Now playing on dirty.radio: Loading... |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
Quote:
Not to mentioned there are more financial benefits to be non-married than to be married. You can really buck the tax system with one itemizing the house and the other being able to utilize standardized deductions. Which will work out great unless you're in a common law state. I also find it ironic that there's no one on the bandwagon asking for polygamy marriages (in all it's forms) to be "official". Because, we know they've been doing it for a long while now just as non-government sanctioned marriages. If a man and a woman is OK, a man and a man is OK, a woman and a woman is OK, why is adding another person (or more people) to the mix a taboo? If you're going to open it up, you might as well open it up so any consenting adult can marry as many consenting adults as they choose. This doesn't even touch on the fact how throughout history societies that embraced polygamy tended to do very well. With the damn near requirement for dual-income households, wouldn't it be good to embrace a third "stay-at-home" counterpart to actual raise the kids. Then again, society would probably spontaneously combust if raising children ever became a focus. We've gone from "Children should be seen and not heard," to "Children should be; not seen and heard." |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
Interesting Skie.
I have no moral problem with polygamy as a construct. If anything I have a bigger problem with the sexism that it can entail, though I'm not convinced that sexism is inherent to polygamy, rather it's a reflection of the cultures within which polygamy has, until now, been seen to flourish. How about incest, what do you think (morally) about that? Every now and again I read some story about a brother and sister somewhere asking to be left alone to continue their relationship (hey, I live in Wales!), and it's hard not to feel some sympathy for them. I think my only moral problem with it comes from the increased probability of unhealthy offspring. I wouldn't try to pass off my sense of "Urgh, that's icky!!" as a moral justification, which I suspect a lot of people are inclined to do. Re. gays and marriage - I'm aware that there are lots of people looking on in utter bemusement at why so many otherwise sane gay people would want to chuck themselves into an institution whose purpose "seems to be" aimed at keeping straight people in a straitjacket. It's not a view I share (for many of the reasons given by Sean earlier) and I rather resent the accusation that it's just selling out to straight society in a bid for social acceptance. But I can see how marriage is not going to be to everyone's taste. I think often, part of the problem with the marriage debate is that when you try to explain what you think it offers (companionship, lifetime committment, etc), some people can read that as saying that those things aren't possible outside of marriage. Well of course they are. I don't doubt there are lots of unmarried couples that are more stable and more committed than many married ones. Just as there are lots of single mothers doing a damn better job than many two-parent families. I think the issue is really likelihood, the likelihood that, if you've thought about and are willing to enter a contract like marriage, then you're more likely (but not guaranteed) to feel that those things are worth something in life, and that growing old with someone can be beautiful and rewarding, even if it can also be tough and involve personal sacrifice. That doesn't mean I think that if you choose not to get married, that you automatically don't or can't feel that same degree of commitment to your partner, or won't spend your whole life with them. But I think having some formal framework upon which people can focus (and to which they can strive) is no bad thing. I'm writing this clumsily at the moment, and probably not putting in enough caveats. There are side issues like monogamy and religion, which I'm not covering. But essentially, I think marriage (even when taken as a secular institution, which many say it's not) definitely has its strengths and plays a mostly positive role in society. That said, I've often looked at the direction our western societies seem to be heading in terms of marriage and sex, and (without wishing to get all Daily Mail) wondered in all seriousness if marriage is destined to be a thing of the past? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
Well no, it's not really a slippery slope argument (edit: or at least not a fallacious one). I'm not using it to advocate or assert anything, just pointing out a trend and wondering whether that will continue; whether marriage may become old fashioned and die out. Seems a reasonable thing to wonder.
Or were you referring to something else? Last edited by Deckard; 06-24-2008 at 07:45 AM. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
i'm talking about the suggestion that loosening the death grip on the definition of marriage means we have to let polygamy and incest into the club, too. AND WHY DON'T WE LET PEOPLE MARRY ANIMALS AND HATS AND SANDWICHES, TOO?!?!?!?!
i hate slippery slope arguments. the problem is most of us are capable of abstract reasoning, and through that skill we can tease out even the most tenuous connection between ideas. so everything you can think of becomes a potential slippery slope. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
Ah I see.
Sounds like you're referring to those slippery slope advocates who hold the view that "marriage must be between a man and a woman". Can't say I really picked up on that in Skie's post tbh. I thought it was more a genuine point about polygamy in relation to what is and isn't acceptable. Consenting adults, and all that.... |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
Quote:
Aside from that, I'm in agreement with everything Deckard said in response to the rest of your post. In some cases, I do see the slippery slope argument as legitimate, but not here so much. Especially since, as Deckard pointed out, there are health issues at stake where inbreeding is concerned, and because marrying a minor would likely involve statutory rape, etc. Polygamy is less clear-cut, but I don't see the opening of the definition of marriage creating a huge slipperty slope issue. Although, Cacophony, there is a really good sandwhich place down the street that has an italian coldcut hero I may leave my wife for...
__________________
Download all my remixes |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
Quote:
As far as incest, I agree it's "icky"; but the main concern there is unhealthy offspring. Many island cultures practiced incest without detriment to their offspring. In addition, there are many other unhealthy pairings that are allowed to breed. I agree, but I suppose I'm a bit jaded due to the volume of divorced couples (10% of the US population). (This figure doesn't even account for those who've hit the reset button and remarried.) I think it's a bit sad that there's about a 1/3 chance a marriage will end in divorce or to a lesser degree death before the 10th year anniversary. It's obvious marriage means less in society today than it did 10 years ago, let alone 20 or 30 years ago. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Re: California overturns ban on same-sex marriage
Quote:
I honestly don't see how that suddenly includes children, animals, plants, or inanimate objects. Is party one a consenting adult? Is party two a consenting adult? If yes to both then allow marriage equals true. |
Post Reply |
|
|