Twisted right wing thinking
Jun. 15th, 2005 09:32 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pegkerrMy local paper, the Star Tribune, regularly gets irate letters from readers complaining about their liberal bias. Apparently in an attempt to convince everyone they are not commie pinkos, they have started carrying a column by Katherine Kersten, a senior fellow of the Center for the American Experiment, a conservative think tank. Here is her latest screed, amusingly titled "Tolerance Should Be Extended to All," a column praising up and coming Republican state senator Michele Bachmann, who has done her best to shut down all business in the state (including blocking a sorely needed bonding bill) if the legislature doesn't pass her pet project, outlawing legal protection of any sort of relationship between gays--never mind marriage, she also wants to outlaw civil unions. Ms. Kersten is scolding the people countering Ms. Bachmann for being "intolerant" of her. As Clever Peasantry says here:
Uh, no. Personally, I never admire people for their firm and courageous insistence on bigotry.
Happy Katherine ends with this gem:What made me spew my Shredded Wheat across the breakfast table when I read Katherine Kersten's column was this remark:Here's the irony: It's self-styled advocates of "tolerance" who have shouted Bachmann down at community meetings, and waved signs at rallies that say "Go to hell, Michele." Tactics like these expose them for what they are: folks who advocate tolerance for the other guy, but not for themselves.This may be the stupidest thing I have ever read. Let me get this straight: Party A suggests an idea that is anathema to Party B; in response to said idea, Party B attacks Party A; Party A then complains that Party B is intolerant of Party A's intolerance of Party B; major newspaper columnist writes a column that is completely void of the dispute's content (from either side); said column is complete with single source information from Party A; columnist complains about the irony of selective indignation; readers' heads explode from double irony of selectively indignant columnist writing about irony of selective indignation. Oh well, Katherine and Michele are only human...most people really don't like it when other folks point out the ugly pictures.
And for those of you who still think that Mrs. Bachmann has any substance of value...please click here and enjoy the overflowing wealth of information.
In today's fractious political climate, says Bachmann, "you need three things as a legislator to get anything done. You need to know who you are and what you believe, and you need to have a backbone of titanium."That's like saying we admire George Wallace for his courage in standing at the doors of the University of Alabama to block the admittance of two black students, thundering "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever."
Courage is indispensable, and Bachmann has that in spades.
Uh, no. Personally, I never admire people for their firm and courageous insistence on bigotry.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-15 03:28 pm (UTC)She replied and said:
Well, why in hell didn't she say so in the article, rather than moan how nursing cuts into a woman's job-time in astronaut training?
: is baffled
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-15 03:39 pm (UTC)They really should have "stupid" editors who can point it out before it goes to print. It never ceases to amaze me how far these people can get in life even with "stupid" painted on their forhead.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-15 05:39 pm (UTC)No biography, no list of "issues," but the contributions page is working all right.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-15 09:01 pm (UTC)after all, believing completely in one party's ideology is an intolerance all in itself.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-15 10:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-16 03:35 am (UTC)I should clarify that I understand that some religions look askance at gays and consider them morally sinful. As a supporter of religious liberties, I recognize that churches have the right to do that (although, yeah, I still think they're bigoted). But what Michele Bachmann is trying to do is to extend her religious understanding to the civil power of the state to recognize contracts such as marriage. I distinguish between religious marriage and civil marriage. Churches can decide what they like (and I hope that believers will challenge the church from within). But within the civil purview of the state, I believe in equal protection under the law.
I poked around a bit, looking at various definitions of the word "bigot." Wikipedia discusses the term as follows:
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own. Bigot is often used as pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these prejudices are challenged, often engaging these prejudices in a rude and intolerant manner. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology, like racism, religion, and nationalism. Bigotry is not "intolerance," but "unreasonable intolerance." For example, some Jews may be intolerant of Nazi Anti-Semitism; that doesn't necessarily make them anti-Nazi bigots. A bigot will continue to hold these opinions even when confronted with evidence that challenges such stereotypes. To protect his views, he may either dismiss the challenges he encounters as an aberration to the norm and ignore the fact that they threaten to undercut his prejudices.
