Question about gay marriage

[apsuman]

I have a genuine question and I am not trying to get flamed here. I have been told the following question is a red herring and I don't understand why it is a red herring.

If gay people should be allowed to be married, then:

Why can't polyamous (more than one partner) people be allowed to be married?

Why can't two sisters get married to each other?

Why can't I marry myself?

Why can't a father/son get married?

Basically, if the definition/understanding of marrige were to change to include homosexuals, what is to prevent the exact same pseudo legalistic logic be applied as above?

[transeo]

1. If a man can marry a woman

why can't a man marry a dog?

[apsuman]

3. because a dog has no legal standing NT

[transeo]

6. Yes, I know

It was a joke. The point is that the same things you just said about allowing gay marriage could be turned around on straight marriage.

[apsuman]

10. As a person that makes bad jokes often...

It was a bad joke.

Current thought amoung a lot of people is that marriage is between a man and a woman each of sound legal mind and of the necessary age.

My question is: as soon as you change one any one part of the definition what is to keep it from being otherwise changed?

[transeo]

14. Nothing - the definition has been constantly changed

Wives were property when the country was founded. Blacks could not marry whites until the 1960's. Marriage laws are constantly in flux and have been throughout history. That does not mean that because we make change A, changes B,C,D,E,F,G will happen too. Maybe some other change will happen. However, changes you mentioned are absolutely ridiculous and illegal for various reasons totally unrelated to the issue of marriage.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

2. What do I care if people want to be polygamous?

None of my business in the least. This is just a desperate right wing meme and I could not care less. What has this got to do with the Gay Marriage amendment? Or does that amendment cover polygamy? What nonsense.

[apsuman]

4. didn't say anything about the Marriage Amendment

Look, if this is a red herring of a question, explain to me why it is a red herring of a question.

I just see evey backwoods bigamist in Utah coming out of the woodwork with this logic.

[transeo]

7. This link explains the slippery slope fallacy

It's a very common logical fallacy. Basically

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm

There are many others if you use google to search.

[nickinSTL]

5. gay marriage

Some of these are easy.

Ok, as far as polyamorous marriage, that might be something else. I'd generally think of marriage as a legal contract between two consenting adults of sound mind (legally able to enter into a contractual agreement). Of course an argument could be made for allowing it to be any number of consenting adults. Why not?

As far as the others:

In the case of sisters and father/son, it has to do with laws against incest. That's not going to change, homosexual marriage right will have nothing to do with it. Only if it were currently legal for a brother and sister or father and daughter to marry would this be a legitimate point.

In the case of you marrying yourself, it's because marriage is a contract between TWO consenting adults of sound mind. You aren't 2 people, are you?

[DrWeird]

8. Why can homophobes get married?

Really, it should be outlawed. It's bad for the children. Won't somebody please think of the children?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

16. I could argue the same thing about fundies

someone take their children away so they can learn to think for themselves...

[baffie]

9. I have nothing against polygamy as long as ...

As long as it's completely by the free choice of all participants. Same for any other combination of possible marriage partners. It's only when there is a concern that not all participants are there by free choice that I would object.

My observation is that I know gay couples who are much more committed to each other than a lot of straight couples I know. In fact I know gay couples who have stayed together for life, cared for one another in old age and sickness, up to the very end. If they can show that level of committment, I see no reason not to honor that. Especially since I, a heterosexual, have not found a committed life partner yet myself, I admire these couples all the more.

[transeo]

11. Look at nations who allow gay marriage

The fundies in those countries all cried about the same crap. And guess what, none of it happened! Those issues are all completely unrelated to two consenting adults getting married. There is no relationship what-so-ever. Period. End of story.

It's all B.S. designed to scare people into not supporting gay marriage.

[apsuman]

13. I dare say those nations...

don't have nearly as "creative" a legal system as we do.

[Mountainman]

12. Gays getting married will not cause those things to happen

If those things were to happen its would be because society chose to change it laws. The act granting gays the right to marry in of itself would not force society to change the laws restricting those things.

That argument is not logically true since its premise is not true.

[yellowcanine]

15. Most of these are red herrings because

People aren't lining up to do most of these things. That is the definition of a red herring. Hypothesizing a problem where none exists. As for multiple partners - this might be an issue if states were allowing one man to have several wives or one woman to have several husbands - but they are not. But states do allow one man to marry one woman. So they are hard put, given the equal protection clause in the Constitution, to deny the right for one man to marry one man or one woman to marry one woman. How does marrying oneself work? I am curious about that one.

[apsuman]

18. this is the best answer so far.

Thanks.

The marrying yourself query came from I dead I had about a person with multipl personalityes wanting to marry two of them.

[Onlooker]

17. There are a few answers

(1) In the eyes of the state, marriage should be nothing more than a legal contract. In that case, there would be no value to the state in allowing people to marry themselves and there would be tremendous complications (with regard to property rights, for instance) in allowing people to have more than one spouse.
(2) Other types of marriage, such as between two elderly siblings may eventually be allowed. If as a society we look at marriage as simply a contract to protect property, grant hospital visitation rights, aid in the adoption of children, and so on, then other types of marriages might seem reasonable.
(3) The sanctity of marriage issue confuses things. The right wing would like to turn our nation into a Christian fundamentalist state. They want to "protect" marriage as it is defined in the bible. The more progressive elements of society see marriage as simply a legal right that affords some protections. If it's looked at only as a legal right, then other types of marriages might start to make sense. Why shouldn't two elderly siblings benefit from the protections afforded by marriage? If they get married, they don't have to have sex, but the right-wing I think is sex-obsessed, and that's the measure of morality for them.