Why the definition of marriage should NOT be redefined

[stonecoldsober]

If traditional marriage is redefined by socially liberal people, there will be a new definition of marriage.

Once it is redefined, it can be redefined again. I'm not saying that marriage would be redefined again, but it is very possible. I imagine if the idea of same-sex marriage were floated even in the 1960-70's people would be appalled. See how times change?

If marriage were re-defined, it would open the door to polygamy and plural marriages.

Homosexuals and lesbians could marry were marriage re-defined, but bisexuals - to an extent - could not.

I imagine that, sooner or later, they (at least some) would be screaming to be allowed the right marry the two people they love (both male and female).

Polygamists would be screaming for the right to legally marry were marriage re-defined. They already are, in fact. Gays certainly don't want to talk about that happening.

In the context of same-sex marriage, socially liberal people often bring up African-Americans not being allowed to marry whites (and vice versa) at one time. But that is comparing apples to oranges. One is born black. It is genetic. Homosexuals are not "born that way." Homosexuality is not genetic, and attempts to find a genetic link to homosexuality or a homosexual gene, have failed. The top minds on this say that there is no homosexual gene.

Additionally, socially liberal people often say that DOMA is a violation of either the 4 or 14th Amendment. But, if one looks closely at those two Amendments, DOMA does not violate them at all.

Socially liberal people often say that DOMA, or bans on same sex marriage, are 'tyranny of the majority'.

Wanting to re-define marriage (via the courts) to allow homosexuals to marry, plural marriages, or polygamy is tyranny of the minority then. They continue to try to ram this issue down our throats.

Why must gay activists, liberal Democrats, and socially liberal people be so divisive?


<< Courtesy of some bonehead on FreeRepublic >>

[marmar]

1. "Why must gay activists, liberal Democrats, and socially liberal people be so divisive?"

That's the company line with right wingers: Why can't these people just shut up and accept the world we want it to be!!!!! Obviously, challenging racism, homophobia and sexism is considered "divisive" in their warped world.

[ThomCat]

2. "Courtesy of some bonehead"

You got that right. As if the definition of marriage has never changed. :eyes:

What an uneducated imbecile.

[stonecoldsober]

5. And why should it change? Merriam-Webster says:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

[ThomCat]

15. That definition has changed before.

It used to be illegal and unheard of for a people of two different races to marry.

It used to be that there were different types of marriages. Some people were married by the church, and some had common law marriages.

It used to be that marriage was an arranged property contract.

"Traditional" marriage isn't very traditional. It's a very recent developement. Just because you can quote a dictionary, what does that really mean? Does that mean that definition is somehow eternal?

[HereSince1628]

3. If same sex marriage had been proposed in the 1960's and 1970's

I suspect it would have recieved a better reception, at least before 1976, than it does now.

The fundamental issue of those times, the raison d'etre of the entire social movement, was equality in civil rights.

It wasn't until the fundamentalists under Jerry Fallwell got a full head of steam up against the E.R.A. in the mid 1970's that the civil rights movement really waned.

[ThomCat]

16. I doubt it.

In the 60s and 70s gay sex was still criminalized in most parts of the country and people could be killed with impunity for being gay. Police wouldn't even bother to investigate in many cases. If someone got gay-bashed the cops would just say "well, what did you expect?"

[HereSince1628]

22. Just because it's true that sodomy remained on the books in

many jurisdictions until much later, doesn't mean that as a society the nation wasn't in a better sentiment had same sex marriage been raised.

As it was, much of the fundy uprising against the E.R.A. was about fear of shifting roles of women (perhaps to lesbianism?). The suppression of equal rights for women and the supposed threats equal rights pose to contemporary traditional families are much of the same, with much of the same base of support. But back in the 60's and 70's that base was smaller, less vocal, and much less politically organized. Consequently, I think same sex marriage would have recieved a warmer reception in the '60s and early 70's if only because the opposition wasn't as enlisted in politically motivated fundamentalism.

[ThomCat]

24. If that were true

then we would have had more successes getting those sodomy laws off the books. If we couldn't even legalize our dating, how could we hope to get permission to marry?

And ask old-school feminists how small or disorganized the opposition was.

I think you're looking back to good old days that weren't there.

[HereSince1628]

29. I don't think I'm looking through rose colored glasses

although it's always good to interrogate one's views to be sure. The same could be said about checking oneself to be sure she isn't looking back through jaundiced lenses.

I'm of this opinion because of the general mood surrounding equal rights and the movement's political power that zenithed in the early 70's. The whole notion of "free-love" was in large part about sexual liberation. And sexually liberated events such as the Michigan Women's Music Festival, now over 30 years old, originated in the sentiments of those times. I wouldn't say that things were better legally for the GLBT. But there was a huge awakening regarding sexuality and generally greater acceptance. Indeed it was against that success that the moral majority organized its fundy terrorism which fed the conservative "backlash" in the later 70's and brought Ronny and the homophobes for God into political power--or at least enough power to transform a blood-borne viral disease into the wrath of God in the form of the Gay-Plague.

[Unvanguard]

21. No, it wouldn't have been.

Homophobia was substantially worse in the 1960s and 1970s than it is now; the gay rights movement was just getting off the ground.

Sure, some sectors of the straight left would have (and were) compelled to intellectually accept the cause of gay rights, but the kind of consciousness of the problem and mass support necessary for a change like that would certainly not have been present.

[Lex]

4. Isn't this the Santorum "box turtle" argument?

:shrug:

[rpgamerd00d]

6. Of course homosexuality is genetic.

If you think your sexual preference is not in-born, then that would mean STRAIGHT people are not born STRAIGHT either.
It would mean STRAIGHT people have to CHOOSE to be straight.

So, when did you CHOOSE to be straight? Because prior to that day, YOU WEREN'T.

[Katherine Brengle]

9. Amen.

[ThomCat]

18. I'll agree with your post on this.

You and I may have fought recently, but I'll stand with you when you're right.

I don't think it's 100% genetic. I think hormonal environment during pregnancy and maybe some environmental factors while growing up have some influence. But it's definitely not a choice.

[Unvanguard]

23. That it is innate does not necessarily mean that it is genetic.

There is, in fact, some compelling evidence that it is in large part hormonal.

[rpgamerd00d]

25. OK, I'm no scientist - I wouldn't know a hormone from a gene.

But I do know a joke.

Q: How do you make a hormone?
A: Don't pay her.

Ba-dum ching!

[ProfessorGAC]

35. Circular Logic

Hormonal balances and neurochemical responses to those balances are genetically programmed.

So, you are arguing both sides of the issue.
The Professor

[Maven]

37. Right, and

hormones mediate gene expression.

[Katherine Brengle]

7. Holy crap you scared me for a minute there --

you should have put the disclaimer at the top!!!

Egads.

[Glorfindel]

8. Oh, deary me...I'm SO ASHAMED for being divisive

whatever can I do to atone for my presumption? It's bad enough that I perversely CHOSE to be gay at the ripe old age of four (-ish, who remembers that far back?), but to compound my crimes by daring to
demand equality is just simply socially unacceptable. Maybe I can send some "I'm sorry please forgive me" cards to several million deeply offended "Christians.":evilfrown: :sarcasm: :nopity: :rofl:

[Unvanguard]

10. This person has no clue what bisexuality constitutes.

Homosexuals and lesbians could marry were marriage re-defined, but bisexuals - to an extent - could not.

I imagine that, sooner or later, they (at least some) would be screaming to be allowed the right marry the two people they love (both male and female).

No more than people who happen to be capable of attraction towards both brown-haired people and blond-haired people would be screaming for the right to marry a brown-haired person and a blond-haired person simultaneously.

[ThomCat]

19. Exactly.

And just because a straight guy who isn't a racism could love women of any race, that doesn't mean he's going to insist on marrying one from each.

The freeper is a damned fool. But I suppose that's redundant.

[patrice]

11. Yep. We're going to make a law: Only homosexual marriages.

Only polygamous marriages. If plural marriages means people getting married more than once, that's the status quo, but we could make that a law too. Everyone will have to divorce and remarry every 5 years.

.....................................

Honestly, I fail to see why any of this matters.

"Divisive" - What could be more divisive than "One man one woman"???????????? On edit: But then, maybe THAT'S the point.

[twilight_sailing]

12. "We don't need no piece of paper from the City Hall

making us tried and true." Joni Mitchell

Take marriage out of the legal sphere completely.

[Katherine Brengle]

14. One of my favorite songs of all time! nt

[salin]

13. My jaw dropped, then dropped further, then further again - til I read the last line

yep that is a bonehead freeper's voice not that of DU.

Not sure, though, why you posted this - esp without making it clear that these were a freepers words.

What exactly is your point?

[stonecoldsober]

33. My point is that there are a lot of nutbaskets out there in freeperland

And I thought I made it clear that it was a "bonehead freeper".

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

17. Amazing that gay couples can last 30 to 50 years without Marriage

.... shouldn't that prove that Marriage isn't a necesssary institution?

So by NOT allowing gays to marry, and them living together in a loving committed relationship for decades................ hmmm, seems like there should be an argument to MAKE them get married to keep the Big Secret that a marriage license isn't necessary.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. What a curious thread.

In essence, it's

"bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, more bullshit, more bullshit, baseless bullshit, tired bullshit, bullshit incapable of being backed up, a couple more paragraphs of bullshit, let the gays marry n' all hell will break loose bullshit, and then a little bit more bullshit sprinkled on top as a light seasoning."

And finally, a one line disclaimer at the end, saying it's courtesy of some freeper. If you hadn't put that line in there, what would the point of this thread be?

With the disclaimer, what is it?

Really, dude--- I give you the benefit of the doubt that you were sincere in posting this thread; but do we need the "courtesy" of giving free airtime to anti-equality freeper arguments?

[blonndee]

31. Thank you.

My thoughts exactly.

[stonecoldsober]

34. I thought it was interesting

I realize not everyone here will think every post or thread is worthwhile to them.

The thread would be pointless if there was no ability to respond, but if you look at the responses, I think some people found value in it.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Looking at the responses

it's clear a number of folks thought the whole thing was just an excuse to post some Freeper's anti-gay blather, too.

[izzybeans]

26. Well this liberal demands his right to sleep with every box turtle this side of momma's

crick. :sarcasm:

Universal justice is not moral relativism. It is the greatest absolute there is.

[baby_mouse]

27. I'm so glad I read the entire post.

But you're a NAUGHTY NAUGHTY DUer for posting such a potentially divisive title to your thread! NAUGHTY :D

[valerief]

28. Please stop littering DU with this tripe. nt

[BuyingThyme]

30. Another reason why marriage should not be redefined:

Because it retroactively changes unions of love and inclusion into unions of hate and exclusion.

[Crunchy Frog]

32. And before you know it, men will be marrying box turtles.