Rick Hills roundly condemns slippery slope arguments:
The California Supreme Court's recent decision on gay marriage has predictably revived that old perennial favorite of arguments against substantive due process arguments for sexual privacy — the "slippery slope."
You know the drill: If courts strike down x law regulating sexual conduct, then it will be logically impossible to avoid striking down y, z, a, b, and c laws.... The obvious response to the "slippery slope" is the "conceptual ledge": There are lots of natural resting places for the mind, if one only bothers to look for some fine-grained moral/legal theory.... So why do patently unconvincing slippery slope arguments grow like black mold in a leaky attic every time a court makes a decision about sexuality? ...
It's true that arguments that it will be logically impossible to distinguish a future case from this case are usually very weak. Very few distinctions are logically impossible.
But slippery slope arguments endure partly because they are often cast, much more plausibly, as arguments that if X is done, it will become more likely that Y will be done — not that X and Y can't be treated differently, but that they won't be treated differently. These arguments aren't about logical consequences, but about psychological consequences (plus some other consequences). And as such they can't be rebutted simply by pointing out that a distinction could be drawn.
The other reason that slippery slope arguments endure is that slippery slopes do often seem visible. I say "seem" because it's often impossible to tell for sure whether X increased the likelihood of Y, or whether Y would have happened in any event. But sometimes there's good reason to think that slippage has happened, often despite the express insistence of backers of X that of course X won't help lead to Y.
I discuss this in detail in my Same-Sex Marriage and Slippery Slopes. I start by pointing to two examples:
The slippage from contraceptive rights for married couples (Griswold) to contraceptive rights for unmarried couples (Eisenstadt) to abortion rights (Roe) to sexual autonomy rights (Lawrence), which happened despite the express assurance of some backers of the first step that it wouldn't lead to later steps.
The reliance of the Massachusetts and California same-sex marriage decision and the Vermont same-sex civil union decision on the enactment of other gay-rights laws, which happened despite express assurances of some backers of the earlier steps that they wouldn't lead to the later step.
I also explain how some specific arguments for same-sex marriage, if accepted, can indeed weaken public, legislative, and judicial resistance to calls for polygamous marriage — for instance, "all people have a right to marry whomever they choose," "it’s none of my business whom someone else marries," "people who want to enter into same-sex marriages should have equal rights with those who want to enter into opposite-sex marriages," or "love should prevail over arbitrary legal restrictions" (see the article for citations).
This having been said, I conclude that it seems unlikely that accepting same-sex marriages will materially increase the chance that society will accept polygamous marriages. But that kind of decision has to be tied to a pretty careful analysis of the likely psychological and political processes that are likely to take place. It can't be based on a simple categorical refusal to consider slippery slope arguments whenever a logical distinction is available, or a simple categorical acceptance of slippery slope arguments whenever a similarity can be logically pointed to.
Your arguments and reasons are irrelevant. We don't have a say. Our black robed masters will decide.
I don't support it, or gay marriage for that matter, but they seem to go together like Frank Sinatra's "horse and carriage."
Civil marriage is nothing more than a contract establishing rights and responsibilities for the signatories. It has no "meaning" in the spiritual sense, as this is outside the realm of a government with separation of Church and State.
If you want marriage to "mean" something, then marry under the auspices of the religion of your choice, which cannot be forced to recognize gay, polygamous, interracial, or interfaith marriages.
Because they're often misused. Sit through any 1L law school class or any college humanities class where an issue of line-drawing comes up.
Often, someone will argue that because it is difficult to draw a logical line somewhere, no line can be drawn at all.
Marriage then means two adult people, not closely related or encumbered with other such commitments, merging their lives together generally (but not always) for romantic purposes, so that it make sense for the law to treat them as a unit in many things, not as separate individuals.
There, that wasn't two hard was it?
(As he mutters under his breath, from inside his prison cell after marrying [two women/his sister]).
And to head off any silliness, I think we can all agree that since barnyard animals do not have the ability to enter into contracts, the slippery slope does not lead from polygamy to bestiality...
Why arbitrarily limit the definition to genetically unrelated persons. Why could not adult siblings of the same sex or parent and child of the same sex?
Too true. Judicial ipse dixit will do nothing to advance societal acceptance of anything, same sex marriages or polygamous marriges. In fact, I think it will materially hurt the chances of such acceptance.
Notwithstanding all the language of equal civil rights, the 'movement' is simply seeking a societal pat on the back, which seems quite foolish to me. How much better to live life on one's own terms than this tilting at windmills.
Who cares if there is less support as long as the only people who count are Judges.
the great unwashed can believe anything they want. The Judges decide what is legal and RIGHT.
BTW Polygamy would not be on the slippery slop to same sex marrage. It would be same sex marrage. The only way polygamy would become valid in the US is if all partners were married to each other and that all would have to agree to a new partner. I believe that this would derive from current partnership law.
All are Civil Unions, marrage is just the special case of one man and one woman. Don't twist the defination of marrage, expand the meaning and acceptance of Civil Unions.
Different social norms about homosexuality back then I guess.
I think Eugene made clear the subtle distinction between slippery slopes and precedent a little while back. Something to do with a mismatch between the rationales/intentions of the earlier laws and those further down the slope. I forget to be honest, but I remember being convinced. But then again, I am kind of impressionable...
I don't understand the people who are protesting simply because same-sex unions are now being called "marriage". Lots of terms mean something different under the law: is the concept of "personhood" somehow demeaned because a corporation can be a "person" in some instances? Or do we just recognize that this is just a "law" thing?
If you feel like "marriage" must mean one-man / one-woman, then fine, in your everyday conversation or whatever, use it to mean that. Legally it means something else, but who cares?
If you want to protest same-sex unions (marriages, whatever) because you feel the state should not give the same rights and privileges to same-sex couples, then protest it for that reason. Why make the semantic argument?
it's not a contrivance. slippery slopes exist. and i'll give you a counterexample to how it's "typically" understood.
i support gay marriage. as policy (not at all convinced it's constitutionally required though).
but even though i support gay marriage i admit that this decision IS a slippery slope towards polygamy, especially if we view the law consistently. not to mention that if you read this current decision for gay marriage there is no way you can LOGICALLY say that (at least the same sex version) incest and even incestual marriage shouldn't also be legal. it's two consenting adults deciding who they love/want to have sex with. but that's "icky" (at least at this point), so we pretend "it's different".
except it isn't. the ONLY difference between same sex marriage (extension of marriage rights) and incestual marriage (extension of marriage rights) is that the latter is still considered icky enough by elites such that they won't apply the EXACT same logic to the latter than they do to the former.
i support medical marijuana. i support decrim of marijuana. let's get real. medical mj regardless of its merits is ALSO a slippery slope to decrim'ing mj overall. let's get real. many people support medical mj primarily BECAUSE they want mj to be legal in general.
I heard many people criticize Justice Scalia for saying the same thing in his dissent in the Lawrence opinion. Yet, Lawrence has been used as a defense to all types of things, from polygamy to beastiality to incest, just as Scalia said.
Here is the real problem with your premise. You said:
Society hasn't accepted gay marriage. The courts have forced it on society. Big difference.
