Gays can't marry in Cali or whatever.

[skeptik]

Why are you all of sudden attacking me? Because I asked some related questions? Clearly there is a difference between each form of relationship we have been discussing, but the whole point has been trying to understand how far we should or shouldn't extend marriage rights to other, related sexual minorities. Thus, though the distinctions between each coupling are significant, within the discourse we have established--i.e. the 'fundamental' logic of sexual minority marriage--their cases are not that different at all.

The other reason I bring it up is precisely because it is a challenging notion, our knee-jerk reaction to both polygamy and incestuous marriage is repulsion, but if we support gay rights--doesn't it follow that we should also support other sexual/relationship minorities, right to marriage (assuming it is between consenting adults)? Are we hypocritical in our conception of 'rights' if we don't accept this? This later question is what I have been trying to get an answer too, but I have not seen a decent argument that refutes the extended logic of rights for sexual minorities.

Also your last point makes no sense, incestuous couples are not allowed to get married at all, sure they could choose to marry a non-relative, thereby gaining access to marriage, but what is the difference between that and saying another sexual minority (i.e. homosexuals) could also still get married if they rejected their current sexual practice?

Interesting point.

So are you saying that because they have the potential or capacity to 'love' in a way that is hetero-normative they are not entitled to have equal rights, when it comes to marriage, in their preferred way?

And, also, can we even make the assumption that they do have the capacity to 'love' beyond their relatives (and even if they can, what if the person they love the most is in fact related to them?)? It seems reasonable logically, but could it possibly be a biological or inborn 'orientation' instead (as gay men claim their positions are)?

First of all, I was not attacking you specifically, I was attacking the notion that everything always and incontrovertibly has to be boiled down to relativistic nonsense to the point where everything always has to be accepted under all circumstances. I think it is important that we resolve the issue of homosexual marriage rights before we throw in an abundance of caveats and parallels.

The difference between homosexual marriage rights and the rights of other sexual minorities is incredibly obvious and intuitive. A homosexual cannot marry any person at all that he or she would want to marry if same sex marriage was banned. This individual would be incapable of being with anybody that he or she could be happy with. Imagine if you were not allowed to marry a woman. If you wanted to be married to somebody, it had to be a man. And that is not an option for you, because you are not homosexual and have no desire for men. In other words, you cannot possibly marry anybody.

In terms of polygamy, the difference is obvious enough. Preventing somebody from marrying more than one person does not prevent this person from being able to get married. As far as I am aware, also, there is no genetic or biological indicative toward incest, and even if this is not the case, there is no biological suggestion that this indicator precludes this individual from being attracted to anybody that is not related to them. Both the polygamist and the incestuous individual have alternatives and other routes toward marriage. Homosexuals do not. Homosexual marriage rights is undeniably a more clear cut case and should by no means be inextricably tied to all issues of sexual minority marriage rights, because, in this instance, it is a sweeping denial across the board.

 

[Death Aflame]

Fair points, Dodens.

I especially agree that you (i.e. the US) need to solve gay rights before moving forth into other though related quagmires that I and others have brought up.

I guess I was taking the stand with the assumption that gay marriage has already been adopted and accepted (like it has in my socio-political context in Canada), and trying to extrapolate to other 'issues' from there--especially the whole equal rights for 'sexual minorities' thing that cc brought up.

 

[AchrisK]

First of all, I was not attacking you specifically, I was attacking the notion that everything always and incontrovertibly has to be boiled down to relativistic nonsense to the point where everything always has to be accepted under all circumstances. I think it is important that we resolve the issue of homosexual marriage rights before we throw in an abundance of caveats and parallels.

Except that if you don't take those things into consideration, you could be setting up a precedent you didn't intend. To say this type of discussion is irrelevant is ignorant.

The difference between homosexual marriage rights and the rights of other sexual minorities is incredibly obvious and intuitive...

You saying this doesn't make it true.

A homosexual cannot marry any person at all that he or she would want to marry if same sex marriage was banned. This individual would be incapable of being with anybody that he or she could be happy with. Imagine if you were not allowed to marry a woman. If you wanted to be married to somebody, it had to be a man. And that is not an option for you, because you are not homosexual and have no desire for men. In other words, you cannot possibly marry anybody.

In terms of polygamy, the difference is obvious enough. Preventing somebody from marrying more than one person does not prevent this person from being able to get married. As far as I am aware, also, there is no genetic or biological indicative toward incest, and even if this is not the case, there is no biological suggestion that this indicator precludes this individual from being attracted to anybody that is not related to them. Both the polygamist and the incestuous individual have alternatives and other routes toward marriage. Homosexuals do not. Homosexual marriage rights is undeniably a more clear cut case and should by no means be inextricably tied to all issues of sexual minority marriage rights, because, in this instance, it is a sweeping denial across the board.

