Opinion of people who oppose "redefining marriage"

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

BRTD, if semantic arguments make no sense, would you say that also applies to those who support same-sex marriage and are not satisfied with the idea of civil unions that have all the legal benefits of marriage?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not horrible people, I just don't agree with them.

This exactly.

People's social views are generally defined by religion and social surroundings. So I respect that and can understand people's views on the issue to a degree. With that said, I respectfully disagree with them. I won't vote.

I'm not talking about people who oppose same-sex marriage though. I'm talking about ones who claim to not be anti-gay and are even "OMG BUT I SUPPORT CIVIL UNIONS!!" but are still anti-gay marriage for absurdly worded Moderate Hero reasons, often involving those exact words "redefining marriage". This is really illogical and even more irksome than people who are just out and out anti-gay especially since the reasoning is often "I'm not anti-gay but I don't want to offend people who are." See bedstuy's post.

And please don't give me the crap that Obama actually sincerely opposed gay marriage prior to 2012 and had an actual "revelation" in 2012 rather than his official position just being based only on political concerns. In this case too I'm talking about people who aren't politicians or public figures and thus have no excuse.

The reason people oppose redefining marriage is because the definition in the bible is the union between a man and a woman. This is an example of classic conservatism, or trying to keep things from changing. The reason these same people support civil unions is because it doesn't change the definition. For people you describe as not being anti-gay but only support civil unions, maybe their religion or family politics has something to do with that. What they're probably saying is I don't want to be anti-gay but I also don't support pro-gay policies. So in short, people who are obviously on the right, but don't want to be called homophobes by the left.

Every time I've heard this it's from someone who isn't all that religious and might even make a point of that. So no that's not really a valid reason.

BRTD, if semantic arguments make no sense, would you say that also applies to those who support same-sex marriage and are not satisfied with the idea of civil unions that have all the legal benefits of marriage?

The problem is that's just not possible. I explained why it's not possible in the US anymore above, and prior to that you had issues of employers denying spousal benefits to civil union partners because they weren't "married".

And I should also note people with this position tend not to be along the lines of "We absolutely need some type of recognized union for gay couples, but better not to call it marriage, but still definitely needed." but more along with the lines of "No gay marriage! OK civil unions, sure, fine, but we can't have gay marriage!" At least on this forum, politicians pretending to oppose gay marriage were often more like the former, but that's an essentially obsolete position and few Democratic politicians legitimately held it anyway.

[ElectionsGuy]

Not horrible people, I just don't agree with them.

This exactly.

People's social views are generally defined by religion and social surroundings. So I respect that and can understand people's views on the issue to a degree. With that said, I respectfully disagree with them. I won't vote.

I'm not talking about people who oppose same-sex marriage though. I'm talking about ones who claim to not be anti-gay and are even "OMG BUT I SUPPORT CIVIL UNIONS!!" but are still anti-gay marriage for absurdly worded Moderate Hero reasons, often involving those exact words "redefining marriage". This is really illogical and even more irksome than people who are just out and out anti-gay especially since the reasoning is often "I'm not anti-gay but I don't want to offend people who are." See bedstuy's post.

And please don't give me the crap that Obama actually sincerely opposed gay marriage prior to 2012 and had an actual "revelation" in 2012 rather than his official position just being based only on political concerns. In this case too I'm talking about people who aren't politicians or public figures and thus have no excuse.

The reason people oppose redefining marriage is because the definition in the bible is the union between a man and a woman. This is an example of classic conservatism, or trying to keep things from changing. The reason these same people support civil unions is because it doesn't change the definition. For people you describe as not being anti-gay but only support civil unions, maybe their religion or family politics has something to do with that. What they're probably saying is I don't want to be anti-gay but I also don't support pro-gay policies. So in short, people who are obviously on the right, but don't want to be called homophobes by the left.

Every time I've heard this it's from someone who isn't all that religious and might even make a point of that. So no that's not really a valid reason.

What is a valid reason? Apparently all religious people who are anti-gay marriage but pro-civil unions are illogical because they claim to not be anti-gay. Congratulations, you win.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It is logical (remember that logical does not mean that I agree with it or that it's good thinking, just that it's not fallacious) to oppose gay marriage for religious reasons. It is not logical to do so because of the Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

[Dr. Cynic]

In general, I think people are wrong to try and hang on to opposition. I just don't get it. I mean, they can point to the religious implications and all that, but to me, it's just nonsense. Just accept that it's going to happen, because it is. There's nothing going to stop it.

