Defending Marriage From Neutering is Not Hateful

Discussions with marriage neutering advocates continued on Twitter. Here's where I wrote about this before. This all started because I tweeted a link to a column by Matt Barber pointing out that the State of Washington was attacking a florist because she didn't want to be associated with a groomless "wedding".

Paul continued with bumper sticker slogans, tautologies, name-calling and displays a lack of reading comprehension. He still hasn't explained why we should neuter marriage.

Pauls_View ‏@pauls_view

@PlayfulWalrus There is no reason allowing gays to marry will have ANY effect on straight marriage.

Neutering marriage dilutes it. Counterfeiting devalues the authentic. Marriage laws are part of public policy and apply to all. Neutering marriage changes the very meaning of marriage, and sends a clear message that, from a societal perspective, marriage is about the whims of two adults, not what is of most concern to society, and not about orgnizating and perpetuating society. Why does the the state care if two people love each other, or have the hots for each other?

Public policy about marriage, parenting, and family has an effect on all of us. State marriage licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state. They are not a private matter. Same-sex couples are free to have ceremonies, share names, share homes, share beds, share a life, etc. But they should not be able to force the rest of us to neuter marriage licensing.

Gays are couples now without = rights

Individuals have rights. On what basis do we treat any TWO people equally? If they DO the same thing. Sex-segregated relationships are not equal to bride+groom relationships, and so there is no obligation to treat them equally.

@PlayfulWalrus Your stance of saying you're trying to uphold biblical marriage results in unnecessary discrimination. It's based on sad bias

I didn't say I was trying to uphold Biblical marriage. When marriage neutering advocates attack the Bible, I defend the Bible. When marriage neutering advocates misrepresent the teaching to the Bible, I address that. My argument defending marriage is based on biology, sociology, history, the Constitution, etc., and need not invoke the Bible.

@PlayfulWalrus "Paul, who claims to be a Christian". I am a Christen & believe my stance is more Christ like than yours.

All the evidence we have indicates that Jesus affirmed marriage as a bride+groom union.

@PlayfulWalrus Lastly gays deserve CIVIL MARRIAGE. Your religion can and will still discriminate. We are not a theocracy. Love is love.

Deserve marriage? This isn't about deserve. This is about the objective facts that bride+groom is different from brideless or groomless pairing and other voluntary associations. There are many marriage licenses given to undeserving couples, but our laws should not be overly intrusive and should be based on criteria that can be equally applied. There are many marriage licenses given to undeserving couples, but our laws should not be overly intrusive and should be based on criteria that can be equally applied. There are many marriage licenses given to undeserving couples, but our laws should not be overly intrusive and should be based on criteria that can be equally applied. There are many marriage licenses given to undeserving couples, but our laws should not be overly intrusive and should be based on criteria that can be equally applied.

Don't even bother to say that churches will still be allowed their beliefs. We know full well, based on what has happened over the last several years, that churches will be attacked homofascists.

Of course we're not a theocracy. So what? Even most atheists see that men and women are different.

Love is love? Well, here's the answer to that brilliant piece of argumentation.

@PlayfulWalrus Regardless of your religious views, the 1st Amendment protects against pushing your views onto the United States.

We live in a Constutional union of democratic representative republic states. I'm still allowed my vote. One need not be religious to see that marriage unites the sexes, and to want state licensing to relect that. The Constitution does not compell the neutering of state licenses, nor does it prohibit anyone from voting according to their religious beliefs.

@PlayfulWalrus @StevenFittro People can vote as they wish. That is why people voted to keep women from voting & to keep slaves. All wrong!

That some changes in the past were right does not mean all proposed changes now are right.

@PlayfulWalrus @StevenFittro Like others, religion has blinded you from humane treatment of your fellow man. It's a sad byproduct of fear .

Reserving state marriage licenses for marriage is in no way inhumane. This is not a realy argument. He's esentially calling me a meanie because I disagree with him. Even some marriage neutering advocates admit that defending marriage is not hateful.

I asked where he got his beliefs from. This was his response:

@PlayfulWalrus Influences: the message of Jesus, the empathy I have for others, & basic humane treatment common to societies throughout time

Jesus and societies throughout time have recognized the distinction between marriae and other relationships.
Isn't this really all about hating gays? No. There are many reasons why someone may support retaining the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing. One need not hate homosexual people, nor disapprove of homosexual behavior to support the bride+groom requirement. See "Hurting Homosexual People" for more.