But you are approaching this with the logic that the goal is to get married. But if a guy falls in love with his sister, what is he supposed to do? Realize he has other options and go look for some other girl to marry? His hearts desire is his sister. Not because she is his sister, and not because he just really wants to get married, but because he loves her. Similarly, I assume, gays are not looking for a spouse. They are looking for the right to marry the person they fall in love with.

So how is this train of thought irrelevant? On the contrary, it seems to me it is more reason not to rush into just changing the definition of marriage.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Gays are not biologically or genetically able to love anyone but their own sex. Incestuous people are, it's just a mental condition that can be changed. Can you understand this?

 

[Death Aflame]

Gays are not biologically or genetically able to love anyone but their own sex. Incestuous people are, it's just a mental condition that can be changed. Can you understand this?

Gay men make this distinction, but lesbians seem to differ in general (i.e. most of them claim it is a choice a lifestyle, not an inherent trait--based on what I heard on the subject recently) so should they have less rights since they are apparently capable of loving others, but choose not to?

I think the choice/intrinsic trait distinction is rather irrelevant at this point. Most people wouldn't say they chose to fall in love with a particular person, they would probably say that it just 'happened' that way.

Thus, if a guy falls in love with his sister and he feels the same way--i.e. he had little choice in the matter--does he not deserve the same marriage rights? Who are we to say that their love as two people is less valid or real than any other (straight or not)? 'Cause is this, freedom of marriage for sexual minorities, not the main point that connects all of these examples?

(At this point I am assuming gay marriage has already been accepted and expanding on it from there)

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

People can deceive themselves and lie about their sexuality. Still, the incredibly overwhelming arguments in FAVOR of gay marriage don't really care about your assertion...

 

[Vossyrus]

Gays are not biologically or genetically able to love anyone but their own sex. Incestuous people are, it's just a mental condition that can be changed. Can you understand this?

I haven't paid much attention to this thread lately, but I don't agree at all with this comment if you're implying that homosexuality is strictly and only a result of biological influences or traits. Homosexuality is a result of many things such as that (of course) but also or partial to: culture, lifestyle, surrounding/environmental/societal influences in varying degrees etc. If society wasn't so homophobic then I guarantee you would have increased interest in homosexuality, and bisexuality - but particularly, the "pansexual" view would better reflect what would be. In ancient Greece, things were looked upon differently for example. If people were raised with in an environment where it's considered ok to love anyone you wanted, you'd get less heterosexuals and particularly, less males who've already done enough self-convincing to say they're uncompromisingly 100% completely heterosexual, and vehemently deny even the slightest chance otherwise.

 

[skeptik]

The point of the matter is that homosexuals, both male and female, can no more love a person of the opposite sex than can heterosexuals love a person of the same sex. An incestuous person is not incapable of loving a person to whom he is not related. A polygamist is not incapable of loving less than two people. The cases are fundamentally different.

People need to stop referring to homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. Homosexuality is no more a choice than is heterosexuality, so unless you regularly refer to the heteronormative trait as a lifestyle choice, stop using this term.

 

[Death Aflame]

Alright I am done with this debate--I figure I have clogged up the 'real' discussion enough, but I do want to say one more thing.

Don't lump me in with ACrisK who has seemingly latched on to some of the arguments I have espoused to justify not legalizing gay marriage since, according to him, it sets a 'bad precedent'. I entirely disagree with this notion, and even if we set aside the things I have brought up, it is clear that gay marriage should be legalized in all developed states since, as has been said, their is no decent argument against it (and no, a specific theological belief does not count within the larger discourse of a multicultural democracy).

 

[AchrisK]

@Death Aflame: Why would you put quotes around "bad precedent", as if to quote me. You misquote me, and change my meaning. I said, "you could be setting up a precedent you didn't intend". Do you see the difference?

I still maintain that to brush off any of this discussion as irrelevant is short sighted. To add gay unions to marriage is to broaden the definition. To broaden a definition like this demonstrates that the definition is not concrete, but is changeable. To say that the definition of marriage is open to interpretation and change is to invite anyone and everyone to try and change it further, or at least to feel disenfranchised, discriminated against and unfairly treated. The cycle continues.

Man, some of you just seem to forget about logic and reason when faced with opposing viewpoints. No relevant point made has any merit, if there is the slightest possibility it could "weaken your case". This is not a formal debate, it is life. How do you expect to learn and become more enlightened when you can't think past your own opinion?

And there are no overwhelming arguments for gay marriage, just a society that has embraced homosexuality. Nobody is arguing against homosexual relationships or some type of union for gay couples. We previously discussed some of the tax benefits given to married couples, and what the government's reasoning behind that was, but in doing a little research and talking to my accountant (my wife) I realize that that ended around 1969, and now there is what is referred to as a Marriage Tax Penalty. What are they being denied that they can't obtain otherwise?

 

[Dak]

"Legal social acceptance".

 

[Omni]

To add gay unions to marriage is to broaden the definition.

How? I already explained why you're wrong, since they've already existed in the past for thousands of years.

