Unfortunately we are not responsible for giving everyone what they want, nor are we responsible for making everyone happy. We are responsible for making sure everyone has fair and equal opportunity under the law. If two gay people want to get a traditional Christian marriage and their reverend says they can't, then that is NOT the government's business. The government's business is to provide the legal rights...anything religious should be taken up with the religious leaders.
I understand that there is tradition around marriage. My point is that it's not our problem. If someone makes a lifestyle choice that excludes them from a tradition, they should be prepared to deal with the consequences. Yes, I am making an assertion that living a gay lifestyle is a choice. I am not saying BEING gay is a choice. However, you do make a choice of whether to be true to that orientation. There are things I have had to give up because of the lifestyle I identify with. I don't think this is any different.
We do not have the right to tell a religious faction that they must include all lifestyles in their practices. That is covered in religious freedom. Once gay people have the legal rights, they could very well go off and found their own faction of a religion and call their union whatever they want. The underlying problem is the government's entanglement with a religious sacrament. Until those two things are separated, this problem will never be solved.
How about we bring incest into the discussion? The "slippery slope" to polygamy was rejected on the valid grounds that it was no longer an issue of two human beings. However, what of incest?
Obviously, with both the sex and the marriage aspect, this would have to be about incest between consenting adults.
The fact that children of incestuous parents are often born deformed is perhaps adequate reason to prevent such children being born, but this does not necessitate a categorical ban on the practice of incest itself. It is also the standpoint of a eugenicist.
1. Genetic problems: When a small group continues to interbreed without bringing in some new genes we end up with problems. I know there are some genetic dieseases that are very common in the Amish communities but are extremly rare in larger groups.
2. Circle-Jerk: When a group interbreeds it suffers the social problem of limiting its exposure to new ideas and people. Breeding with people who are different from you (genetics and ideals) helps everyone by bringing divergent groups together and breaking down social barriers. It does not happen right away but it does happen in the end.
How about we bring incest into the discussion? The "slippery slope" to polygamy was rejected on the valid grounds that it was no longer an issue of two human beings. However, what of incest?
This is an interesting point. There is or was recently a case in Germany where an adult brother and an adult sister lived as a married couple and had four children. Two of the children were perfectly healthy - the other two were not. The man was placed in jail at least once and most - if not all - of the children were removed from the home. (I would look up details of the story, but I do not want to look this up on my work computer.) Anyway, they are fighting for the right to marry and reproduce. The gist of their argument is that people should be allowed to marry and reproduce regardless of the possibility of genetic disorders being passed on to offspring. We certainly do not run DNA tests on people before deciding if they can reproduce, so there are people that mate all the time that have a higher likelihood of passing on/creating genetic disorders in their offspring. Why single out brothers, sisters, cousins, etc. Now, there is an ick factor here - but they do have a valid point.
1. Genetic problems: When a small group continues to interbreed without bringing in some new genes we end up with problems. I know there are some genetic dieseases that are very common in the Amish communities but are extremly rare in larger groups.
2. Circle-Jerk: When a group interbreeds it suffers the social problem of limiting its exposure to new ideas and people. Breeding with people who are different from you (genetics and ideals) helps everyone by bringing divergent groups together and breaking down social barriers. It does not happen right away but it does happen in the end.
Sure, incest fails to increase diversity, both genetic and intellectual, and can keep social barriers up. Is this, however, sufficient reason for there to be laws against it?
Additionally, even if there is sufficient reason to prevent them from having offspring, what if (for whatever reasons) two people in an incestuous relationship will not have children? In that case, what reason is there to prevent them from having sex, or even marrying?
Sure, incest fails to increase diversity in both genes and ideas, and can keep social barriers up. Is this, however, sufficient reason for there to be laws against it?
I have not thought deeply enough on this issue to form a defensible position so I will leave it as "I don't know" at this time.
The point about incest actually gives me a good answer to this whole problem.
Why should the government give people an incentive to enter this contractual agreement with each other?
The reason is to foster togetherness among the populace. When people marry, two families combine to become one family. The people involved increase their social circles, Marriage is a thing that makes people come together, instead of split apart. The typical depiction of anti-social people is bad. They are scary loners. They commit crimes, sometimes murder. When you think of a pedophile you think of a scary guy all alone, not someone with a family. Rural people with less social interaction are more bigoted than social city people, and much more approving of war and such. Families also provide people with a support group they can fall back on. People to fall back on if the worst of the worst happens. The government encourages marriage to encourage all these other things that bringing families together begets.