More about Michele Bachman here.
And one more thing: yeah, I think Michele Bachmann is a bigot. Guess what: I used to hold (a much more inchoate) version of the same views myself, and I absolutely consider my former opinions to be bigoted. I'm not condemning her any more sternly than I condemn my former self.
But bigots can change. I did. Near the end of his life, George Wallace sought out the civil rights leaders he had so strenuously opposed and asked for their forgiveness. He had come to understand that he was wrong.
I hope someday Michele Bachman will do the same.
I don't think bigots will change until their reasoning is challenged.
In the meantime, I don't want her pulling any more of her fancy stunts to shut down the business of the state, in order to amend the state constitution to deny civil rights to ordinary people who are just asking to be allowed to form families and to be treated equally under the law (and who can't even marry under present state law anyway).
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-16 04:05 am (UTC)But still, that is beside my real point. My real point is that, if you consider people against gay marriage to be bigots, then isn't it logical to suggest that people against polygamy and non-reproductive incest are also bigots? So do you support polygamy, then?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-16 12:22 pm (UTC)On the other hand, a very dear friend of mine recently tried it, and her marriage was utterly destroyed within six months.
I am further wary of answering, however, for two reasons. First, comparing gay marriage to polygamy is comparing apples to oranges (that is why slippery slope is a logical fallacy). To take one issue, children, wIth polygamy, you get stories like this about the treatment of children, whereas the American Academy of Pediatrics, after careful study, has determined that children raised in gay families fare just as well children raised in straight families.
Secondly, I simply don't believe your contention that it [polygamy, incest] "would very much become a reality." Where are the chanting crowds of thousands of angry polygamists holding signs outside Massachussetts courthouses, holding signs saying "You gave marriage to faggots, now give it to us"? It simply isn't going to happen.
I can see perfectly well that you are inviting me to step into a rhetorical trap. Say "I reject polygamy" and you can say, "Yo, bigot." Say "I support bigamy" and you can say, "yo, sick deviant." I refuse to play that game.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-16 02:21 pm (UTC)And again, there may not be people asking for polygamy now, but it certainly could happen if gays were granted the right to marry. Consider that there weren't exactly many people asking for gay marriage 50 years ago either. What makes you think that in 50 years from now no one will want polygamy legalized? Although in reality, it only takes one person to bring up a court case questioning the legality of polygamy. With the precedent of gay marriage, there really is no reason for it to remain illegal, and most judges would rule accordingly. If we don't have that gay marriage precedent, however, it is a lot easier to maintain the status quo in regards to marriage regulations.
And even if the legality of polygamy were to never come into question (which is really quite impossible), then how can you personally say it is "fair" to allow gays to marry but not polygamists? You need to draw the line somewhere. Since literally millenia of common law and common sense sets the standard at a union between a man and a woman, the line should be drawn there.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-16 03:26 pm (UTC)Look at it this way: your argumental fallacy can completely be turned around. It can be argued that if you believe in heterosexual marriage, then obviously you must support polygamy, because polygamist relationships set up even more male-female relationships. More must be better, right? Ergo, if you support heterosexual marriage, it's a slippery slope to "hyper-heterosexuality," i.e., polygamy. But wait a minute: we have to draw the line somewhere--perhaps it's better not to allow heterosexuals to marry at all.
And no, I don't buy this argument, any more than I buy that homosexual marriage will lead to polygamy. It's a fallacy.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-16 09:00 pm (UTC)And no, the argument can't at all be turned around. I don't support a generalized heterosexual marriage. I support a marriage between a man and a woman. That's where the line has been drawn for centuries, and that's where it should remain. Otherwise, we will be looking at legal polygamy, among other things, in the next several decades.
