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?

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

You have yet to explain WHY it is wrong.

The argument love is love is wrong because you can hardly falsify any sort of relationship with it (except an abussive one). Using that argument a human and a pig would be able to marry if one could prove that the pig loves him. It doesn't take in consideration that there are differences between types of love/relationships because of which we judge some differently than others. And in reality we can clearly see that there are differences between different types of relationships which this argument does not take in account.

Please select and present said arguments.

Another argument for same-sex marriage would be that it is based on homosexuality. A scientific phenomena which has been heavily researched and which is not seen as a mental illness, nor a choice, but rather a difference in brain development. And that people with homosexuality are able to have normal, healthy relationships. Because they're constitutionaly differently than heterosexuals, and because of the fact that this difference is not a mental illness, nor is it something that hurts others, they should have the right to live a life comparable to heterosexual people, where they may marry a person of the same sex.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The argument love is love is wrong because you can hardly falsify any sort of relationship with it (except an abussive one).

It is possible to tell if a relationship is entered into consensually, and anyone who wishes to be a partner for life long with someone consensually must have some affection for them.

Using that argument a human and a pig would be able to marry if one could prove that the pig loves him.

 

Yes, if you could prove a pig had consentual feelings. However, pigs are not capable of that level of brain development.

 

It doesn't take in consideration that there are differences between types of love/relationships because of which we judge some differently than others.

On the contrary, it takes that into account fine, but it argues that there is a particular type of love that marriage is based upon.

 

Another argument for same-sex marriage would be that it is based on homosexuality. A scientific phenomena which has been heavily researched and which is not seen as a mental illness, nor a choice, but rather a difference in brain development. And that people with homosexuality are able to have normal, healthy relationships.

 

This sounds very much like the "love is love" argument. As far as I can see here your argument is "homosexuality exists, it has been proven, so it should recieve govenment recognition". But there are several problems with this. Firstly, contrary to what you are saying here, it has not been proven to be anything to do with brain development. There is not yet a scientific consensous on the specific cause of homosexuality.

Because they're constitutionaly differently than heterosexuals, and because of the fact that this difference is not a mental illness, nor is it something that hurts others, they should have the right to live a life comparable to heterosexual people, where they may marry a person of the same sex.

 

I'm sorry, you are just dressing up the "love is love" argument. You are stating that their relationships are the same as hetrosexual ones, and thus deserve recognition.

The truth of the matter is that polygomous relations are also not mental illnesses, nor are sterile incestous ones. Why do they also not have the right to lives comparable to heterosexual people, as you claim homosexuals are.

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

On the contrary, it takes that into account fine, but it argues that there is a particular type of love that marriage is based upon.

No it does not, it just says that if you are in love you should be able to get married. Something which is a big overgeneralisation of reality. In reality we don't deal with those absolutes, we deal with practical uses of terms. You have to draw the line somewhere, you always have to make a theory with the praxis in mind. And in reality we live in a system where we attach different values to homosexuality as we do to incest. Simply ignoring that is arrogant, saying that the differences don't matter in this debate is even more so. Eventually this all boils down to a system of moral values, a discussion, not of principle, but of the emotions and opinions of the masses. 

I'm sorry, you are just dressing up the "love is love" argument. You are stating that their relationships are the same as hetrosexual ones, and thus deserve recognition.

Again, no. I'm stating certain parameters with real world implications that need to be followed instead of the idealistic nonsense of the "love is love" argument. This means that we can actually distinguish homosexuality and polygamy from incest. Wherein the latter can be seen as a mental illness (it can be, I am not stating that it is, that is not for me to decide). This means that we can actually implement it instead of having a idealistic system with no real life implications whatsoever.

The truth of the matter is that polygomous relations are also not mental illnesses, nor are sterile incestous ones. Why do they also not have the right to lives comparable to heterosexual people, as you claim homosexuals are.

Firstly, my system is flawed because it would take multiple pages to make a good system, and I don't think I have enough knowledge about psychological illnesses and biology to make thorough decisions. Secondly, because we live in a world where we don't attach the same values to homosexuality, polygamy and incest. And we have to take this in consideration when making a system. Thirdly, I do not think polygamous relationships are necessarily bad, nor do I think that incestuous relationships necessarily bad, I do however think that the line should lay somewhere, and we have to find a system to find where that line is. We should not solely discuss principles which have no value in the real world.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

And in reality we live in a system where we attach different values to homosexuality as we do to incest.

