I TOLD YOU SO ! This is why we shouldn't allow same-sex "marriage"

[IzzyR]

Several posters, (e.g. Giraffe, LHOD and Matt_Mcl) seem to be confusing the issue here. Of course it’s very easy to say “gays yes, others no”. No great revelation there - sorry guys. The issue is about the justification for doing so.

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Many people didn’t recognize women as independent political thinkers in the early 20th century, yet the government changed that social reality by passing the 19th amendment; do you think this was a bad decision? If not, in what way is it relevantly disanalogous to gay marriage?

Whether woman could or could not think is not a social reality - it is a fact that is either true or not true. People’s attitudes about women might be a social reality but while that had an impact on whether they could vote, voting itself is just an act. The only thing in the way of allowing this act was people’s opinions that it was a bad idea - to the extent that you disagree with the decision you would have to allow it.

The thing about marriage is that it is purely a sociological institution. The fact of married people being considered one family unit is in the minds of people - people consider the bonds of marriage to be cohesive to the point of making them one unit, to an extent. (The same could also be said of children - while children are a biological fact, the idea that this conveys some special relationship between children and their parents is a sociological one.)

My position is that the government should not be in the business of trying to dictate to society which bonds are to be recognized and which are not. The government should not try to reshape society in any way, other than to stop people from harming each other.

If people are opposed to gay marriage because they think gays are scum that don’t deserve the advantages that come with marriage, that should not be a factor in governmental recognition. But if people oppose it because they don’t consider this particular bond to be a binding one of the nature of marriage (or parenthood) that should be a factor.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@IzzyR

The thing about marriage is that it is purely a sociological institution. The fact of married people being considered one family unit is in the minds of people - people consider the bonds of marriage to be cohesive to the point of making them one unit, to an extent.

Getting back to voting: one of the primary arguments against giving the vote to women was precisely that a family was a cohesive social institution, and giivng women the right to vote was superfluous, since their husbands could vote. Voting itself is a sociolocial institution every bit as much as marriage is.

My position is that the government should not be in the business of trying to dictate to society which bonds are to be recognized and which are not. The government should not try to reshape society in any way, other than to stop people from harming each other.

When the government changed from forbidding interracial marriage to allowing it, it was doing precisely what you say the government shouldn’t do: it was dictating to society which bonds were to be recognized. Again I ask: was this a poor decision on the government’s part, or is it somehow relevantly disanalogous from SSM?

Daniel

[Lilairen]

@IzzyR

I frankly suspect that most or all of the participants in these arrangements do not consider themselves family, but rather as people who have some sort of arrangement for a specific purpose.

Goodness. On what basis do you hold that suspicion? I’ve never seen any evidence for it, and I’ve been an active member of the polyamorous community for nearly a decade.

[Giraffe]

@IzzyR

My position is that the government should not be in the business of trying to dictate to society which bonds are to be recognized and which are not.

The government and the laws should treat all citizens equally. All citizens should be allowed to choose the person they want to have inheritance rights when they die, etc. Social institutions (religion, etc.) how they want to incorporate same-sex partnerships, but the government should not be distinguishing between citizens based on their sexual orientation.

[clairobscur]

@elfbabe

But INSTEAD, I guess I will just marry MY SISTER, .

Why not? I didn’t choose the example of the two retired brothers at random. When the civil union was discussed in France, this was very seriously discussed too. There are people (like sisters, indeed) who wants to live together and have reasons to do so at least as valid as the reasons why you want to live with your boyfriend. Why couldn’t they benefit from the same advantages? Why one sister could be evicted from the house they shared after the other’s death, and not you after your boyfriend’s death, for instance?

Eventually, the law explicitely excluded that close relatives could be part of a civil union. But I don’t think it’s a sound reasonning. It amounts to state that these unions, and the legal advantages which come with them, are directly related to the assumed will of the partners to have sex together, and even to the morality of the supposed sexual intercourse. It has nothing to do with love or caring, since love and care certainly can exist between two sisters. It has nothing to do with material issues, since two sisters living together face the same material issues than you and your boyfriend.

