California gets gay marriage and very hot weather

[Alcon]

Well, not about the weather.  It's going to be 90 tomorrow.  Screw that.

[Alcon]

Come to think of it, let us disregard constitutions and laws for a moment. I would be interested to hear a single robust philosophical argument (as opposed to a merely practical one like "there are a lot of same-sex couples, and it would be more efficient to allow them to have visitation rights, etc.") that anyone can make for allowing same-sex marriage that is not also an argument for allowing polygamous marriage.

One that isn't entirely theological, axiomatic or tradition-based?  Can you give one for heterosexual marriage that isn't, and isn't rather tortured?

[Alcon]

I did not mean to exclude arguments based on tradition. A very strong philosophical argument could be made that in a democracy, the government is bound to respect the traditions and values of the society from which it derives its power. And as it so happens, the traditions of the American society, as well as the current values held by a majority of the people, oppose the notion that two members of the same sex can be "married." This argument, although it is not one that I personally accept, is at the very least reasonable, but I cannot really conceive of an equally reasonable philosophical argument for allowing same-sex marriage while prohibiting other unconventional marital relationships that people want to have.

If there is a tradition that heterosexual marriage is an axiom in this nation, there is an even stronger tradition that 1:1 marriage is.  Unless you reject one argument solely on the basis that it is traditional, there's no requirement to simultaneously reject the other, so it stands on its own.

[Alcon]

Sure, there is a hierarchy of traditions. Nevertheless, one cannot really deny that the tradition of heterosexual marriage is an extremely strong one. But for judges in two states, it would still prevail today across the entire nation. So one can still make a plausible philosophical argument that supports conventional marriage, but that does not support any other type of marriage. On the other hand, I am still unable to find an even remotely convincing philosophical argument that would reject the majority's definition of marriage, compel same-sex marriage, but not compel polygamous marriage. After all, the polyamorous are probably just as incapable of controlling their sexual orientation as the homosexual.

There is nothing philosophically unsound with "everyone should have the right to marry the one person they love."  Yes, it is somewhat arbitrary.  I'd argue that I can't find a convincing argument for it being more arbitrary than "everyone should have the right to marry the one person they love, as long as they are of the opposite sex."

You don't have to argue that somewhat arbitrary "lines" are unacceptable to advocate for pushing the line in a certain direction (if you consider something "pushing" because it goes against tradition).  So, yes, there id as philosophically salient of an argument for gay marriage/against polygamous marriage.  It's philosophically arbitrary but, accepting that one man/one woman is too, I don't see any demand to argue against arbitrary philosophy when arguing for gay marriage.

And I'd argue that there are more practical repercussions, bureaucratic and otherwise, for polygamous marriage.  Honestly I believe it should all be a matter of contract.  The government should not be in the business of bestowing emotional value upon contracts.

[Alcon]

That's precisely my point: There really is no philosophically sound argument for simply allowing same-sex marriage. It's really just an utterly arbitrary personal preference. At that point, I really don't see why the arbitrary preferences of a minority should be imposed, judicially or otherwise, on the majority.

I'll admit that, in practical terms, I think you're right.  I do however feel that it's immoral to not extend this right.  I think it should be allowed for the polygamous too.  The only reason I'm more passionate about the former is that it affects fewer people and the bureaucratic changes involved present a better technocratic argument.

I don't really think that something being arbitrary makes it "philosophically unsound," because pretty much any philosophy is based on some arbitrary axioms derived from some sort of observation or feeling, but whatever, that's a separate argument.

[Alcon]

This is the catch.  Marriage is not "a right."  States can deny marriage for many things, including medical issues.  It is, for the lack of a better example, a business contract. 

There are two senses of the word right, one being something afforded by law or a body of authority, and one being something obligated by either moral or concrete guidelines.  I assume he meant it in the first sense.  The middle sense is arguable; I guess the last isn't to most people.

But there's nothing wrong with calling it a "right," and I don't see how that's "the catch," or why that specific verbage has any practical effect whatsoever.

[Alcon]

So the majority holds that view out of ignorance and bigotry? Ok!!!:)

It isn't ignorance nor bigotry, but it is how a Republic works.  The public votes ... the majority opinion wins.

That does not at all preclude it from being ignorance or bigotry.

[Alcon]

Well, you are now getting into the part of the issue of, is "being gay" biological or a lifestyle choice.  Where as interracial marriages deal with biological issues (people can't choose what color they are born as), if "being gay" is a lifestyle choice, then the choice comes with consequences.  Just as the choice of polygamy doesn't mean multiple partners can be married under the law, the choice of "being gay" would also stand as not being allowed.  Now if it ever comes around to be proven that "being gay" is biologic, then it isn't something that a person can change because it is the way they are born.  It is at that point where the law would definitely needed to be changed to allow homosexual marriages or the legal practice of marriage be removed from the system all together.  But we are not at that point yet.  So it isn't bigotry, and it will only be ignorance due to lack of scientific knowledge.

To what extent does it need to be "proven"?  Don't you think there is rather substantial proof that it isn't a "lifestyle choice" at this point?  Although maybe there's environmental factors and behavioral conditioning involved, it still doesn't seem like there's much compelling evidence that it's much of a choice.  In fact, can you offer much of any evidence at all that it is?  I can offer plenty to the opposite effect.

And being that we not know, why not err on the side of moral conservativism?  Sure, maybe we aren't committing bigotry; maybe we are.  But when there is a chance, and a strong one, we are doing something bigoted, it is our moral responsibility to reduce that chance unless there is a significant negative impact on society.  Maybe you see one.  I do not.

Edit: Joe wins.

[Alcon]

I'm not saying it is right or wrong.  I'm just saying that's the way it is.  I know people hate the comparison, but what is the difference between a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality and pedophilia?  Can people help not being gay?  Can people help not being pedophiles?  How do we give legal standing to one but not the other?  Neither group can help what they feel, yet we welcome one group with open arms while punish the other  (not talking about the criminal act of pedophilia, but the attraction). 

One involves a sexual attraction that involves two mutually consenting people, and one involves an urge to use an innocent child and traumatize him.  There's your difference.

How could you not apply the exact same argument to a heterosexual relationship, anyway?  The only difference is a tradition of acceptance of one, and non-acceptance of another.

This is the problem with emotional topics like this, especially when we don't really understand what causes the attraction.  Is it social engineering?  Is it genetic predisposition?  Is it merely rebellion?  It could easily be a bit of all three, but until we determine what does qualify as a choice and not a choice, and from there, what choices we view as legal behaviour and what doesn't, jumping the gun on making something legal because it is popular with one group or another is merely an attempt to ignore an issue.  And as we know, it is never that simple in our society.

Please offer any scientific proof that it is a conscious choice.  And while you're at it, please offer evidence that the burden upon society for allowing these rights/whatever-we're-calling-them is enough to justify committing what we may find out later is bigoted and wrong.  Not only may, in fact--by all appearances, probably will.

The majority has an ethical responsible to defend itself to the minority, lest it become complacent in its own traditions and societal dominance.  Once those defenses become rationalizations, there is too much potential for evil.

Which also takes me back to my earlier comment about what is a states decision and what is a federal one.  Ideally, issues like this would be resolved at the state level, but since this has implications on other legal contracts across the nation, including employment, health care, guardianship, and so on, this isn't going to be resolved any time soon without some sort of supermajority backing by federal level politicians to make it a national law ... and then be prepared for the local outcry.  Lord knows from our history, changes like this tend to be met with street violence.

I hope my generation is decent enough to change this without resorting to street violence.

[Alcon]

As I said, I'm talking about the attraction of, not the criminal act.  The difference between a minor and an adult is an arbitrary age that we've selected as a society.  In some countries it is higher, in others it is lower.

But pedophiles are ostracized because of the urge to commit the criminal act.  The danger results in fear, and fear results in societal rejection.  Unless you're working backwards from fear -> danger on homosexuality, I do not follow your logic.  What level are you trying to equate pedophilia to homosexuality on that doesn't also apply to heterosexuality?  Bringing age of consent into this is just making this comparison more perplexing to me.

I don't have to offer it.  It isn't my argument.  I'm just explaining the complexity of an emotional issue based on subjection.  Racial and gender issues are only skin deep and easily understood that discrimination was occurring based on genetic predisposition.  But how do you handle something that cannot be seen nor touched?  This is what society has to determine.

Things that you cannot see, touch or feel cannot hurt you in an observable way.  If you cannot quantify the damage something causes, I do not feel that there is an ethical justification for limiting it.

I chose to like girls, and rather late in life (if you want to consider your 20s late in life in relationship to this issue) if you want to know the truth.  Before then, my feelings towards boys and girls were the same (that being, they were only friends).  I do recall two of my guy friends "getting it on" once back in 3rd grade, but it was out of experimentation and mimicking what they had seen in a magazine.  I highly doubt they actually had any physical attraction to one another at that stage in their lives (being pre-puberty and all).  As far as talking to gay individuals, my friends are split.  Some of them say they've always been attracted to the same sex while others say it was their choice, except for one, who said she did it out of rebellion and ended up falling in love.