By that logic, we should want as many people to marry as possible, gay or not, as long as they aren't already in the same family. And by this logic I would also say that two gay people who are siblings or cousins should not be allowed to be married, even though their is no problem of producing children that exhibit problems of genetic in-breeding.
It sounds like all of the issues people have with incest (between consenting adults) deal with the children of such a union. If there were no reproduction involved, it seems it wouldn't be a problem at all. EDIT: Except for the social thing that Scott just said.
I do have to agree with Mrs. MacRoss's point as well; we single out family members because they are highly likely to have deformative or lethal recessives manifest. However, we do not require people to get genetic tests before they can get married or reproduce. Evolutionarily speaking, keeping these people from reproducing with each other is a good policy. (Of course, the genetic survival of humans isn't really a terribly huge concern right now) However, from the perspective of their rights, this is unequal treatment.
How about we bring incest into the discussion? The "slippery slope" to polygamy was rejected on the valid grounds that it was no longer an issue of two human beings. However, what of incest?
Yeah. The reason I'm against gay marriage is because it might lead to people having sex with trees. Trees can't give their consent. Gay marriage is just one step away from dendraphilia. If we allow gay marriage and dendraphilia, then having sex with honey bees is the next step. ONLY WE CAN PREVENT GAY BEE SEX IN TREES!
It sounds like all of the issues people have with incest (between consenting adults) deal with the children of such a union. If there were no reproduction involved, it seems it wouldn't be a problem at all.
Yeah, just to clarify. If people who happen to be biologically related love each other in that way, I am all for them having the relationship they want to have, as long as they don't produce children. However, if we want the government to give incentives to people for entering this contractual agreement, we need a reason for that incentive.
The only two reasons we can come up with for that incentive are to encourage reproduction, or to encourage families to combine. If we lean on the first one, then the government can not grant the benefits of marriage to homosexuals or to sterile people. If we lean on the second reason, that I came up with, we can't give those incentives to incestuous marriages, even those that do not produce children.
The point about incest actually gives me a good answer to this whole problem.
Why should the government give people an incentive to enter this contractual agreement with each other?
The reason is to foster togetherness among the populace. When people marry, two families combine to become one family. The people involved increase their social circles, Marriage is a thing that makes people come together, instead of split apart. The typical depiction of anti-social people is bad. They are scary loners. They commit crimes, sometimes murder. When you think of a pedophile you think of a scary guy all alone, not someone with a family. Rural people with less social interaction are more bigoted than social city people, and much more approving of war and such. Families also provide people with a support group they can fall back on. People to fall back on if the worst of the worst happens. The government encourages marriage to encourage all these other things that bringing families together begets.
By that logic, we should want as many people to marry as possible, gay or not, as long as they aren't already in the same family. And by this logic I would also say that two gay people who are siblings or cousins should not be allowed to be married, even though their is no problem of producing children that exhibit problems of genetic in-breeding.
I have to disagree. I think that the cultural impetus for marriage is less about "togetherness" and more about child rearing, medical responsibility (should one person be without their capacity to make medical decisions), estates/property, credit, monetary responsibility, combined incomes, etc. Personally, I think any consenting adult that wants to have the benefits of marriage with any other consenting adult should be able to do so - no matter how icky it may be.
I have to disagree. I think that the cultural impetus for marriage is less about "togetherness" and more about child rearing, medical responsibility (should one person be without their capacity to make medical decisions), estates/property, credit, monetary responsibility, combined incomes, etc. Personally, I think any consenting adult that wants to have the benefits of marriage with any other consenting adult should be able to do so - no matter how icky it may be.
Yes, those are the incentives that the government grants people who marry. They elect to sign a marriage license in order to receive those benefits, but that's not the question we are asking.
The question we are asking is why would the government want people to sign marriage licenses? Why would it give financial and medical benefits to people in exchange for entering the contract?
The government gives plenty of incentives and disincentives, and they all have reasons. They give you a tax incentive to give to charity, because they want to encourage charitable giving. They raise taxes on tobacco to help improve health, and decrease health care costs. But why lower taxes for people who marry?
The only reasons I can see to grant these incentives are to encourage reproduction, or to encourage togetherness. You can make arguments for either or both being of benefit to society. However, if you choose the first, as I said, you must only allow fertile people to marry. If you choose the second, then all can marry who are not incestuous. The only other alternative would be to not give the incentive whatsoever, or some other reason for the incentive that has not been said.
