To the dismay of everyone, this law will pass, the LGBT contingent will celebrate, and nothing in the average American's life, both immediately and long term will change.
^Bingo. It's absurd that so many people are still fighting against it when it won't affect them in the least. Obviously you think it does, so please give me examples of how 2 relatives getting married, or 5 people having a group relationship harms OTHER PEOPLE not involved in these relationships. And please don't talk about the children, we are talking strictly marriage, and the reproductive issues are already discussed above. How are other people suffering as a result of these relationships? Also please don't talk about the middle east where women's rights are trampled, regardless of laws of polygamy. The issues out in that region are completely separate and the act itself is not what causes the harm, it is the way their society is set up to be oppressive to women. I'm talking about the western world where we believe (or should believe) in equality amongst all people. Polygamy can work if the people treat each other equally, although it might not be ideal, who's to say that it harms others? It's similar to blaming violent video games for violence in America. While the games exist, and might spark violence .0001% of the time, the game itself is not what causes the issue, it's the mental health of the individual that commits this act and chances are the act would be committed whether they saw it in a video game, a movie or a crazy dream. It's just a scape goat.
I'll say it again. It is completely separate from homosexuality. They are completely different types of attraction. Homosexuality is merely ONE aspect out of many. As you mentioned above, there could be homosexual incest, which proves beyond the shadow of a doubt the issues aren't related(no pun intended). People love to compare homosexuality to other things they personally deem "nasty" or inappropriate like pedophilia, incest, bestiality, when they aren't even close to the same thing. Incest belongs in a different conversation, as does polygamy and the others. A gay person usually does not have a choice in the fact that they are attracted to the same sex. They would find the opposite sex repulsive. If they practiced incest it would be with a same sex relative. You could say that a choice is involved with incest, because it's not about being attracted to one sex or the other. It's about a very specific attraction to a specific person. If you are straight and you have the hots for your sister, you could usually still go out and date a non relative female elsewhere without being grossed out. It wouldn't even be close to the same thing as forcing yourself to have a relationship with the same sex. Incest does not mean you are ONLY attracted to family members as Cappy mentioned. With homosexuality you are ONLY attracted to the same sex. Of course there are also bi-sexual people (the only ones that actually DO have a choice in which sex to date), but we aren't talking about that.
Polygamy is an issue for society in a couple of ways. First of all it complicates application of the law of property succession in both estate law and matrimonial law. Another factor is that polygamy as a social practice is normally associated with a lessening of the position of women in society. Societies that practice polygamy tend to be retrograde socially. On the flip side there would appear to be no apparent social benefit to allowing polygamy. Incest is problematic for a different reason. Although the concept of marriage inherently incorporates the concept of age of consent, we well know that sexual relationships occur among minors. If society allows incest, then the net effect will be to increase sexual activity among relatives who aer still minors. There is a social benefit to having areas of desexualized content for minors, in this case the family/home setting. I have no doubt that the actual experience of children would be one involving an increase of sexual activity in the home were incest to be permitted by society.
What about the word "marriage" is so significant to you that it's important enough to want to prevent others from employing it to a relationship you have no part of? What good does that do you?
Complications of legal issues can be worked around. That doesn't cause harm and suffering to others. It just requires the time to figure out how to make it work. Also, there doesn't have to be a benefit to society in order to justify allowing somebody to marry and date how they please. It's more about human rights, but there is a benefit. The benefit is that people who would rather have a 3 way or 4 way relationship will be allowed to pursue happiness without discrimination without harming others. I mentioned the oppression of women in my post edit after you responded, but that is not due to polygamy itself, that is the due to the sexist nature of the society they live in. If polygamy were legalized in the US, it wouldn't necessarily degrade the women. It's not like the middle east where most marriages are arranged ahead of time and the man would have complete control over multiple wives. It would be a mutual relationship with more than one person. It could have one man, or many men. It could have one woman or many women. The issues in the middle east go far deeper than just polygamy. It is their society as a whole which is largely based on sexist ideals laid out in the quaran. We were talking about marriage, not sex amongst minors. Minors are not allowed to get married, plus most people are not attracted to each other as siblings. Either the attraction is there or it isn't. Allowing them to marry in the future does not change that fact. That argument is similar to saying that legalizing weed would turn everyone into pot heads or that allowing gay marriage will turn more people gay. People don't just instantly do things because they are legal. Besides there's a difference between minors and KIDS. Most women are sexually mature by 16, so if they choose to pursue sex that is their prerogative. I think of myself in high school, and sex was pretty much all I ever thought about. That's just the way teenagers are. They bone like jackrabbits in high school, and that's not changing because of incest laws. "OMG! I just found out I can legally marry you, sis. I've never been attracted to you, but hell, lets get naked and see what happens!!" That's not how things work. I highly doubt that sexual activity would increase at home amongst siblings. Just because something's illegal, doesn't mean that people don't do it or that it affects the way parents raise their children. Obviously most people find incest nasty, that won't change because of a marriage law. Sure, you might see an increase on paper, simply because those that have been repressed will no longer be afraid to do what they want to do, publicly, but that doesn't mean the act didn't go on in secret, prior. Making incest legal would open up a big can of worms, and there would be a LOT of factors to seriously consider, but comparing it to gay marriage isn't valid at all. I don't see incest as harmful provided they don't reproduce.
