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?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Because I disagree and back up my points with reason... well then.

[Josh Weeden]

Vertigo you do realise that the change in the law to ban the slave trade, legalise interracial marriage, legalise women's vote, legalise abortion, and ban child labour all came about due to campaigning so asking for evidence of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage campaign groups is relivent as no one is going to change a law unless the is a movement to change it.

Also I think you missed my point in 1780 for example there were people who though that owning slaves was right but the opinion changed with time as has the opinion on homosexuality and now gay marriage. hence what is considered right is relative to the time in which you live. With hindsight we can view those actions as wrong but at the time the opinion of the people was different. If you can't grasp that then I actively question your intelligence

[Aaron |Forum Mod|]

Seconded

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Vertigo you do realise that the change in the law to ban the slave trade, legalise interracial marriage, legalise women's vote, legalise abortion, and ban child labour all came about due to campaigning so asking for evidence of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage campaign groups is relivent as no one is going to change a law unless the is a movement to change it.

 

Of course I realise, but the fact is that it is not the campaign that was as important as the righteousness of it. Put simply, if a campaign was launched today to make it the case that only men could vote, and it somehow gained popular support, and ultimately acts of law were passed, would that make it right? Of course not. The issue at hand is the principle. There may be all the campagining in the world, but that does not make an issue right.

The logic here is that the campagin is fighting for a principle. If it is merely fighting to make itself popular, and thus accepted, that's different. But if they claim (as they do) that a human rights principle is at stake, then logically, they must support that principle wherever it may take them. To do otherwise is to be hypocritical, or worse, culturally selective.

Also I think you missed my point in 1780 for example there were people who though that owning slaves was right but the opinion changed with time as has the opinion on homosexuality and now gay marriage. hence what is considered right is relative to the time in which you live. With hindsight we can view those actions as wrong but at the time the opinion of the people was different. If you can't grasp that then I actively question your intelligence

 

I am more than fully aware that opinion at the time was different, but my point was that opinion isn't what is at issue. It is not what people think is right that is in question, but rather what IS right. The pro-gay marriage lobby repeatedly make the point that this is their right. That they should have the right to marry whom they please, as everyone does based on the principle of equality. My question is why they do not maintain the support of that principle on other matters. If it is truly a principle, it is something stronger than opinion etc.

[Josh Weeden]

I am so sorry for what I am about to write but your closed mindedness is beyond frustrating.

Let's begin...
Your first repost was quite stupid. A campaign that only men should have the vote is in no way comparable as it would never be supported by the majority due to the current view on sexual equality. Your bringing up that as an example simply undermines your point and throws into light your own fear that this might happen.

Second those of the LGBT community hold their principle very strongly. But for the rest of us it falls to opinion only. That is what will decide it.

What's more where have the LGBT community been called to support gay and polygamous marriage? also why the hell should they just to justify themselves to people like you. This entire debate is ludicrous not only for your poor debating style which infuriates rather than leads to decent discourse. But more so that you impose this idea that if gay people want to get married they need to also support other viewpoints which they don't believe in. And before you say it yup in this case you are but if your toes are being stepped on for the sake of other peoples happiness then I'm glad.

Thirdly and this is where you really annoyed me you claimed ownership ( as many of your kind do) of the moral authority . How dare you! If you bring words such as richeousness into what you are quick to say is a logical debate then you are subverting it with your own antiquated belief system.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Your first repost was quite stupid. A campaign that only men should have the vote is in no way comparable as it would never be supported by the majority due to the current view on sexual equality.

You are missing the point. I'm well aware that such a campaign would be unsucessful. I am merely giving it as an example to prove a point. Namely, that whether or not a campaign is successful is in no way an indicator as to whether or not it is right.

What's more where have the LGBT community been called to support gay and polygamous marriage?

They havn't been. I am calling it out by using logic.

But more so that you impose this idea that if gay people want to get married they need to also support other viewpoints which they don't believe in.

 

I will make the point very simply and very plainly.

If the gay community believe (as they claim) that they are demanding a right be recognised, that is the right to marry whomsoever they choose, upon what basis do they fail to support that right for others?

Thirdly and this is where you really annoyed me you claimed ownership ( as many of your kind do) of the moral authority . How dare you! If you bring words such as richeousness into what you are quick to say is a logical debate then you are subverting it with your own antiquated belief system.