Which brings us back to the real question: What is the purpose of marriage?
Some states do still require blood tests before marriage to but not for genetic reasons. It is also important to note that some blood types do not play well with others and a pregnancy from opposing blood types can be very difficult and require special medication over the term of the pregnancy. I have a friend who ran into this problem. Her husband's blood type was passed on to the child and her body began to create anti-bodies to kill the fetus as it was perceived as an alien threat similar to a virus.
As of May 2002, only seven states (plus the District of Columbia) still required a blood test to get married (according to the Colorado Department of Public Health; an updated, centralized list is difficult to obtain). These include:
Connecticut — A syphilis test is required for men and women; a rubella test is required for women.
Georgia — A syphilis test is required for men and women; a rubella test is required for women.
Indiana — A rubella test is required for women.
Massachusetts — A syphilis test is required for men and women; a rubella test is required for women. However, these requirements were eliminated in early 2005.
Mississippi — A syphilis test is required for men and women.
Montana — A rubella test is required for women.
Oklahoma — A syphilis test is required for men and women.
Because they will make genetic freaks? Ancient European nobility anyone?
Per my pervious post, we do not screen other couples for their liklihood to have children with genetic disorders. Why are we saying that two people that are siblings can't have kids, but two people that have an equal or higher liklihood of having children with gentic disorders can?
As to the question of why the government provides those incentives, originally it was all about child rearing - not necessarily "togetherness". The togetherness ideas seems highly flawed, particularly when the government continiually throughout history limited and continues to limit various groups from being able to be married (various races, homosexuals, and relatives).
This brings to light another related issue, in that our legal structures are incredibly obsolete and prone to substantial inertia. These seven states have specific laws for these diseases, but not other much more problematic ones? Why? How old are those laws? Why are they not updated or removed?
It would be simple to address the marriage issue if we had a modern, technology-backed, uniform legal code.
How about we bring incest into the discussion? The "slippery slope" to polygamy was rejected on the valid grounds that it was no longer an issue of two human beings. However, what of incest?
Yeah. The reason I'm against gay marriage is because it might lead to people having sex with trees. Trees can't give their consent. Gay marriage is just one step away from dendraphilia. If we allow gay marriage and dendraphilia, then having sex with honey bees is the next step. ONLY WE CAN PREVENT GAY BEE SEX IN TREES!
While it is amusing, I fail to see the point of your post.
Let's not kid ourselves. We might have high-minded ideas about marriage being for insurance benefits and stability, but for the vast number of Americans it's about sexual territory. Marriage is a human property issue; a wedding band is a marker that screams to other suitors that proprietary mating rights have been staked. The stigma in the country against gay marriage might be predicated on slippery slope nonsense, but under the surface it's about gay sex. Those who object think it is immoral. Let's not candy-coat or try to obfuscate those feelings.
As to the question of why the government provides those incentives, originally it was all bout child rearing - not necessarily "togetherness". The togetherness ideas seems highly flawed, particularly when the government continiually throughout history limited and continues to limit various groups from being able to be married (various races, homosexuals, and relatives).
Historically it was indeed about child rearing. If we continue to offer incentives for marriage based on the idea that we are doing it to encourage making babies, then in fact we should not allow gays to marry. If given the choice, I would prefer having no government incentive for marriage whatsoever rather than have it be an incentive for making babies. We have people making babies they can't afford, we have people putting kids up for adoption, getting abortions, and teen pregnancies. If anything we need a disincentive for making babies and incentives for more adoption.
If we are to continue offering incentives for people to marry, we need to have a reason for it other than to encourage biological reproduction. The reason I have given is the only one I can think of that makes sense. If someone can offer another reason for the government to grant these incentives, I would love to hear it. If not, then I think the only options are to grant incentives for reproduction, excluding gays and sterile people, or to discontinue the incentives altogether.
Let's not kid ourselves. We might have high-minded ideas about marriage being for insurance benefits and stability, but for the vast number of Americans it's about sexual territory. Marriage is a human property issue; a wedding band is a marker that screams to other suitors that proprietary mating rights have been staked. The stigma in the country against gay marriage might be predicated on slippery slope nonsense, but under the surface it's about gay sex. Those who object think it is immoral. Let's not candy-coat or try to obfuscate those feelings.
That is exactly why law shouldn't be written, or enforced, or kept the same based on any "ick" factor. Personally, I think what some straight people do in bed is icky, but that is their life, not mine.
If we continue to offer incentives for marriage based on the idea that we are doing it to encourage making babies, then in fact we should not allow gays to marry... If anything we need a disincentive for making babies and incentives for more adoption.
How about allowing them to marry if they adopt children, thus solving two problems at once? (Of course, we'd have to disallow any sterile relationship from becoming marriage outside of adoption in this case).
I do see great value in a universally accepted, standard contract of union between n people, having all of the non-monetary benefits of our current marriage class (visitation rights, financial ties, etc...). I believe that the incentives offered (easy creation of a common and universal contract) are a boon to society. We should have a separate system of incentives regarding children. Not necessarily for their creation, mind you, but for their adoption and good upbringing. Offer any guardian of children these benefits regardless of how they obtain them.
Conflating the two issues is the source of almost all of the problems here. They're conflated for no good reason other than tradition.
While it is amusing, I fail to see the point of your post.
Humor is a valid point. Your post presented less value than his. ^_~
I quite specifically said "I fail to see the point" because, indeed, I thought there was a point that I wasn't seeing.
While it is amusing, I fail to see the point of your post.
Slippery slope arguments are ridiculous when you're really worried about sex. That's what you care about: sexual morality.
Me? Not so much. A whole bunch of Americans seem to care all too much about it, but since we've been discussing equal rights, I wanted to further the discussion; incest is a more complex issue than homosexuals getting it on.
You have misinterpreted my post, and assumed I was actually *using* the slippery slope argument rather than merely following the slope to see where it went, for the purposes of discussion. What I wanted to say was "They keep saying that allowing homosexuality will lead to allowing incest as an argument against homosexuality. When we separate some of the other issues from incest, however, what is actually wrong with it?" I wasn't saying "We can't allow homosexuality, it will lead to incest."
What I wanted to say was "They keep saying that allowing homosexuality will lead to allowing incest as an argument against homosexuality. When we separate some of the other issues from incest, however, what is actually wrong with it?" I wasn't saying "We can't allow homosexuality, it will lead to incest."
That is exactly why law shouldn't be written, or enforced, or kept the same based on any "ick" factor. Personally, I think what some straight people do in bed is icky, but that is their life, not mine.
I agree. Jason's post is absolutely true, but as marriage grew to include other benefits besides sexual territory it left that behind. It can still serve that function, but there are people who get married JUST for the benefits. Sometimes friends get married for the benefits and stability, yet continue to date other people. We can't really consider that to be the only impetus for marriage anymore.
Plus, I'm sure gay people are equally interested in staking out their sexual territory.
Comments
I understand that there is tradition around marriage. My point is that it's not our problem. If someone makes a lifestyle choice that excludes them from a tradition, they should be prepared to deal with the consequences. Yes, I am making an assertion that living a gay lifestyle is a choice. I am not saying BEING gay is a choice. However, you do make a choice of whether to be true to that orientation. There are things I have had to give up because of the lifestyle I identify with. I don't think this is any different.
We do not have the right to tell a religious faction that they must include all lifestyles in their practices. That is covered in religious freedom. Once gay people have the legal rights, they could very well go off and found their own faction of a religion and call their union whatever they want. The underlying problem is the government's entanglement with a religious sacrament. Until those two things are separated, this problem will never be solved.
The "slippery slope" to polygamy was rejected on the valid grounds that it was no longer an issue of two human beings.
However, what of incest?
Obviously, with both the sex and the marriage aspect, this would have to be about incest between consenting adults.
The fact that children of incestuous parents are often born deformed is perhaps adequate reason to prevent such children being born, but this does not necessitate a categorical ban on the practice of incest itself. It is also the standpoint of a eugenicist.
1. Genetic problems: When a small group continues to interbreed without bringing in some new genes we end up with problems. I know there are some genetic dieseases that are very common in the Amish communities but are extremly rare in larger groups.
2. Circle-Jerk: When a group interbreeds it suffers the social problem of limiting its exposure to new ideas and people. Breeding with people who are different from you (genetics and ideals) helps everyone by bringing divergent groups together and breaking down social barriers. It does not happen right away but it does happen in the end.
Is this, however, sufficient reason for there to be laws against it?
Additionally, even if there is sufficient reason to prevent them from having offspring, what if (for whatever reasons) two people in an incestuous relationship will not have children?
In that case, what reason is there to prevent them from having sex, or even marrying?
Why should the government give people an incentive to enter this contractual agreement with each other?
