In a previous blogpost I noted that the proffered reasoning of an SSMer, Unknown, regarding eligibility to SSM had readily removed from consideration the feelings of mutual attraction that would differentiate the friendship type of relationship and the homosexual type of relationship.
There would be no legal requirement for such feelings, not for ineligibility and not for eligibility, and so attraction could not provide a legitimate basis for establishing SSM in law.
However, Unknown thought that there must be more to it than mere feelings of attraction. Perhaps it would be acting on such feelings? That is, when it comes to related people --
"Simple disapproval of the conduct might even uphold the law [against incestuous marriage]."
But what conduct? It cannot be the act of showing up to SSM, surely.
It must be something that would be approved for both the friendship and the homosexual type of relationships but disapproved for the type of relationship that Unknown had in mind when considering the example of sisters.
It cannot be the act of feeling attraction. It cannot be the conduct that defines friendship nor can it be the conduct that defines the homosexual relationship.
Here Unknown referred to standards of constitutional analysis, as he understood them to apply to the explicit prohibition on some related people who'd show up to marry; and that this understanding would supposedly extend to those who'd SSM.
And this is where SSMers struggle to differentiate the example of the SSM ban on two sisters and the homosexual emphasis in the pro-SMM arguments. Before trying to reason against eligibility to SSM, Unknown needed to justify the establishment of SSM in law.
In comments Unknown has not yet specified the definitive conduct that might justify a ban. But he did specify disapproval of conduct as sufficient. Unknown must state the conduct that would justify the SSM ban on some same-sex twosomes and which, at the same time, would justify establishing SSM in the law in the first place.
0 comments,:
Post a Comment