Hello retro4.
I have read this entire thread before posting in order to understand the full conversation and your perspective on the differences between same sex marriage and interracial marriage. Both as concepts and as comparisons to the experience(s) of the people seeking them. Now and in the past.
I think that teriekwilliams' effort to clarify before debating was good because it's always better to discuss from a point of clarity than based on assumptions about what the other person means. As it turns out, for that poster your position on same sex marriage made further conversation with you untenable. I'd like to continue the conversation and acknowledge that I think you genuinely mean no harm toward anyone with your stated position. I will also acknowledge that I disagree with it wholeheartedly and this is why:
(1) You argue that the two cases/causes cannot be directly compared because interracial marriage was declared to be illegal whereas same sex marriage was simply not a consideration so gay couples weren't arrested for attempting to marry. But actually they were. I'll elaborate in a moment.
(2) Your arguments as to why same sex marriage should not be legal (but somehow civil unions would be a fair compromise) do not pass the logic or fact test and are very much like those against interracial marriage back in the day. Today people tell gay couples they have the same right to marry as straight couples - as long as they marry people of the opposite sex instead of each other. Just as people told interracial couples they had the same right to marry as single race couples - as long as they married within their race instead of each other. The end result is the same - they are all blocked from the right to marry their loved ones. Which is a restriction that was NOT placed on anyone else. THAT is what makes it unfair.
So to clarify both issues listed above, first number (1). Yes, same sex couples were arrested for attempting to access marriage (just as interracial couples were). Because same sex couples who lived together and built lives together (in every way the same as opposite sex married couples, just without the marriage license) were arrested. Simply for being gay. Individuals who were identified as being gay. Some because people found out they were living with a same sex partner. Some just because they were known to be gay. Are you aware that anti sodomy laws are still on the books in some states in America? Despite newer laws that supersede their authority? Also, it's disingenuous to claim that the situation isn't the same simply because same sex marriage wasn't recognized; they were all seeking the same thing - the lawful right to be married - and they were all being denied that right. At least by 1967 black individuals weren't legally being arrested just for being black (although God knows plenty of bigoted police officers found ways to do just that under the guise of other offenses).
As to (2) there are many reasons these arguments don't hold up. Part of the piece that you quoted reads: "Third, marriage as such should be limited to heterosexual couples, given that a central role of marriage lies in the public recognition of certain responsibilities and claims arising from human generation. " It also references "mutual parental responsibilities." The simple answer to that is no. That is not the case and hasn't been for a long time. Marriage today is not in any way bound by either a requirement or expectation for the couple to reproduce. Heterosexual couples are not required to raise children in order to 'qualify' for the right to marry. If that were the case, seniors past child bearing years would be barred from marriage as would infertile couples. That is not the case. If you are going to place burdens or restrictions on those seeking marriage, you must do so equally - all couples must be required to meet the same standard(s). And in this case, the point wouldn't bear up anyway because many same sex married couples, just as many opposite sex married couples, are in fact raising children together. Either adopted or biological. Exactly the same as their opposite sex counterparts. Biological reproduction is NOT a requirement for marriage. Nor is raising children. But if raising children were a requirement, gay couples could meet that requirement as easily as straight couples. To imply otherwise ignores verifiable facts and only clouds the issue. Finally on that treatise: "anti miscegenation laws acted in the face of and against the facts of human generation and the bonds they establish. Laws instituting gay marriage seek to defy them." Um, wow. Truly, wow. That statement is wrong on so many levels. The main one being that same sex marriages do NOT defy any "facts of human generation and the bonds they establish." If this is meant to declare that only biological offspring can create the necessary bonds for marriage, I know an awful lot of heterosexual couples raising adopted children who would disagree with every fiber of their being. And all available research, experience and professional medical and sociological consensus agrees with them. If it was simply meant to imply that only the bonds established by raising children (biological or otherwise) define a marriage as acceptable, I know an awful lot of married couples without children (either by choice or heartbreakingly without a choice) who would disagree. And everything in our current laws agrees with them as well that their marriages are just as legitimate as those with children. The fact that some people don't understand that gay couples can form bonds just as profound, meaningful, healthy and natural as straight couples doesn't change the fact that they do. And certainly doesn't justify blocking their rights to the same access to marriage based on that lack of understanding.
As to your attempt to distinguish opposing same sex marriage from being a bigot (or if we're going to be kind and understanding, perhaps a gentler descriptive would be unintentionally prejudiced), here's why that doesn't pass the logic and fact test either:
By opposing same sex marriage, you are attempting to use your personal perception of both the institution of marriage (and what you think it should stand for) and gay people and enforcing that view, that judgment, onto the way other people live. As a straight person, you have open access to marriage. And you the individual, along with your chosen partner, get to define for yourself what that means to/for you. But you don't want other people, gay couples, to have that same choice. Because somehow you seem to think that you know better what 'qualifies' as a genuine marriage. Can you understand why people would object to that? Can you admit that you would object if someone placed that same restriction upon you? Remembering that we have established that same sex couples have in fact met all the same requirements of opposite sex couples to be able to maintain faithful, loving relationships as a family unit, with or without children, to establish shared households and live together as that family unit, presenting to the world as a family, as a committed couple forming a societal bond, can you perhaps understand why, with all that evidence, with generations of gay couples who have in fact raised families together, lived together through good times and bad for the duration of their adult lives and contributed to the world as decent, loving people, that some people would object to your objections to same sex marriage and claim that you're demonstrating prejudice and harm to those couples? Just so you understand, that's why some people will call you a bigot for fighting against same sex marriage. That's why they won't accept your claim that you can restrict their rights but say that you don't dislike them or mean them any harm. Because you can't like someone and try to take their rights away at the same time.
