is it just me?
Jun. 6th, 2006 11:03 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearor do the arguments based on "tradition" in marriage, such as "marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years and we shouldn't go changing that now" sound way too much like the arguments 150 years ago along the lines of "man has enslaved other men ffor thousands of years and we shouldn't go changing that now..." ?
"because its always been that way" is not a convincing argument for ANYTHING. try again.
"because its always been that way" is not a convincing argument for ANYTHING. try again.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-06-06 03:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-06 03:48 pm (UTC)Whose traditional marriage, anyway? Because one man + one woman = it isn't actually the societal norm in a lot of places!
no subject
Date: 2006-06-06 03:48 pm (UTC)But it should only be dismissed with care -- it is, I think, fallacy to assume that just because we are smarter than previous generations, that we are also wiser. The argument "it has always been thus" has some merit in that long-term regulation should not be based on the whim of the moment, and precedence helps stem the tide rash decision-making. People often criticize the government (especially Congress) for being so sluggish, not realizing that it was created to be slow -- due to a fear of a monarch creating anarchy with frequent and swift changes of policy.
When changing long-standing policy, there are important questions to ask: First, is the policy really long-standing? (sometimes it really isn't!)
Second, how did the original policy evolve, or why was it enacted?
Third, how has the situation changed since the original policy came about?
Fourth, is there also precedence for the proposed policy?
Fifth, what will be the impact of changing/not changing the policy?
Unfortunately, I fear that in the current situation (i.e., same-sex marriage), the questions are being ignored, and the only argument really put forth is "because its always been that way."
So I agree that such arguments are not convincing, but they should (in general) tell us to slow down and consider the situation carefully.
on the other hand
Date: 2006-06-06 05:03 pm (UTC)Keep in mind, 40 years ago I would not have been allowed to marry my wife.
She's not white.
no argument has yet to be presented that doesn't smack of hiding bigotry under the pretext of "tradition". no argument has been presented that actually demonstrates how current relationships and marriages "lose their value" under the new scheme (particularly given the rediculous divorce rates already taking place).
exactly as it was for every other ancient tradition that has passed beyond its time, like interracial marriage and slavery.
I have to fight this bigotry, or else my own marriage and those who fought to make it happen fought in vain.
Re: on the other hand
Date: 2006-06-06 08:06 pm (UTC)What's also funny is how some people will be against interracial marriages and then brag about how they have Cherokee blood through their grandfather.
It's a very messed up world these days, but I think it's getting better, albeit slowly.
I just hope that voters will realize that this is a last ditch effort to sway voters minds away from gas prices, Iraq, invasion of privacy, etc.
Re: on the other hand
Date: 2006-06-06 08:12 pm (UTC)well, many will, but those that will already are against the current administration and congress to start with.
unfortunately, the time they *should* have noticed and acted on it is the primaries - hardcore republicans won't vote democrat even if they hate their current congressman/senator, but they didn't come out to get a better candidate at the primary so they wouldn't have to be forced into a "vote for a guy i hate, the wrong party, or stay home" decision. (well, for those states that actually have congressional primaries).
Something I Have Saved On My HardDrive
Date: 2006-06-06 09:59 pm (UTC)for those who oppose gay marriage. I was amazed. It's eerie!
endgame
Chicago Tribune
Marriage issue just as plain as black & white
- by Eric Zorn (May 19,1996)
Statement No. 1: Same-sex marriage must be forbidden,
said the Republican senator from Wisconsin,'simply
because natural instinct revolts as it as wrong."
No. 2. An organization opposed to gay marriage claimed
legalizing them would result in "a degraded and ignoble
population incapable of moral and intellectual
development," and rested this belief on the "natural
superiority with which god (has) ennobled
heterosexuals."
No. 3. "I believe that the tendency to classify all
persons who oppose gay marriage as "prejudiced' is in
itself a prejudice." grumped a noted psychologist.
"nothing of any significance gained by such a
marriage."
No. 4. A U.S. representative from Georgia declared that
allowing gay marriages "necessarily involves(the)
degradation" of conventional marriage, an institution
that "deserves admiration rather than execration."
No. 5. "the next step will be that lesbians will demand
a law allowing them without restraint,... have free and
unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried
sons and daughters," warned a Kentucky congressman. "It
is bound to come to that, There is no disguising the
fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people
take heed, the better it will be for our civilization."
No. 6. "when people of the same sex marry, they cannot
possibly have any progeny," wrote an appeals judge in a
Missouri case. "And such a fact sufficiently justifies
those laws which forbid their marriages."
No. 7. Same-sex marriages are "abominable" according to
Virginia law. If allowed, they would "pollute" America.
Part 2
Date: 2006-06-06 10:00 pm (UTC)tried to unsuccessfully to marry, a Georgia court wrote
that such unions are "not only unnatural, but... always
productive of deplorable results," such as increased
effeminate behavior in the population. "they are
productive of evil and evil only, without any
corresponding good... (in accordance with) the God of
nature."
No. 9. A gay marriage ban is not discriminatory, reasoned a
Republican congressman from Illinois,
because it "applies equally to men and women."
No. 10. Attorneys for the state of Tennessee argued
that such unions should be illegal because they are
"distasteful to our people and unfit to produce the
human race...." The state supreme court agreed,
declaring gay marriages would be "a calamity full of
saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that
are to come after us."
No. 11. Lawyers for California insisted that a ban of same-sex
marriage is necessary to prevent "traditional
marriage from being contaminated by the recognition of
relationships that are physically and mentally
inferior... (and entered into by) the dregs of society.
No. 12. "the law concerning marriages is to be
construed and understood in relation to those persons
only to whom that the law relates," thundered a
Virginia judge in response to a challenge to the
state's non-recognition of same-sex unions. "And not,"
he continued, "to a class of persons clearly not within
the idea of the legislature when contemplating the
subject of marriage."
To sum up: Legal recognition of such marriages would
offend tradition, God, the sensibilities of the
majority and the natural order while threatening the
conventional marriage, children and the future of our
civilization.
The quotes are culled from a Boston University Law
Review article and a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme
Court, although I did take the minor liberty of
changing the subject of the strangled rage, fear and
righteous indignation.
Everywhere I quoted the speakers reference to the
same-sex marriage, homosexuality, and heterosexuality,
they were actually referring to interracial marriage
and their views of black people, white people and the
proper interaction thereof. And yes, that includes
statement No. 6, which in original form articulated the
old white supremacist belief that offspring of whites
and blacks were-like mules that resulted when horses
mated with donkeys-sterile.
The quotes date from 1823 to 1964 and ridiculous to us
in 1966 they had sufficient appeal and staying power
that 15 states still criminalized black-white marriage
until the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned
those laws in the appropriately named 1967 case Loving
vs. Virginia.
Those whose unaltered words today resemble statements 1
through 12 above take note. The stench is familiar. The
future is listening.
no subject