This is interesting in light of a recent discussion by liberadio.com commenters (led by Ryan who can talk to goats, apparently):
A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.
“It’s for the children” is such a handy excuse when you’re infringing on someone else’s rights.
ok Mary.. lets use your logic again. Take that same politician or actor, and they have decided to be gay… good or bad for the actor? In the world’s eyes, bad. In their eyes, good. Right?
OK, let’s try this. Ryan, think of your least-favorite politician or Hollywood actor – someone who you really can’t stand. Someone whose voice makes your skin crawl.
Now, imagine that person getting caught in an incestuous relationship with their son or daughter.
Now what do you think? Harmful to the son or daughter, or not?
I don’t really care about your answer because I’m sure it will be another attempt at twisting my logic to fit your world view/argument.
In the meantime, I urge you to read up on familial relationships in general and, more specifically, trust and the parent-child relationships, parent-child bonding, and empathy.
We’ll just agree to disagree on this one, I suppose.
Mary Im talking about consenting adults here.. With your logic I could say that the male gay person who is the catcher is harmed.. right?
Ryan, if you want to understand who incest hurts or who the laws against incest serve and protect, put yourself in the place of the son or daughter in the “father/child” or “mother/child” relationship.
Mary and Dean, you argue for freedom of choice, but only the people you choose deserve it. Isn’t that what you feel has gotten us into the mess we are in? We conservatives just hate gay people, you know? Trying to make them feel less than equal.. (some self worth they must have, huh?)
Mary, how does not letting a man marry his son hurt anyone? Or, what purpose does those laws (incest) serve?
Divorce has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation. I don’t want to “outlaw” anything.. I never said I did. You are the one trying to change definitions of words, not me.
Dean, I’m not excited about this years MLB season hardly at all.. I haven’t watched much all year, but I am a Cubs fan. Gotta pull for the Angels to beat the Yankees a few more times though
Dean, Yes, you would think it’s that simple but since he never addresses rebuttals that he can’t rebut, i.e. the real threat to marriage is divorce so why don’t you want to outlaw divorce, it’s not. I agree though, it has been a good exercise.
Well, I never went into this thinking anyone’s mind would be changed. If nothing else, this discussion has helped me crystalize my own thoughts about gay marriage. And for that, I am grateful.
The rebuttal to Ryan’s incestual argument is actually quite simple, now that I think about it: it’s obvious we can’t allow any marriage whatsoever, because my son will want to marry his mother. Is my son any less an American?
)
Ryan: You got your wish. Going to a Game 6 in the Bronx. Gotta admit, tho’ — a Phillies-Angels series has no appeal for me. Don’t know why. It just doesn’t.
1) There are already laws that prohibit incest, bestiality, etc. These laws are good laws set in place to protect the community.
2) There were no laws prohibiting marriage between two consenting adults of the same gender until states starting passing them. These laws are unconstitutional.
Ryan won’t see the difference between good laws that protect the rights of individuals and benefit society (laws against incest, etc.) and bad laws that infringe on the rights of individuals no matter how succinct an argument you make, Dean. And yes, that was exactly where I was headed.
“How can you base your argument on the fact that people should be able to marry no matter their color, sex, or sexual preference, but you disqualify the incest?”
Because incest is harmful to one or more individuals. Marriage equality between two consenting adults harms no one.
I believe, however, that Ryan thinks marriage equality does so harm and therefore any argument Dean or I or Blayne make will not sway him. Therefore, arguing with Ryan about this issue is fruitless.
Dean, it isn’t a slippery slope. If you are going to argue that two people have the right to marry, no matter what, then you must allow the man to marry his son.
Is he less of an American than the homosexual that isn’t going to marry his son, but is going to marry his best friend from high school? How can you base your argument on the fact that people should be able to marry no matter their color, sex, or sexual preference, but you disqualify the incest?
Your argument holds no water that way. Sorry.
GO ANGELS.. I hate seeing the Yankees win.
Saying “gay marriage is not in the framework of our existing laws” is misleading, simply because the issue has never really been addressed. Until the rush to codify what is and isn’t marriage, it was neither endorsed nor prohibited.
