Gay Marriage Arguments?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 12:03 AM GMT
    So far I've been mostly successful in arguing for why it is common sense that gay marriage should be legal and in fact why it is illogical not to have complete equality on the issue. I've even been able to convince a few formally ignorant bigots to change their minds. Anywho, there is one argument that those against gay marriage like to make that I don't really have a good counter for. They have said that gay marriage will lead to marriage between non-consenual couples (for example men/women and animals, men/women and children etc). Most of these cases are ridiculous once you explain consent law but what about, say, a mother and her over 18yo son. This is assumed incest so do incest laws preclude this argument? I am conflicted because I am in favour of any consenual relationship between adults becoming legal (including polygamy) so how can I not also then defend incestual relationships, which I am against.

    Does anyone have any good arguments here?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 3:28 AM GMT
    Well I think anyone should be allowed to marry their pet if they so desire if the pet can say I do
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 3:48 AM GMT

    Hey Pedrosxxx,

    Tell them all that's changing is that same sex and opposite sex can marry. The rest of it is just 'castles in the sky' dreadfulness.

    We think that incest laws do come in to play. Did you mean polyamory, where it can be women or men with multiple partners in life?

    We ask because of this:



    "Polyamory differs from polygamy, which refers to multiple marriage (although the word "polygamy" is often used to refer only to polygyny: one man with several wives.) Traditional polygamy is usually patriarchical and often claims a religious justification. Polyamory, on the other hand, is a more modern outlook grounded in such concepts as gender equality, self-determination, free choice for all involved, mutual trust, equal respect among partners, the intrinsic value of love, the ideal of compersion, and other mostly secular ideals. As of July, 2009 there are more than 500,000 polyamorous relationships in the United States.[1][2]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory



    -Doug and Bill
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 3:48 AM GMT
    Interracial marriage was illegal 30 years ago in many states.
    Incestuous marriage was legal not too much before that.

    There is no straight line between absolutely permissive and absolutely restrictive. Further, I would ask your friends why they reason recognizing the unions that people already live in will lead to recognition of unions that are, by their very nature, illegal?
  • jrs1

    Posts: 4388

    Sep 20, 2009 3:51 AM GMT

    ... because it's my constitutional right? how's that?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 4:00 AM GMT
    TheGuyNextDoor saidI'm sorry, but I don't really see any correlation between two men marrying and someone marrying a pet or a family member. I don't even see where there is a logical argument there. That kinda talk is just weak thinking and grasping at straws in my book.


    May be a straw argument- but one heavily used by many evangelicals
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 4:13 AM GMT
    I always counter with "In a true free society people should be able to do what they wish as long as they are not hurting anyone else."


    So far no one has rebutted me on that.


    Am I for or against Incestual relationships? That falls under the 'none of my buisness what other people do category'. As does a great many other things.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Sep 20, 2009 4:36 AM GMT
    Most of these cases are ridiculous once you explain consent law but what about, say, a mother and her over 18yo son. This is assumed incest so do incest laws preclude this argument? I am conflicted because I am in favour of any consenual relationship between adults becoming legal (including polygamy) so how can I not also then defend incestual relationships, which I am against.

    Does anyone have any good arguments here?



    Yeah. One argument is that it doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with allowing gays to marry to begin with. If they are going to argue that allowing gays to marry will lead to allowing family members to marry then let them know the same argument can be made in regard to allowing a man to marry a woman. If we allow a man to marry a woman then why can't a man marry a woman he's related to?

    See, that's the kind of fun you can have with slippery slope arguments. It's also why they kind of suck for the basis of an argument. Things slip along the slope in both directions, up and down.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 4:45 AM GMT
    [quote]They have said that gay marriage will lead to marriage between non-consenual couples (for example men/women and animals, men/women and children etc). Most of these cases are ridiculous once you explain consent law but what about, say, a mother and her over 18yo son. This is assumed incest so do incest laws preclude this argument? I am conflicted because I am in favour of any consenual relationship between adults becoming legal (including polygamy) so how can I not also then defend incestual relationships, which I am against.[/quote]

    Firstly to beastiality, marriage is rooted in the personhood status of the participants and their subsequent ability for consent, animals do not have the legal ability to consent, thus cannot be married.

    Secondly to incest, you can again call in consent, and the possibility of third party harm, two aspects not present in same-sex marriage.

