LA judge upholds state SSM ban

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I didn't say anything about the effect of these views on their legal bearing. The only thing I have been trying to say is that it is possible to not support same-sex marriage without being a bigot. Perhaps you equate opposition to same-sex marriage with bigotry; but you seemed to readily make all sorts of assumptions about my character earlier that were not true. Surely you can acknowledge there mere possibility that there are some people who do not support same-sex marriage without being homophobes, bigots, fundamentalists, and so forth?

Yes, they could be ignorant or stupid, however so often that's coterminous with fundamentalism or homophobia.

Honestly, I have never heard a single coherent argument that addresses the point I made earlier, why distinguish a man-woman relationship from a man-man woman-woman relationship? (except arguments that relied on fundamentalism or homophobia, which are coherent, but wrong-headed and horrible)  I'm open to hearing a coherent argument that meets my criteria.  But, I don't think it exists.  This has been argued by people smarter than you and I in the Federal Courts.  The anti-SSM marriage side has failed to find one rational basis reason for banning SSM.  Maybe you can help them and think of one, but I seriously doubt it.

It might be considered that opposition to gay marriage comes out of a somewhat different intellectual tradition than which modern "rational basis" legal arguments rest upon, and that diverse intellectual traditions can hold coherence or at least not be "stupid."

Your criteria is seems to be that any concept of marriage related to gender qua gender is bigoted by definition, is that right?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I didn't say anything about the effect of these views on their legal bearing. The only thing I have been trying to say is that it is possible to not support same-sex marriage without being a bigot. Perhaps you equate opposition to same-sex marriage with bigotry; but you seemed to readily make all sorts of assumptions about my character earlier that were not true. Surely you can acknowledge there mere possibility that there are some people who do not support same-sex marriage without being homophobes, bigots, fundamentalists, and so forth?

Yes, they could be ignorant or stupid, however so often that's coterminous with fundamentalism or homophobia.

Honestly, I have never heard a single coherent argument that addresses the point I made earlier, why distinguish a man-woman relationship from a man-man woman-woman relationship? (except arguments that relied on fundamentalism or homophobia, which are coherent, but wrong-headed and horrible)  I'm open to hearing a coherent argument that meets my criteria.  But, I don't think it exists.  This has been argued by people smarter than you and I in the Federal Courts.  The anti-SSM marriage side has failed to find one rational basis reason for banning SSM.  Maybe you can help them and think of one, but I seriously doubt it.

It might be considered that opposition to gay marriage comes out of a somewhat different intellectual tradition than which modern "rational basis" legal arguments rest upon, and that diverse intellectual traditions can hold coherence or at least not be "stupid."

Your criteria is seems to be that any concept of marriage related to gender qua gender is bigoted by definition, is that right?

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean.  If the argument is that marriage means one man and one woman, because that's what it means, that's circular and therefore fundamentally flawed.  To say, gay people can't get married because marriage is between one man and one woman, that's no type of argument.  The premise for the conclusion can't just be the restatement of the conclusion in different words.

And, my point isn't even really about what is and is not bigoted.  It would help if we allowed ourselves to be fairly politically incorrect and frank about our opinions.  But, my point is that there is a lack of an actual honest to goodness, principled argument on the anti-SSM side.  An argument that lays out a coherent principle that differentiates between homosexual and heterosexual couples AND ALSO explains why that distinction matters in a relevant way.  So, just saying gay people like showtunes too much or gay people are gay, that's not going to cut it. 