So, these arbitrary choices about who should be allowed to marry whom are actually entirely based on the issue of who is assumed to have sex with whom, and on whether these assumed sexual intercourses, even though they happen between consenting adults, are considered as acceptable or not.
And I insist on the assumed since you are under no obligation to have sex with someone you marry with. But you’re only allowed to marry (or have a civil union with) someone who is socially considered as an acceptable potential sexual partner.
Hence, the whole thing is totally and directly related to sexual morals.

[clairobscur]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

To the limited extent that this question makes any sense, the answer is this: same sex marriage can be made legal without making polygamy legal because legislators are capable of drafting and voting up laws that say, “Same sex marriage is legal, but polygamous marriages are not legal.” That’s why it’s possible, because the English language, combined with our system of government, makes it possible.

Daniel

I believe that the poster’s question was actually : “why should SSM be made legal and not polygamous marriages?”
Maybe I’m wrong.

[Jimmy_Joe_Meager]

@Orbifold

Either gay marriage should be allowed on its own merits or it should be denied on its own merits. Similarly, either polygamous marriage should be allowed on its own marriage or it should be denied on its own merits.

Agreed Orbifold. I just think that the merits in favor of SS"M" will also allow Polyamory, Incest (between adopted siblings, for example - no chance of genetic problems if they have children), Zoophilia, and a whole host of other variations on the same theme. Orbifold, please explicitly list what you believe to be the merits of SS"M". Don’t argue why anything else should not be allowed, argue why SS"M" should be allowed. Go ahead, if you dare. I’ll show you what happens.

You think polygamous marriage should be disallowed. Then you better bloody well have a REASON to disallow it. What, precisely, is bad about polygamous marriage? Whatever it is, when you’ve figured out the REASON why polygamous marriage is bad, we can ask whether or not that reason applies separately to gay marriage.

I do have a reason to disallow it and other non-traditional attempts at defining “marriage”, and I’ve stated it repeatedly (go back and re-read what I’ve posted, I won’t do your homework for you). And yes, my reason for disallowing it applies separately, and equally, to SS"M".

But the idea that the legal or moral status of gay marriage automatically implies that polygamous marriage gets the same status is just as stupid as …

But the idea that the legal or moral status of traditional marriage automatically implies that gay ‘marriage’ gets the same status is just as stupid, isn’t it? (Your own words work well for my argument, too. Thank you.)

If I feel that gay and lesbian couples deserve the chance to stand up in front of their loved ones and the law and pledge their support to the principles of fidelity and commitment then what does the legal or moral status of polygamy have to do with the price of tea in China?

Do you also feel that Polyamorous, Zoophilic, and Incestuous couples deserve the same chance? If not, why not?

Really Orbifold. If not, why not?

[elfbabe]

@clairobscur

Why not?

I’m not saying people SHOULDN’T be allowed to marry their sister. Or sisters plural! (Not saying they should, either.) My less-than-coherent screaming was directed against the idea that being able to marry your sister and her dog follows automatically from SSM. It should not be taken as, you know, a real position on anything. If somebody wants a coherent logical answer out of me, a GD threat would probably be the best place to ask for it. I’d also recommend sending me some tranquilizers first, as this issue often makes me want to indulge in VIOLENT STABBITY DOOM, can’t imagine why.

[IzzyR]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Getting back to voting: one of the primary arguments against giving the vote to women was precisely that a family was a cohesive social institution, and giivng women the right to vote was superfluous, since their husbands could vote. Voting itself is a sociolocial institution every bit as much as marriage is.

Your last sentence does not follow logically, and is rediculous, IMHO.

When the government changed from forbidding interracial marriage to allowing it, it was doing precisely what you say the government shouldn’t do: it was dictating to society which bonds were to be recognized. Again I ask: was this a poor decision on the government’s part, or is it somehow relevantly disanalogous from SSM?

I don’t think so. I’m not completely familiar with the history of the ban on interracial marriages, but I would imagine that the government banned them on moral (or practical) grounds. This would be analogous to moral objection to gay marriage, which I don’t think should factor, as above.

Giraffe, I’m not sure what your post has to do with mine. Lilairen I could be wrong about polyamorous marriages. Perhaps you could give us some description of how the family arrangements work out. (IOW, in what way are you a family).

[clairobscur]

@Giraffe

For the same reason that when we allowed blacks and women the right to vote, we didn’t worry about whether we’d have to change the word “vote” to the word “kill people” or “get free long distance”.

