What do conservatives have to gain from being against gay marriage/rights?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

tstorm823:
Because government sanctioned marriage was designed as a ploy to make the Catholic Church seem less important. It was thought up by protestants during the protestant revolution who believed marriage was less of a religious institution, and they figured by secularizing the action, they could pull influence away from the vatican. Now it's getting rubbed in their face that they made a mistake.

Of course it was centuries before the Catholic Church had anything to with sanctioning marriage and taking the ceremonies. They actually thought it was none of their business and should be up to the governmental/societal (not the terms they would have used back then - of course) rules. Heck a lot of early medieval marriages were determined by couples shacking up and having kids. There was no ceremony and no signed documents; just cohabitation.

ElectroJosh:

Of course it was centuries before the Catholic Church had anything to with sanctioning marriage and taking the ceremonies. They actually thought it was none of their business and should be up to the governmental/societal (not the terms they would have used back then - of course) rules. Heck a lot of early medieval marriages were determined by couples shacking up and having kids. There was no ceremony and no signed documents; just cohabitation.

But there were no government marriage rules. Everything was tradition. In the catholic church, marriage was a sacrament as long as there were sacraments, but since it was just "2 people who decide they want to make babies and thus stay together forever" with no ceremonies or sanctioning, and since Catholic rules didn't matter to non-christians anyway, it was pretty much just do what you want. The Catholic marriage ceremony only came about because people like Luther and Calvin went "marriage isn't really a sacrament, there's not even a ceremony."

tstorm823:

But there were no government marriage rules. Everything was tradition.

This is not quite right. It was a mix that largely depended on where you lived. Also some rules did start to come into force mostly to grant formal recognition to marriages and the status of children. But that's just hair splitting on my part anyway.

The point that we both agree on is: the way we view marriages today as being a religious institution is not traditional.

Gethsemani:

Isn't it fun, though? I moved out when I was 19 and have had constant employment since and I am still voting after my ideals.

To quote Kurt Russell, "Hey, Sweden!"

What you do in Sweden has little resemblance to what kids today are doing here in America. Most of them are unemployed, pseduo-off and on- students. What's Sweden's position on gay marriage anyhow?

xDarc:

Gethsemani:

Isn't it fun, though? I moved out when I was 19 and have had constant employment since and I am still voting after my ideals.

To quote Kurt Russell, "Hey, Sweden!"

What you do in Sweden has little resemblance to what kids today are doing here in America. Most of them are unemployed, pseduo-off and on- students. What's Sweden's position on gay marriage anyhow?

Sweden legalised gay marriage years ago.

ten.to.ten:

xDarc:

Gethsemani:

Isn't it fun, though? I moved out when I was 19 and have had constant employment since and I am still voting after my ideals.

To quote Kurt Russell, "Hey, Sweden!"

What you do in Sweden has little resemblance to what kids today are doing here in America. Most of them are unemployed, pseduo-off and on- students. What's Sweden's position on gay marriage anyhow?

Sweden legalised gay marriage years ago.

With 71% approval amongst general population I might add. Which makes our self-reliant young Swede a lot less progressive- and her stable employment at a young age a lot less impressive; in comparison to her American counterpart.

So again, a lot of young AMERICANS find valuing ideals over economic opportunity to be cheap when they aren't the ones paying their own way.

ElectroJosh:

The point that we both agree on is: the way we view marriages today as being a religious institution is not traditional.

And the way we view marriages today as being a legal entity is even less traditional.

xDarc:
Honestly, what good is being gay and married if you're broke? People are talking about gay marriage in here like it's about equality, but nobody is forcing them exactly to pick cotton.

First of all, my American partner can't even live in his home country if he wants to live with me because the US won't recognise our relationship. Economic issues in the US are irrelevant if he can't even live there.

And of course, just because gays weren't slaves (apart from the gay slaves, but that's incidental) doesn't mean gays don't and didn't face discrimination. Back during the era of slavery gay sex was a crime punishable by death. It was illegal even to become a US citizen if you were gay up until 1990. It was only under Obama that gays were allowed to serve their country, although their families still don't receive any benefits for it. In most states it's still legal to fire or refuse to hire someone just because they're gay, which makes getting a job in a tough job market even harder. Things like not being able to go on your partner's healthcare plan, not having access to his/her pension, having unfair tax burdens, etc. magnify all the US's economic problems and make life so much harder than most people have to deal with.

