--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcg...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > The "box turtle" statement above is really making the > > > > case against gay marriage by not making the case: It > > > > is not telling you what is wrong with gay marriage, > > > > but rather saying that if you allow gay marriage then > > > > you will have to allow something else you might not like." > > > > > > > > Read more... > > > > http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452 > > > > http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm > > > > > > That's one way of looking at it; another way is to say > > > that those that support gay marriage and not other > > > kinds of marriage are hypocrites. > > > > Not if same-sex marriage is much more similar to > > opposite-sex marriage than it is to these "other > > kinds of marriage," which it obviously is. > > > > If there were a movement in favor of incestuous > > marriage or polygamy or box-turtle marriage as > > substantial as there is in favor of same-sex > > marriage, you might have a point (although there > > would still be good arguments against it), but > > there isn't. > > > > > I don't know what you mean by "substantial" but I suspect you mean > "significant numbers". Certainly, there are WAY more gays than any of the > other members of groups mentioned. > > But civil rights shouldn't be dependent upon "numbers"; that is, simply > because of the power of voting or influence given by substantial numbers > should not dictate who does and does not get civil rights. > > About a month or two ago I posted an article from a Canadian newspaper > specifically about the slippery slope argument (sorry, I can't remember when > nor do I have the reference or link) regarding gay marriage in Canada where > it's been legal for several years and, yes, there are several movements > afloat to legalize both polygamy and incest. >
Again, the point remains that these are separate battles. The slippery slope argument does not have merit, it's just another version of the box turtle argument. "Polygamy: My strategy here would be to shift the burden of proof and make a devil's advocate argument. For those who cite procreation as the basis of marriage, polygamy should be fine given that it is an efficient way to increase the population. Also, polygamy might even be more "natural" than two-personal marriages given the assumption that men are sexually voracious; this version of marriage accommodates what people think is a biological predisposition to promiscuity among men. It is really the philosophical basis of straight marriage that supports polygamy; those arguing against gay marriage on the basis of procreation have the burden of showing why polygamy is wrong. Incest: Here, you can't use the biology argument against anti-gay-marriage people given that children of incest are more likely to have genetic deformities. But you can say that children of gay couples are not prone to this same problem either because they are adopted or naturally conceived by non-genetically-related couples (barring blood-related gay couples). The argument against incest preventing genetic abnormalities is sufficient enough in itself to distinguish this case from gay marriage. For those who are religious, the Bible is packed with divinely sanctioned instances of incest. But I try to steer clear of Biblical arguments, which are tedious and rarely fruitful. Inter-species: This is the most ridiculous. Marriages are partnerships and animals are not capable of rational decision making to enter into one. Also, marriage involves questions of inheritance, taxation, making medical decisions, etc. that animals cannot make. Anti-gay activists make this argument in response to the statement that one should be allowed to marry whom one loves. But of course it is implicit that we mean humans." http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452 http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm
