Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?

[JillSwift]

The lack of gender changes the implications of the relationship as listed in the above post. What about having a different term applied to a different situation creates an "underclass"? What reasons do you have for believing that an orange not being called an apple makes it somehow inferior?

 

A similar argument was put forward for intra-racial marriage. Because of the marked difference between the two members of the couple, and because offspring would not fit either race, it should not be allowed.

 

Though the prime difference here is that in this case instead of being disallowed, it should be called something else. But that falls in line with the idea that blacks could be equal, but separate. Essentially true, but utterly unnecessary, and harmful in that it allowed the continued idea of racial inferiority tacitly.

 

There are recognizable differences among humans in general - unless there is some need to bring these differences into the contract, then what you call that contract isn't important.

 

Again, there is no secular, rational reason presented to disallow same sex marriage.

[iNow]

The difference in my mind lies in that with respect to infertile couples it is the exception to the rule that they are unable to procreate, while with any homogeneous couple it is impossible for procreation outright with no exceptions.

You say that infertile couples are an "exception to the rule" which you do not have a problem with. However, same sex couples are ALSO an "exception to the rule," however it is one which you do have a problem with. Why?

[JillSwift]

All of those examples have the same composition with respect to expected physical ability to produce children. Currently, how can we tell whether an infertile couple is married? Right now we can't, it simply isn't known. When there is a -X, or -Y couple it is explicitly obvious that children cannot be produced.

 

The difference in my mind lies in that with respect to infertile couples it is the exception to the rule that they are unable to procreate, while with any homogeneous couple it is impossible for procreation outright with no exceptions.

By sexual congress, no. But children can be produced, and have, through other means provided by medical science.

 

Though given marriage is still allowed with couples proven to be infertile, it's an irrelevancy. Also, marriage is allowed for couples who have deliberately made themselves infertile, again making child bearing an irrelevancy.

[mooeypoo]

You know, I think there's a tendency in this thread to forget one very important issue here: These couples - infertile or not, accepted or not, whatever else - will be together, are together as well as WERE together - regardless of any form of law on the matter.

 

It's not a subject of choice, here. We are not discussion couples that want to buy houses as opposed to apartments, and whether or not the government should encourage the purchase of either one of those as some economic benefit or some other social (or anything else) benefit to the society. We're talking about people who are the way they are whether you like it or not, whether the government likes it or not, whether society likes it or not.

 

Now the only question is will they be given equal rights or not.

 

Fertile or infertile have absolutely nothing to do with anything. It's not like if you oppose gay marriage these couples will give up and marry heterosexuals and bear children. And it's not like if you accept gay marriage suddenly heterosexuals will get so excited they marry gay and turn to be "infertile" couples. They will not. They do not. They have not.

 

This is a matter of equality by the law. Since "marriage" is the term used to define the various benefits that accompany it (including federal benefits that individual states cannot give), marriage is the term that should be used in this case as well.

 

Unless, of course, you oppose equality. It's really that simple. Saying that gay marriage should be called something else is like saying biracial marriage should be called something else.

 

You guys (america) had this fight in terms of African Americans less than 100 years ago. Now you're going through the same things with the LGBT community. The claims about infertility, social acceptance and all taht are very similar to the claims made in relevance to biracial marriages not too long ago. It all comes down to equal rights.

 

I don't see how fertility or our ability to recognize it has anything to do with it other than being a red herring to the topic at hand.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

Sigh... More personal bullshit and off-topic deflection....

 

Self-referential much?

 

Okay. I missed it. Please kindly quote the relevant part.

 

The parts you deleted when quoting me.

 

I did not see relevant secular reasons for the opposition, and would welcome you taking a moment to explicitly quote where you provided them, or at least restate them clearly. Thanks.

 

Alrighty, restating briefly.

