Gay Marriage Analogy

[JRP1994]

I recently saw a Facebook post, in which the author argued against the legalization of same-sex marriage. His argument was that, even if you believe that murder is wrong, you should still stop a murder from occurring. Therefore, even if you believe that gay marriage is wrong, you should stop it from becoming legal.

Aside from the tortured logic and absolute non-sequitur of his argument, I made the following response:

1) No matter your beliefs about whether same-sex marriage should be legal, this analogy should be an embarrassment to all those who seek a serious debate on the subject. Two consenting adults of the same gender deciding to enter a legal relationship is NOT comparable to murder.

2) I am a Christian, but I am not a proponent of dominionism. If you wish to define the legal institution of marriage according to Christian doctrine, then you have no right to object if a polygamist group wishes to define marriage according to their beliefs.

3) Why not remove the government from any involvement in marriage? Establish a civil-union system that any two, consenting adults can participate in - a legally binding, contractual relationship. If one wishes to enter into a state of Holy Matrimony with their spouse, they may do so through their church. The churches would have freedom to decline to marry same-sex couples (separation of church and state), but the government should maintain neutrality in manners of the church.

[bedstuy]

I recently saw a Facebook post, in which the author argued against the legalization of same-sex marriage. His argument was that, even if you believe that murder is wrong, you should still stop a murder from occurring. Therefore, even if you believe that gay marriage is wrong, you should stop it from becoming legal.

To call that tortured logic is kind of a compliment.  I don't understand the point of this is, if there is one.

1) No matter your beliefs about whether same-sex marriage should be legal, this analogy should be an embarrassment to all those who seek a serious debate on the subject. Two consenting adults of the same gender deciding to enter a legal relationship is NOT comparable to murder.

Thanks.  Loving another person is not like murder.  I'm going to nominate you for a GLAAD award. 

3) Why not remove the government from any involvement in marriage? Establish a civil-union system that any two, consenting adults can participate in - a legally binding, contractual relationship. If one wishes to enter into a state of Holy Matrimony with their spouse, they may do so through their church. The churches would have freedom to decline to marry same-sex couples (separation of church and state), but the government should maintain neutrality in manners of the church.

That seems like a pointless compromise position.  A marriage is a legally binding, contractual relationship.  The only reason to change the word is to denigrate gay people and their relationships.  Also, the idea that religious institutions are forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies is a canard.

[pbrower2a]

I recently saw a Facebook post, in which the author argued against the legalization of same-sex marriage. His argument was that, even if you believe that murder is wrong, you should still stop a murder from occurring. Therefore, even if you believe that gay marriage is wrong, you should stop it from becoming legal.

Of course, murder kills and is abominable for that reason alone. Pure homosexuality simply cannot result in childbirth, but as it is we have more children than straight people can take care of. A loving pair of homosexuals might be far better than a state-run orphanage run by careerists interested only in a paycheck or inept or uncaring parents. Maybe "Heather" is better off with "Two Mommies" than with a dim-witted, neglectful single mother. "Adam and Steve" might also be better parents than a dim-witted, single mother.

It is worth noting that mainstream gay and lesbian groups find NAMBLA, which encourages adult men to exploit boys, appalling -- especially if they are are "Adam and Steve", who may be raising a child destined to be straight.

Many people think that interracial marriage is wrong, too, but why must anyone prevent it? I find distilled liquors more trouble than they are worth, but you don't see me going into liquor stores and smashing the displays. I'd rather tax the Hell out of distilled liquors while leaving beer and wine alone.

[Chief Justice PiT]

      So his argument is that if you think something is wrong you should want it to be illegal? His point is self-defeating, since the fact that he drew a parallel between same-sex marriage and freaking murder illustrates how worthlessly simplistic it actually is.

[Torie]

The case against SSM has to be made on the grounds, that just letting gays/lesbians do it, will cause unacceptable collateral damage to the public square, and thus they need to be leashed. No empirical evidence of which I am aware supports such case, not even a scintilla of one. Thus it is not a close case, but rather a closed case. Opposition is primarily fueled by irrational animus to gays and lesbians (fortunately waning rapidly now - at last - and thus the rapid change in the poll numbers), and we all know it. Thank you.

[DC Al Fine]

Even before SSM was an issue, the government had bastardized marriage so thoroughly that I would not call what the government sanctions "marriage". If the OP's friend is a conservative Protestant or Catholic, he should seriously examine whether he wants the state involved in marriage at all.

In my view the government has no more right to define marriage than it does to define baptism or communion.

[afleitch]

In my view the government has no more right to define marriage than it does to define baptism or communion.