I hope this helps you to understand why many, many people believe that the two situations are comparable and also helps you to understand why people like teriekwilliams feel the way they do.
reply
share
BuffySyd35
7 years ago
Excellent post bpoz! (I swear I am not stalking you btw). I read nearly everything in this thread and have been trying to decide whether to add my two cents or not. I think what you wrote is far better than anything I could have and I agree with it all wholeheartedly!
The only thing I will add are these two question to the OP: Doesn't the fact that the same exact arguments made against interracial marriages were made against same sex marriages show how similar these two issues are? If not, then how do you explain that?
Choose...between yesterday and tomorrow. Pick one and stick with it.
reply
share
bpoz
7 years ago
Lol, friendly stalking is ok in my book.
I like your additional questions and I hope the OP responds.
reply
share
retro4
7 years ago
The only thing I will add are these two question to the OP: Doesn't the fact that the same exact arguments made against interracial marriages were made against same sex marriages show how similar these two issues are? If not, then how do you explain that?
But the same arguments wasn't used. Yes, some attempted to use biology and religion to prohibit inter-racial marriage but they were quickly debunked on religious and biological grounds. There is no valid argument against inter-racial marriage whatsoever. But the matter of same-sex marriage is more complicated, because since the beginning of marriage it was never about skin color but it always about gender.
reply
share
retro4
7 years ago
@bpoz
I get a lot of what you're saying but I think you may have miss the point. I'm not suggesting that people are required by law to procreate. What I'm saying is that marriage is best institution for procreation to take place which is the only legitimate reason why the government should be involved in marriage to begin with. So yes, many people can marry and not have children or marry then adopt children. But marriage is institution where marriage affirms the bond between a parent and child. Those bonds can be severed if the parent is found unfit to raise children but it's still true that those bonds begin with marriage. The reason why same-sex marriage is different is not that gay couples can't love or have long relationship. It's that same-sex couples are fundamentally different than inter-racial couples. If it wasn't then what would it matter if same-sex couple were with the opposite sex or not? I don't want to get to graphic but homosexual sex is fundamental different than heterosexual sex, which is part of the reason some in the LGBT community think heterosexual sex is weird. Men and women are biologically compatible in a way that two men and/or two women are not. I also think your downplaying the Loving v. Virginia case. Inter-racial marriage wasn't only not recognized it was PUNISHED by law. Inter-racial marriage was outlawed in order to keep different ethnicities apart, that is very different situation from the same-sex marriage debate.
I hope these two passages below will clear up any misunderstandings.
But marriage is not merely a matter of biology. That children can be "illegitimate" suggests that the biological facts of parenthood are not enough for social purposes. Disputes over fatherhood, for example, or variations in parental attachment to their children, make it reasonable for societies to supplement and sometimes override the natural bonds established by and through the processes of human generation. Marriage is, before all else, the practice by which human societies mark, modify, and occasionally mask these bonds. Like death, and the funereal rites that universally accompany it in one form or another, human generation has a significance that is more than arbitrary, if less than obvious. Marriage is the primary way societies interpret that significance, and it is doubtful whether any other custom could substitute for it adequately. Whatever else it may accomplish, marriage acknowledges and secures the relation between a child and a particular set of parents. Whether monogamous or polygamous, permanent or temporary, marriage never fails to address this relation--at least potentially. It establishes a legal or quasi-legal relation of parenthood that draws on, even as it enhances and modifies, the primary human experience of generation and the claims and responsibilities to which it naturally gives rise. A husband is, until otherwise proven, the acknowledged father of his wife's offspring, with recognized rights and duties that may vary from society to society but always exist in some form. And a wife is a woman who can expect a certain specified sort of help from her husband in the raising of her offspring. All other functions of marriage borrow from or build upon this one. Even marriage among those past childrearing age or otherwise infertile draws on notions of partnership and mutual aid that have their primary roots in the experience of shared biological parenthood. An inevitable question follows from this understanding of marriage: Can those who are not even potentially partners in reproduction, and who could never under any circumstances have been so, actually "marry"? It might seem that the answer is yes, especially given new reproductive technologies that allow some heterosexual couples to choose to be both sexually active and childless, and allow others to have children whose biological relation to themselves takes new and unfamiliar forms.