I'm not trying to be concrete about sexual orientation.  I know experimentation isn't really a form of sexual orientation, nor really is a sex act (as our friend Opebo would say, "a hole is a hole," it's mostly mental).  I don't really think there's much use in distinguishing experimentation, especially pre-pubescent and sexual orientation identity.

Coming from someone pretty close to the negatives on the Kinsey scale, I don't remember having much choice in the matter.  It just seemed self-evident.  Maybe you waited to pursue relationships until you were in your late 20s, when you said "being attracted to women sounds like fun," but you really had no sexual orientation beforehand?  Man, your teenage years must have been pretty pious...

But I do think your sample of friends is in the minority.  Study after study shows a constant:  people typically feel that they had little choice in sexual orientation, and the rates are pretty much similar to the statistical noise caused by "delusions of power" that people tend to feel over other phenomena in their lives.

I don't feel comfortable restricting minority rights based on little more than that statistical noise.  There would need to be much, much more.

[Alcon]

I'm discussing the aspect of drive, and not the criminality of the act.  Is it the same drive that attracts men to women?  Men to men?  Adults to kids?  If the drive is the same, then you will hear the exact same argument of discrimination and bigotry since we allow marriage for one group and not another.  This is why I keep going back to how to quantify something that may or may not be genetic.  Race and gender are genetic predispositions, which is why many of our archaic laws had to be revised in order not to unjustly punish people for characteristics out of their control.  But is sexual orientation/attraction?  If science can't determine it, then it will require a change is thought by society.  If it goes by social thought, then those who are attracted to minors will have the exact same argument.  (Again, I'm not equating homosexuality to the criminal act of pedophilia, just discussing the parallels in attraction and how we treat one group one way while another group a different way based upon personal views.)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me.  You're arguing that if pedophilia is determined to not be a choice, society would be obligated to allow it because the same logic was used for homosexuality?

They might not hurt you, but it could cause legal problems in the future.

Could you give me an example of something that you can not feel [in the mental sense] or touch, either the existence of or effect of, that can cause you damage?

Nah, not really.  All I cared about was having fun when I wasn't studying.  To me (attraction wise), there was no difference between boys and girls.

Huh.  OK, then.

Neither do I, but I don't feel comfortable about giving our "rights" to for the wrong reasons either.

And what concrete reasons are you afraid of here, that don't apply to heterosexual marriage?  Or does heterosexual marriage get a free pass because it is "proven" and gay marriage isn't?  If the latter, there needs to be proof of substantiative differences.  Plus, we have seen institution of gay marriage in other countries, so I dispute that it isn't "proven."

[Alcon]

I'm just providing the closest example to the gay marriage issue to highlight how trying to apply a "right" on an emotional issue that is not tied in with our classic definition of discrimination/bigotry is tricky, and that the argument used by one group to get what they want can easily be assumed by another group to highlight their own sense of discrimination.

But if their argument is solely "we should be allowed to do what we want because we can't control it," which is not the overall argument for gay marriage, they're going to be laughed out of society.  To argue that this would open the gates for such a thing is a slippery slope fallacy, that could be used against giving rights to heterosexual couples were that not already traditional.

If the argument is "equality should be allowed unless it can be objectively proven that there is likely to be an inordinately negative impact on society," which I think is most people's standard when it comes to bigotry, then obviously pedophilia is a "no" but neither heterosexual or homosexual marriage is covered.

Give me some time to think on that.

Sure.

"I" am not afraid of anything here.  I'm just giving you the otherside of the issue which needs to be considered before passing legislation based on emotions.  This process should be applied to any form of legislation, be it gay marriage, global warming, smoking, trans fats, etc...  As far in this case, the institution of and the legal contractual references of marriage have been based on male/female pairing since before the country was founded.  As far as other countries go, those are other countries with a single set of governing rules, which goes back to my point that this should ultimately be a federal decision due to the potential of married gay couples being limited in where they can live and what companies they work for due to the individual state laws recognizing the marriage or not.

I understand that changing the status quo bothers some people.  And if this were a zero-sum situation, I would probably yield to that.  But when it comes to balancing a demonstrably near-harmless change against denying the rights of a significant minority group, culture may have to get over itself.

My argument is not just emotional.  I recognize that there are emotional impacts on the other side.  Emotion is a component of any logical analysis.  It would be hypocritical of me to dismiss the emotions of gay marriage opposition while using emotions of gays in support of gay marriage.

But in a situation where someone is denied rights, and another someone is bothered by the enumeration of those rights for generally irrational reasons, my empathy is going to primarily lie with the former "someone."  Giving empathy to the irrationally-troubled minority is fine, of course.  Giving too much is an invitation to tyranny.