34 Comments on “What’s so Queer About Gay Marriage?”
+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. /
pedantic
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
+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.
“That particular case then set a new principle. ” It wasn’t exactly a new
principle was it?
“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.
“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.
“which is why the Lovings were not married prior to 1967,” The Lovings were
married in in 1958 in Washington D.C.
“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
rights.
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
fact?
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.
“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
argument.
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.
“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.
“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.
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
“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.
…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.
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.
“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?
“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.
“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.
“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.
“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
amendment.
“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?
“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.
LOL Facts? Where? Now I know why they call you crazy.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Islam treats men and women equal. Different, but equal. For Christianity, I
don’t know.
“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.
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.
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.
+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. /
pedantic
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
+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.
“That particular case then set a new principle. ” It wasn’t exactly a new
principle was it?
“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.
“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.
“which is why the Lovings were not married prior to 1967,” The Lovings were
married in in 1958 in Washington D.C.
“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
rights.
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
fact?
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.
“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
argument.
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.
“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.
“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.
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
“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.
…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.
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.
“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?
“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.
“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.
“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.
“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
amendment.
“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?
“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.
LOL Facts? Where? Now I know why they call you crazy.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Islam treats men and women equal. Different, but equal. For Christianity, I
don’t know.
“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.
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.
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.