Hey everyone, so in the spirit of equality and supporting homosexual marriage I recently shared this picture on facebook:
Sorry I don't know how to re-size this.
Anyway, my brother had this to say:
"This really is a strawman falacy becuase (most of) those who are against homosexual marriage are also against infidelity, pornography, "no-fault" divorce (or irreconcilable differences), and excessive spending. So really, (most of) the people who are against homosexual marriage would also be against the actions listed above.
Also, (most of, or maybe just many of) the people against homosexual marriage realize that it is not homosexual marriage that destroys the institution of marriage, but it is immoral (sinful) lives that destroy marriage. To many of these people, marriage is not a government or civil institution, it is a physical representation of a spiritual truth. Marriage is the symbol of God's love and desired relationship with humans. Since God ordained marriage, many people expect marriage to be congruent to what God deems correct.
There are other politcal, sociological, scientific, and philosophical reasons to disfavor homosexual marriage, but ultimately they take a back seat to the spiritual reason." (Oh and then his wife "liked" the comment he left)
As you can guess I really want respond to this but I have no idea what to say without sounding like an asshole (don't know why I bother considering) and I don't want to just delete the comment or ignore it because I feel like that would be somehow admitting defeat or something. So what do you think?
It's me that needs fixing. I sent you a PM :)
In the US, at its core, marriage is civil - a construct of secular government. Some people include religious ornamentation in their marriage ceremonies, but the thing that makes them married is the civil paperwork they have to fill out. You and I could call ourselves married, and have all sorts of religious authorities involved, and it would mean nothing unless we filled out the paperwork. Popes, witch-doctors, shamans, all might call us married, but we're not filling out that "married, filing jointly" tax return without notifying the state that we're married.
Just because your brother is against porn, infidelity, no-fault divorce, etc. doesn't mean he's any more pro-marriage than a gay person who wants to get married. He's just pro-my-type-of-marriage. "You can't join the club because you're gay", is really his argument. He's playing the part of an elitist who can say, "Well, I'm special, because I'm a married man and you... you can't even get married, Hah!" It's a very thin thing to hang your worth on, but he's going to clutch onto it as long as he can.
I don't know where he gets the "excessive spending" thing. That's the cornerstone of capitalism. Why does he hate America?
By the way, you and I COULD get married...I'm free this weekend...I can cook and .. well, just putting it out there...I look kind of like Andrew McCarthy but without the charisma or charm...
WHAT?!?!!? You're already married? Wow, and we were gonna get married this weekend! My mom is gonna be so bummed...
I suppose stalking is out of the question.
If you listen closely you can hear the final bells tolling for this "debate". My hubby laid the smack down on (almost) everything my brother said (with contributions from me...hehe) and my brother has come as close as he will ever be to admitting defeat. Once again I can post/PM the messages to you if you are interested or just find me on facebook.
Here are my husband's responses. They include what my brother wrote so you will know what he is talking about. My husband's responses will be in bold. So here we go...might take a few posts, don't know how long they let these posts be.
I wish facebook were set up like a normal forum where one can respond to specific posts...oh well...here I go
"This really is a strawman falacy becuase (most of) those who are against homosexual marriage are also against infidelity, pornography, "no-fault" divorce (or irreconcilable differences), and excessive spending. So really, (most of) the people who are against homosexual marriage would also be against the actions listed above."
If the content of the original meme were presented as an opening argument in a debate than it would be considered a straw-man. However I believe the meme's intention was to point out the fact that many / most people who are against homosexual marriage are so because they consider homosexuality to be wrong and therefore damaging to marriage. But how exactly will homosexual marriage affect existing and future heterosexual marriages? Wouldn't it increase the total number of all marriages? Successful and unsuccessful?
"Also, (most of, or maybe just many of) the people against homosexual marriage realize that it is not homosexual marriage that destroys the institution of marriage, but it is immoral (sinful) lives that destroy marriage."
On what grounds is homosexuality immoral?
"To many of these people, marriage is not a government or civil institution, it is a physical representation of a spiritual truth. "
In this country those people have every right to define their own marriages as they choose to. This freedom is protected by The Constitution. The Supreme Court represents no church and therefore represents the government / civil aspects of marriage.
"Marriage is the symbol of God's love and desired relationship with humans. "
This may be true for you and many people. However it is not necessarily what marriage is to others or to me.
"Since God ordained marriage, many people expect marriage to be congruent to what God deems correct. "
Did god ordain marriage? Which god's opinion should we use to determine the law in this country?
"I do not mind intelligent arguments in support of your ideas. However, Amanda, none of your posts have anything to do with my statement. I never said the Constitution says homosexual marriage is a sin."
I think my wife's intention was to defuse this situation as I tried to with humor. But I can see how it appeared antagonistic. *tisk tisk 'Manda XD.
What the Willy Wonka meme accomplishes is establishing that no religious text should be the basis of law in this country that is home to numerous people from a multitude of religious and non religious backgrounds.
If the Constitution could be amended on the bases of religious doctrine, what religious text would be used? The Holy Bible? The Koran? What of the growing population of atheists / people with no religion? If the population shifted to be primarily Muslim would it be right for the Government to enforce their religiously based laws?
"In fact, if you ask me, I do not think that in the United States that the state should recognize heterosexual marriage."
I find this to be an interesting concept. But the fact of the matter is that marriage in this country is a lawful, civil institution. And legal perks and conveniences such as inheritance, visitation rights, and tax exemptions are given by the government to married couples.
If homosexual couples were forbidden by law to marry, they would be denied the rights that married heterosexual couples have.
If marriage were only a spiritual institution then the Supreme Court would have nothing to decide. This would not however keep gay couples from marrying. They would simply marry in a church that did not view their lifestyle as sinful or immoral.
"As I said earlier, marriage is a spiritual issue at its core, certainly not political."
And as was written earlier, not every marriage is spiritual at all, let alone at its core.
"Your last post would take some time to debate, and I have no intention of carrying on such a long discussion here. Suffice to say that the post does not fully explain the texts cited, and it does not understand what happend. It also does not understand that just because something happened in the Bible, it does not mean that God wanted it to happen (endorsed it). Many things happened in Scripture that God did not endorse."
Did god endorse anything in the Bible then? How can we be sure? What parts can we forget about?
"I posted a disagreement to your original meme because it was about your original meme. Your other memes carried the topic elsewhere. I do not mind keeping on topic."
I think the rapid fire meme responses were meant to send the message that this thread was not intended for debate. (lolol IT WORKED WELL XD)
"Marriage has absolutely no foundation without the spiritual meaning."
For who and according to whom? (is that right? who and whom in that sentence?)
"Why do humans have the institution of marriage? There is no scientific, sociological, or philosophical demand for marriage."
What is a scientific demand? What is a philosophical demand? A sociological demand could refer to a changing opinion of a society...like the sociological demand for equal rights...
"Sure science, sociology, and philosophy can give good reasons for marriage, but there is no necessary need for marriage. Only the spiritual reason can make marriage necessary."
Marriage is necessary? People choose to never marry all the time. It clearly is not necessary.
"If we were to only use science, sociology, or philosophy, then marriage could break down at any time and be defined in any way one would like. You used philosophy when you said it is based on a deep love commitment."
What Amanda said was "My marriage is based on the deep love and commitment Sam and I share for each other (and our awesome dog)"
She was not speaking about all marriages or marriage in general.
"Well, love comes and goes (as we humans know quite well). Based on that, one could create and leave a love commitment any time one wants. "
Loves comes and goes for some. It never even arrives for others. But for some it comes and stays for a lifetime.
Some marriages occur and fail. Marriage never even occurs for others. But for some it happens only once and lasts a lifetime.
And that goes for gay and straight episodes of love and marriage.
"Therefore, marriage is always possibly temporary; there is no need to stay in a relationship if one does not want to. It is because of this philosophical thinking that we have so many "no fault" divorces. I do not equate infidelity and pornography with homosexuality. They are all wrong, but on different levels."
And what levels would those be? In what order of "Most wrong to least wrong"?
I consider one of the "wrongs" listed to not be wrong. One "wrong" to be not necessarily wrong in every circumstance for every person. And one "wrong" as being a fundamental breach of human trust.
I think most will be able to tell which "wrong" goes where.
"Just because someone "loves" another person, it does not make it right."
Who shall determine what love is right and which is wrong?
"What if I were to say I love Samantha, but I also love some other girl? Would the former love be right? Should I be allowed to marry the other girl? If love is the only thing that makes a relationship correct, then there should be nothing wrong with that. "
If Amanda had said "love is the only thing that makes a relationship correct" you would be absolutely right. But she didn't.
You forgot to mention that she was referring to her own marriage, not marriage in general. You also removed her bit about commitment.
"...based on the deep love and commitment..." - Amanda Mrakovich
If were to fall head over heals in love with another woman, peruse a relationship with her, abandon my marriage, and marry the other woman, I would be in wrong.
If I were to fall in love, but not pursue a relationship...I may have some issues to work out with Amanda, but I would not be committing a "wrong". The wrong is a breach of trust / the betrayal of our commitment to each other. Our relationship is not just based in love. Even though I may have feelings for another woman, my feelings of love for Amanda and the knowledge that I committed myself to her and her to me would not disappear.
There are "open marriages" that exist in which it would be okay for the husband or wife to pursue relationships with others. I do not belong to one of those. It is about staying true to your word to another human being. Holding an alliance, a friendship, and symbiotic relationship with another human being.
Breach of trust is one of the fundamental wrongs of humanity. Betrayal is regarded as despicable in nearly every society that has ever existed.