-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
for those wanting gay marriage...
Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
sorry,i slipped into random hate toward oreilly at the end and may have seemed like i was yelling at you.
yes,i agree that the ideal would be to plan for all scenrios...but at the same time, those arguments are being used to shift focus and make homosexuals seem more like a novelty of hedonism rather than a reality. now, im not saying you are doing that...but because such arguments seem to be sliding that way,i think it would be more productive to all those that feel civil rights should extend equally should take this issue one step at a time.
CycloWizard
Lifer
What a cop-out. Let me define 'forum' for you.
We're not in the business of writing laws on this forum - we're in the business of discussing how laws ought to be written. If you were just going to roll over and say 'well, it's up to society to decide', then you needn't have started any argument in favor of homosexual marriage in the first place, since society has already spoken in contradiction to your views.
In short, if you're not going to bother with arguing ideas, don't bother trying to argue in a FORUM, since that is the entire purpose of this discussion. Any second grader can come in here and tell me how things might happen, but I'm not interested in that. WHY should these things happen or not happen?
answer me one question:
is the issue peoples right to marry who they choose? yes or no?
if the answer is yes, then it doesnt matter if the 2 people are gay, siblings, purple and green, whatever. unless of course you condone the same discrimination that homosexuals, people of color, women, different religions, etc. have suffered over time. do you believe that just because someone is homosexual theyre are deserving of more rights than the person who falls in love with a relative? the fact that you say the 2 issues must be resoves seperatly leads me to believe that you do.
no one is talking about 5yo. we are talking about consenting "adults" of legal age to marry. ive said that a few times already.
again, was there a great demand for homosexuals to marry in 1950? times change and taboos change. you can honestly say youve never heard of an icestuous relationship? why would you need to encounter it, personally or otherwise, to believe they deserve the same right? mabye you havent heard of it because those who find themselves in an incestuous relatioship dont have the backing of all the advocacy groups and the millions of dollars that comes with it, just as homosexuals didnt at one time.
other countries allow families to marry, just as others allow homosexuals to marry. so by your logic using other countries/cultures as an example, whats the problem?
yes incest is illegal, just as sodomy and gay marriage is in many states. also, gay marriage has been an issue long before any ruling in tx in 2003.
i honestly am baffled how the view that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, but not brother and sister, can be seen as anything but hypocritical. if you strip away all the politics, agendas, and money theyre the same thing: a persons right marry who they choose regardless of race, creed, or sexual orientation.
np:beer: i didnt take it personally.
its hard for me to see them as seperate, because i believe if discrimination is wrong in one case, its wrong in all. but that is idealistic thinking in regards to this issue, admittedly.
it just baffles my mind how one can say they have the right, yet others do not.
So far it seems a lot of you have gotten way off-topic. Plenty of contries have had gay marriage for a long time and yet no other moves towards other types I am aware of. The issuse hasn't come up yet for other forms of marriage, so why not legalize gay marriage? When the issuses of incestual marriage come up, then we will deal with it. After all, hetrosexsual marriage and homosexsual are two different things. All issuses dealing must be delt with indiviually. If I had it my way, i'd remove any benifits for married or unmarried couples and make everyone the same.
CycloWizard
Lifer
I'm still waiting for some logical justification as to how you can allow homosexual marriage but not incestuous marriage. If you can't make such a logical distinction, then you can't logically enact a law that would allow one and not the other.
stateofbeasley
Senior member
Increased probability of genetic defects, and power relationships between some family members (e.g. father/daughter) that make consent questionable.
This has been beaten to death and its obvious many have not been listening.
This has been beaten to death and its obvious many have not been listening.
CycloWizard
Lifer
The part that's been beaten to death is the refusal to offer a single logical justification of how we can grant homosexuals the right to marry but not relatives. I'm well aware of the consequences of incest. However, I'm also aware that you need to be able to supply a logical distinction for where you will draw the line in the sand. If you're going to allow marriage for anyone because it's the right thing to do, which is essentially the idea being used here in support of homosexual marriage, then relatives should also be able to marry. If you want to add more criteria to that, such as the probability of problem X, then that criterion must also be applied to homosexual marriage. However, no one has yet done so.
Two members of the same family that are the opposite sex = Retards. Why is it bad? These indiviuals are so mentally disabled they absolutely can not function. This is variable we can control. There is absolutely no method of birth control that is perfect expect abstinance.
Two member of the same sex = Lots of gay sex that doesn't really amount to anything...
Whats wrong with drawing the line at two members of the same family that are of opposite sex?
CycloWizard
Lifer
Where is your logical distinction? I specifically told you why your argument doesn't stand up to inspection, yet you just repeated it as-is. *shrug*
Stop being so dishonest. "Gays should be allowed to marry because people should be allowed to marry anyone they love or anyone they want " is NOT the argument for gay marriage. It is your straw-man. No supporter of gay marriage is advocating that anyone shouold be able to marry anyone (or anything) simply because they want to.
Here are some of the actual questions that need to be examined before making changes to the institution of marriage:
1. will this change be good for the marrying individuals (in terms of psychological health, physical wellbeing, financial wellbeing)?
2. will this change be good for society at large (social health, government finances, less single individuals needing to be taken care of in old age, etc.)?
3. What are the potential psychological or physical health drawbacks or other drawbacks of such a change?
4. Are any children produced or raised within the marriage likely to experience adverse affects?
[5. other questions, pertaining to fairness, equality, the social role of marriage, law, and so on.]
Note: Homosexuality and incest are DIFFERENT PHENOMENA. Homsexuality invovles having sex with a person of the same gender. Incest - having sex with someone who is closely genetically related to you. See? Different things. Because homosexuality and incest are quite different, the answers to the above questions are also *quite possibly* going to be different. The point here is that the effects of each phenomenon (gay marriage, polygamy, incestuous marriage) need to be examined empirically & separately, because same-sex marriage, incest, polygamy themselves are DIFFERENT things (and therefore almost certainly have different effects). You need to look at the *empirical data* for each of same-sex marriage, polygamy, incest. I have no doubt that a child growing up with a homosexual parental couple will have a very different experience to, say, a child growing up in a polygamous household, for example. The psychological effects of being in a same-sex marriage are also, no doubt, going to be different than say being in an incestuous marriage. POINT: you need to look at these things separately, because they are separate (i.e., different) phenomenon. Whether incestuous marriages have benefits, or drawbacks, is something to be determined empirically -- and not by looking towards same-sex marriages. If it turns out that incestuous marriages aren't associated with any great drawbacks, and the courts decide that the legislature cannot reasonably deny incestuos couples access to marriage, then so be it. I certainly won't be protesting in the streets about such a decision.
Read this for a clearer explanation (than maybe I have been able to manage):
First Gays, Then Polygamists
By John Corvino
AN INCREASINGLY COMMON objection to same-sex marriage takes the form of a slippery-slope argument: ?If we allow gay marriage, why not polygamy? Or incest? Or bestiality?? This argument is nothing new, having been used against interracial marriage in the 1960's. But what it lacks in originality it more than makes up for in rhetorical force: given the choice between rejecting homosexuality or accepting a sexual free-for-all, mainstream Americans tend to opt for the former.
Unfortunately, sound-bite arguments don't always lend themselves to sound-bite refutations. Part of the problem is that the polygamy/incest/bestiality argument (PIB argument for short) is not really an argument at all. Instead, it's a challenge: ?Okay, Mr. Sexual Liberal: explain to me why polygamy, incest, and bestiality are wrong.? Most people are not prepared to do that ? certainly not in twenty words or less. And many answers that leap to mind (for example, that PIB relationships violate well-established social norms) won't work for the defender of same-sex relationships (since same-sex relationships, too, violate well-established social norms).
