Nope. I don't oppose it at all. Rights are demanded, not granted. Given the situation we have now, granting "two person" marriages at the expense of higher numbers would satisfy the most people with the least amount of upheaval. If and when polygamists are numerous and organized enough to make a strong case for themselves, then we can talk about it. That's how politics really works.
1) The founding fathers thought rights were recognized, not granted, by humans. They were granted by God. If you think humans grant them, you must think they can take them away, and it's just a matter of who is strongest.
2) State-recognized marriage is not a right. Like copyright, it is the granting of certain privileges, at the expense of the state, with the expectation that the state will benefit. You have a human right to write books and songs, and you have a human right to choose a partner. Separately, the state may have laws to encourage those things. A law recognizing gay marriage is not saying "you're equal with everyone, you can drink from the same water fountains." It's saying "we encourage gay marriage. We want to incentivize it." What is the case for that? Seems like it should be a sociological, economic one.
1) More or less, yep. Even those "natural rights" had to be demanded and paid for in blood. I'm talking about how the world has worked so far, not how I think it should be. It's useful to pretend otherwise most of the time, but when shit goes down you can't afford that luxury.
2) Yep. In this case I mean rights as in "water rights" as opposed to higher-order natural rights. Pragmatic reasons to encourage gay marriage are largely the same as for regular ones: married people live longer and are generally more happy. Stable households mean stable communities. Sensible distribution of estates. More homes willing and able to adopt the millions of kids who need them. Etc. Procreation is not the entire or even the most important reason to encourage households.
Unfortunately those arguments don't hold water with people who think being gay is immoral in and of itself.
Gay marriage does not benefit the state. Marriage between a man and woman benefits the state in that a marriage is a structure designed to provide for the safe procreation & rearing of children. Gays, by definition, don't procreate.
Any society that accepts and encourages gay marriages is committing suicide.
Really? Because previously, you argued that because the number of people advocating for polygamy was lower, you therefore did not support polygamy. I guess that was just a fake argument?
So I'll repeat the question: can you state your real argument in favor of gay marriage?
Note: I'm asking why you favor it, not why you feel it is politically feasible.
His original post focused on the political aspect of it. The political aspect is what decides whether gays can marry, and a population's overall opinion on a mater influences political policy. Thus, his personal opinion is totally irrelevant to the point he was making.
Why are you trying to bring his personal opinions into play?
Actually, I realize we are both talking past each other.
Sp332 and myself want to hear an argument for gay marriage which does not logically lead to legalized polygamy. Aristus is arguing that gay marriage will not politically lead to legalized polygamy.
Most arguments around either reproduction or tradition don't logically lead to polygamy. One such argument (which is not my opinion):
"Marriage is an institution with the primary purpose of providing a good environment for children and their biological parents. We only permit sterile straight couples to get married to promote the illusion that marriage is about love and happiness for the married couple. Since a polygamous household is not a good environment for children, we ban polygamy."
Good is a not an objective reality in this situation. The quoted argument means that if I find or create a quote saying that polygamy or gay marriage is good for children, then it's equally legitimate and logical.
Logically, marriage leads to divorce, which is commonly considered bad for children!
My point is, logic relies on facts, and I don't think any camps have reached objective consensus on those.
Nearly all arguments about policy are based on subjective values, and those values are not shared by all. There is absolutely no set of facts which can prove "gay sex is morally wrong" or "gay sex is morally acceptable".
The most one can do is show that some more generally accepted subjective value implies the a specific subjective value. A more general argument: "any act performed in private between consenting adults is morally acceptable. This implies gay sex is OK."
(That's also a specific example of a general argument which most proponents don't actually believe. See this comment thread for an example: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=806581 )
I'll repeat what I wrote to another statement on this thread:
Ultimately, allowed marriages are a proxy for what society at large deems "reasonable." That's why this is such an issue, and I think that most arguments otherwise, on both sides, are disingenuous.
We only permit sterile straight couples to get married to promote the illusion that marriage is about love and happiness for the married couple.
Continuing in the tradition of stating opinions that are not ours but are potentially interesting:
One could argue that at the time these laws were made, checking for sterility was impossible and is now potentially prohibitive or inaccurate as medical science improves.
One could also argue that preventing people from participating in societal institutions for medical reasons is immoral. Another application of this idea is the belief that it is wrong to deny insurance to people who are already sick. (Again, not my opinion, but an extension of a common idea.)