Honestly, I wonder if anyone on this board has any common sense at all.
Tell you what? I'm going to redefine the word "incest" to mean BOTH "having sex with close family relations" and also "voting for Obama."
Are you or anyone else that you know planning on committing incest in the future, Arvin?
I see a fundamental difference when analyzing the merits or demerits of a "slippery slope" argument as to a constitutional provision, especially one such as "Due Process" which appears to more defined by the eye of the beholder than by reference to any other standard, and as applied to statutes or regulations. When a court declares that the US or state Constitution requires or forbids something, the subject becomes nearly off-limits for challenge. Although the US Constitution provides two methods for amendment (neither involving the judiciary) and the First Amendment guarantees the right to petition Congress for redress of grievances, those express provisions are nullified when a court decides that the Constitution requires or prohibits something. This is especially worrisome when considered in light of "living Constitution" arguments.
When Congress or a legislature screws something up, there are various ways to correct it, and ultimately voting the fools out and replacing them (hopefully with lesser fools) is a remedy. Although while I may not like being in the minority on an issue, losing at the ballot box is fundamentally democratic. A price of enjoying the benefits of living in a democratic society is that sometimes I'll be in the minority and won't get what I want.
Courts, however, do not consider issues the way legislative bodies do. There are only a limited number of parties to the suit, who have personal agendas that usually have little relation to what the rest of the citizens believe, and those parties are represented by advocates who are ethically obliged to present those facts that put their respective clients' agenda in the most forceful and favorable light for decision by the court. Courts, once bound by precedent, seldom look back and consider the consequences of prior decisions. Although well suited for deciding disputes between individual parties, courts are unsuited for deciding public policy issues. Even with a horrible decision, like "separate but equal", the courts usually, at most, just nibble around the edges instead of correcting it in a short time. And, not infrequently, the courts don't even do that much.
Although "slippery slope" arguments are not infrequently dressed-up parade of horribles arguments, as to the California Supreme Court decision the slippery slope argument has much merit. The majority's cursory dismissal of the idea that its holding would not also require recognizing polygamy, or whatever other arrangement someone will wish to have recognized as a "fundamental" due process right of marriage, was weak and unconvincing. The California Supreme Court's reasoning appears to be that since 4 of us would like to see same sex marriages authorized, and since we have the power to prohibit any statute to the contrary (however many citizens voted in favor of it), that is what we'll do. Thus, the decision principle is that "fundamental" due process rights in California are whatever 4 people say they are.
Yes. I lack common sense like that.
The difference between our two examples is utility: it is useful to define corporations as persons sometimes in the law so that we don't have to re-write certain laws. In the same way, it is useful to define marriage to include all permitted two-person unions so that we don't have to draft separate laws that say the same thing. There is no utility to defining incest in the way that you have defined it.
Regardless, the point is still the same: who cares what the legal term means? When someone marries another for a green card, such that they never see each other again, are they really married? According to the law, yes. According to most conventional definitions, no. Is there a problem, then, with the law calling what they have a marriage? Should they have a different term too?
But there's no need to draft separate laws, and there's no need to define marriage in the law to include so-called homosexual unions of that sort. What's the need for doing it this way at all? Why bend reality in THIS instance? Would you define "parent" to include "primary caregivers"? What about "father" and "primary caregiver"? Do you realize that you live in a democratic society and that if laws were actually written by the people instead of elitist Black Robed judges, the people would actually CARE about a term like marriage whereas they might not similarly care about a thing like corporate personhood?
At least, this WAS a democracy. Until the rule of the Black Robed Judges and their sycophants in the legal profession.
On the other side, not accepting gay marriage could lead down the slippery slope to job discrimination, the criminalization of gay and lesbian sexual relations, the criminalization of heterosexual premarital sex, criminalization of abortion, criminalization of birth control, criminalization of non-pro-creative sex acts between married couples, criminalization of in vitro fertilization, etc., etc., etc.
No, but it is offensive to define a term to mean something it clearly is not. That's the point. You aren't the Ceshire Cat and don't get to recreate reality.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
That's really the only question. Who are our Masters? The Judges. Do all of you like being slaves?
One of the best examples of this was the recent debacle over ENDA, the Federal bill that would protect gays and lesbians against workplace discrimination. Many GLBT organizations vocally condemned the bill because language protecting 'gender identity' was removed. They felt that once legislation protected the GLB's was in place, it would be virtually impossible to include protection for the transgendered as well.
In essence, they've posited the opposite of a slippery slope, one where a partial measure makes the further measure less likely, not more.
ANY hiring decision IS discrimination.
it's not the OPPOSITE any more than so called "reverse racism" is anything but racism
slippery slope need not imply movement towards undesirable. it merely means a slope wherein stuff moves from one end of the continuum to the other.
iow, i readily accept that medical mj is a slippery slope to legalized marijuana. i'm FOR legalized mj. that doesn't make it the OPPOSITE of a slippery slope. it's still a slippery slope.
slippery slope means that once X modified is accepted as valid, then x-modifiedevenmore is closer to being validated.
Why don't you ask the people who sued in California if they were worred about the definition of the word? That's what they were complaining about and was the only issue in the case. I'm not the one in Court making complaints, they are. Go ask them why they're concerned about the word "marriage.
The point is that there is a certain logic to the "all-or-nothing" crowd based on the "sticky slope" argument -- they fear that accepting a compromise will scuttle their hopes of reaching their final goal.
sure. but there a lot of counterexamples. many abortion advocates are against certain laws that define killing a pregnant woman as double murder for the same slippery slope example, and many (probably the majority) of slippery slope predictions that i recall on this issue (sex/gender/sexuality) have come true. iow, the slippery slope crowd was RIGHT. we see all sorts of creeping incrementalism, not to mention creeping federalism in the law. let's remember, many here decry the slippery slope (alleged) in regards to civil rights that has occurred in regards to the war on drugs.
OTOH, I can cite just as many cases in which the slope appears to be sticky: ENDA, ERA, gay civil unions, medical marijuana (vs decrim), post-Kelo reform, etc . . .
It's actually fascinating to try to find structural differences that distinguish between which slopes are sticky and which are slippery.
Basically, if you're going to pass a bill on a minority topic, it's in your best interest to pack everything you want in it. Once it's passed it there won't be enough political interest to warrant revisiting until it's truly unworkable. Bills are slow, tedious affairs that require a lot of support.
"Slippery slopes," on the other hand, are much more incremental. For example, a judicial decision that finds protections for homosexuals can then be used as precedent for another judicial decision that finds protections for transgendered people. It may then be that slippery slopes are more common in law than politics.
Perhaps you are right that this is a solely political phenomenon not to be confused with the judicial phenomenon of the slippery slope.
I see absolutely no defense other than ickiness and/or tradition for banning incestual marriage. As Whit said, get real.
The argument of course is that it is logically impossible to distinguish a nine-month fetus someone just slightly younger - if natural rights are attached to a human being at time N, why not time N-1? Is there really any logical difference between a fetus that hasn't developed a brain yet, and a newborn that has a brain but is not self-aware? The conclusion of this slippery-slope argument is that "personhood" is in fact one-and-the-same with "human creaturehood". Of course of you don't believe in natural rights, all bets are off. This argument hinges on the fact that we don't distinguish the relative usefulness of a newborn versus a productive adult or dying old man.
27 states support first cousin marriages already. A few of them require proof of infertility, but most do not. California is one such state.
What you're left with that is still illegal in this category is parent-child and sibling marriages. IANAL, but I would think there are additional issues involved in these two types of relationships such that the slippery slope may never reach that far. These sorts of couples, at least in part, already share some of the rights granted by marriage because they already are legally related to each other.
I wonder how much the slippery slope from first-cousin marriage helped gay marriage in California?
For instance, it is perfectly appropriate for me to ask that if gay marriage is now legal, on what grounds to you ban gay sibling marriage? That is, two brothers want to marry, would you allow it and why or why not? Certainly given how often people at this site claim that the only valid concern is harm to others, and the commonly cited justification agaisnt a brother and sister marrying is the concern that their children will have birth defects, we don't have to worry very much about that when two brothers are involved, right?
so then the advocate of gay marriage is left with two options. Either they have to confess that two brothers should be allowed to marry. Or they have to try to come up with a reason not to allow that outcome that doesn't bounce back and imply that gay marriage can be banned, too. Good luck with that.
it is also "in bounds" to point out how a decision threatens other values. it is in-bounds, for instance, to say that abandoning original intent endangers freedom in this country as an argument against abandoning original intent. we live in a government where not only outcomes but the process and reasoning matter as a method of protecting us from bad outcomes.
In other words it is perfectly appropraite for me to say that the whole purpose of writing a constitution was to protect certain minimums of rights from being trampled by the majority, and when the courts of any jurisdiction transform the constitution from a list of commands, to a list of suggestions, none of our rights are safe, including our right to freedom of speech and equal protection under the law.
And frankly, if that is still considered a slippery slope argument, or the one previous, then the claim that the slippery slope argument is a fallacy is wrong. Because in our system of government, this will lead to other things, and it is perfectly appropriate to ask where it will lead.
hmmm, thanks for the food for thought.
A rhetorical linkage between homosexuality and incest is pure scare tactics, not grounded in reality.
After all, during the passage of DOMA, we all remember how conservatives begged Congress to include reference to incestuous relationships. We're aware of the valiant effort to pass amendments to state constitutions forbidden incestuous marriages. We have seen the annual Incest Pride marches in Philadelphia.
Give me a break.
There are many strong arguments against incest and polygamy (with the case against incest being strongest). Further, if extending marriage rights to same-sex couples were going to lead to marriages between siblings, someone would have to advocate for them.
Just who, may I ask, will do this?
A.W. claims that proponents of same-sex marriage are arguing in bad faith, that we have no answer to two brothers who want to get married. I must assume that A.W. has read none of the posts that have pointed out the valid objections to brother/brother marriages.
Once again: there is a presumption of harm to such relationships that does not exist between two unrelated males (as with unrelated pairs of any combination).
There are likely social and legal changes that will come about due to the legalization of same-sex marriages. It might even be interesting to speculate on them. We could even discuss it these things constitute a slippery slope or an advancement of personal freedoms ("advancement of personal freedoms" sounds so conservative; I better check my membership status in liberal organizations).
The legalization of and granting marriage rights to incestuous and polygamous unions just don't seriously seem to be amongst them.
Professor Volokh only asked about polygamy; the commenters brought in incest. This shows the both the depth of their opposition to same-sex marriage and the shallowness of their arguments.
> Once again: there is a presumption of harm to such relationships that does not exist between two unrelated males
By which you mean harm to the people in the relationship. But if the belief that the relationship is harmful to the persons themselves is justification for halting it, then why can’t we apply that principle gay marriage? [This is an example of how you can come up with a justification that richochets back onto gay marriage.]
Oh, right, because the shrinks have changed their minds about it. As though that was scientific. And as though that should control over the will of the people.
Riddle me this. If psychology is so scientific in this regard, how did they ever get it “wrong” in the first place? And how exactly did they suddenly start to get it right?
The answer is of course at one time the shrinks “felt” one way about gay relationships, and then later they decided they felt another way. That’s not science. I know it was not corrected the way that the belief that the Earth was flat was corrected: by proof that it was round. That is how real science is performed, which is why most of psychology is not real science.
Can psychology make mistakes, conclude things through prejudice rather than a sober analysis of data? Well, of course.
That's why I keep saying things like, "there is a preponderance of evidence that suggests..."
There is a preponderance of evidence that suggests that incest is harmful. Anyone wanting to make a case that incest is benign must first rebut that evidence.
There is a preponderance of evidence that suggests that homosexuality is benign. Anyone wanting to make a case that homosexuality is harmful must first rebut that evidence.
There is a preponderance of evidence that suggests that smoking is harmful. This does not stop the tobacco industry from trying to cast doubt on the evidence.
Ah, but whose belief? And how well founded is that belief?
Let's assume (I think it's safe) that you think homosexuality is harmful to the persons themselves. It becomes an obvious conclusion that same-sex marriage should then be banned.
Have you any support for this assertion? You keep telling me that I can't believe the shrinks (which seem to me the best source for a belief that homosexuality is benign).
From what can we draw a belief that homosexuality is not benign? A few lines in an ancient religious text? Is this an controlling authority on this subject? Does its authority extend "to the corners of the earth," or does that just make me sound like a Flat Earther?
If you want to argue that homosexuality is harmful, you'll need more than a suggestion that it might be so. You need to make an assertion backed up with facts. Are you ready to rebut the evidence? We will question your methodology.
Give me a break. I am not merely saying that the got it wrong at one time. That is self-evidently true. either they were wrong then, or they are wrong now. But the question is WHY they changed their mind, and the reason isn't that they reasoned from the available evidence. No, they just suddenly decided they felt differently. That is not science. That is irrationality dressed up as science.
So with no rational body to turn to, why not leave it up to the people? Of course they can be wrong, but one of the most fundamental beliefs in our system is that 51% of the voters is more often right than wrong.
It's better than depending on 51% of the shrinks.
And the beauty part is then you have your distinction between incest, gay marriage and polygamy. "Because the people said so"--assuming you get the people to say what you want.
And besides, if you are going to hang your constitutional right on the opinion of shrinks what will you do if they suddenly decide that gay relationships are abnormal again? Will you say that gay marriage should be banned? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you wouldn't, that instead you would decry this as unscientific.
There is a right way and a wrong way for California to legalize gay marriage, if that's going to be their policy. this unconstitutional decision is the wrong way.
And if you want to see what violence has been done to the concept of law, look what Cali SC says in footnote 52, in the gay marraige decision:
> We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships. Past judicial decisions explain why our nation’s culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry.
So... our nation's culture is relevant to the issue of polygamy and incest, but not gay marriage.
Btw, in case you don't have it handy, the link to that decision is here:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF
And that touches what really offends me here. we are not fools. we know this is not what the framers intended. we know that if anyone had believed seriously that this might happen, that they would have changed the wording of the relevant constitutional amendments to avoid this result. This is judicial activism in its baldest form.