In what follows I respond to the PIB challenge. But first, I wish to set aside two popular responses that I think are inadequate. Call the first the ?We really exist? argument. According to this argument, homosexuality is different from polygamy, incest, and bestiality because there are ?constitutional? homosexuals, but not constitutional polygamists, incestualists, or bestialists. As Andrew Sullivan writes,
Almost everyone seems to accept, even if they find homosexuality morally troublesome, that it occupies a deeper level of human consciousness than a polygamous impulse. Even the Catholic Church, which believes that homosexuality is an ?objective disorder,? concedes that it is a profound element of human identity....[P]olygamy is an activity, whereas both homosexuality and heterosexuality are states.?
Sullivan is probably right in his description of popular consciousness about homosexuality. Yet traditionalists may reject the idea that homosexuality is an immutable given. At a June 1997 conference at Georgetown University, ?Homosexuality and American Public Life,? conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher urged her audience to stop thinking of homosexuality as an inevitable, key feature of an individual's personality. Drawing, ironically, on the work of queer theorists, Gallagher proposed instead that homosexuality is a cultural convention ? one that ought to be challenged.
If Gallagher and her social constructionist sources are right, the ?We really exist? argument must be abandoned. But whether they're right or not, there are good pragmatic reasons for abandoning this argument. ?We really exist? sounds dangerously like ?We just can't help it.? And to this claim there is an obvious response: ?Well, alcoholics really exist, too. They can't help their impulses. But we don't encourage them.? Though the alcoholism analogy is generally a bad one, it underscores the rhetorical weakness of claiming ?We really exist? in response to the (rhetorically strong) PIB challenge.
A second response to the PIB challenge is to argue that as long as PIB relationships are forbidden for heterosexuals, they should be forbidden for homosexuals as well. Call this the ?equal options? argument. To put the argument more positively: we homosexuals are not asking to engage in polygamy, incest, or bestiality. We are simply asking to engage in monogamous, non-incestuous relationships with people we love ? just like heterosexuals do. As Jonathan Rauch writes,
The hidden assumption of the argument which brackets gay marriage with polygamous or incestuous marriage is that homosexuals want the right to marry anyone they fall for. But, of course, heterosexuals are currently denied that right. They cannot marry their immediate family or all their sex partners. What homosexuals are asking for is the right to marry, not anybody they love, but somebody they love, which is not at all the same thing.
Once again, this argument is correct as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough ? at least not far enough to satisfy proponents of the PIB argument. As they see it, permitting homosexuality ? even monogamous, non-incestuous, person-to-person homosexuality ? involves relaxing traditional sexual mores. The fact that these mores prohibit constitutional homosexuals from marrying somebody they love is no more troubling to traditionalists than the fact that these mores prohibit constitutional pedophiles from marrying somebody they love, since traditionalists believe that there are good reasons for both prohibitions.
In short, both the ?we exist? argument and the ?equal options? argument are vulnerable to counterexamples: alcoholics really exist, and pedophiles are denied equal marital options. (Indeed, traditionalists are fond of pointing out that, strictly speaking, homosexuals do have ?equal? options: they have the option of marrying persons of the oppostite sex. Such traditionalists usually remain silent on whether this option is a good idea for anyone involved, but so it goes.)
There is, I think, a better response to the PIB argument, one that has been suggested by both Sullivan and Rauch (whose contributions to this debate I gratefully acknowledge). It is to deny that arguments for homosexual relationships offer any real support for PIB relationships. Why would proponents of the PIB argument think otherwise? Perhaps they assume that our main argument for homosexual relationships is that they feel good and we want them. If that were our argument, it would indeed offer support for PIB relationships. But that is not our argument: it is a straw man.
A much better argument for homosexual relationships begins with an analogy: homosexual relationships offer virtually all of the benefits of sterile heterosexual relationships; thus, if we approve of the latter, we should approve of the former as well. For example, both heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships can unite people in a way that ordinary friendship simply cannot. Both can have substantial practical benefits in terms of the health, economic security, and social productivity of the partners. Both can be important constituents of a flourishing life. Yes, they feel good and we want them, but there's a lot more to it than that. These similarities create a strong prima facie case for treating homosexual and heterosexual relationships the same ? morally, socially, and politically.
