A question to supporters of Gay Marriage

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The following is a question to supporters of gay marriage, but first some context. In recent discussions about gay marriage, one phrase often used by the supporters has been "love is love". The idea being that marriage is (to supporters of gay marriage) primarily a decoration of love between two people, and the legal recognition of that fact.

My question therefore, in light of that fact, is as following:

If the only criteria for legal recognition of marriage is to do with romantic love, upon what basis would the state be able to prohibit legal recognition of polygamy or incestuous marriage?

In either of those two cases, I am sure that the participants involved would state that they have genuine romantic feelings. Is there any basis for preventing these people from also having their marriage recognised?

[Sam Nevin]

The legal ramifications of marriage are a vital part of the fight for marriage rights by homosexual couples, and here's why. Married couples share legal custody of children (which you mentioned), have joint control of assets and equity obtained within the marriage, receive tax credits for being married (which I don't see why you'd oppose), have the authority to make medical decisions for unconscious spouses, have rights to the remains of their deceased spouse (which have been denied to gay couples, and is a source of much contention), and can inherit the property and benefits of their husband or wife upon death.

These things are not social and religious concepts, they are legal rights afforded to couples upon marriage. Gay couples do not have these rights. Legal recognition of marriage is PARAMOUNT to the idea of marriage, and homosexuals deserve to have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Now, onto polygamy. I happen to know a couple dozen kids from polygamist families, of the Mormon variety. Most of them are great people, friendly and kind, with a few bad apples thrown in, but every group has those. One of them, Shanli, was valedictorian in my graduating class in high school. That girl is a musical and mathematical genius, and I've been friends with her for six years. One way to measure the success of any marriage, be it with two people or seven, is how their kids turn out. If a polygamist marriage produces kids like Shanli, they must be doing something right. It's not a lifestyle I would ever choose for myself, but I cannot condemn their decision when the result was so awesome.

Incest must be treated differently due to the proven and severe health risks to the children of such a union. Like you said, married people tend to have kids, and children born of incest suffer from numerous birth defects and genetic disorders. Now how about this: let's say a brother and his sister fell in love and adopted a child. What then? If the two love each other, raise their child with affection and care, what is the harm?

These issues are complex, and there are too many variables to say something is right or wrong. But if two people love each other and seek to enter into a binding union to celebrate their love and protect their rights as a couple, I say let them.

[Emily G]

I think that, as long as a marriage is between consenting adults, it's fine. For the incestuous marriage, the argument against it would be that the children of the siblings marrying would have a higher risk of having a disease/disorder. this sometimes makes sense, but you have to think, there are people who have disorders themselves, which they will probably pass on to their children. If siblings want to marry and risk having a child who may be born with a defect, we have just as much of a right to say no to them as we do to someone with a genetic disease that will probably passed on to their children if they choose to have kids. The argument against polygamy is pretty much the same as the argument against gay marriage. It is against some peoples' religious views, and people are not used to the idea. 

[Josh]

Same sex marriage and polygamy are 2 completely different issues. If your argument it that of the 'slippery slope' argument then you need only look at the history of legalizing interracial marriage to see that its a fallacy.

It is my opinion that relationships with multiple partners is not in anyway detrimental to those involved when it is outside of religious contexts and has consent with all people involved. Incestuous marriage will never become legal because not only is it considered wrong by societies standards, it is wrong from a biological stand point. I do not think there will ever be a time when the majority of any educated population would think its OK for close relatives to marry.

I also agree with azule in regards to Marriage being an imperfect institution and that it shouldn't be necessary to gain benefits. Here in Australia we have "defacto-relationships' which give people the rights of married people so long as they have lived together for a certain period of time, which I think is a step towards a better concept of government recognized relationships.

In conclusion I think marriage is only representative of a very specific and idealistic relationship archetype and should be constantly challenged like all parts of society. The argument for same sex marriage isn't so much about 'giving love a chance' on the romantic sense, it is also about not discriminating against people who are equal members of this society. To say that people no different to you and I are not allowed to express their commitment is an outdated concept to me.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Incestuous marriage will never become legal because not only is it considered wrong by societies standards, it is wrong from a biological stand point.

 

What if both/one party is sterile?

In conclusion I think marriage is only representative of a very specific and idealistic relationship archetype and should be constantly challenged like all parts of society. The argument for same sex marriage isn't so much about 'giving love a chance' on the romantic sense, it is also about not discriminating against people who are equal members of this society.