 

[XSASweet]

So, uh, when you guys gonna learn that arguing with AchrisK about this is pointless?

 

[skeptik]

Show me where I said that it's irrelevant. I didn't say that it was irrelevant; I said that it should not be discussed ad nauseum right now before other more immediate issues are addressed.

Furthermore, there is no federal definition of marriage. Constitutionally, marriage is not defined as a union between one man and one woman. And if you watched the Olbermann video, you'll know that if we never changed the definition of marriage in this country, then, for example, black people could not marry white people. Do you think that this is okay? Do you think that this should have allowed to be the case just so that we could maintain an illusory notion that our conception of marriage is somehow "concrete?"

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

 

[AchrisK]

So, uh, when you guys gonna learn that arguing with AchrisK about this is pointless?

I don't think that is fair. What is the point? To convince the other side to comply with you views, or to discuss the issue? You're not often going to entirely change someones ideology, and honestly I have been more willing to reevaluate aspect of my outlook more than anyone else. So why is it pointless?

 

[cookiecutter]

Gay men make this distinction, but lesbians seem to differ in general (i.e. most of them claim it is a choice a lifestyle, not an inherent trait--based on what I heard on the subject recently) so should they have less rights since they are apparently capable of loving others, but choose not to?

I'd like to know where you are getting this from because I don't think it's true. It might be slightly more acceptable for a woman to a bisexual right now, but I'm pretty sure being lesbian is the same as being gay.

I still maintain that to brush off any of this discussion as irrelevant is short sighted. To add gay unions to marriage is to broaden the definition. To broaden a definition like this demonstrates that the definition is not concrete, but is changeable. To say that the definition of marriage is open to interpretation and change is to invite anyone and everyone to try and change it further, or at least to feel disenfranchised, discriminated against and unfairly treated. The cycle continues.

Man, some of you just seem to forget about logic and reason when faced with opposing viewpoints. No relevant point made has any merit, if there is the slightest possibility it could "weaken your case". This is not a formal debate, it is life. How do you expect to learn and become more enlightened when you can't think past your own opinion?

Dodens has actually given some pretty good arguments why gay marriage is more important to legalize than incest or polygamy. It is you who are ignoring what he says, not the other way around. And the definition of marriage has certainly changed throughout history, even US history. As Dodens pointed out, for a long time miscegenation was illegal. Was changing that wrong?

And there are no overwhelming arguments for gay marriage, just a society that has embraced homosexuality. Nobody is arguing against homosexual relationships or some type of union for gay couples. We previously discussed some of the tax benefits given to married couples, and what the government's reasoning behind that was, but in doing a little research and talking to my accountant (my wife) I realize that that ended around 1969, and now there is what is referred to as a Marriage Tax Penalty. What are they being denied that they can't obtain otherwise?

They are being denied a civil right that other people enjoy. Even if there were no legal benefits (there are), it would still be wrong. The civil unions things is a red herring imo. If you're going to give them all the legal rights, just call it marriage. If you're not, then it is continuing to make homosexuals second class citizens.

 

[King Richard]

he made some excellent points, though he was incredibly dramatic as usual.

The dramatic affects would be what I was referring to.

edit:

 

[AchrisK]

I have provided societal, biological, evolutionary, and historical reasons as to why I see value in the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage. It is unique, and I believe in preserving it as unique. Obviously, lacking a formal written definition of marriage doesn’t change the essence of marriage or the way marriage has been defined by the four areas above. Have there been exceptions? Of course. But overwhelmingly the essence of marriage has been understood throughout time as the basic unit of a strong society. It is also currently defined by federal law as between a man and a woman in the US (according to Dodens’ link above).

Of course I think that it was good to change laws prohibiting and not recognizing marriages between a black man or woman, and a black or white person of the opposite sex. The reason for those laws was based in bigotry and in the idea that people can be treated as property. But realize that changing the law in that regard put it more in line with my above reasoning.

Gay unions are different than the overwhelming historic definition of marriage. I am not saying they are any less special for the people involved, or should come with less rights, just that they are different. It’s no red herring to consider a union other than marriage, as it takes into account history, society and the preference of millions of people.

I will again indicate that given the chance (and I am not right now), I would carefully consider how exactly I would vote on a given issue related to this whole topic. This is primarily based on the idea of preserving a society based on freedom.

I will also bring up that my beliefs in Christianity play a role in my own view of the issue. But belief in Christianity doesn’t necessarily make this issue more black and white. In fact I am inclined to say that my previous points are more black and white than any that might be made from my religious belief. I believe that true, practical Christianity has very little to do with one’s view of homosexuality. I know this, but was reminded today by another Christian whom I respect and who I have found to be one of the most balanced Christians I know.

So, although I enjoy the discussion, I don’t want to belabor this any longer.

I love you all

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

So. you are admitting you didn't hear a word of what he said and focused entirely on his admittedly histrionic/dramatic speaking style. kewl.

 

[False Joe]

"The reason for those laws was based in bigotry"

...