Gay marriage is an economic issue. And as Suze Orman says, while on the surface gays having to pay more tax might seem appealing during an economic downturn, that's money that going to the federal government and not going back into economically stimulating that gay person's local community.

xDarc:
Income per capita? As in, BEFORE women WORKED? Of course that went up. Half the population used to sit at home raising babies, cooking, and cleaning. Real wages have been stagnant for 20 years.

Speaking of numbers, someone's done a number on you when it comes to social history.

In 1950, one third of women (over the age of 16) were working.
In 1970, 43% of women (over the age of 16) were working.
Today, around 60% of women (over the age of 16) are working.

There has never been this magic time when women didn't work.

So, in actuality we're talking a difference of less than 20% of women. Meanwhile, rates of male employment actually fell by 10% over the same time, even before the recent financial crisis. While this doesn't take into account the actual rate of female wage growth, it doesn't even being to explain the overall growth in productivity.

If productivity has continued to grow, if total employment as a percentage of the population has continued to grow and yet wages have remained comparable for a while, what does this suggest to you? Where is that productivity going?

Incidentally, just because average wages stay the same doesn't mean you're not better off, you need to factor in the price of consumer goods as well.

tstorm823:

And the way we view marriages today as being a legal entity is even less traditional.

Without a doubt. Which is why I don't hold to traditional arguments about what marriage is dictating what it can/should be.

We conservatives keep our dignity, and sanctity of marriage in tact. We don't just "give up" on ideas. We don't abandon our traditions.

Eshay Adlay:
We conservatives keep our dignity, and sanctity of marriage in tact. We don't just "give up" on ideas. We don't abandon our traditions.

How much "dignity" and "sanctity" will you have left when the Supreme Court scolds you for being an unruly toddler who won't share your toy, then takes it away for everyone to enjoy?

Eshay Adlay:

Aris Khandr:
retarded metaphor snip

Could you please at least use another less stupid example to prove your point? This "toy" was not meant for "everyone" that is the point of it you idiot. If it was for everyone it wouldn't be special.

I love that video. So, who was marriage meant "for" again?

And who gives you the right to decide anyway? Who invented marriage? Hint: not Christians. The word "marriage" has origins in Latin. So why don't we ask Venus who should or shouldn't be married? And the entire concept of marriage as an institution is even older than that. You know what isn't that old? Judaism or Christianity. So Christians didn't invent marriage as either an institution or as a word. So why are we worried about your definition of it again?

Aris Khandr:
snip

Marriage has been a religious ceremony for aeons. Regardless of wording, the concept has remained the same. Marriage is a privilege given by a religious institute. If the religion doesn't allow gay marriage then so be it, they have the right to take away the privilege.

Eshay Adlay:

Aris Khandr:
snip

Marriage has been a religious ceremony for aeons. Regardless of wording, the concept has remained the same. Marriage is a privilege given by a religious institute. If the religion doesn't allow gay marriage then so be it, they have the right to take away the privilege.

Which religion? You ever notice how Buddhists don't seem to care much about gay marriage? I've not heard a peep from the Taoists. The Pagans seem be quite into gay marriage. Even some Christian denominations are in favor. So who does marriage belong to? Who gets to decide who can and can't get married? Because there are quite a few religions who are already on board.

Your argument has more holes than a golf course.

Eshay Adlay:

Aris Khandr:
snip

Marriage has been a religious ceremony for aeons. Regardless of wording, the concept has remained the same. Marriage is a privilege given by a religious institute. If the religion doesn't allow gay marriage then so be it, they have the right to take away the privilege.

You do realise that you can get married by a judge or a justice of the peace or a civil celebrant etc. without any sort of religious ceremony, don't you?

Eshay Adlay:

Marriage has been a religious ceremony for aeons. Regardless of wording, the concept has remained the same. Marriage is a privilege given by a religious institute.

No, it obviously has not. Assuming that it was, though, why aren't religions that favour gay marriage allowed to do it?

Eshay Adlay:
We conservatives keep our dignity, and sanctity of marriage in tact. We don't just "give up" on ideas. We don't abandon our traditions.

image

Just to give you some perspective. Ideas are a funny thing. Especially when it involves stamping on others to feel superior and special.

Eshay Adlay:

Aris Khandr:
snip

Marriage has been a religious ceremony for aeons. Regardless of wording, the concept has remained the same. Marriage is a privilege given by a religious institute. If the religion doesn't allow gay marriage then so be it, they have the right to take away the privilege.

So, what about atheists and agnostics that want to marry?

xDarc:

Gethsemani:

Isn't it fun, though? I moved out when I was 19 and have had constant employment since and I am still voting after my ideals.

To quote Kurt Russell, "Hey, Sweden!"