 

Some people think that the definition of marriage requires it to be between a man and a woman. Though the word was arbitrarily defined as every other word has been, there are very good reasons for following definitions. (see my example about the definition of current). Following a definition is a relevant and secular reason for something. QED.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The issue here is that, upon reflection, if the person who holds that belief (engages in that behavior) cannot find a relevant secular reason for holding it... they do not challenge themselves to find good reasons to support that opposition... and despite the fact that they have no relevant/secular reasons they maintain their opposition, then the belief itself is without question bigoted, despite the fact that it had been learned/taught.

 

Or he could simply have unresolved contradictory beliefs. It could be that a person holds a belief that is bigoted but does not realize that it is bigoted, because he never though about it. In general, this person is not a bigot and if he thought about it would most likely drop the bigoted belief. It would not be fair to call him a bigot despite having a bigoted belief. You can think of the above as a thought experiment, but I suspect a lot of people with a bigoted older relative fit this description.

[mooeypoo]

Following a definition is a relevant and secular reason for something. QED.

If that's the case, you'd have a democracy of Plato (which today we don't quite consider democratic), you'd be buying your bride from the father when you get married (granted, some societies still do that) and probably a few more things I am assuming you are at least partially happy to see changed.

 

Definitions change because societies change.

 

~moo

[Saryctos]

A similar argument was put forward for intra-racial marriage. Because of the marked difference between the two members of the couple, and because offspring would not fit either race, it should not be allowed.

Though the prime difference here is that in this case instead of being disallowed, it should be called something else. But that falls in line with the idea that blacks could be equal, but separate. Essentially true, but utterly unnecessary, and harmful in that it allowed the continued idea of racial inferiority tacitly.

 

There are recognizable differences among humans in general - unless there is some need to bring these differences into the contract, then what you call that contract isn't important.

An interracial marriage by any other name would still be able to produce children born of those married. Thus this straw man is not relevant.

 

You say that infertile couples are an "exception to the rule" which you do not have a problem with. However, same sex couples are ALSO an "exception to the rule," however it is one which you do have a problem with. Why?

Same sex couples are not an exception to the rule of attempted procreation. There can be no attempt as the organs required to not exist in full.

Again with the 'why'. Please ask whole questions otherwise I cannot answer them.

By sexual congress, no. But children can be produced, and have, through other means provided by medical science.

My stance is that both parties signing the contract of marriage can in part produce the child. This does not address my post, and like the 1st quote is liable to bit be set ablaze within close proximity to an open flame.

Though given marriage is still allowed with couples proven to be infertile, it's an irrelevancy. Also, marriage is allowed for couples who have deliberately made themselves infertile, again making child bearing an irrelevancy.

Like stated before it is the exception to the rule. I don't believe my statement about disability was posted at the time of this reply. As that is what addresses this point I will allow a chance to argue that in response to the original post.

[Mr Skeptic]

My stance after all considerations is that all rights afforded heterosexual unions should be given to homosexual couples. However, I do believe that there are distinct differences between the two, and this can easily be acknowledged in using a term other than marriage.

 

Agreed.

 

Some of the differences could even justify different treatment without being biased (impractical as that may be in actuality). The aspect of producing children is of particular interest to the government. I think that part of the tax benefits of marriage were given with the statistical expectation that the couple would have kids.

[mooeypoo]

I'm still waiting for my post #79, which makes valid points on those subjects, to be addressed.

[JillSwift]

You know, I think there's a tendency in this thread to forget one very important issue here: These couples - infertile or not, accepted or not, whatever else - will be together, are together as well as WERE together - regardless of any form of law on the matter.

 

It's not a subject of choice, here. We are not discussion couples that want to buy houses as opposed to apartments, and whether or not the government should encourage the purchase of either one of those as some economic benefit or some other social (or anything else) benefit to the society. We're talking about people who are the way they are whether you like it or not, whether the government likes it or not, whether society likes it or not.

 

Now the only question is will they be given equal rights or not.

