Gay Marriage and Society -- the Sequel

[randomrogue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals


Homosexual behavior in animals refers to the documented evidence of homosexual and bisexual behavior in various non-human species. Such behaviors include sexual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairings. Homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_note-ReferenceA-1

 

[Vaux]

It is natural. You see it all throughout the animal kingdom.

You see lots of birth defects throughout the animal kingdom, too. However, you don't see any gay species of animals because they would cease to exist. Animals are not meant to be that way.

 

[busydude]

This maybe off topic, but I am trying to understand Vaux's stance.

Vaux, what is your opinion on transgender people? Do you consider them to be natural? Do you want them to have equal rights as others? Can they marry someone and have the same rights as others?

 

[busydude]

So ban postmenopausal women from getting married. There is no more reason for society to care about the relationship of a postmenopausal woman than that of a lesbian woman.

But unless you can show that society specifically decided that postmenopausal women should be allowed to marry, the fact that they can does not really present a great argument for legalizing same-sex marriage. There was no movement to extend marriage to postmenopausal women it is simply an accident.

I am sorry but your whole post reeks of bigotry.

 

[OinkBoink]

This "unnatural" argument kind of deviates from the real issue. Even if it were unnatural, contraception is unnatural, the fact that we care for the sick and disabled is unnatural in a Darwinian sense (they would just be eliminated in nature). But we choose to engage in those practices anyway.

If you say that animals are "meant" to be a certain way, you are perhaps implying that nature has a sense of purpose and as a consequence possibly implying that there's a creator with a purpose in mind. Not everyone shares this belief.

 

[randomrogue]

You see lots of birth defects throughout the animal kingdom, too. However, you don't see any gay species of animals because they would cease to exist. Animals are not meant to be that way.

Who is talking about an entire species of gay animals? Honestly why are you unable to present a logical argument?

 

[davmat787]

I don't think Charles implied that anywhere. I think he is not against polygamy if every party involved consented, but polygamy, as it is being practiced, is male dominated. Men can marry many women but women can only stay married to one man - Mormons and Muslims come to my mind.

Morally and logically speaking, polygamy is fine when everyone involved is treated equally.

I did not mean to imply Chaz said that, I merely stated that to head off that paticular argument since it seems to always come up. Poor wording on my part.

As for being male dominated, I think that is by design since one of apparent goals of polygamy seems to be having numerous children. Honestly, I have never given any thought of polygamy in that regard, that is to say F-MMM. Determining the father would require DNA testing probably, whereas M-FFF would not. Just an observation.

 

[nehalem256]

I did not mean to imply Chaz said that, I merely stated that to head off that paticular argument since it seems to always come up.

As for being male dominated, I think that is by design since one of apparent goals of polygamy seems to be having numerous children. Honestly, I have never given any thought of polygamy in that regard, that is to say F-MMM. Determining the father would require DNA testing probably, whereas M-FFF would not. Just an observation.

One of the, at least historical, goals is to establish the paternity of the child. A man obviously is more likely to be invested in a child that he thinks is his.

So for obvious reasons related to this F-MMM polygamy is not common.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Ok, a lot of the claims in here are simply wrong.

For anything to be illegal the state has to show harm, this is a no-brainer when it comes to things like murder, rape, theft and so on while on the other side we have things like gay marriage for which no such valid argument exists.

For polygamy there are legal problems, let's say Jen marries Alice who is married to Ben who is married to Jerry who is married to Jen, how would the laws work with that? You can expand that as much as you want.

In short, to actively discriminate against gays when it comes to marriage makes no sense what so ever considering the state cannot show it to be harmful while it does make sense not to incorporate multiple partners because of the legal difficulties that would inevitably ensue.

The only arguments against gay marriage i have ever seen are "slippery slope" and reductio ad absurdum arguments that quite frankly should just be ignored since they are not logically coherent.

 

[shadow9d9]

I won't argue that it's not better for gays, but better for everyone else is arguable. It's all your opinion. What is fact is that gay people because of their biology are not made to come together as one. The human species was not made for same sex copulation. It is wrong, for multiple reasons. It is a culture that should not be celebrated.

