5 ms·

My argument would be amoral but straightforward: a politically-significant % of people want gay marriage, and make a strong case for it. You could reasonably im

by aristus 17y ago

My argument would be amoral but straightforward: a politically-significant % of people want gay marriage, and make a strong case for it. You could reasonably implement it as "two persons" and go home. The % of people seriously agitating for polygamy is much lower so you can safely ignore them.

iron_ball 17y ago
May I add, this is one of the most precise uses of the word "amoral" that I have ever read.
yummyfajitas 17y ago
So if there were fewer gays (say, # of gays = # of polygamous mormons - 1), you would oppose gay marriage?
- aristus 17y ago
  Nope. I don't oppose it at all. Rights are demanded, not granted. Given the situation we have now, granting "two person" marriages at the expense of higher numbers would satisfy the most people with the least amount of upheaval. If and when polygamists are numerous and organized enough to make a strong case for themselves, then we can talk about it. That's how politics really works.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    Really? Because previously, you argued that because the number of people advocating for polygamy was lower, you therefore did not support polygamy. I guess that was just a fake argument? So I'll repeat the question: can you state your real argument in favor of gay marriage? Note: I'm asking why you favor it, not why you feel it is politically feasible.
    - cj 17y ago
      His original post focused on the political aspect of it. The political aspect is what decides whether gays can marry, and a population's overall opinion on a mater influences political policy. Thus, his personal opinion is totally irrelevant to the point he was making. Why are you trying to bring his personal opinions into play?
      - yummyfajitas 17y ago
        Actually, I realize we are both talking past each other. Sp332 and myself want to hear an argument for gay marriage which does not logically lead to legalized polygamy. Aristus is arguing that gay marriage will not politically lead to legalized polygamy.
        raleec 17y ago
        Out of curiosity, what is an argument for straight marriage which doesn't logically lead to polygamy?
        yummyfajitas 17y ago
        Most arguments around either reproduction or tradition don't logically lead to polygamy. One such argument (which is not my opinion): "Marriage is an institution with the primary purpose of providing a good environment for children and their biological parents. We only permit sterile straight couples to get married to promote the illusion that marriage is about love and happiness for the married couple. Since a polygamous household is not a good environment for children, we ban polygamy."
        roundsquare 17y ago
        We only permit sterile straight couples to get married to promote the illusion that marriage is about love and happiness for the married couple. Continuing in the tradition of stating opinions that are not ours but are potentially interesting: One could argue that at the time these laws were made, checking for sterility was impossible and is now potentially prohibitive or inaccurate as medical science improves.
  - billybob 17y ago
    1) The founding fathers thought rights were recognized, not granted, by humans. They were granted by God. If you think humans grant them, you must think they can take them away, and it's just a matter of who is strongest. 2) State-recognized marriage is not a right. Like copyright, it is the granting of certain privileges, at the expense of the state, with the expectation that the state will benefit. You have a human right to write books and songs, and you have a human right to choose a partner. Separately, the state may have laws to encourage those things. A law recognizing gay marriage is not saying "you're equal with everyone, you can drink from the same water fountains." It's saying "we encourage gay marriage. We want to incentivize it." What is the case for that? Seems like it should be a sociological, economic one.
    - aristus 17y ago
      1) More or less, yep. Even those "natural rights" had to be demanded and paid for in blood. I'm talking about how the world has worked so far, not how I think it should be. It's useful to pretend otherwise most of the time, but when shit goes down you can't afford that luxury. 2) Yep. In this case I mean rights as in "water rights" as opposed to higher-order natural rights. Pragmatic reasons to encourage gay marriage are largely the same as for regular ones: married people live longer and are generally more happy. Stable households mean stable communities. Sensible distribution of estates. More homes willing and able to adopt the millions of kids who need them. Etc. Procreation is not the entire or even the most important reason to encourage households. Unfortunately those arguments don't hold water with people who think being gay is immoral in and of itself.
      - Sisyphus_of_IT 17y ago
        Gay marriage does not benefit the state. Marriage between a man and woman benefits the state in that a marriage is a structure designed to provide for the safe procreation & rearing of children. Gays, by definition, don't procreate. Any society that accepts and encourages gay marriages is committing suicide.
nitrogen 17y ago
Given the number of cultures in the world that still practice polygamy, and how historically some cultures in the US did as well, I wouldn't be surprised if a number of "closeted polygamists" started popping out of the woodwork if polygamy were legalized along with same-sex marriage. I'd also question whether "people seriously agitating" is a good way of determining whether a particular action is right or necessary, as it's the lack of agitation caused by fear that allows discrimination (against any small minority: geeks/nerds, races, genders, etc.) to exist for such a long time before finally being addressed.
- eru 17y ago
  > Given the number of cultures in the world that still practice polygamy, and how historically some cultures in the US did as well, I wouldn't be surprised if a number of "closeted polygamists" started popping out of the woodwork if polygamy were legalized along with same-sex marriage. Polygamist have basically the same rights as gay people: They can't marry (in most countries), but nobody forbids you from screwing around (or even loving) multiple partners.

