Any non-religious arguments against gay marriage? Pt. 2

Then have the grace not to complain when you are snubbed by straight people who take offense to your distortion of their tradition.

There is a sizeable proportion of the heterosexual community, even an overwhelming majority depending upon the poll, who strongly object to it. So, let's dispense with the blatant bullsh*t, shall we?

Incidentally, my personal feelings on the subject of gay marriage are: "Marry away if you want to!" I'm not a big fan of marriage, having been down that road once already and found it much less a benefit than a trap, and a trap that is exceedingly difficult and expensive to escape.

Caveat to the gay community: Be careful what you wish for.

 

There is every reason to treat homosexual people just as you would treat heterosexuals (that is, in a civil and dignified manner); and that is because they are HUMAN beings just like everyone else.

Even so, there are no solid arguments presented, which actually justify the continued prohibition of homosexual marriages.

 

Once again, the communication process has broken down. How many times do I have to say that I am not interested in denying gays equal rights.

However, there is a distinct difference between obtaining equal rights and rudely encroaching upon the traditions of others. You would like to call a gay civil union a "marriage" when the title of "marriage" has belonged to the hetero community for the past 10,000 years. Now, that is f*cking rude!

The solution is very simple: PICK ANOTHER TITLE!!! What's wrong with you? Are you ashamed of being gay? Is that really what this is, deep down inside you wish you were straight so you insist on co-opting as many of the cultural titles and accoutrements of heteros as you possibly can?

If you're gay be gay, and have enough self-respect to identify yourself, and your civil union, as such.

 

Even so, our making of laws and policy which affect ALL citizens... is not based upon mere "tradition". You have been told that by others, and even a cursory view at American law or the U.S. Constitution should tell you the same.

You cannot deny same-sex marriage, merely because someone might be 'offended' by it. That wouldn't make good sense at all.

 

On the contrary, that is indeed your interest if you insist that they be treated differently by forcing them to call their marriages something else.

There it is again - that desire to separate us from the rest of society by claiming its traditions don't also belong to us.

The word marriage isn't the property of any one group, and neither is the civil institution it describes. In other words, you're trying to claim exclusive ownership of something that belongs to everyone.

No, I will not. Why won't you share the title with us?. Only one possible answer: Misplaced feelings of superiority.

That's a "have you stopped beating your wife" type of question; one that posits a truth not in evidence (namely, that there is something 'wrong' with me).

Here's a hint: I am not up for debate.

On the contrary, I consider myself the equal of any straight person, and that's why I insist on equal treatment, including the 'cultural titles and accoutrements" of the society of which I'm a part, attempts by others to claim something to the contrary notwithstanding.

What I have is enough self-respect to understand that I deserve better: full equality.

 

People will take offense to whatever they think is offensive. I have better things to do with my life than to waste my energy trying not to offend people who are upset at the thought of my very existence, much less my daring to consider myself their equal.

Perhaps you need to look at some more recent polling data, then.

Regardless, the point was that your attempt to divide society into "the heterosexual community" vs. "the gay community" has nothing to do with reality.

Do you think we were plopped here by aliens? Or are you really that incapable of grasping that we aren't a separate society with no knowledge of the pitfalls that a legal arrangement such as marriage may hold?

Your condescension is insulting.

 

I'm averring that marriage is a tradition of our society, and that gay people are a part of that society. Ergo, the traditions of that society are not exclusively heterosexual.

We aren't "co-opting" heterosexual tradition; we're integrating into our lives the ever-evolving traditions of our society that hold meaning for us, just like heteros do.

 

We have an interesting in maintaining good relations with those who treat us with respect and equity. The rest, not so much.

No two marriages are identical. The equal provision of civil marriage is based on the similar situation of those who seek it, despite irrelevant differences.

What is very clear from your arguments is that you do not consider us part of society, and that you wish to keep us marginalized. I have no interest in accommodating you in that desire.

 

Then why bother posting? You seem to put an awful lot of energy into defending your position to people whose opinion you are now professing to care less about. You're a bit confused, aren't you?

Because in the real world there is absolutely no difference between gay people and straight people. In fact, we are a unisex species that reproduces asexually, and this entire thread is based upon a gross misperception of reality fostered by the OP.

Is that about right?

That's not really relevant to the point I was making, is it?

It shouldn't be. After all, I am intellectually superior to you.

Besides, as someone around here said earlier (and it may have been you):

You have no right not to be offended.

 

To the contrary, "marriage" is a heterosexual tradition of our society, just as Christmas is a Christian tradition of our society. Just as Santa Claus dressed up like a Hassidic Rabbi would be a gross distortion of the Christmas tradition, so is a same-sex marriage a gross distortion of the marriage tradition.

Yes, you are co-opting a hetero tradition! Stop denying reality, it's annoying. In a multicultural society, it is rude to unilaterally "integrate into one's life" a tradition to which one is not party, and then demand to be recognized as identical with those who are.

 

In other words, you could care less what about half the heterosexual community thinks. Nice attitude.

I'm not talking about marriage in the legal sense. I'm talking about it in the cultural sense. I would think that by now you would have figured that out.

At last, we arrive at the inevitable death rattle blurbs which every schmuck who belongs to a so-called "minority" makes at the point when they recognize that they have lost the argument:

"You're a racist, or a homophobe, or a sexist, or a (whatever)..."

Sorry, but that tired old trump card just doesn't play anymore.

 

Are you saying law should be based on tradition?

 

I'm not confused in the least. What I said was this:

It should be obvious that I am not wasting my time trying to avoid offending you, which really has nothing to do with whether or not I debate an issue with people who profess offense and/or hold an entrenched position. It isn't my goal to persuade someone who will not be persuaded no matter the argument presented. Rather, it is for the benefit of others who may be following the discussion, pondering the issue with an open mind.