You completely missed both points. The assertion that complications can be worked out does not mean there are no complications, and absent some social benefit, why pursue a course that involves more work? And you completely missed my point about incest. Social acceptance of incest for adults would increase incest among children, and that would involved invading the safe place of the home for growing children. But if you and other gay marriage proponents want to take hte positino that accepting gay marriage requires acceptance of incest, well, I would not recommend that as a tactical matter, but go for it.
How can you say I missed the point, when I addressed them specifically? My post challenged folks to show me how gay marriage, incest or polygamy is harmful or causes suffering to other people not involved in those relationships. I did not see that answered in your post. I didn't say there wouldn't be complications, however, more work does not equate to harm and suffering, especially if it leads to a more open minded society in the future. That was my point. Why pursue interracial or inter-religious marriage if it involves more work? Again, it's about human rights, not how complicated something is to achieve. If somebody has their heart set on having 1 wife and 1 husband, they could suffer by having this restricted and lose out on tax deductions that other married people get. If somebody doesn't approve of polygamy, yet it still happens, they do not suffer as a result, as it is not imposed on them. That's the difference, and its the only thing the matters IMO when human civil rights are discussed. Who suffers and who does not? Right now it's very one sided and the people who oppose these things are not and will not suffer as a result. I see no evidence for that conclusion at all, and I did not miss that point, I addressed it above. Parenting matters. Making it legal to marry, doesn't suddenly make the parents disappear and give the kids free reign to have sex with each other all day. Parents (and the education system) would have to teach kids that having sex with your family members causes retardation and deformities in children and should be avoided for these reasons. However if you fall deeply in love with a relative you CAN get married. That doesn't mean you teach people that relatives get married all over place and it's perfectly fine. There ARE health concerns, but they do not involve the actual act of marriage, which is the issue we are discussing, not a random guess about sexual activity amongst minors or procreation. As I mentioned above, allowing related adults to marry should not affect minors, except for the fact that people might see it or have record of it publicly, rather than behind their backs, as it was in the past. So it increases on paper, but not in the real world. Are there more homosexuals today than there were 200 years ago? Probably not, they are just no longer oppressed and frowned upon so heavily so they don't go out of their way to hide it. That doesn't mean the activity increases, which leads me to my main point. LEGALIZATION OF INCESTUOUS MARRIAGE WILL NOT CAUSE AN ATTRACTION THAT WASN'T THERE PRIOR. IT IS THE SAME AS ARGUING THAT ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGE CAUSES MORE PEOPLE TO TURN GAY OR LEGALIZING POT WILL TURN ALL KIDS INTO POTHEADS. Sorry about the caps, just wanted it to stand out because it's my main point from this post and last post. Don't get me wrong, it would still be considered highly taboo by most people, they'd just be allowed to marry later in life. Teenagers and kids do not think like adults. Brothers and sisters experiment with each other today, but it rarely lasts beyond their teenage years because like many things it's a phase and people learn from their mistakes. I believe that was JetBlue's point, not mine. I believe the issues are both completely separate, but I wouldn't care if they were legalized because they do not affect me and I do not see it causing harm and suffering to those not involved. I believe in humans rights, period. If it were up to me, all drugs would also be legal and the drug war money would be spent on rehab instead of just throwing everyone in jail. I'd allow everybody to do anything they wanted, provided it does not harm other people. Pretty simple and based on basic empathy. BTW I'm not advocating that incest should be legalized, because there are plenty of factors to consider besides love. I do not agree however, that allowing marriage would increase siblings having sex with each other or that it would cause harm / suffering to anybody. I am talking about the act of marriage itself. If you really want to get deep into incest we can do that, but it would divert us from the topic and really is a whole other can of worms.
but isnt the only reason that you arent banging your sister because you couldnt end up marrying her? i mean, i know that i only have sex with people that i am very strongly considering marrying. its basically a pre-requisite for my getting involved in any sort of interaction with the opposite sex. so basically, if you let me marry a dude, i guess im gonna have to consider turning gay, cause since it wasnt a possibility before, i just said fuck it. and here is where im going to most likely offend a lot of people: sexuality is not binary. there are no parameters that make up everybody's sexual preferences. that is not to say that everybody is bisexual but basically, everybody is just a little bit 'gay' in one way or another. i feel that th large majority of people who honestly believe people can be 'turned' or whatever, themselves harbor certain homosexual tendencies that because of the stigmas in our society they are unable to properly explore and come to terms with. repression is rampant within our society and it causes a lot of problems that extend onto the public at large, so in this way, continuing oppressive policies that limit human rights and freedom are more harmful to society than anything else. to illustrate this point, i will simply talk about myself. i would identify as a straight man. i have never felt any sort of attraction to another man, nor have i ever had the desire to engage in any sort of sexual conduct with someone of my own sex. having said that, i have noticed that i harbor a certain proclivity for romance, that pervades gender. what i mean by this is, if i see a gay couple displaying affection, it conjures up within me the same emotion as when i see a straight couple (im not talking about porn), and i thought that one of the best love stories in a movie recently is portrayed in the film I Love You, Philip Morris. im sure a lot of people will simply see what i have said, and label me 'gay,' and honestly i couldnt give a shit.
I don't know man, I'm for two gay guys being able to marry but still think two dudes kissing is gross.
You can be in favor of gay people having the ability in civil society to do whatever they want with whomever they want - including marry - and also think it's Constitutionally inappropriate to create a new class of individuals entitled to special protection under the United States Constitution. I've said this a dozen times before on this board: the issue of gay marriage is progressing exactly as the Framers would have wanted. In another couple years, you could very well have a majority of states democratically adopting laws to acknowledge gay marriage. In another 10 years, you might have all 50. Problem solved. The Supreme Court looks poised to do the perfect thing here by striking DOMA as the Federal government's improper invasion into the states' exclusive authority to define marriage, and also chucking the lower court's decision in the Proposition 8 case. Because there ARE perfectly rational, non-fascist reasons for states to define marriage as male-female and nothing else. And then California will then put the law back on the ballot and overturn it themselves. Everything in its place.
the irony here for my liberal friends who are all for gay marriage is that DOMA is somewhat likely to be struck down on states rights grounds. In that connection I have no objection to the federal government acting under the Commerce Clause to establish a national standard that affects the economy. In other words, be careful what you ask for. A win for gay marriage in this case could be used to further hamstring federal authority as part of the right wing's states rights agenda. Which would be a big loss for the country and for the progressive movement. Barcs, If you don't think acceptance of formerly unacceptable behavior in adults makes that same behavior more likely to be engaged in by children, I see no point in discussing this with you. You are being obtuse. I don't need some specific study to show that since everyone knows it is true.
Here's the part of your last part I don't get. And maybe it's an age thing but do you really think that if gay marriage is legal it'd be more or less likely for someone to be gay? I don't think the reason someone that is gay and hasn't come out is because they can't be on their partner's health plan.
I do think if incest were permitted for marriage, there would certainly be more of it, but it is not analogous. Incest typically I would think is having sex with a family member, but it will be a family member of the same sex the person in question has an orientation to. In other words it is not an analogous situation. Having said that, since I do think some people are bisexual and can chose either sex to have sex with, that yes, there will be some increase in homosexual behavior if gay marriage is widely practiced. I concede that everyone thinks most homosexuals are exclusively so, and I think that is true for perhaps most people. But it is not true for everyone, and clearly there are people who have sex with both sexes.
Now you're being a hypocrite. You just finished calling people out for ignoring the question of homosexuality being a trait or behavior, and here you are doing the same thing. Allowing or disallowing something has no effect on how likely something is if it's a trait. By the way, the answer to that is obvious. Homosexual activity is clearly a behavior, but it is caused by the trait of being attracted to the same sex, just as heterosexual activity is behavior stemming from the trait of being attracted to the opposite sex. Which gender causes feelings of attraction in an individual is very obviously not a behavioral choice. At thebase, sexual attraction is an involuntary chemical reaction in the body. No one can decide whether or not to be sexually aroused by something, it just happens.
I can't go back and catch up on 20 pages of argument to get this far, but part of BB's point was that, out of a popular frenzy to mainstream the political issue, proponents will gloss right over huge threshold legal questions. Does homosexuality meet the traditional test the gay marriage lobby needs it to meet in order to have that special Constitutionally protected status? Is it an immutable characteristic? Is there a history of discrimination? Is there no political process that could help remedy this? The evidence in the Prop 8 trial was more anecdotal than empirical, and I don't think the gay marriage legal argument has adequately answered ANY of those questions sufficiently to justify the relief they seek. (The trial judge would disagree, of course). So, lacking those arguments, the heightened legal scrutiny is stripped from equation and it's no longer a gay/straight issue. From there, it all boils down to the basic question of whether or not there is any rational government purpose at all for for restricting marriage to just male-female relationships. I can think of several. You only need one. And it doesn't even need to be correct.
