Support For Same Sex Marriage Grows

[Q Classic]

While it is true that my perception is coloured by these experiences, the statement that homosexuality is unhealthy is a clinical reality entirely independent of my assessment.



Would you like me to get into the stats? I have them.

I'd actually like to see where you're getting these numbers.

[chequita guevara]

You know, threads of this type are soooooo much better when you don't have to read Ben's arguments. I ignore.

[Kuciwalker]

Welcome to the club

[chequita guevara]

I do have strong feelings about hypocrisy, however, which is what you're wallowing in when you claim that homosexuals have the right to marry who they want but polygamists don't...

Let's be fair, though. 92% of Americans think that polygamy is immoral. That's not something you want to tie yourself to if you want to win.

Is it hypocritical? Yes. It's also a good strategic choice if you want to get a partial victory. Also, most proponents of gay marriage think that polygamous marriage is immoral (no other way that number could be 92%).

[chequita guevara]

Welcome to the club

I started the club. It's just for a long time, I'd still peek. I've stopped.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

The premise underlying the push for legal gay marriage is that the State has no right to restrict the parties to a contract by gender, because gender is a constitutionally-protected category (the same logic, with race substituted for gender, underlies Loving v. VA). Limiting the number of participants in such a contract, however, violates no equal protection clause.

Marriage isn't limited by gender. It's limited by the number of participants of each gender than can enter into the contract (one of each).

Marriage is a contract. Marriage law, as written, says that I, as a man, cannot enter into said contract with another man. It is thus limited by gender, and analogous not only to the old laws against interracial marriage (restricting whites from entering into said contract with non-whites) but also a restrictive covenants that limited sales of homes to a particular race or creed of buyer.

The Court has long held that, while religion is also a protected category, activities that would otherwise be illegal do not become a right when carried out under the guise of religion.

I never argued that they did. My argument is that there isn't a right to gay marriage in the Constitution and that if you create one, as gay rights activists want, there's no logical or moral reason not to create further rights that will allow other alternative lifestyles like polygamy to be folded into the concept of "marriage."

Hell, Drake, there isn't a right to marriage in the Constitution. If a right to gay marriage exists -- and I doubt it does, on the federal level, but it does exist in certain states -- it's because of the prohibition on gender discrimination in various state constitutions. And smart gay activists don't want to create a right to gay marriage; they want the various states to acknowledge the the logic of already-existing constitutional rights and legal precedents make gay marriage legal in the various states that ban gender discrimination.

People like Mr. Fun, who only want marriage for their own interest group, are hypocrites of the worst sort.

On that we agree. I don't think there's a sound philosophical argument for differentiating between types of marriage -- gay or straight, monogamous or polygamous. But there is a strong legal argument for excluding polygamy, which is why the whole polygamy counterargument (to say nothing of the kids-and-pets counterargument) is tiresome.

But if all you're trying to do is beat up Mr. Fun for lack of philosophical rigor, then have fun.

[dannubis]

Yes, look at the total economic production of Western Europe.


Western Europe is in an incredible decline, I didn't realise it was this bad, until I looked at the numbers.

Has it occured to you that the 2 billion Asians who are rapidly developing right now might have something to do with it ?

Basides, enlightenment is the best thing that ever hapened to Europe. And we all know what this did to the Church right ?

[MrFun]

Drake's trollng using idea of polygamous marriage is getting to be boring.

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake's trollng using idea of polygamous marriage is getting to be boring.

If you'll explain to me what the logical difference is between gay marriage and polygamy is, I'll quit.

But if all you're trying to do is beat up Mr. Fun for lack of philosophical rigor, then have fun.

I will.

[MrFun]

I'll get back to you in another forty years on that question, okay Drake?

[Kuciwalker]

Drake's trollng using idea of polygamous marriage is getting to be boring.

i.e. you have no idea how to refute it

[rah]

While I agree that it has to be included in the discussion, the issues with polygamy are different enough that supporting one does not necessitate supporting he other.

[Imran Siddiqui]

On that we agree. I don't think there's a sound philosophical argument for differentiating between types of marriage -- gay or straight, monogamous or polygamous. But there is a strong legal argument for excluding polygamy, which is why the whole polygamy counterargument (to say nothing of the kids-and-pets counterargument) is tiresome.

It seemed to me to read as if Drake was making the philosophical argument. At least to me.

[MrFun]

So people who supported/advocated for equal marriage protection for interracial couples in 1960s had to also support legal polygamous marriage in order not to be branded as hypocrites?

I can see how white supremacists in 1960s could have used the fear of polygamy to argue against legal interracial marriages.

[MrFun]

In Drake's universe, Martin Luther King Jr. was a bigoted hypocrite because he advocated for legal interracial marriage while probably opposing polygamous marriage.