 

Fertile or infertile have absolutely nothing to do with anything. It's not like if you oppose gay marriage these couples will give up and marry heterosexuals and bear children. And it's not like if you accept gay marriage suddenly heterosexuals will get so excited they marry gay and turn to be "infertile" couples. They will not. They do not. They have not.

 

This is a matter of equality by the law. Since "marriage" is the term used to define the various benefits that accompany it (including federal benefits that individual states cannot give), marriage is the term that should be used in this case as well.

 

Unless, of course, you oppose equality. It's really that simple. Saying that gay marriage should be called something else is like saying biracial marriage should be called something else.

 

You guys (america) had this fight in terms of African Americans less than 100 years ago. Now you're going through the same things with the LGBT community. The claims about infertility, social acceptance and all taht are very similar to the claims made in relevance to biracial marriages not too long ago. It all comes down to equal rights.

 

I don't see how fertility or our ability to recognize it has anything to do with it other than being a red herring to the topic at hand.

 

~moo

As I see it, the fertility argument is just another definitional argument. And as such, fails to be a reasoned response and as such, is indeed a red herring - or at best a waste of time.

 

The privileges granted a heterosexual couple are contingent on one thing: Agreement by both parties to the social contract. That's it. Only recently have attempts been made to alter the legal requirements to exclude homosexual couples, and prior refusals ere made on incorrect assumptions about the contract and later backed by outwardly bigoted people, playing on people's unquestioned biases.

 

This is identical in structure to the resistance to inter-racial marriages. We've already established that the basic requirements in those circumstances are met and such couples meet the criteria for marriage as a social contract recognized by the state.

 

All attempts to argue fertility, definition, and social intent so far are baseless at worst, and irrelevant at best within this established legal and historical framework.

[Mr Skeptic]

Incidentally, Saryctos, it is now possible to create sperm from stem cells, so a lesbian couple could in fact produce children as of now.

[JillSwift]

My stance is that both parties signing the contract of marriage can in part produce the child. This does not address my post, and like the 1st quote is liable to bit be set ablaze within close proximity to an open flame.

Given your stance, I've demonstrated that same sex couples can and have reproduced. This reproduction does involve both parties. Thus your stance is satisfied by same-sex couples. How is that a straw man?

[Saryctos]

You know, I think there's a tendency in this thread to forget one very important issue here: These couples - infertile or not, accepted or not, whatever else - will be together, are together as well as WERE together - regardless of any form of law on the matter.

 

It's not a subject of choice, here. We are not discussion couples that want to buy houses as opposed to apartments, and whether or not the government should encourage the purchase of either one of those as some economic benefit or some other social (or anything else) benefit to the society. We're talking about people who are the way they are whether you like it or not, whether the government likes it or not, whether society likes it or not.

 

Now the only question is will they be given equal rights or not.

 

Fertile or infertile have absolutely nothing to do with anything. It's not like if you oppose gay marriage these couples will give up and marry heterosexuals and bear children. And it's not like if you accept gay marriage suddenly heterosexuals will get so excited they marry gay and turn to be "infertile" couples. They will not. They do not. They have not.

The fertility discussion's intent was only to bring to attention the physical differences between homogeneous and heterogeneous couples. For people to dismiss it as non-existent is quite irrational. I honestly don't care as to how people refute this data, only that it is acknowledged.

 

This is a matter of equality by the law. Since "marriage" is the term used to define the various benefits that accompany it (including federal benefits that individual states cannot give), marriage is the term that should be used in this case as well.

 

Unless, of course, you oppose equality. It's really that simple. Saying that gay marriage should be called something else is like saying biracial marriage should be called something else.

Equality, and opportunity of equality are two different things that I believe are being mixed in this case. Equality is not present in this situation, as not all things are equal. I don't care how much importance someone puts on the normative concept of child birth, it is simply not physically possible. Thus, there is a difference. I have seen no way of refuting it other than to dismiss it.

