Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by William James on October 30, 2012 at 2:30pm

Just deleted an old version - apologies if any replies were deleted (I don't think there were any replies yet).

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on October 30, 2012 at 2:41pm

Where Does It Stop? The Evolution of Marriage

One possibility to consider is that once gay marriage is legalised, calls for more extreme changes with marriage laws will arise. The legalisation of polygamy, for instance.
...

Regardless of your opinion on such an idea, you must acknowledge that this is a fine example showing how legalising gay marriage could lead on to the legalisation of renewable marriages, bigamy, polygamy, polyandry and so forth.

 

 

This is a "slippery slope" fallacy. One that is rarely born out by history. And no - it is not a fine example, none of them happened except the "renewable marriages" which was proposed, but does not seem to have passed the legislation. Society rejected the idea. There is no reason to suggest suddenly everything would be thrown out and it would be chaos. 

 

Will polygamy or 'renewable marriages' be the norm by that time? Will my now-sensible views look outdated and extreme by then? Maybe time and retrospect will look down upon my views.

 

Maybe, maybe not. It is unlikely that any specific legislation today would be particularly at fault for the legislation 40 years from now. We already have no-fault divorce - it seems that is a bigger problem than same-sex marriages, from the standpoint of stability and family. 

 

Civil partnerships already provide all of the legal benefits of marriage, and there is therefore no need to redefine marriage.

 

Not currently in the US. The number of legal challenges required to get a civil partnership to have the same number of rights and privileges even the most disingenuous marriage currently gets no questions asked, is insulting. 

 

And even if they are made to be legally the same as a marriage - why bother with two different institutions? A better plan is to eliminate any governmental recognition of religious marriage as legally binding and make everyone get civil partnerships. If you wish to get married before your own God, that's up to you, I see no reason to automatically honor contracts made to him/her/them legally. 

 

Considering the fact that heterosexual marriages are not equivalent in nature to homosexual marriages, there is no reason why both relationship types should have the same name, giving the impression that they are of the same nature.

 

In what way are they not of the same nature? Currently, only the sex of the participants distinguishes them. The nature of their relationship otherwise may or may not be otherwise equivalent. This is unsupported. 

 

This accusation is based upon the false premise that race and sex are analogous. They are not. Racial differences are insignificant, hence why we no longer have black and white public toilets or black and white schools, but still have men and women’s toilets and, sometimes, boys and girls schools.

 

In what way does the "significant" differences in the sexes affect the fundamental nature of a relationship between two loving, consenting adults? In what way is the mostly religious attempt to block gay marriage different than the religious attempts to block interracial marriages? The arguments made, by and large, are identical in language, tone and intent. If your argument is the churches were wrong then, but are not wrong now... you have a long row to hoe.

 

 

Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on October 30, 2012 at 2:43pm

You don't need the "I'm not homophobic" disclaimer.  Anyone that would think you "homophobic" isn't going to be convinced otherwise by that sentence.  People who wouldn't think you "homophobic" don't need the reminder.  Wasted breath.

 

Fundamentally, you shouldn't preemptively apologize for what you believe.  Disclaimers like that weaken your argument.  It is a concession that you believe your position can be seen as homophobic -- which is a premise you need not buy into.

JB

Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on October 30, 2012 at 4:24pm

Glad to see somebody said that. The only thing worse than the preemptive apology is the preemptive surrender...

Permalink Reply by Ken D Books on October 30, 2012 at 5:47pm

Shane brought that up when he mentioned the French
@:-)

Permalink Reply by JonEdanger on October 30, 2012 at 5:48pm

Funny, I didn't think Books was a French name.

Permalink Reply by Shane on October 30, 2012 at 2:54pm

Polygamy is the preferred method of familial union in the world.

Renewable marriages used to be quite common.  And still are.

Civil partnerships = marriage.  People in this debate seem hung up on the terminology rather than the actual construct. 

We already make the distinction between church weddings and court house weddings and common law marriages.  Maybe you should change your terminology to "blessed by the church" as opposed to "acknowledged by the state".

Gender vs Race I'll agree is a silly argument.  But, for different reasons.  Mostly because most of the arguments aren't using "gender" correctly, and quite a bit because we segregate out the sexes in daily life due to personal privacy/embarrassment issues and not due to any larger moral implications.  Gender roles are almost exclusively a personal vs public issue.  Except for the activists and crusaders who I don't bother with in public life anyway.

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on October 30, 2012 at 2:58pm

Civil partnerships = marriage.  People in this debate seem hung up on the terminology rather than the actual construct. 

 

Except they are not equal as legal entities. A same sex civil union has significantly restricted legal and financial bearing compared with a bog standard courthouse or church wedding between people of the opposite sex. 

Permalink Reply by Shane on October 30, 2012 at 3:12pm

For the moment.  In our country.  I understand the fight. 

Both sides need to chill out with which words they demand to use, though.  Mostly I think the religious argument needs to drop its grip on the word "marriage".  If couples can marry in a courthouse (or even just declare themselves married) without ever being blessed by a priest, it's lost its religious connotation long ago.  However, if we keep the religious implications of the word, then you'll have to settle with not co-opting that which does not belong to you.

Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on October 30, 2012 at 4:27pm

If Christians give up on the word marriage, they will admit, as you say, that legal marriage means Christianity is worthless for marriage. Then there will be less Christianity, of whatever sort worth the name. & the law will have done it; & more millions of people will add a layer of apathy to public things.

Permalink Reply by Shane on October 30, 2012 at 5:56pm

& more millions of people will add a layer of apathy to public things.

Is that even possible?

Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on October 31, 2012 at 1:32am

European polities work, especially the ones that weren't destroyed by Communism, based on levels of apathy that Americans cannot fathom.

The cleverest people in Europe therefore find it difficult to understand why Americans even bother to get angry over so many things that they themselves do not--there is a word for this, one tends to exist in pol.sci, depoliticalization. American liberals love European polities because there are no more debates or quarrels in politics... But the fate of Europe, while the most ignoble, is not the worst.

When once the legal cover--which may be a kind of privilege--is removed from Christianity, Christian self-righteousness will lose its political importance, because the people will no longer feel like they own their country. Therefore, there will no moral argument for property rights. They will go to the way of Europe, the gov't will swallow up everything for the good of the people.

In America it's not be new for religion to come into the service of progressive politics. It would not be Christian anymore, but people would hardly know. The Social Gospel was quite popular in America once, it's a replacement for politics people like... & the people who do not care for Christianity--far more now than one hundred years back--can go the way of Europe.

No two-party system; gov't by unchangeable post-electoral coalitions; nearly complete gov't control over the legislature; no courage in the constitutional court; people who stop caring.

There are only two motives people care about their country. Property rights & self-righteousness. Like Madison said, Americans have a right to property & hold their property in their rights. Just because you do not care about these things should not blind you to how the damn country works.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 52
• Next ›
• Page