    As I understand it, incentuous reproduction carries a significantly higher chance of birth abnormalities, introducing harm to a third party which could be analogised to the current legal restrictions in many US States regarding prenatal substance abuse. http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancyhealth/illegaldrugs.html

    On the side of consent, one could argue that the pre-existing structures of familial authority (eg arising from parent/child, older/younger siblings etc) compromise both the original consent of the familially submissive parnter on entering into the relationship, and the ongoing consent to the continuance of the relationship.

    It could be counterargued that there is nothing wrong with such relationships if both parties freely and fairly consent (a point unlikely to come from your particular opponents), however in the event that it does, a rebuttal could be that the difficultly in this instance of determining the free and fair consent to a relationship arising after an existing familial authority structure, and the subsequent number of non-abusive incestual relationships found, makes it plausible that an admittedly paternalistic blanket ban on incentuous relationships would not create an unbearable burden.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 4:45 AM GMT
    lol, nicely put Anto! We wondered the same when we saw, 'say, a mother and her over 18yo son.'

    ...that's a straight/hetero thing. It's strange for them to take those skeletons out of their closets and rattle them at us. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 4:47 AM GMT

    Say, ask them, Perdosxxx, why all that hasn't happened in, say...Canada where it's been legal for over 5 years.icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 8:30 AM GMT
    But same-sex marriage is legal from Alaska to Argentina* is just happens that in a majority of jurisdictions of the continent is not recognized by the goverments.

    *OK, exclude Guyana, Belice and some islands in the caribbean where homosexuality is actually illegal icon_rolleyes.gif.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 8:46 AM GMT
    There is just absolutely no relation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 1:12 PM GMT
    jprichva saidI don't know....I mean, I really really love my dog.

    Really.

    It's just that we're in very different places in our lives.


    he´s in the dog house at the moment then?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 1:33 PM GMT
    The argument of gay marriage leading to marriage between a person and their pet... or a mom and her 18 year old son are moot. A mother and her son getting married would be a consent issue. There is no causal connection between gay marriage and incest marriage. I agree with the argument that the same could be said for a man and a woman getting married. If they consent to it then why not let a mom and her son marry? It does not have to be a gay couple getting married to make that argument. There is no legitimate correlation. Its just another avenue of negative association to propagate the "evil" of gay marriage.

    It basically reminds me of that point during a debate when a person has exhausted their main argumentative reasons and resorts to whatever they can use to seemingly win...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 4:17 PM GMT
    Bill and Doug - Yeah I meant Polyamory. Stupid Dictionary.com said polygamy refered to both sexes. I ought to know better and always use wiki. Thanks.

    Anto and Daedalus have had the best points I think. Thanks guys I hadn't really thought that one through but it's nice to know I can ask here and get such great replies. The 3rd party harm argument seems difficult to make though because having older parents or parents with congenital abnormalities would then also be prohibitied.
    Also, I don't call any of these opponents I have argued against my "friends." There are just so many people ignorant people in the world that I like to be prepared for anything. And you never know when you'll get into it with some lunatic conservative who thinks gay marriage means he'll be forced to marry his cat.
    If we want de-brainwash people who are ignorant about homosexuality then the most sweeping changes we can make will be gradual re-education. Unfortunately a majority of the world (including the US) are racists against us. Legal reform is one good thing but being a good role-model is just as important. So even if someone is stupid enough to make a crazy connection between gay marriage and incest or bestiality I want to set them right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 4:24 PM GMT
    This is my opinion only and not meant to offend anyone.

    I sincerely believe that same sex couples should be able to enter a civil union with all the blessings and or curses of the tax system, insurance, hospitalization, adoption system, etc and all the horrors and costs of dissolution.

    However, I have a problem with the terminology.

    Marriage = man + woman

    Civil Union = man + man or woman + woman

    It will be interesting to see in the next 20 years if the dissolution rate of same sex couples is less, equal to or more than their heterosexual counterparts.

    Sorry guys just how I feel. Have at it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 4:24 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    Say, ask them, Perdosxxx, why all that hasn't happened in, say...Canada where it's been legal for over 5 years.icon_wink.gif


    Having had these same type arguments with far right people myself - that will not wash MIL.

    Apparently Americans are not as bright as people in other parts of the world.

    Quite an interesting conundrum
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 4:27 PM GMT
    jprichva saidI don't know....I mean, I really really love my dog.

    Really.

    It's just that we're in very different places in our lives.
    I'm ready to slow down and have kids.

    all he wants to do is go to the park.



    and don't even get me started on his hygiene. I love him but he only bathes like once a week, if that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 4:29 PM GMT
    BeachBiMan saidThis is my opinion only and not meant to offend anyone.

