34 Comments on “What’s so Queer About Gay Marriage?”

  1. +SisyphusRedeemed I want to call you out on a significant (but obviously
    innocent) mistaken in your speaking. You said around 33:20 that 40% of
    voters in Alabama wished to keep a constitutional ban marrying a person “of
    the opposite race”. I’m sure you don’t really mean that, because “races”
    (really just skin color and culture, as there is no real biological
    underpinning for race) are not defined in opposition to each other. /

  2. After going thru a divorce myself Why should only hetro individuals be the
    ones who suffer being roasted on a spit by blood sucking attorneys, who are
    just out to make money have no thought of either individual involved or any
    children they may have.
    If more than 50% of marriages fail WHY would anyone in their right minds
    get married?.
    (If you are in love you are not in your right mind)
    Not that love isn’t the greatest thing & makes life worth living but it
    does change your decision making process to the point you are in an altered
    state of consciousness
    (I was married for almost 30 years)

    It isn’t fair that insurance companies, banks ect discriminate about non
    married partners if that is the reason people choose to be married

  3. +SisyphusRedeemed Thank you so much for your discussion on polygamous
    marriage. I commend the bravery for taking a relatively unconventional
    position. I happen to believe also there is nothing wrong in principle with
    polygamy, and would even say that non-monogamy actually *is* a part of the
    identity (and not just an activity) of some individuals I know. Is it rarer
    that homosexuality? Seems like it. Does that make it illegitimate? I can’t
    see how.

  4. “non-procreative couple cannot be allowed to marry” This is a ridiculous
    and obviously false dilemma. Marriage has never and doesn’t currently
    justify nor require some kind of Orwellian Ministry of fertility. it
    doesn’t follow that this principle requires totalitarianism. I think the
    suggestion is silly.

  5. “The claim is that marriage is essential to the rearing of children and the
    health of societies and that is why it is granted special status.” All the
    more reason to let gay couples marry! They will rear children, increasing
    the health of our society! Unless your argument is against adoption you’ve
    just pissed all over your own shoes and proved the very opposite of what
    you set out to.

  6. “which is why the Lovings were not married prior to 1967,” The Lovings were
    married in in 1958 in Washington D.C.

  7. “you want to completely rebuild marriage up from new first principles” When
    women were given the vote in 1920 they didn’t ‘completely rebuild voting
    from new first principles’, we simply extended the rights that men had to
    women. The idea that ‘marriage’ is being redefined is not only false, it’s
    silly. This isn’t a terminological dispute; it’s a dispute about civil

  8. Pakistan is not fact? Saudi Arabia is not fact? Norway is not fact? Sweden
    is not fact? That 2 of them are Islamic and the other 2 secular are not

  9. Nice try prof. I said that the traditional family structure is what is best
    for the rearing of children and hence what is best for society. In cases
    where adoption is necessary it is best for children to be placed in a
    traditional two parent home with a mom and a dad.

  10. “Than the marriage of any sterile person has not center and should be
    annulled.” This simply doesn’t follow. I don’t think you can support this

  11. My position is that any group that want to be allowed to marry but is
    currently denied that right should make their case. The rest of us should
    listen carefully and with an open mind. If their case is compelling we
    should let them marry. Gay people have made their case. It’s compelling.
    Will others, like polygamists, try to ride their coattails? Maybe. It’s
    their right to try to persuade us. If they can, bully for them. But it’s up
    to them to make their case, not me.

  12. “The 19th amendment was passed on the merit of the 19th amendment. if it
    was on the basis of the 15th amendment it would be redundant.” What? I
    never said they were the same. I said that the direction the 15th took us
    in was extended by the 19th. Put it another way: if the 15th hadn’t been
    passed, the 19th wouldn’t have passed, either.

  13. “I presume you need a study to sort that out for you.” Yes, I do like to
    have information and to understand a subject before I render judgment. You
    may be content to hold your opinions with the actual facts in absentia, but
    personally I prefer to be informed and not ignorant before I opine on a
    subject. But that’s just me. “Your aim is to indoctrinate not educate.”
    Says the man who admits that he doesn’t need to actually know anything
    about a subject to have an opinion about it. That’s rich.

  14. so then why isnt procreation a requirement for marriage? logic states if
    you are going to ban one group of people from marriage for one reason, then
    you should ban all people who fall under that reason for marrying

  15. “Procreation lies at the center of marriage.” Than the marriage of any
    sterile person has not center and should be annulled. You cannot have it
    both ways. If your principle is that marriage is about procreation then any
    non-procreative couple cannot be allowed to marry, otherwise you’re
    violating your own principle.

  16. …cont. This is not odd or unusual. For example laws requiring a person to
    be at least 18 years of age to vote are not inconstant or unjust because
    there happens to be many individuals below that age who have the level of
    knowledge and maturity required to engage the political process. Such laws
    are based on the principle that younger citizens lack the capacity to vote.
    The exceptions do not negate the principle.

  17. I’m not especially against same sex marriage but I think arguments to
    justify it or counters to arguments against it could very well work to
    support polygamy and many others. Note that I’m not making a slippery slope
    argument here. Only an argument against rhetoric I guess.

  18. “This simply doesn’t follow.” It absolutely follows. If the claim is ‘gay
    people can’t marry because they can’t breed’ we can formalize that with ‘X
    can’t Y, because X can’t Z.’ If ‘Y’ is ‘marry’ and ‘Z’ is ‘have kids’, then
    the form holds whether ‘X’ refers to gay people or sterile straight people.
    If that is NOT the claim, then what the hell is the claim?

  19. “This isn’t crazy, it’s a fact. ” I don’t know what is more crazy your
    claim “Procreation has nothing to do with marriage.” or your mistaken claim
    that children born out side of wedlock or childless married couples some
    how if evidential of this crazy claim. In any case both claims are crazy
    talk. Next you will cite Heffalumps and Woozles.

  20. “undeniable fact of history” There is very little that can not be doubted.
    I could be a brain in vat and marriage therefore has nothing to do with
    procreation. I suggest that the profs strong claim that marriage has
    nothing to do with marriage is not an example of exotic skepticism. I think
    it is crazy talk. I think it is like believing in fairies. It certainly
    isn’t an evidence based claim.

  21. “But the slippery slope I was referring to is the claim that ‘arguments for
    interracial marriage translate to arguments for SSM” I disagree. I can see
    no justification that translates from one to the other. In fact I think
    there are many compelling arguments that the slope runs away from SSM. With
    the justification of interracial marriage and supporting arguments I think
    it makes the merit of SSM is deminished. With Loving it seems to me that
    SSM looks to be discriminatory.

  22. “What? I never said they were the same.” I never accused you of saying they
    were the same. I want to make clear that I am not being pedantic. There is
    an important point. You seem to suggest that the ground work for the 19th
    amendment was laid in the 15th amendment. I think this is plainly false. In
    my mind it is a grounding as the 18th amendment grounded the 21st. The 19th
    amendment could have predated the 15th amendment nor required the 15th

  23. “I think it is like believing in fairies. It certainly isn’t an evidence
    based claim.” Do you want me to google stats on out of wedlock children and
    childless couples, or do you think you can handle that yourself? Asking for
    evidence is a good thing; denying something that is painfully obvious is
    not. Are you denying that children are born out of wedlock and/or that
    married couples often don’t have children?

  24. “You want to change how marriage is used which does meet the criteria of
    redefinition.” This is not about how a word is used. I am baffled that
    anyone thinks that is what this issue is about. Words are redefined all the
    time and no one objects. This is about the institution that the word refers
    to. So drop this ‘redefinition’ argument because it is patently
    disingenuous. You don’t care about the word, you care about the institution.

  25. My love and commitment comment was offhand, and you are absolutely correct
    it makes no sense. The promotion of marriage; Since marriage has certain
    legal advantages of non-marriage, hence to be married is better than being
    in any other romantic relationship. If then the purpose of marriage is
    procreation (making the promotion of marriage a promotion of procreation),
    then the legal advantages are wasted as promoting procreation is not
    necessarily good, even in marriages.

  26. Says who? Has a court ruled that this is ‘simply’ the reason? I can not
    make any in roads on your dogma. Like creationists or those who believe in
    a flat earth you can believe a set of foundational dogmas. Just don’t
    pretend you are interested in evidence. No amount will satisfy you.

  27. If marriage is defined in terms of endorsing procreation. And procreation
    is not useful for our society to promote indefinitely. Then marriage is
    defined in terms of something which we need not encourage. Therefore
    marriage should be defined by other terms (I suggest love and commitment).
    Other arguments exist of course, but essentially if marriage is an
    institution to promote child-rearing then it is a waste of money to give
    rights to people simply because they can “produce” more children.

  28. “No I don’t. I’m not a lexicographer” This is disingenuous. First,
    lexicographers don’t change the meaning in words they merely identify how
    words are used to identify definitions. You want to change how marriage is
    used which does meet the criteria of redefinition.

  29. “We would start by prohibiting couples” Or we can stick with are already
    tried and true tests that fully respect the equality of citizens and have
    been used across cultures and through out many generations. We can stick to
    two people, opposite sex and in a sexual relationship. What you are
    proposing is a very bad false dilemma. I think you can support the state’s
    interest in marriage is procreation with out desiring to turn to fascism.

  30. Since you believe that marriage is a matter of consensus it that you are ok
    with states voting it down and are upset that some states have overturned
    the consensus of the people by judicial fiat? Of course I say that with
    tongue in cheek because I understand that you are in fact operating on
    principle(s). You just won’t share them but I think I understand why.

  31. I have a very crazy question. If a horse wants to fuck me, if it’s trying
    to mount me, would it be immoral to let it? It would be totally disgusting,
    probably harmful to me, but would it be immoral if it was consensual on
    both sides? NOTE: I am not saying it should be done, just posing a
    hypothetical moral scenario.

Comments are closed.