The reason is to foster togetherness among the populace. When people marry, two families combine to become one family. The people involved increase their social circles, Marriage is a thing that makes people come together, instead of split apart. The typical depiction of anti-social people is bad. They are scary loners. They commit crimes, sometimes murder. When you think of a pedophile you think of a scary guy all alone, not someone with a family. Rural people with less social interaction are more bigoted than social city people, and much more approving of war and such. Families also provide people with a support group they can fall back on. People to fall back on if the worst of the worst happens. The government encourages marriage to encourage all these other things that bringing families together begets.
By that logic, we should want as many people to marry as possible, gay or not, as long as they aren't already in the same family. And by this logic I would also say that two gay people who are siblings or cousins should not be allowed to be married, even though their is no problem of producing children that exhibit problems of genetic in-breeding.
I do have to agree with Mrs. MacRoss's point as well; we single out family members because they are highly likely to have deformative or lethal recessives manifest. However, we do not require people to get genetic tests before they can get married or reproduce. Evolutionarily speaking, keeping these people from reproducing with each other is a good policy. (Of course, the genetic survival of humans isn't really a terribly huge concern right now) However, from the perspective of their rights, this is unequal treatment.
The only two reasons we can come up with for that incentive are to encourage reproduction, or to encourage families to combine. If we lean on the first one, then the government can not grant the benefits of marriage to homosexuals or to sterile people. If we lean on the second reason, that I came up with, we can't give those incentives to incestuous marriages, even those that do not produce children.
The question we are asking is why would the government want people to sign marriage licenses? Why would it give financial and medical benefits to people in exchange for entering the contract?
The government gives plenty of incentives and disincentives, and they all have reasons. They give you a tax incentive to give to charity, because they want to encourage charitable giving. They raise taxes on tobacco to help improve health, and decrease health care costs. But why lower taxes for people who marry?
The only reasons I can see to grant these incentives are to encourage reproduction, or to encourage togetherness. You can make arguments for either or both being of benefit to society. However, if you choose the first, as I said, you must only allow fertile people to marry. If you choose the second, then all can marry who are not incestuous. The only other alternative would be to not give the incentive whatsoever, or some other reason for the incentive that has not been said.
Some states do still require blood tests before marriage to but not for genetic reasons. It is also important to note that some blood types do not play well with others and a pregnancy from opposing blood types can be very difficult and require special medication over the term of the pregnancy. I have a friend who ran into this problem. Her husband's blood type was passed on to the child and her body began to create anti-bodies to kill the fetus as it was perceived as an alien threat similar to a virus. http://health.yahoo.com/relationships-couple/the-truth-about-premarital-blood-testing/harvard--COL031103.html
As to the question of why the government provides those incentives, originally it was all about child rearing - not necessarily "togetherness". The togetherness ideas seems highly flawed, particularly when the government continiually throughout history limited and continues to limit various groups from being able to be married (various races, homosexuals, and relatives).
This brings to light another related issue, in that our legal structures are incredibly obsolete and prone to substantial inertia. These seven states have specific laws for these diseases, but not other much more problematic ones? Why? How old are those laws? Why are they not updated or removed?
It would be simple to address the marriage issue if we had a modern, technology-backed, uniform legal code.
If we are to continue offering incentives for people to marry, we need to have a reason for it other than to encourage biological reproduction. The reason I have given is the only one I can think of that makes sense. If someone can offer another reason for the government to grant these incentives, I would love to hear it. If not, then I think the only options are to grant incentives for reproduction, excluding gays and sterile people, or to discontinue the incentives altogether.
I do see great value in a universally accepted, standard contract of union between n people, having all of the non-monetary benefits of our current marriage class (visitation rights, financial ties, etc...). I believe that the incentives offered (easy creation of a common and universal contract) are a boon to society. We should have a separate system of incentives regarding children. Not necessarily for their creation, mind you, but for their adoption and good upbringing. Offer any guardian of children these benefits regardless of how they obtain them.
Conflating the two issues is the source of almost all of the problems here. They're conflated for no good reason other than tradition.
You have misinterpreted my post, and assumed I was actually *using* the slippery slope argument rather than merely following the slope to see where it went, for the purposes of discussion.
What I wanted to say was "They keep saying that allowing homosexuality will lead to allowing incest as an argument against homosexuality. When we separate some of the other issues from incest, however, what is actually wrong with it?"
I wasn't saying "We can't allow homosexuality, it will lead to incest."
Plus, I'm sure gay people are equally interested in staking out their sexual territory.