After all, if a state cannot look into the bedroom as for birth control, type of sex, sex of sexual parters, etc. then why should it be allowed to go into the bedroom and arrest people having sex when one of them is married to someone else? To a great extent, this is similar to Griswold and Lawrence, in that there is a lot of bigamy going on, and it is almost never prosecuted.
So, what might propel this up to the Supreme Court? Possibly the Texas FLDS mess. In that later post on the FLDS, EV asks what can the state of Texas still prosecute on. One answer was bigamy, another statutory rape. There are still compelling state reasons for statutory rape laws, but bigamy? The state/county officials have a lot of egg on their faces right now with the recent appeals case rejecting the state's actions in grabbing the kids from their parents. Some prosecutions would seem likely just to save face.
Pure baloney. Please get your facts right before you start spouting off.
Psychiatry is a fairly new field, existing only since the early 20th century. Homosexuality was assumed an illness because they were seeing patients all the time who were gay and depressed and exhibited other problems. This lead them to believe, in the absence of any real studies, that there was a link between homosexuality and depression. In other words, they just *assumed* homosexuality was a disease of some sorts.
But even from the start, however, there were certain psychiatrists and other researchers who doubted whether homosexuality was itself an illness and argued vigously that it was not, and conducted lots of research to back it up. The germans were doing this as early as the 1830s, and continued right up to Hitler.
It was the groundbreaking work of Dr. Evelyn Hooker in the 50s and 60s who researched gay men and lesbians, and found that there was no link between homosexuality and mental illness. Rather, most depression was caused by society's oppression and strong disapproval that made life very difficult for gays.
Her careful and thorough research was peer reviewed and came under harsh attacks, but in the end, no one could find fault with it. More studies followed. In addition, there were no studies conducted under accepted protocal that established that homosexuality was a disease as defined by the APA. In fact, all the research proved that you can lead a perfectly fine and happy life wither you are gay or straight, something that has been proven over and over again since then.
Finally, in 1973, a panel of experts decided to remove homosexuality from its lists of illnesses because there was no evidence to support the notion. A few anti-gay researchers challenged the decision and forced the entire APA to vote on the measure. A clear majority of the entire membership of the APA voted to remove it.
So no, there was no 'sudden' decision, but a gradual realization that there was *no* evidence that homosexuality is by itself any sort of mental issue, and lots of evidence that it not.
"we are not fools. " Yes you are, because you choose to believe regardless of the evidence.
Second, if the public is so against polygamy and incestuous marriages, and this is the ONLY reason you are against SSM, then the solution is very simple: go for a constitutional amendment. Do it for each state, and for the US Constitutions. According to everyone here, no one is in favor of them, right? Therefore, banning these marriages should be simple, and should sail right through congress and all 50 states. (Unless of course, you are very afraid of the well founded People for Incest and Polygamy PAC).
An amendment would stop the slippery slope in its tracks, and we can still have SSM. Then everyone is happy, right?
But there's the rub -- this isn't about polygamy or incest. It's about creating a *fear* that SSM will lead to that, and the hope that that fear will stop SSM.
So -- write your congressman to start up an amendment to stop polygamy and incest. That's the best way to deal with this so-called slippery slope. But how many of you would prefer to keep hoping the fear will stop SSM?
> It was the groundbreaking work of Dr. Evelyn Hooker in the 50s and 60s who researched gay men and lesbians, and found that there was no link between homosexuality and mental illness.
Wow, its breathtaking to watch a hidden and silly assumption in action. How about the homosexuality itself? Is that form of mental illness? And who gets the right to rule on that?
I say the people do.
You take whether it can be linked to other problems as settling the issue. But do we say that with any other unusual behavior? If you like to cut yourself, do we say, “well, sure he likes to cut himself, but let’s see if that behavior is linked to any other problems”? No, we say the behavior in and of itself is a symptom of mental illness.
Oh, but that is a tangible harm, you might counter. Let’s try another example. Suppose tomorrow your father suddenly started telling everyone he was the Queen of England and strutting around the house in a sun dress. Would you say, “let’s see if that behavior is linked to any other problems”? No, you would say, “gee, looks like Dad’s lost it.” Again the behavior is in and of itself a symptom of mental illness.
So why don’t they take the same approach with homosexuality? Tomorrow your Dad says he is merely a queen, and goes strutting around in a dress. “Nothing abnormal about that,” you say and the psychiatrists say. So why the difference?
Because the shrinks don’t feel the same way about it. So again, it’s not science. So all you really have is irrationality dressed up as science. And therefore I am not obligated to bow to it.
> First, I don't see any one advocating for polygamy or incestuous marriages.
You mean besides the polygamous and incestual?
> Second, if the public is so against polygamy and incestuous marriages, and this is the ONLY reason you are against SSM, then the solution is very simple: go for a constitutional amendment.
It’s not the only reason. And why should we amend the constitution to do something IT ALREADY DOES? Because the California Supreme Court has chosen to innovate it, beyond the original intent of the constitution?
Maybe the amendment should say something more basic, and simultaneously less binding. Something to this effect:
> No statute shall ever be declared unconstitutional because it is based solely on moral considerations; this amendment shall apply retroactively.
But, funny, I don't think proponents of gay marriage will like that idea.
Then why are we even talking about a slippery slope? If there is no chance of polygamy or incestuous marriages from being recognized, then there is no further discussion needed.
"
Because the California Supreme Court has chosen to innovate it, beyond the original intent of the constitution?"
Then pass an amendment that explicitly bans polygamous and incestuous marriages. End of story.
But the Cali SC, and indeed the USSC in Lawrence, struck at something deeper than anti-gay feelings. it struck at our ability to base the law on our sense of morality--as though there were any other reason for a law being passed.
No of course you don't accept it, because as I said, you aren't interested in facts, you are only interesting in your anti-gay bigotry. And yes, it's bigotry, plain and simple. why? Because first you don't even want to listen to the facts. " And therefore I am not obligated to bow to it." Second, you pull out stereotypes of gay men (wearing a dress and acting the like the Queen). third, you aren't interested in any sort of dialog. If you don't know what the facts are, then do your own research and find out what happened.
"How about the homosexuality itself? Is that form of mental illness?"
No, it isn't. Don't believe me? Then read up on the material. Find any credible reports that declare homosexuality is a mental illness. Just one. But you won't find it, because you don't care.
One definiation of mental illness is an inability to function well. Cutting oneself fits that definition. However, there are plenty of people who are gay and functioning very well, probably better than you. Let's see, how about Elton John, Anderson Cooper, James Hormal (former Ambassador to Hungary), Rock Hudson (and just about every other male actor in Hollywood), Michael Kahn (noted director the Shakespeare Theater in Washington) Ian McKellen, Mary Cheney (The VPs daughter and manager of her dad's campaign), Jody Foster, the current mayors of Paris, Berlin and Portland, OR, Barney Frank, David Geffen, Truman Capote, Tennesee Williams, Gus Van Sant, and so on. By what measure are any of these people mentally ill?
" And who gets the right to rule on that? I say the people do."