 

You are making a mistake. It is not I who is bringing the concept of right and wrong into this debate. It is the pro-homosexual marriage lobby. They are making the normative claim that gay marriage should be made into law, because it is morally right to do so. They argue this becaue they claim it is an issue of equality, that marriage should be about a celebration of romantic love, and if they should so wish, they can have romantic love between people of the same gender. My question then is, if romantic love, and by extention as they claim, marriage, is indeed an issue of rights, then why do those rights not apply more universally. Namely to others who have romantic relationships, such as the pologygomus or the sterile incestuous, who have romantic relationships of their own that are currently un-recognised.

From your argument, the only reason would be is that there has not been a campagin. To which I make the response that your suggestion is therefore that an issue cannot be resolved on the basis of logic and arguments regarding rights, but merely on the basis of popular support. If that is so, then there is a problem. If whether or not something is right is only down to popular support, to take an example, was it right, prior to 1807 that slaves were to be traded? After all, the only reason, following your logic, that it was outlawed was not because of the rightousness or otherwise of the cause, but because of the campagin organised to destroy it.

[Josh Weeden]

They havn't been. I am calling it out by using logic.

That may be why they haven't responded. Try standing outside Heaven on a saturday night and asking. 

What's really sad is im sure eventually everyone who has tried to reason with you on this matter will give it up as a lost cause and you will feel all superior and righteous....slowly unaware that this thing which you disaprove of for reasons of your own (we had discussed these and you were shown to be lacking in logic) will happen around you leaving you an old man alone in a world you disaprove of.....enjoy  

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

You have yet to prove what is wrong with my argument. Prove it, and I will listen. I'll break it down again.

Premise: Pro-Gay marriage lobby argues that its case is based on principle (IE in the specific instance, the principle of equality of recognition for all romantic relationships).

Premise: Principle is not dependent on popularity but on logic and righteousness.

Are these two premises faulty, because if so, my argument has flaws. Prove their faults, and I will listen to you.

Just for the fun of it though, go re-read page one of this debate. If you do so, you will see plenty of people accepting my point. They are internally consistant in their reasoning, accepting polyagmy and sterile incest along with homosexual marriage. Theirs is a position I can respect. Yours is a populist one, which does not seem to support the position of an inherent rightousness to things.

[Aaron |Forum Mod|]

Wrong, and that's the reason why you are unable to discuss with. The premise of the pro-gay  marriage lobby isn't only the recognition of all romantic relationships. And even if it was then you should still also take in consideration other possible arguments. Because their argument is only a dumbed down populistic argument for the general public. This site (also being from the pro-gay marriage lobby) http://gaymarriage.procon.org/#pro_con gives a lot more reasons, yet you are fixated on this stupid nonsense argument of love is love.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Erm...pretty much all of the arguments from this site boil down to "love is love/equality etc". Let me demonstrate.

It is no one else's business if two men or two women want to get married. Two people of the same sex who love each other should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment

That's pretty much the "love is love" argument right there. "Let us celebrate our love, it's as valid as yours" etc.

There is no such thing as traditional marriage. Given the prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of prostitution, heterosexual monogamy can be considered "unnatural” in evolutionary terms.

Again, this is the "love is love" argument, but a slight varient. IE it's saying that tradition does not give authority, and therefore all romantic forms are equal and should be treated as such.

Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. The US Supreme Court declared in 1974’s Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause.”

Again, this is about equality of relationship types. IE arguing that it is an equally acceptable choice. If they argue, as they do here, that it is equally acceptable to be a homosexual coupling, they should also have no problem with polygamy et al.

Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stigmatizes gay and lesbian families (117 KB) as inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them.

This argument is basically saying "it's wrong to treat us as though we are not equal"

Marriage in the US is a secular and dynamic institution that has gone under several major transformations.

Basically arguing "It has changed, change it because we want equality".

Now I'm happy to discuss the other arguments there, but you cannot deny that these arguments are basically all variants of the same central argument for equality.

[Latch33570]

VERTIGO "And they can equally be applied to polygomus and sterile incestous marriage. And yet the pro-gay marriage community do not seem to join in in that regard. Why do polyugomous people not get to have "lifetime partners" or "joining of families"?"

First I am for polygamous marriage it is part of several religious cultures. That is besides the point however. In todays society it is acceptable to have a same sex life partner and incest and polygamous relationships are not. The poly's are more accepted than incest but nevertheless that is the way it is. Saying that we do not accept those two types of relationship therefore lets not accept this one just doesn't fly.

[Aaron |Forum Mod|]

owh, let him live in his own little world, if he however makes another forum topic about nonsense like this, then I will write a manifesto against his stupid method of denying every reasonable thing anyone tries to say. :D