This presumption is strengthened by notions, mainly Protestant in origin, that marriage is less about generation than about companionship. It is also buttressed by a new openness to adoption by some, such as single adults and gay couples, whose fitness as parents would in the nottoo-distant past have been strongly questioned. What is more, the increase in divorce, extramarital cohabitation, and "blended" siblings have widely contributed to the revision of customary definitions of the family. It is now argued by many that all forms of family life are to be celebrated as products of individual choice, at least so long as they make people happy. Encouraged by these new technological possibilities, such critics of traditional marriage believe their case is so self-evidently justified that the only possible objection could arise from a baseless, and ultimately unconstitutional, endorsement of a particular religious norm that has no rightful claim to political establishment. New technologies, however, can bend traditional notions of the family only so far. The right to one's own children, barring the circumstances discussed above, is perhaps the most basic individual right--so basic we hardly think of it. New reproductive technologies have not erased this fundamental claim, though in some cases they may have muddied it. The question of who inseminates or gives birth continues to be a pertinent matter. In any case in which it is overridden--a birth mother giving up parental rights or a man donating sperm, for example--it must be done by explicit contract. Perhaps, one day, corporations will come to "own" the DNA from which children are produced, entitling them to "licensing fees" (so that a child might "owe" its health or beauty to General Motors). Perhaps, in the not-too-distant future, faces will be patented, and particularly desirable genes will either be distributed universally or awarded to the highest parental bidder. What seems less likely is that the status of parenthood as such will simply disappear.
reply
share
bpoz
7 years ago
Retro4, I appreciate your response. But with all due respect while the passage you quoted may clear up any misunderstandings about your position (and that of the author(s) of that passage) it doesn't actually support your original contention. Or your belief that sexual acts have anything to do with how to define marital relationships. Because here's the thing. Same sex marriages ARE the same as opposite sex marriages. They involve the same partner bonds, they have the same capacity for raising children together, they offer the same mutual support, and they contribute the same stabilizing influence to society (that of an intact, loving family unit) which has long been a central reason for recognizing marriage by the state. What kinds of sexual activity any of those couples choose to engage in is irrelevant to all of those marital characteristics. For the record, though, homosexual sex is not fundamentally different from heterosexual sex. Many heterosexual couples engage in the same sexual acts as homosexual couples (from oral sex to anal intercourse, sorry for being graphic) and most people in the LGBT community do not think that "heterosexual sex is weird." They just don't find sex with the opposite gender appealing to them.
Because same sex marriage is the same as opposite sex marriage, the efforts to block those couples from the right to marry is exactly the same as blocking interracial couples from marriage. And again, you keep pointing out that interracial marriage was punished by law as an effort to keep those ethnicities apart but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that gay people who sought marriage were punished by law too. In fact, they were punished by law whether they sought marriage or not. In an effort to suppress the entire homosexual population. It feels very much like you're trying to argue semantics here when the reality is that you're basing your conclusions on your own personal opinion, not on the facts of the subject. Which have been offered to you multiple times. I'm genuinely not trying to be argumentative but I can't help wondering two things.
(1) What is the point in trying to convince people that these two situations are not equivalent (what purpose does it serve)?
(2) Are you trying to argue that same sex marriage should not be legal based on the theories that you've presented?
reply
share
BuffySyd35
7 years ago
Yes, the same arguments were used - I was not talking about the attempts to argue against interracial marriage based on biology (BS white supremacy and the like) or religion. And I would not say either were "quickly debunked" seeing as how it took a case going all the way through appeals on the state level and then being pushed to, and luckily heard by, the US Supreme Court to overturn the remaining interracial marriage bans on the books in several US states. Most specifically, I was actually talking about the arguments that allowing either type of marriage will then send us on a downward slope and lead to polygamy, marrying dogs, sheep, relatives etc. There are other arguments, of course, but those you mentioned and the ones I was actually referring to are the most ludicrous. And the ones I pointed out were most definitely used to argue against both types of marriages - and are equally ridiculous on both counts.
As for your definitions of marriage, they are just that YOUR definitions. Marriage and its definition is not something that has been static for all time, which is something you heavily imply. The definition of marriage has changed over time and can even have different definitions in different cultures (past and present). You seem to use your definition of marriage as the foundation of your argument, but the fact of the matter is that the same argument was also used against interracial marriage. People at the time, and sadly some still today, think interracial marriage perverts the institution of marriage just as people think same sex marriage perverts it. The main difference is one argument is more race based and one more gender based, but BOTH deal with discrimination that is based solely on denying equal rights to everyone simply because certain people/groups of people don't think the people involved should be able to be married.
You are entitled to your opinions about same sex marriage, or anything really, but at the end of the day that is all they are. What I mean is that while you may not see the similarities between the fight for interracial marriage and same sex marriage there ARE similarities nonetheless - as many have pointed out in great detail on this thread. Are they exactly the same? Of course not, but both were fights for the freedom to be able to marry whoever you, as an individual, chooses. Mildred Jeter Loving saw the similarities when she was still alive and asked about the same sex marriage fight. She simply believed people who are in love should not be denied the right to marry, period. And since, to many people, marriage is about love, to deny that is simply wrong. Looking at things this way makes the similarities most clear in my mind.
The US Supreme Court correctly asserted that "Under our US Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race lies with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State" in the Loving v. Virginia decision. The court also correctly asserted similar ideals in the case that made same sex marriage legal and any bans of it unconstitutional when they broke down the fundamentals right to marry and how it applies to same sex couples as well, saying "No union is more profound than marriage" and that same sex couples were simply "ask[ing] for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
Choose...between yesterday and tomorrow. Pick one and stick with it.
reply
share
retro4
7 years ago
@BuffySyd35 The reason why interethnic marriage is fundamentally different than gay is that interethnic marriage did NOT change the definition. Marriage as we understood it was between a male and female, no where did it suggest it had anything to do with someone's skin color or why someone's skin color should even matter. You say that definition of marriage constantly changes and if that the case then who's to say that the institution of marriage won't revert back to anti-miscegenation. If there is no objective foundation to marriage then how can stop it from changing in a ways we don't won't? What if racists get a hold of political power and want to define marriage to being between people of the same ethnicity? What's to stop them if there definition of marriage is relative and subjective?
reply
share
retro4
7 years ago
(1) What is the point in trying to convince people that these two situations are not equivalent (what purpose does it serve)?