 

You guys (america) had this fight in terms of African Americans less than 100 years ago. Now you're going through the same things with the LGBT community. The claims about infertility, social acceptance and all taht are very similar to the claims made in relevance to biracial marriages not too long ago. It all comes down to equal rights.

 

I don't see how fertility or our ability to recognize it has anything to do with it other than being a red herring to the topic at hand.

 

~moo

I argue against the claim that interracial couples had to fight for acceptance of the inability to produce children. Once again, the importance is irrelevant(subjective), its existence is however irrefutable. I'll repeat again I haven't seen a valid argument against the difference other than to dismiss it.

 

Truthfully I have no personal reservation against affording all forms of couples, child bearing, homogeneous, or platonic, the same rights and naming status under law. But I will not simply let this grave ignorance of logic stand without a fight.

[JillSwift]

I argue against the claim that interracial couples had to fight for acceptance of the inability to produce children.

No such claim has been made. The issues were compared, not equated.

 

Once again, the importance is irrelevant(subjective), its existence is however irrefutable. I'll repeat again I haven't seen a valid argument against the difference other than to dismiss it.

It's relevance is not subjective. It can and has been shown to you that it has never been relevant to the social contract.

 

No one refutes that there is a difference. What is refuted is its relevance to the issue of equal treatment under the law.

[Pangloss]

I think Saryctos made a valid point prior to bringing up the children aspect. "Tradition", in a word, is a valid, secular, relevant reason to oppose calling gay unions "marriage", assuming they are legally equal.

 

This debate in favor of "gay marriage" of a fully-legally-equal "civil union" may ultimately be moot, because the underlying premise of it is protecting a group of people from an offensive legal distinction that would not actually exist. If it's equal, it shouldn't matter, at least on a purely logical level -- we're talking about emotions and perceptions, here. We're proposing calling it "marriage" so as not to offend the recipients; so we don't make them feel like second class citizens. But in the process another group is offended. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

 

Which of course is where the argument to remove marriage completely and have everything just be civil unions comes in. But I don't feel compelled to teach either group a lesson. Given the economic times, how about we have the state do whatever is least expensive?

 

Of course, as Mooey says the better question is whether gays and lesbians should HAVE equal rights. But I don't know that calling it marriage, all other things being equal, makes any difference. The only reason I support calling it marriage is that it makes sense to me to pick one group over the other -- let the right wing be offended, and call it a day.

 

An even better question might be to ask whether we CAN have a fully-equal entity called "civil union". Bear in mind that it would require a law stating that private companies cannot provide benefits to married couples that it does not also provide to civil union couples. Anything short of that would leave the situation unequal. But even then it's still a valid question to ask, because there may be ways around that sort of law, or rights of some kind that would not fall under the purview of this approach. If it's not possible to address all of the discrepencies, then we can't call it a civil union -- it has to be a marriage, or it's discrimination.

[mooeypoo]

The fertility discussion's intent was only to bring to attention the physical differences between homogeneous and heterogeneous couples. For people to dismiss it as non-existent is quite irrational. I honestly don't care as to how people refute this data, only that it is acknowledged.

I didn't dismiss it as non existent, I dismissed it as irrelevant.

 

Equality, and opportunity of equality are two different things that I believe are being mixed in this case. Equality is not present in this situation, as not all things are equal. I don't care how much importance someone puts on the normative concept of child birth, it is simply not physically possible. Thus, there is a difference. I have seen no way of refuting it other than to dismiss it.

No one argues there's a difference. The argument is whether or not this difference should be used as an excuse to prevent equal rights, and whether or not these excuses are relevant secular reasons.

 

Women are different than men, do you agree? They are different physically, there's no doubt about that, and the *generalized* differences between women and men can't really be denied. And yet, would you object to an argument of equal rights between men and women? Would you claim that the argument for equality should be first changed to include an argument of difference?

 

You either include them both as citizens and give them the rights a citizen receives, or you don't. The fact they aren't like everyone else is irrelevant.

