Why is endorsing gay marriage/civil unions bad?

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Let's focus: our country already allows gays to form whatever kind of union they want to--and throw all the white-dressed parties they want right along with it. They just can't have a marriage license and all the tax benefits that supposedly allows.

So once again: This discussion is NOT about preventing the homosexual act--unlike the prevention of incest or public nudity. It's about a piece of paper and tax filing status.

I agree.

And I believe the state has the right to restrict marriage.

Others here apparently do not.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

I agree.

And I believe the state has the right to restrict marriage.

Others here apparently do not.

For what reasons do you believe the state can/should restrict marriage?

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by jfrog

For what reasons do you believe the state can/should restrict marriage?

Overall - because society has a compelling need for future generations.
Which are produced by families of men and women.
That is not the only reason, but the most valid one in my opinion.
Also:
1. Age of Consent - with governmental laws any one of any age could marry.
So you could have a 5 year old marrying a 40 year old.
2. Incest - this results in birth defects and has been viewed as taboo, because of this, for centuries.
3. Multiple partner marriages - Western Civilization has viewed this, negatively, for a long time.
4. Same-sex marriage - same as #3.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Overall - because society has a compelling need for future generations.
Which are produced by families of men and women.
That is not the only reason, but the most valid one in my opinion.
Also:
1. Age of Consent - with governmental laws any one of any age could marry.
So you could have a 5 year old marrying a 40 year old.
2. Incest - this results in birth defects and has been viewed as taboo, because of this, for centuries.
3. Multiple partner marriages - Western Civilization has viewed this, negatively, for a long time.
4. Same-sex marriage - same as #3.

I can fit 1 and 2 in with your reason for a compelling need for future generations. I don't see how allowing 3 or 4 to be legal harms the need for future generations at all? Care to elaborate?

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I can fit 1 and 2 in with your reason for a compelling need for future generations. I don't see how allowing 3 or 4 to be legal harms the need for future generations at all? Care to elaborate?

Good! My point is that 1 & 2 can also be argued against from a rational viewpoint!
Let's say that we allow Multiple partner and same sex marriages and make them legal.
The next battle will be either the age of consent and/or incest.
In most European countries, the age of consent is 16, currently.
The argument against lowering the age of consent to a lower age, could be won by any bright, intelligent 12-15 year old. Why should they be prohibited from legally engaging in consensual activity, if they can demonstrate that they understand the consequences and results of such behavior.
After all, society used to discriminate against multiple partner and same sex couples.
And believe it or not the UN is on the children's side in this argument.

The main argument against incest is a higher chance of birth defects. This argument is very easily nullified by our ability to now check for birth defects in the womb and repair or abort the fetus. Also, society places no obligation on those couples who are more likely to have a "defective" child, due to their genetic makeup, so why put a taboo on incest? After all aren't we consenting adults?

The law of unintended consequences will always have a say in any change that is made. And I am sure there are circumstances that I have not even thought about that would change, as well.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Good! My point is that 1 & 2 can also be argued against from a rational viewpoint!
Let's say that we allow Multiple partner and same sex marriages and make them legal.
The next battle will be either the age of consent and/or incest.
In most European countries, the age of consent is 16, currently.
The argument against lowering the age of consent to a lower age, could be won by any bright, intelligent 12-15 year old. Why should they be prohibited from legally engaging in consensual activity, if they can demonstrate that they understand the consequences and results of such behavior.
After all, society used to discriminate against multiple partner and same sex couples.
And believe it or not the UN is on the children's side in this argument.

The main argument against incest is a higher chance of birth defects. This argument is very easily nullified by our ability to now check for birth defects in the womb and repair or abort the fetus. Also, society places no obligation on those couples who are more likely to have a "defective" child, due to their genetic makeup, so why put a taboo on incest? After all aren't we consenting adults?

The law of unintended consequences will always have a say in any change that is made. And I am sure there are circumstances that I have not even thought about that would change, as well.

For the age of consent for marriage the point is that there is a reasonable age of consent for marriage. It don't have to be 16 and I certainly don't mind certain exceptions to that age being granted on a case by case basis. However, the age must be a reasonable one, for example no 5 year olds, and also the exceptions granted must deal in part with the maturity level of the one seeking the exception and the reason as to why he or she is seeking such an exception. So who does having an age of consent protect? It protects the child from his/her actions of wanting a marriage and/or the parents actions from pushing them into a marriage at a young age. Therefore age of consent for marriage has to do with protecting children.

Laws against incest are about protecting us against those who are close to us from pursuing us sexually. The argument against incest is and never has really been due to the possibility of birth defects. That being said, I dont mind seeing certain exceptions to this rule against incest being made, for example two people that were related and fell in love but had no idea they were kin till near the wedding date. To further comment, kin pursing kin is closer to a teacher or professor pursing a student. Kin are supposed to be family and as such they have a unique purpose and they should not use that role to try and get in our pants.