What you do in Sweden has little resemblance to what kids today are doing here in America. Most of them are unemployed, pseduo-off and on- students. What's Sweden's position on gay marriage anyhow?

If you think the problems facing Swedish youth are much different from those facing American youth today you need to study up on Sweden some more. We currently have severe problems with unemployment among our young adults.

It is neither here nor there in regards to this discussion though. Am I to take it that you've conceded the other points, since the only thing you responded to was about me personally?

ten.to.ten:
snip

That's a civil union.

Aris Khandr:
snip

Here is the confusing part kid, call it something else apart from marriage. I doubt that all religions in the world call religious ceremony of the civil union between a man and a woman the exact same thing. Call them by their traditional names. They will not desecrate other religions with their own ideas. Marriage always has been a vague concept.

NemotheElvenPanda:
Snip

So, what about atheists and agnostics that want to marry?[/quote]

I don't see why they would want to. People don't seem to realise that marriage is a "form" of marriage celebration. A religious one.

Rastelin:
snip

I had a perfect counter image for that but I lost it. I will get back to you soon.

thaluikhain:

snip

Yes. See my previous post

Eshay Adlay:
That's a civil union.

No, it's a marriage. The term "civil union" didn't even exist until 2000 when the Vermont state legislature first used the term to describe their form of registered domestic partnership for gay couples.

There is legally no difference between a marriage solmenised in a church and a marriage solemnised in a courthouse and they both share the name "marriage".

Eshay Adlay:
Here is the confusing part kid, call it something else apart from marriage. I doubt that all religions in the world call religious ceremony of the civil union between a man and a woman the exact same thing. Call them by their traditional names. They will not desecrate other religions with their own ideas. Marriage always has been a vague concept.

Why should we call it something else? As I have already pointed out to you, "marriage" is not a Christian word. The Romans came up with the root word. You don't own it, and you never have. Further, no one calls any marriage a "civil union". The term didn't exist until 1989. So not much of a "traditional name". And if marriage is such a "vague concept", then how can you so firmly define my relationship with my girlfriend as "not a marriage"?

Is there a name for the type of fallacious argument that "other issues are bad/worse, that's why this issue needs to remain unfixed"? I never understood this reasoning. It's not like fixing an issue like gay marriage will harm the quest for job growth or something like that. Attempting to do both isn't mutually exclusive, so how is this even an argument?
A lot of people are very much affected by it, more so than whether GDP growth will be .01% higher or not next year. Not to mention that the politicians who are the most ardent against gay marriage suck at fiscal responsibility and economics, anyway, so it's not like there's any need to hold your nose and support them despite one's pro-views on gay marriage.
Can't we look at two separate issues, you know, separately? Since they are also legislatively dealt with separately?

Eshay Adlay:

NemotheElvenPanda:
So, what about atheists and agnostics that want to marry?

I don't see why they would want to. People don't seem to realise that marriage is a "form" of marriage celebration. A religious one.

No, it is not.

Assuming that it was, though, you don't need to understand why atheists and agnostics want to marry, just that many of them do.

Skeleon:
Is there a name for the type of fallacious argument that "other issues are bad/worse, that's why this issue needs to remain unfixed"?

"There are worse things in the world" or "Why talk about X when Y is more important?".

There might be a technical name, but not one I'm aware of.

Skeleon:
Is there a name for the type of fallacious argument that "other issues are bad/worse, that's why this issue needs to remain unfixed"?

You could say it's a false dichotomy, in the sense that they're saying you can only deal with one or the other, not both.

Time was by opposing gay marriage the conservatives had a pretty secure base of voters ready to support them. Because back in the day, homophobia was just the norm and fear-mongering about the evils of gay people was just something everybody did, because they didn't know better. So by standing up against the rainbow menace, conservatives were casting their party in the role of "valorous defender of good old-fashioned American values."

But now, people have grown up. Times have changed, attitudes have changed and people have realised that a lot of those "good old-fashioned American values" were actually various kinds of dick moves to keep certain groups of people from having any power in any way, shape or form. Once those things started falling beneath the weight of public opinion and legislative action, conservatives were left with less and less "moral" issues to cling to. So they clung even harder to the ones they had left, one of which includes the anti-gay stuff.

It's just gotten to the point now where most of them have long moved on from trying to in any way be serious about it and are getting increasingly desperate in their arguments against it. For proof of that just look at what their argument agsinst it in the Supreme Court is; an argument that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married because they can't get knocked up by accident.

I'm honestly convinced that most of the people most opposed to same-sex marriage or just gay rights issues in general are only still doing it now because they just don't know how to think anything else about it by now, so long have they defended the bigotry.

