Over the years, defenders of traditional marriage have repeatedly asked advocates of neutering marriage to give a principled reason why marriage should then not be extended to other combinations of individuals not allowed to marry.
And while occasionally they do respond with an answer---sometimes a good one, more often not---the more frequent response is to scream insult at us for merely mentioning one of those other combinations.
This, of course, is all P.R. strategy. The problem is, it is totally inconsistent. In claiming insult, they are depending entirely on the "ick factor" being still attached to the other combinations. But their whole campaign for neutering marriage has been built around asking the public to overcome the ick factor.
Still, to some extent, this approach of claiming insult probably works. If it didn't, Prop 8 in California and Prop 1 in Maine would have passed by far higher margins than they did.
Even so, it cannot logically be denied that advocates of a huge change in the understanding of marriage need to explain just what the limits on marriage are to be once that change is made. And, more importantly, why.
Hence, every advocate of neutering marriage needs to be asked: Just what are the limits now once marriage is neutered? What combinations should not be allowed to marry? And why not?
And to give them no room to claim insult, ask this question without even mentioning any of these other combinations.
And the answer to "why not" must not contradict their arguments used for neutering marriage.
(More after the fold)
Answers that do NOT work include any variations of the following:
1. "Well, of course that doesn't include (fill in the blank). That needs no explaining".
2. "I'll worry about that when any significant number of people demands it(that marriage include that combination)."
3. "Because of the children involved...". (Need it be explained why this is contradictory?)
Another unacceptable answer, by the way: "Because that has traditionally been associated with....". You've got to cover the cases where it is not.
ReplyDelete"But their whole campaign for neutering marriage has been built around asking the public to overcome the ick factor."
ReplyDeleteI've always found this curiously ironic. Isn't the whole reason gays & lesbians say they cannot love a member of the opposite sex because they find them icky?
Gays and lesbians CAN marry, same as everone else -- one man and one woman. So why don't they? The ick factor.
Marty, that's the "equality paradox" - see the tab on the far right column. One can't claim there is no difference between a bride+groom union and a same-sex union and yet say that the laws need to be changed because they "can't" participate in a bride+groom union. Well, if there is no difference, then why not? Obviously, the difference between men and women is large enough that almost everybody identifies as heterosexual or homosexual based on the sex to which they are attracted and the sex they are themselves. Almost nobody is completely bisexual without a preference either way.
ReplyDeleteIt needs to be stated that we are NOT equating polygamy or incest with homosexuality. However, many of the arguments used to for marriage neutering CAN also be applied to changing marriage licensing to legalize polygamy and incest.
ReplyDeleteThese people seem to understand that:
http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com
Currently, some states issue marriage licenses to first cousins, and others don't. How can that be, if a marriage license is a "fundamental right"? Historically, those marriages and polygamy have more footing than a brideless or groomless marriage.
R.K.: But their whole campaign for neutering marriage has been built around asking the public to overcome the ick factor.
ReplyDeleteSo in other words, neutering marriage ends up the intellectual equivalent of Fear Factor. Remember the show where contestants would eat ground maggots, raw cow brains, or live slugs to prove they could overcome their "ick factor?" Except instead of doing dumb things to win $50,000, we'd be doing it just to prove how dizzying our intellect has become. (See Goodridge.)
Even so, it cannot logically be denied that advocates of a huge change in the understanding of marriage need to explain just what the limits on marriage are to be once that change is made.
ReplyDeleteYou raise some reasonable points in this post, and I figure I'll provide a full response pending our agreement in another thread.
But it's worth noting that while it's not unreasonable to ask a person who advocates a big change to justify why they wouldn't change anything else, it's not always logically important to do so.
For example, it would be reasonable for someone to argue that eliminating gender requirements from marriage licensing is not a huge change. The fact that some people perceive it as such does not make it so.
Pretending that a person arguing for a change in one element of the status quo must therefore justify every other element of the status quo isn't logically required.
Consider, if a person argued that a particular chemical additive in food should be permitted even though it's banned today, logic would not require that person to then justify, individually, why every other chemical additive might still be banned.
