This is why the Constitution Might be Amended to ban Gay Marriage

[Earthborn]

(snip) all of the arguments that apply to homosexual marriage also apply to incestuous marriage. There is only one exception. The vast majority of us think that people who want to marry their sisters are weird, icky, people.

There is another exception, and it is a fundamental one: marriage creates kinship. It is designed to treat people who are not directly related as family. An incestuous couple is by definition already family and would gain little if anything from getting married.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No one believes that. What some of us believe is that if you read the court rulings that have described the right to gay marriage and/or the simpler right to homosexual activity, there is no logical reason to say that the same right would not apply to incestuous marriages and/or activity.

And when it gets to a supreme court challenge they might have a decision that says it is wrong for any marriage between two mentally competent adults to be outlawed. We don't know what the court will decide. And I say again if you want to argue about the ethics of laws against incest vs homosexual you should start your own thread.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There is nothing in the US Constitution, or the constitutions of most states, that prohibit discrimination based on either biological sex or sexual orientation. All such laws are restricted in their application, such as a prohibition on hiring preferences based on sexual orientation.

On the other hand, there is a statement in the Constitution that all citizens are entitled to equal protection of the law. A law that allows you to marry my sister but prevents me from marrying my sister treats you and me differently. Therefore, it is unconstitutional. At least, that seems to be the reasoning applied.

Not exactly, discriminating based on family status is well established in the law. For example if you and your sister had no other family you would be able to make decisions for her estate and such, while a stranger would not. So there is no general principle that you can not discriminate on the basis of familial relationship, unlike race and sex.

This might not address why one is wrong and the other not, but it does show that a legal distinction can be shown between sex and familial status.

 

[Meadmaker]

Not exactly, discriminating based on family status is well established in the law.

I don't know how to break it to you, but discrimination based on sex is well established in the law.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If anyone read the decision on the Iowa Supreme Court case legalizing gay marriage, they noted that the equal protection clause applies to people similarly situated for the specific institution, and to exclude the defence had to show that gay couples and straight couples were sufficiently dissimilar. They found that for the purposes of marriage gays and straights were "similarly situated in every important respect".

You can't just copy and paste incestuous couples. You need to show that such couples are sufficiently similar.

Obviously, it is incredibly easy to show that they sufficiently dissimilar, and thus are not protected under equal protection.

The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.

 

[Holler Hoojer]

JFC! Why does anybody care who marries whom? Does no one have a life of their own? How does it harm me if a Black Buddhist septuagenarian male wants to marry his thirty year old Jewish brother who already has a wife and a husband? How is it even any of my business (unless they insist on having sex on the 68F bus)?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

JFC! Why does anybody care who marries whom? Does no one have a life of their own? How does it harm me if a Black Buddhist septuagenarian male wants to marry his thirty year old Jewish brother who already has a wife and a husband? How is it even any of my business (unless they insist on having sex on the 68F bus)?

From the same source:

Nevertheless, we have said our marriage laws “are rooted in the
necessity of providing an institutional basis for defining the fundamental
relational rights and responsibilities of persons in organized society.” Laws
v. Griep, 332 N.W.2d 339, 341 (Iowa 1983); see also Baehr v. Lewin, 852
P.2d 44, 58 (Haw. 1993) (stating civil marriage is “ ‘a partnership to which
both partners bring their financial resources as well as their individual
energies and efforts’ ” (quoting Gussin v. Gussin, 836 P.2d 484, 491 (Haw.
1992))). These laws also serve to recognize the status of the parties’
committed relationship. See Madison v. Colby, 348 N.W.2d 202, 206 (Iowa
1984) (stating “ ‘the marriage state is not one entered into for the purpose of
labor and support alone,’ ” but also includes “ ‘the comfort and happiness of
the parties to the marriage contract’ ” (quoting Price v. Price, 91 Iowa 693,
697–98, 60 N.W. 202, 203 (Iowa 1894)) (emphasis added)); Hamilton v.
McNeill, 150 Iowa 470, 478, 129 N.W. 480, 482 (1911) (“The marriage to be
dissolved is not a mere contract, but is a status.”); Turner v. Hitchcock, 20
Iowa 310, 325 (1866) (Lowe, C.J., concurring) (observing that marriage
changes the parties’ “legal and social status”).

The last of those is most important to the would be libertarians here. Marriage is not reducible to a mere contract between two individuals.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't know how to break it to you, but discrimination based on sex is well established in the law.

Where?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Where?

Please don't lead him onto a pedantic red herring.

 

[Meadmaker]

Obviously, it is incredibly easy to show that they sufficiently dissimilar, and thus are not protected under equal protection.

Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't realize it was obvious. Now it all makes sense to me.

