I know.... I know..... You must be thinking not another question regarding gay marriage, but I really wanted to put another one out there because I am having so much trouble understanding the argument that Marriage is a civil right despite reading a lot about this topic.
I am a Bisexual male and I fail to see how marriage is a civil right in the way that many gay marriage supporters argue it. First off, the definition of a Civil Right is a right that belongs to someone through citizenship. So if marriage is something that is granted to someone because they are of age and a citizen then how come it is a right if it is so restricted to only a select group (heterosexuals)? If you are going to argue marriage from a rights perspective, then you should argue it the right way. If it is a civil right, then that means it should be granted to all people who are U.S citizens and of age. By using the civil rights argument, the next logical conclusion is the include polygamous and incestuous marriages.
The current way the United States has it set up is more like giving special rights to heterosexuals. Also if you argue that Gay people should get the right because Heterosexuals have the right, To me this doesn't make sense. Because not all heterosexuals even have the right to marry, how us gays ask to be included in those special rights, without consideration to those who are not getting their rights, but are still heterosexual/homosexual (incestuous marriages). So I want to t know what you guys think, do you think that if you argue for rights then you should support them to the full and logic extent?
2013-08-25T17:57:23Z
@SuicidalKissesProduction™ 216, 1. So does producing offspring after the age of 40, but we still allow people to marry after the age of 40. Just because you don't let them marry doesn't mean they won't have sex. 2. This is the same argument that people who oppose same-sex marriage use. They argue that marriage is defined as a man and a woman. But what you fail to see is that definitions change over time. And marriage has not always been two consenting adults just like it hasn't always been one man and one woman. I see your point with how many people can marry. I honestly don't have an answer for that. How can we set a limit on the amount of people they can marry?
2013-08-25T18:04:21Z
@Alexis, Yes that was a very good article. I completely agree. But I wish that more gay people would argue for the rights of others along with gay ones. Gays arguing only for their own rights, seems selfish.
2013-08-25T18:21:16Z
@esmerelda, Yes, it actually is SWEETHEART. I already addressed the issue of problems with incest. To repeat myself, the risks would probably be similar to those of women baring children after the age of 40, but we allow people over the age of 40 to marry. The real question is what percentage does it increase the risk of all these problems, and so far I have been unable to find a statistic. Also just because you don't allow them to marry doesn't mean they won't have sex. O.k arguing against something just because it is illegal.... how does that make sense? Gay marriage is not legal in many states and countries. You COMPLETELY missed my point. The point of this whole thing was that a right is a privilege that is given to someone who is (1) a citizen and since you have to be 18 to marry you also have to be of age. So my point was that why should it only be restricted to heterosexuals if it is a right? That doesn't make any sense. If marriage is a right then that means t
2013-08-25T18:31:07Z
@MIchele, The link you sent in basically what I meant. By a citizen I meant all people, since a citizen describes people of all race, gender, age, and sexual orientation.
m d2013-08-25T18:07:06Z
Well, if you charge a person taxes at the same rate as anyone with all rights, if you hold a person to the same legal standards when it comes to violations, then you simply have to either give them the same rights as everyone else or lessen their responsibility to society, otherwise it doesn't sound too fair does it? The only problem with marriage is religion. Now you have to understand that we don't have an official religion in this country and the constitution is supposed to protect everyone, not just a sector of the population, and even though supposedly there's a separation between state and church, there really isn't. So the only question about homosexual marriage, is due to religious groups fighting hard against it. But then again, you also have to think that there are millions of people in this country that are not religious and many more that while they are religious, they don't follow the traditional religions. Also, if you look at human history, there have been more wars in the name of God and more blood shed in the name of God which is a sin itself, that you have to wonder up to what point we want to allow this to happen. I'm not saying religion is bad, but there are many people that misinterpret it or think that their interpretation is the only valid one. This people turn into Gods enforcers and pass judgement, when, again, is a sin according to the bible. Many people don't realize that now it may not bother them because its affecting another group they don't belong to, however, in the name of religion, different groups not only homosexuals were subjected by the church's wrath when the church decided that whatever their group did or represented was a sin. So in short, when thinking about others rights, we all have to think, well, what if what I do was not well seen in the eyes of the church, and what if I wasn't religious, since the real problem is the church pushing against homosexual marriage, not so much the state. Will I like it if the State doesn't represent me because the Church is meddling? And also, why if we are not a Country with an official religion that is supposed to represent everyone equally and fairly, do we have an obvious influence from certain religions that is seen in our laws? What about non religious people? And up to what point is it ok for anyone to be someone else's bedroom police? It basically sounds like a form of rape, for some people are forcing themselves into the sexual life of others that didn't invite them or want them there. We all how to ask ourselves if we would like the State or a neighbor or a total stranger telling us who we can marry and who we can have sex with.