People continue to ignore this, but it doesn't change it. So either it matters to you or it doesn't. And it matters to me.

Come together as one? What kind of gibberish is that?

The human species was made the same as all other animals, with plenty of homosexual behavior.

"Wrong"? Umm, that is just your personal and inconsequential value judgment.

The culture of bigotry and ignorance should not be celebrated.

 

[nehalem256]

The only arguments against gay marriage i have ever seen are "slippery slope" and reductio ad absurdum arguments that quite frankly should just be ignored since they are not logically coherent.

There is no "slippery slope". It is pointing out that if think the government cannot use "sexual orientation" as a basis for discrimination in marriage that that should apply to all sexual orientations.

What same-sex marriage supporter are arguing for is that the same as saying that marriage between a black-white should be legal but that marriage between an asian-white should be illegal. It is completely absurd.

No PERSON is hurt be legalizing marriage between a person and an animal. If you believe that using sexual orientation as a basis for discrimination in marriage is wrong you have no basis for prohibiting it other than: "THAT's D: not marriage".

 

[Howard]

There is no "slippery slope". It is pointing out that if think the government cannot use "sexual orientation" as a basis for discrimination in marriage that that should apply to all sexual orientations.

What same-sex marriage supporter are arguing for is that the same as saying that marriage between a black-white should be legal but that marriage between an asian-white should be illegal. It is completely absurd.

No PERSON is hurt be legalizing marriage between a person and an animal. If you believe that using sexual orientation as a basis for discrimination in marriage is wrong you have no basis for prohibiting it other than: "THAT's D: not marriage".

FWIW I don't care if people marry animals as long as they're not abusing the animal. Legally speaking I don't have a dog in that particular fight (oops) but my preference is that gays are able to marry anywhere on earth.

 

[JEDIYoda]

There is no "slippery slope". It is pointing out that if think the government cannot use "sexual orientation" as a basis for discrimination in marriage that that should apply to all sexual orientations.

What same-sex marriage supporter are arguing for is that the same as saying that marriage between a black-white should be legal but that marriage between an asian-white should be illegal. It is completely absurd.

No PERSON is hurt be legalizing marriage between a person and an animal. If you believe that using sexual orientation as a basis for discrimination in marriage is wrong you have no basis for prohibiting it other than: "THAT's not marriage".

It is amuzing how people cannot discuss this issue with out being absurd and making arguments that relate in no way to the issue....

Are you loosing the argument so badly that you have revert to this crazyness??

 

[davmat787]

Ok, a lot of the claims in here are simply wrong.

For anything to be illegal the state has to show harm, this is a no-brainer when it comes to things like murder, rape, theft and so on while on the other side we have things like gay marriage for which no such valid argument exists.

For polygamy there are legal problems, let's say Jen marries Alice who is married to Ben who is married to Jerry who is married to Jen, how would the laws work with that? You can expand that as much as you want.

In short, to actively discriminate against gays when it comes to marriage makes no sense what so ever considering the state cannot show it to be harmful while it does make sense not to incorporate multiple partners because of the legal difficulties that would inevitably ensue.

The only arguments against gay marriage i have ever seen are "slippery slope" and reductio ad absurdum arguments that quite frankly should just be ignored since they are not logically coherent.

That is not polygamy. Polygamy is defined as having more than one spouse (you can look it up), not a chain of spouses, each married to the next but not the other, as in your example. Every real world case of polygamy I have seen is one male married to multiple females.

 

[mikeymikec]

I didn't say it was about red shirts -- it's to demonstrate why you think people should have the right to marry more than one person, and then you have to show how this will benefit society.

I don't agree with this logic. It seems to suggest that absolutely everything in life should be illegal to begin with, and cases/proof have to be brought to legalise each object/topic/scenario. As this would be a completely absurd scenario for any society that values freedom, I think the question should be "why is x illegal?". In the case of polygamy, I can only think of historical reasons which IMO don't really apply today (I'm thinking equal rights for women specifically). Not that I care about the topic of polygamy very much, this topic is meant to be about gay marriage.

