Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean
The relevance is glaring. If people who oppose same sex marriage frame their stance as a "defense of marriage" - as the name of the federal act passed under the Clinton administration states - then clearly they're framing their concern as being the defense of the sacred institution of marriage, yes? So what seems to be a bigger threat to the institution of marriage? A same sex couple entering into a loving, life-long partnership that will contribute to society in the same way that studies across the board have shown the vast majority of married couples do? Or would it be the alarming rise in divorce rates that currently stands at a bit over 40%, or maybe the flippant attitudes toward marriage that lead to things like drunken shotgun weddings in Vegas, or maybe spousal abuse which looks to affect around 10% of the entire U.S. population right now? Clearly, the interest isn't actually in defending the institution of marriage, because if it was, then these people would be focused on legitimate threats, not gay people who are in love and simply want to be able to get married.
As for your college analogy, I can't seem to make heads or tails of it. But I can say that I never claimed anti-same sex marriage people "support spousal abuse" - no one said anything of the sort. But for people who are so adamant about "defending marriage", it is odd that they're so much more vocal and active about stopping same sex marriage than they are about dealing with issues like abuse.
It all adds up to further evidence that this issue really boils down to ignorance, homophobia, and bigotry for a large portion of people who oppose it.
How that can be irrelevant to you is beyond me. |
When I say it's irrelevant, that's because it's irrelevant. Okay, here's the difference. We can legislate against same-sex marriage and prevent that from happening, which is why people are vocal about it. We can't prevent spousal abuse. There are a lot of groups dedicated to it, some religion-oriented, some not, but it's not something that can overall be shot. This argument would be like shooting down a law preventing mental patients from getting guns on the grounds of "there is too much gun-related violence anyway, so why wouldn't you be focused on that?" Could I argue: what's the bigger threat; a few people getting the means to defend themselves, or a nation of murderers who kill each other in cold blood? It makes no sense.
You honestly don't think these people care about the divorce rate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean
So then argue that point, please. Don't just say you could while failing to directly address the specific points I've raised, or the specific answers I've provided to your many questions,
|
I think I'm losing track...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean
Not just a different definition than me, but a different definition than what the actual definition is. You've made up your own definition of what civil rights are to the point that you've claimed legalizing interracial marriage was not a civil rights issue. That's pretty amazing to me. And frankly, if you approach issues so loosely that you redefine things on that level, then it's impossible to have any meaningful dialogue about it.
Let me try to explain it this way. Marriage is not technically, in and of itself, a civil right. Getting a hunting license is not technically, in and of itself a civil right. But denying someone the right to get married or acquire a hunting license because they're a member of a minority group makes these civil rights issues. So it's not about the rights themselves as much as the denial of basic rights for minorities that are enjoyed by the overwhelming majority. It's about equality.
|
The definition:
The personal rights of the individual citizen to have equal treatment and equal opportunities
How you see that is up to you. A blind person, even one with terrific senses otherwise, it's going to get a hunting license. Now I suppose race is one thing and I probably shouldn't have said that it's not a civil rights issue, but in a way it kinda depends how you define the minority and how you see homosexuality. It's not that gay people can't get married; they just can't get married to the person that they want to. I'm not saying that gay men should marry women; obviously that wouldn't work, but they still have the opportunity to do so. Again I see this more in line with trying to marry your own sister rather than marrying out of your race; I know the interracial thing is relevant, but it's tough to compare since I don't think there was ever even a semi-solid argument against it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean
You're focusing on a very narrow and convenient aspect of the issue to suit your argument. Sure you can't marry another guy, but do you want to? If you fall in love with someone and decide you want to make a life-long commitment to them, legally and publicly accepting them into your life as a new family member, I assume that person would be a woman for you, and you can do that. So sure, you can't marry another dude and that means nothing to you because you would never want to. But if someone who is genetically predisposed to loving someone of the same sex (as a little under 10% of the population is) wants to make that same commitment to their partner, they can't, and it means a lot to them.]
|
Yeah, that's true. The thing is I'm not convinced this is necessarily a discrimination issue because gay people still do have the right to get married, even if they never would. It's the same as telling pot-smokers well, you've always got cigarettes. They wouldn't. But right now, the government doesn't cater to their preferences, and that doesn't make them necessarily discriminated against.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean
Aside from the Defense of Marriage act, where are these "rules" written that you've raised a few times now? And why would they be exempt from being amended as all "rules" throughout history have been to address contemporary reality? It used to be a generally accepted "rule" that the Earth was at the center of creation, with the sun, planets, and the infinite universe orbiting the all-important human species. Or that hard labor was done by slaves. Or that interracial marriages aren't allowed. But all of those "rules" were found to be seriously flawed, and were changed. What's different about this one?
|
I'm not saying they shouldn't be changed. I for one support it. I'm just saying thats the way they are
now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean
"It's not necessary"? That's the best argument against it? Well, hetero marriage isn't technically "necessary" either, so why does marriage exist at all? If, after everything that's been raised, that's the best argument against same sex marriage, then I think we've pretty clearly established that there are no good arguments against it. And despite the fact that you "don't feel like there's a right that a gay person doesn't have right now", there is. I base that on simple things called "facts". They don't have the right to legally marry and enjoy all the benefits that come with it, regardless of how you "feel".
|
It exists because it's a biblical institute. The laws came in place to protect the mothers who didn't work. If you want to argue about reducing marriage benefits, well I'm on board with that, too. You have to recognize where the argument is. I hear a lot that gays feel like they can't make that lifelong commitment since they can't marry each other; you can commit if you want, you can be in a loving and caring relationship without a piece of paper. The issue is that they don't get the marriage benefits that were introduced
mainly to protect women.
Either way, I don't really want to get roped into further debate about this; like I said, I think that gay marriage should be allowed. I merely defended those who think it shouldn't be.