CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Ben Kenobi]

No benefit of marriage is not available elsewhere.

You're simply delusional. You think Britney Spears is (or at least was while she was married) a good parent, whereas you think the countless single parents, adoptive parents, non-married couples raising kids, grandparents who raise kids... are failures.

I never said that. You seem to believe that Britney Spears is the model, which is a huge insult. Rather then putting words in my mouth, why don't you acknowledge the fact that the majority of children are born and raised by a husband and a wife? It says nothing about how the others are raising, merely that the state derives a proportional benefit that the others do not possess.

Even Imran doesn't contest this point. I think the state, out of the sheer numbers of children involved has a very real justification in protecting these children.

Some may be, others do a far better job than some biological parents.

And some may do worse. Why do folks always have to compare apples to oranges? There are good adoptive parents and bad ones, there are good marriages and bad marriages. Just because there are some bad marriages, doesn't mean there are no bad alternatives.

Secondly, the majority of those children who are adopted, are also raised by a husband and wife, so your objection has no merit.

The key to raising a child right is to have loving guardians who will provide for the child and see to their needs. Male and female rolemodels are both important. But who provides those things does not have to be the biological parents.

I agree wholeheartedly. I am merely saying that because the majority of children are born in this situation that it is significant, and that the state, out of a responsibility to ensure that children are well supported has an obligation towards these families. Also, adoption has no bearing against my argument, as the majority are raised in families with a husband and a wife.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Asher
I actually resent the fact that gay marriage is compared to incestuous marriages.

I'm not comparing the two. I'm just stating that the arguments used against the different types of marriages currently not allowed are all BS.

The genetics argument against relative marriages is just pure crap. Sure, there is a higher probablity of it, but currently we do not screen "normal" couples for possible genetic problems AND then ban them from getting married.

I personally find the thought of incest disgusting... but that is a personal and moral belief. Stopping them from getting married based on a higher problability of possible birth defects is just BS. My personal beliefs should not trump their desire IF they are consenting adults and understand the risks if they are to have children.

And the arguments I'm seeing against bigamy are equally lame... the ole "look at cultures that allow it" doesn't apply. Each situation is different, and you can't make sweaping generalizations. Heck, we have a serious problem with spousal abuse in this country... does that mean that NOBODY should ever get married!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Incest will never be legal; it is actually destructive to the society (it decreases genetic variation, and increases birth defects, which have a societal cost, both in health care and in making society directly weaker).

Is incest unnatural? Not exactly. Last month, Science News reported that inbreeding is surprisingly common in nature, apparently for sound Darwinian reasons.

Is it common among humans? Not as a brother-sister arrangement. But millions of people are doing the next-best thing. In a sample of Pakistanis, first-cousin couples accounted for around 60 percent of all marriages. In a sample of Indians, first-cousin couples accounted for one-third of the marriages, and uncle-niece couples accounted for one-fifth.

Do cousin marriages lead to genetic disease? Generally, no. Six years ago, a study by the National Society of Genetic Counselors found that having a child with your first cousin raised the risk of a significant birth defect from about 3-to-4 percent to about 4-to-7 percent. The authors concluded that this difference wasn't enough to justify genetic testing of cousin couples, much less bans on cousin marriage.

Homosexuality, polygamy, and incest

You can't say that "they can just not have kids"; the state cannot and will not enforce this effectively,

Why do you hate the Ashkenazi Jews? Why shouldn't the Jews be alowed to marry despite the increased risk of genetic diseases the group faces?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher
We can deal with incestuous and polygamous marriages when and if they become challenged.

The fact polygamy goes on without charges being laid seems to indicate to me there is already a challenge wrt polygamous relationships.

You want to redefine marriage to fit your considerations but not others. Similar arguments will apply. Hence the reluctance of the government to begin court proceedings in BC that they could well lose.

[Ben Kenobi]

The idea that they would write anything at all concerning gay marriage in 1948, when being gay - let alone gay rights - was not discussed at all, is preposterous.

I agree. Ergo, the idea that you can read that in is also preposterous.

The only reason I brought it up was to demonstrate that, as per the UDHC, marriage is a universal, individual human right. If you don't agree with the UDHC, fine, but this is what the world community thinks of the matter.