Obviously, a couple that consists of two men is exactly the same as a couple that consists of a man and a woman, and that couple is exactly the same as a couple that consists of two women, but none of those couples is anything like any couples that could be described in exactly the same terms except that they share a recent common ancestor.

It's obvious!

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't realize it was obvious. Now it all makes sense to me.

Obviously, a couple that consists of two men is exactly the same as a couple that consists of a man and a woman, and that couple is exactly the same as a couple that consists of two women, but none of those couples is anything like any couples that could be described in exactly the same terms except that they share a recent common ancestor.

It's obvious!

 

[Holler Hoojer]

From the same source:



The last of those is most important to the would be libertarians here. Marriage is not reducible to a mere contract between two individuals.

The second quote is not from me. I don't know the source, but it ain't me.

 

[dafydd]

Many, gay or straight, are also weirded out by transgendered folks.

Interesting side note: all the transgendered people I know are woodwind players. Correlation or causation? hmmm...

That reminds me of an old Glaswegian term for a gay man. A player of the pink oboe.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't realize it was obvious. Now it all makes sense to me.

Obviously, a couple that consists of two men is exactly the same as a couple that consists of a man and a woman, and that couple is exactly the same as a couple that consists of two women, but none of those couples is anything like any couples that could be described in exactly the same terms except that they share a recent common ancestor.

It's obvious!

You are not as amusing as you think you are.

For one thing, incest involves people from the same immediate family. Bear with me on the obvious here a second. Two people of the same sex who are not closely related are virtually indistinguishable from two people of different sex who are not closely related for all the intents of marriage except (possibly) old fashioned baby makin' and His And Hers bath sets.

However, two who are closely related who want to marry is the sort of situation so rife with the potential for abuse and the possible history of abuse that just mentioning it will make a therapist hiss through their teeth. If a mother wants to marry her own son there's some serious issues there to be italicized. That's not the same as my thinking it's icky (I do, for the record.) That's based on a lot of really dirty business involving child abuse.

But, here's where I get all liberal about it. What if it turns out I'm wrong and incestuous relationships can be as harmless and free of abuse as typical straight marriage (not a very high bar, really?) What if it turns out that incestuous unions are no more harmful than straight ones, or gay ones? In that case, down the slippery slope I'd go to advocating legalizing it. Don't forget that sentence starts with "But." Gay marriage is something I support because it turns out every single argument to make against it falls flat except possibly the slippery slope argument, which demonstrates how weak the anti position is, because not only does cleaving to this one fallacy prove you have no other left, it also shows that you're willing to use the specter of irrelevant things that still make us wince to frighten us away from a just society. The anti gay marriage position has been reduced to conjuring tricks.










P.S. In case I was too subtle, incest is not pertinent to a gay marriage discussion. Get your own ****ing thread.

 

[pgwenthold]

I am also not aware of any place that has laws that make discrimination on the basis of "biological affinity" illegal, hence this argument does not work for incesteous relationships. (In fact, there could be no laws against incest in such a place to begin with.)

In fact, anti-nepotism restrictions are very common in government organizations, so discrimination based on "biological affinity" is allowed.

 

[Meadmaker]

And I say again if you want to argue about the ethics of laws against incest vs homosexual you should start your own thread.

I think, if you read the OP, you would find that that is the subject of this thread.

At any rate, the person who started the thread doesn't seem to think it's extratopical.

 

[ponderingturtle]

...becuse it doesn't matter what people want, the courts will magically find a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution.

Since it is crystal clear the courts simply do not care, and will simply decide any law against gay marriage is "unconstitutional", the only way for the people to have any say in the matter -- since, clearly, any laws they pass counts for nothing as far as the courts are concerned -- would be to amend the Constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage.

Perhaps it will fail and the courts will manage to force gay marriage on the public. But it is quite clear that no compromise is possible.

Nope meadmaker I don't see any incest in the OP.

 

[Lonewulf]

I still love that term. "Force" Gay Marriage on the public.

"Oh no! You're forcing me to allow two people that love each other with no health, mental, or physical detriment to marry! How dare you infringe on my right to discriminate arbitrarily!"

My heart doth weep for The Skeptic. Can't you just see how he's suffering? Why, he might just someday see two guys holding hands or... dare I say! Kissing.

The horror. The... horror.

 

[Upchurch]

My heart doth weep for The Skeptic. Can't you just see how he's suffering? Why, he might just someday see two guys holding hands or... dare I say! Kissing.

The horror. The... horror.

If you haven't read it, I highly recommend reading this post of Skeptic's. It shows, I think, where he is coming from.

I think.

 

[David Wong]

If you haven't read it, I highly recommend reading this post of Skeptic's. It shows, I think, where he is coming from.

I think.

That was one of the most baffling arguments I've ever seen in defense of anything. Trying to watch him build a chain of logic to defend his position is almost physically painful.