Marriage Equality Argument - Comparing Apples to Oranges?

[raikou]

The pro-gay marriage lobby has repeatedly asserted that same-sex couples have a right to marriage because they have the right to be treated equally as heterosexual couples.

But are same-sex couples really the same as heterosexual couples?

I think the main flaw in their argument is that a same-sex relationship is essentially different. To start off, it doesn’t have the same role in procreation as the heterosexual one. Also, they don’t have a natural or biological basis for a sexual relationship.

If same-sex couples are really different from heterosexual couples, then they do not have the right to the same treatment and privileges. This is the part of picture that they overlook.

I’m actually amazed that the concept of individual equality is being invoked in this issue when the issue at hand involves a couple’s marriage. I mean, surely, my being equal to my fellow human being must be an entirely different issue from me asserting a right to marry a pine tree. In the issue of marriage, we should consider not only the individual who’s being married but also the marriage itself.

I started this thread to discuss these differences and whether such differences should lead us to conclude that same sex relationships deserve a different treatment.

 

[CatholicSheila]

Comparing homosexual marriage to marrying a tree is offensive. Regardless of which side of the argument you fall on, this isn’t going to help the debate. It will simply cause those who support SSM to go on the defensive or to completely disregard what you have to say. You’ve already shown you are unreasonable on the issue.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Your general train of thought makes some sense. But please do consider that all the distinctive aspect of heterosexual marriages have been frittered away by contraception and the modern understanding of marriage. Marriage is, culturally, no longer characterized by childbirth or parenting – indeed, it isn’t even characterized by long-term commitment or monogamy!

Given such a situation, it *does *seem somewhat arbitrary to draw the line at gay marriages. When you’ve been breeding your oranges to look like apples, it gets harder and harder to distinguish them from apples.

 

[marymary1975]

As prodigal son stated accurately here the first issue is that when the oranges have been breeded to look like apples people start losing the ability to discern correctly.

Also don’t forget the fact that the user of the word “equal” and “equality” is pure emotional blackmail. That is a technique heavily heavily used by the anti life culture. They manipulate the words in the language in a way that they hit the emotional side of people’s brain so they get emotionally identified with a statement without thinking rationally, hence due to the emotional connection people fall for it.

Of course the argument of equality is not correct…if it is then why we are not including poligamy and marriage between relatives…and of course that homosexual relations and heterosexual relations are completely different but most people can see it because they have been confused in such a way that they cannot see the difference. Also the word equality throws an emotional component that makes people fall effectively for it. The problem to me is not so Much if those relationships deserve a different treatment but how to get people to think rationally about it.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Comparing homosexual marriage to marrying a tree is offensive. Regardless of which side of the argument you fall on, this isn’t going to help the debate. It will simply cause those who support SSM to go on the defensive or to completely disregard what you have to say. You’ve already shown you are unreasonable on the issue.

Offense is not relevant. Only logic is.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The pro-gay marriage lobby has repeatedly asserted that same-sex couples have a right to marriage because they have the right to be treated equally as heterosexual couples.

But are same-sex couples really the same as heterosexual couples?

I think the main flaw in their argument is that a same-sex relationship is essentially different. To start off, it doesn’t have the same role in procreation as the heterosexual one. Also, they don’t have a natural or biological basis for a sexual relationship.

If same-sex couples are really different from heterosexual couples, then they do not have the right to the same treatment and privileges. This is the part of picture that they overlook.

I’m actually amazed that the concept of individual equality is being invoked in this issue when the issue at hand involves a couple’s marriage. I mean, surely, my being equal to my fellow human being must be an entirely different issue from me asserting a right to marry a pine tree. In the issue of marriage, we should consider not only the individual who’s being married but also the marriage itself.

I started this thread to discuss these differences and whether such differences should lead us to conclude that same sex relationships deserve a different treatment.

GLTBQ persons have the same rights as straight people. Straight people cannot marry someone of the same sex, either under traditional marriage laws.

The inequality argument = FAIL.

