How to answer these types of positions involveing SSM?

The other day I was reading a film review and a link on the side bar caught my eye. It was a piece supporting gay marriage, or same-sex marriage. I ventured in and read the comments (though I shouldn’t have) and some interesting positions came up as well as the usual “bigot” name calling.

Statements that are italicized were statements made by a poster playing the “middle ground.” (Which wasn’t me, since these comments were made months ago.)

Poster I:

You seem to be extending legitimacy to strawmen used by gay marriage opponents (like that we’re talking about government promotion of homosexuality, or forced participation by ministers/florists/caterers). And once those are brushed aside the anti-equality argument is invariably reduced to a pseudo-logical knot that can no more be walked through or grappled with than a psychotic delusion. There just very literally is no coherent logic at the core of the argument

Poster II:

What if another kind of marriage comes along that becomes popular?

You’ll be free to try to come up with rational defenses for bigotry then, too. It’ll be great!

People are indeed free to believe what they want. However, the government exists in part to extend and protect basic rights for all citizens. That’s not playing favorites. That’s the function of government.

Because there are plenty of marriages in which neither religion nor child-raising are involved at all. There are even marriages that don’t involve sex. The issue is not whether marriage is society’s mechanism for promoting religious belief or producing kids or knocking boots in a sanctified fashion. The issue is whether or not the government should discriminate between groups of people in allowing them to enter into specific legal partnerships with major financial and personal ramifications, especially when no rational basis has been made to date for that discrimination.

Right now, Western society’s primary reason for marriage as an institution is to allow two people who want to spend their lives together the opportunity to do so in an organized, efficient, legal, and widely-recognized fashion, with a truckload of benefits from taxes to health insurance to proud looks in public. If religious groups place additional importance on either the ceremony or the partnership, that’s fine, and they’re welcome to do so within the confines of their faith. Likewise, if two people get hitched because they want to have kids together, that’s fine too, but it’s personal and specific to them.

The government’s job insofar as marriage is concerned is to 1) certify it, 2) keep a record of it, and 3) allocate a variety of other useful functions on its basis. That’s it. Sex, kids, faith, access to the other party’s DVD collection, that’s all personal.

I don’t want a civil partnership. I want to be married. I want all of the social benefits that go along with marriage, and I don’t want a separate-but-equal arrangement, because it isn’t. That just codifies the discrimination and ignores the very real significance that we as a society place on marriage. The kids in big hats do not have dibs on the institution, no matter how much they whine about having to share it.

The whole point of marriage is that it doesn’t matter what my definition is. What matters is society’s definition. That’s what allows me to visit my husband in the hospital, inherit property without tax complications, and make my mom and MIL happy. That’s why it’s a big deal. It’s not about relativism or ignoring existing definitions of words that have enormous meaning to everyone who uses them.

Instead of trying to come up with a parallel institution that still isn’t quite as good, we could just acknowledge that the only category is marriage and anyone who doesn’t like it can either come up with a logical reason why or deal. Which is the direction most civilized societies are rapidly moving in.

It isn’t just a “sense” of belonging and acceptance, it IS belonging and acceptance. It’s saying that my marriage is as good as yours, which in turn means that the federal government and the state have confirmed that my marriage is as good as yours, which means that my husband and I are no different than you in the eyes of the government. There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about it.

there are inevitably those alienated outside the norm.

Yes. And if they can’t come up with a good reason to explain why they feel alienated and also persist in ignoring how other people have been unrightfully alienated, they are bigots.

How do I answer these positions? (Poster II has a lot to think over and to counter.)

Come to think of it, my topic may be best suited for the “Social Justice” forum. My apology.

The whole point of marriage is that it doesn’t matter what my definition is. What matters is society’s definition. **That’s what allows me to visit my husband in the hospital, inherit property without tax complications, and make my mom and MIL happy. **That’s why it’s a big deal. It’s not about relativism or ignoring existing definitions of words that have enormous meaning to everyone who uses them.

The bolded part isn’t society’s definition of marriage, it’s the specific government’s laws regarding inheritance of property and its orderly transferral. Hospital visitation and end of life decision making is just as discriminatory against close friends of the hospitalized person, who may be estranged from their immediate family. Society’s definition of marriage is primarily the biological aspect of the continuation of the species and particular family clans.

