If you allow homosexuals marriage then...

[Revasser]

Ok, fine, I am going to take this thread in a new direction:

Let's say that allowing homosexual marriages WILL eventually lead to polygamous relationships wanting the same sort of legal status? So what? What would be the big problem with that? I personally don't have an issue with it.

Nor I. If they wanted to be brought under the umbrella of civil "marriage," the laws, currently built around a couple, would need some pretty drastic changes that aren't required for homosexual marriage, but I'm not really against that. And whether they did or not, the laws would need to be very carefully considered so as to be equitable for all participants. However, as far as I'm concerned, that kind of thing is what we pay the government for.

Incestuous relationships are a whole other monster - I brought up the genetic problems argument earlier and I believe that danger is what will keep the government from considering making this legal. Or the only way it could be legal, I think is if both parties (if of the opposite gender) undergo an irreversible sterilization beforehand.

I do agree. For incestuous heterosexual couples, there are compelling reasons to withold the right. While for potential incestuous homosexual couples, these factors are not nearly as pressing, the laws must apply equally.

However, as Amy says above, the issues really are separate ones and should be considered on their own merits rather than being unjustifiably lumped together as some would have it.

 

[Quiddity]

Polygamous marriage will have legal arguments to overcome that same gender marriage does not.

Incestous marriage will have medical arguments to overcome that same gender marriage does not.

While it is possible to use some similar arguments for polygamous and incestous marriage that are used for same gender marriage, there are additional arguments against polygamous and incestous marriage that have no bearing no same gender marriage. For this reason, they should be considered separetely and judged to be allowed or denied on their own arguments, both for and against.

That's true, but it doesn't leave much to argue about anymore really.

 

[MaddLlama]

While it is possible to use some similar arguments for polygamous and incestous marriage that are used for same gender marriage, there are additional arguments against polygamous and incestous marriage that have no bearing no same gender marriage. For this reason, they should be considered separetely and judged to be allowed or denied on their own arguments, both for and against.

Exactly.

 

[nutshell]

Polygamous marriage will have legal arguments to overcome that same gender marriage does not.

Incestous marriage will have medical arguments to overcome that same gender marriage does not.

While it is possible to use some similar arguments for polygamous and incestous marriage that are used for same gender marriage, there are additional arguments against polygamous and incestous marriage that have no bearing no same gender marriage. For this reason, they should be considered separetely and judged to be allowed or denied on their own arguments, both for and against.

Can you please help me understand what these different arguments are? I always thought the bottom line was "consenting adults."

 

[MaddLlama]

Can you please help me understand what these different arguments are? I always thought the bottom line was "consenting adults."

With polygamous marriage, certain legal hurdles will need to be jumped since this will require a complete overhaul of the laws - with homosexuals it won't be too difficult since it's still only two people.
With incestuous relationships certain genetic issues will have to be dealt with which are not present at all in homosexual marriages - they cannot breed together, so the threat of poluting the gene pool is inapplicable to them.

 

[Green Gaia]

Can you please help me understand what these different arguments are? I always thought the bottom line was "consenting adults."

My personal opinion is that what consenting adults together do in regards to love and sex is none of my business.

However, it is true that polygamous marriage would create major legal difficulties arising from things like divorce and guardenship, (and I'm sure many more that I can't think of at the moment).

Also, we have medical and psychological reasons against incestous relationships.

I am an expert of neither things, so someone else will have to answer your question more in depth. My issue is same gender marriage, that's what I know. There are no reasons against same gender marriage except for religious ones, which cannot be used as civil laws.

I stand by my statement that they should be judged separately and on their own arguments.

 

[Inky]

The one thing I'm failing to understand is why some people can't comprehend that there is a difference between inter-racial marriage and gay marriage. Just becayse inter-racial marriage is allowed doesn't mean that gay marriage has to be recognized.
Each form of marriage should be looked at one its own.

Logically, that would require you to stop connecting gay marriage and polygamy, as there's also a difference between them.

The issue of inter-racial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage. Stop bringing inter-racial marriage into the gay marriage debate.

Interracial marriage has just as much in common with gay marriage as polygamy does. You can't lump together gay marriage and polygamy without adding interracial marriage to the mix, unless you give us a good answer on why you're arranging things that way. So, I'd like to hear your reason why you believe that there's a fundamental connection between gay marriage and polygamy, but no such connection between gay and interracial marriage. So far the only answer I've gotten is "it's not relevant because race is not sexual orientation", which logically would require you to stop connecting gay marriage and polygamy.

Most importantly: No one has presented an argument against gay marriage which could not be (and was not) used to justify outlawing interracial marriage or other practices we consider acceptable today. That is why it is relevant. If we followed your argument logically, the conclusion would be that we should be trying to outlaw interreligious marriage and divorce as well, just to name two.

Also, the debate over whether sexual orientation is immutable really wouldn't change it in relation to interracial marriage, because the analagous parts here are race and sex, not race and orientation. Interracial relationships involve attraction to someone of the "wrong" (big quotes!) race, and gay relationships involve attraction to the "wrong" sex. Someone could easily choose to marry someone of their own race; in fact, unlike with gay people, it's basically unheard of for someone to feel no attraction to anyone of the "appropriate" race, so the gay marriage ban is even worse in a way.

 

[Quiddity]

Sure. You said that both inter-racial marriage and same sex marriage should be allowed on the grouds that race and sexual preference are immutable traits (apparently that means traits that can't be changed or shut off). While I'm not denying that sexual preference is an immutable trait (although I'm still iffy on the whole concept, I think it can really go both ways) I really do think that there is a difference between the two, and that one immutable trait affects apperance only while the other affects behavior. As a result, I don't think that the two really compare because while they both might be immutable traits, they are far from equal and they affect people in two completely different ways. As a result, I don't think that saying "They allowed interacial marriage to happen because race is an immutable trait so why won't they allow same sex marriage cause sexual preferance is an immutable trait" is a valid argument. I think both issues need to be judged individually and seperately and that the first case in no way sets a precedent for the second case, especially if the case boils down the the immutable trait argument. Does that make sense at all?

I concur....

 

[spacemonkey]

I didn't take the time to read all the posts on this thread, I was just responding to the title. What I want to know, is who thinks they have the right to deny marriage rights to ANYBODY? Why do some people feel they have a right to tell others how to live their lives? What if going to church were outlawed, how would those of you who want to deny homosexuals their rights feel then? Its the same principle, when you take rights away from any individual you set yourself up to lose your rights as well.

 

[Pah]

Sure. You said that both inter-racial marriage and same sex marriage should be allowed on the grouds that race and sexual preference are immutable traits (apparently that means traits that can't be changed or shut off). While I'm not denying that sexual preference is an immutable trait (although I'm still iffy on the whole concept, I think it can really go both ways) I really do think that there is a difference between the two, and that one immutable trait affects apperance only while the other affects behavior. As a result, I don't think that the two really compare because while they both might be immutable traits, they are far from equal and they affect people in two completely different ways. As a result, I don't think that saying "They allowed interacial marriage to happen because race is an immutable trait so why won't they allow same sex marriage cause sexual preferance is an immutable trait" is a valid argument. I think both issues need to be judged individually and seperately and that the first case in no way sets a precedent for the second case, especially if the case boils down the the immutable trait argument. Does that make sense at all?

The immutable trait for orientation has nothing to do with behavior. A celibate can be any of the various orientations. You have no behavior in that case unless you want to say "no behavior" is behavior (but then you would have to explain the asexually oriented person). Orientation is equal to skin color, left handedness, or being red haired.

Marriage, an unalienable, fundamental right, today is denied based on a label of orientation. The state has no business speaking of activity that orientation may favor. Get some real prudes in power and you'll end up with the missionary position with the lights out. The governemnt can not have that power nor abrogate any consentual sexual behavior.

Equality demands that any innate characteristic not be the cause of discrimination.

 

[Quiddity]

I didn't take the time to read all the posts on this thread, I was just responding to the title. What I want to know, is who thinks they have the right to deny marriage rights to ANYBODY? Why do some people feel they have a right to tell others how to live their lives? What if going to church were outlawed, how would those of you who want to deny homosexuals their rights feel then? Its the same principle, when you take rights away from any individual you set yourself up to lose your rights as well.

Let me say this loud and clear.


Nature by default knows nothing of rights. Alasdair MacIntyre has written that a belief in rights is on a par with "belief in witches and unicorns”. So as much pity that people may have on those of us who come from a religious philosophy, we can so easily say the same of those who wander about using interests theories for human rights. It too is influenced by some form of philosophy.


So spare me the "you don't have the right" while most everybody does the same thing.

 

[Inky]

Marriage, an unalienable, fundamental right, today is denied based on a label of orientation. The state has no business speaking of activity that orientation may favor.

I don't see why it even has to be immutable or not a "preference". If I want to marry outsided my religion, that's a preference (as much as the characteristics of the person we love are ever a "preference"), and it's certainly a right according to U.S. law. We don't say it's ok to outlaw that just because you can choose to marry someone of your own religion, even though the same arguments for interreligious marriage apply to polygamy, incest etc.