To me, it's an institution that religion shouldn't define. It exists outside of all that.

[後援会]

Does a case have to be made against SSM? No one needs to prove "wrongness" (which seems like a bizarre argument to me). A positive action has to be made to make it happen. Current law doesn't "ban" same-sex marriage, there is simply no provision in some localities defining a same-sex union as a marriage. It's legally and socially incomparable to interracial marriage since those were expressedly prohibited (i.e., everyone understood that it was still marriage, but some people still opted to ban it). Which makes sense - race (and thus miscegenation) is a modern construct (much like SSM) so "interracial marriage" more or less was prohibited ex post facto.

It's very much more of a question of whether the state should revise its current definition of marriage (or have one at all), so deontological ethics (certain actions being "moral" or not) don't seem to be relevant. I'm mixed on whether the state should define marriage, largely because marriage as a contractual institution predates state definition even if the family is the model for the state and the state is the natural outgrowth of family.

On the other hand, SSM redefines the relationship between the state and the family into one between the state and individual, which seems like dangerous precedent (but something that has unfortunately probably already happened to many people if they're supporting the legal enshrinement of SSM).

[Kamala-Tim 2024]

Does a case have to be made against SSM? No one needs to prove "wrongness" (which seems like a bizarre argument to me). A positive action has to be made to make it happen. Current law doesn't "ban" same-sex marriage, there is simply no provision in some localities defining a same-sex union as a marriage. It's legally and socially incomparable to interracial marriage since those were expressedly prohibited (i.e., everyone understood that it was still marriage, but some people still opted to ban it). Which makes sense - race (and thus miscegenation) is a modern construct (much like SSM) so "interracial marriage" more or less was prohibited ex post facto.

It's very much more of a question of whether the state should revise its current definition of marriage (or have one at all), so deontological ethics (certain actions being "moral" or not) don't seem to be relevant. I'm mixed on whether the state should define marriage, largely because marriage as a contractual institution predates state definition even if the family is the model for the state and the state is the natural outgrowth of family.

On the other hand, SSM redefines the relationship between the state and the family into one between the state and individual, which seems like dangerous precedent (but something that has unfortunately probably already happened to many people if they're supporting the legal enshrinement of SSM).

What is with your obsession with "the family"? Are the willfully single not people? Do they not count?

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This comment makes zero sense to me. Putting aside that apparently the poster does not consider SS couples as a "family" for some reason, even if they have kids by adoption or natural birth (in the case of lesbians, or gays that have a kid from a prior marriage or a surrogate mother), just why is it deemed "dangerous" for the state to be enmeshed with individuals but OK with a "family?" And in any case, just what is the "danger?"  The incoherence of it all is simply stunning.

Is this the best we can do?

[bedstuy]

Does a case have to be made against SSM? No one needs to prove "wrongness" (which seems like a bizarre argument to me). A positive action has to be made to make it happen. Current law doesn't "ban" same-sex marriage, there is simply no provision in some localities defining a same-sex union as a marriage. It's legally and socially incomparable to interracial marriage since those were expressedly prohibited (i.e., everyone understood that it was still marriage, but some people still opted to ban it). Which makes sense - race (and thus miscegenation) is a modern construct (much like SSM) so "interracial marriage" more or less was prohibited ex post facto.

It's very much more of a question of whether the state should revise its current definition of marriage (or have one at all), so deontological ethics (certain actions being "moral" or not) don't seem to be relevant. I'm mixed on whether the state should define marriage, largely because marriage as a contractual institution predates state definition even if the family is the model for the state and the state is the natural outgrowth of family.

On the other hand, SSM redefines the relationship between the state and the family into one between the state and individual, which seems like dangerous precedent (but something that has unfortunately probably already happened to many people if they're supporting the legal enshrinement of SSM).

That is utter nonsense.  The status quo is not automatically correct.  Laws constantly change and have done so for thousands of years.  People adjust to new legal definitions and they deal with it.  I don't know why that's an impossible, unthinkable task when it comes to this one issue.  Do you want to go back to Hammurabi's code?

[the man with no name...and now muted]

I recently saw a Facebook post, in which the author argued against the legalization of same-sex marriage. His argument was that, even if you believe that murder is wrong, you should still stop a murder from occurring. Therefore, even if you believe that gay marriage is wrong, you should stop it from becoming legal.

Aside from the tortured logic and absolute non-sequitur of his argument, I made the following response:

1) No matter your beliefs about whether same-sex marriage should be legal, this analogy should be an embarrassment to all those who seek a serious debate on the subject. Two consenting adults of the same gender deciding to enter a legal relationship is NOT comparable to murder.

