Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage

[A Poster He or I]

I'm somewhat surprised no one has mentioned how the legalization of previously taboo social activities is tied to the times. Philosophy in practice is a social phenomenon, not an ivory-towered past-time. The zeitgeist for ending slavery, came before giving universal male suffrage, which came before female suffrage, which came before interracial marriage, etc., etc. Until the time is right, philosophy alone is impotent to dislodge conservative social practices.

[Vijaydevani]

Consider that "evidence" in this type of matter is not necessarily scientific evidence. The moral authorities, church leaders, unanimously agree that homosexual marriages are bad for families, children, and people in general. This is like having a Doctor or Professor give opinion, which is valid evidence--although not scientific at all, it is acceptable. And yes, children from interracial relationships would be more likely to end up in interracial relationships for two reasons. One, because they would not consciously avoid them, and two because any relationship is going to be interracial because they are interracial. Gee

Most leaders of organized religion are unmarried and have never raised children. What could possibly make them moral authorities on family life? How would they know what is good for children without having ever raised any?

And what is wrong with interracial relationships? Assuming you are right and "children from interracial relationships would be more likely to end up in interracial relationships". What is wrong with it. Genetic diversity is necessary for evolution and interracial marriages should be encouraged.

[Sy Borg]

Most leaders of organized religion are unmarried and have never raised children. What could possibly make them moral authorities on family life? How would they know what is good for children without having ever raised any?

And what is wrong with interracial relationships? Assuming you are right and "children from interracial relationships would be more likely to end up in interracial relationships". What is wrong with it. Genetic diversity is necessary for evolution and interracial marriages should be encouraged.

Agreed and well said. Interracial relationships promote understanding and peace - more power to those who do it. As for gay marriage, it astounds me that anyone cares. I consider these consideration to be hangovers from the controlling group behaviour of our ape ancestors. One day these will be complete non-issues.

[LuckyR]

Scott, you are bird dogging the loose threads just fine, but you are missing the unspoken element that is the source of your opposition. Namely that the LGBT community is the last group in American society that is OK to openly discriminate against and not get called out on it.

Of course, many are trying to put Muslims in that category, we'll have to see how that hashes out.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Scott, you are bird dogging the loose threads just fine, but you are missing the unspoken element that is the source of your opposition. Namely that the LGBT community is the last group in American society that is OK to openly discriminate against and not get called out on it.

1) What does this topic have to do with America? Philosophy isn't national.

2) If I didn't miss the above, then I believe that would be a failure to use the the principle of charity. A good philosopher will focus on the rightest of his opponents to represent that position. In this case, we must seek to interpret arguments against lesbian marriage (or interracial marriage) as being grounded in the least amount of ignorant bigotry as possible.

[LuckyR]

Scott, you are bird dogging the loose threads just fine, but you are missing the unspoken element that is the source of your opposition. Namely that the LGBT community is the last group in American society that is OK to openly discriminate against and not get called out on it.

1) What does this topic have to do with America? Philosophy isn't national.

2) If I didn't miss the above, then I believe that would be a failure to use the the principle of charity. A good philosopher will focus on the rightest of his opponents to represent that position. In this case, we must seek to interpret arguments against lesbian marriage (or interracial marriage) as being grounded in the least amount of ignorant bigotry as possible.

Using a personal observation (I reside in the US) does not limit the accuracy of my logic. In fact most are aware that the US has been one of the most progressive countries in the world on this topic so I am on solid ground here.

As to #2, I never meant to imply "ignorant" bigotry, just bigotry.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Scott, you are bird dogging the loose threads just fine, but you are missing the unspoken element that is the source of your opposition. Namely that the LGBT community is the last group in American society that is OK to openly discriminate against and not get called out on it.

1) What does this topic have to do with America? Philosophy isn't national.

Using a personal observation (I reside in the US) does not limit the accuracy of my logic.

What is the logic that is allegedly accurate? If it is still accurate without the personal observation, can you re-describe it for me but without the personal observation?

2) If I didn't miss the above, then I believe that would be a failure to use the the principle of charity. A good philosopher will focus on the rightest of his opponents to represent that position. In this case, we must seek to interpret arguments against lesbian marriage (or interracial marriage) as being grounded in the least amount of ignorant bigotry as possible.