:tiphat:

 

[Oreoracle]

GLTBQ persons have the same rights as straight people. Straight people cannot marry someone of the same sex, either under traditional marriage laws.

The inequality argument = FAIL.

You could disguise many double standards in that way. For example, whites and blacks clearly had equal rights before the civil rights movement. Both had the rights to use the drinking fountains, restrooms, bus seats, and schools that were allotted to them.

When the U.S. was first established, everyone was equal to land-owning white men. Namely, they all had the right to vote provided that they were land-owning white men.

In my high school, girls weren’t allowed to carry purses. Don’t worry though, it wasn’t sexist–boys weren’t allowed to carry them either. See? Equality!

So what you’re doing here is a classic bit of sophistry where you’re subtly switching the principle that is meant to be generalized. We wish to generalize the ability to marry the person one loves, not the person of the same sex one loves.

 

[GLam8833]

God’s Laws are being overlooked here,
It was decreed that the man and woman
“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth”
Gen 1:28 and then that “a man will leave his
father and mother and be united with his
wife and the two will become one flesh” Gen 2:24

But man has found SUBSTITUTES for this
blessedness, and has created a MESS out
of our proper intended desires. see Prov. 9:17-18

 

[Christianus_Dei]

That’s not actually true, Whites could use Blacks’ drinking fountains and such.

The thing with white men owning slaves. That would be a true analogy if being gay or straight was being like black or white. In truth, while skin color makes no difference, there’s even less with the false gay/straight dichotomy. Nobody is gay, nobody is straight. People are just attracted to one group of people over the other. The idea that it’s an identity, or something like race or gender makes no sense.

And the analogy with the purses… the following argument will make it clear what we’re getting at.

Everyone has the right to bring a purse, boys, girls, anyone. But the girls want to bring a puppy and say it’s a purse. They want to hang it off their shoulder and stuff their homework and lunch into it. But it’s still not a purse, so they can’t do that.

 

[JimG]

It’s not comparing apples to oranges. It’s comparing men to women. They are obviously different, and the difference has to do with sexual characteristics. Because of the difference, there can be marital relations between men and women, and thus marriage.

Marriage has always been based on anthropology–the fact that there are two sexes, that the two sexes are sexually complementary. That in uniting, they can produce a new generation within a family structure, and that the children thus conceived can have mothers and fathers.

The confusion arises, as has been noted here, because this natural family structure has been systematically deconstructed. Contraception de-linked children from parents. That was the start.

It was never about fertility. No particular marital act is guaranteed to be fertile. It’s always been about sex. Men and women can have marital sex. Same sex couples cannot. Their relationship can never be marital.

 

[theCrow]

It’s not comparing apples to oranges. It’s comparing men to women. They are obviously different, and the difference has to do with sexual characteristics. Because of the difference, there can be marital relations between men and women, and thus marriage.

Marriage has always been based on anthropology–the fact that there are two sexes, that the two sexes are sexually complementary. That in uniting, they can produce a new generation within a family structure, and that the children thus conceived can have mothers and fathers.

The confusion arises, as has been noted here, because this natural family structure has been systematically deconstructed. Contraception de-linked children from parents. That was the start.

It was never about fertility. No particular marital act is guaranteed to be fertile. It’s always been about sex.** Men and women can have marital sex. Same sex couples cannot**. Their relationship can never be marital.

Actually, Marriage is based on love and same sex couples can indeed have marital sex.

Thus SSM will soon be the law of the land. The Youth will make sure of that.

 

[Oreoracle]

That’s not actually true, Whites could use Blacks’ drinking fountains and such.

Making the inequality all the more apparent.

The thing with white men owning slaves.

Actually I didn’t use slavery as an example. I was referring to the fact that, to vote, you originally had to be white, male, free (neither slave nor indentured servant), and a land-owner. The last two on that list can actually be controlled to some extent if you were a white, male immigrant accepting indentured servitude to earn your citizenship. So these qualities encompass a wide variety of voluntary choices and involuntary conditions. They are still double standards in the sense that they are designed to benefit one group over another for no good reason.

