And why not? Seems perfectly logical to me.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303908/Jeremy-Irons-claims-gay-weddings-used-inheritance-tax-dodge.html
Oscar-winning actor Jeremy Irons has added an unusual dimension to the same-sex marriage debate, by saying it could lead to fathers marrying their sons because laws do not cover incest between men.
Me: When two people love each other they should be able to marry. Are a man and his son somehow not included? Or a mother and her daughter? Grandfather and grandson? Once it is decided that marriage could not longer be limited by gender combinations, obviously neither it can be by other variables.
B.R.: I just made the same noise at you that your profile photo is making at the world.
Me: I had hope for a thoughtful, logical response, but instead all you offer is an insult.
B.R.: I would say the same about your post. You've joined forces with Scar The Evil Lion to conveniently suspend the rules of reason. You're simply throwing up another dust cloud into this crystal clear issue.
"Once it is decided that marriage could not longer be limited by gender combinations, obviously neither it can be by other variables." Really? This is simply illogical. The legal system does, in fact, have ways of changing SPECIFIC policy details without allowing ALL variables in the door. Face palm...
Currently, marriage is allowed for non-related heterosexual adult couples. The next step is for marriage to be allowed for non-related adult couples, regardless of heterosexual or homosexual orientation.
Incest is NOT ON THE TABLE. Pedophilia is NOT ON THE TABLE. Beastiality is NOT ON THE TABLE. Necrofilia is NOT ON THE TABLE. Group marriages are NOT ON THE TABLE. Polygamy is NOT ON THE TABLE.
Jeremy Irons' vapid statements, which you are bafflingly associating yourself with, present no reliable argument against gay marriage. They are stale air and poppycock. Jeremy Irons is being a troll.
When you offer up one tangible reason that gays and lesbians should not be allowed equal rights and access to marriage, then we can have a thoughtful, logical conversation. So far, in this effort, you have repeatedly failed.
Me: May I respectfully point out the egregious flaws in your reasoning?
1) We are not talking about the capabilities of the legal system. We are talking abut the train of logic used to establish the concept of gay marriage. There is no reason offered in favor of gay marriage that will not also apply to any other form of marriage. I challenge you to defend the banning of incest without using the arguments of those who oppose gay marriage.
2) "The next step is..." Exactly. Are you not a progressive? But how can you be, because otherwise you are incestophobic, pedophobic, and polygamophobic.
3) Um, wrong. They are on the table. Their advocacy is strong, and getting stronger. Again, what will you say to them when they want legal recognition of their status? I want to know precisely how you will oppose them.
4) I guess today is a new day. We have had no conversations about this in the past. Therefore, you are free to regurgitate talking points, bumper sticker slogans, and slogans as if they are novel ideas. So long as you persist in misdefining the issues, we will fail to communicate.
O.C.: 1) Why can we not be specific? We are specific about a man being able to marry a woman, without allowing anything else. Why can't we be specific about two Men or two Women choosing to marry also?
Incest is not accepted because genetic material among blood relatives is not diverse enough to produce viable offspring reliably (or long term). It is also not socially responsible in the case of inter-generational relationships due to the existing power structure inherent in inter-generational family relationships.
Gay couples cannot produce offspring due to hardware issues. There is zero chance of a homosexual couple producing offspring, viable or otherwise. Thus the incest taboo doesn't apply here.
Separate issues. Lumping them together is a logical fallacy. This is fact. Do you disagree?
I think that two consenting adults who find themselves wanting to be life partners should be granted all the rights that have been historically granted to any couple that is allowed to marry. Full stop. Different issue: Incest is bad.
2) Can you state what you're getting at here more clearly? Seems like you are implying that Ben's view point is hypocritical, but I can't isolate the core of your argument as presented.
3)Who is advocating for these things?
My defenses:
Incest – biologically unsound. Even if consent based I feel it is always destructive.
Pedophilia – not consent based
Bestiality – not consent based
Necrophilia – not consent based
Group marriages – Legal some places already? Not it the states right? Is there legislation moving forward to legalize it anywhere? When this is based on consent, I don't oppose it. I do think it is a separate issue or at least will be treated as such legally.
