Marriage Equality Argument - Comparing Apples to Oranges?

[Christianus_Dei]

Making the inequality all the more apparent.

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.

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.

The rule doesn’t hurt the girls. They want to use a puppy as a purse. They want to call it a purse. The fact that they are not allowed to do so does not mean they have no right to a purse.

Same sex marriage isn’t marriage, in the same way. They want to call it so, but it is not, and so they cry foul.

 

[Peter_Plato]

They said the same thing about mixed-race marriage.

There is only one race = Human

and one Love

Yes. And let’s call anything and everything done by this “one race,” good and loving. Then we can move towards making all things indistinguishable from all other things and call this blindness, “enlightenment.”

All is one and one is nothing reductionism is surely the answer to every question. Let’s just all poke out our eyes, numb our senses and stifle our intellects because “Love” is blind - and bland, apparently.

 

[marymary1975]

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.

You are absolutely right on your analysis Peter. Very well thought and I agree on everything you said.

 

[raikou]

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.

I can accept the criticism that SSM supporters might be offended (On second thought, they’ll be offended anyway regardless of my reason).

But how is comparing SSM to marrying a tree unreasonable? The comparison draws its validity from the fact that one ought to consider the nature of those being married to determine whether the marriage is reasonable. The analogy might be a ridiculous one, but still drives home the point.

Can you suggest a less offensive one? What about marrying a child? In any case, I think any analogy I use will be offensive because I’m trying to compare SSM to an unacceptable marriage.

My point is, the issue is not really about equality. It is about what marriage is and who could marry, and the fact that a homosexual relationship is substantially different/unequal to the heterosexual one.

 

[raikou]

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.

This is quite true. I actually don’t know what legal marriage is for in our present time except for its legal benefits. It has been totally devoid of meaning because of fornication, contraception, and divorce. I was about to think that SSM might well be the final assault to marriage, but given the irrationality of pop culture, we’ll never know if polygamy or pedophilia might be legalized decades from now.

Still, I’d like to hope that everyone will appreciate that the concept of a lifelong man-woman partnership geared towards rearing a new family still has a special and important place for the future of human civilization.

People think that the concept of procreation in marriage isn’t important because heterosexual couples will still continue the species, albeit only by inadvertently following their instincts. But is that how we plan on rearing children? Only by accident? Are we leaving the future of humanity to instinct and chance?

 

[raikou]

---

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.

Your line of reasoning makes sense but I would have to say that this concept of equality shouldn’t apply to SSM.

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman and conferring benefits to such a partnership is aimed at promoting and supporting the next generation. As procreation is a unique possibility in a man-woman marriage, it is perfectly reasonable for it to also have corresponding privileges which a same sex couple may not be entitled to. The purpose of the law is not to disadvantage same sex couples but to give deserved benefits to a heterosexual couple for founding a new family.

A retired war veteran may be given by the State unique recognition and benefits but this wouldn’t be seen as unjust inequality towards those who would not get the same.

Furthermore, if same sex couples claim they are disadvantaged by the law limiting marriage to a particular kind of couple on the grounds of equality, then wouldn’t this logic also entitle an adult-minor couple or an incestuous relationship to use the same reasoning? Because surely, they are also disadvantaged by the current law in the same sense. This is further proof that same sex couples are not a targeted group because other kinds of heterosexual couples are also not recognized by the State.

The issue, then, is not that of equality but whether same-sex couples have a claim to marriage similar to that of heterosexual couples which other unapproved marriages do not have. And as one judge correctly pointed out, those supporting SSM have not yet presented a satisfactory explanation for this claim.

 

[CatholicSheila]

I can accept the criticism that SSM supporters might be offended (On second thought, they’ll be offended anyway regardless of my reason).

But how is comparing SSM to marrying a tree unreasonable? The comparison draws its validity from the fact that one ought to consider the nature of those being married to determine whether the marriage is reasonable. The analogy might be a ridiculous one, but still drives home the point.

Can you suggest a less offensive one? What about marrying a child? In any case, I think any analogy I use will be offensive because I’m trying to compare SSM to an unacceptable marriage.

My point is, the issue is not really about equality. It is about what marriage is and who could marry, and the fact that a homosexual relationship is substantially different/unequal to the heterosexual one.

If you can’t find an analogy that isn’t offensive, then don’t use one at all. Make your point without it. I have seen numerous posts on this board where people address the issue of how SSM is different to heterosexual marriage without making use of an analogy. It is quite doable. It’s a lazy way to argue.