As to #2, I never meant to imply "ignorant" bigotry, just bigotry.

I am sorry. I injected the word ignorant because it represents my own beliefs on the matter. Please let me rephrase: If I didn't miss the above, then I believe that would be a failure to use the the principle of charity. A good philosopher will focus on the rightest of his opponents to represent that position. In this case, we must seek to interpret arguments against lesbian marriage (or interracial marriage) as being grounded in the least amount of bigotry as possible.

[LuckyR]

I am glad we sorted out your #2. As to the first point it is a reality that the LGBT community is subject to discrimination of various sorts (for the reasons I outlined). This is a description of the arguments you answered (not of your own).

[Belinda]

I would not be allowed to marry my dog no matter how much my affection, loyalty unto death, proved and intentional companionship, and financial support. Therefore it seems that the reason I may not marry my dog is that sexual relations are not possible between a human and a dog unless the human is raping the dog. Marriage permission, then, must be confined to proper power relationships.

But we have child marriage and forced marriage acceptable to some people. These practices pertain to societies with cultures of belief in which 'honour' of the family is more important than any other considerations of health, individuals' welfare, or even the laws of the land.

But what is a "proper power relationship" based upon? We in the West base our evaluation of marriage legislation and practices on either what individuals want or what a religious doctrine requires.

Supernaturalist religious doctrines are beyond the pale of reason, so let's rule them out of this serious discourse, okay?

We are then left with a core of possibilities of vulnerable persons who might possibly get married to someone who lacks any concern for them as persons but who want to use them for financial gain, sadistic cruelty, or entry to a desirable foreign country as a legal immigrant. Marriage legislation must reflect our concerns for vulnerable people.

[LuckyR]

I would not be allowed to marry my dog no matter how much my affection, loyalty unto death, proved and intentional companionship, and financial support. Therefore it seems that the reason I may not marry my dog is that sexual relations are not possible between a human and a dog unless the human is raping the dog. Marriage permission, then, must be confined to proper power relationships.

Wow, somehow in your seemingly exhaustive review of the possible reasons why you can't marry your dog, you missed the actual reason. Namely that dogs, legally, are property. So you can no more marry your dog as you can marry your car. Affection, loyalty and companionship are moot points and have no bearing on the matter.

[Belinda]

LuckyR wrote:

Wow, somehow in your seemingly exhaustive review of the possible reasons why you can't marry your dog, you missed the actual reason. Namely that dogs, legally, are property. So you can no more marry your dog as you can marry your car. Affection, loyalty and companionship are moot points and have no bearing on the matter.

Affection, loyalty and companionship are among the important reasons for typical 21st century Western marriages. Plus consensual sex, which is impossible with property which might be slaves or dogs . My point about power relationships is that marriage should be legal only if the married people are in an equal power balance, not, as in child marriage or forced marriage, in cultures of family honour, when women are property to be given in marriage where family honour is the sole consideration.

Sexual and 'racial' orientations should be irrelevant to the legality of a marriage therefore in a society where sexual and 'racial' orientations don't imply that some persons are the exploitable property of others.

[LuckyR]

LuckyR wrote:

Wow, somehow in your seemingly exhaustive review of the possible reasons why you can't marry your dog, you missed the actual reason. Namely that dogs, legally, are property. So you can no more marry your dog as you can marry your car. Affection, loyalty and companionship are moot points and have no bearing on the matter.

Affection, loyalty and companionship are among the important reasons for typical 21st century Western marriages. Plus consensual sex, which is impossible with property which might be slaves or dogs . My point about power relationships is that marriage should be legal only if the married people are in an equal power balance, not, as in child marriage or forced marriage, in cultures of family honour, when women are property to be given in marriage where family honour is the sole consideration.

Sexual and 'racial' orientations should be irrelevant to the legality of a marriage therefore in a society where sexual and 'racial' orientations don't imply that some persons are the exploitable property of others.

OK, I agree with your logic on the element of power as pertains marriage, it is just that you don't (shouldn't) need to invoke the dog analogy since it doesn't address the query you pose.