You refocus the argument to what it’s really about. Some folks go on about equal rights, ignoring the fact that all the rights they want are already available to them here and now without redefining Marriage. They need to answer the question of WHY the government promotes Marriage in the first place before they can argue for a redefining if it. They also need to acknowledge that, in the end, redefining Marriage boils down to wanting state benefits for a lifestyle choice. Is Marriage a lifestyle choice? You bet it is. Does this mean that traditional Marriages enjoy state benefits for their lifestyle choice? You bet they do. WHY?? Why would the state EVER give benefits to a Married couple? And how does a same-sex-“marriage” mirror that? (It can’t.)

Try out these resources and articles:

Gay “Marriage” won’t Affect Me, so what’s the Big Deal? by Father Edwin Palka

Secular Arguments on SSM Rights; Refuting Senator Diane Savino by [yours truly]

Is the Church Insincere in Her Stand Against SSM while Promoting the Best Interest of Children? [yours truly again]

The link I had for Our Sunday Visitor’s AWESOME “Rebuttals to Arguments for Same-Sex-Marriage” is not working now…the site re-organized it’s files. When I find it again, I will post it back here.

ETA:

Found it !!!
Rebuttal to Arguments for Same-sex Marriage by Brandon Vogt

Hi!

The links did not work when I just tried.

Thanks!

Poop…there’s an extra “http” in there. I’ll fix them in short order…

I goofed and ended up with an extra “http//” in the above links. Or it might be a glitch in my computer as it pulls up the hyperlink command. So sorry about that. Here are the corrected links as they should appear in the browser, in the same order as above:

Gay Marriage Won’t Affect Me…by FatherEdwin Palka
daves-ahumbleservant.blogspot.com/2013/07/gay-marriage-wont-affect-me-so-whats.html

Secular Arguments…refuting Diane Savino
daves-ahumbleservant.blogspot.com/2013/06/secular-arguments-on-same-sex-marriage.html

Church Insincere fighting SSM while promoting childrens best interest?..
daves-ahumbleservant.blogspot.com/2013/06/is-church-insincere-in-her-stand.html

OSV’s Rebuttals to SSM Arguments…by Brandon Vogt
osv.com/TodaysIssues/MarriageandFamily/Article/TabId/698/ArtMID/13742/ArticleID/8254/Rebuttals-to-arguments-for-same-sex-marriage.aspx

Just FYI, please be aware that if you “copy” and “paste” these, you will likely miss some of the address data and those copied links won’t work. If you want to send these to anyone click the link and copy direct from the browser address bar.
I was unable to fix the links in the initial post because the time period has passed by and that post can no longer be edited.

You’ll be free to try to come up with rational defenses for bigotry then, too. It’ll be great!

Ah yes! If you don’t agree with me, you are a bigot!

If only I had a nickel every time I heard that!

So then by your logic it would be bigoted to prevent a human marrying their horse, an object or a character they created?

I actually know of people this would appeal to.

Perhaps in the process we can tax GLBTQ student groups and gay bars to cover the cost of government recognizing these unions.

And it’s only fair that you kick in a few bucks, too.

After all, you wouldn’t want to be a bigot, right? :smiley:

People are indeed free to believe what they want.

Glad we agree! Part of that belief is my right not to fund someone else’s immoral sex life.

However, the government exists in part to extend and protect basic rights for all citizens. That’s not playing favorites. That’s the function of government.

Exactly. And freedom of religion is a Constitutional right.

Marriage is not.

Because there are plenty of marriages in which neither religion nor child-raising are involved at all. There are even marriages that don’t involve sex.

As Adam Kolasinksi points out, it would cost the state extra resources to stop straight marriages on the basis of old age or infertility.

Hence, it would not be in the economic benefit of the state to stop these marriages in the same manner it would not benefit the state to recognize so-called “gay marriage”.

The issue is not whether marriage is society’s mechanism for promoting religious belief or producing kids or knocking boots in a sanctified fashion.

The issue always comes down to state recognition and money. The state makes polices historically regarding marriage laws mostly on economics, not so much religion or making groups like gays feel bad.

The issue is whether or not the government should discriminate between groups of people in allowing them to enter into specific legal partnerships with major financial and personal ramifications,

Laws by their nature discriminate. If I have a policy in my restaurant that says no shirt, no service, that’s discrimination.