Definitions change over time. 100 years ago the definition of someone able to vote was a male 18 years or over.
This changed as society evolved and realised women were not second class citizens.
These definitions and ttitudes evolve over time. 20 years ago I would guess less than 20% of people would support gay marriage. Now more than 50% of people do (according to the most recent Gallup Poll).
Majority rules and therefore I see no reason not to change the definition of marriage - surely we as a society should have the right to change these things.
Polygamy and incest on the other hand are rarely supported and therefore there is no societal reason to change the definition.
I would like to bet that in 50 years when the U.S. has finally caught up to places like Sweden young people will shake their heads and wonder why there was so much fuss over same sex marriage.
"By using the civil rights argument, the next logical conclusion is the include polygamous and incestuous marriages."
ROTFLMAO!
No, Sunshine, that is not a logical "conclusion." It's not even a logical EXTENSION.
There are strong biological and psychological reasons against incestuous marriage. I don't have time to spoon-feed you, but if you want to search "psychological damage, incest" and "genetic risk, incest," be my guest.
And no, polygamy is NOT included in the marriage issue BECAUSE NO HETEROSEXUALS ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES.
EQUAL marriage rights means that any two individuals above the age of legal consent, WHO ARE NOT OTHERWISE RESTRICTED FROM MARRYING, should have the right to marry.
Parents cannot marry children, siblings cannot marry one another, etc. People who are already married to someone else cannot marry.
You're having trouble understanding the concept of civil rights?
A civil right is a right granted to a member of a community by the community as a whole. In the US, these rights derive from the Constitution and its amendments, the Bill of Rights, and Amendment 14 states that we're entitled to equal justice under the law.
I can't explain it any more simply.
As for 'arguing the right way," I agree, one should.
Some people want to force everyone into a narrow, hetero-monogamous slot. I say, how about instead of trying to come up with convoluted schemes for which adults get their rights and which don't, why not support the rights of ALL adults? The same-gender freedom to marry will be a reality in most of the world soon. Most people who engage in consensual incest and polygamy are heterosexual. Let's not forget that part. BUT, I do know of some triads and quads and brother couples who would marry if they could. Consensual adult incest is legal in a few US states and many modern countries, and there hasn't been a problem. I'm only referring to CONSENTING ADULTS. Last I checked, children, other species, and inanimate objects were not able to legally consent through our broad legal structure. Minor changes in the law should be made so that an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
Some people only care about monogamist gay rights, not the rights of anybody else. There were African-American civil rights supporters who didn't care about Latino-Americans, and vice-versa. This is nothing new. There are polygamists who support gay rights and polygamists who don't. People typically try to pin pedophilia on gays, polygamists, and those involved in incest, but I'm addressing CONSENTING ADULTS only.
I support FULL marriage equality. That includes 30-year-olds marrying 60-year-olds. That includes African-Americans marrying Anglo-Americans.That includes two men marrying, even if they are brothers. That includes one women marrying two men. It is ridiculous that in most of the US, it is perfectly legal for a woman to love, have sex with, and have children with two men at the same time, but she isn't free to legally marry both at the same time even though they all agree.
Equality just for some is not equality. Don't like it? Don't do it. As with interracial, adult intergenerational, or gay sex/marriage, there is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against polyamorous or consanguineous sex or marriage. Personal disgust or religion is only a reason why one person would not want to personally engage in polyamory or consanguinamory, not why someone else shouldn't do it.
Some people try to justify their prejudice against consanguineous sex and marriage by being part-time eugenicists and saying that such relationships inevitably lead to “mutant” or “deformed” babies. This argument can be refuted on several fronts. 1. As I noted, some consanguineous relationships involve only people of the same gender. 2. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. 3. Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. 4. We don’t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. For example, it is legal for someone with Huntington's Disease to marry and have children. Look that one up.
Some say "Your sibling should not be your lover." That is not a reason. It begs the question. Many people have many relationships that have morethan one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can’t their sister be a wife, too?
Some say “There is a power differential.” This applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to sex or to marry. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning.
Some say “There are so many people outside of your family." There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial marriage. So, this isn't a good reason either.
Yes, there are patriarchal societies that have gender inequality and allow religion-based polygyny only, and people cite problems in those societies, but the problems are not caused by polygamy. They are caused by sexism and gender inequality under the law. All the paperwork issues can be resolved. And if paperwork issues could be an excuse to deny fundamental rights, we wouldn't have the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Victims of abuse and coercion would be MORE likely to work with law enforcement if we had relationship rights for all adults. Let consenting adults love each other the way they want!