[Marnetmar]

I'll just say that I fail to see how extending civil liberties to gays is "big government trying to destroy our American traditions by redefining marriage" is a logical or reasonable statement in any way.

[DC Al Fine]

It is logical (remember that logical does not mean that I agree with it or that it's good thinking, just that it's not fallacious) to oppose gay marriage for religious reasons. It is not logical to do so because of the Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

It's politics not debate class though. Things aren't always going to work out logically. This position is an attempt to grant homosexuals marriage rights, while also accommodating traditionalist concerns. It might be logically inconsistent, but the assumption that people who support it are anti-gay is completely in bad faith.

[politicallefty]

I'm in agreement with the OP on this issue. However, it is ridiculous how the left has allowed the right to portray gay marriage as some kind of profound redefinition of marriage. The fact is that marriage has changed over decades, centuries, and millennia. No-fault divorce wasn't even allowed in the US prior to 1969. That doesn't even touch Loving v. Virginia, where interracial marriage was illegal in many states prior to the decision (not to mention the states that changed from 1948 on).

[Hifly]

The OP is clearly directing this thread at me in a malicious sort of way. But in actual fact, what you desire to take place is a redefinition of marriage.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

But in actual fact, what you desire to take place is a redefinition of marriage.

And that's a problem how?

[memphis]

I'm in agreement with the OP on this issue. However, it is ridiculous how the left has allowed the right to portray gay marriage as some kind of profound redefinition of marriage. The fact is that marriage has changed over decades, centuries, and millennia. No-fault divorce wasn't even allowed in the US prior to 1969. That doesn't even touch Loving v. Virginia, where interracial marriage was illegal in many states prior to the decision (not to mention the states that changed from 1948 on).

For most of history, marriage was between a man and as many women as he could afford to purchase with goats. All people who oppose gay marriage are horrible. The reasoning doesn't matter in the slightest. Those who seek to impose their religion on everybody aren't any better than those who are unreasonable jerks just for the hell of it.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

It is logical (remember that logical does not mean that I agree with it or that it's good thinking, just that it's not fallacious) to oppose gay marriage for religious reasons. It is not logical to do so because of the Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

So we do agree then.

[Goldwater]

But in actual fact, what you desire to take place is a redefinition of marriage.

And that's a problem how?

I don't think he said it was a problem, he was just pointing out a fact.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Some are the kindest people I know. Some are the worst. I don't use a broad brush.

[Peter the Lefty]

The OP is clearly directing this thread at me in a malicious sort of way. But in actual fact, what you desire to take place is a redefinition of marriage.

Yes it is.  Why shouldn't it be redefined if it is discriminatory in its current form? 

[barfbag]

People have every right to oppose same sex marriage for moral reasons. I support it, but no one is forced to hold a certain view. It should be left up to the states. Hopefully most will legalize it.

[opebo]

People have every right to oppose same sex marriage for moral reasons. I support it, but no one is forced to hold a certain view.

The Nazis wanted to kill the Jews for 'moral reasons'.

[Hifly]

People have every right to oppose same sex marriage for moral reasons. I support it, but no one is forced to hold a certain view.

The Nazis wanted to kill the Jews for 'moral reasons'.

For f**k sake.

[Peter the Lefty]

People have every right to oppose same sex marriage for moral reasons. I support it, but no one is forced to hold a certain view.

The Nazis wanted to kill the Jews for 'moral reasons'.

For f**k sake.

For f**k sake, explain why "redefining marriage" is bad.

[ElectionsGuy]

People have every right to oppose same sex marriage for moral reasons. I support it, but no one is forced to hold a certain view.

The Nazis wanted to kill the Jews for 'moral reasons'.

Killing people is no where near denying an achievement in life.

[barfbag]

People have every right to oppose same sex marriage for moral reasons. I support it, but no one is forced to hold a certain view.

The Nazis wanted to kill the Jews for 'moral reasons'.

Once again we have Obama's far lefties comparing everything they disagree with to Hitler. Obama denied my insurance company the right to keep their rates, does that equal Hitler denying the Jews' rights to life? I hope you see my sarcasm in my question and hope you stop comparing everything you disagree with to Hitler and Nazis. I know it's what Obama wants, but don't do it.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

FFs, overall, and I agree with them, but I do think homosexuals should have the same rights as a marriage.