This seems like you are arguing against yourself a bit. It's impossible to define or prove a sham marriage, different people have different definitions of love/companionship etc. I suppose that's why there is no movement to repeal heterosexual marriage or to investigate them prior to their happening to prevent such shams from happening. I'm just suprised why "fake" gay marriages are a couched as a legitimate policy concern, where fake straight marriages are not. If it is truly a big deal then we should probably outlaw both types of marriage.
Well, being strictly semantic gays have the same rights as everyone else. A gay man can marry a woman. A straight man can marry a woman. Neither can marry another man, a child, or multiple women. Society isn't removing anything, gay activists seek to create a new right the right of men to marry men. If you somehow frame the "right" to be for anyone to marry any other person based on love, mutual consent etc, then you end up where I was pointing out the hypocrisy. If it's a matter of having the right to marry anyone you choose and the right to define marriage in the manner that you choose, how can you fairly say... the love between a man and man is an unassailable despite Society's objections yet this other type of love between a man and 2 women (both of whom you love equally and want to provide protection for equally) is not similarly protected? If it's the principle then it's equivalent. If it's a Constitutional right, then it seems that the same people pushing gay marriage should be talking about redefining marriage across the board and feel as strongly about the rights of other types of marriage (polygamy, consentual underage marriage etc) as they do about gay marriage. If they don't, to an impartial observer it seems more about specifically pushing gay rights and the an agenda of influence than the right of anyone to marry anyone else based on love etc. I guess there could be some evolutionary advantage but in that case it would be more of a non-interest in sex rather than interest in M-M sex right? It's not as if chasing sex from the same sex is less taxing than pursuing sex from the opposite sex. It also seems like inefficient evolutionary strategy. The entire point is to pass on your genes, let's say there is some hidden advantage that homosexuals gift upon the larger group... that helps your competitors pass on your genes but it comes at the cost of your own ultimate evolutionary fitness. Also if I'm not mistaken social animals like hyenas who do exhibit ritual homosexual behavior to establish their place in the hierarchy are actually heterosexual as primary mating strategy and often their elevated place in the group allows them to have more breeding opportunities, right? It's not like they pair off and go live exclusively with another male or another female.
This is not accurate. A straight man has the right to marry the person he loves. A gay man does not. They do not have the same rights. But that doesn't lead to the polygamy argument. The polygamy argument is different because one group of polygamists aren't being allowed to marry while another group is being excluded. The problem is one pair of consenting adults is allowed to do something and another prohibited. That is why there isn't a group to legalize polygamy etc. Though I wouldn't care if it was legal. The point of procreating is to pass on the genes. That is not necessarily the point of marriage.
I actually think the analogy to polygamy and other forms of outlawed marriage has some validity. But the problem with this line of thinking is that there are different, possibly valid, reasons for banning the other types of marriage you mention. Underage marriage is restricted in order to protect children who are not old enough to protect themselves. Intra-family marriage is restricted because of worries of the effects of inbreeding. I honestly don't know all the reasons that polygamy is banned, but it doesn't matter because those are all separate discussions. A person advocating for the right of a gay individual to marry his or her partner does not suddenly stop advocating for the right to marry the person you love, they just acknowledge that in those other cases there are other issues involved. If you want to make analogies, you can just as easily make the analogy to inter-racial marriage. Like homosexual marriage, inter-racial marriage was previously banned in many places. Both concern two consenting adult individuals who want to form a marital union and receive the benefits accordingly. Like homosexual marriage, inter-racial marriage was outlawed largely on moral and religious grounds. Like homosexual marriage, there were some people whose scientific understanding was questionable but nonetheless tried to make a scientific/evolutionary argument against inter-racial marriage. So why is gay marriage different from inter-racial marriage?
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. At the moment we don't test people for sexual orientation so a gays can marry the opposite gender without any problem even if they don't find the person sexually attractive. If we had gay marriage the same right would extend to two of the same gender who might not find each other sexually attractive but get married anyway. If you are worried about fraud I presume the same laws would apply in weeding out fraud as in green card marriages otherwise same sex marriages of convenience would be subject to the same scrutiny by relatives and others that say Anna-Nicole Smith was when she married that rich ancient guy.
