Deep Structure: Why non-bigots oppose gay marriage

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think I disagree with that. I'd say child-rearing and procreation has been the primary purpose, or rather to promote the family unit. At least with from the government's perspective.

How does allowing gays to marry destroy the function of marriage to promote the family unit?

[Green Lantern]

I think I disagree with that. I'd say child-rearing and procreation has been the primary purpose, or rather to promote the family unit. At least with from the government's perspective.

If you stick with the latter (promoting the family unit) I don't think your point conflicts with Robin's at all.

[RobinFinderson]

I think I disagree with that. I'd say child-rearing and procreation has been the primary purpose, or rather to promote the family unit. At least with from the government's perspective.

How do you measure 'primary purpose?' If you measure it in years, most successful marriages with children will exist with an empty nest longer than they did with needy children. By using the word 'primary' here you infer that there is some way to differentiate between the various purposes of the marriage institution. How do you measure that?

[Jacob]

How do you measure 'primary purpose?' If you measure it in years, most successful marriages with children will exist with an empty nest longer than they did with needy children. By using the word 'primary' here you infer that there is some way to differentiate between the various purposes of the marriage institution. How do you measure that?

I think it would probably be more accurate to say that there are several primary or important purposes. I'm arguing against the claim by you and others, that you have to throw out the procreation and child rearing as a real purpose simply because not all marriages procreate or that many are emply-nesters for a long time.

[oxcoug]

The racism equivalence card in this discussion

I'm pretty sure that those who defended racism could also have appealed to "Deep Structure." Racism has been a huge part of the Judeo-Christian and emphatically Mormon tradition. Same goes for anti-gay bigotry.

This paragraph is the one that seemed to address the gay marriage issue most specifically:



The argument that marriage is about procreation is obviously a non-starter. Why the hell do we let 80-year olds or sterile people get married if it's just about procreation?

Racial discrimination was also a "defense of ground that all societies protected for thousands of years." That doesn't make it right.

To me, the deep structure of "equality before the law" means that gay people should be able to marry each other. It's not that complicated. And history will undoubtedly be on the side of those that agree with me.

isn't a very strong play.

Even in the gay community the notion that marriage is a "right" is a relatively recent invention. And many members of the gay community - most vocally Elton John - have been very vocal in their opinion that the gay marriage campaign is a misguided political movement.

Discrimination on the basis of race is inherently bigoted. Legal differentiation on the basis of the established definition of a word and the established parameters of an institution isn't inherently anything.

[oxcoug]

You've muddled some issues here

The more sensible opponents of gay marriage - and there are plenty who aren't even slightly bigoted or homophobic - aren't "relying" on 5,000 years of tradition and they don't even refer to it as "tradition" - they are simply saying that when one group wants to overturn a culturally and legally established definition of an institution that the burden is on the group with the novel proposition to make an overwhelming case for doing it.

The gay marriage lobby knows this and this is why they spend so much time shouting about "bigotry" and "hate" and "civil rights"- because they know that if they can make those words stick as the labels that attach to any resistance to gay marriage then they've already won and they don't actually have to spend time making the case in the court of public opinion.

And to some extent it's working.

I agree with your premise: That civilizaton is built on a system of values, and the gay marriage debate is wholly about values. Where we part company is, you assume that marriage's 5,000 year old history of limiting its beneficiaries to man/woman unions exempts gay marriage opponents from a charge of homophobia or bigotry. There is no exemption on this basis alone. On the contrary, that a system was conceived 5,000 years ago ought just much as or more easily make it automatically suspect of being at odds with our public ethos (another term to describe what you mean by "deep structure").

Here is the predominant ethos in America and motivating suporters of gay marriage: Empiricism or reason, and individual liberty. These are aberrant, novel concepts when viewed in the arc of human history, just like, as you note, gay marriage.

Slavery is a 5,000 year old institution. It has been an accepted and pervasive institution for most of the last 5,000 years. So has totalitarianism in various forms. Representative government, and a right to individual liberty, due process, etc., is a freakish exception to the norm in the last 5,000 years. Brown v. Board and the Civil Rights Act vs. Jim Crow were ultimately wholly about values. And history was all on the side of Jim Crow.

