the debate over gay marriage is over

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

The debate is over

I've been thinking about this for the last couple weeks, but it wasn't until I saw the article on Orson Scott Card that I decided to put some of my thoughts into writing. I've come to the conclusion that the debate over homosexual marriage is already over. I've heard that whoever controls the language, whoever defines the words used, wins the debate. The definition of marriage has changed over the last sixty years to the point where only one logical conclusion can be made. Marriage is now defined as a union between two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. With this definition, the only logical conclusion to the homosexuality debate is that homosexuals should have the same rights to marriage as heterosexuals.

Marriage, however, hasn't always been defined in this manner. Additionally, it has never really been defined in the manner that right wing special interest groups are trying to get it legally defined, as being between one man and one woman. This "conservative" definition lacks the why and so the definition fails. The "liberal" definition has a why; it is because two people love each other, but two people don't need to be one man and one woman to love each other. These right wing activists have lost the debate because they too have forgotten the traditional definition of marriage. The traditional definition and reason for marriage was to provide a good home to raise children.

This definition started to change in the fifties; incidentally, so did the definition of another word, gay. Gay used to mean care free and was used to describe people who didn't worry. Eventually, it began to be used as a euphemism to describe homosexuals because they didn't have to worry about having children. The word marriage changed more subtly, by focusing on one of its subsets. In order to provide a good home for children, it is important for parents to love each other and be happy. Terrible abuses were perpetrated in marriages, most often by men, and people began to realize that the love and happiness of the marriage was gone and the children were suffering because of it. This led us to focus more on marriage being about happiness and we slowly changed the definition of marriage.

We call this change progress. Divorce rates go up, but it is so that people can be happier away from their toxic relationships, and it's progress. We look for love from alternative life styles, and it's progress. Slowly, we've changed the definition of marriage, and it's progress. Now it doesn't make sense for us to deny happiness from any adults that love each other because we need to think about them while the children that marriage was originally designed for are forgotten.

I can understand Card however. Gay marriage seems like an oxymoron if you define it as a care free/"child free" union to provide good homes for children.

I can understand your desire to make a statement about your newfound understanding, but if you were stating that as a fact...you're probably wrong. From my point of view this issue will be settled as soon as the Supreme Court speaks up. If all fifty states have to individually set up laws permitting it, then I'm willing to bet that we will see a repeat of the equal rights amendments. It will probably take fifty years before the last of the states finally recognize same sex marriage unless they are pushed into action by the Supreme Court.

And another thing: The debate on gay marriage won't be over until equality exists worldwide on this issue. Declaring that a wondrous resolution has been reached simply because the U.S. finally joined the winning team seems fairly ridiculous.

BonGookKumBop:
I've heard that whoever controls the language, whoever defines the words used, wins the debate. The definition of marriage has changed over the last sixty years to the point where only one logical conclusion can be made. Marriage is now defined as a union between two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together.

Can you quantify how much love is required for marriage?

The reason I ask this is because I'm one of those people who thinks we should just do away with using the term 'marriage' within the context of law and reduce any two people who choose to enter into a relationship as a 'civil union' for the express reason that it doesn't require arbitrary amounts or regulations and allows the two people involved to have all the benefits, and limitations, for being recognized as having had a civil union. To clarify, all persons who would want to get married within their church still have to apply for their "marriage license" so a change to "Civil Union License" isn't a difficult thing.

BonGookKumBop:
The debate is over

The debate has been over for a long, long time. What we're experiencing now is the protracted, bloody row that comes after one side loses a debate and is particularly pissed about it.

It's been a while since I saw any actual debate on the subject (ie an argument that didn't boil down to "God says it's wrong" or "two dudes fucking is disgusting, that's where poo comes from") but the shitstorm of arguments is going to continue for a long, long time. When you can't win in the actual debate, resort to screeching and flinging your faeces at everyone like an infuriated chimp.

BonGookKumBop:
Marriage is now defined as a union between two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. With this definition, the only logical conclusion to the homosexuality debate is that homosexuals should have the same rights to marriage as heterosexuals.

That's not the only logical conclusion - incestuous people also fit the same category. If the only criteria for marriage is love, then anyone can, in fact, marry anyone. If a father and a daughter cultivate something akin to romantic love - by your definition they should be able to marry, and thus indirectly be condoned by society.

The debate isn't over, it has just begun. Don't for a second think that homosexuals will be the last demographic to challenge the status quo - the definition of marriage. Soon enough, marriage won't mean anything apart from the relativistic definition everyone gives it.

al4674:
The debate isn't over, it has just begun. Don't for a second think that homosexuals will be the last demographic to challenge the status quo - the definition of marriage. Soon enough, marriage won't mean anything apart from the relativistic definition everyone gives it.

I'm pretty sure we will be. At least for a while. I predict that eventually at some point in the future after the gay marriage thing is settled that polygamy will become an issue (which I actually see no damn problem with at all) but beyond that... I really think it's kind of dumb to insist that incestuous marriages will ever be anything that will be pushed for the way things like interracial marriage and gay marriage have been.

It just smacks of that whole "slippery slope" fallacy that it's so funny to hear people try and use. The kind of "if gays get their way, eventually pedophilia and bestiality will be legalised too, because those things are clearly exactly the same" argument that makes anyone using it instinctively sound utterly moronic.

But, on the issue: This debate is not over. Not even close. Even when SCOTUS rules against DOMA and Prop 8, the kind of rampant bigots and fools that oppose this issue will never shut up. They'll just get a new talking point: Evil activist judges bought off by "the homosexual lobby" are forcing gay marriage on the country!