If you made any change to the definition of marriage, there will be no end to the changes. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who I am sure knows more about judicial proceedings in the US than either you or I, also very much supports the notion that gay marriage would certainly not be the limit to the evolution of the definition of marriage, if it were to be made legal.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-16 10:22 pm (UTC)Yes, I am aware that Scalia has yoked the concepts of gay marriage with polygamy. It is a very useful scare tactic that has been extremely successful in raising money to fight gay marriage.
I am not minimizing that the idea of gay marriage really frightens people. There are plenty of good people in this country who believe that allowing gay marriage means a breakdown of moral order. I have argued with enough people in my family to know this. Change is really hard.
But I also think that at least on the issue of gay marriage, change will be inevitable. I will not argue the issue of polygamy here with you any further, because I suspect neither of us will convince the other. I don't think it's the responsibility of gay couples to deny themselves their own civil rights to be treated equally under the law in order to somehow mysteriously thwart polygamists. Why do I think that change is inevitable? Because I think that it may take Americans a long time (and my god on some racial issues it has taken hundreds of years), but ultimately they always do side with what is just. The argument for gay marriage is simple fairness. "We must do things the way we have always done them, and we've done it this way for centuries" was an argument used both to defend slavery and Jim Crow and to deny women the right to vote. Simple justice, in those cases, won out in the end.
And I will leave it at that. I am afraid we must simply agree to disagree.
Time alone will tell in the end who will prevail.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 12:08 am (UTC)Heterosexual marriage, as it currently stands, is the status quo, and it has been for millenia. In terms of how the American court system works, polygamy is not a logical result of heterosexual marriage because, like gay marriage, polygamy is not the status quo. However, if you do deviate from the current definition of marriage by allowing gay marriage, then there will be no limit to what relationships may be considered a marriage. Most people think the line should be drawn at a man and a woman. Some people, like you, think it should be drawn at two people of any gender. Yet other people think it should be drawn at the union of any number of people. And yet others between sisters and brothers, and others between...etc, etc. Legally speaking, if you make any sort of change to the legal definition of marriage, there is absolutely no reason for the courts to rule virtually any type of marriage illegal.
Think of it this way: I am against gay marriage and you are for it; I am for preserving the status quo, and you are for a change. Then say gay marriage becomes legal and quickly becomes the status quo. Now some group starts lobbying for polygamy to be legal. At this point you are for preserving the status quo (i.e. straight and gay marriage of two people) and the polygamists are for a change -- a similar relationship between the stances you and I are taking, isn't it? Just because you personally draw the line at gay marriage doesn't mean everyone else will. I draw the line at the current definition of marriage because it is backed by generation upon generation of common law and common sense. It is not possible to just make one small change without opening the door for numerous others.
And lastly, even if legal polygamy were not to occur naturally as a result of gay marriage (which, like I've said, is impossible), by what moral and ethical reasoning can you support gay marriage and not polygamy? That you have yet to answer.
And I never said gays will never be able to marry; they probably will eventually. And with other liberal ideals prevailing over the next century, the US probably won't be the same world power it is today. Yes, things do indeed change.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 01:29 am (UTC)Polygamy is easily not allowed due to the complexities which would arise in the legal aspects of marriage. The concepts of paternity/maternity, inheritance, legal decision-making, family rights, divorce, adoption, finances, and the entire structure of the legal and financial considerations of marriage, to name a few general things, would completely fail if the legal definition of marriage were changed to include polygamy. This is not to say that it could not possibly be done, but a number of legal problems prevent it from happening. On the other hand, gay marriage does not affect these things at all, only requiring changes in wording in paperwork.
The major problem with the argument that allowing gay marriage will allow any form of relationship to be "marriage" is that most of the commonly used examples are against other foundations and laws of the legal system. Child marriage cannot happen because children do not have the ability to make legal decisions nor consent, nor do the parents of these children have the ability to make certain decisions for them. Bestiality cannot happen because animals do not have those kind of legal rights nor the ability to consent. Incest cannot happen because the legal relationship between the two people is already "brother/sister," "cousin" or whatnot and cannot be redefined as "married." Any other kind of relationship will hit similar problems. Gay marriage does not run into these problems nor cause complications in increased complexity or paperwork.