So who exactly are laws against SSM and MPM protecting? Until you can answer that question don't even try to use the slippery slope argument that allowing them is going to allow the age of consent for marriage law to be done away or allow incest laws to be repealed.

[Sam]

My wife and I got married February 28, 1958. At that time the legal age was 21 for both men and women and a blood test was required.

I was 20 and Pat was 16 (I'm 3.5 years older than she). We both needed parental consent.
My parents lived in Wisconsin and they had to go before a judge (15 miles away at the county seat) to sign their consent paper and return it to Hamilton County Ohio where the wedding was to take place.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by jfrog

For the age of consent for marriage the point is that there is a reasonable age of consent for marriage. It don't have to be 16 and I certainly don't mind certain exceptions to that age being granted on a case by case basis. However, the age must be a reasonable one, for example no 5 year olds, and also the exceptions granted must deal in part with the maturity level of the one seeking the exception and the reason as to why he or she is seeking such an exception. So who does having an age of consent protect? It protects the child from his/her actions of wanting a marriage and/or the parents actions from pushing them into a marriage at a young age. Therefore age of consent for marriage has to do with protecting children.

Laws against incest are about protecting us against those who are close to us from pursuing us sexually. The argument against incest is and never has really been due to the possibility of birth defects. That being said, I dont mind seeing certain exceptions to this rule against incest being made, for example two people that were related and fell in love but had no idea they were kin till near the wedding date. To further comment, kin pursing kin is closer to a teacher or professor pursing a student. Kin are supposed to be family and as such they have a unique purpose and they should not use that role to try and get in our pants.

So who exactly are laws against SSM and MPM protecting? Until you can answer that question don't even try to use the slippery slope argument that allowing them is going to allow the age of consent for marriage law to be done away or allow incest laws to be repealed.

jf - good points. This is why I like well-reasoned non-flame throwing "discussions". However, these sometimes take way too much of my time to think through!
Here are a couple of well-reasoned articles on this topic:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...against-incest

snippets

The rationale for the prohibition of sibling incest is not all that easy to find.
The constitutional court also said that the prohibition of incest was rooted in "cultural history".
Then there is the danger of the passing on of genetic diseases. That is a difficult one. On the basis of this reason, should all prospective parents undergo genetic screening?
And finally, the question of morals. That sounds old-fashioned and smells of great-aunt Mabel's Bible class. All the same – large parts of modern criminal law cannot be adequately explained without the moral views behind the rule.

End of snippets

A really good story below, that talks about the legal fallout from the Supreme Court striking down the Texas sodomy law.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...607322,00.html

snippet

When the Supreme Court struck down Texas's law against sodomy in the summer of 2003, in the landmark gay rights case of Lawrence v. Texas, critics warned that its sweeping support of a powerful doctrine of privacy could lead to challenges of state laws that forbade such things as gay marriage and bigamy. "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are ... called into question by today's decision," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, in a withering dissent he read aloud page by page from the bench.

It turns out the critics were right. Plaintiffs have made the decision the centerpiece of attempts to defeat state bans on the sale of sex toys in Alabama, polygamy in Utah and adoptions by gay couples in Florida. So far the challenges have been unsuccessful. But plaintiffs are still trying, even using Lawrence to challenge laws against incest.

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by jfrog

For the age of consent for marriage the point is that there is a reasonable age of consent for marriage. It don't have to be 16 and I certainly don't mind certain exceptions to that age being granted on a case by case basis. However, the age must be a reasonable one, for example no 5 year olds, and also the exceptions granted must deal in part with the maturity level of the one seeking the exception and the reason as to why he or she is seeking such an exception. So who does having an age of consent protect? It protects the child from his/her actions of wanting a marriage and/or the parents actions from pushing them into a marriage at a young age. Therefore age of consent for marriage has to do with protecting children.

Laws against incest are about protecting us against those who are close to us from pursuing us sexually. The argument against incest is and never has really been due to the possibility of birth defects. That being said, I dont mind seeing certain exceptions to this rule against incest being made, for example two people that were related and fell in love but had no idea they were kin till near the wedding date. To further comment, kin pursing kin is closer to a teacher or professor pursing a student. Kin are supposed to be family and as such they have a unique purpose and they should not use that role to try and get in our pants.

So who exactly are laws against SSM and MPM protecting? Until you can answer that question don't even try to use the slippery slope argument that allowing them is going to allow the age of consent for marriage law to be done away or allow incest laws to be repealed.

Ok, touche'. I am persuaded, as I am convinced that God needs no protection.