 

[Pah]

Wrong. On many points. First of all, sexual orientation is a trait that influences behavior because it affects what type of partner you choose to pursue in life or if you even choose to pursue anyone at all. Two, celibacy is a type of behavior because choosing not to do something is the same as choosing to do something, it's a choice, therefore, it's behavior. It is impossible to not do something and still claim it is not a behavior. Any psychologist or sociologist would agree with me, no matter what school of thought they prescribe to. As a result, an asexual orientation is a type of behavior.

Thank you. "Sexual orientation is a trait that influences behavior" means the two are separate.

I won't qibble with the celibracy - I already allowed for it.

But I fear that your interpretation of an asexual is flawed. "It is impossible to not do something and still claim it is not a behavior". As I am eating dinner, am I therefore a homosexual, asexual, bisexual, or heterosexual? The behavior is eating not desiring sex or even participating in sex. Not doing someting can not qualify as definition for something that is not being done.

 

[lilithu]

Wrong. On many points. First of all, sexual orientation is a trait that influences behavior because it affects what type of partner you choose to pursue in life or if you even choose to pursue anyone at all. Two, celibacy is a type of behavior because choosing not to do something is the same as choosing to do something, it's a choice, therefore, it's behavior. It is impossible to not do something and still claim it is not a behavior. Any psychologist or sociologist would agree with me, no matter what school of thought they prescribe to. As a result, an asexual orientation is a type of behavior.

Sexual orientation influences who you are attracted to, whether you decide to act on that attraction or not. You can choose to be celibate and still be straight, bi, or gay. You cannot choose whether you are straight, bi, or gay.

All of which is irrelevant to this thread, because as someone else has already pointed out, whether or not choice is involved makes no difference in whether the govt has the right to limit one's right to marry.

 

[Quiddity]

Well I was going under the assumption that we were ruling out celibacy, cause if we weren't, there wouldn't be an issue to discuss here.

As for your second point, the government has all sorts of rights to limit people's choices. That's part of their job. That's why people hate oppressive governments, because they set too many limits. But people also hate governments who don't enforce their laws because everything turns into utter chaos.

Must spread Karma.

 

[lilithu]

As for your second point, the government has all sorts of rights to limit people's choices.

Wrong. Honestly, I fear for the future of our democracy given that you youngun's don't seem to understand the basic principles upon which it was founded.

The govt does NOT have all sorts of rights. The PEOPLE do. The govt has the right to limit our freedom ONLY to the extent that it can show that it needs to in order to protect the people's rights.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=590970#poststop

Please read this post, because - no offence to you personally but I'm really tired of giving civics lessons.

 

[Quiddity]

Wrong. Honestly, I fear for the future of our democracy given that you youngun's don't seem to understand the basic principles upon which it was founded.

The govt does NOT have all sorts of rights. The PEOPLE do. The govt has the right to limit our freedom ONLY to the extent that it can show that it needs to in order to protect the people's rights.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=590970#poststop

Please read this post, because - no offence to you personally but I'm really tired of giving civics lessons.

Since you are tired, perhaps someone can explain to me who interprets the people's rights if not the government?

 

[Pah]

...

As for your second point, the government has all sorts of rights to limit people's choices. That's part of their job. That's why people hate oppressive governments, because they set too many limits. But people also hate governments who don't enforce their laws because everything turns into utter chaos.

Well, no again! The Consitution was set up to LIMIT government rights. In order for the government to have any power it must get it from the Constitution and it must be shown that any power is specified or neccessary to to govern. Peoples rights are only limited when it can be shown that government has an overriding interest.

 

[Quiddity]

Well, no again! The Consitution was set up to LIMIT government rights. In order for the government to have any power it must get it from the Constitution and it must be shown that any power is specified or neccessary to to govern. Peoples rights are only limited when it can be shown that government has an overriding interest.

The interpreting Power of the Supreme Court is necessary, wouldn't you agree?

 

[fantome profane]

No. You cannot punish me for someone else's actions.

When your actions lead to their actions, yes, the govt can.

I am just one of those strange wacky people who believes that we should be held accountable for our own actions. You on the other hand seem to belief that homosexual couples should be held accountable for the actions of people they don’t know and can’t control. I don’t think that is fair. If I drive a nice car that may cause someone to get jealous and go out and steel a car like mine, should I be arrested for grand theft auto?

You seem to suggest that people like Maize should be held accountable for the actions of others and punished for them.

And just to address the OP directly, not only are there laws in place against incest but there are very good reasons for them. There is no reason to believe that same sex marriage will in anyway negate the reasons we don't allow incest.

And as for the question about whether same sex marriage will lead to polygamy let me answer that with a firm and decisive “I don’t know”. And let me also add to that a passionate and heartfelt “I don’t care” .