Comment

Comment by jay H on July 25, 2012 at 6:15am

But you're shifting the context here. The initial argument was not about abusive conduct (your reference), it was that simple opposition to gay in itself marriage constituted bigotry.

The logic (in the link) was made by analogy (analogy is always wrong at some level) completely ignoring the fact that human sexuality are riddled with convoluted fears and desires (hence our very complicated laws about 'indecent exposure' all sorts of things even remotely sexual). There are parallels to the race issue but it's far more complex and psychologically loaded than race.

Comment by Peter Ferguson on July 23, 2012 at 9:59pm

Actually the argument of redefinition is covered in the post. And the argument of redefinition in the silliest and most transparent argument of them all. 

And the word bigot to describe these people is perfectly apt. Bigotry is the intolerance of a person based on race/sex/religion/sexual orientation. These people simply do not like homosexuals on judge on their sexual orientation over all other personal characteristics.

What bothers me is the reluctance of people do slam people for such opinions. I can walk down the streets and see a gay person and call them a faggot. I might get a few stares off people but not much would happen. Could I walk down the street and racially abuse somebody and get away with it, not likely, and this is the way it should be. Society tolerates homophobia and you post below is typical of this tolerance.

Comment by jay H on July 21, 2012 at 7:36pm

"Firstly, the difference in the prevalence of inter-racial/same-sex marriage has no bearing on the arguments made against them or whether those arguments are analogous or not, only the content of the arguments can construe that."

My point was that the critics call this a redefinition of marriage. It is (that's not necessarily a bad thing). It's foolish to claim otherwise. Removing the restriction on certain racial mixings did not redefine anything.

I'm also a little bothered by the use (by our side) of the loaded word 'bigot' The dictionary definitions mostly target irrational and vicious nature of the hatred, and not so much what it is directed against. It seems though I see a lot of redefinitions floating about the blogosphere that define by target (race, religion, orientation) which makes it almost a circular definition-- Add a new label to the definition and the person gets redefined as a bigot.

Of course there are lots of bigots out there, but a range of people opposed to gay marriage that do not fit the dictionary definition. I'm not sure that using loaded words to lump a wide range of views together is really much help here.

Comment by jay H on July 21, 2012 at 7:24pm

I would agree that historically marriage had more to do with lineage and inheritance (in fact people born outside of marriage had diminished legal rights). Our current concept of marriage probably has a lot to do with Victorian romantics and their concept of soul mate.

[Do you have any info on the gay marriages you mentioned? Do you know where there were? were they called 'marriages' or were they sort of 'civil unions'? It would be interesting to see how they were implemented.

Comment by Peter Ferguson on July 21, 2012 at 6:58pm

Firstly, the difference in the prevalence  of inter-racial/same-sex marriage has no bearing on the arguments made against them or whether those arguments are analogous or not, only the content of the arguments can construe that.

Secondly same-sex marriage were not commonplace but they did exist in several different societies. Homosexuality, however, was ever present and widespread. The only reason same-sex marriages were not popular is due to the nature of marriage at the time. Marriage was all about continuing family line and forming political allegiances. However they still did happen, so much so that same-sex marriages were made illegal in 342AD.

Comment by jay H on July 21, 2012 at 6:37pm

While I support the rights of gay people to marry, I think those arguments are a not accurata analogies.

Inter-racial marriages are as old as humanity, and the times when they were blocked by law were actually the anomalies (but they were always male/female or male/females). By contrast, gay marriage is something new. While gay relationships are also as old as humanity, there aren't any documented societies (that I've ever seen) where they were actual legal marriages.

Of course there are plenty of traditional marriages (polygamy/polyamory for example) that have fallen from political favor and now find themselves on the outside looking in, just like gay individuals.

Probably the best solution (yeah, it won't happen) is for the government to get completely out of the marriage definition, completely out of definition of marriage and family, doling out tax and legal advantages to people willing to suck up to the government's definition, leaving everyone else out in the cold.

Comment by Joseph Heston on July 18, 2012 at 5:53pm

Fascinating. Also, when Judge Leon M. Bazile mentioned "God's" intentions, that automatically rendered the anti-miscengation ban unconstitutional on the grounds of both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.