General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"10 Non-Religious Reasons to Keep Marriage Traditional" Or: same old shit sammich, different mayo
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/ten_non-religious_reasons_to_keep_marriage_traditional.htmlI'll let you read the article, for the finer points of the argument, here are each of the talking points in bold, and my refutations, in italics.
Haters gonna hate. Now lets refute each of this author's arguments:
1. To reproduce, nature favors heterosexuality, not homosexuality.
This couldn't be farther from the truth. Overall, "nature" favors asexual cell division as a method of reproduction.
2. Nature teaches us to build the family unit and honor gender differences.
Whose to say that gay couple with children would be any less cohesive than a hetero family unit? Also, offspring from sexual unions are not always fertile males and females. And who do you think you are forcing those binary traditional gender roles on others?
3. The essence of marriage is intelligible -- it makes the most sense.
What makes the most sense to me is that my LGBT friends should enjoy the same rights and protections under the law that I have. To be able to love, and marry who they damn well please. Furthermore, the "essence of marriage is the unique act of heterosexual sex"... BS. Some of the most well known oppoennts of gay marriage have been known to enjoy heterosexual sex outside of their marriages.
4. Childless heterosexual married couples reinforce marriage, not redefine it.
This argument states is that it is impossible for gay couples to conceive children, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Invitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, adoption, there are many ways for LGBT couples to have children.
5. Traditional marriage is strong, as is.
This argument is laughable. I can count on one hand the friends I have who came from two-parent homes growing up. To be honest, it was just sort of an expectation among people my age that parents would be separated.
6. Some certainties should not be rejected or fundamentally transformed.
"Will radical, iconoclastic leftists get their way again, as they seek to destroy another beautiful, stable and honored tradition?"
This point is rambling, self-important nonsense that basically amounts to "straight marriage was here first". Its the logic of a 3 year old refusing to share his toys, expressed using ten-dollar words.
7. History and democracy matter.
Touche'
8. Preserving traditional marriage is a virtue, not "homophobia" or bigotry.
I agree, now tell me how allowing gays to marry affects your "traditional" male/female marriage in any way. Why not allow gays to enjoy the same traditions of marriage that you do?
9. Upholding standards against other redefinitions is necessary.
{"Revisionists often ask, "How does gay marriage hurt my marriage?" That misses the point. It could also be asked, "How would polygamy or even incestuous marriage hurt your marriage?" (We should not yet worry about a woman who platonically married a dolphin).
Your individual marriage doesn't matter in the debate"}
The tired old "man on dog" argument. The author tells people that the fact that their individual marriages won't be harmed is unimportant but its the (of course, undefined) "essence" of marriage".
10. Unmarried civil union is a fair and reasonable compromise.
This is in fact, not true. As a minister ordained by the Universal Life Church Monastery of Seattle Washington (a religious institution which recognizes same sex marriages) I should be able to offer my congregation the same "marriage" services as other congregations. My congregation is not getting equal protection under the law, and neither am I as their minister.
Any church that recognizes same sex marriage should be able to perform the ceremonies and have the marriages recognized. Failure to do this shows favoritism of one church over another and thus violates both the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses of the first amendment.
To make a long story short, the author took the usual anti gay-marriage arguments and replaced the religion with patriarchy. Same old shit sandwich, different kind of mayonnaise.
unblock
(52,317 posts)among the many stupidities here, how on earth does conferring marital status and marital rights to a gay couple in california in any way undermine my heterosexual marriage in connecticut????? this one always baffles me, what's the logic there? somehow my life commitment to mrs. unblock is now meaningless if homosexual couples can do it too? that's just plain nuts.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)Call everything civil union and leave it at that.
swimboy
(7,285 posts)before you begin your important work of taking that away from everyone.
That just seems more efficient to me.
Thanks.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)Was just thinking that if I consider separation of church and state, I tend to see marriage as a civil union.
By separating it from the discourse in regards to law, the rights found therein, in such unions would not have that term to stop some from it. Make it their own personal choice as to what they call it.
To me it would simplify matters... but of course, you're definitely right in regards to access. In regards to interpretation of law and all of that, by doing it in that way, removing that term would get rid of some judicial hurdles.
But yeah, I don't see such a thing as that happening. However, I think getting that access will happen within another generation or two. The crap Scalia is going off on right now makes it hard, which is why my thinking of that separation would take away quite a bit of the wind off their sails in their argument of denying that access.
TM99
(8,352 posts)it would be so simple really to solve this.
Federal law that allows for civil unions for men and men, men and women, and women and women. All states covered. All financial, insurance, tax, and inheritance benefits are covered...period. Any one in a civil union can have children (so can those outside of one as we don't want to leave anyone out) and adopt, etc. without bias towards religion, orientation, etc.
Then if the couple so chooses, they can have a spiritual marriage. Atheists can opt out without feeling like they must be forced to attend a church yet may still be 'married'. Otherwise, go to your synagogue, church, Buddhist Temple, pagan circle, whatever, and have yourself a wonderful faith-based ceremony with your family and friends in attendance. Call yourselves husband and husband, husband and wife, partners, whatever. If a church says, sorry, we do not want to marry a homosexual couple, big deal. They get to remain as traditional as they want, and the couple simply finds an Episcopal church or whatever that has zero problems with marrying them.
Render unto Caesar...render unto God. It is the 21st century. Let's be truly progressive and democratic in the United States. Something like this provides all of the societal benefits and completely separates it from the religious question. Separation of church and state as it should be. Until something like this happens, I do not see this issue resolved easily. SCOTUS will likely throw it back to the states and invalidate DOMA. We will continue to see the muddying of civil rights with financial rights with religious rights. It is a mess and people who love each other like my sister and her long term partner are the ones suffering.
I sincerely hope that SCOTUS gives her and all homosexuals the right to marriage, and I sadly do not expect given the make-up of the court and the arguments we have heard thus far.
*Edit* As I penned this, Xyzse stated much what I did here and I agree with them quite a bit.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)I think that would simplify matters, but I doubt such a thing will happen.
I guess, I just said it that way out of frustration from the matter as it goes on and on.
Still, I tend to believe marriage equality will happen within a generation or two.
Thank you for expanding upon what I meant.
TM99
(8,352 posts)with a heart. When I see beings suffering, I look for the simplest solution not the most complex.
This whole situation seems needlessly complicated.
Yes, likely within a generation or two marriage equality will happen. I wish that we humans could be brave enough and smart enough sometimes to solve things more quickly rather than waiting for time to fix them.
It is saddening and frustrating.
Thank you.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)However, I do agree with them that they deserve the same rights without the type of simplification we recommend.
I just think that such a change would undercut their arguments by taking off religion from the equation.
VWolf
(3,944 posts)"We must protect the sanctity of CIVIL UNIONS!!!111!!"
Seriously, haters gonna hate.
True.
Sorry, that sucks, but you're probably right.
But separate the civil union from the religious issues, and conservative or not, who would give a damned what anyone complained about it.
Anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, who 'married' would have all the rights and benefits to enjoy.
But I do understand your frustration in this. I hope things change sooner rather than later.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Took out god and substituted nature.
Erose999
(5,624 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)To that partnership accrue various rights and privileges.
Looking down the 1000 or so laws about rights and privileges of marriage, there isn't one that a person could argue should be denied a member of a same sex relationship.
Who would see joint property ownership as a right to be denied?
Who thinks power of attorney for medical decisions is dependent upon the guardian being opposite sexed from a patient?
Sure there are economic objections, employers don't want to spend money they can avoid, but this is really trivial, and becoming more trivial as universal healthcare is incrementally approached.
No one can really believe in civil justice and want to deny these rights.
Really, there is only one category of legal issue that objections are built upon and that is sexual activity.
Rejection of homosexual behavior is an archaic view that can't be defended without invoking religion.
The contentious point is that marriage legitimizes sex, and in various religions (and consequently in various geographic locations) same-sex interactions are considered sinful.
During American history people in various places have established laws that conform to their religious beliefs.
Same sex marriage is seen by it's opponents as legalizing sodomy.
Now, it's immediately evident that they REALLY aren't concerned about SODOMY (which is just a word to mean anal and oral sex). By and large opponents of same sex marriage accept and engage in or view sodomy--secretly.
So it seems that the last bastion of their defense is really based on hypocrisy that feeds their need to identify the sinful and then gain enhanced enjoyment by committing it.
Same-sex marriage undermines their life experience because it undoes the thrill they get from being 'sinful'.
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)Still waiting to be told how ALSO promoting same-sex marriage has any impact on it.