 

 

I argue against the claim that interracial couples had to fight for acceptance of the inability to produce children.

You are again raising the same red herring and trivializing the matter. Biracial couples may not have had to deal with the inability to produce children, but they did have to deal with arguments about their biracial children, and about the individuals' differences, and many other excuses before these marriages were legal, let alone accepted in society.

 

If you claim any of those archaic excuses today in the context of biracial marriages, you will undoubtedly be endowed with the label "biggot". And yet, the same *type* of generalized argument (even if not the same wording or specific meaning) done towards LGBT couples is, suddenly, a relevant concern? Do yo not see the irony here?

 

Once again, the importance is irrelevant(subjective), its existence is however irrefutable. I'll repeat again I haven't seen a valid argument against the difference other than to dismiss it.

You haven't seen a valid argument because this is irrelevant. As I said, women are different than men; and yet the argument about boobs and penises is irrelevant when speaking of equality in the work force.

 

Or at least, it's supposed to be irrelevant.

 

I'm not dismissing the differences because I don't think there are differences, I am dismissing the differences because they're utterly irrelevant. African american couples are also different than caucasians, and yet are still treated equally. Biracial couples are also different than caucasians and African American couples and they're still treated equally. LGBT couples are different than caucasian, biracial and african american couples, and yet that is irrelevant to the fact they should be treated equally.

 

Truthfully I have no personal reservation against affording all forms of couples, child bearing, homogeneous, or platonic, the same rights and naming status under law. But I will not simply let this grave ignorance of logic stand without a fight.

I don't quite mind about your personal reservations, to be honest, and I don't mean that as an offensive remark. I can't know what your personal feelings are, I can just work with the claims you're making. The claims you're making do not seem to conform with the paragraph you put up, though. Your claim is noteworthy, but is completely irrelevant to the debate at hand.

 

~moo

[JillSwift]

I think Saryctos made a valid point prior to bringing up the children aspect. "Tradition", in a word, is a valid, secular, relevant reason to oppose calling gay unions "marriage", assuming they are legally equal.

Ah, tradition.

 

So, this little girl watches her mother preparing a ham for a family get-together. Her mother removes about an inch from the end of the ham, and then places it in the baking pan.

 

"Momma?" the girl asks "Why do you cut off the end of the ham?"

 

Her mother looks thoughtful for a moment, then answers: "It's just tradition, honey. This is how your grandma did it. Ask her about it."

 

So the little girl goes to her maternal grandmother. "Grandma? Why do we cut the end off the ham?"

 

Her grandmother looks thoughtful for a moment and answers: "I don't know, dear. It's just how your great-grandmother did it, and now it's tradition. Maybe she knows why."

 

So, the girl goes to her very elderly, frail great grandmother, and with all due respect and reverence she asks; "Great Grandma? Why do we cut the ends off of the ham?"

 

Great grandmother immediately answers: "I have no idea why your grandmother and mother do that, sweetie. My pan was too short for a full ham."

[iNow]

All of those examples have the same composition with respect to expected physical ability to produce children.

Infertile couples are not expected to produce children. Your assertion is false.

 

Currently, how can we tell whether an infertile couple is being married? Right now we can't

Sure we can. Please note my reference to the elderly. Hell, couples over the age of 50 pretty much aren't expected to have children, and yet they are allowed to marry.

 

 

Regardless... Moo spelled this out more clearly than I could. The social contract of marriage is not contingent on children, therefore, the fact that two same sex partners cannot (via sexual intercourse) bear children is not a relevant reason to stand in opposition to same sex marriage.

 

I'm still waiting for a valid response to the question posed in the thread title.

Edited September 15, 2009 by iNow
spelling correction

[Saryctos]

Incidentally, Saryctos, it is now possible to create sperm from stem cells, so a lesbian couple could in fact produce children as of now.

I stand corrected on this point.