It won't shut them up, it'll just make them whine even louder. Sure they're actual power on the issue will be all-but gone at that point so they won't be able to do anything about it, but it won't stop them crying and stomping their feet about like a petulant child for years to come.

ReservoirAngel:
I'm pretty sure we will be. At least for a while. I predict that eventually at some point in the future after the gay marriage thing is settled that polygamy will become an issue (which I actually see no damn problem with at all) but beyond that... I really think it's kind of dumb to insist that incestuous marriages will ever be anything that will be pushed for the way things like interracial marriage and gay marriage have been.

It just smacks of that whole "slippery slope" fallacy that it's so funny to hear people try and use. The kind of "if gays get their way, eventually pedophilia and bestiality will be legalised too, because those things are clearly exactly the same" argument that makes anyone using it instinctively sound utterly moronic.

If you don't push other unions (such as polygamy, polyandry, incest etc) with the same arguments - then it is clear that you aren't arguing from principle or some general rule. If marriage is now merely a union between two people in love - then it truly is inexplicable why incest or polygamy shouldn't be allowed. It makes no sense and only demonstrates that love isn't some general principle, it's an ad hoc justification that is only used whenever it is convenient - and it is discarded when it no longer isn't convenient (i.e incest).

The problem with homosexuality lies in its justification, the supporting rationale - the problem is that arguments have a far wider scope than people truly realize. The slippery slope works - the very fact that we're discussing homosexuality shows that the slippery slope issue is real and valid. In less than a century ago was it deemed immoral simply to have sex outside marriage or divorce. We've come a long way and the sexual revolution in no way seems to be dying down.

Then next question that will be asked is - How does it harm anyone when blood-related people consensually have sex and want to marry. It harms nobody and is a private issue and love knows no bounds - so how can we not permit it? Bestiality and necrophilia - while not 100% analogous, can also be defended by the harm principle and the privacy of one's bedroom and the parties involved.

Homosexuality has some heavy baggage, and that is what most people seem to miss.

al4674:
If you don't push other unions (such as polygamy, polyandry, incest etc) with the same arguments - then it is clear that you aren't arguing from principle or some general rule. If marriage is now merely a union between two people in love - then it truly is inexplicable why incest or polygamy shouldn't be allowed. It makes no sense and only demonstrates that love isn't some general principle, it's an ad hoc justification that is only used whenever it is convenient - and it is discarded when it no longer isn't convenient (i.e incest).

Actually if people wanted to argue for legalised polygamy I'd be right there with them, because I honestly don't have a damn problem with that in the slightest. And frankly, I'm rather offended that because I don't do what you, in your flawed reasoning, expect me to do somehow I'm not arguing on principle.

I am arguing on principle. I'm arguing on the principle that trying to stop two men or two women who love each other from getting married is absolutely fucking moronic and there is no good reason to be against it. If and when the time comes I will also be arguing that not letting multiple people enter into marriage is stupid and wrong and there's no valid reason against that, either.

But I will not argue for incest, or pedophilia, or bestiality, or necrophilia, for one simply reason: I personally regard those things as being various different shades of 'wrong' and because I'm not like you. I'm not so stupid to try and put all these things together with actual issues like gay marriage.

So I'm sorry I'm not fulfilling your standards of me. But that's more your problem than mine.

The problem with homosexuality lies in its justification, the supporting rationale - the problem is that arguments have a far wider scope than people truly realize. The slippery slope works - the very fact that we're discussing homosexuality shows that the slippery slope issue is real and valid. In less than a century ago was it deemed immoral simply to have sex outside marriage or divorce. We've come a long way and the sexual revolution in no way seems to be dying down.

No, the slippery slope doesn't work. The slippery slope isn't the reason we're talking about gay marriage or even homosexuality in general. The reason we're talking about homosexuality and gay marriage is that as the world moves on, so do its values. People grow the hell up. They stop realising that homosexuality is the evil, unnatural abomination people thought it was less than a century ago, and have realised that it is a totally victimless thing that doesn't deserve the ludicrous ammount of scorn and hatred and false comparisons that it gets thrown at it.

Then next question that will be asked is - How does it harm anyone when blood-related people who consensually have sex and want to marry. It harms nobody and is a private issue and love knows no bounds - so how can we not permit it?

Do you, by any chance, happen to know what can result from people of blood relation being in relations of a romantic and sexual nature? It's called birth defects, dumb-ass. THAT is why incest is kind of a no-no. Because you can fuck up future generations with that crap.

Bestiality and necrophilia - while not 100% analogous, can also be defended by the harm principle and the privacy of one's bedroom and the parties involved.

No. No, no no. You can fuck off right now if you expect me to sit here and listen to you try and justify this fucking argument. Just no. You're wrong and you'eve earned my eternal scorn for even suggesting such a thing.

Homosexuality has some heavy baggage, and that is what most people seem to miss.

The only baggage homosexuality has is the baggage other people who don't know what the hell they're talking decide to lumber it with to try and prove their own idiotic points. Like you're doing, trying to lump it in with other things to say that it's comparable to bestiality and necrophilia... seriously, what the fuck is wrong with people who think like you do? I refuse to believe that any actual human being cannot recognise the fundamental differences between two grown mn or two grown women making the conscious decision to sleep together and a man shagging a corpse or slipping it to his cat.

I'm sorry if I got rather insulting during this, but this is an issue I obviously care a lot about and I really can't tolerate idiots who make some of the arguments you do.

ReservoirAngel:
But I will not argue for incest, or pedophilia, or bestiality, or necrophilia, for one simply reason: I personally regard those things as being various different shades of 'wrong' and because I'm not like you. I'm not so stupid to try and put all these things together with actual issues like gay marriage.

So I'm sorry I'm not fulfilling your standards of me. But that's more your problem than mine.

Why would you not argue for incest? I thought what two people did out of mutual consent was their business. Clearly you do not believe that stopping two loving people from getting married is always utterly moronic - you seem to be quite willing to stop consenting relatives from doing so. And if we accept that it isn't always wrong to prevent two loving people from being together - then we start to barter, as in we start negotiating the rules and if so, you can't hold it against anyone for not supporting homosexuality. You also would arbitrarily stop two people in love from marrying.

Also, nobody quite frankly cares whether you think they're wrong. People care why you think they're wrong. Millions, perhaps even billions of people keep saying that homosexuality is just ''wrong'' - this doesn't mean anything to me. Saying that something is ''wrong'' just begs the question - what, exactly is wrong about it, especially considering your rationale for similar unions.

ReservoirAngel:
No, the slippery slope doesn't work. The slippery slope isn't the reason we're talking about gay marriage or even homosexuality in general. The reason we're talking about homosexuality and gay marriage is that as the world moves on, so do its values. People grow the hell up. They stop realising that homosexuality is the evil, unnatural abomination people thought it was less than a century ago, and have realised that it is a totally victimless thing that doesn't deserve the ludicrous ammount of scorn and hatred and false comparisons that it gets thrown at it.

It is the product of the sexual revolution whether you realize this or not. Because sexual rules have become completely liberalized all these boundaries are being pushed.

By way of general mentality nothing has changed. If homosexuality used to be regarded as a great evil, then now ''homophobia'' or whatever is regarded as a great evil. Previously there was a witchhunt for homosexuals, now there is a witchhunt for everyone who does not support homosexuality. So don't paint this modern society as some new paradigm of enlightement.

ReservoirAngel:

Do you, by any chance, happen to know what can result from people of blood relation being in relations of a romantic and sexual nature? It's called birth defects, dumb-ass. THAT is why incest is kind of a no-no. Because you can fuck up future generations with that crap.

So, by sheer technicality would you support homosexual siblings and father-son/mother-daughter relations? This clearly has no danger of creating children with birth defects? What about contraception and abortion? What happened to reproductive rights?

And if you truly care about birth-defects and deformities - I assume that you would ban women over 35 from having children, ban people with hereditary diseases from procreating and ban people who have a higher genetic affinity for certain diseases from pro-creating? Suddenly you have a lot of people who shouldn't have children anymore because of the chance of genetic damage.

ReservoirAngel:
No. No, no no. You can fuck off right now if you expect me to sit here and listen to you try and justify this fucking argument. Just no. You're wrong and you'eve earned my eternal scorn for even suggesting such a thing.

And you earn my enternal sympathy for not being able to see the consequences of such arguments as - What people do in their private sphere through their consent without damaging anyone is okay - and where such arguments lead us.

ReservoirAngel:
The only baggage homosexuality has is the baggage other people who don't know what the hell they're talking decide to lumber it with to try and prove their own idiotic points. Like you're doing, trying to lump it in with other things to say that it's comparable to bestiality and necrophilia... seriously, what the fuck is wrong with people who think like you do? I refuse to believe that any actual human being cannot recognise the fundamental differences between two grown mn or two grown women making the conscious decision to sleep together and a man shagging a corpse or slipping it to his cat.

I'm sorry if I got rather insulting during this, but this is an issue I obviously care a lot about and I really can't tolerate idiots who make some of the arguments you do.

You need to take a crash course in logical consistency. Leaving necrophilia and bestiality aside for a second (as I said, they're not 100% analogous and more nuanced, but can still be defended by similar arguments) - you still have nothing substantial against incest. In incest there are two grown persons in a sexual/marital union of their own free will. It's their conscious choice. And it harms nobody.

Please do not invoke your principle of conscious choice because even you clearly do not believe that it is absolute.

You may care alot about this issue, but you need to take a cold and non-biased look at the issue and specifically the rationale behind it. The very fact that you don't apply your principle consistently shows that you are't arguing from some general rule - it shows you mostly have an ad hoc axe to grind.

al4674:
By way of general mentality nothing has changed. If homosexuality used to be regarded as a great evil, then now ''homophobia'' or whatever is regarded as a great evil. Previously there was a witchhunt for homosexuals, now there is a witchhunt for everyone who does not support homosexuality. So don't paint this modern society as some new paradigm of enlightement.

Rubbish. You can't compare bigotry with intolerance of bigotry.

It's so hard to fully articulate all my thoughts and feelings on the subject in just a 45 minute train ride (my only available time for forum debates). My thought was that we've changed how we view marriage over the last half century and that has led the way to the acceptance of gay marriage. al4674 has a point in stating that this change in perception can lead to other changes. The first is an acceptance of polygamy. The one difficulty here is that there is a propensity towards abuse in polygamous societies. If that stigma of 14 year old girls being forced to marry 40 year old men was removed, then we might see more on this. The next step might be incest, but the potential for abuse is far greater here. In most cases, we are not talking about two consenting adults who reach an objective and unbiased decision. You might argue that there could be a couple cases where the "love" was cultivated after the child reached adulthood, but it would be hard to prove that the parent did not groom the child towards this outcome. The other cases do not involve consenting adults and therefore are over-extensions of the argument.

This moves away some from the original point of my post, however, which was to state that my stance on gay marriage was unsupportable with the world definition of marriage even though that definition did not match the way I understand marriage, or the way marriage was defined in the past. These thoughts lead to other changes that should follow in our society, but I'll give more to that on my train ride home.

Well ill put my rule out simply.

If youre a consenting human adult you can enter any relationship you want with another consenting human adult. This includes polygamy. This includes incest (If you know anything about biology you know the deformity arguments are one of the vilest lies made to corrupt science in the name of a cause. Its literally LITERALLY based on nothing whatsoever).

This does NOT include pedophilia and necrophilia or bestiality. Pedophilia is entering into a sexual relationship with someone who doesnt understand what one is yet and physically cant. This is a violation. Necrophilia needs total current consent. Even if consent is given before a persons death MY definition of consent is "Consent given AT THE TIME of the act" because so many rapists use the "But she said i could before" defence and its bullshit. Animals cannot consent to sexual relationships period but the rights of animals is another argument and nothing to do with the rights of humans in this case.

As far as i know there are no exceptions.

Book recommendation time!

I don't fully agree with Giddens but I think he spells out quite well (without even mentioning it) why this debate is going to be a loss for social conservatives in the long term. Increasingly, our definition ideas like "love" is different to that of previous generations, it isn't some deep spiritual force to which we are but slaves and must play our part for the good of others and society, it's something we expect to actually do things for us. Once you subscribe to that kind of logic, you enter a world where any relationship (including marriage) has to continue to justify its existence on its own terms, not just by referring to some grandiose ideal. A relationship between two gay people can do so just as effectively as a relationship between two people of the opposite sex, and therefore I increasingly think that more and more people are not going to be sympathetic to the notion that we should acknowledge the difference.

However, I don't think we're going back to the "original" definition of marriage, I don't think marriage has an "original" definition, and once you start giving it one you do open the door for social conservatives to gain a foothold in this debate. Remember that most of these people still strongly dispute the idea that gay people can successfully raise children, so framing marriage around children probably isn't such a good way to go. In fact, this was actually an argument made during the recent commons debate on gay marriage in the UK, someone argued that we shouldn't have gay marriage because it would detract from the centrality of children and turn marriage into something selfish.

..at which point some legend stood up and pointed out that the guy making that argument had attended her wedding knowing fully she was too old to have children, and asked if he really felt her marriage was not a proper marriage. It's perfectly possible to get married purely to affirm a relationship, it has been for a long time.

BiscuitTrouser:

(If you know anything about biology you know the deformity arguments are one of the vilest lies made to corrupt science in the name of a cause. Its literally LITERALLY based on nothing whatsoever).

As far as I believe, this is true, but I'd like to do a little more research into it. Can you recommend a good source of info?

Al4674's weak analogies and logical fallacies are transparently an attempt to justify the slippery slope. The difference is informed consent, and he knows it. It's not worth picking apart his arguments.

The issue is far from over, and the way I see it this can only be settled two ways. Both of which are going to be on a state level and not federal.

1)Allow gay marriage but don't force churches, synagogues etc....to be forced into marrying gay couples if it goes against their beliefs. Doing so would be religious discrimination.

2)Don't allow gay marriage, but instead allow civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage. This way everyone get's the same rights without forcing straight couples to change the definition of something they don't believe in. This is the option I personally prefer.

Give each state these two options, then they can vote on which one they prefer. This is the only way this can happen, not every state is going to recognize gay marriage and you can't really force them to do so, but give them a choice and you might make some progress.

But in the end I don't understand why people make such a big deal about this issue. I have lived in a state that allows gay marriage, and while I do prefer the civil union option, gay marriage it's self did not bother me in the slightest. It had zero effect on my life. I think people need to realize this, it's so low on my radar that I don't really care if they did happen to get married. As long as they don't force my temple to marry them because we don't believe in it.

Silvanus:
As far as I believe, this is true, but I'd like to do a little more research into it. Can you recommend a good source of info?

I can't provide a source, but think of it in terms of genetics. All that's really happening when relatives, even close relatives breed is that the genes of the child are being randomized between two people who probably have quite similar genes themselves.

That's not a good thing, especially not over multiple generations. There's a reason why the royal families of Europe were (and probably are) predisposed to recessive genetic disorders like haemophilia, for example. But the idea that you're going to end up with radioactive monsters is pure fiction.

TheLycanKing144:
The issue is far from over, and the way I see it this can only be settled two ways. Both of which are going to be on a state level and not federal.

1)Allow gay marriage but don't force churches, synagogues etc....to be forced into marrying gay couples if it goes against their beliefs. Doing so would be religious discrimination.

2)Don't allow gay marriage, but instead allow civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage. This way everyone get's the same rights without forcing straight couples to change the definition of something they don't believe in. This is the option I personally prefer.

Give each state these two options, then they can vote on which one they prefer. This is the only way this can happen, not every state is going to recognize gay marriage and you can't really force them to do so, but give them a choice and you might make some progress.

But in the end I don't understand why people make such a big deal about this issue. I have lived in a state that allows gay marriage, and while I do prefer the civil union option, gay marriage it's self did not bother me in the slightest. It had zero effect on my life. I think people need to realize this, it's so low on my radar that I don't really care if they did happen to get married. As long as they don't force my temple to marry them because we don't believe in it.

Well the state can't legislate what a religious body can or cannot believe in; it's the First Amendment. As for civil unions, if it's something that all couples have to apply to in order to get married, that's fine. Part of the issue is keeping legal marriage is exclusive to opposite-sex couples, which is discriminatory to single/same-sex couples.

Silvanus:

BiscuitTrouser:

(If you know anything about biology you know the deformity arguments are one of the vilest lies made to corrupt science in the name of a cause. Its literally LITERALLY based on nothing whatsoever).

As far as I believe, this is true, but I'd like to do a little more research into it. Can you recommend a good source of info?

Al4674's weak analogies and logical fallacies are transparently an attempt to justify the slippery slope. The difference is informed consent, and he knows it. It's not worth picking apart his arguments.

Well wikipedia gives some lovely no context statistics but my knowledge of biology will assist in explaining WHY the statistics are what they are.

In terms of genetics it will double the chances of a genetic disease. Which seems like a lot except the starting chance of genetic disease is about 2%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Genetic_disorders

The reason for this is that, in the event you are a carrier for a genetic disease picking from the population will be a low chance that your partner is a carrier for the same genetic disease. However if you pick from a family member, if YOURE a carrier, chances are they are too since its part of the family tree. However this all hinges on you being a carrier in the first place. Off the top of my head 3% of people carry faulty genes for cystic fibrosis. So unless your family has a history of such disease and youre a carrier incest wouldnt produce any negative effects at all. It only would if your family were carriers of said disease. Obviously cousin cousin relationships would result in LESS genetic overlap and as such the chances are even lower than direct blood relations.

It doubles every generation, as evilthecat said, so if you do this for many generations you run into severe problems. Just one though? Not very likely to do much harm.

http://www.consang.net/images/d/dd/01AHBWeb3.pdf

Heres a study on cousin cousin relationships. Its quite a bit risker with direct blood relations. Cousin cousin however only has a 4% increased risk which is basically negligable. I would definitely NOT advise father daughter or siblings have children. I think they should be free to enter into any relationship they want but birth defects are significantly higher in this case if both are carriers. Although now a days its possible to be genetically screened first so you COULD find out if you were a carrier before hand. Statistics ive found online indicate a 20% chance of any sort of deformity in closer relationships. Most certainly NOT a 100% chance of a tentacle. Thats paranoia and fear.

The problem with marriage these days, is that it also comes with several government benefits that unmarried couples don't get. If they removed those benefits from all marriages and instead made a new thing for the benefits (like a civil union) then I wouldn't care about gay marriage rights at all really. As then it would just be a symbolic church thing.

TheLycanKing144:
2)Don't allow gay marriage, but instead allow civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage. This way everyone get's the same rights without forcing straight couples to change the definition of something they don't believe in. This is the option I personally prefer.

Hey, maybe we should have seats at the back of the bus for gay people too, and all the straights can sit up front! I mean, it's the same bus, right? They still get exactly where they were going. It's just that we get to segregate all those dirty homos into their own area and pretend that we aren't riding the same bus as them.

SonicWaffle:

Hey, maybe we should have seats at the back of the bus for gay people too, and all the straights can sit up front! I mean, it's the same bus, right? They still get exactly where they were going. It's just that we get to segregate all those dirty homos into their own area and pretend that we aren't riding the same bus as them.

This is actually a very good idea. I heard that you can catch the gay just from sitting too close to them, so these people pose a REAL and ACTUAL thread to my lifestyle. I mean, all it takes is one sneeze from the wrong gay on the bus and I'm chasing fanny for the rest of my life. That's just an infringement upon my human rights.

/sarcasm

al4674:

ReservoirAngel:
I'm pretty sure we will be. At least for a while. I predict that eventually at some point in the future after the gay marriage thing is settled that polygamy will become an issue (which I actually see no damn problem with at all) but beyond that... I really think it's kind of dumb to insist that incestuous marriages will ever be anything that will be pushed for the way things like interracial marriage and gay marriage have been.

It just smacks of that whole "slippery slope" fallacy that it's so funny to hear people try and use. The kind of "if gays get their way, eventually pedophilia and bestiality will be legalised too, because those things are clearly exactly the same" argument that makes anyone using it instinctively sound utterly moronic.

If you don't push other unions (such as polygamy, polyandry, incest etc) with the same arguments - then it is clear that you aren't arguing from principle or some general rule. If marriage is now merely a union between two people in love - then it truly is inexplicable why incest or polygamy shouldn't be allowed. It makes no sense and only demonstrates that love isn't some general principle, it's an ad hoc justification that is only used whenever it is convenient - and it is discarded when it no longer isn't convenient (i.e incest).

A simple definition: the union of two consentual adults in a committed relationship in relation to taxes and benifits provided by the government. In the case of incest you can make a case that consent is difficult to prove because of the relationship between parent and child or sibblings, and that it's already covered under other things related to taxes and property and other rights (because that's what half of the fight for gay marriage is about; getting the same basic rights like having your property go to your partner on death or being allowed to be in the same room as they're dying in hospital).

Just because the OP had a flawed definition doesn't mean the concept is flawed, just that the OP is no public speak.er

The problem with homosexuality lies in its justification, the supporting rationale - the problem is that arguments have a far wider scope than people truly realize. The slippery slope works - the very fact that we're discussing homosexuality shows that the slippery slope issue is real and valid.