Agreed, not the same.  BUT, there is no need for an analogy in the first place, for it is addressed point blank in both the old and new testaments.

[the man with no name...and now muted]

This is one of those transparent logical traps...they ask for an analogy, and when you give them one, whether somewhat good (adultery, fornication, bestiality) or bad (murder), they respond, "That's not the same thing!"  Of course it is not the same, that is why it is an analogy. 

But why is there any need of an analogy to begin with when the subject is explicitly addressed in scripture?  There is nothing that is exactly like homosexuality, which is why the subject is addressed separately.

[bedstuy]

This is one of those transparent logical traps...they ask for an analogy, and when you give them one, whether somewhat good (adultery, fornication, bestiality) or bad (murder), they respond, "That's not the same thing!"  Of course it is not the same, that is why it is an analogy. 

But why is there any need of an analogy to begin with when the subject is explicitly addressed in scripture?  There is nothing that is exactly like homosexuality, which is why the subject is addressed separately.

I'm not sure if you're joking or not. 

But, the obvious point is that we explicitly do not live in a Fundamentalist Christian theocracy.  Instead, we have the separation of church and state under the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.  Therefore, the mere fact that the Koran or the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament or any religious text forbids something is not a basis by itself to make law for everyone.     

But, you're right, in a way.  The central question is whether being gay is immoral or wrong.  We've had a debate about that and the Fundamentalist Christians have lost that debate.  Now, we're adjusting our society and laws to reflect the progress we've made on that issue. 

[the man with no name...and now muted]

I'm not sure if you're joking or not.  

But, the obvious point is that we explicitly do not live in a Fundamentalist Christian theocracy.  Instead, we have the separation of church and state under the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.  Therefore, the mere fact that the Koran or the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament or any religious text forbids something is not a basis by itself to make law for everyone.

yo, I am not calling for the outlawing of sin.  The question of SSM is whether or not the People have the right NOT to condone behavior versus the individual right to have the People condone his/her behavior.    

As it stands now, no cops are going to show up to a SSM ceremony, and no one cares if a gay couple calls themselves "married"...the question at hand is whether the People have the right not to condone it.

---

But, you're right, in a way.  The central question is whether being gay is immoral or wrong.  We've had a debate about that and the Fundamentalist Christians have lost that debate.  Now, we're adjusting our society and laws to reflect the progress we've made on that issue.  

Yeah, and we are adjusting our society to 100 million people with STDs and 50% of kids being born out of wedlock.  Just because a society attempts to adjust to sexual sin, doesn't exempt it from reaping what it sows.

[bedstuy]

I'm not sure if you're joking or not.  

But, the obvious point is that we explicitly do not live in a Fundamentalist Christian theocracy.  Instead, we have the separation of church and state under the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.  Therefore, the mere fact that the Koran or the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament or any religious text forbids something is not a basis by itself to make law for everyone.

yo, I am not calling for the outlawing of sin.  The question of SSM is whether or not the People have the right NOT to condone behavior versus the individual right to have the People condone his/her behavior.    

As it stands now, no cops are going to show up to a SSM ceremony, and no one cares if a gay couple calls themselves "married"...the question at hand is whether the People have the right not to condone it.

You can't just declare that SSM is not about gay people's rights.  That's exactly what it's about.  And by the same token, nobody will care if you call a married gay couple, "BFFs" or "evil sinners who are condemned to the pit of hell."  Nobody is going to force you to think homosexuality is normal.  There's no cognizable legal interest in your desire to have the state not condone people that you choose to hate.  You can condone or not condone whatever you want.   But, the lack of marriage equality has actual legal consequences.

But, you're right, in a way.  The central question is whether being gay is immoral or wrong.  We've had a debate about that and the Fundamentalist Christians have lost that debate.  Now, we're adjusting our society and laws to reflect the progress we've made on that issue.  

Yeah, and we are adjusting our society to 100 million people with STDs and 50% of kids being born out of wedlock.  Just because a society attempts to adjust to sexual sin, doesn't exempt it from reaping what it sows.

What does gay marriage have to do with that? 

[the man with no name...and now muted]

You can't just declare that SSM is not about gay people's rights.  That's exactly what it's about.  
  And by the same token, nobody will care if you call a married gay couple, "BFFs" or "evil sinners who are condemned to the pit of hell."  Nobody is going to force you to think homosexuality is normal.  There's no cognizable legal interest in your desire to have the state not condone people that you choose to hate.  You can condone or not condone whatever you want.

I just stated that it is about their rights - the right to have the government condone their marriage versus the right of the People to choose NOT to condone it.