 

Yes, but not discriminating against people, implies that in some way they are equal and comparable. To which I say "what is equal and comparable about same sex relationships" and the answer is that they are both romantic relationships. To which I re-state my initial point, that polygamous and incestuous relationships do have genuine feelings/romance involved within them.

[Josh]

For your first point, I have no argument. I have nothing wrong with siblings working together to raise a child, and of course I've been somewhat conditioned and a have a biological disposition to find my people with traits similar to mine (like my family) to be less attractive. Perhaps the best argument against incestuous relationships is that it shouldn't be encouraged, in case breeding with close relatives is also encouraged. I'm not so sure about this however. 

Well yes, Marriage between multiple partners would be considered a romantic relationship and I have no problem with that. I don't want to say that wanting or having multiple partners is a life style choice, mostly because its kind of been turned into a dirty word. I believe (from what I have been taught in biology)there are genes that are attributed to making people more likely to be monogamous and genes attributed to... well... sleeping around. People are rarely ever monogamous, they don't necessarily cheat, but they are likely to have more than 1 sexual partner in their life time. I have no problem with this. Hell, if you want to married and still sleep around, that's your choice.

[Zoe]

Here I think it's right to suggest a different definition of marriage: a contract between consenting adults that allows them certain rights in union. No love, romance, or any such unquantifiable snags to be hit. This includes gay and incestuous marriage, although I, like most here, feel that incestuous marriage would be much less common. In terms of polygamy, my definition includes it, but begs the question: how do we split rights between more than two people? That is my issue with polygamy. It seems like a very cumbersome and difficult topic legally, with no real answers to how things like custody, etc. will be divided. Then again, this may simply be due to the fact that nobody has ever attempted to answer.

[Abreo]

Polygamy is cool. Honestly there is no reason anybody should care about that. None. Zero.

Personally I don't judge even a brother and sister for falling in love just because I've been taught to think it's weird. If they have kids the kids are more likely to have problems but that's a complicated issue because if a schizophrenic marries a schizophrenic and has kids with them the kids are FAR more likely to have problems. As a result I can't really even say they shouldn't have sex if two schizos can do it they should be allowed as well.

You are going under the slippery slope argument, which you always do and it's always a fallacy no matter how often you use it. Just thought I should point it out. People say shit all the time and they don't understand what it means. That doesn't lead to banning gay marriage though just because polygamy isn't seen as cool. Different issues entirely. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

You are going under the slippery slope argument, which you always do and it's always a fallacy no matter how often you use it.

No, it isn't. If you can demonstrate that the argument for X can also justify Y, it is not a fallacy.

[Abreo]

These people you're speaking of tend to argue that they support love between two people because it doesn't hurt anybody. 

I'm willing to accept that "love is love"is not a good argument unless you mean it but sometimes people just say shit. it's metaphorical poop that comes out of their mouths and nothing more. You're overanalyzing it to be honest. I'm sure it started with someone like me who really does support everything like some god awful hippie but if you analyze what people say you'll find they're rarely well spoken and they don't think everything through. They see the big picture, you see the little details. I see the details too, it makes life annoying but most people aren't like that. Most people don't care enough to be like that. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

These people you're speaking of tend to argue that they support love between two people because it doesn't hurt anybody.

The fact that it doesn't hurt anyone is a reason not to criminalise something. It isn't a reason to give it an effective government subsidy. There are lots of things we do that don't hurt anyone that don't deserve a government subsidy.

I'm willing to accept that "love is love"is not a good argument unless you mean it but sometimes people just say shit. it's a metaphorical poop that comes out of their mouths and nothing more.

 

I'm glad you see it that way. Being able to see the real world is good, and it is annoying that more people do not see it so.

[Abreo]

The fact that it doesn't hurt anyone is a reason not to criminalise something. It isn't a reason to give it an effective government subsidy. There are lots of things we do that don't hurt anyone that don't deserve a government subsidy.

 

That's less of an argument about who should get married than it is an argument about how marriages should work. If they don't get subsidies than fine but there's a lot more than marriage than that that I'm willing to argue they should get.

I'm glad you see it that way. Being able to see the real world is good, and it is annoying that more people do not see it so.

 

Eh I have biases and limits myself, as do you. I would just argue that we care about trying, and other people don't. 

[Hutch Hogan]

A better question would be "Will you defend these red herrings?"  Same sex marriage isn't polygamous, nor will it produce offspring with genetic deficiencies.  

This is basically asking someone who likes drinking beer to defend the consumption of methanol or benzene.