Supreme Court grants gay marriage cases

[GhostWriter16]

For the record, regarding the "Gay marriage will lead to (Polygamy/incest/pedophilia/bestiality)" "Slippery slope", which is commonly discussed, I think its at least worth discussing the implications for polygamy and incest (Both of which can theoretically in some cases be consensual) as I think that's actually a valid use of the slippery slope, as they all deal with, at least theoretically, consensual relationships. That's a very different issue than the pedophilia/bestiality ones, which are an absurd use of the slippery slope since homosexuality/polygamy/incest all can be consensual (With homosexuality being the most likely and incest being the least likely) while pedophilia and bestiality never are.

 

[History_Buff]

They also haven't practiced polygamy in over a hundred years, IIRC.

Yeah, I don't mean to pick on Mormons for polygamy. At the very least, it has been against official church policy since the 1890's I think.

 

[Zack]

For the record, regarding the "Gay marriage will lead to (Polygamy/incest/pedophilia/bestiality)" "Slippery slope", which is commonly discussed, I think its at least worth discussing the implications for polygamy and incest (Both of which can theoretically in some cases be consensual) as I think that's actually a valid use of the slippery slope, as they all deal with, at least theoretically, consensual relationships. That's a very different issue than the pedophilia/bestiality ones, which are an absurd use of the slippery slope since homosexuality/polygamy/incest all can be consensual (With homosexuality being the most likely and incest being the least likely) while pedophilia and bestiality never are.

There are how many states and how many countries which have legalized same-sex marriage, and amazingly none of them have even considered legalizing polygamy and incest for a moment.

 

[GhostWriter16]

There are how many states and how many countries which have legalized same-sex marriage, and amazingly none of them have even considered legalizing polygamy and incest for a moment.

I'm not even making that argument, I'm just saying that its a more applicable use of the slippery slope, since those activities are actually consensual.

I don't even think polygamy and incest should be "Illegal" if its consensual its a victimless crime and is a waste of society's resources to criminalize, but I don't think the government should recognize them as marriages.

 

[JollyRoger]

To avoid that slippery slope, we need to go to the top of the slope and ban straight marriage.

 

[Zack]

I'm not even making that argument, I'm just saying that its a more applicable use of the slippery slope, since those activities are actually consensual.

I don't even think polygamy and incest should be "Illegal" if its consensual its a victimless crime and is a waste of society's resources to criminalize, but I don't think the government should recognize them as marriages.

"Look, I don't believe this, but it's not crazy or anything to believe it..."

 

[GhostWriter16]

"Look, I don't believe this, but it's not crazy or anything to believe it..."

All I'm saying is that the relation to polygamy and incest are worth discussing, while the relation to pedophilia and bestiality is not. In other words, polygamy and incest are actually on the same slippery slope.

 

[Zack]

It's a logical fallacy for a reason, you know.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That's what I'm saying. I'm not sure it necessarily by default is in this case.

Granted, I don't really believe in the slippery slope as a valid form of argumentation. If X is right, than X should be implemented, even if it might lead to Y, which is not. But then again, I'm not a pragmatist.

I do think the question deserves to be asked though, if a man can marry another man, why exactly can't they marry multiple women or a close relative?

 

[Zack]

I do think the question deserves to be asked though, if a man can marry another man, why exactly can't they marry multiple women or a close relative?

Why do those questions need to be asked? What is the relevance?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Why do those questions need to be asked? What is the relevance?

I'm really just curious how people here would answer.

Although it may be that CFC would just answer "Fine, let them." Which is consistent but radical.

My contention is that this is exactly the reason government shouldn't be defining marriage. If any of those groups of people want a legal union, fine, but they shouldn't be getting involved in marriage, which has a specific definition that I don't believe government should change.

 

[illram]

For the record, regarding the "Gay marriage will lead to (Polygamy/incest/pedophilia/bestiality)" "Slippery slope", which is commonly discussed, I think its at least worth discussing the implications for polygamy and incest (Both of which can theoretically in some cases be consensual) as I think that's actually a valid use of the slippery slope, as they all deal with, at least theoretically, consensual relationships. That's a very different issue than the pedophilia/bestiality ones, which are an absurd use of the slippery slope since homosexuality/polygamy/incest all can be consensual (With homosexuality being the most likely and incest being the least likely) while pedophilia and bestiality never are.

This has been discussed before, and to me, it's one of those answers that is hidden in plain sight. Rather than writing it again I will shamelessly quote myself from a two year old thread:

Legalizing gay marriage can bring up interesting discussions about the socially engineered "nuclear family," i.e. how we institute a legal framework for traditional western social engineering and why. I think it's an interesting policy discussion as to why we as a society promote "traditional" marriage through various laws such as the tax code, and I think it is theoretically possible to raise a legitimate question regarding "why gay marriage but not others." Obviously, too often (or all of the time, really) it's not an honest question (e.g. Huckabee) and is merely a quick political soundbite absent of any actual critical thought.

Gay marriage neatly fits in with our current social engineering framework: two parents, one generation of kids in the house, with everyone splitting up when the kids get older and forming their own new households. Rinse, repeat. The nuclear family, (the modern idea of it, at least, without cemented gender roles) which is still the most basic family unit for a variety of economic and social reasons, remains intact with gay marriage.

