Question(s) for the opponents of same-sex marriage

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

Specifically, for those who claim that hetero-only marriage is "equal" because they imagine the right to marry a woman is equally useful to all men, and vice versa:

a) Where are all the openly gay people in hetero marriage relationships? If, as you claim, the institution isn't set up to be virtually useless to gays, then where are all the gays making use of it?

b) Where are all the straight people fighting for their right to gay marriage? If, as you claim, the right to marry someone whom you could never imagine fucking is such a good, worthwhile right, then shouldn't we be seeing the majority, who are denied this right, trying to get it?

Comments

[drcruel.livejournal.com]

This has been a consistent complaint of mine: "Gays already CAN marry! They want special rights!"

True, gays are allowed to marry opposite-sex partners, but there are no special rights at stake here: when marriage equality is achieved, hets will be allowed to marry same-sex partners. The fact that they would never consider doing such a thing illustrates the need for marriage equality.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

"The fact that they would never consider doing such a thing illustrates the need for marriage equality."

I think some who oppose gay marriage think this might not be true. (And to a small degree they are right.)

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

The question to ask is, were the situation reversed and straight guys were allowed only to marry their dudes and bros, should they find this equally acceptable?

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

The whole special rights claim is such a dodge. The facile argument that current marriage restrictions effect all equally was just as transparent in the 60's when it was used to excuse anti-miscegenation laws.

One would hope that today's gender-role bigots would be too embarrassed to use the re-treaded arguments of yesterday's race bigots. One would be wrong.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

I agree with your point, but I don't think that "logic fail" is the best argument against those who oppose gay marriage. To me the best argument is social necessity: we need gay marriage to be legal since there are so many gay people who need to get married and these marriages will create more social stability in our communities. (Well, as much as straight people getting married creates social stability.)

I don't think it is possible to convince anyone to back gay marriage until:

1. they see gay couples as normal members of socaity
2. they realize there is more to gay marriage than gay sex. (in fact sex need not be involved at all in some cases.)

I don't know. Can one reason ones way out of bigotry?

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

No, but maybe by being exposed to enough reductio ad absurdums of your position, and being consistently unable to explain why your position doesn't lead inevitably to these patently stupid conclusions, you can take the first step toward realizing there's a blind spot in your reasoning which you may have left unexamined.

I reason in a pretty analytical way though, and I suppose this argument is only meant to reach people who fancy themselves analytical thinkers as well. Which is, I think mainly the people who raise the "already equal" argument.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> I agree with your point, but I don't think that "logic fail" is
> the best argument against those who oppose gay marriage.

There are always fence sitters who may be able to overcome their instinctive bigotry, but currently don't have to because of certain justifications built around spurious logic. To attack the spurious logic is to attack the comfort that the justification allows.

Playing devil's advocate

[vnsplshr.livejournal.com]

"Where are all the openly gay people in hetero marriage relationships?"

The argument that all people have "equal" right to marry in a hetero fashion doesn't require any gays/lesbians to actually make use of that right or find it appealing."

"If, as you claim, the right to marry someone whom you could never imagine fucking is such a good, worthwhile right..."

Is that the claim? I don't think so. The claim is you have the right to marry... heterosexually. If you find that distasteful, you needn't exercise the right.

Re: Playing devil's advocate

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

Is "the right to enter a door or use a public facility only above which your particular skin colour is indicated" a right defensible along the same line?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Cue Carrie Prejean's "Opposite marriage" comments.

[op-tech-glitch.livejournal.com]

You mean like egairram? (Heavens.)

[rev-proffessor.livejournal.com]

"Where are all the straight people fighting for their right to gay marriage? "

Here! I'm right Here! I'll keep on fighting too.

[ironhawke.livejournal.com]

Ya know, I never thought of that. I'd be able to marry my buddy if I wanted to. Ew.

Welp! That settles it:

1: Marrying my male friend is icky
2: Therefore any man marrying another man is icky.
3: Gay marriage is the devil.
4: Circular Logic: Its like winning when you weren't even playing!!

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

a) Where are all the openly gay people in hetero marriage relationships? If, as you claim, the institution isn't set up to be virtually useless to gays, then where are all the gays making use of it?