The Law agrees with you to a certain extent as there are ages of consent, in this case to give the consent to marry. What are your opinions on the marriage rights of those with diminished mental capabilities? Should they be allowed to marry? What if they have a legal guardian? Would it be different if they were seeking to marry another with diminished capacity? (thus nullifying the power "differential").

[Sy Borg]

LuckyR wrote:

Wow, somehow in your seemingly exhaustive review of the possible reasons why you can't marry your dog, you missed the actual reason. Namely that dogs, legally, are property. So you can no more marry your dog as you can marry your car. Affection, loyalty and companionship are moot points and have no bearing on the matter.

Affection, loyalty and companionship are among the important reasons for typical 21st century Western marriages. Plus consensual sex, which is impossible with property which might be slaves or dogs . My point about power relationships is that marriage should be legal only if the married people are in an equal power balance

Yes, it's the power imbalance. Rather than being property, dogs are more like children and the same rules apply when it comes to their empowerment and capacity to refuse advances.

Most reasonable people (as per the law's "reasonable man") consider an acceptable romantic relationship to be between consenting adult humans*. Take away the consent, adulthood or humanity and there is potential for exploitation.

* adult consenting dogs bonding with each other is also acceptable

[3uGH7D4MLj]

Option 3 seems to me to be irrational nonsense that simply cannot be philosophically justified because I do not see one valid argument to legalize one but not the other. Needless to say, do we all agree that we want lesbian marriage to share the same legal status as elderly, interracial marriage, or is there anyone who disagrees? If there is anyone who disagrees, then what is your reason for denying one couple marriage but not the other? Remember, to be valid, it has to be a reason that only applies to one couple. For instance, you couldn't reasonably say "I don't want to let couple B get married because they cannot have children" because neither couple can have children. So, if you disagree that these couples shall share the same legal access to marriage, please name the relevant difference between Couple A and Couple B that warrants prohibiting one and not the other.

You mean in our current political and judicial climate? If the people of a state hate interracial marriage, isn't that enough to introduce legislation banning it? or if the people of a state hate gays, they have the right to enact laws to "protect marriage."

Maybe what's tripping me up is the philosophical justification. If there's an attempt at objective analysis, the problem disappears in either case. The objections to non-standard marriage are archaic social and religious.

The supreme court ended bans on interracial marriage in 1967 in the US, otherwise there would be many states still banning it I'm sure.

Marriage is a legal contract which carries specific meanings in medical access, insurance, inheritance, family leave, etc. I guess I'm in favor of letting people do what they want in their church or coven or whatever, but maintaining standards of something called marriage for the sake of legal status. The term itself presents a difficulty, because it seems to mix religion and law.

[Lambert]

My vote was 1 simply because a marriage document is signed by two people that makes it a social contract from that moment on. This includes civil rights, finances and so on including children that may become a part of it until a certain age. And yes, what is known as divorce can be obtained at the same place, but maybe not on the same day because our dating system does not specify the time of day that this contract came into effect.

Opposite to this Matrimony is wherein the union between two souls is confirmed as publicly declared, and a Document is signed to affirm what has been said. It is called Holy with the aim to make two people whole, who therefore must be opposites so that this Union can make them 'one' as sought to be. This is where 'his life' is found in 'her' and 'she' becomes the 'home' for him, in destiny for them as seen by these two souls in time to come.

It so is that true love is seen between opposite where eros is based on opposites that they present and represent as lovers, we would say, as they walk their holy walk to the sanctuary in which they are not allowed, at least not just yet until such time as they get there on their own and they become one in agape with the opposites removed in them, simply because agape has no opposite of its own. It just is, as in IAM.

From this follows that divorce is not possible in that the end was seen when they walked that walk and talked the talk that their own soul told them to say, and therefore they cannot rationally undo the words they spoke.

Let me add here that what we know as "free love marriage" was an institution of the 11th Century when the idea of soul-mates was first possible to see. If then we consider that the 'so called thousand year reign' makes reference to our soul it follows that it took also 1000 years to built, that now makes the 'dark ages' real and the subsequent Inquisition period their effort to maintain the Institution that they called Holy Matrimony from that day on.

However, since also Catholicism has it's dues to pay, what they call "annulment" is their answer to the problems that lovers may encounter, and/or maybe just want out, for whatever reason, I suppose, and maybe they really do not care (and let the government deal with it from that day on).