Why Can't I Marry the One I Love?

[bucktalk]

One reoccurring comment I hear from some regarding the same sex marriage issue is, "why can't people who love each other get married?" While that seems like a simple question it creates even more questions on marriage limits. Isn't it very possible, if carried to the full extent, why couldn't brothers marry each other -or sisters? Or if 'people are in love' then why couldn't 2,3,4 people 'marry' each other? I realize this sounds far-fetched but same sex 'marriage' was far-fetched in America not too many years ago.

If same sex marriages become accepted by the courts - what/how will other definitions of marriage take place??

Your thoughts? (please, let's keep this civil!)

[Bunty]

I wouldn't worry about same sex marriage evolving into a variety of marriages, since it hasn't turned out that way in the Scandinavian countries where same sex marriage has been allowed or the equivalent for a long time.

[PennyQuilts]

I disagree that polygamy is farfetched as compared to same sex marriage. Polygamy has a long history and is still practiced in parts of the world.

Historically, quite a few cultures allowed marital incest although it was frequently confined to royalty.

I am personally unaware of any culture that actively practiced same sex marriage on a wide scale or for a long period of time. Some Native Americans were fairly tolerant, seems like I read, but generally, even the ancient Greeks didn't formalize a same sex relationship as marriage.

Logically, I honestly don't know how a culture that changes the traditional definition of marriage to include same sex marriages would have a leg to stand on to keep these others forms from also being recognized. Traditionally and historically, they have a much better argument. Other than culture or religion, I don't see the problem with polygamy. As for incest, the fear of bad genes, while understandable, isn't nearly as iffy with persons who aren't afflicted with a strong negative family gene - farmers and other animal breeders breed close family members all the time to improve a line. Moreover, with genetic testing and the choice of not having children, that particular fear isn't nearly as unmanageable as it once was. The bigger problem is that with the acceptance of close family members as potential mates, it opens the door to increase the likelihood of childhood abuse in a family. There are some inate things going on, chemically, that sometimes discourage close family members from breeding but that obviously is no guarantee that it won't happen or that the genetic inclination is much of a deterent.

[Pete]

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

These issues are considered completely individually and there is absolutely zero talk about legalizing polygamy or close marriage. If and when those issues are raised, then as a society we will debate them in the same exhaustive manor as gay marriage, but as it is they have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

If you are against gay marriage, that's your right but the continual association with polygamy, pedophilia and other things that aren't even on the table is silly.


I'm not aiming these comments at any one person, just the consistent use of this spurious debate tactic.

[HewenttoJared]

If it was illegal for Catholics to marry you could make the same argument. That should tell you something.

[Roadhawg]

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

These issues are considered completely individually and there is absolutely zero talk about legalizing polygamy or close marriage. If and when those issues are raised, then as a society we will debate them in the same exhaustive manor as gay marriage, but as it is they have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

If you are against gay marriage, that's your right but the continual association with polygamy, pedophilia and other things that aren't even on the table is silly.


I'm not aiming these comments at any one person, just the consistent use of this spurious debate tactic.

I agree and I have to laugh when people say's it goes against the sanctity of marriage but when you look at the divorce rate, the marriages that last a week, etc.... You don't hear people saying those are against the sanctity of marriage.

[PennyQuilts]

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

These issues are considered completely individually and there is absolutely zero talk about legalizing polygamy or close marriage. If and when those issues are raised, then as a society we will debate them in the same exhaustive manor as gay marriage, but as it is they have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

If you are against gay marriage, that's your right but the continual association with polygamy, pedophilia and other things that aren't even on the table is silly.


I'm not aiming these comments at any one person, just the consistent use of this spurious debate tactic.

There was zero talk of same sex marriage well into my adulthood. Just because it hasn't been pressed, before, doesn't mean it won't in the future but my point was not so much whether it would or would not happen, but that logically and legally, if it did, that the arguments against it would be relatively weak. I mean, if it comes down to marrying who you love and that is all that really matters - forget religion, tradition, history, need for a stable home for children, etc., what's left?

And just to be clear, I never suggested pedophilia would be in the same boat - I agree that is silly. Moreover, it has nothing to do, other than sometimes coincidentally, with homosexuality or polygamy.

As for the destruction of traditional marriage by heterosexuals, I think we all see that. As time goes by, we see fewer marriages that actually resemble traditional marriage other than in conservative christian communities (I don't know about about other religions so I don't mean to short them). I personally think we should do civil unions and call it good.

[Lord Helmet]

I disagree that polygamy is farfetched as compared to same sex marriage. Polygamy has a long history and is still practiced in parts of the world.

Maybe so...but right now no one in the USA is advocating for polygamy. After same sex marriage is legalized it's possible that it could come up but I highly doubt it will in my lifetime. Even if it does we'll have debate etc just like we are now...It's really a non issue to me.

[Pete]

But it doesn't come down to just marrying who you love. The fact that gay men and women want to marry the person they love does not mean that ANYONE who loves ANYONE should be able to marry, and nobody has ever said this. Hence another debate fallacy: The strawman.

This is about gay marriage and only gay marriage and it should be debated on it's own merits. There is absolutely no link between polygamy and gay marriage. Some vague similarities may exist, but they are easily distinguishable and completely separate issues.


The reason this bothers me so much is that this slippery slope stuff is nothing but a diversion and the fact it is raised almost every time gay marriage comes up tells me the people against this don't really have much else to say, which is telling in itself.

The only other argument I've seen is "tradition" which is an even weaker stance.


Whatever happens with gay marriage doesn't impact me personally, I just hate to see politicians and others constantly dredge up these tactics that wouldn't pass muster in a bad high school debate competition.

[kevinpate]

If there is a concern that same-sex marriage being lawful open a gateway to other forms of marriages, it might be worth taking a look at those states were same-sex marriages are already legal.

Are there folks petitioning their law makers? Are there petitions on street corners for new laws?
No? Yes?

Just seems to me those states might be ground zero for a modern real time testing laboratory regarding such notions.

[Midtowner]

One reoccurring comment I hear from some regarding the same sex marriage issue is, "why can't people who love each other get married?" While that seems like a simple question it creates even more questions on marriage limits. Isn't it very possible, if carried to the full extent, why couldn't brothers marry each other -or sisters? Or if 'people are in love' then why couldn't 2,3,4 people 'marry' each other? I realize this sounds far-fetched but same sex 'marriage' was far-fetched in America not too many years ago.

If same sex marriages become accepted by the courts - what/how will other definitions of marriage take place??

Your thoughts? (please, let's keep this civil!)

Aside from the valid slippery slope comments which are perfectly valid, there's nothing particularly wrong with polygamy so long as folks are limited on their tax advantages. What I wouldn't want to see is plural marriage becoming some kind of tax shelter. Aside from that, plural marriage has a lot going for it in many cases and in some cases has been nothing more than systematic repression of women. That said, traditional marriage has been a system of systematic oppression of women since ancient times and only in recent times has the concept of women being chattel been dropped.

As far as close marriages, we generally find these to be forbidden because such unions tend to increase the rate of birth defects exponentially. That's at least a rational reason, i.e., we don't want flipper babies, public health, etc. That's a rational reason or even a substantial government interest to justify discrimination.

Usually, the next place such slippery slope arguments go is towards bestiality and child marriage. Obviously, neither your sheep nor goats (sorry OSU folks) have the capacity to enter into a contract, which marriage is, nor do children. So obviously, we have some pretty good reasons to discriminate there.

[wallbreaker]

These same tired questions were brought up in the debates against interracial marriage... they had no place/value then, nor do they now.

Now, as for polygamy/polyandry/group marriages, except for tax/contract/abuse reasons, I see no reason it should be illegal. I've known several people who've been in healthy, long term, committed, polyamorous relationships.

[Pete]

If people are so concerned about plural marriage, why not concentrate the lobbying effort there? How about a constitutional amendment against that?

The reason you don't see any real action on this is because nobody really sees it as a realistic concern.


Polygamy and the slippery slope are just scare tactics used by those who are against gay marriage for personal and/or religious reasons.

[wallbreaker]

One reoccurring comment I hear from some regarding the same sex marriage issue is, "why can't people who love each other get married?" While that seems like a simple question it creates even more questions on marriage limits. Isn't it very possible, if carried to the full extent, why couldn't brothers marry each other -or sisters? Or if 'people are in love' then why couldn't 2,3,4 people 'marry' each other? I realize this sounds far-fetched but same sex 'marriage' was far-fetched in America not too many years ago.

If same sex marriages become accepted by the courts - what/how will other definitions of marriage take place??

Your thoughts? (please, let's keep this civil!)

The other problem with this line, is you're misframing the question/argument. The question/comment isn't "why can't people who love each other get married" (although it is the emotional appeal that is being made). The question is "why does one person not deserve to have the same legal rights as another?"

