasians are getting; but none the less changing the laws meant a great deal. What do you mean by this?

by mtrimpe 17y ago

axod 17y ago

>> "it's about the symbolic message it sends." eg trying to convince society that you're right and they're wrong. Why waste so much time trying to convince people that don't agree with you, and likely never will. Why do you need everyone to accept your sexuality? Why care? As long as the people you care about are fine with it, why does it matter? Legalizing gay marriage won't make a blind bit of difference to peoples attitudes and beliefs. In fact, it'll probably make them hold their position even more strongly.

jacquesm 17y ago
Making discrimination according to race illegal won't make a bit of difference in peoples attitudes and beliefs. It'll probably make them hold their position even more strongly...
- kingkawn 17y ago
  The side of a debate that has the power of the state behind it is at a distinct advantage.

gaius 17y ago

But I do get it. Marriage means different things to different institutions. To the couple themselves, it's about love. For the Church, it's about God's will. For the government, it's about a steady supply of new citizens. For most of history - perhaps even still - a single woman with a young child is not a viable economic unit. A couple is. The third point is the one that's being contended here. All the legal aspects of marriage - tax, immigration, inheritance, etc - were put in place by the government in support of the government's interest in marriage. If there are no kids involved, it's not at all clear why the government should offer the perks. As for the other points, the first I have already addressed and the second is only relevant if you really want to get married in a church, and like I say, you can hold the ceremony on a beach if you want to.

timr 17y ago

"This isn't about the actual ability to marry; it's about the symbolic message it sends." You're conceding too much. Of course this is about the actual ability for gay people to marry. This is not only about the ability for gay people to get married -- it's about the ability of gay people to marry, to adopt children, to file taxes jointly, to visit each other in the hospital when sick, take medical power of attorney, and all of the hundreds of other benefits that straight couples take for granted. The US Constitution doesn't guarantee any of those benefits to straight people, either. The "it's not in the US Constitution" argument against equal marriage rights is so transparently specious that no self-respecting high school debater would bother making it. Same goes for the argument that "any people can hold any ceremony they want". The name of the institution isn't what's important; the societal benefits of the institution are what's important. The parent can wax poetic on his theories for why the state makes marriage a legal institution, and whether they should do so, but it doesn't matter a bit. At the end of the day, marriage is a legal structure, that fact isn't changing, and the argument remains that there's no compelling reason that homosexuals shouldn't expect the same legal protections offered to straight couples.

Jimmy 17y ago

>Nobody in their right mind would claim that African Americans are getting the same chances today, on average, that Caucasians are getting; but none the less changing the laws meant a great deal. What do you mean by this?