Defending gay marriage

[taxidriver]

How would any of you respond to this allegation against gay marriage:

"If we change the standards of what marriage is, we open the law to be susceptable to polygamy, incestual relationships, blah blah blah..."

the argument being that if the only requirement for marriage is love/commitment, which is the way many gays and lesbians see it, than multiple partners could be committed, as could a child and an adult.

I know this post will make me look a little dumb, but i am having a hard time arguing about the precedent-changing aspect, b/c I don't really know how all law stuff works. any help would be appreciated.

[Maat]

1. There is a child safety argument that is the basis of our laws..

related to child abuse. That means that no only does the state have a rational or important interest in preventing/punishing sexual relationships between adults and children, it has a compelling one. The same could be argued, to a lesser extent re polygamy or incestuous relationships. Therefore, laws against the other behaviors will always survive. I know, as a law student and ex-social-worker. That is why there argument that gay marriage (which harms no one, and actually helps society) is so, so, so bogus.

[malatesta1137]

2. whoever

compares homosexuality to polygamy, incestuous relationships, or bestiality etc etc should be institutionalized. DO NOT WASTE the time of day with these 'morans'.

[Maat]

3. Absolutely you're correct.

But their argument can easily be refuted from a legal point of view, as well.

[jono]

4. There are other requirements

to marriage, like that you be the AGE of LEGAL CONSENT and UNRELATED. Gay marriage does not change any of those parts of the law; rather, gay marriage minimizes gender-based inequalities that have been an inherently unconstitutional aspect of the tradition of civil marriage.

[Mattforclark]

5. You could point out that it is a logical fallacy

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

If you are arguing with someone who cares about logic, then that might help. But anyone who would say something like that is probably not particularly logically minded anyway, so you're not going to convince them by much of any argument that you may make.

[taxidriver]

6. um, every example that link gives for fallacious slippery slopes...

has occured one time or another. Thanks, though.

[The Shadow]

7. The Trouble With Anti-Gay Marriage Argument Is That....

Polygamy, incestuous relationships, blah blah blah... have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of gay marriage.These lame arguments are nothing more than diversions from the matter at hand.They are possibly merely homophobic, perhaps even perverse images of what some may visualize when the topic of gay marriage is broached.

My life didn't change in the least the minute gays were allowed to marry, contrary to what I had been told by all of those concerned reporters and politicians. I'm disappointed, dang! I thought my life would change somehow.

I am still heterosexual, I haven't noticed any change in my sexual preference, have you? I still don't want to marry my dog (Rick Santorum mentioned this) I mean, I like him and all, but what would my girlfriend think?

It comes down to this, if it means that life partners can visit one another in the hospital, have health insurance, make important legal decisions for one another as married couples have the right to do, I'm all for it.

I'm am sure there are many other reasons why this may be important to gays, but I think most of all, if this will provide them with a sense of dignity at home and in public, then it is the right thing to do.

As far as religion is concerned, that should be decided by the parishioners themselves, not the government. What I speak of here are the social aspects not, the religious.

[rumguy]

8. polygamy is a separate argument

this is about equal protection

Marriage as it is defined now is between two people, a man and a woman. However, for equal protection purposes a man/man or woman/woman also have the right to marry. It's between two people.

Now if polygamy were ever made legal for heterosexuals, it would also have to be legal for gays and lesbians - once again equal protection.

Those that argue this opens the door to incest are like those who say that the Abu Graib phots were just "porn".

[BattyDem]

9. Equal protection under the law

That's what the issue of gay marriage is about.


Right now, "everyone" has the right to get married. An adult can marry any other adult - as long as they are of the opposite sex. Well ... that's ridiculous! We would never stand for it if the government suddenly told us we couldn't marry someone of another religion, race, nationality or ethnic background, so why should they tell us what gender our spouse should be? As it stands nows, the "right" to get married is automatically discriminatory against homosexuals because it does not allow anyone to take a spouse of the same gender if they so choose!

By changing the law and allowing gays and lesbians to marry who they love, the government will be providing equal protection under the law, which is what it's supposed to do. Every adult would have the right to be married to one other adult at any given time, regardless of religion, race, nationality or ethnic background.

As for the arguments about society being forced to allow all sorts of "unconventional" marriages if homosexuals are allowed to marry ...

-- Outlawing bigamy or polygamy is not discriminatory because no one, straight or gay, would be allowed to marry more than one person at any given time - the law would be applied to everyone equally.

-- Outlawing incest is not discriminatory because no one, straight or gay, would be allowed to engage in incest - the law would be applied to everyone equally.

-- Outlawing bestiality and sex with children is not discriminatory because no one, straight or gay, would be allowed to engage in either activity for one very simple reason: consent. Neither children nor animals have the intellectual capacity to give consent and because both are literally at the mercy of the adults who give them food and shelter, any "consent" that's given is not consent at all - it's coercion ... it's rape. Two adults having sex is romance; an adult having sex with a child or a dog is rape ... and people who don't understand the difference between romance and rape have got a very serious problem.

Allowing gays and lesbians to marry is not going to change the lives of anyone except the two people involved. If they make the commitment to share their lives with each other, they should have all the legal protections and privileges that straight couples have. Of course, then another argument surfaces ...

"What about the children? Their lives will be ruined!"

Well that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard! Gay couples are already raising children all over the country! They're doing it without marriage, so why would allowing them to get married suddenly endanger the welfare of the children when they're already being raised by gay parents? In reality, it will help the children. It's gives the entire family legal protection, insurance benefits and plenty of other rights that married couples take for granted.

Preventing gays and lesbians from getting married has nothing to do with "protecting" marriage because marriage doesn't need protecting - it's doing just fine. Even though it has taken some serious hits - such as divorce, adultery and those stupid reality shows - marriage prevails. Allowing more people to participate doesn't make it weaker, it makes it stronger.

JMHO :)

By the way, for those who don't already know, the arguments against gay marriage are identical to the arguments against interracial marriage:

"It's illicit and immoral sex ... it's contrary to God's will ... it's unnatural ..." -- Sound familiar? :eyes:

There's a very interesting article about it at the History News Network. Here's the link