Bully for you. And are 'the people' going to find a cure for me then?
So if the people say that being anti-gay is a form of mental illness, you would have no problem checking into a mental institution, right? Or if the people thought that killing animals for sport is a mental illness, you would have to agree, correct?
"Suppose tomorrow your father suddenly started telling everyone he was the Queen of England and strutting around the house in a sun dress."
Last time I checked, self delusion is still a form of mental illness recognized by the APA. If he were just doing it for fun, and didn't actually believe that he is the Queen of England, then where is the illness in that? Now, I find people who hunt animals and shoot them for 'fun' are strange, but I doubt most of them are actaully mentally ill. If you find a person strange for occasional cross dressing, avoid them. Simple as that.
So in short, you deny reality, and live in a fantasy world of your own making. And that, my friend, is indeed mental illness by anyone's definition. Ready to check in?
So, as soon as most people believe that homosexuality is normal and healthy, then it becomes so. All those gay people restored to health in an instant. Wow.
I wonder if this applies to other things. When Galileo stated that the earth circled the sun, he went against the prevailing opinion. By A.W.'s line of reasoning, we have to assume that Galileo was wrong. Since most people felt that the sun orbited the earth, it must have been so.
Eventually, popular opinion changed and the earth started orbiting the sun.
It's an interesting idea that reality is determined by popular opinion. I don't think it's actually true, but I'm not willing to take the poll to find out (or mount the ad campaign to alter reality).
The state marriage amendments affirm the man-woman criterion which is the basis for the prohibitions on some, but not all, related people. These amendments also serve to affirm the laws against polygamy. Federal DOMA and the various state DOMAs are in alignment with all of that, as well.
So, we can affirm (and have affirmed) the man-woman criterion, confirmed the lines against both incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage, and follow your suggestions -- all at the same time.
Incestuous marriage is incestuous because ... ?
SSMers claim that legal requirements define marriage. So where is the legal requirement that two men or two women must engage in some sort of shared sexual behavior in California's DP law? Doesn't exist.
On the other hand, the conjugal relationship, being both-sexed, entails the marriage presumption of paternity. This is a requirement and it is vigorously enforced.
This presumption is not based on a piece of paper, by the way, issued by the government. It is based on the both-sexed nature of human generativity. It does not apply to any one-sex-short combination of people.
Now, what justifies the prohibition on some related people, but not all related people, when it comes to DP in California? It can't be sexual behavior, since there is no definitive legal requirement based on sexual behavior.
As for more than one DP at-a-time, please justify that without reference to sex integration and responsible procreation.
Sex equality? Nope. Sexual orientation equality? Nope. Sexual equality? Nope.
Nothing about sex seems to point to lines drawn against multi-DP nor against closely-related DP, but somehow such an arbitrary line must be sustainable just because SSMers sayso.
What's more, when the man-woman criterion is removed, then, the thing being recognized is no longer marriage. So why should society treat it as if it was marriage? Just because SSMers sayso?
Nope. Not good enough.
In this case a constitutional precident, that gay couples are ENTITLED to marry, is a binding and has legal implications for other scenarios like polygamy. (I'll grant that beastiality and heterosexual incest could still be prohibited on the grounds of harm to animals and children.) Unlike a bill blessing homosexual civil unions, which I might support, I DO worry about the courts inventing rights out of whole cloth and disregarding others in order to make the outcomes comport with their preferred policy views. The danger is, that in seeking a particular policy outcome, instead carefully and consistently interpreting the constitution and the law, you can set precedents that have other consequences, whether intended or not.
The distinction is that, in the first case, we a granting an arbitrary privilege that we are not required to extend to other groups. By holding that marriage is a right and not a priviledge, the court has now mandated that people are entitled to be married for any reason at all, as long as the state doesn't have a compelling public reason to stop them (like the children born from incestual relationships).
> No of course you don't accept it
Yeah, because my knowledge contradicts it, and you’re just a crank on the web. I suppose next you should trust Wikipedia too, which has called Condi Rice a “concert penis.”
> No, it isn't. Don't believe me? Then read up on the material.
But the material does not constitute science, but mass opinion.
> One definiation of mental illness is an inability to function well.
And what is functioning? How about, I don’t know, dating women, marrying women, and maybe even if everything goes well, having children?
The definition then of “functioning” contains an unscientific judgment.
> and just about every other male actor in Hollywood
Well, of course, Hollywood is a model of normal, functional behavior.
> So if the people say that being anti-gay is a form of mental illness, you would have no problem checking into a mental institution, right?
Nope. I don’t think being gay makes you a danger to yourself, or others, and I don’t support locking people up for any other reason, whether they think they are the Queen of England, or are just a queen.
> Last time I checked, self delusion is still a form of mental illness recognized by the APA.
And believing that you are meant to sleep with people of the same sex is not a form of delusion? Based on what?
John D.
> So, as soon as most people believe that homosexuality is normal and healthy, then it becomes so. All those gay people restored to health in an instant. Wow.
Its no more breathtaking than the change in psychiatry.
> When Galileo stated that the earth circled the sun, he went against the prevailing opinion. By A.W.'s line of reasoning, we have to assume that Galileo was wrong. Since most people felt that the sun orbited the earth, it must have been so.
The difference there is Galileo could prove his claims, by formulae and observation that could be repeated. That made it a fact, as opposed to an opinion. The mental health of the gay lifestyle is a matter of opinion, and thus subject to rational doubt by the “great unwashed” who didn’t spend years in medical school. What you want to do is the truly absurd act, converting the mass opinion of the psychological community into the “facts.”
I mean you are acting as though the old claim by the psychological community that being gay was unhealthy was determined by a formula and someone just forgot to “carry the ten” or made some other calculation error, and when they discovered the error they “proved” that being gay was healthy. You refuse to admit the very basic fact that psychiatry in this area is not science but guesswork. And why should the will of the people be overwhelmed by whatever is the latest fashion in psychology?
Last time I checked, it was government by consent of the governed, not by the consent of the shrinks.
Look, it's obvious from your comments that you will never see gay people as healthy. Okay, fine. It's a free country and you're allowed bigoted ignorant opinions. Likewise, we are free to hold you in utter contempt.
There are clear and objective ways of determining mental health, even though the field lacks the rigor of physics.
I am not, however, acting as is the psychological community "forgot to 'carry the ten.' " What I've said is that work that started in the 1950s showed that the psychological profiles of gay people were indistinguishable from those of straight people.
In other words, unless you ask the question "are you sexually attracted to members of your own sex," you can't tell. This is one of those cases where they actually did some science.
You define "functioning" as only equal to "heterosexuality," leading you to the tautology that homosexuality isn't functional because it isn't heterosexuality. Unless, of course you're claiming that only straight men and lesbians are functioning. You know, women can soon marry women in California. (Odd thing about these debates: they always seem to turn on male homosexuality.)
I'm sure you're beyond convincing.
> I'll grant that beastiality and heterosexual incest could still be prohibited on the grounds of harm to animals and children.