    I sincerely believe that same sex couples should be able to enter a civil union with all the blessings and or curses of the tax system, insurance, hospitalization, adoption system, etc and all the horrors and costs of dissolution.

    However, I have a problem with the terminology.

    Marriage = man + woman

    Civil Union = man + man or woman + woman

    It will be interesting to see in the next 20 years if the dissolution rate of same sex couples is less, equal to or more than their heterosexual counterparts.

    Sorry guys just how I feel. Have at it.


    Well knowing how slutty men can be.

    I'm thinking of becoming a divorce lawyer. I think this is a gold mine
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 4:38 PM GMT
    Blackguy4you said

    Well knowing how slutty men can be.

    I'm thinking of becoming a divorce lawyer. I think this is a gold mine





    That is totally my guess also lol. If men are the main cause of infidelity in a m/w relationship, and I believe it is, WTF would it be like in a m/m relationship?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 4:40 PM GMT
    BeachBiMan said
    Blackguy4you said

    Well knowing how slutty men can be.

    I'm thinking of becoming a divorce lawyer. I think this is a gold mine



    That is totally my guess also lol. If men are the main cause of infidelity in a m/w relationship, and I believe it is, WTF would it be like in a m/m relationship?



    Let's open a partnership - it will be like taking candy from a baby
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 4:44 PM GMT


    Let's open a partnership - it will be like taking candy from a baby


    Well some gays are really really cheap (just wait for one to buy you a fucking drink at a bar sometime lol) so we will have to open a Non-Lawyer service as well. (for you guys in Attorney states and don't know this, some states allow paralegals to prepare paperwork for things like bankruptcys, dissolution of marriage, Notice of hearings etc)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2009 4:47 PM GMT
    BeachBiMan said

    Let's open a partnership - it will be like taking candy from a baby


    Well some gays are really really cheap (just wait for one to buy you a fucking drink at a bar sometime lol) so we will have to open a Non-Lawyer service as well. (for you guys in Attorney states and don't know this, some states allow paralegals to prepare paperwork for things like bankruptcys, dissolution of marriage, Notice of hearings etc)


    eh why are you letting out all the secrets? what sort of business man are you?

    we need to keep everything to ourselves so that we could become the bill gates of gay dissolution services.

    we'll just have to make guys pay up front for all services. we'll make sure the check is cashed before we start to do any work.
  • bmw0

    Posts: 588

    Sep 20, 2009 4:50 PM GMT
    Im copying this from the forum i posted a couple of weeks ago... Maybe it will help? icon_smile.gif


    There are basic rights at stake here. I have been talking about this with my super conservative parents. I have gotten some arguements from them, which are plausible.. but i think i have diffused them well.

    -The definitin of marriage says between a man and a woman.
    Well to this i say that definitions change. There is a country song called "I Miss Back When" that i quoted to them. "back when a screw was a screw." I also brought up the word fag. How it used to mean cigarette. And how gay used to mean happy. Point being, definitions of words change and evolve.. this one will do the same.

    -Religion
    The fact of the matter here is that any religion is by no means required to recognize any marriage. Because of this being both my mother and step fathers third marriage, the baptist church to which they belong does not recognize that they are married. Therefore they do not have to recognize mine either. However some religions do, so why does one religious group trump any other and their beliefs. There is a separation of church and state for a reason. And for that matter, should athiests not be able to marry either?

    -Marriage was meant for pro creation, and god made adam and eve..not adam and steve.
    Well thats funny because god made me to. In my opinion pro creation is out of hand. How do you know that being gay isn't gods version of population control?

    -Being gay is a choice, you choose that and these are the consequences.
    No, being gay is a preference of orientation, as simple for me as not liking chinese food You know Mcdonalds has a menu for a reason. Different people prefer different things. The choice is deciding weather to live your life as a lie and trying to pretend that you love a woman, or being happy and accepting yourself as gay and embracing it. Would the family rather i lived a lie? or be honest...

    -Whats next, a man can marry a horse?
    Good god, you have got to be kidding me. A horse is not able to conciously decide weather or not it would want to be in a relationship with a person. A human being can. We are talking about two people who care for eachother wanting the same rights as straight couples have. I havent seen a talking horse since Mr Ed. Come on now.

    I get heart broken when i hear of people losing their homes to a persons family because they dont have the legal ground to keep after their partners death. Wills are challenged all of the time, and the only way for that not to happen is to issue legal marriage equality for every person. If you can add to any of these points please do. I'm sure there will be more discussions on this topic and any new fresh points would be welcomed.

    Thank You!