The point is so opposition to same-sex marriage wouldn't automatically be compared to bigotry. Sure, it's true that most homophobes are against same-sex marriage but not everyone who is against same-sex marriage is a homophobe.
(2) Are you trying to argue that same sex marriage should not be legal based on the theories that you've presented?
I'm saying there could have been another way to resolve the gay marriage debate without pandering to either side. It was a missed opportunity to bridge the divide and we didn't take it.
Retro4, I appreciate your response. But with all due respect while the passage you quoted may clear up any misunderstandings about your position (and that of the author(s) of that passage) it doesn't actually support your original contention. Or your belief that sexual acts have anything to do with how to define marital relationships. Because here's the thing. Same sex marriages ARE the same as opposite sex marriages. They involve the same partner bonds, they have the same capacity for raising children together, they offer the same mutual support, and they contribute the same stabilizing influence to society (that of an intact, loving family unit) which has long been a central reason for recognizing marriage by the state.
But gay couples can do all of those things without same-sex marriage. There are civil unions which acknowledge that gay couples have the same capacity to raise children, same mutual bonds, and a stabilizing influence to society. Also, sexual acts does have something to do with martial relationship as marriage could be annulled if marriage wasn't consummated.
What kinds of sexual activity any of those couples choose to engage in is irrelevant to all of those marital characteristics. For the record, though, homosexual sex is not fundamentally different from heterosexual sex. Many heterosexual couples engage in the same sexual acts as homosexual couples (from oral sex to anal intercourse, sorry for being graphic) and most people in the LGBT community do not think that "heterosexual sex is weird." They just don't find sex with the opposite gender appealing to them.
To say that homosexual sex is not fundamentally different than heterosexual sex is to ignore biology. Sure, there are relative similarities between gay sex and hetero sex in which they both engage in oral or anal sex. But unlike gay sex, hetero sex aren't limited to those sexual act and unlike hetero sex gay couple don't have think about the possibility of getting their partner pregnant.
Because same sex marriage is the same as opposite sex marriage, the efforts to block those couples from the right to marry is exactly the same as blocking interracial couples from marriage. And again, you keep pointing out that interracial marriage was punished by law as an effort to keep those ethnicities apart but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that gay people who sought marriage were punished by law too. In fact, they were punished by law whether they sought marriage or not. In an effort to suppress the entire homosexual population. It feels very much like you're trying to argue semantics here when the reality is that you're basing your conclusions on your own personal opinion, not on the facts of the subject.
No, it's not semantics, I don't think inter-ethnic couples being punished by law during 1960's is a game of semantics. Yes, gay couples and individuals were punish and in some instances are still are punished by law. But they weren't punish for seeking marriage unlike inter-ethnic couples. Inter-ethnic marriage was not only outlaw because a racist country didn't want white women sleeping with black men or black women to sleep with white men, but also because they didn't want black men and white woman or black woman and white men to have mixed race children. This was due to America's ugly history with slavery, racial segregation, and white supremacy. Again Lovings v Virginia is not the same as the Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality, those are two fundamentally different situation. I think one of main reasons it's hard to have honest conversation about this is because liberals and conservatives have politicalized marriage to the point of no return. If their objective was to divide, conquer, and win votes then they have succeeded but at the cost of creating a divided nation. It wasn't always like this, marriage used to something that was almost universally understood. But even when they were differences I don't believe it resulted accusations of bigotry (unless I got my facts wrong).
reply
share
bpoz
7 years ago
Ok, I'll come back to the first point last.
On point 2, granting equal rights to a portion of the population to whom those rights have been denied is not "pandering"; it's justice. You seem to think that "bridging the divide" means a compromise where one side agrees to give up some of its rights in order to make the other side happy. That's not a reasonable solution.
I think perhaps what you're still missing here is that you're trying to impose your own ideas about what marriage is supposed to be onto some people (same sex couples) without placing that same burden on others (opposite sex couples). Even if I agreed with your claims about what fundamentally defines marriage, those principles are not legally mandated to straight couples to adhere to. Straight people can marry anyone of the opposite gender they want whether they plan to have children or not. And they can divorce and remarry at will so they're not required to adhere to your ideas about the central tenets or purpose of marriage. There are plenty of couples you or I might look at and say "That's not a real marriage." But while we can think that, and even say it out loud, we can't legally define it for any of them. Each couple gets to define their own marriage for themselves. And the only legal requirement is that they apply for a marriage license and have the ceremony conducted by an authorized entity and have witnesses sign the certificate. My point is that if we don't legally hold straight couples to your standards, by definition it's unfair to hold same sex couples to them, especially when so many have already proven adherence to the very qualities you espouse.