The assumption you are making, as I understand it, is that all social institutions must be organized according to principles of deductive reasoning in order to be valid, and that tradition is no guide to how things should be. That simply isn't something that a conservative is going to agree with. Deductive reasoning only takes you so far.  Consider the fact that we are debating whether something is Constitutional, which itself is a tradition.  There is no analytic proof that says we should follow the Constitution, is there?  We attempt to adhere to it because of what the tradition has brought us. Marriage is like that, except it is a much more ancient and universal tradition, with its origins in the most remote past of human history, and with a much more unfathomable history and depth of social ramifications. As we look across cultures, marriage has a gender specific aspect to it, and I don't find it absurd to consider that gender may be significant to marriage not in a single absolute way, but in a panoply of ways which together might be significant. There is the issue of the relation of marriage to procreation, there is the idea of male and female complementarity as basic social and cosmological concepts in the human cultural experience. I support legal recognition of gay unions, and I even support calling them marriages, but to say that a union between two people of the same gender and those of different genders are fundamentally the same in all important respects is not something I feel can be claimed with any confidence.  This is an issue of Chesterton's fence.  The fundamental question here is - might there wisdom in what we have inherited that may be obscured in the myopia of the ideology and politics of the present moment?  The fact that the reasons for something may not be obvious or can be reduced to a simple legal formula does not mean it arises from ignorance or animous.   I see no reason to assume guilt of bigotry until proven innocence when it comes to those who have created and attempted to preserve an valuable institution, even if we come to the conclusion that a transformation of it may be necessary.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The assumption you are making, as I understand it, is that all social institutions must be organized according to principles of deductive reasoning in order to be valid, and that tradition is no guide to how things should be. That simply isn't something that a conservative is going to agree with. Deductive reasoning only takes you so far.  Consider the fact that we are debating whether something is Constitutional, which itself is a tradition.  There is no analytic proof that says we should follow the Constitution, is there?  We attempt to adhere to it because of what the tradition has brought us. Marriage is like that, except it is a much more ancient and universal tradition, with its origins in the most remote past of human history, and with a much more unfathomable history and depth of social ramifications. As we look across cultures, marriage has a gender specific aspect to it, and I don't find it absurd to consider that gender may be significant to marriage not in a single absolute way, but in a panoply of ways which together might be significant. There is the issue of the relation of marriage to procreation, there is the idea of male and female complementarity as basic social and cosmological concepts in the human cultural experience. I support legal recognition of gay unions, and I even support calling them marriages, but to say that a union between two people of the same gender and those of different genders are fundamentally the same in all important respects is not something I feel can be claimed with any confidence.  This is an issue of Chesterton's fence.  The fundamental question here is - might there wisdom in what we have inherited that may be obscured in the myopia of the ideology and politics of the present moment?  The fact that the reasons for something may not be obvious or can be reduced to a simple legal formula does not mean it arises from ignorance or animous.   I see no reason to assume guilt of bigotry until proven innocence when it comes to those who have created and attempted to preserve an valuable institution, even if we come to the conclusion that a transformation of it may be necessary.

That's a monumentally stupid argument.  If you're actually going to maintain that we need not use reason or principle or law or ethics to guide our behavior, what's the point of discussing anything?  If you think that, "well, I don't believe in reasoning" is a good argument, that's sort of the end of the line.  I disagree with you.  What are we supposed to do now?  Throw down in a cage match or something? 

Honestly, that sort of thinking is as bad as bigotry, it's basically nihilism with a twist of conservatism.  But, it's funny that you accept that type of nonsense when it hurts gay people, but what about other issues?  Someone could use your identical logic, "well, maybe logic is BS and maybe tradition something something" to justify Jim Crow or the Taliban's Islamic law or any of the worst barbarism.  That's what your argument is, barbarism.  Give me a break.  If that's the best you conservatives can do, in the immortal words of Big Daddy Kane, "put a quarter in your ass cause you played yourself."

Okay, you've amply demonstrated that you consider any worldview you aren't interested in taking the effort to understand to be stupid. You don't need to resort to profanity.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The fundamental question here is - might there wisdom in what we have inherited that may be obscured in the myopia of the ideology and politics of the present moment?  The fact that the reasons for something may not be obvious or can be reduced to a simple legal formula does not mean it arises from ignorance or animous.   I see no reason to assume guilt of bigotry until proven innocence when it comes to those who have created and attempted to preserve an valuable institution, even if we come to the conclusion that a transformation of it may be necessary.

Here's the thing: if you think there is some fundamental wisdom in the state of affairs we inherited, you should be able to actually articulate that wisdom, right? But you haven't. Not only haven't you articulated it, you haven't even come close! Even if it's complicated, or non-intuitive, it would be instructive to hear your interpretation of the "wisdom in what we have inherited". But you've refused to give it, which makes it seem as though you're really trying to muddy the waters more than anything.