Totaly irrelevant. Killing people harm other people. Me marrying two persons rather than one doesn’t harm you.

I would even add that stating such a thing is offensive, since you’re comparing polyamorous people with murderers. Not different than similar idiotic comparison about gays and criminals.

The right to marry a person is a currently recognized right in our society, the only question is who gets it. Giving this right to all consenting adults above a certain age doesn’t require that we change the right itself.

This part is more reasonnable. But it still don’t tell me why this right should only extend to one person.

This right was intended to apply to people who conformed with a given social norm : monogamous and heterosexual people. There are people who aren’t monogamous, and there are people who aren’t heterosexuals. If we believe now that these restrictive social norms aren’t anymore a reason to deny people a right which is granted to other people on the basis of their lifestyle or sexual preferences, why only the “homosexual” subset should benefit from it, and not the “polygamous” subset? In what way is it less arbitrary? In what way refusing a gay marriage is less arbitrary than refusing a polygamous marriage (and polygamous marriages are a way more common feature in human societies than homosexual marriages)?

[elfbabe]

@Jimmy Joe Meager

Do you also feel that Polyamorous, Zoophilic, and Incestuous couples deserve the same chance?

In my case…

Yes, though I don’t want to be the one to work out the legal details, Maybe, though I feel that there are considerable consent issues with incestuous relationships at any age, and No Friggin’ Way EVER, unless you can show me an animal capable of giving informed consent.

Arguments used to justify same-sex marriage can be used to TRY to justify anything. That doesn’t mean that we as a society are obligated to accept those arguments every time they are used because we’ve accepted them in one case before.

[clairobscur]

IOW, if the law states “everybody has the right to own one blue house”, why is “everybody has the right to own two blue houses” a more substantial change than “everybody has the right to own one blue or one pink house?”

Upon reflection, you don’t have a point stating “The right to marry a person is a currently recognized right in our society, the only question is who gets it”
What is recognized by our societies is the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. And everybody gets it. There’s no question. Whether you change the “a” part of the “opposite sex” part, in both cases, you’re changing the recognized right.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@clairobscur

I believe that the poster’s question was actually : “why should SSM be made legal and not polygamous marriages?”

Granting the poster isn’t exactly Winston Churchill, maybe that’s what he meant to ask; it’s not, however, what he asked.

@Jimmy Joe Meager

please explicitly list what you believe to be the merits of SS"M". Don’t argue why anything else should not be allowed, argue why SS"M" should be allowed. Go ahead, if you dare.

…
Do you also feel that Polyamorous, Zoophilic, and Incestuous couples deserve the same chance? If not, why not?

Make up your mind, eh?

Here’s my answer: the government should try to be efficient in how it recognizes the actual living situations of various people. At the same time, it should work to protect people from harm.

Consenting adults should be allowed to live together in pretty much whatever consenting relationship they want. Currently, that’s where we’re at: consenting adults really rarely get prosecuted on the basis of their living situation.

Consenting adults with relevantly similar living situations should be treated in a relevantly similar manner. This is a core principle of justice, and indeed one definition of justice is that you treat relevantly similar situations in a relevantly similar fashion.

There are no relevant dissimilarities between, for example, a marriage between a sixty-year-old man and woman, and between two sixty-year-old women. Therefore, either neither couple should be allowed to get married, or both couples should be allowed to get married. I’m fine with either outcome.

There is a relevant dissimilarity between the sixty-year-old man and woman, and a marriage between a man and a donkey. The donkey, unlike the sixty-year-old woman, is incapable of giving informed consent. Therefore justice does not require them to be treated relevantly similarly.

There is a relevant dissimilarity between the sixty-year-old man and woman, and a marriage between a man and a ten-year-old. The ten-year-old, unlike the sixty-year-old woman, is incapable of giving informed consent. Therefore justice does not require them to be treated relevantly similarly.

There is a relevant dissimilarity between the sixty-year-old man and woman, and a marriage between a man and a salt shaker. The salt shaker, unlike the sixty-year-old woman, is incapable of giving informed consent. Therefore justice does not require them to be treated relevantly similarly.

There is a relevant dissimilarity between the sixty-year-old man and woman, and a marriage between two men and three women. The same set of rights and obligations cannot cover them (inasmuch as in the couple marriage each member gives a complete set of exclusive rights to the other person, whereas in a group marriage this isn’t possible). Therefore justice does not require them to be treated relevantly similarly.

There MAY BE a relevant dissimilarity between the sixty-year-old man and woman, and a marriage between a brother and sister. The brother and sister, IF THEY HAVE CHILDREN, may pose a significantly greater risk of passing along birth defects to the kids. Therefore justice MAY not require them to be treated relevantly similarly. HOWEVER, the better solution would be to forbid people who knowingly pose a greater risk of passing along birth defects to their kids, to have kids; if you’re not willing to do that, then you shouldn’t oppose incest based on this increased risk. Relevant similarity, and all.

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@IzzyR

I don’t think so. I’m not completely familiar with the history of the ban on interracial marriages, but I would imagine that the government banned them on moral (or practical) grounds. This would be analogous to moral objection to gay marriage, which I don’t think should factor, as above.

The hair you’re splitting here is too fine for me to see, I’m afraid. If people believe that (for example) blacks and whites are not equal and that the idea of a marriage between the two is a laughable farce, how is this relevantly different from the current situation with SSM?

As for voting, in what way is suffrage less of a social institution than marriage?

Daniel

[clairobscur]

@elfbabe

I’m not saying people SHOULDN’T be allowed to marry their sister. Or sisters plural! (Not saying they should, either.) My less-than-coherent screaming was directed against the idea that being able to marry your sister and her dog follows automatically from SSM. .

It doesn’t automatically follow from a social point of view, since society could accept gay marriages but not polygamous marriages or the reverse.
But it automatically follows from a logical point of view. The reasons given to suport gay marriage could apply as well to polygamous marriages or to the marriage of two old widowed sisters. My contention is that allowing one and not the others is inconsistent.
For instance, the fact that white women can vote doesn’t automatically follow from allowing black men to vote. But once you state that the traditionnal “only white males can vote” shouldn’t apply anymore, and should be replaced by “only males can vote”, you’d better be prepared to explain why the “male” part hasn’t been changed as well.

[Lilairen]

@IzzyR

Lilairen I could be wrong about polyamorous marriages. Perhaps you could give us some description of how the family arrangements work out. (IOW, in what way are you a family).

In what way are we not a family?

We spend as much time together as we can, despite the level of expense that this involves (the two halves of the family are currently long-distance, mostly because of work and grad school difficulties). We make long-term plans together, discuss all life-affecting matters with each other, we discuss how we want to handle care for our eventual children. We take care of each other when we’re sick. We ask each other for advice within our realms of expertise (this apparently recently startled my mate’s mother, when it became clear that I’d been consulted on something I know a good bit about; she’s still not sure how to deal with the multiple-adult family thing). We’re devoted to each other and our family and committed to the long-term. We work through issues even when it’s bloody difficult because we’re a family, not some random set of people who’ll blow each other off when the going gets tricky.

I know a fair number of people who have relationships which aren’t correctly manifested in the family-bond forming nature of marriage. I don’t know anyone who considers themselves married or has intent to marry, handfast, or otherwise form an equivalent commitment, whether legally or otherwise, who is not doing so because of their family bonds. This includes people who have interlaced relationship systems (such as the folks at http://www.ourlittlequad.com/ ), families like my own (composed of a number of distinct individual relationships with an additional family structure), portions of extended web relationship systems that are household units, and people with distinct relationships with separate people (including, at most extreme, the fellow who maintains distinct households for both his longest-established partners).

[Jimmy_Joe_Meager]

@belladonna

He says that he believes if we allow one we must allow the other. My question is then, why doesn’t he believe that allowing one (straight marriage) means we have to allow the other (ss marriage)? If poly-marriages MUST be allowed because SS marriages are (The OPs contention), why mustn’t SS marriage be allowed because straight marriage is? It’s nonsensical.

Wow, belladonna, a reasonable, well thought out, clearly articulated, poignant question. Thank you. I’ve been waiting for one.

The real issue I am addressing (fooled you huh? you thought I was talking about SS"M", didn’t you?) is - “do we change the staus quo”? The status quo being marriage (in this country) defined as one man / one woman.