[PennyQuilts]

Well, notwithstanding the merits, do you guys have to use the description of a "tired" slippery slope argument? Honestly, I answered in the spirit requested and if you think that is a stupid argument or that I am stupid, I can't stop you - but I'd ask that you be as respectful as I was and as was requested when this thread was begun.

Moreover, to be clear - I never argued that same sex marriage was a gateway institution to other forms of marriage, Kevin - I said the the legal opposition to other forms of union would be weakened if same sex marriage is adopted. If no one wants to go down that road to polygamy or whatever - the law really isn't called into play. And there might not be a big push in that direction. But if there was - in answer to the original question asked in this thread, in my opinion - adoption of same sex marriage makes it much harder, legally, to oppose it. But, in fairness, the same argument could be made for civil unions. Once you get past childbearing as the traditional reason for marriage, the gender and number of members of the institution don't really seem to matter much, seems to me.

And Pete, help me to understand this:

But it doesn't come down to just marrying who you love. The fact that gay men and women want to marry the person they love does not mean that ANYONE who loves ANYONE should be able to marry, and nobody has ever said this. Hence another debate fallacy: The strawman.

I don't follow the logic or maybe I simply haven't considered what you are looking at. If it isn't about the right to marry the one you love, then what is the basis? That is pretty much the only argument I've ever heard since all the legal benefits could be conferred via a civil union. Why would people be able to marry one person but not more than one? Adoption of same sex marriage pretty much tosses out the traditional definition so why limit it to two? Two is traditional, too.

[PennyQuilts]

Polygamy and the slippery slope are just scare tactics used by those who are against gay marriage for personal and/or religious reasons.

Oh, come on, Pete. That's a generalized statement and, IMO, pretty unfair. I made the argument, in good faith because as a lawyer, that's how I see it. It had nothing to do with personal or religious reasons. How come we can't talk about this without that being charged? You know, and I know, that the instant people start accusing someone of saying something for religious or personal reasons, the conversation shuts down. I'm trying to be open minded and fair. Let's not start defining others so we don't have to talk about it. Yes?

[Pete]

Penny, nobody is calling you out.

I don't follow the logic or maybe I simply haven't considered what you are looking at. If it isn't about the right to marry the one you love, then what is the basis? That is pretty much the only argument I've ever heard since all the legal benefits could be conferred via a civil union. Why would people be able to marry one person but not more than one? Adoption of same sex marriage pretty much tosses out the traditional definition so why limit it to two? Two is traditional, too.

The issue is having the same RIGHTS as straight couples, plain and simple. It's about rights, and not just the financial ones. There are many, many ramifications here, both present and future.

And certainly we don't need to discuss the "separate but equal" implications.

[Pete]

Oh, come on, Pete. That's a generalized statement and, IMO, pretty unfair. I made the argument, in good faith because as a lawyer, that's how I see it. It had nothing to do with personal or religious reasons. How come we can't talk about this without that being charged? You know, and I know, that the instant people start accusing someone of saying something for religious or personal reasons, the conversation shuts down. I'm trying to be open minded and fair. Let's not start defining others so we don't have to talk about it. Yes?

The reason I made that point is because I don't believe people are sincerely concerned about plural marriage and that is evidenced by absolutely zero attempts to target that issue in any way.

Does anybody really believe that if there was a hypothetical law that expressly allowed gay marriage without any possibility for plural marriage that that would convert anyone on this subject?

[FRISKY]

I'm glad to see this question raised. I'm interested in legalizing plural marriage...very interested. It would be the ideal way to continue the commune lifestyle I had in the 60s.

[Lord Helmet]

In my mind it works like this in a nutshell:

I believe everyone has the right to be happy so long as their pursuit of happiness doesn't readily impact me or society in general in a negative way. For example...if someone needs to murder and steal to be happy...that affects people negatively and shouldn't be allowed. As far as same sex marriage goes...there's nothing wrong with being gay, and these people can't help that they are gay. Gay people have just as much a right to happiness as I do. Gay people want to be able to marry because it makes them happy. Gay people getting married does nothing at all that affects me negatively at all. So I say let 'em do it.

Then there's the whole argument that they don't have the same rights under the law that I have (taxation etc)...which is also a valid argument.

[Dubya61]

This pretty much sums it up for me. If we are going to debate the traditional notions of marriage then I want those people to account for all of the traditions. The concept that traditions don't change and that somehow the changing of these traditions leads to the complete destruction of our society is the omniscient slippery-slope that never materialized. If you want to have a debate on bestiality, fine let's have one. If we want to debate gay marriage, I'm good with that. But lumping the status quo under some guise of "tradition" is simply being dishonest.

