#1
Post rating: ~
First, lets get the "legal rights" argument out of the way. If gays just wanted legal rights they would lobby for civil unions, there's less resistance to that, it's easier, and there are no marriage fees. The question is, why do gays want gay marriage specifically? Why do they want to pointlessly devalue a cultural institution that was never meant for them?

Its because they want the social recognition of being a breeder without actually being one.
#2
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~
tax breaks, child custody/hospital visitation/property/inheritance rights + devaluing marriage & breeding are inherently positive practices that everyone should support
#3
Post rating: ~

tax breaks,



Those actually mean less money for gubmint welfare.

child custody/hospital visitation/property/inheritance rights



That's a bullshit argument. Marriage doesn't grant unique rights. If you want to give someone permission to visit you in the hospital that doesn't require marriage.

devaluing marriage & breeding



This is closer to the actual reason gays want gay marriage. They resent the society they live in.

It's not a matter of whether marriage equality is good or bad, it's a matter of marriage equality being impossible. Gay marriage is like handing everyone first place at the spelling bee to make everyone "equal".

#4
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~

aut1 posted:

That's a bullshit argument. Marriage doesn't grant unique rights. If you want to give someone permission to visit you in the hospital that doesn't require marriage.



it does and it does

#5
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~
btw whats wrong with resenting the society you live in? as there are no perfect societies, not actively resenting whichever ones hold power over you is a sign of either ignorance or apathy
#6
Post rating: ~

it does and it does



A hospital can legally deny admission to whoever it wants, married or unmarried. The right to require a hospital to admit you is a right no one else has.

btw whats wrong with resenting the society you live in? as there are no perfect societies, not actively resenting whichever ones hold power over you is a sign of either ignorance or apathy



I'm sure it depends, this just happens to be one case where society is sensible and cultural institutions shouldn't be devalued to appease some tiny irrelevant minority.

#7
Post rating: ~
i'm sorry, but your use of "devaluing" here is really ambiguous. can you maybe explain how exactly gay marriage "devalues" existing marriages? how is my marriage worth less because my gay neighbor got a husband? Are marriages like property or something: you move a less reputable couple into the suburbs and suddenly everyone's marriage is worth less cash?
#8
Post rating: ~

'm sorry, but your use of "devaluing" here is really ambiguous. can you maybe explain how exactly gay marriage "devalues" existing marriages? how is my marriage worth less because my gay neighbor got a husband? Are marriages like property or something: you move a less reputable couple into the suburbs and suddenly everyone's marriage is worth less cash?



There's no point in me trying to explain it to brainwashed Obamadroids. Sorry.

#9
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~
technically, according to simple economies of scale, any individual marriage is necessarily devalued by any positive increase in the total number of marriages. the value of marriage (as evidenced by the attitudes of religious marriage experts) is not additive, but proportional. The highest value a marriage can then have is 1, it being the only marriage on Earth and therefore of infinite importance (Adam & Eve), all the way down to the lowest possible value of 0 attained by the total ubiquity of Universal Global Marriage
#10
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~
the only rational conclusion to this scenario is that if you truly love and value your marriage, it is your sworn duty as a spouse to destroy as many other marriages as possible. Strategic Adultery must be utilized in the defense of Traditional Marriage if it is ever to survive
#11
Post rating: ~
What the fuck, superabound.
#12
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~

Combat_Liberalism posted:

What the fuck, superabound.



just exposing the Truth, educating you with the same Logic that any soon-to-be bride planning her wedding at the same time as any of her friends would recognize instinctively

#13
Post rating: ~
Look at it this way: if Huffpost's stupid editorials turn out correct and gay marriage actually strengthens marriage, then would you still support it like you do every other element of the Democratic Party program?
#14
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~
as a strong supporter of forced sexual redistribution, i categorically oppose anything which strengthens the bonds of monogamy or traditional marriage, themselves nothing more than regressive patriarchal artifacts of Capital
#15
Post rating: ~
This discussion isn't going to work if you're just going to shoot coke and slap at the keyboard.
#16
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~
under what ludicrous guise of Rational Self Interest would any young, single man support an institution which seeks to rob him of access to the vast majority of attractive, docile, fertile women? youve got to think about these things, mustang
#17
"Jpg." - Hank Hill
Post rating: ~
le_superabound_face
#18
Post rating: ~
You're kind of correct, as a Mens Rights Activist. Marriage has become a matriarchal institution, with alimony and all.

Its funny how feminists went from wanting to abolish marriage to not complaining so much nowadays.
#19
Post rating: ~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights#Marriage_strike
#20
Not Your S.H.I.E.L.D.
Post rating: ~
personally, i refuse to propose to my long-term partner until fictives and headmates are given the same marriage rights as the rest of us *fingernails glow rainbow colors with the majestic power of Solidarity*
#21
Post rating: ~
I just want to thank tpaine for not banning me. I hoped more posters would join faily planet but it seems they don't want to leave their safe space.
#22
Post rating: ~

Combat_Liberalism posted:

There's no point in me trying to explain it to brainwashed Obamadroids. Sorry.



no really i'm here for the serious discussion. I get that anti-gay rights advocates see marriage equality as some sort of intentional assault on their way of life, based on nothing more than spite and mockery, but help me understand why exactly, beyond juvenile understandings of worth and value, letting gay people on the other side of the country call their relationship marriage devalues non-gay marriages?

that argument just doesn't make any sense to me outside of some "no one but me is allowed to have nice things/my life and worth is measured by the status of my peers" worldview. Like, it's an absurd notion to think that your neighbor buying a super expensive car suddenly makes your own car unworthy of being driven or deeply personally embarrassing.