As to your need to continue bringing sexual acts into the issue, once again your argument falls short. What difference does it make if a couple does or doesn't have to "think about the possibility of getting their partner pregnant"? Older or infertile straight couples don't have to think about that either and we don't bar them from the right to marry. I can't stress this point enough: If you apply a rule or requirement to one type of couple to 'qualify' for marriage, you have to apply it to all. Otherwise you're just picking and choosing who you personally think should or shouldn't be allowed to get married.
Finally, I want to be very clear that I have never in any way diminished the struggles that interracial couples have (and still do) faced. My own family has interracial components. My point is that the basis of both struggles are in fact very similar (no one said exactly the same) and your objection to that comparison seems to be on your own position that same sex marriage is a lesser type of union than opposite sex marriages. You've offered civil unions as an option but are ignoring two important problems with that option. (1) Since same sex marriages are the same in every measurable way to opposite sex marriages, they should be allowed to call their unions marriage, just as we do. And (2) Civil unions do NOT offer the same rights as marriage, including but not limited to the acknowledgment that their unions are as real as anyone else's.
Which brings us back to the original point (1) for our conclusion. The reason many people feel that opposition to same sex marriage = bigotry is because it's an issue of restricting the rights of your fellow citizens based on your personal judgements of what marriage is supposed to be and who 'qualifies.' A bigot is defined as " a person who is obstinately or in tolerantly devoted to his or her own opinion or prejudice, especially one who regards or treats members of a group with hatred or intolerance." It IS a personal prejudice to decide that same sex unions are lesser than opposite sex unions. And it is intolerance to try to restrict peoples' rights based on those personal prejudices. Bigot is a harsh word and I try not to use it unless absolutely necessary, especially with people who are not intentionally being antagonistic. But gently or otherwise, trying to restrict one group's rights based personal beliefs is by definition discrimination. Which is by definition intolerance. In your suggestion for compromise to "bridge the divide" you're asking one side to give up their rights to make the other side happy. On the flip side of that, those people aren't asking anyone to give up anything. They just want to live their lives peacefully and define their own marriages for themselves and they want the other side to have that same right. Only one side is being intolerant in that conversation.
If you maintained your personal views on marriage but didn't advocate suppressing other people's legal rights, people probably wouldn't call you a bigot anymore.
I really do hope that helps you understand.
reply
share
retro4
7 years ago
I think perhaps what you're still missing here is that you're trying to impose your own ideas about what marriage is supposed to be onto some people (same sex couples) without placing that same burden on others (opposite sex couples).
I'm not trying to impose my ideas on anyone. and I'm not suggesting that one side gives up all their rights to make the other side happy. How is civil unions having many of the same rights as they would a marriage constitute as "giving up rights"?
what fundamentally defines marriage, those principles are not legally mandated to straight couples to adhere to. Straight people can marry anyone of the opposite gender they want whether they plan to have children or not. And they can divorce and remarry at will so they're not required to adhere to your ideas about the central tenets or purpose of marriage. There are plenty of couples you or I might look at and say "That's not a real marriage." But while we can think that, and even say it out loud, we can't legally define it for any of them. Each couple gets to define their own marriage for themselves. And the only legal requirement is that they apply for a marriage license and have the ceremony conducted by an authorized entity and have witnesses sign the certificate.
If a couples can define their marriage as they choose then why is the government even involved in defining marriage at all? If it's up to people to define marriage and not the government then you should be campaigning to get the government out of marriage.
As to your need to continue bringing sexual acts into the issue, once again your argument falls short. What difference does it make if a couple does or doesn't have to "think about the possibility of getting their partner pregnant"? Older or infertile straight couples don't have to think about that either and we don't bar them from the right to marry. I can't stress this point enough: If you apply a rule or requirement to one type of couple to 'qualify' for marriage, you have to apply it to all. Otherwise you're just picking and choosing who you personally think should or shouldn't be allowed to get married.
But here's the thing I never said that marriage was only about procreation, that is only part of it. As I said before heterosexual sex is fundamentally different than homosexual sex, and that remains the same regardless on whether opposite sex couples are fertile or not or are intending to have kids or not. Just speaking on purely biological position, men and women have "parts" that "fit" with each other
Finally, I want to be very clear that I have never in any way diminished the struggles that interracial couples have (and still do) faced. My own family has interracial components. My point is that the basis of both struggles are in fact very similar (no one said exactly the same) and your objection to that comparison seems to be on your own position that same sex marriage is a lesser type of union than opposite sex marriages. You've offered civil unions as an option but are ignoring two important problems with that option. (1) Since same sex marriages are the same in every measurable way to opposite sex marriages, they should be allowed to call their unions marriage, just as we do. And (2) Civil unions do NOT offer the same rights as marriage, including but not limited to the acknowledgment that their unions are as real as anyone else's.
I never said that same-sex marriage was a lesser union just it was different. If same sex couples were the same in every measurable way to heterosexual relationship then why is it important if gay person is in a same-sex relationship? I don't see how civil unions just that gay relationships aren't as real as anyone else.
