I need help on 'gay marriage' argument

[Mimosa]

I am co-admin on a multi-interest forum. The board is very diverse. The board's owner is a bi Muslim MD (he doesn't post on gay issues). A member who's actually a nice guy posted this:

"I don't care if the dykes and queers make it legal, so long as they don't call it marriage. I see no need to redefine a word in order to be politically correct with the current last fifteen minutes of evolution. Let them get hitched, make the same as marriage in every way, just give it other name, shut up and move on. Problem solved."

This kind of attitude is extremely common with straight *divorced* guys. I need a solid succinct argument to refute it. The anti-gays wear me out.

[WillParkinson]

1. "Civil Unions" are NOT the same as marriage

This has been discussed by courts who admit that civil unions are not the same as marriage. Even with the benefits of marriage you'll always have 'mine is still better than yours'.

On edit:

What is his issue with it being called marriage? I'm just curious.

[stopwastingmymoney]

2. How about this?

per the supreme court, separate but equal can never be equal and is therefore unconstitutional.

[DURHAM D]

3. I wouldn't even bother with that type of personal problem/pathology.

They have issues they should work out with the help of a therapist. Are you a therapist?



Edit: The guy who wrote the above quote would have been more honest if he had just said:

ATTENTION. ATTENTION. I NEED ATTENTION.

[PDJane]

4. If it's not marriage, it's not equal.

You might also point out that homosexuals and lesbians have existed from the dawn of history, and that marriage rites were performed for them in earlier days of the church. As a matter of fact, AlterNet has an article on the subject this week.....

[Cronus Protagonist]

5. The people redefining the word "marriage" are the ones against gay marriage!

They have to do that because the current definition of the word "marriage" is not exclusive enough to reject gays from marrying. That's why the Catholic and Mormon churches have spent literally millions of dollars redefining marriage in every state constitution to exclude everyone other than one man and one woman. If the current definition was already exclusive to gay men and women, why would the spend millions redefining it. The truth is, marriage in the past has included same sex people, and it has also included one man and up to 14 wives. The people redefining marriage are the same ones claiming what this guy says.

Besides, it's ALL about gay bashing. It has nothing to do with heterosexuals OR marriage.

[ZombieHorde]

6. "I see no need to redefine a word in order to be politically correct with the current last..."

Point out the fact the word "marriage" has been redefined from previous generations.

[Mimosa]

7. There have been some posts on DU which explained why marriage gives rights not given by civil union

Can anybody remember any threads which explained why marriage automatically confers rights not given by 'civil unions'? I know I've read one some time ago.

I don't know why I should even bother to try to explain to anybody. But this is a common argument from straight people.

Obviously straight men and women want to think that if they alone can claim 'marriage' they have something 'better' and 'special' despite their divorces. ;)

[Warren Stupidity]

8. literally thousands of laws at the federal and state level

would have to be rewritten to include whatever new pc term your homophobe guy would like to use instead of the word marriage, as that term is currently written into all the various laws that define the rights and privileges of married people. Until that is done, this new non-marriage-marriage would be less equal to marriage. Your idiot is the one who, for the sake of his homophobia, would like a new homophobic-friendly word for two people being married. One that does not cause him to have the gay-vapors and faint when he finds out that dykes and queers have the same aspirations as other people. He is the one with the 'pc' problem.

[Mimosa]

9. ITA!

I was hoping somebody could recall one of the topics in the last 6 months here so I could copy out the facts. (I can compose and post a reply. But I was hoping for one already made. ;) )I know we had at least one. Even here on D.U. we've had to address this, even if it was phrased less offensively..

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

10. If there exists a valid compelling case...

...for the institution of marriage remaining the exclusive domain of heterosexual couples, the burden of producing this argument rests with them. I would argue that in the absence of such a valid and compelling case, it should be a given that the gay and lesbian community has equal access to marriage.

By way of analogy I would compare this issue with women's suffrage, and racial discrimination in the U.S. -- I would take care to couch it as a civil rights matter (which it is), not gay rights.

It's wrong to arbitrarily single out a subset of our population to be prevented from enjoying the same benefits of U.S. citizenship as everyone else, and these are concepts we should have some reasonable grasp of before we graduate kindergarten.

Just my thoughts, hope they help.

[rurallib]

11. Saw a lecture on UCal TV abut 3 years ago

the professor noted that states had no interest in marriage or its definition until 1867 in Alabama.
Doesn't take a genius to figure out why.

For me I wish the state would get out of the marriage business.

[Fearless]

12. Ask why a name is so important to them.

Then reverse it and tell them that's why it's so important to us.

[Mimosa]

13. Ta Da! Ted Olson article has the answers

Thanks for the ideas.

I checked back on the board and found the board's owner had posted this:

"Two people can be legally married by a judge in a county courthouse, a justice of the peace anywhere, or even a Supreme Court Justice. Therefore marriage as we know it in America is firstly a civil union. So why have 2 separate types of civil unions? That makes little sense.

Ken, conservative lawyer Ted Olson has already countered any argument you can devise. The case will be decided at Supreme Court level as was a previous case concerning interracial marriages, Loving v Virginia, 1967."


Ted Olson on the conservative case for gay marriage:

http://www.newsweek.com/2...se-for-gay-marriage.html

[tomm2thumbs]

14. it IS different, it's called a Same Sex Marriage - so what's the problem?

hahaha - so now that he has his 'different term' will he be okay with it?
let 'em explain back that one?

_ _ _

then again you may be wasting your time here

they say you can't teach a pig how to sing... it only wastes your time and annoys the pig

[TheWraith]

15. May I suggest you redefine your idea of a "nice guy"?

He might be perfectly sociable on other things, but that statement makes him sound like a dick.

[Mimosa]

17. I'm seeing what you mean.

The member is usually the soul of tolerance and politeness.Gay oriented topics seem to rile some straight males.;)

[jeremyfive]

16. Gay Marriage? It's Only Fair and Right

It is not a moral or religious issue. Many churches have "married" gay couples for years--different churches have different points of view, naturally. It is only the federal government which resists it--why? That's where the money is. Straight married couples get all kinds of tax benefits and incentives that gay people do not. It is inherently unfair. Particularly as there is a constitutional right to pursue happiness--and forbidding an American to marry his chosen life partner is inherently unfair.

Sames sex couples have married in a number of cultures historically, so that argument doesn't hold water. It is believed that same-sex union was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history. Native indian cultures have sanctioned such marriages, also.

Lesser number of marriages? Yes, but gays are a minority, which inherently would be "less" and less well publicized.

There is no heterosexual right to priviledged tax status via marriage.

[robtish]

18. Civil rights aren't really a compromise.

Ask your Muslim friend if ten years ago he favored civil unions (with all the rights of marriage). This option only became acceptable to many conservatives when same-sex marriage became a real possibility. If we back off from marriage, though, and go for civil unions, then I bet they'd withdraw their civil union support and try to compromise us into taking even less than that.

No matter what we do, no matter what we offer, it won’t be enough for these folk. If we agree to everything-but-the-word, they’ll go to work on the “everything.” They’ll chisel away at civil unions and domestic partnerships until they strip us of even the right to claim the dead body of your partner from the morgue (the National Organization for Marriage fought a Rhode Island law that would have allowed that -- that, and no more (and apparently even that little bit was too much for them). They’ll keep chiseling — chiseling until we’re in prison, just as Peter Sprigg and the Family Research Council have advocated.

http://wakingupnow.com/blog/no-compromises

[Kcoll]

19. Remind him that...

...it is not his definition of marriage that is being redefined (or his religion's definition). He is still free to think and live according to his definition. It is only the government's definition of marriage that would be amended.

[EFerrari]

20. George Wallace could have said the same thing. n/t

[plantwomyn]

21. redefine?

"This kind of attitude is extremely common with straight *divorced* guys."

Straight divorced guys have already redefined marriage. That "till death do us part" thing used to define marriage. Now, not so much.

It always amazes me when a divorced person has the gonads to say that their definition of marriage is sacred.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

22. The Condescension in that person's remark...

is beyond contemptible. Why is it that those whom it is unlikely to impact in any way seems to feel the need to make these sorts of comments?

Bottom line: Civil Unions do NOT provide all of the rights and protections of marriage. And even if they did, calling one group of unions "civil unions" and the other "marriage" creates, ipso facto, a two-tier system. It make second-class citizens of same-sex couples, and since when is "separate but equal" constitutional? Anyhow, even when we have been willing to settle for civil unions/domestic partnerships, the homohaters have tried to derail those as well.

By the way someone who refers to same-sex couples as "dykes and queers" probably isn't that nice. He certainly seems mired back in the 1950s.