I have a friend who, after eleven years of marriage, discovered that her husband had a secret lover. His secret lover was another man. I guess once he got his two offspring out of my friend then he didn't really have need for her, his wife, any longer.

Could this scenario serve as an example for 'makings use of it?'

[chemchick.livejournal.com]

Or maybe he didn't really want to be gay because of the social backlash and tried to be straight by marrying and having kids?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You ask good and irrelevant questions. As a person who a) favors "marriage equality" (in all forms, mind you) and b) sees no Constitutional issue with gay marriage bans in the current area, your questions do not speak to the Constitutional issue, only the emotional one.

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

"in all forms, mind you" - By this, do you mean you'd consider straight-only marriage, inclusive marriage, and gay-only marriage to be equally good outcomes, vis-as-vis constitutionality?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

the right to marriage can be understood as being protected under the 9th amendment
And then there is:


Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.


But I forget, you don't care about human rights.

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

I've always considered that particular argument to be specious. I saw it first in Orson Scott Card's essay on how gay marriage is a threat to society, which he totally failed to prove. If anything, easy divorce, promiscuity, and out-of-wedlock births are far more of a threat to society's stability than allowing a small percentage of the population to make their relationships legally binding.

Personally I think marriage should be the purview of religion, period. Civil unions for all!

These same folks often say that homosexuality is a choice, to which I say, "Fine, how easy would it be for you to choose to be gay? Like flipping a switch, is it?"

[ironhawke.livejournal.com]

I'm actually really sad that OSC ultimately was a douche. Because Ender's Game is one of the best books, ever written, evar.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Calling it a choice is merely a way to contrast it with calling it genetically determined. The implication that it's a conscious decision was not the original intent. Participating in gay activities is a conscious decision, but having a gay inclination is subconscious (but not genetic).

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'Specifically, for those who claim that hetero-only marriage is "equal" because they imagine the right to marry a woman is equally useful to all men, and vice versa:'

Are all people without a multi-million dollar newspaper denied their right to free speech? Are people who wish to marry their brother/sister denied the right to marriage? Are people who wish to defend themselves with an ICBM denied their right to bear arms? Is a guy denied his right to private property if he can't dump toxic waste on it?

Your argument is on par with the first year catechism student asking why can't God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift. Hardly original and hardly unanswered.

Homosexual marriage is not a right in the Constitution any more than any restrictive regulation by nature denies a right. If you want gay marriage then pass an ERA or go state by state and get the proper regulations approved.

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

These examples have nothing to do with each other or the OP.

It's not like free speech because there's legal distinguishing between a right to a small, private gay wedding and a big, expensive ostentatious one, which is about the only parallel I can come up with. The certificate and the tax breaks are granted all-or-nothing, not in degrees.

People using ICBMs or toxic waste are unable to give adequate guarantees that their exercise of their "rights" won't interfere with those of others. No such dynamic exists for marriage.

I feel like you skimmed it rather than reading for the point.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Beautifully formed strawman argument. Kudos.

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

"The Straw Man (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html) is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the 'straw man'—not held by his opponent."

OP represents his opponents' position as "hetero-only marriage is 'equal' because they imagine the right to marry a woman is equally useful to all men, and vice versa". Feel free to explain what the position really is, keeping in mind he doesn't present this as the sum total of the arguments against same-sex marriage, and is focusing on one of those arguments.

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

If, as you claim, the right to marry someone whom you could never imagine fucking is such a good, worthwhile right, then shouldn't we be seeing the majority, who are denied this right, trying to get it?

Yeah this is an interesting point. Opponents of same-sex marriage sometimes like to claim that giving gays the right to marry is the same as giving them a "special" right, and at the same time say that they already have the right to marry. If indeed the right of gays to marry currently (i.e., heterosexually) is a right in the sense that it provides a valuable freedom, then allowing same-sex marriage is not a "special" right at all, since straight people would also gain the exact same right.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'...since straight people would also gain the exact same right.'

Bingo. They'd be gaining a right that doesn't exist. Since it doesn't exist it's up for a vote.