@PlayfulWalrus Discrimination is based on a group ofr class of people.

Here, Paul is making a claim that marriage licensing is discrimination based on a class of people. By that he is apparently trying to equate claims people make about themselves ("I am gay") that are only verifiable by observing private behviors with obvious things like skin color, which is completely irrelevant to marriage. The comparison doesn't work. Would Paul still say someone is homosexual even if they never had sex with anyone else, let alone decided to share his or her life with someone else? Apparently. That is because forming a relationship is a voluntary behavor. Some would argue religion is also a voluntary behvior, and yet religious is a protected class. Yes, and the people of a state also have every right to say "no" to demands for state recognition of baptisms, bar mitzvahs, confirmations, etc.

Cousins marrying doesn't apply.That's disagreement not discrimination

This is completely arbitrary, but yes, restrictions on cousins marrying is discrimination, as all laws are discrimination. Resisting the neutering of marriage is also disagreement.


Steven also had tweets.

Steven Fittro ‏@StevenFittro

@PlayfulWalrus It also guarantees those who choose to be married whether traditional or same-sex to be free from religious persecution.

Affirming the bride+groom requirement in state licensing is not religious persection. It doesn't prevent anyone from living as they choose.

@PlayfulWalrus Your usage of neutering is commonplace to that of dogs. Your usage of neutering of marriage violates Pursuit of Happiness.

@PlayfulWalrus agree to your conditions. You cannot be above that of ALL the people. While many contend that #LGBT isn't at all like racism

@PlayfulWalrus I would like to point out the numerous similarities between the 2 issues. One of which compares the 2 to that of dogs.

Let's get the "happiness" thing out of the way first. That someone tells me "changing this law will make me happy" in no way obligates me to support changing that law.

I refer to "neutering marriage" because removing the bride+groom requirement is removing gender from the mix. It is saying gender doesn't matter. Steven grasps at straws trying to say it has to do with dogs, and then equating it to comparing human beings to dogs, the way African-Americans were dehumanized in history. Comparing the push by Leftist marriage neutering advocates for new "rights" to the civil rights movement, which was about extending existing rights to African-Americans, is emotionally effective, but tortures logic. LGBT people are indentified by personal claims and behavior. There is no known genetic connection to homosexual behavior. There are people who have previously identified as homosexual who now identify as heterosexual. LGBT people were not taken from their homeland and systematically enslaved and dehumanized, then denied their basic rights even afyer being emancipated. LGBT have never been forcibly segregated in the USA, or subjected to public lynchings in which entire towns gathered in broad daylight to cheerfully torture, kill, and dismember them all while people, including children, posed for pictures with the corpses. LGBT characters are overrepresented in media in mostly positive portrayals. The comparison fails.
From Steven's blog, to which he linked:

Gay / lesbian marriage in my belief is equally a person’s right to choose and again, if you believe you have the right to hold judgment over another person’s body then you've surpassed your human qualities and entered into GODLYNESS and you can do whatever it is that you want. Marriage between any two consenting adults of any gender should be left up to those adults and them alone.

Again, private relationships are something people are free to have. State-licensing is a public matter, and the public has a say.

It isn't just that someone who objects to homosexual behavior will be forced to endorse it. We will all, whether we have a moral objection to homosexual behavior or not, be forced to treat brideless and groomless pairings and marriage identically. The marriage neutering advocates don't want us to even have a word that notes there is a difference. It would be official government policy that there is not. Public schools (and many other schools, if not all) would be prevented from teaching that marriage is different from this pseudomarriage, and homosexuality advocates would be unrestrained in pushing their worldview in the schools as official curriculum. Parents would have no ability to opt their child out. Adoption agencies would not be able to give preference to placing children with a home that is inclusive of both sexes. No government agency, nothing associated with a government program or funding, would be allowed to make a distinction, unless of course it was to somehow provide a targeted advantage to same-sex couples. Soon after, no business, private employer, or private property owner would be allowed to make any distinction.

The issues raised in this discussion have been thoroughly addressed by me in:

The Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant

Reviewing the Basics