Given your stance, I've demonstrated that same sex couples can and have reproduced. This reproduction does involve both parties. Thus your stance is satisfied by same-sex couples. How is that a straw man?

To be fair, you had not demonstrated this at all until Mr Skeptic's post.

I didn't dismiss it as non existent, I dismissed it as irrelevant.

 

 

No one argues there's a difference. The argument is whether or not this difference should be used as an excuse to prevent equal rights, and whether or not these excuses are relevant secular reasons.

 

Women are different than men, do you agree? They are different physically, there's no doubt about that, and the *generalized* differences between women and men can't really be denied. And yet, would you object to an argument of equal rights between men and women? Would you claim that the argument for equality should be first changed to include an argument of difference?

 

You either include them both as citizens and give them the rights a citizen receives, or you don't. The fact they aren't like everyone else is irrelevant.

You still call men and women as such do you not? For what reason do we call them by different names?

 

 

You are again raising the same red herring and trivializing the matter. Biracial couples may not have had to deal with the inability to produce children, but they did have to deal with arguments about their biracial children, and about the individuals' differences, and many other excuses before these marriages were legal, let alone accepted in society.

 

If you claim any of those archaic excuses today in the context of biracial marriages, you will undoubtedly be endowed with the label "biggot". And yet, the same *type* of generalized argument (even if not the same wording or specific meaning) done towards LGBT couples is, suddenly, a relevant concern? Do yo not see the irony here?

"Arguments about their biracial children" glosses over the distinct difference of topics beign discussed. Simply because both were struggles does not create in them an equality of terminology. Saying the argument is similar while directly refuting their similarity is inconsistent. How is the issue of biracial children similar to the issue of inability to bear children?

 

You haven't seen a valid argument because this is irrelevant. As I said, women are different than men; and yet the argument about boobs and penises is irrelevant when speaking of equality in the work force.

 

Or at least, it's supposed to be irrelevant.

 

I'm not dismissing the differences because I don't think there are differences, I am dismissing the differences because they're utterly irrelevant. African american couples are also different than caucasians, and yet are still treated equally. Biracial couples are also different than caucasians and African American couples and they're still treated equally. LGBT couples are different than caucasian, biracial and african american couples, and yet that is irrelevant to the fact they should be treated equally.

 

 

I don't quite mind about your personal reservations, to be honest, and I don't mean that as an offensive remark. I can't know what your personal feelings are, I can just work with the claims you're making. The claims you're making do not seem to conform with the paragraph you put up, though. Your claim is noteworthy, but is completely irrelevant to the debate at hand.

 

~moo

[iNow]

"Arguments about their biracial children" glosses over the distinct difference of topics beign discussed. Simply because both were struggles does not create in them an equality of terminology. Saying the argument is similar while directly refuting their similarity is inconsistent. How is the issue of biracial children similar to the issue of inability to bear children?

They are similar in the fact that they are both completely irrelevant to the social institution of marriage, yet are being used as arguments by groups in their attempts to prevent certain consenting adults from being allowed to marry.

[mooeypoo]

Syractos, you seem to tend towards a mixture of strawman and red herring.

 

I explained that the fact I call men men and women women (hence, I note the differences) is irrelevant. Your claim that "I still call them by different names" is avoiding answering my point.

 

Of course I call them differently. I don't think you should call them the same. African american couples ARE different than caucasians - is that relevant to the equality we should give those? If you say yes, then please explain how that isn't biggoted. If you say no, then please explain what the difference would be if you would have simply replaced "LGBT" with "African American" in that sentence.

 

You can give equality without destroying the differences between people. I don't see how your point is relevant.

[iNow]

You can give equality without destroying the differences between people. I don't see how your point is relevant.

 

IINM, he is arguing that since we call men and women by different names since they are different things, that we should also call marriages between heterosexual partners and marriages between homosexual partners by different names (basically, he is arguing that these, too, ARE different things).