Regarding beastiality or any other form of cruelty to animals, I wouldn’t speak so quickly. If the only principle that allows us to ban it is harm analysis, and not moral repugnance, then beastiality has a problem too. You say that harm to animals counts. But how do you square that with Roe, where the thing harmed is actually human but unborn. The court in Roe reasoned that since it was not born, it was not a person and thus the state had no right to protect it. It could only be protected as a “potential person” not as a person. So, where does that leave animals? They are not persons or even potential persons, and so by that logic I guess they cannot be protected under the law. I mean, if you can’t protect a fetus that is, after all, genetically human, from being killed then by what logic can you protect Fido from being cornholed?
Now when I raise this point, it is commonly argued that since a fetus is inside the woman, and thus involves the use of her nutrients, etc. that it makes it difference. But look at the case of conjoined twins. When it is possible to disconnect them, it takes the consent of both twins. Indeed, if it would kill one or the other, doctors consider it out of the question to disconnect them.
The answer is that if we only allowed to go by harm analysis, then we lose a lot of good laws.
As for incest, if you mean the harm to children, I presume you mean the offspring. But, um, its an odd concept of protecting a person when you say, rather than being born defective, you just shouldn’t be born? I mean suppose I said to you, which would you prefer, to lose your leg, or your head, if you are like most people you would choose your leg. Even a coyote in the wild caught in a snare, knows it is better to chew off its own leg than to get killed by a human.
And if you mean protecting children from the incest themselves, well, that doesn’t address what happens when they are adults.
> There are clear and objective ways of determining mental health, even though the field lacks the rigor of physics.
Bull. There is no such this as truly objective criterion in this area.
> What I've said is that work that started in the 1950s showed that the psychological profiles of gay people were indistinguishable from those of straight people.
Except for the part where gay people sleep with people of the same sex. So once again the criteria of normality is shown to be subjective.
> You define "functioning" as only equal to "heterosexuality”
No, you define homosexuality as functioning. Again, that definition of functioning is subjective.
Given again that all of this is subjective, why not let the people decide?
Believe you me, if this had been done by an act of the California legislature, I would shrug my shoulders and that would be it. But to override the will of the people in this fashion is flagrantly unconstitutional, and that’s what offends me. The fact that the bans on polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, hell even bestiality as seen above, will not be threatened, even though the principles of those decisions should apply equally indicate that this is decision was not based on law, but subjective feelings.
Trying to paper over that subjectivity with the veneer of science offered by psychiatry—which is, when you deconstruct it, purely a veneer—doesn’t change that.
> Unless, of course you're claiming that only straight men and lesbians are functioning.
I will confess I realized about 5 minutes later how ill-spoken that line was from that perspective.
> Odd thing about these debates: they always seem to turn on male homosexuality
Well, I was debating with two male homosexuals, hence my temporarily limited perspective.
> I'm sure you're beyond convincing.
And you say that to show how narrow minded, etc., etc. I am. But riddle me this. Is there anything I could say that would convince you?
I guess you are as open-minded as you might imagine.
It might surprise you to hear this from a gay man: yes.
But probably not from you.
Since you take it as problematic that gay people sleep with their own sex, i doubt you could come up with something that shows that there's something negative about being gay.
As I keep pointing out, if you just use sexual object choice as a dividing factor, you can't find a pattern of associated negatives.
But feel free to try. It'd go like this:
All people who sleep with members of the same sex:
[negatives 1, 2, 3...]
And no person who sleeps with members of the opposite sex does.
The one criterion you cannot use is "sleeps with members of the same sex," since that is the subject under consideration.
Can you make a non-tautological argument for homosexuality being harmful?
Your consistent argument is: "normal people are heterosexual, therefore homosexuals are abnormal." And that's not an argument.
One more language item: we do have to differentiate between "normal" and "normative." Left-handers and redheads are clearly normal without being normative (i.e., standard). We know that heterosexuality is normative. The question is "is homosexuality normal."
Care to substantiate? If the only thing you have in your arsenal is "because they sleep with members of the same sex," then you have nothing. It just comes down to other asserting, "but not that there's anything wrong with that."
Yes, I can be convinced. But can you? What would convince you that "there's not anything wrong with that?"
I'd like to see you answer either of those questions. Preferably both.
1. Can you demonstrate that homosexuality is not normal (without taking refuge in the point that most people do not have sex with members of their own sex)?
2. What would convince you that people who have sex with members of their own sex can, in fact, be normal?
> Since you take it as problematic that gay people sleep with their own sex, i doubt you could come up with something that shows that there's something negative about being gay.
You mean despite the fact that it is inherently a genetic dead end? That of course leads most gay people to having shallow, meaningless lives. Because after all, if you are not passing on the world to your children, what do you care if you fuck it up?
Indeed, a perfect example is this very discussion. You see to care very little about how you gain the right to equality, including the right to marry, just so long as you gain those rights. The ends justify the means. And if you are simultaneously demolishing many good laws in the process, so be it.
Another problem is that gay relationships lack the healthy complementary element of a heterosexual relationship, the necessary yin-yang (which is a reference to masculinity and feminity, by the way) to achieve true balance in life. And no, a butch gay man with a drag queen doesn’t qualify. I mean seriously have you ever met a drag queen that wasn’t overcompensating? Real femininity is nothing like the artificial variety.
But let’s try that with the other categories, since you think this will make homosexuality special. List negatives 1, 2, 3… for the following:
All people who sleep with animals:
All people who sleep with their siblings:
All people who have multiple wives or husbands:
Note of course what a loaded concept that is. The term “all” when applied to humans is almost always wrong, unless it is purely tautological. Most employers, for instance, prefer a person with a military background, but you could never say all veterans are disciplined, reliable, etc., even though they tend to be as a group. There are exceptions to every rule.
> Yes, I can be convinced.
Really? There is an argument I could make that would convince you that kissing a dude is just wrong? Color me skeptical. You can declare you are open minded all you want, but I for one am not fooled. In certain circles, open minded is merely to agree with what everyone else in the clique believes, and I suspect that is where you are.
> Can you demonstrate that homosexuality is not normal
There can be no proof either way. The question is whether your opinion, or the mass opinion of the psychological profession, should overwhelm the opinion of 51% of the voters. I say no.
> And no person who sleeps with members of the opposite sex does.
Ah, so if 99.999999999999999999% of gay people also have an accompanying negative, and only 0.0000000000000000000001% of straight people have the same negative...
Well, way to load a question, there, buddy.
I actually care about the future.
Here you missed my point, although I think you've made yours admirably. Despite the major differences between gay people and people who have sex with animals, you see no differences. (My actual question was what negatives can be attached to gay people. In other words, if we want to assume homosexuality is pathological, what pathologies accompany the defining aspect of "sleeps with members of their own sex."
I think you've made it clear that for you, there is no way of viewing homosexuality as anything other than a pathology. Why? Because you were told that queers were sick perverts.
Grow up, dude.
There's no convincing you. That just means you're going to be wrong and stupid for a long, long time.
> I actually care about the future.
Hence why I used the word “most” although you have a funny way of showing it in this discussion.
> Despite the major differences between gay people and people who have sex with animals, you see no differences.