Polygamy and incest don't fit that mold. Again, I am completely casting aside moral or "eww factor" considerations. I'm even ignoring Constitutional issues here--I know what a shocker. To address the social engineering/public policy question as to why gay marriage is different from polygamy and incest, I can think of a few (obvious) reasons. Polygamy is associated with male ownership of females or the conception of females as property. Males traditionally have superior property rights. Wealth becomes hoarded in continually closed families. Incest has similar and worse problems: health concerns, family sexual abuse concerns, male dominance concerns, and again the hoarding of wealth and the discouragement of social mobility, which the nuclear family is designed to encourage. From a public policy perspective there are a variety of perfectly legitimate government interests in not promoting these family structures our not recognizing them, that do not apply to gay marriage.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Fair enough. I'm not 100% sure I 100% agree with it, but its certainly a fair attempt to answer the question.

I'll have to mull it over and I may critique it at a later time.

 

[Agent327]

All I'm saying is that the relation to polygamy and incest are worth discussing, while the relation to pedophilia and bestiality is not. In other words, polygamy and incest are actually on the same slippery slope.

What exactly would be the supposed relation between gay marriage (an equal rights issue) and polygamy, incest (illegal acts, for a good reason) and what not? Seriously.

 

[GhostWriter16]

All three are at least theoretically consensual.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Not to come down too hard on GhostWriter16, but it reeks of a common conservative Christian debate tactic. It may or may not be what Ghost is going for here, but the format is generally something like this:

Conservative Christianity sets X absolute standard.
Non-CCs don't really feel compelled to obey X absolute standard.
Non-CCs will therefore become rudderless, nihilistic maniacs who will only stop raping one another long enough to eat each other.

I just simply, flat out, don't buy the idea that gay marriage will hurt anyone. Neither do a lot of other people. Possibly a very solid national majority within a decade or so.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Not to come down too hard on GhostWriter16, but it reeks of a common conservative Christian debate tactic. It may or may not be what Ghost is going for here, but the format is generally something like this:

Conservative Christianity sets X absolute standard.
Non-CCs don't really feel compelled to obey X absolute standard.
Non-CCs will therefore become rudderless, nihilistic maniacs who will only stop raping one another long enough to eat each other.

I just simply, flat out, don't buy the idea that gay marriage will hurt anyone. Neither do a lot of other people. Possibly a very solid national majority within a decade or so.

Make no mistake of it, you're going to win this one. I don't even really care anymore. I care far more for the Federal system of government at this point than I do about this issue itself. I've gotten more than enough criticism from my conservative family for my stance on this as well

Here's the argument I was going for.

Homosexuality, polygamy, and incest are all (Theoretically, in at least some cases) victimless actions. It may be that it is less likely that incest is victimless than it is that homosexuality is victimless, but theoretically, both are certainly capable of being so.

A lot of people who who would legalize gay marriage would keep incest illegal. Why? I'm seeing a possible contradiction there. If the answer is "Because its disgusting" then... in 2060 its going to be you who is seen as the "Bigot" or whatever arguments are being made now, and people are going to talk about you in a few generations the same way you guys are talking about previous ones now.

I specifically condemned the comparisons to pedophilia and bestiality, both of which are not victimless actions in any way. They ALWAYS have a victim. So using them, as some conservatives do, is the wrong slippery slope.

 

[FriendlyFire]

A lot of people who who would legalize gay marriage would keep incest illegal. Why? I'm seeing a possible contradiction there. If the answer is "Because its disgusting" then... in 2060 its going to be you who is seen as the "Bigot" or whatever arguments are being made now, and people are going to talk about you in a few generations the same way you guys are talking about previous ones now.

In 2060 I hope they will have legalised marriage for Japanese Sex robots. (You know the Japanese will go there first. That reminds me, better get me a Japanese citizenship ... wot ?)

 

[Zack]

When is incest ever victimless? How incredibly naive of you.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Homosexuality, polygamy, and incest are all (Theoretically, in at least some cases) victimless actions. It may be that it is less likely that incest is victimless than it is that homosexuality is victimless, but theoretically, both are certainly capable of being so.

Polygamy is usually associated with repression and extreme wealth and power gaps. I don't think I would be offended by polygamy other than its history. Still, it should probably be legal.

Heterosexual incest is not victimless due to the nature of genetics and birth defects. Homosexual incest is probably harmless, but I think 99.99% of the planet agrees that it's way, way out there. Consensual, adult incest should probably be legal so long as there is a 0% chance of conception. ( Sterility, same-sex, etc. ) Still, way creepy, and that's coming from me.

I specifically condemned the comparisons to pedophilia and bestiality, both of which are not victimless actions in any way. They ALWAYS have a victim. So using them, as some conservatives do, is the wrong slippery slope.

Keep in mind the homosexual was practically a synonym for pedophile for a long time. It's a bit of a sore topic both ways. I've known many otherwise decent and caring folks who sincerely believe that homosexuals are virtually all pedophiles.