 

IMO, it's a false comparison, since marriage refers to the relationship, and in the sense of a social contract there are not any relevant differences in the social contract between opposite and same sex partners (whereas there ARE relevant secular differences between males and females).

 

I agree with your conclusion that it's irrelevant to the discussion, but I think above I've more closely represented what he's trying to convey.

[padren]

Just to ask - is there any real reason to call a distinction between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples that do reproduce (and have, going back some time) through a third party donor or adoption?

 

Why would raising, feeding, loving and educating children as parents be less important than whether the DNA came from both parties?

 

We're proposing calling it "marriage" so as not to offend the recipients; so we don't make them feel like second class citizens. But in the process another group is offended. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

I just have to express as I have in previous threads on this topic - it is not "Six of one, half a dozen of the other." because same sex couples are not trying to interfere with a conservative definition of marriage, just to allow their definition to coexist within the law. I see a large difference between restricting a term and broadening a term to encompass more people who already use it.

 

Honestly that's like having a big controversy over the legal definition of "religion" because Catholics don't feel Protestants should be able to use that word, and should have to carry a different title legally (even if the same state benefits were to apply) because it offends their bigger, older, more "sacred" religion. Maybe "heretical faith" would be good for all non-Catholic religious denominations - separate but equal.

 

If a given church wants to say marriage is between a man and a woman only they are protected by state law to maintain that and would never be forced to marry a same sex couple. Any legal action would immediately be dismissed because of state protections of freedom of religion. Therefore, when that same church wants to reach across and meddle with someone elses marriage and tell them (who do not even associate with that church in any way) they can't marry and that the state must use their own definition of marriage exclusively instead of inclusively it's not a matter of an equal split - that's overreaching pure and simple.

 

To use a overlapping chart with those big circles - legal marriage is a big circle, and all the happy people from the most conservative baptists to same sex couples and even atheists are little circles inside that... or so it should be as we have a tradition of being an inclusive society.

 

Summary: saying "we should be in the circle too" is very different than saying "the circle should be for us only" and thus not a matter of "Six of one, half a dozen of the other."

[Pangloss]

...because same sex couples are not trying to interfere with a conservative definition of marriage' date=' just to allow their definition to coexist within the law...

 

Summary: saying "we should be in the circle too" is very different than saying "the circle should be for us only" and thus not a matter of "Six of one, half a dozen of the other."[/quote']

 

Is it really logical, though, to pass a law solely for its psychological impact?

 

This goes right to the heart of the segregation issue. Did we really just desegregate because colored bathrooms weren't as nice as white-only ones? Or was it more a question of whether the separation contributed to one group dominating another one? Surely it was more the latter than the former, right?

 

But where do we draw the line? There are plenty of inequalities in life, and we don't try to solve all of those problems with laws. What makes this one necessary?

[JillSwift]

Is it really logical, though, to pass a law solely for its psychological impact?

 

This goes right to the heart of the segregation issue. Did we really just desegregate because colored bathrooms weren't as nice as white-only ones? Or was it more a question of whether the separation contributed to one group dominating another one? Surely it was more the latter than the former, right?

 

But where do we draw the line? There are plenty of inequalities in life, and we don't try to solve all of those problems with laws. What makes this one necessary?

In California, no law was passed to allow same sex marriage (though two were attempted, but vetoed). The courts decided that current laws restricting marriage to a specific class of people were unconstitutional.

 

It later took the modification of the California constitution to remove the privileges of marriage from already married couples. I think this new law had real psychological impact, as was intended.

 

Matters of how the government treats it citizens are quite different from day-to-day matters. That inequality is a fact of life does not excuse or suggest inequitable treatment under the law. If privileges are offered by government, they must be offered on equal terms to all people under that government. This prevents government from exacerbating the inequalities that naturally exist among populations.

 

In short, it's not about passing a law to grant new privileges, it's about removing law that treats citizens inequitably.