How To Explain Gay Rights To Folks Who Think It Opens The Doors To Ridiculous Things

[Playinghardball]

Like marrying your toaster. Or your children. Or the dead. Or a dog. Huh?

Source: Buzzfeed.com

[ret5hd]

1. WAY too many 3 syllable words.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

2. Doesn't work for polygamy.

Arguably, the reason it doesn't work for polygamy is that the arguments for permitting gay marriage also work for justifying permitting polygamy (although the arguments for the state granting certain benefits to gay couples probably don't extend to granting all those benefits to more than one person per person).

But admitting this while debating gay marriage with a conservative would almost certainly ruin your chances of convincing them.


There are also some question marks over polygamy in the specific cultural context of the USA (will it lead to forced/pressured marriages, possibly of young women to much older men? There's no reason in the abstract it would, but in the USA it seems it might) that don't apply to gay marriage.

[customerserviceguy]

5. In a bizarre way, I think that Sick Rantorum is right

Why do we involve the state in prohibiting polygamy? Yes, the very subject brings up images of Warren Jeffs and those inbred women in 1880's hairdos and prairie dresses who we rightfully presume to be brainwashed.

But what if a modern, urban woman wanted to have two similarly-minded husbands, and they're all OK with it? What business is it of the state's to interfere with their decision? The same can be said of incestuous relationships between related individuals who are fully-functioning adults. First cousin marriage is prohibited by about half the states (Kentucky, Arkansas and Alabama, for instance) and allowed by about half (New York, California, and Massachusetts - surprised you there a bit, didn't I?) what is the fundamental difference between aunt and nephew, for instance? Of course, we might want to pull reproduction out of the picture, and if this couple is infertile because of the inability of one or both partners, what's the rub?

What's that, it's "icky", you say? A lot of reich-wingers still feel that way about gay people, too.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. First cousin sex is a bit different.

The probably of the babies having really quite unpleasant things wrong with them is very high.

[customerserviceguy]

9. Yes, but it's already legal in a bunch of places

and all those couples have to do is meet the residency requirements of the place they plan to have the wedding in, then move back to the home state (if necessary) and the whole thing is recognized under the full faith clause of the Constitution. It's what will lead to equal marriage being finally OK in this country, once the SCOTUS gets around to deciding something on this issue.

Besides, your argument is reproduction-based. That's been a standard of fundie opposition to equal marriage for a long time, and we know it's a bogus argument.

[Kellerfeller]

11. An interesting case is siblings

where either one has been sterilized or they are of the same gender.

It's hard to argue against that one as well. (at least logically. The 'ick' factor on it is significant, but that is not a good argument)

[lapislzi]

18. I recently met gay twins who were partnered to each other

And thought to myself, "how nice."

Beyond that, none of my damned business.

[Kellerfeller]

21. I think that is the only logical stance to take

But many people have an issue with letting siblings marry.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. It's an argument against children, not against marriage.

If closely-related people want to marry, or even to have non-reproductive sex, that may be icky but it's not necessarily anyone else's business (although, again, the high proportion of such relationships that may involved undue pressure is an issue).

But I do think the state should prohibit closely related people doing anything that may result in children.

[Kellerfeller]

16. Why?

Choice is choice.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. It's a choice that affects other people.

The reason having an early or mid term abortion should be a free choice is because at that stage a foetus is not yet sentient, hence not yet a person, and in general choices that don't affect anyone but the person making them should be private.

But choosing to create a child *does* affect other people, and hence it's a legitimate choice for the state to interfere in.

[Kellerfeller]

20. I disagree

The action of an abortion makes it so that future person doesn't exist.

The action of reproduction also occurs before that future person exists. It does impact that persons life but not as much as making that future person completely not exist.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. I only believe in future persons who exist.

Dear god, that's a clunky post title.

What I mean is "if a person isn't going to exist in the future, they're not a future person". "My firstborn grandson" is a real future person if I'm going to have one, but not if not.

Abortion does not affect a future person, because no such person will ever exist.

[Kellerfeller]

10. Not really

In April 2002, the Journal of Genetic Counseling released a report which estimated the average risk of birth defects in a child born of first cousins at 1.7–2.8% over an average base risk for non-cousin couples of 3%, or about the same as that of any woman over age 40.

http://imo.thejakartapost.com/hatefmokhtar/archives/4

[TeeYiYi]

12. That report is hard to believe...

Have you ever seen the progeny of first cousins? I have. It was generic fubar.

Five kids with every combination of dna anomaly from albinism and cleft palate to retardation and blindness.

The oldest boy committed suicide in his 20s. The second and third, a boy and girl both died in their thirties of mysterious ailments. No one knows for sure outside the family.

The youngest two are now around 50 years old and both are legally blind from their albinism,.. in addition to other birth defect problems.

An extremely sad family story and every child was afflicted.

Yeah, I wonder how accurate the results of that study could be.

TYY

[Kellerfeller]

14. Historically, it's pretty common

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss

As a result, according to Robin Fox, a professor of anthropology at Rutgers University, it's likely that 80 percent of all marriages in history have been between second cousins or closer

But getting beyond that point, assume relatives to want to have kids, knowing that they have an increased chance of birth defects. What right do we have to stop them?

[TeeYiYi]

15. Really? ...

If you'd seen this family...and the sorrow that fucked up and damaged dna rained down on those kids, you'd understand why it should be illegal for first cousins to procreate.

TYY

[lapislzi]

19. I have.

One of the owners of our company is the product of a first cousin union. He is one of the smartest, fittest individuals I've ever met. His children and grandchildren are all equally exceptional, a few mental health issues aside (and who hasn't these days?)

When first cousin (etc.) intermarriage becomes generational, the potential for genetic problems increases exponentially. To wit: the crowned (pin)heads of Europe.

[peacebird]

3. I usually posit it as either spearation of church and state or equal rights, or both.

If the state is going to have laws and priviledges granted to adults who it allows to marry, then it must allow any consenting adults that right. Churches do not have to perform the ceremonies if they find it objectionable.

I remember when inter-racial marriage was going to "end the world as we know it!"
Before that it was interfaith marriages.... The world continued on just fine.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. You win my typo of the week award. N.T.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

4. Marriage is a civil contract, not a religious one.

Religion is optional in marriage.

You gotta get your marriage license from the government but the person who officiates may be a judge or a religious figure.

[customerserviceguy]

6. My toaster

thinks I'm cheating on it with the vacuum cleaner, but sometimes it gets a little too hot-headed.

[EOTE]

23. But what about box turtles?

I notice that this explanation is oddly missing them. What would prevent a man from marrying a box turtle in this scenario?