Mmm, that’s called not rising to my challenge. And see above how this decision leads to bestiality being legalized—with a lot of help from Roe, too.
> My actual question was what negatives can be attached to gay people.
By using a test that polygamy, bestiality and incest would probably pass. That doesn’t seem like a very good test. But thank you for missing my point as usual.
> Because you were told that queers were sick perverts.
Instead I should accept that being gay is normal, because I am told by a couple guys on the internet.
And, point of fact, that is not how I reached that conclusion. But thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of the matter.
> There's no convincing you. That just means you're going to be wrong and stupid for a long, long time.
And there is no convincing you, but I think we are revealing as much about your own ignorance as you think you are revealing about mine. Let’s see here, we have you claiming that psychiatry is a science with objective standards (!) that should overrule the will of the people (!). You have repeatedly justified the gay lifestyle in terms that would allow for gay incest and polygamy. And for bonus points, simply because I disagree with you on one point, that is truly a matter of opinion, you have called me stupid and in the following post a Klansman, all because I think the California Supreme Court should have followed the Constitution, instead of burning it to advance a specific interest group’s agenda. Good to know.
The California Supreme Court did follow the California Constitution. Those who disapprove of the decision (as there is no court decision permitting same-sex marriage with with they would agree, and I even have my doubts about how they would feel about an actual popular vote) like to claim that it was done in defiance of the state constitution. Their assertions do not make it so.
The terms I have use to justify gay behavior is that it is normal activity that is neither harmful to its participants or even illegal.
I have yet to see a convincing argument that bestiality is normal, harmless, and it certainly isn't legal. The same can be said of incest and polygamy.
I have yet to see anyone substantiating a claim that a holding that homosexuality is normal and harmless will lead to acceptance of bestiality, incest, or polygamy. People keep saying that is the case, but they never tell us how that's going to come about.
Their argument seem (to me at least) to be that since homosexuality is abnormal (the preferred term in the comments is "perverted") and harmful, it will lead to the acceptance of other abnormal harmful things.
A.W. among them, posters have asserted that homosexuality is abnormal and harmful without ever characterizing in what way this might be so.
I agree that bestiality, incest, and polygamy are harmful. My agreement does not constitute an agreement that the same can be said of homosexuality.
I used the term "stupid and wrong" because your arguments are flawed.
I asked, "why is homosexuality wrong?"
I did mis-read his response. I now caught the right line.
That's another (stupid) tautology. You haven't established that there's something wrong with being gay, you're just faulting it for not being heterosexuality.
Yeah, gay couples don't have that mix of sexes. You know, my husband and I both know where guys are coming from (you try standard male bullshit against another man, even a straight man; it won't work). Straight couples lack that close similarity that bonds and builds a deep understanding with gay couples. We all work with what we got.
You're still arguing that gay people are bad because they're not straight.
The argument is stupid and wrong.
And, yeah, you're a bigot. Work with what you've got, I guess.
> The California Supreme Court did follow the California Constitution.
Again, we’re not fools. The constitution of California did not mandate this result.
> or even illegal.
Based on a laughable reading of the United States Constitution.
> I have yet to see a convincing argument that bestiality is normal, harmless, and it certainly isn't legal. The same can be said of incest and polygamy.
So, in other words… you can’t list negative 1, 2, and 3 for each. And, my God, how lame it is to say that incest should be illegal because it is illegal. That could change by one activist decision.
The most aggravating thing is the courts bend over backwards to invent new rights for gays, while cutting back the rights of people who really deserve protection, like the non-retarded disabled.
> A.W. among them, posters have asserted that homosexuality is abnormal and harmful without ever characterizing in what way this might be so.
I gave you two reasons that you didn’t even bother to dispute.
> That's another (stupid) tautology.
Well, its hard to list thing that are true of 100% of gay couples that are not tautological.
But I love how personal insults are increasingly taking the place of argument in your view.
> Straight couples lack that close similarity that bonds and builds a deep understanding with gay couples.
Ah, so being gay is MORE NORMAL and MORE HEALTHY! Who knew?
> And, yeah, you're a bigot.
I’m sure the pro-gay-incest types would say the same about you. Probably call you stupid while they are at it. One person calling me a bigot (or stupid) doesn’t make it true.
I could make long lists of what's wrong with bestiality or incest. Why would they be germane to homosexuality?
I must have missed them. Was it the claim that gay relationships are infertile? That's a tautology. Was it the claim that most gay people lead shallow lives? Unsubstantiated (because untrue). Or was it the characterization of the ultra-butch guy and the drag queen. (And why does that sound like exactly none of the gay couples I know?)
This is probably going to come as a surprise to you, but none of the gay people I know actually match the old stereotypes.
That's not actually true.
* Gay couples have the same sorts of relationship issues as straight couples.
That, for example, is true without being tautological.
Didn't say that. I said there were advantages to both being the same sex that balanced out the advantages of being opposite sexes. Both have their pluses and minuses. Let me go tell my husband that he should do something because I shouldn't do it as a man. That's not going to get me far.
Yeah, except that such are phantoms used as scare tactics in an unsupported argument. Unless you're a proponent of incest. If so, well, no I don't approve of your sexual relationship with your mother. It's not healthy to be doing that.
Your arguments against gay people consist only of vapid rhetorical exercises. You can't find something that actually constitutes harm, just what you view as shortcomings.
The best you've done is claim that gay people lead shallow lives, an unsubstantiated slur. And that's your argument against gay people and same-sex marriage.
I'd call it a towering intellectual achievement, but it isn't.
Look, you reject Lawrence, you reject the Marriage Cases decision. In your own mind, you are the supreme arbiter of constitutionality. And you're wrong about that too.
Harmful how?
There is no legal requirement under the California Domestic Partnership law that defines the partnership as a sexual type of relationship.
So perhaps you mean a different kind of incest that is nonsexual?
Marriage includes the presumption of paternity which is based on the the sexual relationship of husband and wife. Hence the conjugal relationship type, as a type under the law, is a sexual union. All who'd marry must consent to the what marriage entails, including the presumption of paternity. It is vigorously enforced.
The marriage presumption of paternity can not apply to the one-sexed arrangement.
Perhaps some alternative presumption or rule might apply, if concocted just for DP, but it would not be based on sexual behavior. But such is not entailed in the California DP law and thus there is no legal requirement, much less one enforced, that would make of DP a sexualized type of same-sex relationship.
Note that merely calling it a partnership or calling it a relationship does not accomplish the sexualization of DP status.
The correct comparison is not homosexuality and incest, not homosexuality and polygmay, but one-sex arrangements and both-sex arrangements. And, no, these are not analogs for homosexual and heterosexual relationship types. While the conjugal relationship is a public sexual union, the DP relationship is not.
Of these two categories -- one-sex and both-sex -- there are ineligible subsets for DP or for marriage.
So, in your view, John D., what is the nonsexual harm from DP among related people of the same sex?
Note that the line excludes only a subset of related people and not all related people. What is the rationale for drawing the DP line at this or that level of relatedness?
It is irrelevant that the marriage law draws such a line, because that line is based on the integration of the sexes and the contingency for responsible procreation -- and this combination does not apply to the one-sex category. Marriage is the public sexual union of man and woman. See the marriage presumption of paternity.
