California and Mob Rule

[Kuciwalker]

Just because something has historical precedent and what you may believe to be a valid reason does not make it not discrimination.

While anti-miscegenation laws were not really the norm prior to the 19th century in the US South, what if they had been? What if you managed to dredge up the scientific research of the time demonstrating that mixed-race babies had lower intelligence than either all-white or all-black babies? Wouldn't the law still have been discriminatory?

The problem is your idea of marriage: when you say "two individuals who want to enter into the civil status of marriage" you're imagining a fairly generic type of relationship between two people defined by certain things that usually accompany it (monogamy, cohabitation, etc.). This is a different idea than the traditional definition of marriage, and a very modern innovation. Traditionally marriage wasn't conceived in terms of just the properties of the relationship, but was fundamentally defined by properties of the participants. (Additionally by the idea that the two individuals would usually start a family together by producing their own children.)

If historically marriage had been defined as only between members of the same race, and thought of as inherently an intraracial relationship, then the law would not have been discriminatory. Obviously, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have changed it once some people decided that they wanted to marry interracially, as no harm and some good would come of it.

An analogy: we meet a bunch of intelligent aliens that have roughly equivalent marriage customs to us. Consider what it would mean for the definition of marriage, if we then decided to allow interspecies marriages.

[Kuciwalker]

Regarding the polygamy argument: it's really easy to deal with the purported slippery slope. We simply have no idea how polygamous marriage should work even if we did make it legal. Is it a group thing, so that if A marries B and B marries C than A is married to C? How do you break it up? etc. Until those questions are answered in some satisfactory way we can't legalize polygamy because we don't know how. Of course, nothing should prevent an arbitrary group of people from cohabiting and claiming to be married, but we wouldn't grant legal recognition to the marriage.

[Q Classic]

Are you arguing that your current situation is similar to slavery?

Are you aware that your statement is a textbook example of setting up a strawman?

He does not.

Or, if he does, he doesn't care that it actually isn't useful in debates.

But my money's on the former.

[Ben Kenobi]

Regarding the polygamy argument: it's really easy to deal with the purported slippery slope.

We have a case winding through the courts right now to legalise polygamy in BC. Purported is already here. We have a significant minority that already has defacto polygamy which is currently not enforced.

We simply have no idea how polygamous marriage should work even if we did make it legal. Is it a group thing, so that if A marries B and B marries C than A is married to C? How do you break it up? etc. Until those questions are answered in some satisfactory way we can't legalize polygamy because we don't know how. Of course, nothing should prevent an arbitrary group of people from cohabiting and claiming to be married, but we wouldn't grant legal recognition to the marriage.

Pretty feeble objection.

Husband A wants to be married to Wife A and Wife B. Legally he would have a contract with wifa A and wife B, but Wife A would not have a contract with wife B.

That would also not prevent Wife A and Wife B from later doing a similar contract. Not hard to have legal recognition. Divorce would be the same way, but you would only break one at a time. Divorce to wife B wouldn't impact wife A.

Yes, it's confusing, and I would argue a good reason not to do the polygamy route, but it's not a barrier that will prove insurmountable. Or we could simply import Sharia which says men can divorce and marry at will.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's an honest question.

I'm not asking if he's stopped cheating on his taxes, nor am I begging the question.

[Dr Strangelove]

The social purpose being a stable means of reproduction and thus future survival of humans?

So gay people need to be able to marry so that they can reproduce and assure the future survival of gay humans.

[Dr Strangelove]

Does anyone recall the results of that big polygamy cult case out West last year? The last I recall proscutors were having trouble making a case.

[Ben Kenobi]

Doc, it's still ongoing.

[Drake Tungsten]

While anti-miscegenation laws were not really the norm prior to the 19th century in the US South, what if they had been? What if you managed to dredge up the scientific research of the time demonstrating that mixed-race babies had lower intelligence than either all-white or all-black babies? Wouldn't the law still have been discriminatory?

Not sure. Probably not, if prevention of lower IQ babies is the hypothetical reason for the anti-miscegenation laws. It wouldn't be fundamentally different from laws against incest in that case.

[Jon Miller]

Oy... I can't believe you are repeating this ridiculously dumb argument.

Marriage is between a straight man and a straight woman, but not between a gay man and a gay man or a gay woman and a gay woman. Obvious discrimination.

Obviously it is a different definition.

I am not saying 'gay people can already get married if they want to, so everything is fine'. I am saying 'as currently defined, gay people can get married if they want to so rights are equal'.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Thus, gay men and lesbians are deprived of basic right to marry another mentally competent, consenting adult of their choice.

This right hasn't existed before. Or at least not before in western society.

I think it should exist. But I recognize it as a new right or definition, and not 'removing discrimination'.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

I am saying 'as currently defined, gay people can get married if they want to so rights are equal'.

As currently defined in the 1950s, black people can get married if they want to and white people can get married if they want to so rights are equal... just not to each other... which sounds familiar...

Don't be an idiot, Jon... you are smarter than this tortured argument you are putting forward.

[Drake Tungsten]

Jon's argument is far smarter than yours. The similarities between anti-miscegenation laws and the refusal to create a right to gay marriage are superficial at best.

[MrFun]

So gay people need to be able to marry so that they can reproduce and assure the future survival of gay humans.

Are you retarded just online, or are you also retarded in real life?

[KrazyHorse]

While anti-miscegenation laws were not really the norm prior to the 19th century in the US South, what if they had been? What if you managed to dredge up the scientific research of the time demonstrating that mixed-race babies had lower intelligence than either all-white or all-black babies? Wouldn't the law still have been discriminatory?

Not sure. Probably not, if prevention of lower IQ babies is the hypothetical reason for the anti-miscegenation laws. It wouldn't be fundamentally different from laws against incest in that case.

Laws against incest are discriminatory.



Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word:

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

Anti-gay marriage laws discriminate against people who wish to get married to certain other people based solely on their membership in a class (gender). Anti-incest laws are equally discriminatory, as are laws against miscegenation or laws against sexual activity between an apparently consenting 10 year old and a 35 year old.

The question is whether such discrimination can be justified by an overriding state concern. The case for anti-gay marriage laws is obviously stronger than the case for anti-miscegenation laws, and the case for anti-incest and anti-pedophilia laws is obviously far stronger than this.

Anti-miscegenation laws were struck down (I believe) based on the fact that:

a) They were aimed solely at white/non-white couples (two non-whites of different races were allowed to marry)

and

b) The state had demonstrated no overriding reason to allow the discrimination to take place

Just because the law is discriminatory doesn't make the law wrong.