Entering into legal partnerships should not always (the less the better frankly) involve government.

especially when no rational basis has been made to date for that discrimination.

Absolutely incorrect and false!

The state invests in marriage for the single, economic purpose of rearing children so the state itself can and the culture(s) within it can survive.

Right now, Western society’s primary reason for marriage as an institution is to allow two people who want to spend their lives together the opportunity to do so in an organized, efficient, legal, and widely-recognized fashion, with a truckload of benefits from taxes to health insurance

That concept goes far beyond Western society.

to proud looks in public.

I don’t know of anyone who marries for pride----at least no one straight. :smiley:

If religious groups place additional importance on either the ceremony or the partnership, that’s fine, and they’re welcome to do so within the confines of their faith. Likewise, if two people get hitched because they want to have kids together, that’s fine too, but it’s personal and specific to them.

But it’s really not, because reproduction is necessary for the survival of the species and the state. That’s why its invested in.

The government’s job insofar as marriage is concerned is to 1) certify it, 2) keep a record of it, and 3) allocate a variety of other useful functions on its basis. That’s it. Sex, kids, faith, access to the other party’s DVD collection, that’s all personal.

That’s wrong, because as I’ve repeated over and over, the state’s interest isn’t just record keeping or tracking stats, it’s economic in nature.

So if you’re saying that so-called “gay marriage” is that simple, why are there all of these demands for subsidization and public recognition?

I can answer this question, and it has to do with the psychology of the entitlement mentality and the lack of stability in gay relationships.

I don’t want a civil partnership. I want to be married. I want all of the social benefits that go along with marriage, and I don’t want a separate-but-equal arrangement, because it isn’t.

That just codifies the discrimination and ignores the very real significance that we as a society place on marriage.

That’s funny, all I hear from society at large when it comes to straight marriage are jokes about being tied down to one person.

Of course, so-called gay “marriage” is celebrated emphatically. Even by some Catholics who then still think it’s okay to go to Communion! :rolleyes:

Seems to me like straight couples have more a claim to discrimination than gays do!

The kids in big hats do not have dibs on the institution, no matter how much they whine about having to share it.

This is why states rights exist. But you’ll find quite quickly that so-called “gay marriage” is not a good investment.

The whole point of marriage is that it doesn’t matter what my definition is. What matters is society’s definition.

Doesn’t matter how you define it, because biological and natural laws are in play. It’s kinda sad you have to change words to feel better about a relationship, but that’s the game that government entitlement-seekers play: “Well, if we really call it X and it’s supposed to be Y, in reality it may still be Y but since it’s X we are right so…yeah! take that!” :rolleyes:

It’s not about relativism

Sure, it is! Now we’ve got people propping up defending polygamy, polyandry and pedophilia.

Maybe in 30 years, all of that will be legal.

or ignoring existing definitions of words that have enormous meaning to everyone who uses them.

:rotfl:

Wow, did you really just say that? Do you have any idea how many people belittle marriage?

At any rate, it doesn’t matter how many dictionaries you strong arm to change the definition or how many studies you manipulate to show how great so-called “gay marriage” is or how many laws you pass.

You cannot fight natural law and 500 million years of evolution because you’ve got a progressive itch to scratch.

Bury the truth all you want, but you can’t change it, neither can magical government, which is just a flawed, corrupt human institution.

Instead of trying to come up with a parallel institution that still isn’t quite as good, we could just acknowledge that the only category is marriage and anyone who doesn’t like it can either come up with a logical reason why or deal.

Which is the direction most civilized societies are rapidly moving in.

Man, if only I had buck every time a progressive said “we have to do it because they are, and they are CIVILIZED!, so if we don’t, we are not civilized!”

You do this, of course, because your stance cannot be merited on substance.

How civil is it for a state to recognize a series of relationships whose average lifespan is less than 2 years and involves hundreds even thousands of sexual partners,some of whom are the OPPOSITE sex?

Is that civilized?

By comparison, how many straight people dabble around with homosexuality if you toss out the stereotypical drunk college girl who experiments?

It isn’t just a “sense” of belonging and acceptance, it IS belonging and acceptance.

Yes, a sense of belonging.

But for how long?

So much talk of marriage. How about divorce?

