Community | August 10, 2010 | 14 comments

Why Do So Many Conservatives Cling to a 19th-Century Definition of Marriage?

source: http://www.slate.com/id/2263346/

Image
atomiclegion
The conservative defense of marriage as protection for women is utterly unconvincing.

Judge Vaughn Walker's decision in the California same-sex marriage case has sure set off the right. Today gay marriage, tomorrow, the end of Western civilization as we know it. Prop 8 defenders were thoroughly Boiesed (a new verb meaning to have your groundless assertions subjected to merciless cross examination by lawyer David Boies) on their argument that same-sex marriage hurts kids raised by gay couples. So now gay marriage opponents need a new cause. If the kids are all right, same-sex marriage must threaten the other helpless population—women.

Heterosexual marriage is necessary—and must be protected by being exclusively available to heterosexual couples—the new argument goes, because those naughty heterosexuals have selfish sexual agendas. In the New York Times, Ross Douthat writes that males are at the mercy of their "impulse toward promiscuity." This makes men naturally incline toward polygamy, prostitution, and concubinage.

http://www.slate.com/id/2263346/
  1. groups:
    Community,   Politics,   Current Tonight,   US Politics,   1 more
  2. tags:
    History,  Marriage,  Marriage Equality,  Marriage Laws
  3.     
    |

14 comments // Why Do So Many Conservatives Cling to a 19th-Century Definition of Marriage?

  • Paratus
    • -1
      Paratus  

    • It may come as a surprise to some but there are people how have definitions of right and wrong. Their ideas are just as valid as anyone elses even if one does ot agree with them. I think this is a bad decision but my feeling is not due to any anti gay ideals. I think this belongs to the states to decide and should not be in the federal venue.

    • 1 year ago
  • UtopianSky
    • +2
      UtopianSky  
    • Paratus:

      And it may come as a surprise to you, but you are not the sole arbiter of right and wrong.

      The rest of us also have definitions of right and wrong, and as a nation, we have defined key guiding principles in that definition: Human Rights.

      Ideas that violate human rights are not just as valid as other ideas.

      Humans live in every state, thus human rights are a national issue.

      Yes, you can have a personal definition of the word "marriage" however you like- but you do not have the right to force that definition on others. We ALL have the same rights in this country. You do not have the right to violate other people's rights.

    • 1 year ago
  • cmdinc
    • -2
      cmdinc  

    • ok i admit i'm stuck on this one. I respect the right for two men or two women to be together. My question is why do we need for it to be called marriage? If they were to recieve the exact same rights in a civil union why can't we call it that? Is it that "marriage" permits certian rights that civil unions don't? Is it a pride thing? i truly don't know why it needs to be "marriage" and would like one of a view that we should call it marriage to give me thier view. (in a civil manner please)

    • 1 year ago
  • donkeyfly69
    • +2
      donkeyfly69  
    • cmdinc:

      because that is what it is. it is a marriage. it is two people coming together, some times in the eyes of god, to unite as one in front of their family, friends and community.

      why should it not be considered a marriage?

    • 1 year ago
  • UtopianSky
    • +2
      UtopianSky  
    • cmdinc:

      Because it IS called marriage, it has always been called marriage, and it's still marriage.

      There is no reason to change the word just because different people are involved.

      When mixed race couples won the legal right to have their marriages recognized by the government, we did not invent a new term, like "biracial union" for it.

      That's because we are all EQUAL. Not "Separate but equal", but simply EQUAL.

    • 1 year ago
  • mindcruzer
  • ayipis
  • donkeyfly69
  • UtopianSky
  • Idoknow19
    • -1
      Idoknow19  

    • Their opportunists, cherry-picking archaic evidence and definitions in order to further niche, fringe ideas. Makes sense to me.

      I firmly believe that the Republican party is becoming a fringe movement. The truth is that the the US public doesn't necessarily identify with the Right, they simply do not know what the Right represents, allowing them to project all their desires and ideas onto carte blanch candidates. They don't want Republicans, they want "the other guys", who they believe represent whatever it is they want.

      Furthermore, the Right has made the important strategic decision to invoke nebulous, vague ideologies that people can project their ideas onto. That way it's not just candidates, but the movement in general that supports x, where x = whatever you want it to be.

      Perhaps the "do nothing" strategy has its short-term benefits, but the long-term benefits, I predict, won't be felt.

    • 1 year ago
  • Omnomynous
    • -1
      Omnomynous  

    • Oversimplified?

      It's more of a 19th Century and every previous century definition of marriage...

      And I don't think it's exclusively "conservatives" that are against the idea of intentionally offending people for no good reason. Many of the people against gay marriage are only against the terminology.

    • 1 year ago
  • UtopianSky
    • +2
      UtopianSky  
    • Omnomynous:

      Every previous century definition of marriage?

      You mean the contract by which a man sells his daughter to another man? And that other man can be of any age, and the daughter has no say in the mater?

      The definition of marriage has changed over the centuries, this is nothing new.

      Plus, in many cultures, same sex marriages have a long tradition, dating back centuries already.

      And you say:
      "don't think it's exclusively "conservatives" that are against the idea of intentionally offending people for no good reason."

      Guess what- human rights trumps what you find "offensive" every time.
      Human rights are not just a GOOD reason, they are the BEST reason there is.

      And the simple fact that you even THOUGHT to write that statement is repugnant.

      It shows that you think that human beings should be denied basic equality because some bigots would find the concept of equality "offensive".

      It is a perfect example of bigotry- you think YOUR group of humans is superior to MY group of humans. You think how I live MY life should be shaped by YOUR opinions of it.

      Do I get to vote on YOUR marriage?

      I don't give a damn what you find offensive.
      That is your problem, not mine.

    • 1 year ago
  • tomas_o_carthaigh
    • 0
      tomas_o_carthaigh  

    • Its called decency, stupid. And its worked well for most so far, through REALLY trying times. We've never had it so good, and people give so little effort into things that matter like marraige.

    • 1 year ago
  • donkeyfly69
more from Community:
from the community

top videos