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]]

Yes, that's what I mean by doubting the internal validity

I think you mean "external validity" then.

God, any biologist will tell you that when there is a sexual relationship between a brother and sister there is a big chance of homozygous.

That's not what I've heard from biologists I know. The danger from sibling incest is far higher than parental incest.

I agree with that, but the church should not be a reason to prevent the passing of a law which should allow same-sex marriage.

Indeed, which is why I haven't used it as one.

How? The origin of marriage was polygamous and, yes, for the purpose of producing offspring. Yet you already change it's historical function to only this last bit.

Actually, the origin of marriage in many cultures was monogamous.

Yes, but is this applicable to same-sex marriage?

That is indeed the central question. I would argue that it is because the damage it creates to the idea of marriage as a pillar of the society. It does this by reinforcing the idea that marriage is primarily about love, and therefore something you can dissolve when you no longer "feel" like it is worth continuing.

I already said that the premise  "love is love" is too simplistic, and that there are certain big differences between polygamy, incest and homosexuality.

I agree that there are differences, but that does not mean they are not comparable elements, much in the same way that an apple, a bannana and a tomato are all very different. Yet their comparable elements mean they are all still fruit.

You should thus judge them all individually. Not using the pro-gay premise which is obviously populistic and simple. Why are you still making this argument then? I already pointed that out.

 

Because I do not agree with your conclusion. Yes, they are different, but the argument is the central premise of my question.

Let me break it down. Aside from the question of popular will, what is the justification for government support of gay marriage?

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

Yes, that's what I mean by doubting the internal validity

I think you mean "external validity" then.

If the internal validity is bad then that transfers to the external validity.

God, any biologist will tell you that when there is a sexual relationship between a brother and sister there is a big chance of homozygous.

That's not what I've heard from biologists I know. The danger from sibling incest is far higher than parental incest.

Yes, that's what I said, I said that I only knew that there is a big danger when siblings have sex, I said that I didn't know how this was between parent and sibling. Please read what I write.

How? The origin of marriage was polygamous and, yes, for the purpose of producing offspring. Yet you already change it's historical function to only this last bit.

Actually, the origin of marriage in many cultures was monogamous.

I'm talking about the origin of marriage for the western world, this comes from Ancient Greece.

I already said that the premise  "love is love" is too simplistic, and that there are certain big differences between polygamy, incest and homosexuality.

I agree that there are differences, but that does not mean they are not comparable elements, much in the same way that an apple, a bannana and a tomato are all very different. Yet their comparable elements mean they are all still fruit.

When you are discussing something like this you need to discuss the differences, not the things that they have in common. Otherwise you can put heterosexual marriage on this list as well, because they also marry for love. 

Sorry that I wrote this so hasty, I'm going to play a videogame now, see you later.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Yes, that's what I said, I said that I only knew that there is a big danger when siblings have sex, I said that I didn't know how this was between parent and sibling. Please read what I write.

 

"Big" is a relative term. Sibling incest does not increase the liklyhood of immidate danger to the childs life until several generations of incest, unlike parental incest.

I'm talking about the origin of marriage for the western world, this comes from Ancient Greece.

I would argue that western marriage takes far more from the Biblical tradition, which pre-dates ancient Greece.

When you are discussing something like this you need to discuss the differences, not the things that they have in common.

 

The differences are not strictly speaking relevant, since it is the similarities that run parallel with the justification for gay marriage that I am discussing. I am aware of the differences, but I simply point out that they do not undermine my argument.

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

Yes, that's what I said, I said that I only knew that there is a big danger when siblings have sex, I said that I didn't know how this was between parent and sibling. Please read what I write.

 

"Big" is a relative term. Sibling incest does not increase the liklyhood of immidate danger to the childs life until several generations of incest, unlike parental incest.

I will take you word for it, eventhough it seems strange.

I'm talking about the origin of marriage for the western world, this comes from Ancient Greece.

I would argue that western marriage takes far more from the Biblical tradition, which pre-dates ancient Greece.

Okay, I do not agree, but my question is, since you state that this historic function is still applicable to the modern world, how you interpret this. Because I think that, since we line in a different time, we should look at the function it has now, the realistic function, not the one that it once was.

When you are discussing something like this you need to discuss the differences, not the things that they have in common.

 

The differences are not strictly speaking relevant, since it is the similarities that run parallel with the justification for gay marriage that I am discussing. I am aware of the differences, but I simply point out that they do not undermine my argument.


Yes they do, in order to discuss this you have to look at the entire picture. I could for example say that an apple and a tomato should be used for the same purpose in a salad because they are both fruit, but then I wouldn't take in consideration the fact that eventhough they are both fruit they do have a lot of differences in taste and texture. In this same manner homosexual, incestuous and polygamous relationships all have love in common, but that doesn't mean they should all be treated the same. Because there are a lot of differences that need to be taken in consideration in order to make a calculated decision. 
Another example would be Christianity, Judaism and Islam, they are all semetic religions, but that doesn't mean that they are the same, there are certain big differences between them.

[Abreo]

No I agree with Vertigo, it's one thing if she becomes legitimately busy and never replies. It's completely different however if she just comes in here with the goal of insulting him and then end her post by telling him not to bother responding because she won't read it (for whatever reason, in this case because she's busy). She actually says this is how she'll respond to him in the future, which does imply that she's not so busy that she'll never come back. 

I just think it's really immature to insult somebody and then try to do away with the courtesy of at least allowing them the ability to properly rebuttal. 

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

I agree, but I can understand Julia in the way she reacted. Discussing with him can become very frustrating sometimes. Eventhough I do not think that she should have reacted in this matter; it's still understandable that she did.

[Abreo]

Vertigo is a pretty respectful guy so even if you find him frustrating it's not understandable to be anything but respectful. It also definitely isn't understandable to want to participate in the discussion but not to be responded to. If she doesn't think this conversation is going to go anywhere then logically she just shouldn't respond and leave it alone. I'm not saying nobody can be frustrated by Vertigo but nobody should act like an asshole whenever they become frustrated. That's like a general rule in life.

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

Sorry, but I do not think that Vertigo is really that respectful. Posing a question and disproving every reaction that opposes his view by using incorrect reasoning and logical fallacies is not something that I deem respectful. When one poses a question he should be able to think flexibly and he should allow himself to change his own views, something he does not. And something that, so I think, a respectful person would. His disrespect isn't in the same way as Julia; It's in his refusal to open his mind and think logically after asking a question.

[Abreo]

His thought process is different than yours therefore he doesn't respect you.

Yeah. Sure dude. 

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

No, that is not what I say; this is not about my thought processes, this has something to do with logic. Logic is a formal way of reasoning, in contrary to thought processes which are organic and in discussions often faulty. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Then provide examples of my faulty reasoning.

[Abreo]

How do you know he's trolling or refuses to understand logic? Maybe he's just mentally incapable of understanding logic... maybe he's retarded.

I don't really get how he's being disrespectful, even if he's being illogical that doesn't make him a dick. The dude comes off as stubborn I'll give you that and I highly disagree with everything he says but that doesn't mean he's disrespectful or that he deserves to be insulted. (nor do I think he's actually unintelligent)