If you allow homosexuals marriage then...

[Pah]

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.

While I agree that rights are not from nature, there are a product of humanity's history and not philosophy or any kind

I own rights because my earliest ancesator fashioned them.

 

[lilithu]

Except you forget that it's the government's job to interpret laws and rights. *cough*judicial branch*cough*

The Supreme Court interprets laws. It cannot legislate and therefore cannot do anything to limit our rights.

However, I also know that this issue isn't as simple as we're making it out to be and that there honestly are legitimate concerns as to whether or not same sex marriage will harm society. If there wasn't, all the other states would have already followed in Massachusetts footsteps.

The fact that they are hesitant shows that they are obviously concerned about something. Could it be that they aren't actually concerned about allowing gay marriage itself, but how people might react to that? This is an emotionally volatile issue and there is a good chance that the government might be afraid that allowing for gay rights would cause disorder and violence.

Or it could just be that they/we are biased.

As has been argued numerous times in this thread, the same concerns were raised about inter-racial marriages. Opponents argued that allowing people of different races to marry would mean the disintergration of the family as we know it and the moral decay of society, etc, etc. And do your think the idea of blacks marrying whites did not cause certain people to react with disorder and violence? Since when has that ever been a legitimate excuse to limit the inherent freedoms of our citizens?

As I've stated before, when the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws in 1967, over 70% of Americans still opposed inter-racial marriages. There was no reason for that opposition other than bigotry. Or to put it more kindly, fear of the unknown.

People are always afraid that if we change what they're used to then all hell is going to break loose and society is going down the tubes. Logically, "we've always done it that way" is not a good enough reason to deny someone their rights. Whereas acknowledging that we've privileged one group of people over another for no other reason than our fear of them is a good reason to change.

 

[logician]

"My perception is the pro-homosexual marriage group gets offended when it is suggested allowing homosexual marriage may lead to polygamy or other kinds of marriage.
"

Why would it?

 

[lilithu]

Yes, but just because the constitution limits the government's rights, that does not mean it keeps the government from limiting the choices of it's citizens. Otherwise, it would not be a governed country. It would be anarchy.

The govt only has the right to limit our choices if it can prove that it needs to. There are certain laws that are necessary in order to prevent chaos, yes. Would you go so far as to say that banning same-sex marriage is such a necessary law? And if so, on what rational grounds do you make your claim?

 

[Fluffy]

Heya Maize,

Polygamy and incest have no connection to sexuality as an immutable trait which deals with what gender a person is attracted to.

Sexual orientation is similar to race in that both are immutable traits. Wanting many partners or being in love with a family member is not.

Therefore?

That an argument can be applied in a similar fashion to something is irrelevent.

It doesn't seem irrelevent in the context of this thread... see my earlier post. I cannot find an argument that justifies homosexual marriage without justifying at the very least polygamous marriage and, as my earlier post indicates, a certain degree of incestuous marriage as well.

I believe the topic of the thread assumes faulty reasoning. One does not cause another. One group should not the punished for the actions of another, even if it is possible to use similar arguments for both. They should be examined independently of one another.

I believe the argument is that the arguments for both are not similar but identical in much the same way as the arguments for homosexual marriage and interacial marriage are identical.

Her only point is a logical fallacy. I won't concede to that.

Which particular logical fallacy are you referring to?

Tell me how my actions of marrying another woman will lead to polygamous and incestous relationships in I am not involved in them. Again, you cannot blame me for the actions of others.

I, as a supporter of gay marriage, also support polygamous and incestuous marriage.

Nikki is saying that since my arguments for gay marriage apply equally to polygamy and incest, ie I cannot support one without the other, and since she feels that polygamy and incest are despicable, gay marriage must also be despicable because, at least for me, they must come as a package and not individually. Since this is the case, the only way to argue against polygamous and incestuous relationships would be to also argue against gay relationships.

Now whether this is fair or just is another matter. But it does explain why you must suffer if people who are polygamous and incestuous are to suffer also.

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.

That is untrue. Different counterarguments have been levelled at these things and different arguments have been used to counter the counter arguments.

However, the overiding reason for why these things should be accepted as amoral remains the same throughout. It does not therefore follow that these are similar arguments. They are identical arguments.

If what I outlined above does not constitute identical arguments then I would have to conclude that the argument for interacial marriage and the argument for homosexual marriage are also merely similar since the counterarguments for each have also differed.

Heya jmourn,

Um, last time I checked, that was the whole point of sex in the first place. The only reason it's fun is because that's the only way we'd be garunteed to continue to procreate.