---

But, the lack of marriage equality has actual legal consequences.

for over 200 years, no US state condoned it...it has only had "legal consequences" recently as society has become more and more sexually perverse, but prior to the recent past, it was never a constitutional issue.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does gay marriage have to do with that?  

Nothing...except that the acceptance and condoning of SSM is just another line being crossed by a society that has already crossed many lines in its spiral into immorality.  I am NOT one who thinks SSM is going to destroy society's respect of marriage, rather I view the acceptance of SSM as result of a society that has already lost respect of marriage (e.g. 100 million people with STDs and 50% of kids being born out of wedlock).

[afleitch]

Oh go away. Nobody gives a sh**t about your neuroses.  It's bad enough having to deal with eager teens rather than having to deal with a lecherous man child as well.

[bedstuy]

I'm sure you could go on in circles forever with that ridiculous line of argument. 

But again, your hatred of a certain group of people is not a valid basis for making laws.  You don't have any empirical, rationally based reason that being gay is wrong or immoral.  Without that premise, there's no good reason to maintain our unfair treatment of gay people. 

[the man with no name...and now muted]

Oh go away. Nobody gives a sh**t about your neuroses.  It's bad enough having to deal with eager teens rather than having to deal with a lecherous man child as well.

Gen 19:9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.”

[the man with no name...and now muted]

I'm sure you could go on in circles forever with that ridiculous line of argument.  

But again, your hatred of a certain group of people is not a valid basis for making laws.  You don't have any empirical, rationally based reason that being gay is wrong or immoral.  Without that premise, there's no good reason to maintain our unfair treatment of gay people.  

Given the billions of people who have lived and died before me, I have no "empirical, rationally based reason" to believe Jesus rose from the dead...yet I do.  And dispite this lack of evidence, the US Constitution condones faith.  In fact, the whole premise of our independence is based upon a faith that despite not having any "empirical, rationally based reason", makes its premise to be "self-evident".

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

You can't just declare that SSM is not about gay people's rights.  That's exactly what it's about. 
  And by the same token, nobody will care if you call a married gay couple, "BFFs" or "evil sinners who are condemned to the pit of hell."  Nobody is going to force you to think homosexuality is normal.  There's no cognizable legal interest in your desire to have the state not condone people that you choose to hate.  You can condone or not condone whatever you want.

I just stated that it is about their rights - the right to have the government condone their marriage versus the right of the People to choose NOT to condone it.

Do The People have the right to choose not to condone interracial marriage, jmfcst?

[bedstuy]

I'm sure you could go on in circles forever with that ridiculous line of argument. 

But again, your hatred of a certain group of people is not a valid basis for making laws.  You don't have any empirical, rationally based reason that being gay is wrong or immoral.  Without that premise, there's no good reason to maintain our unfair treatment of gay people. 

Given the billions of people who have lived and died before me, I have no "empirical, rationally based reason" to believe Jesus rose from the dead...yet I do.  And dispite this lack of evidence, the US Constitution condones faith.  In fact, the whole premise of our independence is based upon a faith that despite not having any "empirical, rationally based reason", makes its premise to be "self-evident".

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are different documents, in case you're wondering.   Likewise, having beliefs and denying basic civil rights to groups of people based on said beliefs, are different.  But, whatever, you're free to not understand anything about the US legal system.

[the man with no name...and now muted]

Do The People have the right to choose not to condone interracial marriage, jmfcst?

some of the original states allowed interracial marriage from the beginning of the union, and the issue of race was a basis of disagreement from the beginning...but for the first 200 years, SSM was uniformally outlawed by all states.

Just because the opinion of the majority changes doesn't mean that something becomes unconstitutional, otherwise, the Constitution means nothing.

[the man with no name...and now muted]

I'm sure you could go on in circles forever with that ridiculous line of argument. 

But again, your hatred of a certain group of people is not a valid basis for making laws.  You don't have any empirical, rationally based reason that being gay is wrong or immoral.  Without that premise, there's no good reason to maintain our unfair treatment of gay people. 

Given the billions of people who have lived and died before me, I have no "empirical, rationally based reason" to believe Jesus rose from the dead...yet I do.  And dispite this lack of evidence, the US Constitution condones faith.  In fact, the whole premise of our independence is based upon a faith that despite not having any "empirical, rationally based reason", makes its premise to be "self-evident".

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are different documents, in case you're wondering.   Likewise, having beliefs and denying basic civil rights to groups of people based on said beliefs, are different.  But, whatever, you're free to not understand anything about the US legal system.

1) I did make the distinction between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

2) "basic civil right"...if this is a so called "basic" civil right, why was it uniformally outlawed for 200 years?