Which brings us back to the original point (1) for our conclusion. The reason many people feel that opposition to same sex marriage = bigotry is because it's an issue of restricting the rights of your fellow citizens based on your personal judgements of what marriage is supposed to be and who 'qualifies.' A bigot is defined as " a person who is obstinately or in tolerantly devoted to his or her own opinion or prejudice, especially one who regards or treats members of a group with hatred or intolerance." It IS a personal prejudice to decide that same sex unions are lesser than opposite sex unions. And it is intolerance to try to restrict peoples' rights based on those personal prejudices. Bigot is a harsh word and I try not to use it unless absolutely necessary, especially with people who are not intentionally being antagonistic. But gently or otherwise, trying to restrict one group's rights based personal beliefs is by definition discrimination. Which is by definition intolerance. In your suggestion for compromise to "bridge the divide" you're asking one side to give up their rights to make the other side happy. On the flip side of that, those people aren't asking anyone to give up anything. They just want to live their lives peacefully and define their own marriages for themselves and they want the other side to have that same right. Only one side is being intolerant in that conversation.
I don't believe that expanding the rights of civil union qualifies as restricting the rights of a group of people. It's not a personal prejudice to acknowledge differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. I also think that people's lived experiences would also tell there is difference. I know you might say that inter-ethnic relationships are also different from same-ethnic relationships but we still don't try to restrict marriage from inter-ethnic couples because of it. Sure, there may be some relative difference between interethnic couples and same ethnic couples. However, those difference are more to with culture than anything else. And there also interethnic couples who express there is no difference other than skin color. While the difference between homosexual relationship and heterosexual relationships are biological. Culture does play role in how society views homosexuality but if we talking about purely sexual acts then there is no denying that gay sex is fundamentally different than hetero sex. This is not bigotry acknowledge difference as a reality of life.
reply
share
BuffySyd35
7 years ago
Out of everything I said the "definition" part is all you focused on? Anyway, I did not say that interracial marriage and making it rightfully legal changed the definition of marriage (those who agreed with interracial marriage bans thought it did). Nor did I say that the definition constantly changes, just that it has changed over time and that the definition can be different where different cultures are concerned (both today and in the past). For one very simple example, marriage used to be a simple contract for an exchange of goods, procreation, etc and now it is based on love (something fairly foreign in the past). If we talk about different cultures then things can and do get more complicated.
As to your additional questions: overall and in general, the definition of marriage has become more open and encompassing over time and not more restrictive, which is what all your questions are about. I can also sadly say that the only thing stopping any of that gross restrictive and backwards movement is common sense and things like the US Supreme Court (at least here in the US).
The definition YOU know for marriage, which is possibly more religious in background, mentions one man and one woman. A lot of people in the past who were against interracial marriage defined marriage as being between people of the same race only. Today, many people define marriage as being between two people who love each other and gender is not mentioned. And even the mention of love is fairly new in a lot of ways.
The fight for same sex marriage and interracial marriage were about the right and freedom to marry whoever an individual chooses, PERIOD. Neither type of marriage changed the definition of marriage for me, but it did for others. It seems same sex marriage changed the definition of marriage for you just as interracial marriage changed the definition for people in the past, it is as simple as that. That the "definition" of the past as you know it did not mention race does not change the fact that far too many at the time believed marriage should only be whites marrying whites, blacks marrying blacks, etc and defined marriage as such. It was wrong as it was wrong to deny same sex couples the right to marry.
In the end, I believe marriage is about love and it is a fundamental right that everyone should be entitled to if they choose. That alone makes the fights for interracial and same sex marriage similar - not the same, but very similar. And while it is unfair to compare both cases to one another and say the same sex marriage case is this generations Loving v. Virginia the comparisons are understandable as both are important in supporting the right for all to be able to marry the individual they choose.
Choose...between yesterday and tomorrow. Pick one and stick with it.
reply
share
retro4
7 years ago
@BuffySyd35 I don't know how the Lovings felt about same-sex marriage. But it's important to remember that Loving case didn't just impact their relationship but every interethnic married couple. So even though some of interethnic couples would agree that same-sex marriage is the same situations, I'm sure that they are other inter-ethnic couples who would not agree. But when I said that inter-ethnic marriage didn't change the definition of marriage, that is a fact not an opinion. Marriage as it was understood was between one male and one female, it had nothing to do with someone's skin color or even someone's culture or religion. It is when racists attempted to change the definition of marriage to fit their twisted worldview. I don't believe seeing marriage as gender institution is the equivalent of bigots in the 1960's. As the bigots wanted to keep different ethnicities apart while those who oppose same-sex marriage don't necessarily want to keep gay couples apart. If civil unions acts as the same marriage and given the same integrity as marriage then I don't see how that is keeping anyone apart. While racist bigots didn't want whites to have any unions whatsoever with non-whites. You say that marriage has evolved to less and less restrictions but there has to be at least some restrictions on marriage otherwise you're basically saying that the people who claim that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy are right. If marriage is to mean anything, it can't simply be relative and subjective, there has to be some objective standard otherwise marriage doesn't really exist at all. And if marriage is just about the love between two people then I don't see the reason why the government should get involved in that. Is it the government's business who is in love and who is not? Should the government define what love is? Why should the government even care about love from the get go?
reply
share
BuffySyd35
7 years ago
Mildred Loving supported same sex marriage. And I am well aware how the Loving case, as all cases brought to the US Supreme Court, impact more than just the people involved in the case. I also know how racists are the ones that tried to corrupt the meaning of marriage to deny interracial marriage (they did however believe their meaning was correct, no matter how unfounded - that is also a fact).