Again, let's review what I actually said:

The context was the implications of the statement below:

Those implications being:

1) That society is divided into separate heterosexual and homosexual "communities". It isn't. Heterosexuals and homosexuals do not operate in isolation from each other. They are part of the same society.

2) That there is a united "heterosexual community" which shares a negative opinion about same-sex couples marrying; that it's somehow offensive to the entire "heterosexual community". It isn't, you know it isn't, and you're being grossly dishonest.

So what we have is very much a strawman from you in response. Nowhere did I argue that there was no difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals. At no point was human reproduction even part of the context of what you were replying to. The only discernible intent is to derail the thread by getting us to debate the absurd. I'm not going to indulge you in that.

I disagree. You're statement carried the implication that gay people have no knowledge of the pitfalls of marriage. Just more evidence of an arrogant, misplaced sense of superiority.

I'm not persuaded that you are, and even if that were true, it's not relevant.

The fact that there is no right to be shielded from things one might find offensive does not mean there is no right to find things offensive.

 

Absolutely not.

I'm saying that it would be more polite (and more politic) if the gay community were to choose a title other than "marriage" (ie: "partnership) for their civil unions. A mere matter of words, but words often matter when they are used in titles, especially titles already claimed.

 

Describing marriage as a "heterosexual tradition" is ambiguous, since "heterosexual" can refer either to the orientation of the spouses, or to the sex of the spouses. It would not be accurate to say that marriage has been exclusively between people of heterosexual orientation, since gay men and lesbians have married opposite-sex spouses, having been denied the opportunity to legally marry a same-sex spouse.

If we're talking about marriage purely as a social tradition, it is not accurate to say that marriage has been exclusively a 'heterosexual tradition'. Same-sex couples have long lived together in arrangements largely indistinguishable from those of married opposite-sex couples, despite societal disapproval, the refusal to recognize those relationships or accord them any status, and despite the risk of prosecution. I would add that same-sex couples have been marrying in churches far longer than legal recognition has been available to them.

I conclude therefore that marriage is not exclusively a 'heterosexual tradition'. To say that it is, is merely to perpetuate the 'tradition' of refusing to provide an equal place in society to same-sex couples.

I very obviously disagree, and see no point in repeating what I've already said on the matter.

 

Why should I?

Addressed in my post above.

Since I have not called you a 'racist, a homophobe, sexist, "or a (whatever)", this is pure bunkum.

I would say where we've arrived is at a place where you've run out of arguments and must therefore resort to distortion and blatant dishonesty.

 

Indeed, words to matter. Asking us to choose a title other than marriage serves to convey the idea that we are not equal members of the society in which we live. It's an ugliness you cannot escape, regardless of how 'politely' you attempt to frame it.

 

So, I guess if we call a Jew a Jew, instead of a Christian, he is somehow demeaned by it.

Being different does not equate with being inferior. If there is an ugliness here, it lies in thine own self-image.

 

"What is very clear from your arguments is that you do not consider us part of society, and that you wish to keep us marginalized. I have no interest in accommodating you in that desire."

The statement speaks for itself.

 

WRONG.

There is nothing ambiguous about it. Marriage is a heterosexual tradition.

Now, either start making sense or get lost.

 

That's a very strange interpretation of my remarks.

What would you say are the differences? Their orientation, obviously. What relevance does that have, beyond their choice of a marriage partner?

Apart from considerable heterosexual privilege, I don't see any other differences, and certainly none with relevancy to marriage.

One religion co-opting another's holy day is not analogous to marriage, which is first and foremost a form of contract between two people. There is nothing uniquely heterosexual about that.

You seem to be hung up on what you perceive to be polite or impolite. You say it is impolite for same-sex couples to call their unions a marriage. I say it is more than just impolite to force same-sex couples to call their marriages something else.

I have not doubt that some Christians think it is 'rude' for same-sex couples marry. And I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) that they think so. I have no obligation to be polite when someone is trying to make me conform my life to honor traditions and beliefs that are not my own.

Conveniently ignoring those heterosexuals who are not only comfortable with it, but advocating on behalf of same-sex couples. The point remains: There is no unanimous view among heterosexuals on same-sex relationships and their status, nor do they all share the same traditions surrounding marriage, nor the same views on marriage more generally. In other words, you've defeated your own argument by detailing for us the differences in heterosexual perceptions of this issue, even though you conveniently left out those who are supporting same-sex couples' pursuit of legal marriage equality without reservation.

I don't with regard to their ability to form marital unions, nor with how those unions should be legally recognized, all under the term 'marriage'. I thought that was obvious.

If, as a social matter, someone wants to maintain that my husband and I are not married, they're welcome to their opinion, and I'm within my rights to hold the opinion that the content of theirs is worthy of my contempt.

None beyond those I've already mentioned.

It remains that your reply was completely out-of-context, as I already ably illustrated. I'm seriously not going to indulge your attempt to get us to debate off-topic by now debating whether or not it was such an attempt. In my opinion, I've already shown a bright light on what you were up to, and it's not a debatable matter. Attempting to pursue it further will likely get you ignored.

 

Off-topic.

Back on topic: If you insist on calling my marriage something else, then you are demeaning it.

No, the ugliness is in pretending that you don't view us as your inferiors when you're seeking a path to keep us marginalized and separate.

Since legal marriage is the civil recognition of a marital union, there is no good reason for same-sex couples' marriages to be called by different terminology that marks them as having an inferior status.

The plain fact remains: You do not consider us equal members of the society in which we live.

 

I'm a Humanist and Christmas is my favorite time of year.

 

It does, with no need for you to twist it into meaning something else.