Polygamy – Already legal some places in the states right? Is there legislation moving forward to legalize it elsewhere? When this is based on consent I don't oppose it. However, I think it is often destructive as practiced, but not always.
I do think it is a separate issue or at least will be treated as such legally.
4) What issues are being mis-defined and how? How would you define them?
Lets clearly identify what issues we are discussing so that we CAN effectively communicate.
Thanks for your time!
B.R.: You can always point out my flaws - I appreciate the opportunity for public self-awareness.
1) The train of logic is an entertaining tangent, but we ARE talking about the capabilities of the legal system. Our laws can easily allow for gays and lesbian (non-related, couples only) to be married, without also allowing for others.
2 and 3) When those groups gain enough support and visibility, I will review and consider their positions with an open mind. I currently have pretty clear opinions of incest, pedophilia, and beastiality. However, when millions of people are fighting for their rights, I'm the kind of human being that will compassionately consider their cause before judging and deciding.
Where's the strong advocacy you speak of? You can't realistically compare the size and timeline of the LGBT civil rights movement to supposed efforts of pro-incest, pro-pedophilia, and pro-beastiality. If you disagree, please, show me the websites, fan pages, protests, celebrity endorsements, self-identifying community leaders and elected officials, Supreme Court hearings, massive fundraising efforts, and other tangible evidence of the causes you want to lump together with LGBT civil rights.
See O.C.'s comment above ("Incest is not accepted because...") for what I'd say to the pro-incest-marriage-rights cause.
As for pedophilia, I'd tell them that law prohibits children from entering into marriage because a) marriage is inherently interwoven with sexual consummation, and having sex with a minor is illegal; b) it puts children at high risk of coercion and forced union; and c) it falls within the same reasoning as a legal voting age, a legal drinking age, and a legal smoking age: you're not old enough to make that decision for yourself.
As for beastiality, I'd tell them that marriage is inherently interwoven with sexual consummation. Having sex with an animal is illegal.
I'll also adopt O.C.'s responses as my own.
4) I've already admitted that the Upworthy image was technically inaccurate. Remember? You won some points, good job. Beyond that, your choice to reject the common sense you call "bumper sticker slogans" does not invalidate their worth and relevance. I'll regurgitate my logically sound perspective as many times as you require.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi
Any more paper-thin reasoning to prevent the legal recognition of LGBT marriage?
Me: I will not accept any arguments based on the illegality of the various arrangements, since the objective of gay marriage proponents is to change the law. A youth cannot consent because the law says so. An animal cannot consent, but that is because it does not have legal status. A corpse cannot consent because of legal status. So the only remaining objection you have is either distaste, or that they violate your morality.
This is not an "interesting tangent," it is central to the debate. The logical procession of ideas is always central. The gay marriage movement began very small and was opposed largely because of disgust and/or morality. So the size of the movement is irrelevant. Whether or not it is mainstream is irrelevant. Your personal opinions of the repugnancy of the behavior is irrelevant. There is absolutely no difference between any of these "objects of affection" other than the LEGAL status.
Requiring sexual behavior as a qualifier is strange indeed. Why is there a logical issue that must include sexual behavior in the mix? The gay marriage advocates have never listed this as one of their criteria, that marriage must be about sex. Their presentation has always been about love, committment, caring, families, access to legal privileges, and privacy.
Therefore, a celibate marriage is still a marriage, regardless of gender, age, or genetic relationship, or the presence or absence of the sexual act. So we must conclude that a marriage between a father and a son is not incest until a sexual act occurs. Same with polygamy, bestiality, and necrophilia.
It seems to me that it is the advocates of gay marriage are the ones obsessed with sex. As for me, like I said before, I have no opposition to what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. I. Don't. Care. Why gay marriage advocates want to force me and everyone else into their relationships has never made sense. As I also said before, I think all government involvement in marriage ought to be totally eliminated. Then people can do as they damn well please and not expect that I or anyone else have to conform to their expectation about "proper" celebration of who they're boinking and the tax breaks thereof.