As for those opposed to same sex marriage not wanting to keep gay couples apart when those opposed to interracial marriage did want to keep the races apart, well that is not true. Some people did want to keep interracial couples apart entirely, while others just didn't want them to be able to marry. The same exact thing is true when it comes to same sex couples.
As others have pointed out civil unions are NOT the same as marriage.
As for same sex marriage being made legal leading to polygamy, personally I do not care if that happens. The fact that others have been allowed to marry over time, when they should not have been prevented in the first place, makes marriage more inclusive. I do think the arguments against same sex and interracial marriage saying it will lead to people being allowed to marry sheep, dogs, relatives, etc is ridiculous and would not happen as marriage is between people.
As to government involvement I see it as a form of checks and balances. If the government was not involved then interracial marriages would most probably still be banned in various states.
I believe marriage is about love and two people saying legally that they want to share their lives. The government, via the US Supreme Court, has ensured that everyone has that freedom and right. Loving v. Virginia and the same sex marriage case both illustrate that.
Choose...between yesterday and tomorrow. Pick one and stick with it.
reply
share
retro4
7 years ago
@BuffySyd35
Mildred Loving supported same sex marriage. And I am well aware how the Loving case, as all cases brought to the US Supreme Court, impact more than just the people involved in the case. I also know how racists are the ones that tried to corrupt the meaning of marriage to deny interracial marriage (they did however believe their meaning was correct, no matter how unfounded - that is also a fact).
Like I said I don't know whether Mildred Loving did or did not support gay marriage. But even if she did the Lovings case didn't just impact her marriage but every inter-ethnic couple in America (and some of them wouldn't support same-sex marriage). And yes, racists did try to corrupt the meaning of marriage, which was again never had anything to do with someone's skin color.
As for those opposed to same sex marriage not wanting to keep gay couples apart when those opposed to interracial marriage did want to keep the races apart, well that is not true. Some people did want to keep interracial couples apart entirely, while others just didn't want them to be able to marry. The same exact thing is true when it comes to same sex couples.
That simply does not pass the logic test, as non-white men were killed just for looking at a white woman. So it's doubtful that racist country of the 1960's were okay with inter-ethnic dating but not okay with inter-ethnic marriage.
As others have pointed out civil unions are NOT the same as marriage.
Civil unions are treated as the same as marriage.
As for same sex marriage being made legal leading to polygamy, personally I do not care if that happens. The fact that others have been allowed to marry over time, when they should not have been prevented in the first place, makes marriage more inclusive. I do think the arguments against same sex and interracial marriage saying it will lead to people being allowed to marry sheep, dogs, relatives, etc is ridiculous and would not happen as marriage is between people.
But if polygamy does happen then it proves how having no restrictions on marriage can cause problems. And if someone want to marry ten people or twenty people? Shouldn't there be restriction so that the institution not be abused?
As to government involvement I see it as a form of checks and balances. If the government was not involved then interracial marriages would most probably still be banned in various states.
Inter-racial marriage would not be outlawed if the government stayed out of marriage in both the state AND federal level.
I believe marriage is about love and two people saying legally that they want to share their lives. The government, via the US Supreme Court, has ensured that everyone has that freedom and right. Loving v. Virginia and the same sex marriage case both illustrate that.
Again why should the government care about the love between two people? People could still have right to marry without government involvement. The only reason the government should be involved in marriage is because of public interest. I know you argue that love is public interest but I don't believe it's government business (whether it's state or federal) to define what love is.
reply
share
BuffySyd35
7 years ago
I said Mildred Loving did support same sex marriage and did so because she said so in a rare interview. As for the rest I already said I knew that and agreed so no need to repeat that the cases are about more than the ones involved.
As for what I said not passing the "logic test" that does not make it any less of a fact, which all of what I said is. For just one example, the community Mildred and Richard lived in saw a lot of race intermingling, both as friends and couples and many did not have any issue. Marriage was obviously another issue and not all agreed with the races intermingling in any way, hence the Lovings being arrested, etc.
Just because civil unions are "treated" the same as marriage does not mean they are tne same as marriage. They are not the same.
All in all I have said my opinions and facts, whether you accept either is up to you. The fights for same sex marriage and interracial marriage were similar and to say less in ignoring important facts. But they also deserve to be looked at through the lenses of the times in which both cases were decided as well. They are not exactly the same and both were important for there times and both cases made the right decisions because marriage should be allowed for all. PERIOD. At this point I have little if anything else left to say.
Choose...between yesterday and tomorrow. Pick one and stick with it.
reply
share
retro4
7 years ago
I said Mildred Loving did support same sex marriage and did so because she said so in a rare interview. As for the rest I already said I knew that and agreed so no need to repeat that the cases are about more than the ones involved.
I know what you said, what I'm saying is that I never saw the interview so I can't confirm or deny the truth of that statement. But even if she did say it, I'm sure there are other inter-ethnic couples who would disagree with her.
As for what I said not passing the "logic test" that does not make it any less of a fact, which all of what I said is. For just one example, the community Mildred and Richard lived in saw a lot of race intermingling, both as friends and couples and many did not have any issue. Marriage was obviously another issue and not all agreed with the races intermingling in any way, hence the Lovings being arrested, etc.
