Comments on: Same-sex marriage conversation: What do we know? Part 2

By: jayhuck

jayhuck — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:03:47 +0000

Nemario –

MRSA is hitting all kinds of people, including children. Football players and locker rooms are actually high risk groups and areas.

Evan,

Not creating a problem is definitely a criterion, because SSM detractors use “problems” as they main reason for not allowing them. Of course, when it comes to equal rights, similar arguments are always made for the groups seeking “a place at the table”.

By: Nemario

Nemario — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:24:29 +0000

It’s because they’re allowed to mary that the MRSA report was able to be compiled by the zip codes. We’ll just continue to see what kinds of “problems” occur. Of course then it will be too late.

By: Evan

Evan — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:21:47 +0000

Jayhuck, probably neither did polygamy create serious problems as yet, still we think it is not appropriate. What about group marriage? Should we open our minds to whatever possible type of marriage may be proposed that does not “create problems”? Is “not creating problems” a criterion? I think not.
Seen in this light, I agree with the argument that marriage integrates reproduction or its possibility (by nature, not by state of health).

By: jayhuck

jayhuck — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:42:11 +0000

RK –

Perhaps I’ve already said this, but in case you hadn’t noticed, gay marriages are already taking place in this country and many others, and no real problems have been created by these marriages.

By: R.K.

R.K. — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:56:59 +0000

Note the use of two common pro-SSM arguments.

The “institution” of marriage has gone through many changes, both in purpose and in the numbers of members permitted. (The implication being that it has adapted to all of them fine).

The other “argument”:

What kind of “disaster” did you have in mind? A 50% failure rate, perhaps?

I think straight marriage is pretty much a disaster, especially for the children of those straights whose “till death do us part” proves to be a huge lie. (The implication, of course, being that because marriage is already in bad shape, another redefinition couldn’t possibly hurt it).

Note the total contradiction between these two lines of argument.

By: R.K.

R.K. — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:08:26 +0000

http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/25/against-gay-marriage/

All the articles linked to should be read by anyone interested

By: R.K.

R.K. — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:00:31 +0000

Typo: (an system) above should read (any system), of course.

By: R.K.

R.K. — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:58:43 +0000

Another general argument:

3. “This system (an system) is already severely damaged. Therefore, another extreme change could not possibly damage it any further.”

In general, is this a good argument?

By: R.K.

R.K. — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 04:26:51 +0000

Warren,

I have a lot to say on this subject and do not have the time tonight, but I will be commenting extensively on it tomorrow, if that is alright.

For now, though, let me ask people to really think whether or not these general types of arguments are really good ones.

1. “You say you have a core definition/limit (to anything). But sometimes you go outside the definition. Therefore, why not go much further outside the definition, or abolish it altogether”.

2. “We have already made a lot of changes. Therefore, it can’t possibly hurt if we make an even greater change yet, even one that is unheard of.”

Again, these are general arguments, reduced to a general form. Do they hold up in a general sense, without resort to specific issues?

By: Warren

Warren — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 04:22:43 +0000

To those who I have deleted, please see comment 81759.

Thanks for all the energy invested here…