Queer links
About the strange marriage between marriage radicals and opponents of same-sex marriage.
A statement in support of civil partnerships: There's something special about marriage. It's not about religion. It's not about morality. It's about commitment ( Read more... )
A statement in support of civil partnerships: There's something special about marriage. It's not about religion. It's not about morality. It's about commitment ( Read more... )
Comments 14
Personally I'm more fascinated by the mental rigidity of some SSM advocates and the supposed claim that one partner is OK, but any more is simple not acceptable. Authors like Dale Carpenter, rather than trying to address the hurdles that Professor Robert George puts up, should simply side-step them. i.e., "So what if gay marriage leads to polyamorous marriages?"
Either we respect the ability of morally mature people to make their own living arrangements or we don't. At least Professor George is honest enough to acknowledge he doesn't.
Reply
Group marriage (adding extra spouses if all current spouses agree) is a more complex issue, but, as far as I am aware, is not a social form that has ever existed.
Carpenter doesn't argue his case well. There is a considerable difference between equal protection of the laws--that is, extending the ability to enter into the marriage contract (which does not itself change) to all adults regardless of their orientation--and changing the incentives for all existing marriages. Which is what polygamy, polyandry and polyamory all do.
To return to the immediate point, saying same-sex marriage means one must allow polygamy is like saying if we grant votes for women we cannot stop men asking for more than one vote. Actually, no it doesn't follow. Not even a little bit.
Reply
Would you care to elaborate? Because I far as I can see it any argument will have the same level of reasoning as disallowing SSM (i.e., no rational basis at all, only prejudice).
Group marriage (adding extra spouses if all current spouses agree) is a more complex issue, but, as far as I am aware, is not a social form that has ever existed.
Well, there's the Caingang people of Brazil for starters (about 8% group marriage)... But it's rarity is not an excuse to reject it - otherwise one would be in the same position as SSM which is historically and culturally rare also.
Actually, no it doesn't follow. Not even a little bit.
Actually it does if you are following Professor George's argument that universal moral rights must be applied without discrimination in order to remain consistent. Whilst Professor George supports the discrimination (and ergo opposes universal moral ( ... )
Reply
Interesting about group marriage actually existing somewhere, ta.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment