Flint
Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Ghost:
| Quote | | I don't wish to limit their rights to free speech or employment or living arrangements or public displays of affection - I just don't think marriage is an absolute right. If it was, we'd allow polygamy and (yes) incestuous marriages. We don't, and for a very good reason - polygamy would destroy the social fabric (lots and lots of lonely, unmarried men above and beyond what we have now), while incest can lead to children with genetic problems. It's really not so hard to see, guys. If we can use evidence to restrict some types of marriage, why can't we use it to challenge other types? In other words, why do liberals get to select the ways in which we can approach topics? |
An awful lot of baggage being lugged around by these questions, you know?
Let's agree, just to clarify a bit, that where good reasons exist, marriages should not be recognized. But I don't think anyone is claiming marriage is an *absolute* right, I think people are saying that marriage is a civil right that should be denied only for relevant reasons. So we're trying to decide what's relevant here.
I'll grant that incest is genetically hazardous. I can see no reason why the "social fabric" would be threatened by 3+ person marriages; these have been experimented with fairly often without the loss of "social fabric" and indeed are still practiced in some places in the US. Similarly, I see no compelling reason to prohibit gay marriage. Maybe I lack your hotline to the social fabric, but from my perspective, you are saying "If we change SOME rules (which just happen to be hobbyhorses of the religious right), the boogeymay will git you!" So far, your evidence has not been relevant. You speak at length about disease, but never once have you suggested any evidence that marriage makes disease worse in any way.
So from my perspective, this comes down to a demand on my part that you show cause why marriage should be denied. So far, you have shown none. Ericmurphy and I have tried multiple times to point out that we're talking here NOT about any "blessed relationship" but rather a specific set of legal provisions. If you think changing some peoples' legal status threatens society, you should explain why, rather than ducking the issue over and over.
Because that's all we're talking about. Would you find it acceptable if we dubbed such arrangements "civil unions" so long as they were legally identical? It's not as though doing thos is going to change anyone's social or sexual behavior.
| Quote | | even for fundamental rights exceptions exist. Why shouldn't this be the case for non-fundamental ones? |
This is a pathetic argument. Yes, exceptions are always made for *immediate, obvious, clear and present compelling cause*, not for hazy fears that maybe someday some change will somehow unravel someone's hazy notion of a "social fabric." That's just noise.
| Quote | | Second, I've been trying to supply evidence for my position. |
Maybe I just don't know what your position is. What I'm trying to talk about is the legal condition of marriage, and whether extending that condition to people whose relationship is *otherwise no different* is appropriate. So far, you have come up with two "evidences" - the first is that the sexual behavior of that part of the gay community that does NOT WISH TO MARRY, should prohibit marriage for those who do. Which is frankly silly. And the second "evidence" is the claim that if these people ARE granted the legal condition of marriage, society will self-destruct. But this isn't any sort of evidence, this is directionless fear, straight homophobia.
|