Per a poster in another thread on almost the same topic:
just wanted to point out that this chart is inaccurate in several places:
man+woman
true... one woman plus one man. this is the only form of marriage jesus quotes in the new testament.

man+brother's widow
true... however, the scripture cited is an anecdote rather than the actual command that is found in deuteronomy 25. however, by stating that the woman "must submit sexually to her new husband" the graphic implies that the woman is compelled to marry which isn't found in the command. either way, the woman was considered technically to still be married to the first husband and the son born out of this relationship is considered to be the son of the deceased. the primary purpose was to ensure that the widow was provided for and that the deceased's lineage was preserved.

man+wife+concubines
false... not a form of marriage and not a command. the man is only married to the wife and not to the concubines. furthermore, just because something happened in scripture doesn't mean that people were commanded to do so nor does it imply that the behavior was endorsed. there are instances of idol worship in scripture. that doesn't mean that scripture therefore considers it to be a legitimate form of worship.

rapist + victim
false... not a form of marriage. odd that only part of this is quoted. if a man rapes a virgin who is pledged to be married then the rapist is put to death. if the victim is not pledged to be married then he must marry her and pay a dowry. this was done to protect the woman as it would be unlikely that anyone else would marry her. still, it is a marriage between one man and one woman. this isn't another form of marriage just because the circumstances are unique.

man + woman + woman's property
false... not a form of marriage and not a command. the evidence presented here falls into the same category as man+wife+concubines. it seems that the authors are trying to pad this list as it tries to list hagar both as "concubine" and as "woman's property."

male soldier + prisoner of war
false... not a form of marriage. while the circumstances are unique, this is still just a marriage between a man and a woman. again, the graph is a bit disingenuous in stating that the women "must submit sexually to their new owners." this implies that the marriage was performed under duress whereas neither passage reflects this. in fact, the passage from deuternomy suggests that the woman should not treated as a slave and is free to go if the marriage does not work out.

man+woman+woman+woman
false... not a command. while this is a form of marriage it was neither commanded nor endorsed by scripture. see man+wife+concubines.

male slave + female slave
false... not a form of marriage. while the circumstances are unique, this is just a marriage between a man and a woman. it should probably be noted that this isn't slavery in the sense that it existed in the united states. the context here is a hebrew slave, that is someone who typically sold himself into slavery for no more than seven years to pay some form of debt. the previous verse to the one quoted states that a married slave should not be separated from his wife. also, the graph uses the word "assign" implying compulsion when the verse actually states that a slaveowner could "give" a spouse to an unmarried slave.

so... at best, two forms of marriage endorsed by old testament scripture.

[PennyQuilts]

I'm glad to see this question raised. I'm interested in legalizing plural marriage...very interested. It would be the ideal way to continue the commune lifestyle I had in the 60s.

Oh, pshaw, Frisky!! I don't believe for one second you've managed to scare up a harem. Are you thinking of joining one?

[Teo9969]

Admitting two entities into a publicly institutionalized and incentivized union on the count that they love each other is nothing short of asinine.

And yes, legalizing homosexual marriage on the argument of two people loving each other DOES set precedent. No it's not a slippery slope for admission into a future debate over pedophilia/polygamy/etc. It's just a question of whether or not, in the discussion of pedophilia et al., there are reasons which supersede "two entities loving one another" for denial of that institution.

The LGBT community and its allies need to shift their rhetorical focus from how the country is oppressing LGBTs and denying them "rights" to why allowing them to marry will benefit the country as a whole.

[PennyQuilts]

The LGBT community and its allies need to shift their rhetorical focus from how the country is oppressing LGBTs and denying them "rights" to why allowing them to marry will benefit the country as a whole.

I completely agree.

[Questor]

So I need some help understanding some of your views here. For this discussion let's just focus in on the religious argument.

I'm a fairly libertarian person. I consider myself part of a mainstream denomination that bills themselves as being open and that they just don't care about this issue, or that they do care and think it is a human right. They'll allow whatever marriage. So that is their religious conviction.

Why do you have the right to interfere with my church's right to worship as it pleases? What gives you the right to set law that says who the church clergy can and cannot marry? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How can passing a law that requires all churches everywhere to never follow one of their religious convictions be anything but repressive? How can any of you be for that? Why should anyone have to "prove" or "show benefit" to anyone else why they should be granted their inalienable First Amendment right to religious worship?