On a limited scale in regard that it deals with a type of marriage that is currently banned otherwise there are some key difference. I addressed this early in the thread but the problem with polygamy is that it involves more than two parties and our marriage laws are set up for two parties. Its an easy matter of removing a gender distinction for two parties as the laws are technically gender neutral, but we would need a whole new legal framework for polygamists marriage.
If you are going to base your argument on genes being passed on would you support banning marriage for individuals who are infertile? Not quite. Many animals that display homosexual behavior do engage in pair bonding.
You misunderstand my point. The point isn't to debate each convention or restriction that a particular society places on marriage (for example 16 versus 18 versus 14 as age on consent in each country/state) but to establish whether a particular society has a RIGHT to establish such restrictions. If the argument for gay marriage is everyone has a right to marry whomever they like without restrictions from the state, then it's a universal right. On the other hand if you say that there are cases that it's right for the State to restrict some cases... then you have to recognize that for different people, there can be different thresholds. As a gay person that threshold may pass beyond gay marriage but stop at underaged marriage. For a Christian it may stop short of gay marriage. As a principle, it's a universal right or it isn't. If it isn't a universal right but can be modified by society, unfortunately you'd have to also logically accept that within a particular society if the majority of people are opposed to it, it's not a right that's going to be accepted. Well miscegenation laws are a specious comparison in that it wasn't only marriage that was illegal but cohabitation and fraternization of any kind. I dont think that it's illegal to be gay anywhere in the US is it? There simply isn't an extension of marriage status to gays. I also take issue with the idea that miscegenation laws were based on religious grounds. The basis of the abolitionist movement in the US was actually Christian, as were many of the Underground Railroad conductors, and first schools. A major contributor of miscegenation laws was economic as well as moral, particularly in the South, where white bloodlines were imperative to inheritance and ownership of slaves. This stuff isn't translatable to gay marriage and personally I dont think that particular argument makes a strong case. You got my posts confused. I never based any argument for gay marriage around the idea that they were infertile or evolutionary fitness. That comment was addressing a point someone had made about possible evolutionary advantages of being gay for the larger group.
The point isn't to debate each convention or restriction that a particular society places on marriage (for example 16 versus 18 versus 14 as age on consent in each country/state) but to establish whether a particular society has a RIGHT to establish such restrictions. Society has a right to enforce restrictions that have logical, factual and demonstrable effects on the greater good. The question at point is whether we have a right to enact restrictions that limit freedom of choice for reasons that are simply a cultural preference. Can you tell me what harm allowing gay marriages would cause?
It's a universal right for pairs of consenting adults to marry. Again, Polygamy is a false analogy. The reason is that there isn't one group of polygamists being allowed to marry currently under the law and another group of polygamists who aren't allowed to marry. If there were then it would be an apt analogy. However in the way society is set up now, there are certain consenting pairs of adults who are allowed to marry, and other consenting pairs of adults who aren't allowed to marry. Polygamists would be a separate and unlike group. I'm looking at two groups of like people. The only difference is sexual preference. As far as the mix raced argument not being in part religion based. I have to disagree. Because some Christians used their religion as a basis for abolitionism and civil rights support, doesn't mean other Christians won't use the religion to support bans on mixed marriage.
I don't think this argument is appropriate. You're arbitrarily identifying a difference between polygamy and gay marriage and saying the analogy doesn't apply because of that difference. Those against gay marriage do the same thing, they arbitrarily identify a difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage (the difference in sexual orientation) and claim that the analogy between heterosexual and homosexual marriage doesn't apply. Either both arguments are valid or both aren't. Regardless, it doesn't get you anywhere to dispute the analogy on those grounds, in my opinion.
I see what you are saying, but I don't understand it. Are not (ideally) both heterosexual and homosexual marriages between two legal citizens who are adults and consenting? I think with those guidelines laid out then allowing some of them to marry and others not to, is clearly denying some equal access. What differences do the detractors of gay marriage point out other than their idea of morality? I can point out differences between polygamy and any form of two person marriage. For the record I wouldn't care if polygamy was legal. But I just don't see that it's the same because there isn't one group of polygamists being allowed to marry and one not being allowed. They are all denied the right. That isn't the same with partner marriage. But I am willing to listen if you have the arguments that anti-gay marriage folks use to show the difference.