There are plenty of non-DP arrangements that include related people. These are permitted and some are protected outside of the DP law. But if there is harm, it would be present both within and outside of DP status, right?
Should the law reach outside of DP to criminalize all such arrangements?
* * *
As for polygamy, it is a series of man-woman unions. Each pair would enter marriage as a twosome. Two sexes, two per union.
The practice that is prohibited is that of multiple concurrent unions under the marriage law. The practice itself, if undertaken outside of marital status, is lawful, right?
A man may live in a household, or support multiple households, with more than one woman. It is not unlawful to do so outside of marital status.
In fact, this often happens due to divorce and remarriage.
Now, if there is a DP equivalent of concurrent unions, what is the harm produced? And is that harm limited to DP status or is it also present in such arrangements outside of DP status?
How is a series of unions -- concurrent or one-at-a-time -- distinguishable in terms of the harm you see based on the relationship type that is defined by the legal requirements of DP status?
I think that DP and marriage are very different creatures of the law. For one thing, marriage is recognized, not owned and not created by the law. DP is wholely created by the government. But there are other differences: marriage is a sexual union whereas DP is not; eligibility for marriage is based on sex integration and responsible procreation whereas same-sex DP is not.
The upshot, John D., is that you need to identify the essentials of the relationship type you have in mind and then, from that, identify the actual harms that would occur in each and every instance of the subset that you'd prohibit from DP status.
If those harms would occur both within and outside of DP status, then, the law would be based on those harms rather than on DP status.
You know, I'm getting tired of debating the opponents of same-sex marriage.
Whatever.
You all have this exclusionary view with no room for gay people.
Tell you what: let's have marriage exclusively as a religious ritual. No tax or property implications. We'll take the extreme libertarian view.
Whatever.
As the notes say:
And I'm tired of debating with people who say things that would make people drop forks over dinner.
The next time I see someone make a claim that homosexuality is indefensible and suggest limited rights to gay people, I'm just gonna quietly mutter "schmuck."
> I could make long lists of what's wrong with bestiality or incest. Why would they be germane to homosexuality?
You could but choose not to. Good to know.
And why relevant? Well, since the subject of this post was slippery slope, precedent, and so on. The issue is whether you can distinguish the two in a manner that a courts should recognize as valid. Something that so far neither you nor the California Supreme Court has been able to do. Remember, that is how this discussion started? For instance, in your first post responding to me you wrote:
> There are many strong arguments against incest and polygamy (with the case against incest being strongest).
And yet you have yet to provide those arguments. But, you assure me again, you can do it. Really!
I believe you. I really do. /sarcasm
> Was it the claim that gay relationships are infertile? That's a tautology.
Again, when you require me to prove something 100% about a group of any humans, even when defined by behavior—whether we are talking those defined by behavior such as burglars, child molesters, college graduates and lawyers, and so on—its hard to say anything about them that is not tautological.
For instance, look how hard it is to say something bad about all burglars that isn’t tautological; give it a whirl.
You really have a remarkably shallow mind in that you keep coming up with tests that just do the work you think it does.
> Gay couples have the same sorts of relationship issues as straight couples.
Except for the two problems I listed above (and you partially agree to later on). Ooops.
> I said there were advantages to both being the same sex that balanced out the advantages of being opposite sexes.
Oh, I see, so its different than a straight relationship but precisely equal! No better, no worse... For every disadvantage (wait, I thought you refused to admit there were any disadvantages at all?), they were matched with an advantages that with mathematical precision balanced it out. I find that very plausible and not at all self-serving. /sarcasm
> Yeah, except that such are phantoms used as scare tactics in an unsupported argument.
First, I can assure you that incest does occur. So top pretending it’s a phantom. That will be on the docket, if only because of people arrested for it.
Second, how about polygamy? No advocates for that? No, say, breakoff sect from a major American-born religion? No creepy compounds in Texas for instance, filled with what I jokingly call the “pastel Amish?” Or how about a major religion held by people in the middle east? No polygamists there?
Believe you me, polygamy is going to be an increasing issue. And straight incest will be too. For instance, it is massively on the rise in England, in its South Asian population in terms of cousin marriage.
> The best you've done is claim that gay people lead shallow lives, an unsubstantiated slur.
Right. You know, because it is deep to be a genetic dead end, to have no children or grandchildren to pass the world down to and you don’t end up with a population living excessively in the now.
> Look, you reject Lawrence, you reject the Marriage Cases decision. In your own mind, you are the supreme arbiter of constitutionality.
One, I have a right to an opinion on the subject. Second, those cases were laughable as constitutional law. You’d have to be a fool to believe it is valid decision under their respective constitutions as an expression of original intent.
Oh, and one more thing...
No problems with gay relationships? Really? That doesn’t square with what Professor. William Eskridge, Jr. of Yale Law School has been saying for years. He argues that the reason why gay relationships have a unique problem with longevity. And he is not some “stupid” anti-gay advocate—he is himself gay, and uses this as a pro-gay-marriage argument by saying that if gay people could marry, they would stay together. Of course that doesn’t really hold up, since after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, exactly one gay couple has married.
And while I’m at it, you accuse me of arrogance for denouncing the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court’s pro-gay decisions, but you have been at every turn the sole arbiter of the standards of judging normalcy and relevant difference. You tell me it is not even valid as an argument to bring up gay incest because you don’t believe anyone really wants to do that, ditto on polygamy laws, ditto on bestiality, even though the laws on those subjects are broken regularly. You tell me that I (and the people of California) can’t justify different treatment on the basis that being gay is inherently abhorrent, that I (and the people of California) can’t justify different treatment on the basis of things that inherently flow from being gay (calling them tautologies, although you are actually stretching the term). You tell me that I (and the people of California) can’t justify different treatment unless I (they) find something wrong with homosexuality unless it is true 100% of the time. You tell me I (and the people of California) can’t justify differing treatment unless the psychological community agrees. And when I persist in finding homosexuality abhorrent, when I challenge those assumptions, you call me stupid and bigoted, which gets into an unrelated fallacy, the ad hominem—something I have avoided using with you.
And then you have the gall to call me arrogant? Take a look in the mirror.
I made no reference to religion.
I clearly did not compare homosexuality with incest and polygamy.
I also asked about your reasons to exclude some people from Domestic Partnership (and did not ask about marriage).
If you lack such reasons, then this establishes that your viewpoint is indefensible by your own account.
It is the questioning of YOUR exclusionary view that seems to have unnerved you and caused you to drop your utensils.
What are the definitive legal requirements of Domestic Partnership which identify 1) its essentials, 2) its purposes, and 3) its prohibitions on some related people but not all related people and on more than one DP at-a-time?
We can put reliigion and marriage aside. Focus on the relationship type that you have in mind when you talk of Domestic Partnership.
Whatever it is, it lacks the marriage presumption of paternity and it lacks the integration of the sexes. It is from this combination that the special status of marriage entails lines that exclude some people but not all people.
If this tires you, then, you might cease promoting a cause for which you have nothing but identity politics to sustain your particular prejudices.