#23
Post rating: ~

Combat_Liberalism posted:

Look at it this way: if Huffpost's stupid editorials turn out correct and gay marriage actually strengthens marriage, then would you still support it like you do every other element of the Democratic Party program?



i'm not saying gay marriage "strengthens" marriage; that seems just as absurd and arbitrary a concept as "devaluing" marriage. Don't equate my points to some silly huffpo editorials.

But as suparbound was saying, from a Marxist viewpoint marriages as an institution are bourgeois and exploitative. The nuclear family is pretty absurd itself, so really even if the point is to "devalue marriage" then I guess that's a pretty noble goal.

#24
Post rating: ~
Again, there's nothing else I can say, you don't see value in marriage or heterosexuality so you're okay with 1% of the population making the other 99% go along with "marriage equality".

Semi-related.

http://feministing.com/2012/10/15/young-feminist-and-married/

Yes, the divorce rate is over 50%, the institution of marriage is maybe a little outdated and based on patriarchal notions of gender roles. But who’s to say we can’t change the system from within? All the feminists I know who’ve married young have faced a backlash from their own feminist communities. Feministing’s own Jessica Valenti wrote a few years ago about her struggle with negotiating marriage as a young feminist. Fighting against the odds and often against popular opinion in order to live life on your own terms – isn’t that what feminism has always been about?


#25
Post rating: ~
wait, so your argument is literally no deeper than "i'm better because i'm heterosexual and gays are lesser"? okay, cool. i mean, i figured we'd get to that foundational worldview eventually, but i thought we'd have to dig through some sort of larger intellectual rationalization first. oh well.
#26
Post rating: ~

wait, so your argument is literally no deeper than "i'm better because i'm heterosexual and gays are lesser"? okay, cool. i mean, i figured we'd get to that foundational worldview eventually, but i thought we'd have to dig through some sort of larger intellectual rationalization first. oh well.



No, it's that marriage is defined as hetero, which is something people care about and which they don't want to include other random groups of people into.

It's like letting furries into Star Trek conventions for the sake of "convention equality". It just doesn't work, it's an artificial equality, between things that weren't actually unequal in the first place.

Edited by Lucille ()

#27
Post rating: ~
but thats really the problem here: the two sides are using the same "words" but with totally different meanings/understandings. the definition of marriage as hetero is a really limited view of marriage. honestly the definition of either side is going to be totally subjective and irreconcilable with the other side. there is no "right" answer, so when left in such relativism i see the only agreeable answer as being "who cares."

it's silly though to act like your biased conceptualization of marriage is any more legitimate or worthy than the gay marriage advocates. perhaps some appeal to a very limited selection of history will support your definition, but there is plenty of support for the broader definition too, so, again, your point just seems juvenile.
#28
Post rating: ~

it's silly though to act like your biased conceptualization of marriage is any more legitimate or worthy than the gay marriage advocates. perhaps some appeal to a very limited selection of history will support your definition, but there is plenty of support for the broader definition too, so, again, your point just seems juvenile.



Well that's just your opinion, the people who actually care about marriage are going to disagree. Later.

#29
Post rating: ~
Eventually, we won't need segregative "conventions." Furries, cosplayers and Klingons will walk among us; on the streets, in the office, and in the pews.
#30
"Jpg." - Hank Hill
Post rating: ~
fagnus_gei lmao. lmao
#31
Post rating: ~
I'm going to light up a lil stick of controversy dyna-might and throw it into the discussion with this query: if gay marriage had been legal and a viable alternative to the destructive freelove lifestyle in the late 1970s and through to the eighties, how many people could have been saved from the AIDS plague? Can an argument be made for gay marriage today from a value-free public health perspective?
#32
[account deactivated]
#33
Kurdt
Post rating: ~

swirlsofhistory posted:

I'm going to light up a lil stick of controversy dyna-might and throw it into the discussion with this query: if gay marriage had been legal and a viable alternative to the destructive freelove lifestyle in the late 1970s and through to the eighties, how many people could have been saved from the AIDS plague? Can an argument be made for gay marriage today from a value-free public health perspective?


#34
Post rating: ~

I'm going to light up a lil stick of controversy dyna-might and throw it into the discussion with this query: if gay marriage had been legal and a viable alternative to the destructive freelove lifestyle in the late 1970s and through to the eighties, how many people could have been saved from the AIDS plague? Can an argument be made for gay marriage today from a value-free public health perspective?



It could be, yes. Valid point.

#35
[account deactivated]
#36
Post rating: ~
#37
Post rating: ~
#38
[account deactivated]
#39
[account deactivated]
#40
Post rating: ~
http://blackpeopleloveus.com/