And the analogy with the purses… the following argument will make it clear what we’re getting at.

I consider it entirely analogous. One is denied the right to marry someone of one’s own sex. This is a disadvantage that, in the abstract, applies to everyone equally. But although it is equally applicable, in reality it only disadvantages one group: the gays. Likewise, the banning of purses, on the surface, applies to both sexes equally. But in reality, it only hurts one group: the girls.

My point is that deciding whether or not something is a double standard requires more than just asking “Does this rule apply to everyone?” The question should instead be “Does the rule needlessly disadvantage one group over another?” Not everyone is equally disadvantaged by a rule just because it is applied indiscriminately, and in some cases it is apparent that the rule is designed for the sole purpose of disadvantaging a particular group.

 

[signit]

GLTBQ persons have the same rights as straight people. Straight people cannot marry someone of the same sex, either under traditional marriage laws.

The inequality argument = FAIL.

:tiphat:

And as I posted on another thread, a recent court case rejected that argument:

usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/25/indiana-same-sex-marriage/11354831/

(pages 23-24

Plaintiffs also argue that Indiana’s marriage laws classify individuals based on their sexual orientation, because they prevent all same-sex couples from marrying the person of their choice. Defendants respond that the marriage laws do not discriminate against same-sex couples because they may marry just like opposite-sex couples may marry; the law merely impacts them differently. The court rejects this notion. As the court stated above, the right to marry is about the ability to form a partnership, hopefully lasting a lifetime, with that one special person of your choosing. Additionally, although Indiana previously defined marriage in this manner, the title of Section 31-11-1-1 – “Same sex marriages prohibited” – makes clear that the law was reaffirmed in 1997 not to define marriage but to prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying the individual of their choice. Thus, the court finds that Indiana’s marriage laws discriminate based on sexual orientation.
]

 

[SMGS127]

My point is that deciding whether or not something is a double standard requires more than just asking “Does this rule apply to everyone?” The question should instead be “Does the rule needlessly disadvantage one group over another?” Not everyone is equally disadvantaged by a rule just because it is applied indiscriminately, and in some cases it is apparent that the rule is designed for the sole purpose of disadvantaging a particular group.

Exactly. It’s a terrible argument, akin to suggesting that a school rule banning tampons wouldn’t be sexist because “men can’t bring them into school either.” It’s not a Constitutionally, legally, or logically valid argument, and it only contributes to the spread of SSM when people make the argument, since it’s so ludicrous.

 

[JimG]

Actually, Marriage is based on love and same sex couples can indeed have marital sex.

Thus SSM will soon be the law of the land. The Youth will make sure of that.

SSM may become the law of the land; the law has often enshrined irrationalities. But it can never be marital simply because the parties are not built for marital relations. They can have a pretend marriage which is non-marital by design. It will be a historical anomaly which will eventually fade, while bringing sexual confusion and social chaos in the meantime.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And as I posted on another thread, a recent court case rejected that argument:

Quote:
Plaintiffs also argue that Indiana’s marriage laws classify individuals based on their sexual orientation, because they prevent all same-sex couples from marrying the person of their choice. Defendants respond that the marriage laws do not discriminate against same-sex couples because they may marry just like opposite-sex couples may marry; the law merely impacts them differently. The court rejects this notion. As the court stated above, the right to marry is about the ability to form a partnership, hopefully lasting a lifetime, with that one special person of your choosing

The problem with the court ruling is the bold-faced statement, which, it so happens, is also a bold-faced lie.

The “right to marry” is not “about the ability to form a partnership, hopefully lasting a lifetime, with that one special person of your choosing.” The law cannot prevent anyone from forming a voluntary partnership that lasts a lifetime with a person of their choosing. It is called a “friendship.” The law makes absolutely no restrictions on “partnerships” so defined as “lasting a lifetime” and “person of your choosing.” I have had lifelong friends that were “partnerships” on many levels and the law never posed any discriminatory restrictions on those partnerships.

The question is whether marriage is a unique kind of “partnership” where the state must impose restrictions.

Obviously, life-long golf buddies are partnerships that “last a lifetime” and are with “a person of your choosing,” but the state remains completely aloof about them, as the state ought to with same sex coupleship.

The question is whether the state ought to remain so aloof with partnerships which have the potential to include in them third parties who did not “choose” to be a part of the original partnership? Obviously, same sex couples cannot “create” these new parties to the original partnership out of thin air, so there is no danger of same sex couples requiring intervention from the state. The state ought to stay out of the lives of same sex couples because the state has no business intervening. It has no business involving itself to dictate who can and who cannot form “a voluntary partnership that lasts a lifetime with a person of their choosing.”

Conjugal marriages are not merely “partnerships” involving the “choice” of everyone involved, whether for a lifetime or not.

Conjugal marriages have a larger sphere of influence in the sense of involving, at least potentially, others in the “corporate body,” and these others have no say in the partnership because they become involved without being asked, i.e., involuntarily. It is for the protection of these parties (offspring) FROM the “partnership” that is the only reason the state ought to be involved at all. Therefore it is only specific kinds of partnerships - fecund partnerships - that the state has any interest in at all.

Adoption is an entirely different venture because adoption is, essentially, a process external to the couple and can be controlled by policy and stipulation.

Birthing is entirely internal to the partnership and therefore, if the interests of the unborn are to be of interest to the state - and they should be - then the state needs to be involved by stipulating beforehand the degree to which the partnership must comply regarding interests of the innocent third parties which can and, likely, will be brought, unwarily, into the “partnership.”

The state law-makers, as the Indiana marriage laws demonstrate, is wildly off the mark regarding what it thinks it is protecting and what it ought to be protecting. It is, clearly, protecting a misconceived notion about something it ought to be paying no mind to because the rights of individuals to voluntarily forming life long partnerships is not in jeopardy, but the rights of new human beings to being cared for after they are brought into the world is blithely being ignored.

The state sanctioned war on the unborn (trumpeted as abortion “rights”) is the most pernicious symptom of the state’s idiocy in this regard. The second, of course, is the state’s misconceived protection of what requires no protection - the right to form personal, committed “partnerships.”

Let’s wake up and be adults on this issue, rather than whiny :crying:, spoiled :dts:, foul-tempered :banghead: adolescents who can only manage to think of their own interests :yeah_me:.

What a load of horse pucks.

 

[theCrow]

SSM may become the law of the land; the law has often enshrined irrationalities. But it can never be marital simply because the parties are not built for marital relations. They can have a pretend marriage which is non-marital by design. It will be a historical anomaly which will eventually fade, while bringing sexual confusion and social chaos in the meantime.

They said the same thing about mixed-race marriage.

There is only one race = Human

and one Love

 

[JimG]

They said the same thing about mixed-race marriage.

There is only one race = Human

and one Love

Yes, and human beings come in two sexes, sexually complementary in order to be capable of marriage and conjugal relations. Loving v Virginia did not of course, authorize same sex mixed race marriages. Love has a variety of meanings, of which sexual/conjugal love is one.

 

[marymary1975]

Actually, Marriage is based on love and same sex couples can indeed have marital sex.

.

If what you are saying is true, why is bigamy illegal? Why the state has the power to criminally prosecute a poligamist or poliandriat family? Why are incestous relationships forbidden by the states?

Also, same sex couples cannot have marital sex. To have marital sex you must have one set of male organs capable to perform and one set of female organs. How is a couple that lacks one if these going to have marital sex? Is impossible.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Actually, Marriage is based on love and same sex couples can indeed have marital sex.

Thus SSM will soon be the law of the land. The Youth will make sure of that.

If SSM becomes the law of the land, it will be mandatory for same sex couples to get married in order to receive heath benefits (among other things), which are now provided to unmarried same sex couples by employers.

I think it is going to be a very restrictive law of the land.