Here is why I think opponents of gay marriage are suspect as bigots or homophobes: To the extent they rely on 5,000 years of tradition as the sole basis for their opposition (whether or not they dress the position up in will of god jargon). Absent thought, reason, and consideration for our society's novel and aberrant (when considered in the context of 5,000 years or even, apparenlty, compated to France) ethos of partiality for liberty, oppositoin to gay marriage based upon traditoin alone or clerical edict is at war with the former values. Hence, it is bigoted and wrong.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The more sensible opponents of gay marriage - and there are plenty who aren't even slightly bigoted or homophobic - aren't "relying" on 5,000 years of tradition and they don't even refer to it as "tradition" - they are simply saying that when one group wants to overturn a culturally and legally established definition of an institution that the burden is on the group with the novel proposition to make an overwhelming case for doing it.

Another way to look at this is if you are going to deny a minority group access to a basic right enjoyed by most of society, you had better have some pretty convincing reasons ("make an overwhelming case") to do so.

[Jacob]

Another way to look at this is if you are going to deny a minority group access to a basic right enjoyed by most of society, you had better have some pretty convincing reasons ("make an overwhelming case") to do so.

You have to first figure out what that right is. And the sides are quite a ways apart on that baseline issue.

Gays want a right to marry each other. But, by definition, they can't. So they want to change a definition. It is a new right that they want. Well, more like a new obligation by the government to officially sanction their preferred relationship and grant it certain privileges.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You have to first figure out what that right is. And the sides are quite a ways apart on that baseline issue.

Gays want a right to marry each other. But, by definition, they can't. So they want to change a definition. It is a new right that they want. Well, more like a new obligation by the government to officially sanction their preferred relationship and grant it certain privileges.

With all due respect, that sounds like a lot of sophistry to me.

[wuapinmon]

Another way to look at this is if you are going to deny a minority group access to a basic right enjoyed by most of society, you had better have some pretty convincing reasons ("make an overwhelming case") to do so.

AND pretty much ignore the 14th Amendment in the process.

[Jacob]

With all due respect, that sounds like a lot of sophistry to me.

Which part? Do me a favor and define 2 things. 1) marriage 2) the right that gays are seeking access to.

If you define marriage without reference to a husband and a wife, you are not being fair with your definition. So we see that it's not marriage that gays want, it is something else. Perhaps something similar, but it's not marriage, unless you change what marriage means.

[KillerDog]

The question regarding gay marriage is obviously very complex. As far as defining marriage as a "right" is concerned, that sounds like nonsense to me. I believe the "right" card being played is the equal treatment before the law "right." Which brings us back to the question of whether civil unions are sufficient equal treatment. Ultimately I am reminded of my law professor who said, if you take a potato, cook it and mash it, it doesn't matter if you want to call it a contract, it is still a mashed potato.

[wuapinmon]

The question regarding gay marriage is obviously very complex. As far as defining marriage as a "right" is concerned, that sounds like nonsense to me. I believe the "right" card being played is the equal treatment before the law "right." Which brings us back to the question of whether civil unions are sufficient equal treatment. Ultimately I am reminded of my law professor who said, if you take a potato, cook it and mash it, it doesn't matter if you want to call it a contract, it is still a mashed potato.

And if the 14th Spudmendment said, "All potatoes born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any potato of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any potato within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If the law says that I can cook myself in peanut oil and dust myself with salt, it doesn't really equal the same thing if you have to use light salt (KCl), just because I'm a Yukon Gold, and you're a Russet. I mean ...they both taste salty....right?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Which part? Do me a favor and define 2 things. 1) marriage 2) the right that gays are seeking access to.

If you define marriage without reference to a husband and a wife, you are not being fair with your definition. So we see that it's not marriage that gays want, it is something else. Perhaps something similar, but it's not marriage, unless you change what marriage means.

More sophistry.

How about if you do us a favor and present a convincing argument how gay marriage will destroy the family unit?

[KillerDog]

And if the 14th Spudmendment said, "All potatoes born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any potato of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any potato within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If the law says that I can cook myself in peanut oil and dust myself with salt, it doesn't really equal the same thing if you have to use light salt (KCl), just because I'm a Yukon Gold, and you're a Russet. I mean ...they both taste salty....right?

I'm not sure I can follow your incomplete hypothetical completely but you are correct if you are asking whether I think the Pro-Gay Marriage group is appealing to the right of equal protection as opposed to the non-existent right of equal marriage.

On the subject of whether it matters if you call a thing a "civil union" or a "marriage", I don't see a problem so long as everything else is equal. Why don't we just change the name of "civil union" in the California code to "gay marriage" or "homo-marriage" and then use identical language after that? Personally, I'm more interested in the true nature of things than I am in what the thing is called.