As for ethical and moral reasoning to support gay marriage and not support polygamy, there is a lot, and I would ask you to read up on polygamy and ethics/religion before randomly throwing it out there in your argument. It obviously depends on religion, but an example that I have heard is from a Muslim organization: polygamy is not allowed due to the fact that one husband cannot act fairly and equally to each of his wives and their children, and jealousy / emotional abuse / arguments are likely to break out and cause unequal treatment (in Islam, polygamy was only intended to retain legal rights for widows and orphans via marriage, though many groups have used that rule to do other forms of polygamy) On the other hand, gay marriage does not run into such problems.
On a final note, heterosexual marriage being the status quo for millenia is a misuse of the concept of marriage, as the current social and legal concept has not been along that long. Also, as for the US not being the same world power in the next century, that is more likely going to be due to problems with the current slant in economics and foreign policy than anything to do with "liberal ideas" (as bad ideas on any side of the spectrum could be a problem) or gay marriage.
Personally, I feel that if "marriage" is a religious term that varies from religion to religion, then the government shouldn't use it. Use "civil union" for all relationships, and leave marriage to an individual's church. Of course, I don't expect this to happen or even want it to happen, but if everyone is so offended by gay marriage but OK with civil unions, then the government should put them all into one category.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 01:48 am (UTC)Your other points regarding how marriage would not work between various groups are valid, but this one is not. There is no reason, in regards to how legal records work, why a brother or sister could not marry. The only valid issue would obviously be the fact that siblings make a dangerous genetic combination if they were to procreate. But then you must consider the instance when, say, the siblings are infertile and want to marry. What is the reason against their marriage?
As for your ethical argument against polygamy, well, that isn't really valid. Saying that a husband can't treat his wives equally is like saying that a gay person won't respect his same-sex spouse as much as a person of the opposite sex would. It is entirely dependent on the individuals involved. Just because you can't envison a group of people living happily in a polygamous relationship doesn't mean it cannot happen. So again, there is no argument against polygamy if we do decide to go ahead and change the definition of marriage.
Marriage as it is today in the United States may not be EXACTLY like marriage was in say, Roman times, but it is still a similar situation. My main point in that regard is that a union between one man and one woman has been accepted as the universal definition for centuries. Just because the actual relationship between those two individuals involved has changed somewhat over time does not mean that the actual definition of marriage has changed.
And I agree, the current slant in economics and foreign policy is a problem. A problem instigated primarily by an increasingly liberal mindset. But that's of course an argument for a different day.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 02:13 am (UTC)The brother/sister also causes problems in the same regards of complexity, but as I said, that shouldn't be part of this legal argument. Legally, marriage creates a relationship between two legally unrelated people - though brother/sister may not be strongly legally related, they indeed have legal relations between them in many aspects of life. If one is really afraid of the possibility of sibling marriage, then it would be easy to strengthen these definitions further. Looking at the issue that you bring up, that is, dangerous genetic combinations, if that issue were considered important in the legal arena and considered the legal grounds for not allowing sibling marriage, then the concept of infertility would not apply, because arguing infertility is not enough to get around a framework that prevents such marriages nor enough to constitutionally challenge such a framework. Finally and perhaps most importantly, no such challenge would be heard by the Supreme Court due to lack of even occurrences and public support, thus preventing it entirely. If the US public began to rally around it and more people tried to do it, would it be heard by the Supreme Court? Perhaps, but that won't happen anytime soon, and would happen whether or not gay marriage is allowed.
Also, marriage is not a similar situation at all, taking into account concepts of sex, love, legality, family, gender, and other things that have changed legally and socially, not to mention the recent creation of certain legal aspects of marriage and its use within the constitution and laws of the US.