Upon what basis do you justify this "point"? Science does not give actions a purpose so saying that the purpose of sex is to produce babies is like saying that the purpose of lightning is to strike down trees.

Perhaps you are arguing this from a religious stand point?

Actually, saying "Yes it does!" and "No it doesn't" back and forth is a logical fallacy in and of itself.

I am not aware of this particular logical fallacy. Is it termed anything?

Heya Nikki,

Prove to you that love is an immutable trait? Prove to you that people cannot help who they fall in love with? I do hope you're kidding. As has already been discussed in this thread, and in other recent threads, it's not even verified that sexual orientation is 100% immutable. Again, it's still a huge bone of contention.

To what extent would you say that sexuality is changeable? How easy is it for you to change your sexuality into something different? Do you find it the change into some sexualities easier than others?

See: The Entire Thread.

A apologise Nikki but I cannot find a specific argument from you that shows they are not independent. I would really appreciate it if you could direct me to the post number where you have outlined this argument or perhaps outline it again .

Sadly, Maize, it is. When allowing gay marriage will inevitably lead to the allowance of things that are universally despicable, it's most certainly doubtful as to whether what causes such things should be allowed in the first place.

Hmmm I agree to a certain extent. In this instance it would entirely depend on the specific connection you are drawing between homosexuality and other sexual minorities (ie how direct/close it is) and whether these other sexual minorities are indeed "universally despicable". They obviously aren't universally despicable because I don't consider them despicable. Additionally you might like to know that if you are suggesting that they are despicable because this is their univeral perception then you are committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populam.

Maize, I've been talking directly to you this whole time. I made one third party comment about you to Becky and you think I'm treating you like a wall. You have the rights everyone else in the country has: Regardless of your sexual orientation, you may marry one other unrelated person of the opposite sex.

I agree with you fully on this. The argument from inequality of rights I find to be horribly flawed in the way you described.

However, the argument from bias of rights is a very sound argument since it successfully shows the heterosexual bias in many of the laws that give us those rights. Upon demonstrating the equality of the sexualities, it becomes a matter of deduction to change those rights so that they are no longer biased.

Heya Maddllama and Becky,

I brought up the genetic problems argument earlier

incestous relationships are proven unhealthy for the genetics.

Evidence?

Heya Revasser

Your sole reason is that some of the same arguments being used for allowing homosexual marriage can also be used for polygamous and incestuous marriage.

Which specific arguments for homosexual marriage cannot also be applied to polygamous and incestuous marriage.

Heya wanderer,

"My perception is the pro-homosexual marriage group gets offended when it is suggested allowing homosexual marriage may lead to polygamy or other kinds of marriage.
"

Why would it?

I would suspect that this would be due to feelings that our cause might be hurt via association. Alternatively it might be due to the association being implied within an attack and offence is given at the attack rather than the association.

 

[lilithu]

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.

I am really surprised to hear this coming from you Victor. If you give up any claim of natural or inalienable rights, you're conceding that the only rights you have are those recognized by the agreement of a group of people to follow what's written on a piece of paper. What then protects your ability to worship God as your conscience dictates? Just that agreement and a piece of paper? And what if people should change their mind about that?

If you claim that our rights only come from majority rule/human consensus, then you are no more protected than anyone else.

There's a reason why when Jefferson spoke of rights he said that they were endowed to us by our Creator, to place them above the capricious reach of popular whim.

 

[Fluffy]

Heya lilithu (I always have a disturbing tendancy to try and put too many l's in your name)

If you claim that our rights only come from majority rule/human consensus, then you are no more protected than anyone else.

From where else are our rights derived?

 

[lilithu]

Maize, I've been talking directly to you this whole time. I made one third party comment about you to Becky and you think I'm treating you like a wall. You have the rights everyone else in the country has: Regardless of your sexual orientation, you may marry one other unrelated person of the opposite sex.

I agree with you fully on this. The argument from inequality of rights I find to be horribly flawed in the way you described.

Um... she can't marry the person that she loves. How is that the same as having the same rights as everyone else?

Imagine there's a classroom with 30 kids. Of the 30 kids, 2 of them are allergic to milk. Every day the teacher gives them crackers and milk. And he says to the two kids who are allergic, "I treat you the same as everyone else in the classroom: regardless of your food allergies, you get the same amount of milk as everyone else." HOW is that equal??

 

[Inky]

Um... she can't marry the person that she loves. How is that the same as having the same rights as everyone else?

Imagine there's a classroom with 30 kids. Of the 30 kids, 2 of them are allergic to milk. Every day the teacher gives them crackers and milk. And he says to the two kids who are allergic, "I treat you the same as everyone else in the classroom: regardless of your food allergies, you get the same amount of milk as everyone else." HOW is that equal??

Exactly...I'd even go farther, since getting married is not like getting something for free...it's like the kids are allowed to bring their own crackers and milk, but nothing else, including the kids who are allergic to milk.

It cracks me up when people say "opposite-sex marriage is enough for everyone because everyone can marry someone of the opposite sex" and "same-sex marriage is a special right that only applies to gays" in the same breath.

 

[spacemonkey]

Upon what basis do you justify this "point"? Science does not give actions a purpose so saying that the purpose of sex is to produce babies is like saying that the purpose of lightning is to strike down trees.

I have to agree jmoum on this point, the point of all life is to reproduce for failure to do so would mean the end of life. Improved reproduction is the driving force behind evolution, as the organism that can reproduce the most effectively is the one most likely to survive. This being said, just because the overall goal of sex is to procreate doesn't mean that marriage between two parties that can not produce an offspring should not be allowed. NO ONE has the right to tell anyone else who or who they can not marry as long as both parties involved are of legal age of consent.

 

[mostly harmless]

I have to agree jmoum on this point, the point of all life is to reproduce for failure to do so would mean the end of life. Improved reproduction is the driving force behind evolution, as the organism that can reproduce the most effectively is the one most likely to survive. This being said, just because the overall goal of sex is to procreate doesn't mean that marriage between two parties that can not produce an offspring should not be allowed. NO ONE has the right to tell anyone else who or who they can not marry as long as both parties involved are of legal age of consent.

HEAR! HEAR!

The argument that allowing same sex marriage will lead to incestous marriage, is absurd. The argument that allowing same sex marriage will lead to polygamy, is absurd. (not that I have anything against polygamy)
The argument that same sex marriages will somehow degrade the worth of a hetero marriage, is absurd.

Same sex couples are allowed to adopt children or foster them. The women couples can go to a clinic and have a baby together.
They can live together, work together, eat and sleep together.
But, they can't get the same protections for families that hetero couples can get? That is WRONG.
WRONG.
People don't have to agree with anyone else's lifestyle, frankly, it is none of anyone else's business how others live their lives.
To deny these people's families the rights and protections afforded to 'straight' families is WRONG! That is the crime. That is a perversion.

 

[Booko]

I have to agree jmoum on this point, the point of all life is to reproduce for failure to do so would mean the end of life. Improved reproduction is the driving force behind evolution, as the organism that can reproduce the most effectively is the one most likely to survive. This being said, just because the overall goal of sex is to procreate doesn't mean that marriage between two parties that can not produce an offspring should not be allowed.

It's difficult, if not impossible, to advance an argument against same-sex marriage based on the idea that marriage is about procreation, when obviously the human race is in no danger of extinction due to low birth rates. :sarcastic

 

[lilithu]

Heya lilithu (I always have a disturbing tendancy to try and put too many l's in your name)

lillithu? Do some people generally spell lilith with two l's? It doesn't matter to me either way.

From where else are our rights derived?

Well, *I* personally believe they're derived from our divinity - that divine spark within us. One wouldn't disrepect God so one can't disrespect humans. That argument obviously wouldn't work with an atheist, and I wouldn't try to convince them of it. But I was talking to Victor, and I was surprised that he being the devout Catholic that he is would claim that rights are purely some thing that humans have conceived of.

For me, it is very much within the Judeo-Christian tradition that humans have rights beyond what their governments are willing to recognize/grant. That is why the prophets could speak against kings when kings treated their people badly. Because human law is not the highest law.

It need not be a theist/atheist divide, since I know plenty of atheists who agree with me. (I just don't know what they base their beliefs on but that's fine.) For us there is a sense of right and wrong that transcends majority rule/popular opinion. That's why, to us, slavery was always wrong even when the majority of people thought it acceptable. We didn't decide to grant slaves their right to freedom. We decided to recognize that what we had been doing before was wrong.

 

[nutshell]

HEAR! HEAR!

The argument that allowing same sex marriage will lead to incestous marriage, is absurd. The argument that allowing same sex marriage will lead to polygamy, is absurd. (not that I have anything against polygamy)
The argument that same sex marriages will somehow degrade the worth of a hetero marriage, is absurd.