There truthfully isn't any reason why I would necessarily be clever enough to articulate it in any simplistic and comprehensive way, as much wisdom and experience is inarticulated. In the words of Michael Polyani, "we know more than we can tell," and  the knowledge that is transmitted from one generation to the next relies fundamentally on that which is unspoken.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

link

The fact that something is not fully articulated does not mean it cannot be explored. The wisdom that is embedded in the history and structure of marriage as an institution related to sexual difference contains an indefinite number of aspects, but two stand out for me at the moment:

(1) Marriage has existed for the protection and provision of women and children. We might like to think this sort of thing is no longer necessary, but the number of unmarried mothers and children in poverty, among other things, suggests otherwise. This is something that should not be neglected. I do believe, contra many traditionalists, this function is ultimately compatible with extending marriage to same-sex couples (even if it is incompatible with the logic of many arguments presented in favor of same-sex marriage).
(2) Marriage may recognize and value a sexual complementarity present in human nature.
This obviously is an idea many people find offensive at the present time, but it's one that is unavoidable when looking at the human cultural experience. This claim might be called religious - though not in any narrow sense of the term - and in a pluralistic, open society it makes sense that the enactment of it would not fall to the civil authority. Obviously someone who believes government should play a stronger role in upholding social bonds might take a different view.

Given this, I see good reasons why marriage has been an opposite-gender institutions. At the same time I don't conclude from this that it must be such, at least in the civil sphere, and extending the institution to gay couples may even have strengthening effects on those couples as well as the institution and society in general.  On the other hand, I can appreciate the concern of what might be a fundamental change within an ancient and critical institution because I understand that we can't be fully aware of the implications of what we are leaving behind.  Proceeding as though we know it all, and that all those who went before and did things differently were simply so much more mean and foolish than we are, is responsible neither to the past nor to the future.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Why did marriage in Anglo-American historical times exclude gay couples?  That's the question you need to answer. 

Why is that the question?  Wouldn't the larger question be, "Why has marriage been a predominantly opposite-sex institution throughout history until very recently, both in historical contexts where homosexuality has been condemned as well as those where it has been tolerated"?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Why did marriage in Anglo-American historical times exclude gay couples?  That's the question you need to answer. 

Why is that the question?  Wouldn't the larger question be, "Why has marriage been a predominantly opposite-sex institution throughout history until very recently, both in historical contexts where homosexuality has been condemned as well as those where it has been tolerated"?

Which is a more plausible explanation?  Your mystery reason or my common-sense reason that I would venture to say is obvious.  You want to divorce this from some judgment of homosexuality, but that's just impossible, particularly when you want to rely on these vague reasons about what marriage might could possibly somehow something something.  Same sex marriage just wasn't considered until the 20th century.

We both agree that it wasn't considered. The question is why it wasn't considered.  I don't find your explanation of homophobia plausible as a general explanation (though certainly it is as a contributing one) since it is not applicable to all contexts where this social pattern exists.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Why did marriage in Anglo-American historical times exclude gay couples?  That's the question you need to answer.

Why is that the question?  Wouldn't the larger question be, "Why has marriage been a predominantly opposite-sex institution throughout history until very recently, both in historical contexts where homosexuality has been condemned as well as those where it has been tolerated"?

Which is a more plausible explanation?  Your mystery reason or my common-sense reason that I would venture to say is obvious.  You want to divorce this from some judgment of homosexuality, but that's just impossible, particularly when you want to rely on these vague reasons about what marriage might could possibly somehow something something.  Same sex marriage just wasn't considered until the 20th century.

We both agree that it wasn't considered. The question is why it wasn't considered.  I don't find your explanation of homophobia plausible as a general explanation (though certainly it is as a contributing one) since it is not applicable to all contexts where this social pattern exists.

If nobody considered same-sex marriage, how could they have any wisdom regarding same-sex marriage?

As to your other point, name a historical culture that accepted homosexuality such that it would have made sense to have same-sex marriage.  I've never heard of such a thing and it certainly doesn't exist in US/Anglo-American history.  Anglo-American history is certainly the proper history to consult here because that's what our law is grounded on, not some hypothetical culture that tolerated homosexuality somewhere at some point.

You really seem not to understand what I'm saying, so let me put it this way:  If you were to go back at pretty much any time in history more than a few decades ago and tell someone that the reason marriage is something between a man and a woman is because of anything to do with homosexuals, they would either think you were bonkers or were making a joke.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If you went back to the 1700s and talked about people of different religions marrying because they liked each other or found each other attractive, you would have been considered bonkers.

That isn't even remotely true. Even where there were prohibitions against it, they would have understood exactly why someone would want to marry someone of a different religion based on fondness or attractiveness. It is more our time that doesn't understand them.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If you went back to the 1700s and talked about people of different religions marrying because they liked each other or found each other attractive, you would have been considered bonkers.