I'm sorry, you're now saying that this argument isn't about principle, it's about the fact that many people want it. Well, here's a newsflash, many people also don't want it. Those other people have values which say that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality in the same way. If you arn't going to use a principle argument, you're just using popular will, and I would argue that given how very split the US is on this issue, claiming popular will at this point is disingenuous.

Eventually this all boils down to a system of moral values, a discussion, not of principle, but of the emotions and opinions of the masses.

The masses can be very fickle, changing their opinions very regularly.

Again, no. I'm stating certain parameters with real world implications that need to be followed instead of the idealistic nonsense of the "love is love" argument. This means that we can actually distinguish homosexuality and polygamy from incest.

You perimeters defined homosexuality as being "real". IE not a mental illness etc. Sterile incest and Polygamy are not mental illness. 

Wherein the latter can be seen as a mental illness (it can be, I am not stating that it is, that is not for me to decide).

 

Incest isn't a mental illness. It can occur as a result of mental illness, but so can all kinds of things.

Secondly, because we live in a world where we don't attach the same values to homosexuality, polygamy and incest. And we have to take this in consideration when making a system.

You are basically moving the argument away from principle to popularity. That's a very dangerous argument, because there are lots of things that are popular, but that we do not do. I would argue that unless you are moving from a position of principle, you are moving on regularly shifting ground. There are many people that disagree with your position, with your values, and your system would impose your values upon them, which I would argue is unfair, unless you have an argument from principle which overrides that.

I do however think that the line should lay somewhere, and we have to find a system to find where that line is. We should not solely discuss principles which have no value in the real world.

Principles do have value. They are important. If we ignore them, we are very much in danger of creating a terrifying vision of the state.

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

Incest isn't a mental illness. It can occur as a result of mental illness, but so can all kinds of things.

I said: "(it can be, I am not stating that it is, that is not for me to decide)." I do not think that I should be the person judging what wrong and right is because I don't know enough about those things, and I don't think you know enough about those things either. I think psychologists and biologists should make those decisions.

Principles do have value. They are important. If we ignore them, we are very much in danger of creating a terrifying vision of the state.

A state doesn't run on principles, a factory doesn't run on principles, a debate doesn't work only by the use of principles. The real terrifying state would be one that did. Every real world situation would be discussed as if it were a metaphysical statement. One we can neither prove nor disprove and one that has no value in society and real life. A society is built around the real life, not around a supra individual system of moral principles, but around the real world implications, not around the theoretical reductio ad absurdums and possible contradictions. In this system one should have strict rules, rules to distinguish the "good" from the "bad", but rules that are able to change according to society. A system that consists of princples will however rapidly become something dogmatic and conservative; once you create one principle the rest must follow in the same direction, and this first principle becomes a seemingly indisputable fact, something one dare not question. In that case we would still have a lot of Western states that see the existence of God as an inrefutable truth, atheism wouldn't be allowed.Because the states' principles would say that law must be according to the biblical texts, something which we would now find preposturous, because God, as a metaphysical entity can neither be proven nor disproven. It is because we take in account the real world that a system can exist which evolves according to the people who live in it.

[Hutch Hogan]

I've pointed out problems with bigamy previously in this discussion. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The problem you pointed out was that in some cultures it is subjugating. I rebutted that by pointing out that just because it is is subjugating some of the time, does not make it necessarily subjugating, any more than the existence of abusive husbands/wives proves heterosexual marriage as problematic.

[Hutch Hogan]

I also pointed out the problem of limitations, terminability and benefit abuse. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

And I pointed out that it is not beyond the wit of man to develop a detailed system to deal with such issues. They are practical issues, not principle ones.

[Hutch Hogan]

Legislation ought to be, first and foremost, pragmatic in function. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

It can be made to function in a pragmatic fashion. It will be difficult, but not impossible to engineer.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

A state doesn't run on principles, a factory doesn't run on principles, a debate doesn't work only by the use of principles.

No, but all three of those things are organised by and around principles.

A society is built around the real life, not around a supra individual system of moral principles, but around the real world implications, not around the theoretical reductio ad absurdums and possible contradictions.

 

On the contrary. Real life is indeed based around principles, and the actions we take and do not take on the basis of them. Certainly, while not every single action we take is based on principles, the law should be. That is why we have institutions like parliaments/congresses etc. To discuss them.

A system that consists of princples will however rapidly become something dogmatic and conservative; once you create one principle the rest must follow in the same direction, and this first principle becomes a seemingly indisputable fact, something one dare not question.

 

That depends upon what the first principle is.

It is because we take in account the real world that a system can exist which evolves according to the people who live in it.

 

Systems can evolve if they are based on principles. It depends upon what the principles are though.