by aristus 17y ago

iron_ball 17y ago

May I add, this is one of the most precise uses of the word "amoral" that I have ever read.

yummyfajitas 17y ago

So if there were fewer gays (say, # of gays = # of polygamous mormons - 1), you would oppose gay marriage?

aristus 17y ago
Nope. I don't oppose it at all. Rights are demanded, not granted. Given the situation we have now, granting "two person" marriages at the expense of higher numbers would satisfy the most people with the least amount of upheaval. If and when polygamists are numerous and organized enough to make a strong case for themselves, then we can talk about it. That's how politics really works.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  Really? Because previously, you argued that because the number of people advocating for polygamy was lower, you therefore did not support polygamy. I guess that was just a fake argument? So I'll repeat the question: can you state your real argument in favor of gay marriage? Note: I'm asking why you favor it, not why you feel it is politically feasible.
  - cj 17y ago
    His original post focused on the political aspect of it. The political aspect is what decides whether gays can marry, and a population's overall opinion on a mater influences political policy. Thus, his personal opinion is totally irrelevant to the point he was making. Why are you trying to bring his personal opinions into play?
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      Actually, I realize we are both talking past each other. Sp332 and myself want to hear an argument for gay marriage which does not logically lead to legalized polygamy. Aristus is arguing that gay marriage will not politically lead to legalized polygamy.
      - raleec 17y ago
        Out of curiosity, what is an argument for straight marriage which doesn't logically lead to polygamy?
        yummyfajitas 17y ago
        Most arguments around either reproduction or tradition don't logically lead to polygamy. One such argument (which is not my opinion): "Marriage is an institution with the primary purpose of providing a good environment for children and their biological parents. We only permit sterile straight couples to get married to promote the illusion that marriage is about love and happiness for the married couple. Since a polygamous household is not a good environment for children, we ban polygamy."
        roundsquare 17y ago
        We only permit sterile straight couples to get married to promote the illusion that marriage is about love and happiness for the married couple. Continuing in the tradition of stating opinions that are not ours but are potentially interesting: One could argue that at the time these laws were made, checking for sterility was impossible and is now potentially prohibitive or inaccurate as medical science improves.
- billybob 17y ago
  1) The founding fathers thought rights were recognized, not granted, by humans. They were granted by God. If you think humans grant them, you must think they can take them away, and it's just a matter of who is strongest. 2) State-recognized marriage is not a right. Like copyright, it is the granting of certain privileges, at the expense of the state, with the expectation that the state will benefit. You have a human right to write books and songs, and you have a human right to choose a partner. Separately, the state may have laws to encourage those things. A law recognizing gay marriage is not saying "you're equal with everyone, you can drink from the same water fountains." It's saying "we encourage gay marriage. We want to incentivize it." What is the case for that? Seems like it should be a sociological, economic one.
  - aristus 17y ago
    1) More or less, yep. Even those "natural rights" had to be demanded and paid for in blood. I'm talking about how the world has worked so far, not how I think it should be. It's useful to pretend otherwise most of the time, but when shit goes down you can't afford that luxury. 2) Yep. In this case I mean rights as in "water rights" as opposed to higher-order natural rights. Pragmatic reasons to encourage gay marriage are largely the same as for regular ones: married people live longer and are generally more happy. Stable households mean stable communities. Sensible distribution of estates. More homes willing and able to adopt the millions of kids who need them. Etc. Procreation is not the entire or even the most important reason to encourage households. Unfortunately those arguments don't hold water with people who think being gay is immoral in and of itself.
    - Sisyphus_of_IT 17y ago
      Gay marriage does not benefit the state. Marriage between a man and woman benefits the state in that a marriage is a structure designed to provide for the safe procreation & rearing of children. Gays, by definition, don't procreate. Any society that accepts and encourages gay marriages is committing suicide.

nitrogen 17y ago

Given the number of cultures in the world that still practice polygamy, and how historically some cultures in the US did as well, I wouldn't be surprised if a number of "closeted polygamists" started popping out of the woodwork if polygamy were legalized along with same-sex marriage. I'd also question whether "people seriously agitating" is a good way of determining whether a particular action is right or necessary, as it's the lack of agitation caused by fear that allows discrimination (against any small minority: geeks/nerds, races, genders, etc.) to exist for such a long time before finally being addressed.

eru 17y ago
> Given the number of cultures in the world that still practice polygamy, and how historically some cultures in the US did as well, I wouldn't be surprised if a number of "closeted polygamists" started popping out of the woodwork if polygamy were legalized along with same-sex marriage. Polygamist have basically the same rights as gay people: They can't marry (in most countries), but nobody forbids you from screwing around (or even loving) multiple partners.