Um, FUCK no? The slippery slope is a logical fallacy; saying that if A happens it will lead to B, C and D without actually giving any evidence as to how A causes B, C and D. People didn't say 100 years ago "if you have sex outside of marriage homosexuals will become permitted and get married." You may as well say that we're closer to letting dogs be counted as people because we allowed people of all ethnicities to have the same basic rights, or that America is closer to anarchy because it stopped it's isolationist policies, or that Rock and Roll will lead to children being Satanists.

I mean come on, you are aware that you are quite literally repeating the same arguments that had been used against interracial marriage don't you?

Then next question that will be asked is - How does it harm anyone when blood-related people consensually have sex and want to marry. It harms nobody and is a private issue and love knows no bounds - so how can we not permit it? Bestiality and necrophilia - while not 100% analogous, can also be defended by the harm principle and the privacy of one's bedroom and the parties involved.

Simply; any children born of incest will have health defects, thus there is harm thus it's not permitted. As for the other two, *clears throat* "Between two consentual adults." A corpse and an animal can't give conscent and aren't legally adults.

Homosexuality has some heavy baggage, and that is what most people seem to miss.

Every-fucking-thing in the world has heavy baggage, that's what you're missing. But none of that baggage is relevant to the matter at hand.

al4674:
If you don't push other unions (such as polygamy, polyandry, incest etc) with the same arguments - then it is clear that you aren't arguing from principle or some general rule. If marriage is now merely a union between two people in love - then it truly is inexplicable why incest or polygamy shouldn't be allowed. It makes no sense and only demonstrates that love isn't some general principle, it's an ad hoc justification that is only used whenever it is convenient - and it is discarded when it no longer isn't convenient (i.e incest).

The problem with homosexuality lies in its justification, the supporting rationale - the problem is that arguments have a far wider scope than people truly realize. The slippery slope works - the very fact that we're discussing homosexuality shows that the slippery slope issue is real and valid. In less than a century ago was it deemed immoral simply to have sex outside marriage or divorce. We've come a long way and the sexual revolution in no way seems to be dying down.

There are other differences between gay marriage, incestuous marriage and polygamy other than that they're traditionally frowned upon.

In terms of incest, direct relatives such as siblings and in particular parents and children are already recognised as your family and direct blood relatives are already granted certain legal rights and protections based on this. Marriage is important specifically for people who aren't already related because it allows you to become related under law and qualify for all the benefits that the government gives to family units that they don't give to unrelated individuals.

Further than that, for relationships more distant than direct relatives, such as uncles, aunts and cousins, many states already allow you to marry them and did so before same-sex marriage was legal anywhere, although sometimes you have to be over a certain age or prove infertility to do it. If anything this was a slippery slope towards same-sex marriage rather than vice versa (although it wasn't that either).

In terms of polygamy, it doesn't fit within the existing marriage framework. Allowing gay couples to marry doesn't change what marriage already is. In terms of the law, literally the only change you have to make is to change "between a man and a woman" to "between two people", it's incredibly simple. Polygamy on the other hand would require a massive overhaul of the legal framework that already exists and would be very complicated to implement.

Interestingly also, no country or state that has legalised same-sex marriage or civil unions has legalised polygamy, and no country or state that has legalised polygamy has legalised same-sex marriage or civil unions. There is no slippery slope here.

al4674:
Then next question that will be asked is - How does it harm anyone when blood-related people consensually have sex and want to marry. It harms nobody and is a private issue and love knows no bounds - so how can we not permit it? Bestiality and necrophilia - while not 100% analogous, can also be defended by the harm principle and the privacy of one's bedroom and the parties involved.

Indeed. I have no interest in having sex with my family but if my neighbour does then I don't see how it's my problem. If incestuous marriage was legalised it wouldn't bother me. They already are recognised as family though and already have rights and protections from the government based on this so they don't really need to get married, it would be a redundancy.

TheLycanKing144:
The issue is far from over, and the way I see it this can only be settled two ways. Both of which are going to be on a state level and not federal.

1)Allow gay marriage but don't force churches, synagogues etc....to be forced into marrying gay couples if it goes against their beliefs. Doing so would be religious discrimination.

2)Don't allow gay marriage, but instead allow civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage. This way everyone get's the same rights without forcing straight couples to change the definition of something they don't believe in. This is the option I personally prefer.

1) That's all that gay people want. The idea that any gay couple will be able to force your church/temple/whatever to marry you is a myth cooked up by anti-gay activists in order to scare people like you into thinking that your life will be impacted if gay couples are allowed to marry. I promise you, it won't be, the First Amendment forbids it.

2) 20-something states already have a constitutional ban on both performing and recognising civil unions or alternative forms of relationship recognition for gay couples. This has become a federal issue because so many states have taken so much away from gay couples in such an irresponsible way and there are massive legal discrepancies between the rights and recognition granted to gay families through all fifty states and the federal government and it needs to be resolved.

ten.to.ten:
In terms of incest, direct relatives such as siblings and in particular parents and children are already recognised as your family and direct blood relatives are already granted certain legal rights and protections based on this. Marriage is important specifically for people who aren't already related because it allows you to become related under law and qualify for all the benefits that the government gives to family units that they don't give to unrelated individuals.

Further than that, for relationships more distant than direct relatives, such as uncles, aunts and cousins, many states already allow you to marry them and did so before same-sex marriage was legal anywhere, although sometimes you have to be over a certain age or prove infertility to do it. If anything this was a slippery slope towards same-sex marriage rather than vice versa (although it wasn't that either).

