Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by MrFun


Is anyone else tired of slippery slope fallacies and red herrings?

I'm sick of them, myself, but this isn't one of them.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Although I think I'm on the opposite side of the issue from you, I completely agree with your post. I don't think one should argue that gays have any particular "right" to get married, I just think that the line should be moved to include gay marriages from where it is now. From my dispassionate perspective, the pros of allowing gay marriage far outweigh any potential cons.

My point exactly. Thanks for "going down that slippery slope" where Mr.Fun was afraid to tread.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Lincoln
This entire issue boils down to drawing lines. There is a line now defining mariage between a man and a woman.

There are other lines regardng age, number of spouses allowed, mental capacity etc. that most people agree should be drawn at some point

In Utah some years ago the US government enforced the prohibition against multiple wives. That was a reasonable line as far as most were concerned. .

You may be unaware of this but the Christian holy book has many instances of men with many wives, concubines et cetera.

I believe King Solomon is credited with 700 wives:

Solomon's wives came from many places: Egypt, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Sidonia, Hittite, etc. Foreign wives came from nations with whom God commanded Israel not to associate. God warned that these people would turn Israel to their gods [Exodus 34:12-16]. Solomon had seven hundred wives (princesses) and a thousand concubines (wives of lower status) [1 Kings 11:3]. In his old age his wives turned his heart to the gods [1 Kings 11:4-8].

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/chadwell/faithin7.htm

It is felt that it was the influence of the pagan Roman Empire (where one wife and divorce were the norm) which caused Christianity to introduce the limit: one husband/one wife into its faith.

Of course not all reasonable people are American or Christian:

"Polygynous societies are about four times more numerous than monogamous ones. In 1994, Theodore C. Bergstrom noted in his paper "On the Economics of Polygyny" [1]

(http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Evolution/polygyny3.pdf) (U. Mich. Center for Research on Economic and Social Theory, Working Paper Series 94-11)

that

"Although overt polygamy is rare in our own society, it is a very common mode of family organization around the world. Of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny (some men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Polygamy_worldwide

Why, I think even one of America's staunch allies allows multiple wives, not only in law, but in their religion.

Of course, laws relating to age at which marriage is allowed, number of wives, incest have to do with issues of informed consent and health. If you think that incest presents no health problems in terms of inheritable disease, please say so.

[Aeson]

In Utah some years ago the US government enforced the prohibition against multiple wives. That was a reasonable line as far as most were concerned. Now there is a movement to redraw the line to include same sex couples in state sanctioned marriage. This is no fundamental right anymore than there is one to marry one's daughter.

In the case of polygamy or incest the state expressly denies the right to marry. Homosexuals are allowed to marry (thankfully), but are not afforded the same rights and protections under law as heterosexuals who marry. This is not about whether it is right to allow homosexuals to marry, but whether it is right for the state to discriminate against a couple based on their sexual orientation.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Aeson


In the case of polygamy or incest the state expressly denies the right to marry. Homosexuals are allowed to marry (thankfully), but are not afforded the same rights and protections under law as heterosexuals who marry. This is not about whether it is right to allow homosexuals to marry, but whether it is right for the state to discriminate against a couple based on their sexual orientation.

In what jurisdictions are gays allowed to marry while at the same time not afforded the same rights and protections? I think it's kind of implicit that if a state is willing to allow you to marry (ie:recognize your marriage as a marriage), it is going to afford you the same rights as all other (straight) marriages. If it's anything else, then by definition, the state is NOT allowing gays to marry.

[Lincoln]

I was arguing whether a "fundamental human right" exists as is often argued in support of your position, Aeson. And there is no "right to marry" except in some places. It is certainly not universally accepted.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

isnt this horse dead yet?

[Monk]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
isnt this horse dead yet?

On Apolyton, this horse is immortal.

Kind of like Alexander's.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kontiki
In what jurisdictions are gays allowed to marry while at the same time not afforded the same rights and protections?

The US...

Massachusetts. DOMA.

I think it's kind of implicit that if a state is willing to allow you to marry (ie:recognize your marriage as a marriage), it is going to afford you the same rights as all other (straight) marriages. If it's anything else, then by definition, the state is NOT allowing gays to marry.

The terms "allow" and "recognize" are not the same.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I was arguing whether a "fundamental human right" exists as is often argued in support of your position, Aeson. And there is no "right to marry" except in some places. It is certainly not universally accepted.

I wasn't arguing your point. Just pointing out the analogy you were drawing was incorrect.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
isnt this horse dead yet?

Horses never die at Apolyton.

Anyway the slippery slope argument is an interesting one to oppose especially since the supporters of gay marriage so often use it themselves to their advantage. Only in their case the slope is not so slippery but rather a natural progression. For example:

In Texas a sodomy statute was overturned. Se we are told that slope leads to gay marriage.

A Supreme Court decision (I can't remember the case off hand) described a "fundamental right to marry". This was regarding a case involving a man marrying when he was behind in child support if I recall correctly. Somehow that slope lead to a fundamental right for gays to marry.

So the slope is used to advantage it seems when the party advocating the slope principle sees some advantage in using it. Of course the slope becomes "slippery" when it leads toward an opposing view. The moral of the story is to be consistant.

[Whaleboy]

Got to agree somewhat with Lincoln, the more consistent position here of course is pro-gay marriage.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Monk


On Apolyton, this horse is immortal.

Kind of like Alexander's.

Gay and married?

[Lincoln]

Nice to see that opposing forces can at least agree on something.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Aeson


The US...

Massachusetts. DOMA.



The terms "allow" and "recognize" are not the same.

The US isn't a jurisdiction in relation to marriage since the federal government isn't the one issuing marriage licenses. The DOMA causes problems in part because one jurisdiction (read: a state) isn't obligated to recognize a same sex marriage as such even though it is recognized by another jurisdiction (another state). I don't know of any states that, as a jurisdiction, internally allow gay marriages while at the same time not recognizing them. As I say, that's kind of an oxymoron.