Finally, as for current slant in economics and foreign policy, unless you mean "liberal" in the "neo-liberal" globalization sense, then perhaps you are right. On the other hand, if you mean liberal in the US politics sense, then you run into problems as the currently rising countries are more liberal in many respects than we are - as I have stated, it is neither the liberals nor the conservatives but the assumptions on both sides that cause the problems.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 03:20 am (UTC)That may be so, but since you argue gays have a right to get married, don't you think polygamists should also have that right and that the system should be more accomodating of them? Simply, if you believe marriage is a right being denied to homosexuals, then isn't that right also being denied to polygamists and such? You say no, but only because the system would have a difficult time accomodating them. However, that is not a reason to deny a right, correct?
"Perhaps, but that won't happen anytime soon, and would happen whether or not gay marriage is allowed."
It'd be a lot easier to lobby for later marriage changes by saying "the gays did it, why can't we!?"
And in regards to marriage, once again those changes may be significant, but the fundamental idea of marriage -- a union between a man and a woman -- is still the same.
"Rising countries" is relative. If the US took a more conservative, isolationist stance in regards to foreign policy, then I am certain we could prolong our existence as a world power. But again, a different debate for a different day.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 04:20 am (UTC)Different anon.
Date: 2005-06-17 02:49 am (UTC)Well. Since no one's said it, I will: Yes, allow the definition of civil marriage to include incest among infertile siblings, and allow polygamy. There's your answer. I don't want to debate this because it isn't the point of my post.
However, as
You say:
Think of it this way: I am against gay marriage and you are for it; I am for preserving the status quo, and you are for a change. Then say gay marriage becomes legal and quickly becomes the status quo. Now some group starts lobbying for polygamy to be legal. At this point you are for preserving the status quo (i.e. straight and gay marriage of two people) and the polygamists are for a change -- a similar relationship between the stances you and I are taking, isn't it?
Well, actually, no. If you take even the least nuanced view at the relationships, which Republicans are so terrified of doing, youāll see that they are similar only on the most superficial of levels. They are similar in the way that tax cuts for the richest Americans and increased social security benefits for the poor are similar; theyāre both new stuff vaguely related to the economy. But I see youāve used the same underhanded rhetorical device that conservatives seem so very fond of exploiting; youāve fabricated a connection which is utterly irrelevant to the substance at hand.
You also say:
Since literally millenia of common law and common sense sets the standard at a union between a man and a woman, the line should be drawn there.
Another logical fallacy. āThis is the way itās been, so letās keep doinā it this way.ā Not to mention, āI think I will ignore the repressed, opressed LGBT men and women that have suffered because of this social institution, because they havenāt had an opportunity to be as vocal in mainstream American politics in the past.ā Brilliant.
You also say:
With the precedent of gay marriage, there really is no reason for it [polygamy] to remain illegal, and most judges would rule accordingly.
Not that you have any factual basis to proclaim how many judges would rule for or against legalizing polygamy, but do you actually think that the judges are so devoted to upholding precedent and so insolated against public opinion and so secure in their positions that they would legalize polygamy? If so, you have much more faith in judges than I do, faith which I think is misguided and frankly delusional, considering the history of the American judiciary.
In summary: Your logic is fundamentally flawed, and your rhetoric is nonsensical. The question you originally posed, if phrased differently (i.e. without the attitude and accusatory tone), might be a good one. But not as is. Try again.
Re: Different anon.
Date: 2005-06-17 03:28 am (UTC)Most conservatives today are like the liberals of a century ago. So yes, the country is getting more liberal.
"...tax cuts for the richest Americans..."
Sorry, when you say something like that, you are automatically cataloged as a liberal flamer.
"Well. Since no one's said it, I will: Yes, allow the definition of civil marriage to include incest among infertile siblings, and allow polygamy. There's your answer. I don't want to debate this because it isn't the point of my post."
Okay, and if that is the case, then we simply need to agree to disagree. I don't support either of those two possible definitions of marriage. That's a divide between each of our beliefs that cannot be bridged.
"Not that you have any factual basis to proclaim how many judges would rule for or against legalizing polygamy, but do you actually think that the judges are so devoted to upholding precedent and so insolated against public opinion and so secure in their positions that they would legalize polygamy? If so, you have much more faith in judges than I do, faith which I think is misguided and frankly delusional, considering the history of the American judiciary."
National public opinion is not in support of gay marriage, yet you still see activist judges trying to legalize it, do you not? Activist judges are dangerous, and they are the ones who would attempt to legalize polygamy.
Re: Different anon.
Date: 2005-06-17 04:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 03:07 am (UTC)*Is speechless for about an hour* *Takes a deep breath and says with as much politeness as can be mustered* How long have you been reading my journal? I trained myself to become a legal secretary by learning to assist my husband, a general solo practitioner. I have been earning my living as a legal secretary for twenty years in a national firm. I have worked for twenty different attorneys in seven or eight different practice areas. I spent four years researching the history of gay civil rights in the process of writing my second novel, The Wild Swans, which was published by a major publishing house and quite well received, thank you very much. I have avidly read all aspects of the legal progress of gay civil rights for years and I keep abreast of court cases on this subject across the country.
I venture to say that I have as solid a "functional understanding of the American judicial system" as most Americans out there.
Your fuller explanation of why you believe someone who supports gay marriage should somehow be required to support polygamy is interesting, and I think I understand your reasoning a little better, but I still fail to find it persuasive. Honestly, I'm going to step back and let other voices carry the discussion at least for tonight. (As for myself, I'm going to simply concentrate on deep calming breaths for awhile.) Thank you for acknowledging that I have firm moral beliefs at least; I appreciate your efforts in keeping the discussion for the most part civil.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 03:35 am (UTC)But yes, it appears we will need to agree to disagree. I fully respect your argument and appreciate the chance to debate with you.
This discussion is getting somewhat too time consuming now with two more participants. :p
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 04:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-16 06:36 pm (UTC)Just read the article
Date: 2005-06-17 03:56 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 03:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 03:35 am (UTC)Yeah, We Better Be Careful...
Date: 2005-06-17 01:37 am (UTC)Re: Yeah, We Better Be Careful...
Date: 2005-06-19 05:11 am (UTC)Re: Yeah, We Better Be Careful...
Date: 2005-06-19 05:24 am (UTC)Re: Yeah, We Better Be Careful...
Date: 2005-06-19 05:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 04:19 am (UTC)Polygamy and gay marriage have nothing to do with each other, and until you can prove that they do, this discussion is unnecessary. However, I will restate: gay marriage fits into the current legal framework of marriage without any change in law or policy, and thus there is no reason to not allow members of the same sex to enter that agreement. Whether one thinks that polygamy is right or not, it would require a huge change in the legal structure of marriage benefits to accomodate for polygamy, thus creating a problem for polygamists in that the very framework of the legal definition of marriage is built around two people and not a complex network. Despite the common argument that marriage laws were intended for a male and a female, there are no legal reasons why two members of the same sex could not enter into legal marriage, while having three people married to each other creates problems with marriage benefits that give special and unique privileges to the spouse that would cause huge legal problems if more than one person occuppied that position.
Let's say that public opinion shifts towards supporting polygamy in 50 years. What would happen? Well, it depends on how the legal system reacts, but if polygamy were to be accomodated, they would have to either change all laws to assign importance to one head wife or head husband, have to figure out which kind of polygamy (polygyny or polyandry, or both), and/or redefine benefits in a way that does not cause ambiguity with spouse rights and how benefits are given. This would have to change the legal definition of marriage or create two or more types of marriage - monogamous & polygamous. None of these things have a correlate to the current gay marriage debate - allowing two people of the same sex to enter the current framework is much different than altering the entire structure.