Skeleon:
Is there a name for the type of fallacious argument that "other issues are bad/worse, that's why this issue needs to remain unfixed"?

I don't know if there is a specific term for it, but I'd say that kind of argument is guilty of two fallacies: The Red Herring fallacy and the Black-or-White fallacy. It's a Red Herring because of either one (or both) of two following reasons, depending on which context the argument takes place:

1. The discussion as a whole is not about whenether the problem should be solved now or later, but how the problem should be solved.

2. That we have bigger problems does not automatically mean we should divert our attention to those problems. We could just as easily argue that it is better to solve the smaller problems first in order to get them off our backs and thus being able to better focus on the bigger problems without the smaller problems nagging us. Finally, we may well have enough resources to solve both problems at once, and using/expending all the resources to solve one/some of the bigger problems might very well be an ineffective solution.

Also, it's a Black-or-White fallacy because the disjunctive (the "either/or" premise) is based upon that red herring.

Skeleon:
Is there a name for the type of fallacious argument that "other issues are bad/worse, that's why this issue needs to remain unfixed"? I never understood this reasoning. It's not like fixing an issue like gay marriage will harm the quest for job growth or something like that. Attempting to do both isn't mutually exclusive, so how is this even an argument?
A lot of people are very much affected by it, more so than whether GDP growth will be .01% higher or not next year. Not to mention that the politicians who are the most ardent against gay marriage suck at fiscal responsibility and economics, anyway, so it's not like there's any need to hold your nose and support them despite one's pro-views on gay marriage.
Can't we look at two separate issues, you know, separately? Since they are also legislatively dealt with separately?

I've never understood this either. Not only because it's a separate issue, but because all it requires is a couple of words to change, and you're done. There's no complex economics to do, no figuring out tax rates, no modeling, no data collection. Shouldn't take more than a day once they decide to do it.

Skeleon:
It's not like fixing an issue like gay marriage will harm the quest for job growth or something like that.

Issues like gay marriage, and other populist bullet points, have done exactly that... they have harmed "the quest for job growth," when they become a candidate packaged item to buy Barrack Obama, a most deserving one-term president if I ever saw one, another 4 years in the white house to do nothing.

In 2008 he ran on change and we believed him, in 2012 he ran on small easy handouts to a few key demographics- and made just plain white people feel guilty should they think about voting for anyone else but him by running a massive social media campaign painting republicans as fanatical servants of the rich and religious right. That they would somehow bypass the checks and balances of the entire system to accomplish an ultra-right agenda. It was not going to happen and there was never any more danger of that happening than Barrack Obama delivering on his initial promises from his 08 campaign. It is so transparently stupid. I don't think Americans know how to elect a leader any more, they're like the equivalent of school children who vote for a class president because he promises no homework.

CAMDAWG:

Skeleon:
Is there a name for the type of fallacious argument that "other issues are bad/worse, that's why this issue needs to remain unfixed"? I never understood this reasoning. It's not like fixing an issue like gay marriage will harm the quest for job growth or something like that. Attempting to do both isn't mutually exclusive, so how is this even an argument?
A lot of people are very much affected by it, more so than whether GDP growth will be .01% higher or not next year. Not to mention that the politicians who are the most ardent against gay marriage suck at fiscal responsibility and economics, anyway, so it's not like there's any need to hold your nose and support them despite one's pro-views on gay marriage.
Can't we look at two separate issues, you know, separately? Since they are also legislatively dealt with separately?

I've never understood this either. Not only because it's a separate issue, but because all it requires is a couple of words to change, and you're done. There's no complex economics to do, no figuring out tax rates, no modeling, no data collection. Shouldn't take more than a day once they decide to do it.

Entirely not true. The entire infrastructure would have to be changed to accommodate it. There are over 1,100 rights and responsibilities that come with legal marriage. Suddenly, anywhere from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of couples get thousands of dollars in tax breaks at a time when taxes desperately need to be increased because they've been at historical lows for many years and we're deep in debt. Not to mention the added weight on the already overburdened courts to get all of these things processed (Not the marriage in itself, but also the legal parts of the aforementioned 1,100).

Eshay Adlay:

NemotheElvenPanda:
So, what about atheists and agnostics that want to marry?

I don't see why they would want to. People don't seem to realize that marriage is a "form" of marriage celebration. A religious one.

No, it isn't. That is not Jesus handing out tax breaks, inheritance laws, and hospital visitation rights. That's the United States government; you know, those people who have that perhaps disproportionately lionized sheet of paper that says they can't make any laws respecting any religious institution.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked