Redefining Gravity - a failed analogy

[foolishwisdom]

A video I came across, where they (indirectly, but it's obvious) talk about how redefining marriage is "harmful." And they do this by a stupid analogy: redefining gravity. I think the reason they went with gravity, is because it's natural, but homosexuality isn't...
There's no sugarcoating it, or any form of sarcasm that can be said. Just see if you can stomach it for yourself:



Oi, I've seen a lot of stupidity concerning LGBTs, but this must be the worst. I'm sorry if this isn't the place, but I must rant:

Nature sees us as a species, not as male/female. Our sexuality is as random as our gender. The fact that a male is attracted to a female, likewise a female attracted to a male, is a coincidence, not an intention.

Furthermore, marriage is not "natural," there's nothing biological, physical (not counting the honeymoon), astronomical, etc, about marriage. It's a social unionship, the world will not blow up because two people who genuinely love each other, as opposed to some "pro-family" gits whose names I forgot, wish to be together.
Maybe marriage should be redefined, to: Two consenting adults, who wish to be together because they love each other.
Rather then: Two adults, a male and female, who are to be together, because it's "normal."

Pisses me off that these people say that, love can be between a man and woman; basically saying that love is what it always is, unisexual. And yet, they only see the physical sex over any affections (or lack there of), regardless of gender or orientation.

[Admiral Lithp]

That moron clearly has no idea how gravity works to begin with & should not be using it in asinine anti-gay analogies.

[Undecided]

I think it's an apt analogy. No matter how we as a society choose to define "gravity", we are pulled towards the earth when at its surface. Since we want our edifices to be able to withstand the natural elements, we should take the existence of this pull into account when designing buildings and infrastructure. How fortunate it is, then, that we have an already-existing account of this pull called gravity which can so easily help us fulfill these needs!

Similarly, no matter how we as a society choose to define "marriage", certain members of the same sex engage in monogamous romantic relationships and rear children. Since we want members of our society to have successful permanent relationships and raise children to be well-functioning adults, we should take the existence of these relationships into account when designing social institutions like contract law and welfare. Here, too, we are fortunate in having a preexisting institution called marriage which can do all these things for us!

[Neith]

I like how you put that, Undecided.

[foolishwisdom]

That's actually a pretty interesting way of putting it, Undecided. Shame it'll go over the fundies' heads.

[The Renegade]

They are using gravity as something that is always the same no matter what people want it to be, but I would first like to point out that gravity is not the same everywhere, and changes depending on location.

Anyways, marriage is already redefined! The concept of marriage changes to fit the society's current needs/beliefs, and it has always been that way throughout human history. Marriage now is not what marriage was in medieval times, for instance.

It used to be that around the first half of the twentieth century, marriage was based on having children/heirs, a social contract tying 2 families together, a woman having a decent life (because it was very hard to get a job and support herself as a single woman), etc. Under this definition, same-sex marriage doesn't really have a place, as love and who you are attracted to is not the point. The older generation is probably more likely to be against gay marriage because this is the definition of marriage they have in their heads.

Now, marriage is based more on romantic love and attraction. (Marrying for money happens all the time, but it's generally looked down upon if a couple says that's their major reason.) Under this definition, same-sex marriage fits in perfectly. It's taken as granted by most people in my generation that they will marry someone they love. Why should gay people have to settle for marrying someone they cannot feel romantic love for or never marrying at all, when their straight friends are happily making marriage plans with the love of their life?

[Admiral Lithp]

So long as we're pointing out the obvious, there is no technology that would have to be changed to facilitate gay marriage.

[VirtualStranger]

"It's not fair that gravity only goes in one direction, I think gravity can go in many directions."

Wow... just... wow.

15 seconds in and you've already demonstrated that you have no idea how gravity works. Gravity DOES go in many directions, dumbass. Gravity describes the attraction between objects, not "things fall down hurr durr."