However, that is not a reason to deny a right, correct?
Giving one right to set of people does not correlate to giving another right; if it did, then the right to religion would mean that a religious group could torture animals for their rituals - they cannot do this due to animal cruelty restrictions that will not be truly challenged with the current legal framework.
It'd be a lot easier to lobby for later marriage changes by saying "the gays did it, why can't we!?"
People in past argued the same for interracial marriage, but you don't see marriage go down a "slippery slope" nor see any weakening of "American values" as they claimed would happen. You don't see illegal immigrants going "hey, women and blacks got the ability to vote, why can't we!?" because the ability to vote is based on citizenship, just as marriage is based on the requirement that the participants have the legal right to consent to enter the framework of marriage, preventing bestiality, child marriage, etc.
the fundamental idea of marriage -- a union between a man and a woman -- is still the same.
The idea of a family structure in which the wife should have complete obedience to the husband has been fundamental and the same for centuries as well - does that mean that we shouldn't have changed this "fundamental" idea of the family structure, and that we shouldn't have rallied for equal rights for women?
I was going to respond to the "different debate for a different day", but my comment was too long, so we'll leave that to later (I actually was going to partially agree with you if you mean practical military isolationist)
Thus:
(1) The argument here is gay marriage, not polygamy; we can continue to discuss it, but the basic fact is that there are no real legal reasons to not allow gay monogamous marriage. I would like to hear some of what you consider to be legal reasons against it.
(2) There is no legal basis for the slippery slope, as each change must go through the same motions, and each case is decided by itself and the Supreme Court and legislative branches do a good job at ensuring that only the correct kind of precedence is maintained.
(3) There are reasons against various kinds of marriage that overrule marriage laws - the rights of children, the rights of animals, etc. There is no legal reason against gay marriage.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 05:14 am (UTC)Interracial marriage is not in anyway biologically abnormal. Nor does race play as much of a historical role in marriage restrictions as does the age-old social belief and biological norm that a marriage consists of one man and one woman. There is no valid comparison between the push for interracial marriage and the push for gay marriage.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 01:48 pm (UTC)The slippery slope notion is neither logical nor bound to happen and is not supported by any historical precedence. Could you give an example?
Also, please note that the slippery slope idea could easily be used against your position as well - if we don't allow gays to marry, who are we going to deny rights to next?
Also, entire catalogues have been compiled of homosexual relationships both historically and in the animal kingdom, so calling it biologically abnormal is baseless. Could you explain how it is abnormal and prove how?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 02:40 pm (UTC)And yet, I wish to point out that we protect all sorts of things under the law that are "mere choices," too. Religion is chosen, and political thought is chosen, and they are protected. I suspect that the wrangling will last for years over the origins of homosexuality, and the root causes will be shown to be a combination of nature and nurture.
But equal protection is equal protection. And even if homosexuality is shown to be entirely "chosen" (which I suspect is unlikely) I would argue that it still deserves to be fully protected, just as other protected rights that stem from choice do, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
And note: we now allow interracial marriage, even though nobody is arguing that some people have a biological "natural" imperative to mate with people of certain races. That is a choice that is respected unde the law.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 09:33 pm (UTC)Just because it happens among animals doens't make it normal either. Biologists often classify traits as favorable or unfavorable depending on how they affect the species. Homosexuality can be said to reduce the reproductive rate of a species, making it an undesirable trait stemming from some abnormal mutation (assuming it isn't a choice). However, that, of course, is no reason to discriminate -- people have the right to be gay. But it also isn't a reason to allow homosexuals to marry.
Consider this: homosexuals aren't being denied any right. Homosexuals are allowed to marry just like heterosexuals can -- neither a homosexual nor a heterosexual can marry someone of the same gender. However, both a homosexual and a heterosexual can marry someone of the opposite gender. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same rights in regards to marriage. Just because homosexuals decide not to exercise their right to marry someone of the opposite sex doesn't mean we should modify the laws to accomodate them.
