rationalskepticism.org

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:
I don't think we should permit gay marriage in the UK. This is not because I'm a religious fundamentalist or have anything against homosexuals, but because I actually think the view of marriage as an age-old concept of the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family is the correct one.

Not only is this an appeal to tradition fallacy, it's factually flawed as well. Marriage has had many different forms and definitions including polygamous, same-sex, incestuous and even what we would nowadays consider underage.

I've already dealt with the issue of polygamy involving one male and multiple females. Yes, some other concepts of marriage have been employed. Including incest in royal families, with bad results. Including underage coupling, which also often led to bad results. There may have even been some cultures which allowed same sex marriage as being culturally identical to heterosexual monogamy, but I can't actually think of any. I'd be interested if you can come up with any, and how many.

UndercoverElephant wrote:We already have civil partnerships, so this is not about "discrimination" in any material sense.

1. You're arguing semantics.

No, that's the very last thing I'm doing. Short lesson on what "arguing semantics" means follows:

"Arguing semantics" is when you are quibbling over a meaning of a word, instead of addressing the real substance of an argument. So if I said "take the road to the left and you'll end up in X, take the road to the right and you'll end up in Y" and you responded "that thing to the left isn't a road. It's just a muddy track!" That is "arguing semantics" It's identifiable as such because there's no point in me responding "I disagree, muddy tracks qualify as roads!" for the simple reason that nobody cares, unless they happen to be drawing a map of the local area.

The reason I am absolutely NOT "arguing semantics" is because in this case my first post in this thread quite explictly points out the need for a semantic difference. I am quite explicitly stating that this is NOT about semantics, but about society, biology and culture. I'm saying that in our linguistic map of our culture, this is real difference, and that therefore two different terms (semantics is about the meanings of words) are required.

end philosophy lesson

2. Calling it by a different name is discrimination, it's the same 'separate but equal' idea used during the segregation.

Calling it by a different name reflects the fact that it is, um, different.

UndercoverElephant wrote:In terms of the legal system, we already have the equivalent of gay marriage, and that is just the way it should be.

Do civil unions grant visitation, inheritance and other rights? If so, you're only arguing about a name, which is both fallacious and unreasonable.

Visitation? I assume this is something to do with access to naturally-produced offspring of the two partners in a heterosexual marriage, after a divorce? If so, I'm not sure what it has to do with gay couples who can't produce children naturally. The same would not apply to adopted children. If there is a difference here then it would be discrimination.

Same problem with inheritance. This isn't just about a name. It's about biological parenthood.

UndercoverElephant wrote:So why do some gays want more than this?

Because they want the same rights as the rest of mankind. They are humans after all, there is no reason why they should not be allowed to marry.

That's no good as a rebuttal to the arguments I've provided. They aren't asking for the same rights. What they are doing is the equivalent of women demanding penises. They are asking to be treated as the same, but they're not the same. This is not because of the way society treats them. It's because there are two penises involved, or two vaginas involved, rather than a penis and a vagina.

What is hard to understand about this??

UndercoverElephant wrote:Why do they want to actually be able to say they are married? What extra do they gain by doing so?

Recognition that they are part of the human race and of their love and commitment to each other.

In what way is that not recognised in UK civil partnerships?

A better question is: "Why shouldn't they be allowed to get married?" You have failed to give a rational answer to this question.

I have given you a very detailed, rational answer to that question. You actually got in your accusation I was being irrational before I'd even read your first post, which rather indicates that you may have made your mind up that I'm irrational based on my conclusion, rather than on whether or not my arguments are actually rational or not.

UndercoverElephant wrote:And the problem with that is that it's simply not true. Gay partnerships aren't the same as heterosexual partnerships, for the simple reason that no biological children can be produced by the two people in the partnership.

And since procreation is not a requirement for marriage, nor vice versa, as well as the fact that many people marry without ever wanting or able to reproduce this is an completely irrelevant argument. Even more-so since gay people can both reproduce and raise children albeit through 'unnatural' means.

You are trying to claim that there is no connection between marriage and the natural raising of families. This claim is totally ludicrous. It's not even worth debunking, because it is prima facie stupid.

UndercoverElephant wrote:To put it metaphorically, it's like saying that Yin and Yin is no different to Yin and Yang, or that 1 + 1 is no different to 1 + -1. I'm sorry, but this is asking too much. It is asking the rest of society to take part in a politically-correct charade in order to make gay people feel like they are no different to heterosexuals.

They are, in the sense that they are human beings. You have failed to present a rational argument as to why marriage should be restricted to straight couples.

They are human beings who have chosen to make a life-long commitment to each other based on mutual love. This is acknowledged by our legal and (relatively new) cultural institution known as "civil partnerships." This isn't enough for you. You want more. You want gay couples in civil partnerships to be treated as culturally indistinguishable from normal marriages, and this is a straightforward denial of physical and cultural reality.

UndercoverElephant wrote:I have a newsflash for them: you're different. That doesn't mean you're bad, or wrong, or should be discriminated against.

Except it is discrimination to not allow gay people to get married or to give them a different union.

Please define "discrimination."

UndercoverElephant wrote:It just means you're different. What is so bad about that?

As I said before, that there is no rational argument to exclude gay people from marriage.

Yep, you keep saying it. This doesn't make it true, unfortunately.

UndercoverElephant wrote:I might add that I live in the Hanover district of Brighton, about half a mile from the most concentrated gay community in the UK, and have not the slightest problem with this. Where I come from, the sight of gay couples being obviously gay in public doesn't even raise eyebrows. It's as much a part of the scenery as the seagulls are.

Then why do you object to gay people getting married? How does that affect you in any way?

[/quote]

Because it is an important change to the culture I live in - the one I inherited from my ancestors and am equally (with everyone else) responsible for passing on to future generations. And I think this suggestion is badly thought out and not based on reality. Yes, I am used to being surrounded by a much higher proportion of homosexuals than in any other part of the UK. Some of these people are in long-term partnerships. But they aren't married, and their relationship is not the same as a marriage. It's similar, but not the same, and I don't see why we should pretend that it is the same.

I ask you again: what is so wrong about being different?