Perhaps I missed the start of the conversation, but I don't believe the argument for gay marriage is that everyone has the right to marry whomever they like without restrictions from the state. I think the argument is they should have the right to do so absent any rational reason to prevent them. I understand your point about a so-called threshold, and to be honest I think that is the closest thing to a valid argument against gay marriage that I can think of. The difference between this case and some others is that there is no real harm done, so it really just boils down to whether enough members of society are opposed to the idea that it gets restricted. Of course, if that is the only valid argument and more and more people are becoming comfortable with the idea, it won't be long before the opposition becomes the minority and the right is approved. Couldn't you find similar differences between gay marriage and polygamy? Even if the differences as you describe them were accurate, they don't invalidate the analogy any more than differences between the gay community/opposition to gay marriage and polygamists/opposition to polygame invalidate that analogy. Of course these situations are all in many ways different, but I still think the inter-racial marriage debate is more analogous to the question of gay marriage than a debate over polygamy.
Basically, you are saying that homosexual and heterosexual marriage are equivalent and should therefore both be allowed, but monogamous marriage (of either kind) and polygamous marriage are different and so it is ok to restrict one but not the other. To do this, you are picking out a single, specific difference between homosexual/heterosexual marriage and polygamy. You are basically claiming that that difference (the number of partners) is important but the difference between homosexual and heterosexual marriage (the gender of the partners) is not important. That's flawed logic. There has to be some specific reason why one difference is important while the other is not. rocketsjudoka gave a specific reason, which is that our system is not set up to handle unions between more than two people, whereas allowing unions between people of the same gender would not be such a problem. That's not all that compelling to me, but it's something. Note that this: could easily be changed to this: From the standpoint of making a purely logical argument, both statements are equally valid. So basically I agree with your overall sentiment, but I think that if you're going to dispute the analogy to polygamy you must identify why the difference is important or substantial. Personally, I cannot think of a reason why the difference with gay marriage is any more substantial than the difference with inter-racial marriage, which is why I think that's a strong analogy. I actually can't think of many good reasons why the difference with polygamy is much more important than the difference with gay marriage, but I also don't have very strong objections to polygamy either. Of course, I can think of plenty of good reasons why the difference with marrying an animal or marrying a minor are more substantial than the difference with gay marriage, which is why those analogies are so poor and are easily refuted.
I see what you are saying now. Thanks for clarifying your stance. But we know that in general sex can't be discriminated against for things such as promotions, for positions within in a company, and largely when applying for jobs themselves. I guess I was carrying the idea of sex not being a factor to rule out applicants for certain rights within the law. That same restriction involving job promotions doesn't apply to groups of people. If three people came in and said they should share a managerial position and shouldn't be discriminated against because they believe in co-managing it seems far different.
As I have said countless times in this very thread, as it stands now, heterosexuals have protection of their property rights through divorce statutes...homosexuals do not. Allowing protection of personal property rights is a good reason. You must have missed the first billion times I said it. Reading is fundamental.
Under the first part of your argument though miscegenation laws aren't a specious argument at all. You are arguing that society has a right to establish thresholds for what is acceptable in marriage. Buying that argument then a racist society is perfectly valid in banning interracial marriage and could make the same argument as you are that if interracial marriage was allowed that would lead to a slippery slope of allowing all type of marriages. Except that you did post this in your first post in this thread. While that may not be the crux of your argument that is clearly a reason for why you think homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed. Even if you haven't stated that argument I am still curious as to your answer if you think that infertile couples should be allowed to marry as like homosexuals that too would be an evolutionary dead end.
Actually the difference between polygamy and a marriage involving just two parties of any gender is very important. The biggest problem would be regarding things like inheritance rights. Do all the parties in the marriage gain equal rights to property and benefits or are they ranked? What about custody and guardianship of children? Does say the co-wife or co-husband have custody rights over the children who aren't there's biological incase of the dissolution of a marriage? For that matter can a co-wife or a co-husband act as guardian of a non-biological child? What where one of the co-spouses divorces the plural marriage are they required to pay alimony or palimony to the rest of the plural marriage? If so is it equal to all the other parties? There are inumerable problems regarding how rights and benefits work in a plural marriage that our legal system isn't set up to handle.