You are making conclusions. Now can you back them up with reasoning?

 

[spacemonkey]

You are making conclusions. Now can you back them up with reasoning?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that MH is trying to say that the assumption that gay marriage will lead to these other things is a conclusion that opponants of gay marriage reach without reasoning.

 

[sojourner]

I wrote:

Seems to me that the nay-sayers utilize the "degradation of society" argument a lot. Why aren't these people also as rabidly against divorce, shacking up, and underage sex? These things are truly harmful to society.

I'd be willing to bet real money that some of the same folks who decry homosexuality are some of the ones who are beating their live-in girlfriends and diddling their six-year-old daughters while the mothers watch. Which is more harmful to society?

Please give me a nice, normal, homosexual couple who love each other and live equitably in the neighborhood, over illness like that!!!

Wife beating, pedophilia, homosexuality, pot smoking -- all of these have flourished, whether society has "condoned" it or not. Making something illegal does not stop the behavior!!! On the flip side, If wife-beating were legal, I wouldn't participate in it. If polygamy were allowed, I wouldn't participate in it. If homosexual marriage were allowed, I wouldn't participate in it. If pot were legal, I wouldn't use it. Just because equal protection is offered, it does not follow that there will be an outbreak of that behavior.

The answer:

Yes, but that argument is also flawed because if something were legal and permissible, more people would be willing to do it. The reason these things are illegal is to try and help prevent them from becoming common and widespread.

As for the whole "People who are against gay marriage are a bunch of wife beaters and child molestors," I highly doubt that's the case.

Not true. That's a very weak argument...at best.

That's not what I said. Read it again. I said that I'd be willing to bet that some of the people who decry homosexual marriage are some of the same people who do these things. I live in a red state. I also live in the state that produces the most meth. We passed a state constitutional amendment barring homosexual marriage. In my county alone last year, there were over 400 cases of reported child sexual abuse on the part of parents and guardians. It stands to reason that some of those people who voted against gay marriage are beating their wives, producing meth and screwing their kids.

For these people to use the "degradation of society" argument against law-abiding homosexual partners who don't abuse each other and get whacked on drugs is asinine. What they're doing is far, far, far more harmful to society than two loving people sleeping together...or even (gasp) being recognized by the government!!!

 

[sojourner]

Uh, could it be because hetereosexual behavior is considered normal. Why? Because the majority of people are attracted to people of the opposite sex. Because the only way to make babies is to have a man and a woman do the horizontal mambo. Remember my whole "Sexual Deviant" point? I think you should refer back to that definition to understand why hetereosexuals aren't being persecuted for their behavior.

Your information is wrong. Homosexuality is also considered to be a normal human trait. Look in the psychiatric manuals. You won't find homosexuality listed as a deviant trait. You really need to stop calling homosexuality deviant, because it's not.
Again: h-o-m-o-s-e-x-u-a-l-i-t-y i-s n-o-t d-e-v-i-a-n-t. Mkay?

 

[sojourner]

Not everyone wants to make babies.

jmoum said:

Um, last time I checked, that was the whole point of sex in the first place. The only reason it's fun is because that's the only way we'd be garunteed to continue to procreate.

It's a point of sex...not remotely THE point of sex. There is much, much, much more to sex than the fun. It's pleasurable for more than just the sexual gratification aspects and if you don't understand that, then you're really way out of your league in this type of debate.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Your information is wrong. Homosexuality is also considered to be a normal human trait. Look in the psychiatric manuals. You won't find homosexuality listed as a deviant trait. You really need to stop calling homosexuality deviant, because it's not.
Again: h-o-m-o-s-e-x-u-a-l-i-t-y i-s n-o-t d-e-v-i-a-n-t. Mkay?

It is deviant in the social sence, if only 10% of the population is homosexual, as I've heard, the norm is heterosexual.

Hence the struggle for rights.

 

[lilithu]

Your information is wrong. Homosexuality is also considered to be a normal human trait. Look in the psychiatric manuals. You won't find homosexuality listed as a deviant trait. You really need to stop calling homosexuality deviant, because it's not.
Again: h-o-m-o-s-e-x-u-a-l-i-t-y i-s n-o-t d-e-v-i-a-n-t. Mkay?

Good point.

Jmoum, yes it's true that the majority of people are attracted to members of the opposite sex. Why do you assume from that there is a moral prescription to be heterosexual?

The majority of people are also right-handed. Am I a "deviant" for being left-handed? If so, what does that mean morally? And if not, why is it different from sexual orientation?