Me: O.C., regarding #2, a progressive wants society to progress, but it seems like B.R. opposes the right of other expressions of love to progress for reasons he seems unable to name.
Regarding #3, I will leave it to you to discover who advocates for what. A quick google search yields these results: dawhois.com/site/animal-erotica.com.html Pro-Polygamy.com ™ www.pro-polygamy.com etc., etc..
B.R.: If you were so prepared to reject any and all responses from me, why did you even ask the question? And I use the term prepared loosely. The fact that one law affects another does not disqualify my position. There's still more than enough common sense to clearly separate the policy shifts I'm advocating for from the outliers you've put in their way. Really man, you've got a superhuman ability to obfuscate.
LGBT advocates want to change specific laws in specific ways, and you have not shown any reason why they CAN'T do so while still retaining limits on unrelated qualifiers (incest, pedophilia, beastiality, etc). As far as SHOULDN'T, both O.C. and I addressed your questions with clear reason and open minded speculation. But you'd seek to render our words illegitimate with a blind swipe. Who said anything about repugnance and moral defiance? I said "I will review and consider their positions with an open mind".
The size of a movement is incredibly relevant. Why is a certain number of signatures required on a petition? Why does it matter how many votes a certain measure or politican receives? Why should we bring tiny little groups X, Y, and Z into a discussion about group A, when the comparative voices of X Y and Z are so minuscule and unrelated? You lump together, we draw a line, you hide the line, we re-draw the line...
As for sexual behavior, in this particular matter they are pretty valid: incest is when two people of the same family HAVE SEX. Pedophilia is the desire to HAVE SEX with a child. Beastiality is the act of HAVING SEX with an animal.
Polygamy is the closest to LGBT in terms of organized support, but it's still such a tiny outlier that I maintain their separateness from this issue. When the voices of pro-polygamy actually enter this debate with any recognizable volume, then, again, I will review and consider their positions with an open mind. Until then, there's no reason for you to either represent them or claim their similarity to LGBT.
The lines are drawn clearly, and neither you nor Jeremy Irons has the ability to undraw them.
"it seems like Ben opposes the right of other expressions of love to progress for reasons he seems unable to name." - I've named them, I've explained them, and you're still throwing dust.
Me: Now you're dissembling.
My specific word were: "I will not accept any arguments based on the illegality of the various arrangements..." That is not "any and all responses." Can I ask that you accurately present the situation?
Jeez, B.R., I know that gay marriage advocates want to change the law in specific ways. How many times do we need to cover that ground? My specific words were: "We are not talking about the capabilities of the legal system. We are talking abut the train of logic..." Either you don't understand, or you want to divert without addressing the point.
The present illegality is moot for all these other expressions of relationship. All that remains is your repugnance or moral oppositon. Unless you can manage to communicate to me another critieria.
In any case, you refuse to answer my question. Apparently you cannot. Nor can you recognize that me bringing up other relationship expressions is not in any way making them equivalent to gay marriage, other than the specific context I mentioned them in: the struggle for legal status.
All those behaviors (beastiality, incest, pedophilia) are expressions of sexual behavior, not marriage. Which means you apparently agree with my point that marriage does not equal sex. Everyone, even gays, can be in relationships without enaging in sex. This is self-evident.
Which means that other combinations of status cannot be rejected just like gay marriage cannot be rejected, by the very same criteria. Which means that there is no objection available to you that does not also provide objection to gay marraige. Which measn that advocating for gay marriage necessitates being open to all other expressions of relationship. You have no other choice, B.R.. Unless you can find a single reason for rejection that applies to every other relationship expression EXCEPT gay marriage. One will do. I'm waiting.
You might indeed consider the polygamist claim for legal recognition. That is not relevant. If you end up rejecting their claim (which must be an available option if you are truly open-minded), then you do accept discriminatory legal restrictions on loving, committed relationships.
No comments:
Post a Comment