[quote]It’s saying that my marriage is as good as yours,

A good relationship, even a straight one, should not need recognition nor demand attention. It should speak for itself on its own merits.

If gay relationships were like that, you wouldn’t need the parades, the riots, the angry rants or the lengthy justifications designed to sidetrack people from the real agenda of getting progressive politicians votes.

Once the GLBTQ vote is locked up in America, they’ll get kicked to the curb the same way Natives, Blacks and Appalachians were.

But don’t worry—our Churches will be ready to minister to them while you’re off garnering the loyalty of new groups like single women, college students and Hispanics to keep the dead dream of a progressive utopia going.

which in turn means that the federal government and the state have confirmed that my marriage is as good as yours, which means that my husband and I are no different than you in the eyes of the government.

Well, they can “confirm” it all they like, but as I said earlier, you cannot change natural law or biology.

And the facts speak for themselves about the difficulties and instabilities of practicing homosexuality.

You’re leading GLBTQ folks into a lie.

There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about it.

The facts speak for themselves.

there are inevitably those alienated outside the norm.

It is outside the norm. No one should feel alienated, but that doesn’t I need to pay higher taxes or betray my conscience in order to accommodate this awesome thing you think you are describing.

You even get to the point here:** I am inevitably paying you to feel good. **

That is what the gay “marriage” movement comes down to when it is unmasked. We would save so much time and energy if gay rights activists would just admit that, but they won’t, because then there’s a chance they wouldn’t get their entitlement. :rolleyes:

Yes. And if they can’t come up with a good reason to explain why they feel alienated and also persist in ignoring how other people have been unrightfully alienated, they are bigots.

Of course! If we don’t understand you or agree with you, that makes us all BIGOTS!

Way to end your argument like a name-calling fifth grader with that oh-so typical, unoriginal trump card!

:rotfl:

BTW, if you’re GLBTQ, check out couragerc.net/

It’s a non-judgemental, ministry outreach specifically for GLBTQ folks without all the nonsense. :thumbsup:
[/quote]

That’s what allows me to visit my husband in the hospital, inherit property without tax complications, and make my mom and MIL happy.

If you want to inherit private property or see someone in the hospital, you won’t get any argument from me.

But if you think that you need a gay “marriage” to do all that, there’s some serious misunderstanding on your part of what really is legal and illegal or the state you live in has some really awful contract laws.

@ Luigi: I, myself, am not upholding these positions. These are direct quotes from the combox that were posted in response to an article that supported SSM. That’s why I put “Poster I” and “Poster II” in bold.

There is also Angelic Warfare Confraternity angelicwarfareconfraternity.org/

I am not sure if one is better than the other. I THINK the AWC addresses all issues such as porn and sexual addictions as well as any purity or chastity concerns. It is all about protecting yourself against temptation and more.

This is a long emotional rant not based on any reason at all. What is there to rebut? They give no cause for why “society’s definition” (which is not coherent anyway) is what a marriage is, they give no reasoning for why kids are equal to DVD collections, they give no coherent explanation for what a marriage even is. There’s almost nothing to respond to here. The crux of their argument is “I want it!!” So what? Can a marriage occur between 2 gendered persons? If so, why? How? Why is one definition superior to another? If we pick one over another, how is that not state-sanctioned religion according to the standards of secularists? Etc…etc… The fact that this person characterizes those who disagree with them as “bigots” shows that they don’t even know how to fairly represent their opponent’s argument. It is possible they don’t currently have the intellect to even be in the conversation.

My impression is that he/she understood this, and was giving you an example of what you might respond with to the third parties. Sometimes the best way to give an example to someone of how to argue a certain point, is to respond as though your responses are being directed to [and read by] the opposing party. Kinda puts you “in the moment”, so to speak.

Same sex “marriage” has nothing to do with social justice, human rights or civil rights.
Its about morality. Homosexuality is immoral. Just because a government legalises something does not change it from immoral to moral.

Exactly. Look at abortion. It’s legal and it’s immoral. Everyone knows it too. No one doubts that an abortion takes a human life. US laws prosecute people for murder if they intentionally kill an unborn baby against the mother’s wishes. Look at slavery. Until the Emmancipation Proclamation, it was legal to consider slaves as a subhuman species and treat them accordingly. US laws are no guarantor of morality by any means. Now more than ever!

That makes more sense. Thanks.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.