Sorry, but that still doesn't pass the logic test. It's very unlikely that a racist Virginia would be okay with ethnic intermingling when comes to friendship and dating but not marriage. Even if a community saw a lot of ethnic relationships that does not necessarily mean they were tolerant of it.
Just because civil unions are "treated" the same as marriage does not mean they are tne same as marriage. They are not the same.
Simply asserting that they're not the same doesn't make it true.
All in all I have said my opinions and facts, whether you accept either is up to you. The fights for same sex marriage and interracial marriage were similar and to say less in ignoring important facts. But they also deserve to be looked at through the lenses of the times in which both cases were decided as well. They are not exactly the same and both were important for there times and both cases made the right decisions because marriage should be allowed for all. PERIOD. At this point I have little if anything else left to say.
And I have provided facts that you continue to ignore simply because it doesn't suit you. I have stated that inter-ethnic couples were arrested for being in a marriage but that same-sex couples didn't find themselves in the exact same situation in terms of marriage. That is a fact but you seem to want to ignore it for some reason. There is obviously nothing I can say at this point that would convince you of anything.
reply
share
BuffySyd35
7 years ago
1. I have not ignored any real facts you have given. The one you bring up about interracial couples who married being arrested and how same sex couples did not find themselves in the same situation I never even commented on, at all. How can I ignore something I never brought up or commented on?
2. I find it interesting you say I have ignored facts you have provided when you yourself have ignored facts I have provided that you can verify (like googling the interview with Mildred Loving regarding same sex marriage, for just one example).
3. And asserting that they are the same does not make it true. Others have pointed out the differences between civil unions and marriage so there was no point in doing so again.
4. "Very unlikely" does not mean it did not happen. You seem to want to call all people in Virginia racists and it is simply not true. If it were the Lovings would never have been able to get together, get married, then fight and win the right to marry at the US Supreme Court level. Also, everything I said about not everyone having an issue with the races intermingling, via friendship or marriage, was a general statement about the US as a whole, not just Virginia. You can keep saying it does not pass the "logic test" all you want, but then it is you who is ignoring facts.
5. You seem to like to argue your point and ignore facts and/or when that doesn't work bring up other possibly related topics to throw out there simply to keep trying to hammer your opinion. I enjoy a good debate and find it interesting talking to people with different views from my own. However, you seem to not want to convince anyone of anything so much as repeat your thoughts no matter how many times they have been pointed out to be not as simple and cut and dry as you assert or just plain wrong. That is why so many have ignored this thread or said there part before saying "enough is enough."
Choose...between yesterday and tomorrow. Pick one and stick with it.
reply
share
retro4
7 years ago
1. I have not ignored any real facts you have given. The one you bring up about interracial couples who married being arrested and how same sex couples did not find themselves in the same situation I never even commented on, at all. How can I ignore something I never brought up or commented on?
Hmmm.... I brought it up in the very first post.
2. I find it interesting you say I have ignored facts you have provided when you yourself have ignored facts I have provided that you can verify (like googling the interview with Mildred Loving regarding same sex marriage, for just one example).
You could just copy/paste the interview. I never denied that she said that, what I said was that I'm sure there are other interethnic couples who would disagree with her.
3. And asserting that they are the same does not make it true. Others have pointed out the differences between civil unions and marriage so there was no point in doing so again.
Then explain to me how they're different if they were to be treated both the same?
. "Very unlikely" does not mean it did not happen. You seem to want to call all people in Virginia racists and it is simply not true. If it were the Lovings would never have been able to get together, get married, then fight and win the right to marry at the US Supreme Court level. Also, everything I said about not everyone having an issue with the races intermingling, via friendship or marriage, was a general statement about the US as a whole, not just Virginia. You can keep saying it does not pass the "logic test" all you want, but then it is you who is ignoring facts.
Hmm... a lot of the were racist which is why anti-miscegenation laws to begin with. And yes, I know that the US as whole had a problem with ethnic intermingling but that is not what you said. You said that were okay with interethnic friendship and dating but not marriage. That is what I meant when I said that simply doesn't pass the logic test. It seems at though you're trying to move the goalpost and make this something else.
5. You seem to like to argue your point and ignore facts and/or when that doesn't work bring up other possibly related topics to throw out there simply to keep trying to hammer your opinion. I enjoy a good debate and find it interesting talking to people with different views from my own. However, you seem to not want to convince anyone of anything so much as repeat your thoughts no matter how many times they have been pointed out to be not as simple and cut and dry as you assert or just plain wrong. That is why so many have ignored this thread or said there part before saying "enough is enough."
You haven't provided any facts, just assertions. I don't know what more you want from me. I have linked essays, I have referenced history, I have used reason and evidence, I don't know what more you want. If anyone is making this a black and white scenario it's you. I have been trying to bring some kind of nuance to the conversation but you continue to reject it. If people want to ignore my thread that's fine, all I've done is try to offer a different perspective, they can take it or leave it.
reply
share
Evcannon123
7 years ago
Give it a rest BIGOT. Nobody cares about your assbackwards opinions on anything. Go argue with yourself in the mirror, At least then you'd be arguing with someone equally stupid.
reply
share