On the other hand, laws against incenstual marriage and bigomy have already been on the books for generations, which further diminishes Ryan’s slippery-slope argument. Perhaps that’s where Mary was headed.
Back to Yanks-Angels. See y’all.
Mary.. improper English and double negatives I can’t understand..
Please work on it.. and get back with me.
Ryan, Gay marriage was also not not in the framework of our existing laws – that’s why there was such a rush to codify anti-gay marriage legislation.
Marriage equality will not lead to the demise of the sanctity of marriage. Divorce will, though, so why don’t you want to outlaw divorce?
Mary.. gay marriage is not in the framework of our existing laws.. “Equal rights” can be afforded without the demise of the sanctity of marriage (reference civil union).
What part of “come up with a good argument, before you defend something”.. do you not understand?
Ryan, Why do you always go to that example? What part of “two-consenting adults within the framework of our existing laws” don’t you understand? No one is looking to repeal laws that already exist, like those against incest and bestiality, that protect our community. We simply want equal rights under the law for all Americans.
So you agree that a man or woman should be able to marry his son or daughter, right? It is up to the state.. it has nothing to do with the constitution.
Webster doesn’t have to interpret the constitution.. it is a dictionary. You know, the reference that tells us what words mean.. that thing.. on the bookshelf, with dust.
Ryan, So is Webster’s interpreting our Constitution now? I believe in equal rights, period. I don’t think the state should be in the business of telling people who they can or can’t marry. Period.
If Webster is the only argument you have, then you really don’t have an argument.
Blayne, the only straw man in the conversation is gay marriage. Marriage is defined as a civil union between a man and a woman. (reference webster)
If you want to “marry” someone, the only way for that to happen is to choose someone of the opposite sex. If two gay people want to have the same thing as a “married” couple.. then they must join in a civil union (and be afforded the same rights as a married man and a woman) or they can be boyfriend and boyfriend forever. What is so hard about that?
What is the obsession with being married, anyway?
Since half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce, why even have them? Civil unions would suffice just fine. If a marriage is for procreation, then shouldn’t we require fertility tests as part of getting a marriage license? Since women usually can’t get pregnant past age 60, shouldn’t that be a cutoff to get married?
Am I being absurd? Yes — and intentionally so. That’s the other half of any slippery-slope argument that usually relies solely on conventional wisdom.
It really comes down to this, and only this: straight marriage has been widely accepted since the beginning of time, and gay marriage hasn’t. If that’s all you have, you don’t have anything.
Ryan, you sound like my 5 year old nephew – “If you love it so much, why dont you marry it.”
Setting up a straw man (incest), you easily knock it down, then parade around as if you have made some great point on gay marriage. You did not make a point on gay marriage, you made a point on incestual marriage.
So now we all know why you dont want relatives to get married, why do you not want gays to get married? Stay on point this time.
The photo doesn’t make any sense. If we repealed Loving v. VA, that wouldn’t “bring back miscegenation”. It would allow states to pass anti-miscegenation laws. Boo-yah!
What the heck are you talking about absurd?
You argue that two people should be able to marry because they love each other, but they when I give you an example of two people that may love each other and want to get married, you dismiss it.
It is the SAME thing. If you are going to make the argument, be ready for the questions. Gay marriage is a slippery slope, period. If you are going to change the definition, are you going to exclude incest, polygamy, etc? If you are… do you have something against those people? Are they not as American (or deserve the freedoms) as your regular, run-of-the-mill, gay couple?
The argument that “it wont stop there” and it will lead to incest being okay, is absurd. That spoonfed talking point diverts the conversation from the actual topic to something absurd, and then trys to make the two different things look the same.
Its lazy, Ryan.
A Incestual Marriage Bill has not been proposed, lets stay on point here.
Oh snap! A blog with my name in it!
Mary, changing the definition of marriage is a slippery slope.
Tell me, does it stop at a man and a man, or a woman and a woman?
It seems, with your “other people’s rights” stance, that it would be no problem for someone to marry their daughter or son. I don’t understand the difference, can you please explain it to me. (I’m talking about children over the age of 18)