"Also, please note that the slippery slope idea could easily be used against your position as well - if we don't allow gays to marry, who are we going to deny rights to next?"
Not really, because by not allowing homosexuals to marry, we aren't chaging anything. We are just maintaining the status quo.
Any precedence of change in the definition of marriage will open the door for numerous other evolutions of marriage.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 09:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 10:45 pm (UTC)You have obviously never taken a course on animal behavior, and you knowledge of evolutionary genetics leaves much to be desired; reproductive rate of a species is not the only factor, and many species have members that do not reproduce.
The concept of marriage has changed to one in which two people that love each other are joined in a legal agreement. Previously, marriage was more about numerous other things, such as family respect, power, money, and legality (see the poster's link for a discussion of this.) Thus, homosexuals are denied a right in that their monogamous relationships are not considered to be at the same legal level as the exact same relationships as heterosexual couples, placing such couples on a second tier of society, a practice which has precedence for being unconstitutional.
Maintaining the status quo is a slippery slope - what if we need change, or if the status quo is denying rights to people? In that respect, you enter a "slippery slope" of complete refusal to change any "traditional" system within the law, despite changes in society.
You have yet to show any proof of the slippery slope idea or the idea that it will open the door for numerous other evolutions of marriage. You also have not shown how the legal marriage is changed by homosexual marriage beyond the "male-female" idea. Instead of repeating the same vague points, what you need to do is:
(1) Show an example of the slippery slope in previous judicial decisions.
(2) Show how homosexuality is abnormal.
(3) Show any negative effects of homosexuality.
(4) Show a legal reason that denying the right of marriage to gay relationships (a) does not put them on a lower level as heterosexual relationships (b) is necessary due to legal precedence.
To do this, you would have to quote serious sources and not just make claims. To warn you, I have degrees in psychology and biology and have studied more religion than most people, so the chance of gaining ground on any of those fields is nil without some form of strong journal article, and I can tell you now that you will not be able to find any biological / psychological study that backs you up (except for those that are so flawed that psychologists of all politic affiliations disregard them.)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-18 07:42 pm (UTC)Riiiiight, and just because black people refuse to pass for white doesn't mean we have to accommodate them either by letting them eat at our lunch counters. Just because women refuse to pass as men doesn't mean we have to accommodate them by giving them the vote. Just because Deaf people refuse to pass for hearing doesn't mean we have to accommodate them .
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 02:25 pm (UTC)On the contrary, in this country, at least, the issue of racial restrictions probably played a greater role than the issue of one man one woman vs. polygamy. I heard in the news this week that 4700 people in the country were lynched, and a very great percentage of those murders had to do with the racial/sexual taboo, i.e., that whites feared that blacks were consorting sexually with white women. I doubt that the number of people murdered for practicing polygamy is anywhere as close.
And as for the "age-old social belief and biological norm" that marriage is between one man and one woman, well, that doesn't hold up, either. Polygamy is thousands of years old and is practiced around the world today. It's in the Bible. And in fact anthropologists theorize that through much of human historical development, human beings were naturally polygynist, i.e., forming family groups based upon one male mating with several females.
There is no valid comparison between the push for interracial marriage and the push for gay marriage. On the contrary, there is an enormous similarity. The adherents plead for justice, for the right to marry those to whom they are honestly attracted, and the opponents argue religion, convention, history and disgust at the very idea. They are exactly analogous.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-17 09:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-19 05:20 am (UTC)I'm sorry, I wasn't going to respond to this, it's a deep disagreement, we can all see this, I should just let it lie, but STOP ARGUING WITH FALLACIES!
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html
This might help you a little bit. You're using at appeal to tradition fallacy. That link explains it and gives examples.
While we probably shouldn't be arguing at all (I uses we in the general sense, the other people who have responded to you generally share my views on this topic), at least do everyone the courtesy of making a logical argument rather than a fallacious. Please.