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't agree with this logic. It seems to suggest that absolutely everything in life should be illegal to begin with, and cases/proof have to be brought to legalise each object/topic/scenario. As this would be a completely absurd scenario for any society that values freedom, I think the question should be "why is x illegal?". In the case of polygamy, I can only think of historical reasons which IMO don't really apply today (I'm thinking equal rights for women specifically). Not that I care about the topic of polygamy very much, this topic is meant to be about gay marriage.

I am not saying everything should be illegal -- I am saying that if a country has laws in place already, modifications and those who want to modify them have to show reason.

For instance, lets compare the speed limit to marriage. You want to increase the speed limit in a certain area, you can't go to the State asking them to show you why the speed limit should be limited and if they can't, it has to be lifted and people can drive as fast as they want by default in the name of "freedom".

Scenario:

You: Mr President, I think we should be able to marry more than one person and it should be legal.

President: Why?

You: Can you show me why I can't marry as many as two other people?

President: I am asking for a law to be changed -- you are.

You: We should be able to do what we want provided you can't show me why we can't, so I win by default.

My logic is that the burden is on the person to show why it should be changed if he wants it to be changed -- the burden is not on me to show you why I have Law X in place and if it isn't sufficient enough for you, it should be changed by default.

That's total garbage and is a clear undermining of authority. You have no power if laws are this easy to change.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

My logic is that the burden is on the person to show why it should be changed if he wants it to be changed -- the burden is not on me to show you why I have Law X in place and if it isn't sufficient enough for you, it should be changed by default.

You're simply mistaken -- that is not how things usually work. Legislatures pass laws and people challenge them in court all the time. The law is assessed based on its constitutionality and whether the body that made the law had appropriate jurisdiction.

It is not at all the case that whenever laws are passed, they are considered the default and must be overturned with new laws. Cf: Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade.

There are several states that allow gay marriage, and if I'm not mistaken, Vermont was the fourth but only the first to have had the right passed legislatively.

 

[nehalem256]

It is amuzing how people cannot discuss this issue with out being absurd and making arguments that relate in no way to the issue....

Are you loosing the argument so badly that you have revert to this crazyness??

I think it is funny that you don't see that 50 years ago the idea of SSM would have been regarded as just as absurd. The arguments presented for marrying animals are identical to those presented for SSM. And the only retort them is essentially "THAT D: isn't marriage".

What I was showing is that most supporters of SSM don't really believe their own arguments. Since when you apply them to a form of marriage THEY don't believe in they reject them.

As for "losing" the argument. You might want to look at how many SSM supporters have to resort to calling people who oppose them "bigots". Name-calling is not a legitimate argument

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The arguments presented for marrying animals are identical to those presented for SSM.

No, they are not. You've had explained to you numerous times the difference, and while you have the right to ignore those explanations, that doesn't make them disappear. And it is not constructive to pretend that arguments have not been presented when they have been.

Animals are not capable of reasoning and therefore cannot enter into contracts. Marriage is a contract.

 

[nehalem256]

No, they are not. You've had explained to you numerous times the difference, and while you have the right to ignore those explanations, that doesn't make them disappear. And it is not constructive to pretend that arguments have not been presented when they have been.

Animals are not capable of reasoning and therefore cannot enter into contracts. Marriage is a contract.

Saying that marriage is a contract, and therefore you can't marry an animal is no different than saying marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and therefore SSM cannot exist.

In both cases society has defined marriage in a way that "discriminates" against a sexual minority. The argument advanced by SSM supporters is that the definition MUST be changed if this is the case.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost...9&postcount=95
"Marriage is whatever society says it is."
-Charles Kozierok

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It wasn't because I didn't see it that I chose not reply to your first abuse of that quote earlier in the thread. It was because the quote is out of context and being used to put forth an illogical argument.

General statements like that are made in a context. In this case, the discussion of relationships and laws. ALL laws and contracts are based on defining the behavior of people, not animals, so therefore it is assumed and not necessary for it to be spelled out. At least, when dealing with reasonable people that is the case.

What you are doing here is analogous to two students arguing over whether computer science is a type of engineering or not. One of them says it isn't because it uses a different approach, and the other says that it's based on the same concepts, and that the profession decides what qualifies as engineering and what isn't. And then you jump in and say "Ah ha! Then anything can be engineering, so therefore, studying scripture in a monastery is also engineering!" At which point the two students look at you like you're insane, and not without reason.

Again, laws and contracts are among human beings. Gay adults can enter into contracts of other types with each other; animals cannot and never have been able to enter into any contracts at all. They are not sentient at our level, and so the entire concept does not apply. Your claim that the arguments "for marrying animals are identical to those presented for SSM" is not only false as a simple matter of fact, your attempt to claim that a gay marriage is more comparable to bestiality than a straight marriage is both irrational and highly offensive.

 

[nehalem256]

It wasn't because I didn't see it that I chose not reply to your first abuse of that quote earlier in the thread. It was because the quote is out of context and being used to put forth an illogical argument.

General statements like that are made in a context. In this case, the discussion of relationships and laws. ALL laws are based on relationships between people, so therefore it is assumed and not necessary for it to be spelled out. At least, when dealing with reasonable people that is the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty_to_animals#United_States

Clearly there are cases of laws that are just about relationships between a person and an animal.

Again, laws and contracts are among human beings. Gay adults can enter into contracts of other types with each other; animals cannot and never have been able to enter into any contracts at all. They are not sentient at our level, and so the entire concept does not apply. Your claim that the arguments "for marrying animals are identical to those presented for SSM" is not only false as a simple matter of fact, your attempt to claim that a gay marriage is more comparable to bestiality than a straight marriage is both irrational and highly offensive.

40 years ago courts said the same thing about same-sex marriage:

The couple appealed the district court's decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court. In a brief opinion issued on October 15, 1971, the state's highest court affirmed the trial court's dismissal. Based on the common usage of the term "marriage" and gender-specific references elsewhere in the same chapter, the Court held that the statutes prohibited marriage between persons of the same sex.[7] This restriction, the Court reasoned, did not offend the Due Process Clause because procreation and child rearing were central to the constitutional protection given to marriage.[8]

With respect to the claim of an equal-protection violation, the Court found that childless marriages presented no more than a theoretical imperfection in the state's rationale for limiting marriage to different-sex couples. It found the plaintiffs' reliance on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Loving v. Virginia, finding an anti-miscegenation law, failed to provide a parallel: "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson#Appeal_to_the_Minnesota_Supreme_Court

Beyond the simple statement that "marriage is a contract between 2 people", which is more a definition than an argument, every argument made for SSM works equally well for human-animal marriage.

The only reason SSM is seen as rational and human-animal marriage is seen as irrational is that SSM supporters have spent 20 years shouting that "SSM is a right".

 

[shadow9d9]

Saying that marriage is a contract, and therefore you can't marry an animal is no different than saying marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and therefore SSM cannot exist.

In both cases society has defined marriage in a way that "discriminates" against a sexual minority. The argument advanced by SSM supporters is that the definition MUST be changed if this is the case.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost...9&postcount=95
"Marriage is whatever society says it is."
-Charles Kozierok

I don't think you understand the concepts behind contract law and consent.

 

[nehalem256]

I don't think you understand the concepts behind contract law and consent.

(1) I don't think you understand the concepts behind why marriage exists.

(2) Marriage as a "contract" does not really reflect the full idea of what marriage is because it involves getting benefits from people not signing the contract

(3) I don't think the concept of consent is relevant when referring to animals

(4) I can come up with numerous examples of consent not being relevant to marriages between people.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nehalem: The only reason SSM is seen as rational and human-animal marriage is seen as irrational is that SSM supporters have spent 20 years shouting that "SSM is a right".

Good of you to admit that your argument is seen as irrational.

Another thing that has changed in 20 years is the notion that marriage is important to the state because of procreation. We are beginning to see that the essential factor that impels a state interest in people is the happiness of folk who marry the person they love. Families confer stability to the state regardless of whether there are children or not. One can only speculate what kind of mental problem a person would have to have to want to deny the love of two people expressed by a marriage bond. But then, not too long ago slavery was considered OK by many. Still, we aren't going back to it any time soon that I can see. Humanity has a habit of progressing, and naturally so since we are almost all born with a an innate sense of fairness. Almost all but not quite.