(Note: This is my response to Phil Thibodeaux's answer to my question which I posed to him in the Hamer and Rosbach thread. I thought it would be better to continue that line of discussion here. Due to the 4,096 limit I have to break it up into several posts).
ReplyDeletePhil, thank you for your response.
I’ll also reiterate that logic does not necessarily require a proponent of same-sex marriage to re-justify who cannot marry.
No, not in a strictly logical sense. But because marriage is an institution which society has an interest in, the question of what the institution means and does not mean is relevant to all. Therefore, society and the people in it have a legitimate interest not only in major changes to the institution, but what the implications of those changes may be. Not only directly, as in the question of what the proposed change may actually do in and of itself, but also as to what it implies about the meaning of the institution. And if the arguments for the new change logically have implications to that that go way beyond what even the advocates of the change had intended, that is something which society, and the advocates of the change, need to deal with. Thus it is a legitimate question for society to ask of the proponents of the change. And proponents should not expect any less.
“Should the state provide a legal institution that allows two committed, consenting people to enjoy benefits, privileges, and rights provided by the state based on their connection to the other person?”
You're limiting yourself already in your scope of what to cover right there, but I'll get to that when I come to your 1:14 clarification post.
A question arises in this definition, though: based on what kind of connection?
I have already argued, elegantly and correctly, that a person’s sex, or gender, is not a legitimate basis.
Well. that's debatable, but everyone has a right to toot their own horn if they so wish, so I'll let that be for now.
So below is my response to each of your examples of combinations that should not be allowed to marry.
1.) Anyone who cannot legally provide consent.
ReplyDelete2.) Both parties must be legally able to consent to the contract.
I agree that consent is a qualitatively different issue, and that allowing marriage between any combination who can all consent does not logically lead to allowing it for those who cannot. (There may be gray areas here, but I'll get to that later).
But here's the problem. Many children under 18 capable of consent. Now, you probably are trying to cover that with this statement:
The law recognizes, rightly, that children cannot meaningfully enter into contracts.
But this is a fallback, and an inconsistent one, because in the case of SSM you are advocating changing the law. Going back when confronted with my question and simply saying "Because the law says..." to why any other marriages should remain illegal just doesn't work. As I'm sure you know, many children under 18, who are not legally allowed to marry, are more capable of consent than are many adults who are allowed to marry. Although there is variation by state, developmentally disabled adults are allowed to marry if they consent. As one who has worked with developmentally disabled adults, I have seen some who have been married. Most of the time these marriages don't work out, largely because of an inability to handle disagreements. But they are legal.
Now, what is the difference between a highly intelligent 12-year-old and a 30-year-old with the same, or even lower, IQ level? Using the same kind of reasoning you have used to eloquently and "correctly" argue for same-sex marriage, and without invoking the current state of the law, on what basis can we deny a marriage license to the intelligent 12-year-old but allow it for the even less intelligent 30-year-old?
So answers 1 and 2 only work as an argument against marriage for children who are intellectually incapable of consent.
Similarly, since no animal can enter into a contract, the oft-repeated (and incredibly moronic) example of bestial marriages is perfectly reasonably excluded.
I agree, animals are incapable of consent, plus they don't even know what marriage is, and this is a qualitative difference. I don't argue that that is going to happen because of SSM, or that it logically should. Still, depending on just how much the idea of what marriage is changes, I can see how those who would want it might try to argue around the consent problem. They could say that because their pet has consistently demonstrated its loyalty to them, it has given "implied consent". Also, many will argue---and you know there are many such people---that to them their pet is the one to whom they are most committed and devoted, and this is true even if they do not engage in bestiality. And since I believe that you would not argue that any kind of sexual relations should be a requirement for marriage, this would not be relevant.
Now, let me assure you, my gut reaction, just like yours, is that this idea is "moronic" (Well, actually absurd would be a better word). But I can see how to some people who feel that their pet is their main commitment in life, it wouldn't be so moronic at all. When confronted with my question, please remember that what may seem moronic and self-evident to most of us may not seem so moronic to all, and that what is dismissed as moronic one day may not be regarded so at a later date. SSM was dismissed by most people not too long ago with similar words. That's the only parallel intended. Again, I agree with you about the qualitative difference of consent here, plus other hurdles, just saying the arguments some might give someday may sound better than you and I think.
3.) Any pairing where the joining of the couple could directly cause physical damage to other citizens, public property, or their children. So, for example, if one partner in a marriage were legally quarantined with a deadly and highly communicable disease, it would be reasonable to delay issuance of a marriage license.
ReplyDeleteAgreed....if they are going to be in physical contact.
But we can get around this if the couple agrees to not be in physical contact, or even live together. It touches on the issue of whether or not people can be legally married if they do not live together. Indeed, in an earlier post, I was going to ask you a question: You argue that because we still grant marriage licenses to infertile heterosexual couples, we must out of consistency also grant them to same-sex couples. Is it not just as sensible to argue that because we do not insist that a married couple have sex, and because we even grant them sometimes to couples ("land mine" example) who we know can't have sex, we should therefore in consistency allow them between two who have never physically met, and don't plan to, but have gotten to know each other so well via the Internet and the telephone that they wish to be married anyway, and still maintain their long-distance relationship?
So the argument for answer #3 doesn't work as well as it first appears to, depending on circumstances.
4.) A pairing where the mating of the couple would be very likely to cause birth defects could be reasonably denied a marriage license. (Based on recent research, this would probably allow first cousins to marry. So be it.)
But this assumes that they plan to have their own children, which is not absolutely required for marriage anyway. What if they agree not to have their own children, or even not to have sex? How are we to (following on reasoning similar to yours) deny them a marriage license because of an assumption that they will then do something which we do not require for marriage, and which they can do just as well without marriage?
What is the actual risk of birth defects for children of siblings, or of a parent and child? Well, according to this site, "The predicted risk for the children of brothers and sisters or parents and their children is 6.8-11.2% above that of the general population" . (Not sure if they mean arithmetically or rationally; if the difference is mathematically rational, that is not very much). I also found this site, which argues against the prohibition on sibling marriage in relation to a particular case, in regards to a brother/sister couple who already have four children. (The article mentions nothing about them having birth defects).
What is more, how does this work as an argument, once SSM is legalized, against two brothers or two sisters marrying?
Hence, the argument for answer #4 does not work so well.
5.) I don’t really have an opinion about whether incarcerated felons should be able to marry. I can see arguments on both sides. I don’t think incarcerated felons should get special rights if they marry, however. (For example, different visiting situations, etc.)
#5 relates to what I mentioned regarding #3.
Also, as you can see from the way I framed the question, there was no need to cover polygamy. The state currently provides no institution for multiple-partner marriages. Neither of us is suggesting that this change. The state isn't "discriminating" in the case of polygamy any more than it is when it doesn't allow multiple persons to be a sole proprietorship. It's a different legal structure
ReplyDeleteDoesn't work at all, Phil. Again, it is totally inconsistent for one advocating a change in the law to fall back on what the current law is when asked why some other change should not be made. Without invoking the current state of the law, why should we not allow marriages between three or more adults who all consent to the inclusion of all members?.
It's a different legal structure.
So what? Is this the "because it's legally complicated" argument? Are you saying that legal complexity should overrule a right when you can find no other reason for the "right" to be denied?
Phil, I will also have a response to your rejoinder to me regarding your question in the Hamer and Rosbach thread, but that line of discussion I will leave in that thread. Continuing our approach of taking turns with the two lines, which I think is working pretty well, could you wait for my response there before responding to this? Thank you, and I do want to thank you for your demonstration of courtesy here, which you've pretty well maintained despite the intensity of all our arguments.
4.) A pairing where the mating of the couple would be very likely to cause birth defects could be reasonably denied a marriage license. (Based on recent research, this would probably allow first cousins to marry. So be it.)
ReplyDeleteSo obviously this wouldn't apply to, say, two gay brothers or lesbian sisters who wanted to marry. We'd have to allow incest in their case.
Right?
RK, great comments.
ReplyDelete* * *
The protocols for consent depend on that to which consent is given.
Not all consenting people are eligible. The consent of an individual party is not a trump card.
Society is a party to each marriage. Societal consent, without the consent of the bride, does not permit the groom to form a marital relationship with her. A man and a woman, without societal consent, will not be licensed nor accorded the special status of marriage.
We do license other stuff based on what that stuff actually is. Qualifications and regulations are based on what that stuff is. And societal concern for those essentials is what justifies societal involvement, anyway.
We have licensing regimes whereby a lone individual may qualify and be accorded status. Likewise, groups of people may qualify for other kinds of licenses and statuses. Consent does not self-limit to the number two.
Individuals can consent to stuff without the government's intervention. Happens all the time. So making government a party to something to which individuals consent is not automatic. Least of all in a framework of limited government.
The underlying assumptions of the SSM idea are very shaky. The 'same-sex couple' is a contradictory phrase for there is nothing about "same-sex" that naturally limits to the number two. For example, the all-male scenario is defined by the number one -- the inclusion of just one sex. This could be a lone individual, a twosome, or a moresome. What would age have to do with that?
A couple of persons of the same sex is a vague notion. There is nothing intrinsically sexual about it. Nothing intrinsically adult about it either. So age and sex are add-ons, not essentials from which the protocols of consent arise.
If, as SSMers assume, sexual behavior is to be an imposed limitation, then, this must be justified for the sake of societal consent and also for the sake of determining the application of this limitation on the consent of the individual person.
However, if behavior is not definitive of sexual orientation, as SSMers are coached to assert, then, there is no sexual basis for limmiting based on age. And that would change the protocols of consent for a license and status based on the SSM idea.
The marriage idea is different in that regard. But that difference is the very thing that SSM argumentation attacks and seeks to expunge from the license and status of marriage.
R.K.,
ReplyDeleteBut this is a fallback, and an inconsistent one, because in the case of SSM you are advocating changing the law.
You're shifting the ground here. It's true that I'm advocating a specific change in the law. But you're acting like I'm advocating changing every law on the books. Additionally, one can discuss the text or implementation of a law separately from discussing the rationale for the law.
The purpose of "age of consent" laws is to establish a bright line, legally, between childhood and adulthood. (Or, if you want to pick nits, between the age at which one can meaningfully give consent and the age at which one can't.)
Now, I talked about the rationale behind these laws, rather than the specific text of them. It's possible that the bright line should be drawn at 18. It's possible that it could be drawn at 17 or 19. It's possible that a different system, which takes into account individual maturity, would be a better system.
I have no more logical obligation to parse all the possible forms that such laws might take than you do.
By your logic, proponents of Proposition 8 had an obligation to re-examine and re-justify every single law on the books, because same-sex marriage was the law of the land when that campaign was taking place.
Can you see where you are going overboard with this? I did you a favor; I didn't say "no one under 18 can get married," which would have been deferring to current law. I said "no one who cannot give meaningful consent." And you asked for further details, as if I have an obligation to be an expert in areas of human psychology that have nothing to do with the change that I am advocating.
Phil: But you're acting like I'm advocating changing every law on the books.
ReplyDeleteWhere did I do that, Phil? Nowhere.
The purpose of "age of consent" laws is to establish a bright line, legally, between childhood and adulthood.
Similarly, the purpose of limiting marriage to men and women is to establish a bright line, legally and culturally, between who can and cannot possibly produce children.
Phil, your logic in advocating for same-sex marriage is that unless it can be established that the purpose of that line is satisfied by every single couple that falls within or outside that line (that is, that all man/woman must be able to produce children), marriage must be extended beyond the line.
How is this different from arguing that if the purpose of age of consent laws is to distinguish those who can from those who can't consent, and many who fall outside that line are in fact more capable of consent than many who fall within it (that is, above the legal age), therefore, marriage cannot be logically limited to those within the line, i.e. over the age.
It's possible that a different system, which takes into account individual maturity, would be a better system.
It would be the only one which would not logically contradict your argument for why marriage should be neuterized, yes. (How the line would then be drawn is a different question). Not saying you have to advocate it, but do you really think I'm the only one who can see this, or will so argue this? Many in the public will see this, and the rest of the public has a right to know this when considering the logical implications of any major change to the institution of marriage.
Can you see where you are going overboard with this?
Not at all. Sorry. Now, if you had never used the analogy with bans on interracial marriage in your arguments, I might have possibly. But, I will say this to all advocates of SSM, if you don't want us to bring up the analogies between arguments for it and likely arguments for other marriages not yet allowed, you shouldn't start the ball rolling by analogizing interracial marriage (and the arguments pro or con regarding it) with SSM.
Just recently noticed your 2/26 post, Phil.
ReplyDeleteFor example, it would be reasonable for someone to argue that eliminating gender requirements from marriage licensing is not a huge change. The fact that some people perceive it as such does not make it so.
Considering that it has never been done before (long-term anyway) in any culture we know of, even though all cultures have consisted of males and females and apparently known of homosexuality, and considering the major qualitative leap in consummation involved, no, not reasonable.
Consider, if a person argued that a particular chemical additive in food should be permitted even though it's banned today, logic would not require that person to then justify, individually, why every other chemical additive might still be banned.
It wouldn't require that person to do it, no. But if the argument for banning another additive was no better than the argument for banning the first, somebody else will in time argue for lifting that ban too, and someone will have to come up with a reason why it shouldn't be lifted if they don't want it to be. Hence, the sooner the full implications are dealt with, the better.
The age of consent varies depending on that to which consent is given.
ReplyDeleteAge at which one can given consent to engage in sexual relations, for an apt example, varies depending on the age of the participants. This is not a bright line.
Likewise with eligiblity to marry. The age limit exists but there are exemptions based on pregnancy -- or chance of pregnancy -- and there are also exemptions based on the consent of parents/guardians. These are not plucked from the stratosphere but from the meaning of marriage.
Andn so "the age at which one can meaningfully give consent and the age at which one can't" depends on the meaning of that to which consent is given.
SSM agumentation insists that a legal requirement must be mandatory on all instances, but the age requirement does not fit, obviously. Nor does the relatedness requirement, since some related people may marry and others may not. Again, no bright line that pops out of the air.
The line drawing is necessary, sure, but the SSM campaign argues that this drawing of lines must not be an exercise of arbitrary governmental power. Justification must begin with the marriage actually is.
R.K.,
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, the purpose of limiting marriage to men and women is to establish a bright line, legally and culturally, between who can and cannot possibly produce children.
No, that's not true. It establishes a "bright line" legally? Hardly. It is both possible and legal for unmarried couples to produce children. I think you misunderstand the term "bright line" as used in this context.
That said, it isn't necessary to analogize age-of-consent laws with sex-discrimination in marriage laws.
What I mean by that is: it's not as though your whole argument falls apart just because you misunderstood "bright line."
Phil, your logic in advocating for same-sex marriage is that unless it can be established that the purpose of that line is satisfied by every single couple that falls within or outside that line (that is, that all man/woman must be able to produce children), marriage must be extended beyond the line.
Did you want to discuss my posts in other threads here, or did you want to limit our discussion to the scope of the original post: who should and who should not be married?
Here's my question for you: do you believe that the current system of determining the age of consent is correct, or do you believe that it should be changed or modified?
It would be the only one which would not logically contradict your argument for why marriage should be neuterized, yes.
No, here's where your logic continues to fall apart.
You act as if accepting the "collateral damage" produced by one law means that a person must accept the "collateral damage" produced by every law. That does not follow logically. It is easy to imagine, without going into detail, that a person can believe there is a good rationale to exclude mature twelve-year-olds from the class of legal adults while there is no good rationale to exclude Bob and Steve from the class of marriage-eligible couples.
By your logic, _you_ must support and/or advocate every law that ignores the individual characteristics of the people that the law affects. Do you support every law that ignores the individual characteristics of the people it affects, or is your reasoning more nuanced when it comes to marriage?
For example, the purpose of car seat laws is to protect people based on their size. Would you support a law that required a thirty-year-old who weighs 79 pounds to sit in a car seat or booster seat while in a vehicle?
Can you see how you've made an illogical claim?
if you don't want us to bring up the analogies between arguments for it and likely arguments for other marriages not yet allowed, you shouldn't start the ball rolling by analogizing interracial marriage (and the arguments pro or con regarding it) with SSM.
What I interpret from this is that, if someone had argued that legalizing interracial marriage would eventually lead to same-sex marriage, you might have accepted that logic and therefore opposed interracial marriages?
Considering that it has never been done before (long-term anyway) in any culture we know of, even though all cultures have consisted of males and females and apparently known of homosexuality
Are you saying that _all_ cultures have known of homosexuality? I don't believe that's true, R.K. And even if many or most cultures had homosexual persons who were generally known, I don't think the modern notion of what a homosexual person is developed until very recently. Heck, if you read through this blog, there are still people debating what sexual orientation means and whether it's innate, so I think it's fair to argue that every culture prior to today had a different understanding of homosexuality.
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteand there are also exemptions based on the consent of parents/guardians.
I remember hearing about this as a youngster when my teenage cousins got married, and it crossed my radar again when John Mark Karr claimed to have killed JonBenet Ramsey and news sources revealed he had been married twice, to a 13-year-old and to a 16-year-old.
I think that's ridiculous. It's unrelated to this discussion (though I sure wouldn't put it past some opportunistic hack to try to twist this to argue about same-sex marriage). I don't think parental consent should matter one whit when it comes to the age at which a child can marry. Nor do I think pregnancy should matter. The old notion that an illegitimate child is the worst thing that can happen to a woman is flawed: marrying a child molester is worse than being a single mother.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThat there are protocols for consent is undisputed. That lines (bright or not) are drawn around marriage is also undisputed.
ReplyDeleteThe dispute is over that to which consent is given.
The topic of discussion is setting the limits, based on the SSM idea, and the justification of those limits, again based on the SSM idea.
If some combinations are to be placed within the lines of eligiblity and others outside those lines, then, the arguments for inclusion cannot then contradict the arguments for exclusion.
To discriminate between "marriage" and other stuff that is not marriage, some combinations will not be eligible. Since SSMers dispute what marriage is, and dispute the boundaries, then, it matters very much how they'd answer the question, why not? this or that combination.
As RK said in his blogpost: And the answer to "why not" must not contradict their arguments used for neutering marriage.
Thusfar, Phil, you've hacked at the core meaning of marriage without stating the meaning of SSM idea; and here you have not justified limits -- any limits -- based on the SSM idea.
Phil: No, that's not true. It establishes a "bright line" legally? Hardly. It is both possible and legal for unmarried couples to produce children.
ReplyDeleteI think you have misunderstood the term "bright line" which you yourself used, as you here are turning it on its head. In the context you used, it referred to a line separating those who can marry from those who cannot, in regard to a particular which we hold to be necessary for marriage. It does not mean the same thing as saying that everyone who satisfies that particular will or must be married (let alone drag people off to jail if they are not), though of course society should at least encourage them to be. People can consent to a relationship without being married also, so your attempt to refute the analogy itself fails.
Did you want to discuss my posts in other threads here, or did you want to limit our discussion to the scope of the original post: who should and who should not be married?
It's all related, Phil.
Here's my question for you: do you believe that the current system of determining the age of consent is correct, or do you believe that it should be changed or modified?
I have no problem with age-of-consent laws, though I would leave the determination of what the age should be to the states. Personally, anywhere between 17 and 21 sounds best to me.
See, Phil, what you don't seem to understand is that I'm not the one saying that we must change our requirements for marriage, you are, and you use arguments based on perceived inconsistency in arguing for the change. I'm just following your lead here, in asking you this.
You act as if accepting the "collateral damage" produced by one law means that a person must accept the "collateral damage" produced by every law.
No, I'm saying that if one is going to argue for changing a law on the grounds of consistency, then consistency necessitates that he ask why not change still another law to be consistent with his reasoning in arguing for the law he wanted changed. Of course, he has the right to be inconsistent or not face his inconsistencies if he so wishes. But it looks rather hypocritical and evasive to evade others who ask the questions.
It is easy to imagine, without going into detail, that a person can believe there is a good rationale to exclude mature twelve-year-olds from the class of legal adults while there is no good rationale to exclude Bob and Steve from the class of marriage-eligible couples.
Of course they can believe that, but they shouldn't be shocked and evasive when people concerned about what redefining marriage for Bob and Steve may mean to marriage as a whole ask them whether such a position is logically consistent, and thus whether it is likely to hold.
Phil: By your logic, _you_ must support and/or advocate every law that ignores the individual characteristics of the people that the law affects. Do you support every law that ignores the individual characteristics of the people it affects, or is your reasoning more nuanced when it comes to marriage?
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm not the one who has argued that if we allow (or don't allow) A, we must out of consistency allow (or not allow) B, despite A and B's qualitative diofferences, because of some individual exceptions to the general rule in A. I'm trying to get you to follow your logic consistently.
Can you see how you've made an illogical claim?
No, but I can see how you either still don't understand or are trying to avoid the implications of what I am saying.
What I interpret from this is that, if someone had argued that legalizing interracial marriage would eventually lead to same-sex marriage, you might have accepted that logic and therefore opposed interracial marriages?
No, because I don't find the supposed analogies compelling at all, as I have already explained. Had I had a crystal ball and seen it coming, I would have been sure to point out to all then why the analogies were flawed. At the time, I think most would have seen that as well. But without exposing the flaws in the analogies, if the public back then had been told through a crystal ball that "interracial marriage would lead to same-sex marriage", yes, I'm sure far more people would have opposed interracial marriage than actually did.
Are you saying that _all_ cultures have known of homosexuality?
I'm saying that most cultures have known that some individuals for whatever reason tended to engage in homosexuality. Whether it was absolutely all or not is not really relevant. Many cultures actually tried in some ways to accomodate homosexuals (the Indian berdaches, for instance), so it's puzzling why none simply neuterized the whole concept of marriage as is being proposed now, unless some did for intervals so brief they are lost to the anthropological record.
Chairm, thank you for your comments, particularly this:
"If some combinations are to be placed within the lines of eligiblity and others outside those lines, then, the arguments for inclusion cannot then contradict the arguments for exclusion."
R.K.
ReplyDeleteIn the context you used, it referred to a line separating those who can marry from those who cannot, in regard to a particular which we hold to be necessary for marriage.
R.K., you're completely misquoting me. A bright line is a legal standard which leaves little or no room for interpretation. I used it to refer to age-of-consent laws, for which age is often a bright line. I did not use the term in reference to marriage; you did.
It's possible that I misunderstood what you meant, but I was not inaccurate. You seem to have meant "a line between those who can marry and those who cannot," even though what you said was a line between those who can have children and those who cannot.
I'm trying to get you to follow your logic consistently.
I have argued that sex/gender is not a reasonable justification to deny issuing a marriage license.
I have not argued that age is not a reasonable justification to deny issuing a marriage license. If the status quo is reasonable with regard to age, then you and I can both logically refrain from visiting the issue.
If the status quo is unreasonable with regard to age, then you and I have an equal burden to visit the issue and advocate for change.
If we both agree that 17 to 21 is a reasonable age of consent, then you are being illogical in asking me to provide the rationale for your political position.
Are you saying that there is no qualitative difference between sex/gender and age?
R.K., quoting Chairm:
"If some combinations are to be placed within the lines of eligiblity and others outside those lines, then, the arguments for inclusion cannot then contradict the arguments for exclusion."
That is just as much an argument for legal same-sex marriage as it is against.
Phil: You seem to have meant "a line between those who can marry and those who cannot"
ReplyDeleteNo, I meant the whole sentence, "a line separating those who can marry from those who cannot, in regard to a particular which we hold to be necessary for marriage".
Maybe I should further clarify: a line used to separate those who can marry from those who cannot, in relation to a particular which we hold to be necessary for marriage but which becomes extremely problematic when attempting to discern on an individual basis.
I have argued that sex/gender is not a reasonable justification to deny issuing a marriage license.
I have not argued that age is not a reasonable justification to deny issuing a marriage license.
Phil, you have argued that gender is not a reasonable justification any more than race is a reasonable justification. Or are you contending otherwise? If you piggyback on race to argue that the sexual distinction is unjustified, you open up the logical question: how can you piggyback from one criterion to another and refuse to even answer questions as to why we may not just as relevantly piggyback to another criterion?
The answer you give seems to be simply "because I haven't done so and don't plan to". In other words, you make arguments to advocate for a position you want but then run away from the further implications of the argument.
Are you saying that there is no qualitative difference between sex/gender and age?
There certainly is a qualitative difference, but no more of one than there is between race and gender. Indeed, gender is a qualitative difference in a way that race and age are not.
That is just as much an argument for legal same-sex marriage as it is against.
But if you make such an argument, Phil, you cannot logically than argue that you can just stop and not follow through on the logic of your argument to see how it applies beyond the change you want.
R.K.,
ReplyDeleteNo, I meant the whole sentence, "a line separating those who can marry from those who cannot, in regard to a particular which we hold to be necessary for marriage".
We are talking about two different things.
Here is what you said:
Similarly, the purpose of limiting marriage to men and women is to establish a bright line, legally and culturally, between who can and cannot possibly produce children.
Moving on:
Phil, you have argued that gender is not a reasonable justification any more than race is a reasonable justification.
It's true that race is not a reasonable justification. My purpose in bringing it up is to identify areas of agreement between the two of us. I suspect that you also believe that race is not a reasonable justification to deny a marriage license.
Based on what you have written in this thread, I appear to have been correct.
I have not argued that sex/gender is the same thing as race.
I find your use of the term "qualitative" to be strange. To me, it seems that racial differences are completely qualitative, while age differences are, by definition, quantitative. Would you say that's accurate?
[...]while age differences are, by definition, quantitative.
ReplyDeleteAn age difference may be quantitative, if age were anything but a human abstraction. How many times one orbits the sun has no reliable, measurable, quantum, effect on people. It is at best a time scale to chart trends over, not the measurement itself.
Phil: I find your use of the term "qualitative" to be strange. To me, it seems that racial differences are completely qualitative, while age differences are, by definition, quantitative. Would you say that's accurate?
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not. Both racial and age differences are quantitative. You seem to be confusing the meanings of qualitative vs. quantitative (in regard to differences) with those of objective vs. subjective (in regard to opinions or statements).
Again, a qualitative difference is a difference in kind. A quantitative difference is a difference in degree. The difference between the two is not one of fact vs. opinion. All racial differences are merely differences in degree of something.
Phil we'll gladly hold you to your agreement: "That is just as much an argument for legal same-sex marriage as it is against."
ReplyDeleteFeel free to reciprocate.
An age limitation (based on chronological age) is proxy for something that society deems relevant to the protocols of consent to marry.
To what does the individual consent?
The agreement, to be clear, is with the following [@3/05/2010 11:55:00 PM] in italics:
ReplyDeleteThe topic of discussion is setting the limits, based on the SSM idea, and the justification of those limits, again based on the SSM idea.
If some combinations are to be placed within the lines of eligiblity and others outside those lines, then, the arguments for inclusion cannot then contradict the arguments for exclusion.
To discriminate between "marriage" and other stuff that is not marriage, some combinations will not be eligible. Since SSMers dispute what marriage is, and dispute the boundaries, then, it matters very much how they'd answer the question, why not? this or that combination.
The topic of discussion is setting the limits, based on the SSM idea, and the justification of those limits, again based on the SSM idea.
ReplyDeleteWell, then it sounds like I ought not respond, because I am not discussing limits and their justification "based on the SSM idea." I've responded to the original post's request of an explanation of "who should not be married," but I don't accept the reasoning that SSM represents a major change (it does not), nor that the elimination of sex/gender discrimination necessarily calls into question the status quo with regard to areas that are unrelated to sex/gender.
Sorry. If that's the scope of your discussion, you can have it with someone else.