That isn't even remotely true. Even where there were prohibitions against it, they would have understood exactly why someone would want to marry someone of a different religion based on fondness or attractiveness. It is more our time that doesn't understand them.

There weren't prohibitions against inter-religious marriage. The idea wasn't conceivable. There was no way to get married. If a Jew and a Catholic in Russia in 1790 wanted to marry, who would have conducted it? How would they have registered it? I'm all ears.

There have been interfaith marriages in many places and times across millennia, but perhaps it was not possible in the case you mention given the institutional arrangement of that setting. But the prohibition is implicit is in the refusal of the religions to conduct and sanction such a union is it not?  Cannot a person conceive of something which may not possible in actuality? My impression is that it isn't that it would be considered not a true marriage for two people of different religions to wed, but that a person could not be considered a true follower of their religion if they did so. Perhaps in some theology it would not be considered a true marriage either, but then they probably wouldn't consider it a true marriage if two people married who were both of the same 'false' religion either. 

As for your camera-phone comment, it doesn't work as an analogy because a camera phone at a wedding would not have a meaningful opposite to people in the past. To say "there was no camera phone at a wedding" would not make any more sense than to say "there was a camera phone at a wedding." On the other hand to say "marriage is between a man and a woman" would have made sense regardless of how much sense it would have made sense to say "marriage can be between a man and a man." Ancient peoples created myths and poems and art centered around the idea of marriage as a union between male and female. They didn't do any of that for the non-existence of cell phones.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Concepts of sexual orientation are so culturally specific in any case, but it's not at all clear to me what about my argument would be invalidated. What about sexual orientation do you think is key here?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Concepts of sexual orientation are so culturally specific in any case, but it's not at all clear to me what about my argument would be invalidated. What about sexual orientation do you think is key here?

First off, we're talking about the US anglo-American culture which is relevant to US law.  Right?  What happened in Italy or Russia is not going to have much relevance to US law.

The crux of your argument is that people in the past didn't see fit to let gay people get married, so we don't necessarily even have to consider allowing SSM today because sometimes (why?) law and reason must be trumped by tradition.

To me, that's basically taking a judgment of gay people who you and I would vehemently disagree with when it comes to sexual orientation at total face value.  Just, as we would vehemently disagree with them about the role of women or race or a number of other social issues, we find their opinions about homosexuality to be extremely wrong and horrible in a certain sense.  So, why are we listening to their judgments today when we disagree about the basic assumptions that underpin their reasoning?  We've been over this like 4 times and you refuse to answer, so maybe this is a waste of time, but whatever.

I haven't made the argument that same-sex marriage is something that shouldn't even be considered. That would be hypocritical to absurd degree on my part.  What I have been saying is that when it is considered, then tradition, while not necessarily dispositive, is relevant. By all means tradition should be questioned, but we should also allow it to question the assumptions of modernity.  Instead, we have seen courts go out of their way to trash tradition. It is indeed odd, in the Anglo-American context, given that precedent and the common law are nothing if not appeals to tradition.  We wouldn't even care what these people in black robes say were it not for a tradition to do such a thing.

I don't believe that support for same-sex marriage should actually require the demonization of its opponents, denigration and derision of tradition, and having views on sexuality that can be accurately summed up by a Macklemore song.  In the case that it does, I'm afraid that it fails to be something I can support.

You seem to keep coming back to this idea that marriage being defined as a man and a woman depended on certain false views about sexual orientation, but then you seem to say they didn't think about such things, so I'm confused about what you are claiming. I don't see why views about sexual orientation as typically defined are necessarily behind views about marriage, but maybe you can clarify this for me.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You are right, it is not a weird thing that marriage law ends up in court. The problem I have is with the argumentation being made. I am open to the idea that there is an argument a court could make declaring same-sex marriage to be valid that I would find convincing. I've been trying to think of it and I haven't gotten there.  Perhaps it exists already and I haven't read it, but the general trend has been to depend heavily on arguments that say that appeals to tradition are irrational and any opposition amounts to nothing more than bigotry.

Who is demonizing people, you ask?  It certainly seems that you are demonizing opponents of SSM as a group in what you just said. Given the discrimination and bullying that sadly still exists in our society, it is understandable, but neither accurate nor helpful to do so.