?But wait,? say the opponents. ?Can't you make the same argument for PIB relationships?? Not quite. It is true that you can use the same form of argument for PIB relationships: PIB relationships have benefits X, Y, and Z and no relevant drawbacks. But whether PIB relationships do in fact have such benefits and lack such drawbacks is an empirical matter, one that will not be settled by looking to homosexual relationships.
To put my point more concretely: to observe that Tom and Dick (and many others like them) flourish in homosexual relationships is not to prove that Greg and Marcia would flourish in an incestuous relationship, or that Mike, Carol, and Alice would flourish in a polygamous relationship, or that Bobby and Tiger would flourish in a bestial relationship. Whether they would or not is a separate question ? one that requires a whole new set of data.
Another way to indicate the logical distance between homosexual relationships and PIB relationships is to point out that PIB relationships can be either homosexual or heterosexual. Proponents of the PIB challenge must therefore explain why they group PIB relationships with homosexual relationships rather than heterosexual ones. There's only one plausible reason: PIB and homosexuality have traditionally been condemned. But (whoops!) that's also true of interracial relationships, which traditionalists (typically) no longer condemn. And (whoops again!) they've just argued in a circle: the question at hand is why we should group PIB relationships with homosexual relationships rather than heterosexual ones. Saying that ?we've always grouped them together? doesn't answer the question, it begs it.
The question remains, of course, whether PIB relationships do, on balance, have benefits sufficient to warrant their approval. Answering that question requires far more data than I can marshal here. It also requires careful attention to various distinctions: distinctions between morality and public policy, distinctions between the morally permissible and the morally ideal, and ? perhaps most important ? distinctions between polygamy, incest, and bestiality, which are as different from each other as they each are from homosexuality. In what remains I offer some brief (and admittedly inconclusive) observations about each of these phenomena.
Polygamy provides perhaps the best opportunity among the three for obtaining the requisite data: there have been and continue to be polygamous societies. Most of these are in fact polygynous (multiple-wife) societies, and most of them are sexist. Whether egalitarian polygamous societies are possible is an open question. Whether egalitarian polygamous relationships are possible (as opposed to entire societies) is an easier question. Though I find it difficult to imagine maintaining a relationship with several spouses ? having had enough trouble maintaining a relationship with one ? I have no doubt that at least some people flourish in them.
This conclusion leaves open the question of whether such relationships should be state-supported. As my acquaintance Josh Goldfoot put it, ?Marry your toaster if you like, but please don't try to file a joint tax return with it.? Whatever reasons the state has for being in the marriage business (and this point is a matter of considerable debate), these may or may not be good reasons for the state to recognize multiple spouses.
Polygamy also provides the most troublesome case for the traditionalists, since polygamy has Biblical support. True, the Bible reports troublesome jealousies among the sons of various wives, which perhaps should be taken as a lesson. But polygamy is clearly a case where the religious right can't point to ?God's eternal law.?
Incest, too, is common and expected in some societies ? typically in the form of rites of initiation. In our own society incest typically results in various psychological difficulties, difficulties that should at least give pause to the supporter of incest. But one can easily construct a case that circumvents most (if not all) of these difficulties: imagine two adult lesbian sisters who privately engage in what they report to be a fulfilling sexual relationship. Can I prove that such activity is wrong? No ? at least not off the top of my head. On the other hand, I don't think it's incumbent upon me to do so. If there are good arguments against such a relationship, they will remain unaffected by the argument in favor of homosexuality. And if the only argument traditionalists can offer against such a relationship is that longstanding tradition prohibits it, so much the worse for traditionalists. Again, that same argument is applicable to interracial relationships, and history has revealed its bankruptcy.
The bestiality analogy is the most irksome of the three, since it reveals that the traditionalists are either woefully dishonest or woefully dense. To compare a homosexual encounter ? even a so-called ?casual? one ? with humping a sheep is to ignore the distinctively human capacities that sexual relationships can (and usually do) engage. As such, it is to reduce sex to its purely physical components ? precisely the reduction that traditionalists are fond of accusing us of. That noted, claiming that bestial relationships are qualitatively different from human homosexual relationships does not prove that bestial relationships are immoral. Nor does the lack of mutual consent, since we generally don't seek consent in our dealings with animals. No cow consented to become my shoes, for example.
To be honest, I feel about bestiality much as I feel about sex with inflatable dolls: I don't recommend making a habit out of it, and it's not something I'd care to do myself, but it's hardly worthy of serious moral attention. I feel much the same way about watching infomercials: there are better ways to spend one's time, to be sure, but there are also better things for concerned citizens to worry about.
Why, then, are we even discussing bestiality? Perhaps it's because traditionalists have run out of plausible-sounding arguments against homosexuality, and so now they're grasping at straws. And then there's the emotional factor: mentioning homosexuality won't make people squeamish the way it once did, but mentioning bestiality and incest will at least raise some eyebrows, if not turn some stomachs. In short, the right wing knows that it's losing its cultural war against homosexuality, and it's trying to change the subject. We should steadfastly refuse to join them.
damn right. Other people being gay doesn't affect you or anyone. Good analogy tabb; took a lot of guts to put it in that perspective. why should we care? As long as the motivation wasn't malicious (meaning the son wasn't molested, or brainwashed into making that decision, because that is another matter entirely!) they should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want because THEY AREN'T HURTING ANYBODY and if you don't like it then don't participate. Marrying animals is a different issue because we don't have a way to successfuly gather their consent. But hell, if the dude loves his cow, or his car, or whatever, and he's gonna take care of it and love it NOT HURT IT, well hell let him do whatever he wants. lousy haters
JustAnAverageGuy
Diamond Member
IMO, it's just the 1 man 1 woman people just trying to skew the vote to make us look crazy. 🙂
judasmachine
Diamond Member
an inanimate object cannot willfully enter into a contract, therefore you can only marry adults, who can legally enter into a contract.
Actually, his argument does stand up to inspection. It is your 'argument' that doesn't.
Explain to me why you insist on linking incest with homosexuality? I very much doubt that homosexual people are any more likely to engage in incestuous behavior than heterosexual people. Heterosexual couples are currently prevented from marrying their siblings, parents, etc. If same-sex marriage was legalized, I assume that genetically related same-sex couples (siblings, etc.) would not be permitted to marry, in the same way that genetically related opposite-sex couples are not permitted to marry under current laws. So what has incest got to do with homosexuality specifically? The only thing that links incest and homosexuality as far as I can tell is that they are both somewhat "taboo". (Altho incest, I think, is far more of a taboo than homosexuality in our culture).
Putting aside same-sex marriage for a moment, what are the arguments against legalisation of incestuous marriages? Please list them - and then explain to me how the legalisation of gay marriage would affect the validity of those arguments against incestuous marriage?
If the only argument you have against marriage between e.g., siblings is that it represents an untraditional form of marriage (and that you don't agree that marriage should be changed in an untraditional direction), then sure, that argument is destroyed by the legalisation of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is untraditional; so you could not reasonably approve of same-sex marriage, while continuing to object to marriages involving incest on the grounds they don't conform with tradition.
But surely there are numerous other arguments against legalisation of incestuous marriages? I think the main arguments would be that incest is harmful for the participants, has destructive effects on the psychological/ emotional health of the family involved, does not result in healthy psychoplogical outcomes for those involved, and so on. Example reasons:
-incest is typically a sign of major psychological or emotional dysfunction within a given family
-incest does not result in psychologically healthy outcomes for the participants
-given that incest is associated with significant psychopathology, the legal endorsement of such relationships can't possibly been seen as a desirable thing.