It also says that education is a right and is free, something that is not agree upon by most of the free world, let alone the rest of the world. That is significant hyperbole.

I also showed that by the actual words of the document that there are significant distinctions between marriage and the individual rights, such that marriage is not truly an individual right as it requires the consent of another person.

Firstly, nobody is trying to elevate gay people "above" anybody else,

You never heard that term before? I have, many times.

Secondly, giving gay people the right to marry has no bearing on their propensity to raise children or lack thereof.

Stability has no propensity to encourage raising children. This is a curious statement. You need to take it p with Imran and Asher who would say the opposite.

That's not because of us, it's because of you. Opposition to homosexual rights and opposition to some of the primary means of birth control are both strongly linked to conservative Christianity.

Hardly. The majority who oppose this ruling support birth control.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

Those are clearly the same as gay marriage.

Did I say they were? No.

But they follow from the principle that you hitched your flag to.

I don't agree with Ben about gay marriage or abortion. But he has a point that is worth thinking over. The liberal arguments for both rest on individual liberty. Yet the same principles of individual liberty can be used to justify widespread discrimination against gay people, or the removal of child support laws.

Liberals who offer these arguments do the usual thing and just hold to the argument when it suits them. The standard liberal arguments for abortion have some extremely unpleasant consequences for women when taken to their logical conclusion (a fact that a minority of feminists have noted to their horror).

The problem with arguments about gay marriage is that they focus on the Millian principle without fully thinking out its consequences. They treat it as a sufficient reason for legalizing gay marriage, when it isn't.

A less vulnerable and more consistent defence would be to base the claim on the fact that gay people can develop relationships that are just as deep and meaningful as heterosexual relationships. The purpose of marriage laws is to provide some public recognition of such relationships and offer them meaningful legal protection.

Ming's objection that the state doesn't prevent idiots from entering bad marriages doesn't change the point that marriage legislation is intended to protect a certain ideal class of relationships. Of course the state can't stop people entering bad marriages, but that is a side effect of other values and does not reflect upon the value of marriage legislation itself or the kinds of relationships it is intended to protect. Similarly, the argument that childless couples may marry does not change the fact that the original social purpose of marriage had much to do with children. I don't think this is still the case, so there would be an obvious point of disagreement there.

So Ben is correct to see the debate as one about the fundamental purpose of marriage, rather than as a matter of individual liberty. It's just that he disagrees with most of us over the purpose of marriage and the claim that homosexuals can be party to the kind of ideal relationship that marriage is intended to protect. I think it is obvious that they can, and on those grounds I think it is appropriate for homosexual marriages to take place.

Liberals try to avoid the "purpose" argument because they think it will automatically allow the conservatives to win. It won't. It just makes arguing about it a bit harder.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil


The fact polygamy goes on without charges being laid seems to indicate to me there is already a challenge wrt polygamous relationships.

You want to redefine marriage to fit your considerations but not others. Similar arguments will apply. Hence the reluctance of the government to begin court proceedings in BC that they could well lose.

I just have concerns regarding incestuous relationships (guaranteed extra risks, for ALL incestuous relationships, to children that can't exactly consent to it).
I also have concerns about polygamous relationships. They tend to have problems with emotional abuse.

[Agathon]

The incest comment is not meant to suggest that homosexuals are no better than inbreeding hillbillies. Rather it follows from the Millian justification of homosexual marriage.

The incest comparison is a call for a better justification for homosexual marriage than the Millian principle. The point is: if you really believe that Mill's principle justifies gay marriage, then you are treating all marriages, including gay ones, as being no different from Elmer marrying his sister.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher


I just have concerns regarding incestuous relationships (guaranteed extra risks, for ALL incestuous relationships, to children that can't exactly consent to it).
I also have concerns about polygamous relationships. They tend to have problems with emotional abuse.

As do I, but you can't just write-off the debate. It is real.

[Ben Kenobi]

A less vulnerable and more consistent defence would be to base the claim on the fact that gay people can develop relationships that are just as deep and meaningful as heterosexual relationships. The purpose of marriage laws is to provide some public recognition of such relationships and offer them meaningful legal protection.

Sure, the problem is how can you make the claim to distinguish 'deep' relationships from others? What about friendship? Shouldn't that be recognised also in the same manner?