I immagine a large crowd of individuals in loving relationships behind a gate (Gays, Lesbians, Bi-sexuals, 10,000 member Polyamorous groups, Brother/Sister couples (adopted, not blood relations), Zoophiles, Solos, Human/Android life-partnerships, and a thousand other variations I haven’t thought of) each of whom believe they have the “right” to be on the other side of the gate, which is the side I’m on (Marriage). They are pushing and shoving, straining to get through. Frankly yes, I believe some of them really do have the right to be over here. But… how can I let only some of them in? If I open the gate to admit a few many others will follow, including some I frankly do NOT believe have the right to be here.

So… how can I let some (most?) of them in while excluding others? This is exactly the argument/reason that I can’t come up with. I’m not a hateful bigot, I’m confused. I really do believe that some of those individuals over there really do belong on my side of the gate, but I can’t come up with what I feel is a reasonable and logical reason for excluding the others because - as far as I can tell the arguments in favor of admitting one group also work for all the groups.

That’s why I’m trying to get Dopers to list their reasons of why and why not certain groups should be admitted. Why, exactly, should gay couples be admitted? Please list in concise bullet point format. Believe me, I’ve heard (almost) all the arguments as to why gays should be admitted. And quite honestly, I’ve found that those same arguments work equally well for all the individuals on the other side of the gate.

In other words, I believe the only way to exclude the dog-fuckers from my side of the gate is to explicitly state “What you are doing does not constitute a marriage.” That would work, but isn’t that exactly what we’re doing to gays right now? So… if that tactic is NOT applicable to gays, why WOULD it be applicable to dog-fuckers? Again - please give me some way to exclude the dog-fuckers without excluding everyone else.

So for now I’m relegated to simply refusing to open the gate to ANYONE. Perfect solution? No. Elegant? No. Effective at keeping the dog-fuckers out? Yes.

[Teine]

@clairobscur

It doesn’t automatically follow from a social point of view, since society could accept gay marriages but not polygamous marriages or the reverse.

But it automatically follows from a logical point of view. The reasons given to suport gay marriage could apply as well to polygamous marriages or to the marriage of two old widowed sisters. My contention is that allowing one and not the others is inconsistent.

It is logically inconsistent if the reasons currently being used to support gay marriage are the only items the judgement is based on.

As has been pointed out in this thread, there are factors involved in polygamous marriages that do not apply to monogamous marriages, whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex. You can apply the arguments for same-sex marriage to polygamous marriage and make a certain amount of progress. However, those arguments are insufficient to address the complicating factors of polygamous marriage. The same statement can be said about bestiality and incest, to use the two other examples from the OP.

I could argue, probably successfully, that from a social justice standpoint polygamous marriage is as deserving of recognition as same-sex or opposite-sex monogamous marriage. However, unless I brought in additional arguments to address the social and legal issues unique to polygamous marriage, like the apportionment of health benefits, the handling of inheritance, and others, my arguments would be insufficient.

Personally, I find this unfortunate, because it means that more work is required to justify polygamous marriage. But I’m not stupid enough to believe that the arguments currently being used to support same-sex marriage are enough to support polygamous marriage.

[Jimmy_Joe_Meager]

@tdn

Just because they ask does not mean that we have to grant those rights.

Who? Which “they” are you talking about? Gays? Polyamorists? Zoophiles? If you are willing to include all of these (and more) then I’d agree with you.

But you do have a point. … now 3-year-old girls are forced to marry gila monsters every day.

Maybe where you live, but not in my damn country they aint. And won’t be, if I can help it.

Oh, and your “see I told you so” attitude is something I’d expect from a 4th grader.

Yeah, I can see you point there.

[Giraffe]

@clairobscur

Totaly irrelevant. Killing people harm other people. Me marrying two persons rather than one doesn’t harm you.

Harm has nothing to do with my example. I was pointing out how extending an existing right to more people doesn’t automatically require creating new rights.

@clairobscur

I would even add that stating such a thing is offensive, since you’re comparing polyamorous people with murderers. Not different than similar idiotic comparison about gays and criminals.

I will even add that this is a stupid thing to be offended by, as it should be obvious to anyone who is not a total retard that my example was hyperbole intended to illustrate my point, rather than a comparison of polyamorous people to murderers. (This last sentence, on the other hand, is a perfectly reasonable one to be offended by, so go nuts.)

My comment wasn’t meant to offend you or any of the other polyamorous people fighting for their rights in this thread.