-and so on
If the above reasons are valid (I am not necessarily saying they are -- I am just using these for examples), then they are not going to be influenced in any way by the legality of same-sex marriage. If incest is associated with significant psychopathology or emotional dysfunction within the family unit, this is not going to be changed or influenced in any way by the legalisation of same-sex marriage. If incest is a sign of major psychological and/ or emotional problems in a family, this is not going to be changed in any way by the legalisation of same-sex marriage. Whether or not incest is beneficial, or harmful, is something that is entirely independent of the legal status of homosexualiy or same-sex marriage. The benefits or drawbacks of incest would need to be assessed on their own merits, using the available empirical data (from psychology, psychiatry, sociology, etc.) The legal status of homosexual sex or same-sex marriage would be entirely irrelevant to this investigation into the pros and cons onf incest.
You could make the same arguments against homosexuality: you could say, homosexuality is a sign of mental illness, homosexual relationships have negative effects of the participants, etc. However whether or not homosexual relationships actually DO have negative effects on the participants in those relationships can only be determined by actually looking at or studying same-sex relationships. Similarly whether or not incest has benefits or drawbacks can only be determined by examing incestuous relationships. There is no point looking at same-sex relationships, if you are trying to understand the pros and cons of incest. There is no point looking at incestous relationships, if you are trying to understand the benefits and drawbacks of same-sex relationships. Because the two things are entirely different. If you are basing your argument for the legalisation of same-sex marriage on your assessment of the benefits and drawbacks of same-sex relationships, then this assessment will say NOTHING AT ALL about the benefits and drawbacks of incest. I.e., it is entirely possible to come to a decision that legalisation of same-sex marriage offers numerous benefits and few drawbacks, without that decision having any implications whatsoever on the issue of whether incestuous marriages should be legalized.
The problem here is that you seem to think the argument for gay marriage is that: "gays should be able to marry anyone they want". If that was the argument behind legalization of marriage, then sure, you'd have to drop all prohibitions against incestuous marriage. You'd also have to drop all prohibitions aginst polygamy. You'd have to drop age of consent prohibitions. To be logically consistent, EVERYBODY would have to have the right to marry ANYBODY.
But the above argument ("people should be able to marry anyone they want") isn't a reasonable argument (on it's own) for gay marriage. A reasonable argument would involve a consideration of the benefits and drawbacks of same-sex marriage, for the individual participants as well as society at large. Is same-sex marriage (or homosexual relationships) likely to be harmful for the participants?? Or does it bring benefits to the participants (health benefits, emotional benefits, etc.)?? Would same-sex marriage be beneficial, or harmful, for any children being raised in the family?? Would same-sex marriage have positive, or negative, effects for society at large?? These are the types of questions you would want to look at. (Of course, you would also want to consider basic legal principles such as equality before the law).
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
I just wanted to say I voted "yes", not that I believe it, but because I wanted to skew the poll.
Why? To demonstrate the Captain Obvious point that ANY poll here is liable to be completely unrepresentative, and the more controversial the subject the more likely that is to be true.
Why? To demonstrate the Captain Obvious point that ANY poll here is liable to be completely unrepresentative, and the more controversial the subject the more likely that is to be true.
DragonMasterAlex
Banned
And even if 100% agreed with it, it would remain an INVALID and IDIOTIC argument. Support of a false premise does not grant truth to that premise.
Jason
DragonMasterAlex
Banned
You're failing to take into account a fundamental difference between an incestuous relationship and a homosexual relationship: Procreation. A homosexual couple of either gender *cannot* procreate, whereas an incestuous couple of opposite sex *could*. The reason that becomes an issue is because we know, *SCIENTIFICALLY*, that incest tends to introduce all kinds of genetic problems into the offspring. You could reasonably disallow incestuous marriages on the grounds that the offspring of such couples would be harmed as a result of the couple's actions. Worst case scenario if you *did* allow mariages you could disallow procreation of the incestuous couples.
Ah, so tax breaks are a "reward for services rendered" now, are they? I see you're one of the Borkian conservatives. Shameful.
Jason
im going to go ahead and guess that the people who voted like that and didnt explain (from what i can see in this thread, all but one) are just busting balls.
but i do find it hilarious that you decided to make the sub-subject so sensationalist...such a New York Post sort of headline.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