I think that experience is a good argument for same-sex marriage, given the fact that people have formed relationships patterned after marriage whether they are recognized by the state or not. I don't see any reason why logic alone would dictate that same-sex marriage would be allowed. I
think it is worth asking in your parable why there was vanilla ice cream in the freezer in the first place. I don't think we can assume it was merely accidental.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No, but I will say that going in to change a culture without taking the time to understand it has always worked out splendidly.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No, but I will say that going in to change a culture without taking the time to understand it has always worked out splendidly.

You: I'm not sure you should be allowed to get married.
Me: Why?
You: Someone else thinks you shouldn't.
Me:  Why is that?
You:  A reason, it might be a good reason.  Also, they're from a long time ago so they're automatically right.
Me:  Ok...
You:  Stop expecting people to have reasons for things!  It's mean!
Me: ...
You:  Maybe I'm right, sometimes there's a new thing and it's not a good thing.
Me: ...

"Gay people should be married because homophobes are homophobes. It's airtight reasoning. They didn't in the past because of they hated gays. Okay not really, they weren't thinking about it. No, yes it was because of bigotry. Or not. They were just stupid and irrational. Not like me, I'm super smart. No really, I really am. Maybe sexual orientation something 14th amendment something logic something human sacrifice."

see I can play that game too.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You didn't respond to whether or not you respect the view that women are property. What about that blacks are inherently inferior to whites? You shouldn't dismiss these ideas so easily you know, they were held for 99% of human history. It seems awfully pretentious of you to assume you know better than the longstanding traditions of our ancestors.

The premise of your question is incorrect.  Women as property and white supremacy have not historically been near-universals in human societies.  Maybe you can think of a better example?

bedstuy, I have presented you with reasoning as to how tradition can act as a repository of knowledge and you didn't like it one bit.  I presented a few possibilities as to what the functional nature of this knowledge could possibly be in the case of marriage as a gendered institution, or at least might reasonably be thought to be, which you didn't seem to give much consideration. I could present more, but to what end?  What you seem to be looking for is proof that gendered marriage has a utility to the fulfillment of some Hobbesian social contract. I am sorry to disappoint you, but my initial post in this thread should have tipped you off that wasn't forthcoming from me and involved a different kind of reasoning. It is coherent, whether or not it is convincing.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You didn't respond to whether or not you respect the view that women are property. What about that blacks are inherently inferior to whites? You shouldn't dismiss these ideas so easily you know, they were held for 99% of human history. It seems awfully pretentious of you to assume you know better than the longstanding traditions of our ancestors.

The premise of your question is incorrect.  Women as property and white supremacy have not historically been near-universals in human societies.  Maybe you can think of a better example?

They kind of have, especially the first one, but whatever. How about slavery? You can't get any more human than that.

I don't believe it can be said that slavery, as widespread as it has been, is a near human universal either. But in any case, while it is immoral I don't think you could call it irrational unless you are using a definition of rationality based on some kind of Natural Law philosophy.   It should be easy to see how slavery might be considered rational in the sense of having a social utility.  If we didn't have a 13th amendment then a law which allowed for slavery might well pass a rational basis review.  It would have indeed been awfully pretentious and incorrect to assume that ending slavery would not come at a cost and cause unforeseen problems, as much as it was right and worth it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Thinking on it some more, it's not so much that traditionally women were viewed as property (tho that view goes a long way to explaining polygynous societies) as that men and women were almost always seen as complementary aspects of humanity in which the sum of two different parts created a whole greater than the two were separately (or which was at least different than).  One simply could not obtain that by uniting two likes.

Yes, that's a crucial aspect to this.  If you look at symbology and myth and other cultural expressions surrounding marriage and gender, including the marriage rite itself, this is precisely what you see. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Thinking on it some more, it's not so much that traditionally women were viewed as property (tho that view goes a long way to explaining polygynous societies) as that men and women were almost always seen as complementary aspects of humanity in which the sum of two different parts created a whole greater than the two were separately (or which was at least different than).  One simply could not obtain that by uniting two likes.

You're talking about the concept of "Separate spheres." Like mass-produced family tartans, this timeless tradition was an invention of Victorian England and was unknown in the 18th century, not to mention countries outside the Anglosphere.

That is just one form one form of the idea. What was somewhat new in Victorian England was an association between this gender complementarity and a public vs private sphere distinction.   

here's an interesting quote to put this into perspective:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Medieval and Renaissance Marriage

Anyone who has ever seen a Yin Yang symbol shouldn't doubt that the concept of gendered complementarity is ubiquitous in human culture.