I already dealt with this when I said that they are assuming a conjugal relationship is necessary. It's not a deep relationship at all, but a conjugal one is the only one assumed. That has become the new standard, and why universities are now having people assert, rather ludicriously that they have to be having sex in order to claim the benefits. This is to exclude the same partner benefits from being given to other deep relationships that are non-conjugal.

[Arrian]

edit: crosspost with Agathon.

One can also make the case for gay marriage being beneificial to society, and therefore it is a good idea for the state to promote it.

Stable relationships are generally a good thing, even w/o talking about kids, I think we all agree on that. Providing marriage as an option for gays promotes committment to such a relationship in the same way that marriage amongst heteros does.

Further, it provides for a better situation for child-rearing. The children can either be adopted or produced via the wonders of science.

So, if the issue is society promoting something good (rather than allowing a right that does no harm), I think gay marriage passes that test too.

-Arrian

p.s. I still don't think the personal liberty argument fails for the reason you think it does, Agathon. Generally speaking, the idea is that so long as you are not harming others, it's ok. How would gay marriage harm anyone?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Is incest unnatural? Not exactly. Last month, Science News reported that inbreeding is surprisingly common in nature, apparently for sound Darwinian reasons.

Is it common among humans? Not as a brother-sister arrangement. But millions of people are doing the next-best thing. In a sample of Pakistanis, first-cousin couples accounted for around 60 percent of all marriages. In a sample of Indians, first-cousin couples accounted for one-third of the marriages, and uncle-niece couples accounted for one-fifth.

Do cousin marriages lead to genetic disease? Generally, no. Six years ago, a study by the National Society of Genetic Counselors found that having a child with your first cousin raised the risk of a significant birth defect from about 3-to-4 percent to about 4-to-7 percent. The authors concluded that this difference wasn't enough to justify genetic testing of cousin couples, much less bans on cousin marriage.

Homosexuality, polygamy, and incest

A single first cousin marriage may not; but in the long run, most certainly, if the practice happened numerous times. Western europe has a very, very good example of this In any event, nearly *doubling* the risk of birth defects seems rather severe; and again, there is no justifiable reason FOR it (as you can claim a family member as a dependent without marriage).

You can't say that "they can just not have kids"; the state cannot and will not enforce this effectively,

Why do you hate the Ashkenazi Jews? Why shouldn't the Jews be alowed to marry despite the increased risk of genetic diseases the group faces?

Ashkenazi jews can marry as long as they're not so closely related as to be considered incest. If they're going to cause problems in terms of genetic disease, they can go found their own society where they pay for the group's medical costs and bear the cost of their particular religious preference themselves...

[Ming]

If the argument is about the purpose of marriage... then the arguments against incest and bigamy become even sillier. Multiple person marriages and marriages between relatives can produce children just as easy as "normal" couples. Don't those children need the same protections... or should they not get those protections just because of an individuals religious or moral beliefs.

If people want to still hold on to the concept that marriages' only purpose is to provide a stable enviornment for raising and protecting children, that's one thing. But anybody living in a modern society can see that the concept of marriage has gone far beyond that. With the government providing special and additional rights to married people, REGARLESS of whether they have or plan on having children, the purpose of marriage has indeed changed.

It now provides clear legal rights to those involved in the union... and they are important rights.

With the prupose of marriage now being a way to protect the legal rights of those that want to commit their lives to each other, and form a partnership, how can we deny certain couples or even larger groups those same rights.

[Ben Kenobi]

One can also make the case for gay marriage being beneificial to society, and therefore it is a good idea for the state to promote it.

Advocates for polygamy, and incest will say exactly the same thing. Agathon is very right. If you justify one on a utilitatarian basis, then you open the door for similar claims. As evidenced in this thread, it seems to be the prevailing desire is to open it up to everyone rather then simply put a new lock and chain up, this far and no further.

I've said before, I don't believe the current status quo is tenable.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil


As do I, but you can't just write-off the debate. It is real.

It's just not real in the context of the discussion specific to gay marriage...

As I said, it's a discussion to have, but lumping all of these different issues together just makes it far easier for bigots to group them together with the "slippery slope" arguments.