Various places also count non-blood relatives in regards to incest (adopted or step kids, for example), because of the power imbalance and grooming issues.

Incest simply cannot be compared to homosexuality, at least not in the really real world.

For some time, I had been of the separate but equal camp. I was of the opinion that all couples should share the same rights, but that terminology needed to be different to avoid conflicts with churches. As I've considered the rights that are being debated, however, I have realized that many of those rights are archaic and no longer make sense when we consider our new definition of marriage.

The first one is tax benefits. The government often speaks of investing in the future. They say that they will spend money now so that they can make more money later, but there is only one way for the government to make money, through taxes. So when the government claims to be investing, they are saying that they are generating a greater pool from which they will be able to take taxes later. When marriage was a foundation for bringing children into the world, a marital tax deduction made sense because more children means more future workers who could grow the gross national product and the pool from which the government could pull taxes. Now that marriage is just a way to find personal happiness, this tax break no longer makes sense.

Shared pensions have also lost their meaning. When marriages were about families, it was traditional for one parent to stay home while the other earned a living for the family. If something were to happen to the parent who earned the living, the rest of the family would be left without a source of income and in dire straits. Since marriage is now about personal happiness, we now see both spouses finding fulfillment in their career. If something happens to one spouse the other has a career and doesn't need the pension the first one earned.

Other rights don't need to be based on whether or not two people sleep with each other. A college roommate should be able to visit his buddy in the hospital regardless of whether or not they've had sex. Business partners with joint accounts should be able to file taxes together whether or not they've seen each other naked.

Time is up for this train ride, but I'll readdress my thesis tomorrow morning.

Shaoken:

Simply; any children born of incest will have health defects, thus there is harm thus it's not permitted. As for the other two, *clears throat* "Between two consentual adults." A corpse and an animal can't give conscent and aren't legally adults.

While I agree with what your trying to say, Biscuittrouser just pointed out that this isn't entirely true.

so long as the issue remains an issue, the debate is not over. I know that everyone likes to think they are on "the side of justice" and are winning, but be objective.

Otherwise i could declare that the debate over guns is over as the liberals try to change the definition.

SonicWaffle:

TheLycanKing144:
2)Don't allow gay marriage, but instead allow civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage. This way everyone get's the same rights without forcing straight couples to change the definition of something they don't believe in. This is the option I personally prefer.

Hey, maybe we should have seats at the back of the bus for gay people too, and all the straights can sit up front! I mean, it's the same bus, right? They still get exactly where they were going. It's just that we get to segregate all those dirty homos into their own area and pretend that we aren't riding the same bus as them.

Nice strawman you got there.

I don't understand why some people try to compare the struggles that black people went through to gays. It's not even the same issue, nor are gay people being directly discriminated against either. They are allowed to go to the same schools, go the same restraunts, they have all the rights as everyone else does. Black people didn't have any rights.

The issue is marriage benefits, to which they should be given the same as straight couples. However I see no reason to change the definition of a term that is an important social structure to many people.

thaluikhain:

al4674:
By way of general mentality nothing has changed. If homosexuality used to be regarded as a great evil, then now ''homophobia'' or whatever is regarded as a great evil. Previously there was a witchhunt for homosexuals, now there is a witchhunt for everyone who does not support homosexuality. So don't paint this modern society as some new paradigm of enlightement.

Rubbish. You can't compare bigotry with intolerance of bigotry.

Tolerance is a two way street. A bigot would be someone that hates gay people or is homophobic, someone who simply doesn't agree with a gay lifestyle or doesn't support gay marriage does not in it's self make that person a bigot.Take me for example, I have family members that are gay, I work with several gay people, have gay friends, they all know my position and they are fine with it.

In fact one of my friends "came out" and I was one of the first people he told, I'm stil good friends with him just the same when I thought he was straight. We say to "each his own", because you can still be friends with someone even though you don't agree with someone politically.

I am not a bigot or a homophobe in the slightest, the only people I hear call people that are usually far-lefties. They use it as an attempt to try and demonize someone, it's a classic propaganda technique to paint the person who disagrees with you as "evil". You're against illegal immigration? Then you're a racist. You're own guns? Then you're a stupid redneck.

The far right does things like this too, but the far-left deserves to be called out for their lack of tolerance for other views too.

TheLycanKing144:
I am not a bigot or a homophobe in the slightest, the only people I hear call people that are usually far-lefties. They use it as an attempt to try and demonize someone, it's a classic propaganda technique to paint the person who disagrees with you as "evil". You're against illegal immigration? Then you're a racist. You're own guns? Then you're a stupid redneck.

There's a big difference between calling gun owners stupid rednecks, and calling people opposed to gay rights or gay people in general homophobes.

I dont think the debate is over, just that it will be reframed. Homosexuals no longer carry a social stigma so it's harder to argue against them from "eww gross" position. The debate will now focus about:

1) the rights of churches and the tradition of marriage
2) Or we have bigger problems so why waste time considering it.
3) its a state issue

Notice how all three still oppose rights to homosexuals, they just dont say it.

It's not over. It'll never be over!!! MUHAHAHAHA! It's not funny.
Exhibit A: http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/03/13/large-swaths-of-gop-voters-in-alabama-mississippi-want-ban-on-interracial-marriages/
Yeah, it's a fringe in the country as a whole, but by no means in the states in question. That should tell you something about the likelihood of a state like that fixing these problems themselves anytime soon.
There's reason for optimism, say, regarding a federal solution, but it'll be a long, long time until these questions are actually fully answered and progress is solidified, especially considering some people - when that progress comes - will do their best to ensure a regress afterwards.

