In response to the mention of incest in this post a commenter lays out the case for incestuous marriage:
- Loving v. Virginia requires all marriages be legal.
- Government should not get in the way of love.
- Allowing it will lead to more happiness.
- Friends and family think it's a good idea.
[Quote below the fold.]
...marriage is a civil right as defined first by Loving v. Virginia 1967, and in several court decisions since then. The principle of it being a civil right survives the fact that the 1967 case was about interracial marriage, but I am sure others will disagree and try to dismiss this point with race.
The difference between your Aunt and I is the fact that she is not banned from marrying who she loves when she does find them. Many in the [incest] world have found their love but are banned by their government from having the same recognition and benefits only because who they love is the same [family]. Aren't our laws made to afford the due process of our actions and merits? Why then should we put that aside in this instance?
Given all things careful consideration the benefit of [relatives] being married is that they will be happier. If they are happier they are more productive and their happiness spreads in our society as it does in all other people and circumstances. Those who accuse that [incest] equality will cause our society harm have an obligation to prove what they accuse beyond a reasonable doubt before society should act to restrict such inalienable civil rights.
I have lived with my spouse for almost 15 years now, and we were married in 2007. Our neighbors love us, our family accepts us, and we have not found one person who can honestly point out anything that we have done to harm society. Why then would we give up that joy for the sake of someone's unfounded fears?
Though John Hosty-Grinnel would claim that #4 is missing from incestuous marriages (friends and family would think it was a bad idea), and #3 also probably wouldn't apply according to the APA etc, so that's why the "slippery slope" doesn't apply and SSM won't "lead to" allowing incest. But he can get away with that (and the public also poo-poos the "it will lead to incest" argument) because you are not using the argument in the right way. Your "bad argument #1" is where the focus should stay, because that's what people keep getting wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe point of bringing up incest is to point out that not all relationships are allowed to marry, to remind people that Loving only said that race was "unsupportable basis" to prohibit marriage, and was not a supportable basis like consanguinity or age or marital status.
Loving did not say that all relationships must be allowed to marry. So we are not making a slippery slope argument, we are simply proving that there are supportable basis to prohibit relationship types from marrying. But that is only meaningful and useful if we then make the case that prohibiting same-sex relationships is a supportable basis. And in making that case, it is useful to bring up incest in order to remind people why some relationships are prohibited - because it would be unethical for that kind of relationship to procreate together. Everyone knows that siblings should not be allowed to procreate together, but its fine for siblings to spend their lives together, etc. So it really helps make it clear what marriage in fact licenses.
Howard: John Hosty-Grinnel would claim that #4 is missing from incestuous marriages ..., and #3 also probably wouldn't apply...
ReplyDeleteHosty-G would be injecting his own bigotry and prejudices into the debate in that case. Claims 3 and 4 are just as valid for either relationship. You also have a problem that since Hosty-G doesn't ever form a rational argument, you can't claim that any premise is vital to the conclusion he reaches.
that's why the "slippery slope" doesn't apply...
There is no "slippery slope" here. You're missing some basic reasoning skills. First, "slippery slope" is a fallacy. Second, that is not the argument being made.
and the public also poo-poos the "it will lead to incest" argument...
And speaking of fallacies, that's argumentum ad populum and it's also a fallacy. That the premises apply equally to both arguments and yet are rejected in only one case (whether by just the arguer or "the public" at large) proves the contradiction, which is the point.
if we then make the case that prohibiting same-sex relationships...
That's your own bailiwick. I have no intention of "prohibiting same-sex relationships." I simply argue that they are different than marriage and therefore should be treated differently.
Come on, didn't any of the points I made make sense to you? Unless you make the case why same-sex couples should be treated like siblings and prohibited from marrying (not prohibited from being couples! Are you even trying to understand what I'm saying?), then it sure sounds like you are making a slippery slope argument that "same-sex marriage will lead to allowing incestuous marriage", as though our laws are made by logicians not legislators. Please stop trying to win little nickle-and-dime logic games and work toward ending same-sex marriage. You are trying to end same-sex marriage, right?
ReplyDeleteIt is enough to ask for a distinction between the eligibility of related people and eligibility of the type of relationship that SSMers emphasize. They hve offered no distinction that would withstand their own stated standards of argumentation.
ReplyDeleteHoward: Come on, didn't any of the points I made make sense...?
ReplyDeleteNo, thanks for asking.
Unless you make the case why same-sex couples should be treated like siblings...
Speaking of not making sense. Same-sex couples aren't like siblings and there is no reason to treat them as if they were. In discussing either group's relation to marriage I need only show how each is different than marriage.
Marriage is inherently procreative, same-sex couples are not. Likewise, because sibling relationships are presumptively non-sexual, they are also not procreative.
...then it sure sounds like you are making a slippery slope argument that "same-sex marriage will lead to allowing incestuous marriage"...
How does it sound like that is what I am saying when I never actually do say that? I only say that the same arguments apply to both relationships but the very people using those arguments to neuter marriage reject them when discussing consanguineous marriage. If the arguers reject their own arguments, why shouldn't I?
They don't use those arguments to argue for incestuous marriage. They do not reject those arguments as bad arguments for incestuous marriage, they simply point out that no one is arguing for incestuous marriage. They would probably say they were good arguments for incestuous marriage.
ReplyDeleteA brother and sister that were sexual would be inherently procreative. Same-sex couples should be treated like siblings with respect to marriage (did no one play peek-a-boo with you as an infant or something?) because neither relationships should be allowed to conceive children together, and allowing marriage should continue to allow the couple to conceive. Couples that are in relationships that are prohibited from conceiving should not be allowed to marry.