And no, comparing SSM to pedophilia isn’t going to go down well - that there is something worse that could have been said however doesn’t mean what was said was helpful to the debate. Many seem to think that offensive talk is acceptable so long as you are “right”. If you actually want to convince anyone then it is anything but. The moment you start been offensive, people shut down. If you aren’t actually concerned about changing minds, but simply want to sit in a circle telling each other how right you are, then go right ahead and continue. Otherwise, find a way to voice your opinion that isn’t going to be offensive.

Quit with the victim car as well. People don’t get offended just because you support SSM. No more than you get offended simply by someone supporting SSM. It is about how you say it, not just what you say. I do support SSM, but I don’t find the simple fact that some people don’t offensive. It is what is said about supporters of SSM and homosexuals in general that I sometimes find offensive.

 

[raikou]

If you can’t find an analogy that isn’t offensive, then don’t use one at all. Make your point without it. I have seen numerous posts on this board where people address the issue of how SSM is different to heterosexual marriage without making use of an analogy. It is quite doable. It’s a lazy way to argue.

And no, comparing SSM to pedophilia isn’t going to go down well - that there is something worse that could have been said however doesn’t mean what was said was helpful to the debate. Many seem to think that offensive talk is acceptable so long as you are “right”. If you actually want to convince anyone then it is anything but. The moment you start been offensive, people shut down. If you aren’t actually concerned about changing minds, but simply want to sit in a circle telling each other how right you are, then go right ahead and continue. Otherwise, find a way to voice your opinion that isn’t going to be offensive.

Quit with the victim car as well. People don’t get offended just because you support SSM. No more than you get offended simply by someone supporting SSM. It is about how you say it, not just what you say. I do support SSM, but I don’t find the simple fact that some people don’t offensive. It is what is said about supporters of SSM and homosexuals in general that I sometimes find offensive.

Point taken. Thank you.

It’s not my intention to project how right I am nor am I playing victim. I am just sincerely trying to find a way how people would see why a homosexual act is wrong, and usually the logical way to do it is to compare it with the other wrong stuff. Granted, these other sexual relationships may be more appalling on a whole new level, but the analysis as to how they are wrong can also shed light on how homosexuality is wrong in its own respect.

Regardless, I also don’t mean to offend anyone.

 

[Oreoracle]

The rule doesn’t hurt the girls. They want to use a puppy as a purse. They want to call it a purse. The fact that they are not allowed to do so does not mean they have no right to a purse.

In keeping with the analogy, I would liken the gay marriage debate more to this sort of situation: Suppose we had a school rule which forbids purses but allows trapper-keepers (I’m not even sure if those are a thing anymore–it’s been a while since elementary). Some girls may find the trapper-keepers unbecoming and argue that the two objects can be abused in similar ways. For example, if you can hide a gun or drugs in a purse, you can hide them in a trapper-keeper. Thus, for the purposes of the rule, the two are indistinguishable. Indeed, trapper-keepers began to be discouraged around the time I entered middle school. Backpacks and folders are allowed as necessary evils.

This is not to say that trapper-keepers are generally indistinguishable from purses, it’s just that the distinctions are irrelevant in this context.

---

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman and conferring benefits to such a partnership is aimed at promoting and supporting the next generation. As procreation is a unique possibility in a man-woman marriage, it is perfectly reasonable for it to also have corresponding privileges which a same sex couple may not be entitled to.

I agree that straight couples should be compensated in the event that they procreate. (In fact, people will procreate without you paying them through tax breaks to do it. Raising the children well, on the other hand, requires some incentive.) However, procreation is not the only benefit of a marriage to society. The actual rearing of children can be done through adoption, having two workers makes a couple less prone to financial disasters through lay-offs, shared insurance reduces the risk of unpaid medical bills, marriage makes passing down property upon one’s death easier, etc. In general, the pooling of resources becomes easier and debts can be repaid more reliably. People should be compensated for these too, as they also contribute to the stability of society regardless of the romance involved in a partnership.

Whether or not you want to call such a partnership “marriage” is immaterial to me.

Furthermore, if same sex couples claim they are disadvantaged by the law limiting marriage to a particular kind of couple on the grounds of equality, then wouldn’t this logic also entitle an adult-minor couple or an incestuous relationship to use the same reasoning? Because surely, they are also disadvantaged by the current law in the same sense.

Note that I said “needlessly disadvantaged”.

 

[sw85]

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.

Right. Put another way, one might say “It’s discrimination to treat same-sex couples differently than opposite-sex couples.” And I would agree, if we qualify that it isn’t unjust discrimination. Discrimination means treating things differently. Unjust discrimination means treating the same things differently, for reasons that are irrelevant to their nature. Hiring John instead of Stacey because of John’s superior qualification is discrimination, even though it’s just; hiring John instead of Stacey because Stacey is ugly is unjust discrimination. Her looks have nothing to do with the reason I’m hiring.

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.

Nothing he said was even remotely unreasonable.