TheLycanKing144:
Nice strawman you got there.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I didn't see it at first, but I'm starting to feel myself being pulled onto the bandwagon of people who are really, really tired of seeing the term "strawman" bandied about as a way to attack someone else's point. My rebuttal to you was not a strawman, it was comparing what you said to a similar attempt at segregation in the past. Just because you don't like having that pointed out is no reason to cry strawman, because it isn't a get-out-of-a-bad-argument-free card.

TheLycanKing144:
I don't understand why some people try to compare the struggles that black people went through to gays. It's not even the same issue, nor are gay people being directly discriminated against either. They are allowed to go to the same schools, go the same restraunts, they have all the rights as everyone else does. Black people didn't have any rights.

The issue is marriage benefits, to which they should be given the same as straight couples. However I see no reason to change the definition of a term that is an important social structure to many people.

What you are advocating is still segregation. You're giving gay people the same rights as everyone else, but still reminding them what they have is not equal to what everyone else has, so they have to use a different word. It fits pretty well with the bus analogy; a civil partnership, if functionally identical to a marriage, is much the same as allowing blacks and whites to ride the same bus. It's the difference in terminology/seating area that indicates segregation, and therefore the superiority of one group over the other. After all, if everyone was equal and everyone's legal partnership was exactly the same regardless of sexual orientation, there is no reason not to use the word marriage to describe both.

ReservoirAngel:

But I will not argue for incest, or pedophilia, or bestiality, or necrophilia, for one simply reason: I personally regard those things as being various different shades of 'wrong' and because I'm not like you. I'm not so stupid to try and put all these things together with actual issues like gay marriage.

Why not?

Aside from pedophilia, I throw them all under the banner of "not for me but if other consenting adults wish to do it without harming anyone it's none of my business." (technically beastiality doesn't fall under that but since they can't follow the social contract they can't receive it's rights + protections)

It's sad how even the currently persecuted can't see outside their own bubble.

Milk:
It's sad how even the currently persecuted can't see outside their own bubble.

Okay, so we're left with incest and necrophilia.

Incest

Incest in our society is almost never consensual. I know a few soap operas seem to absolutely love the idea of brothers and sisters consensually getting it on, but it's almost never like that in reality. There are actually quite a lot of incest survivors in the world, and the fact that I have to use the word "survivors" to describe them should probably tell you everything you need to know. Until that changes, until there are legitimate groups of people campaigning for the right to have their incestuous relationships recognized, incest will remain primarily a form of abuse in the public mind, and there are good reasons why.

Which brings me to point two. There is genuine reason to doubt whether incest is psychologically healthy, which is why the incest taboo generally extends even to those who are not genetically related to their relatives. We generally expect families to display a particular kind of love for each other, a love which is much less self-interested and unconditional than the love you might feel for a sexual partner. True, not all families live up to those standards, but it's not a bad expectation to have because, when it works out, it is very beneficial. Even as someone who completely resents the structuring of family as it occurs today, I can recognize that there are real, concrete benefits for many people in having a strong support network of relatives.

Imagine you got into a relationship with your mother, and then it went wrong and you had to break up. You have now not just lost a relationship, you've also probably lost your mother too, because she's not going to feel the same way about you. This creates a kind of dependency, because even that relationship is bad for you, even if it's hurting you you still need it to work much more than you would in any other relationship because of what you potentially stand to lose. This means it could very easily become abusive, or even mutually abusive and unhappy.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to consensual incest. I'm not convinced it happens very often at all, but I'm not opposed to it. However, I think there are serious and legitimate concerns which make the slippery slope fallacy a massive fallacy in this case.

Necrophilia

In our society, when a person dies we don't generally suddenly view their corpse as public property. Indeed, if we did necrophilia would not exist as necrophiles would be able to achieve sexual gratification from any unresisting object. Necrophilia is normally a power fantasy, it's about having power over an inanimate or unconscious person. A very small subset of people with necrophiliac fantasies are genuinely aroused by corpses, and we'll get to those in a minute, but generally it is very tied in with a desire for non-consensual sex, and acting on it would be considered by most to be a non-consensual act.

To a certain extent, necrophiliac fantasies are relatively normal. You'll find traces of it all over the place, in popular culture from all over the world. It's a basic recognition of the fact that when someone dies, they don't immediately physically change, but they do become highly accessible and incapable of resistance. That's an attractive fantasy for many people, whether they acknowledge it or not.

Many people are also scared of death or corpses, and this can translate into sexual desire as a way of counteracting or overcoming that fear. Again, this is harmless fantasy for most people feel it.

However, being attracted to corpses to the exclusion of living people, to the point where you cannot gain satisfaction from anything except acting on your fantasies by seeking out (or creating) corpses and having sex with them is just as antisocial as only being aroused by non-consensual sex or by children. It is possible for most people with necrophiliac fantasies to live them sufficiently through imagination and role play with living partners. Being unable to do this, being compulsively driven towards inflexible patterns of sexual behavior with corpses is not an emotionally healthy state to be in, and suggests serious problems with self-esteem or an obsessional neurosis.

There are no genuine reasons why homosexuality was regarded as emotionally unhealthy, no reasons which still hold up today. The same cannot be said of these other things.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked