Link: Until Logic Did Them Apart
In a liberal society, consenting adults are presumed to be able to do as they like, and it is incumbent upon opponents of any such freedom to demonstrate some wider harm. The National Organization for Marriage, on its website, instructs its activists to answer the who-gets-harmed query like so: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who.” Former GOP Senator Rick Santorum, arguing along similar lines, has said, “[I]f anybody can get married for any reason, then it loses its special place.”
Both these arguments rest upon simple tautologies. Expanding a right to a new group deprives the rest of us of our right to deny that right to others. If making a right less exclusive devalues it, then any extension of rights is an imposition upon those who were not previously excluded–i.e., women’s suffrage makes voting less special for men.
Outstanding piece by a senior editor of The New Republic on how conservatives’ opposition to marriage equality lacks a certain, how do you say, basis in reason.
Related posts:
But the whole idea of two same-sex people getting married is not logical. It has no grounding in biology OR religion. Polygamy makes way more sense since it’s totally natural. There are all sorts of limitations on who can be married: age, health, ancestry, etc. A gay man can marry a gay woman. Equal rights. I think the gay movement is reaching here and it may set them back immensely.
Getting married isn’t logical for *anyone*, my friend.
But this isn’t about logic, it’s about love and it’s about equality. I have to say, I’m taken aback at how people are willing to give this much power over the family to the state. Because that’s what you’re arguing for here: the state should have the ability to say who we can and can’t marry. And if they can restrict this, they can restrict *anything*.
If you’re opposed to marriage equality on the basis of “biology” (by which I assume you mean that you think that being gay is wrong because gay people can’t produce children of their own), then are you also in favor of banning marriage for old people as well?
“Religion” doesn’t determine our laws, last time I checked. Unless you were really interested in criminalizing the wearing of clothing made of two different kinds of threads and so forth?
Also, I have no idea what you’re talking about when you say that there are “health” and “ancestry” limitations on who can get married. Did you just teleport in from the 18th century? The notion that if we make gay marriage legal we’ll be able to marry children, porcupines, etc., is utterly disingenuous and, I have to say, one of the weaker of the Prop. 8 anti-arguments. Absolutely nobody believes this argument (including, I’m sure, people who are making it).
To say that “the gay movement is reaching” ignores the fact that marriage equality is the law of the land in five U.S. states and in many countries around the world.
biology = evoution
For a list of marriage limitations by state, see http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml
Many states have health and vaccination requirements. Ancestry relates to limits on family members marrying.
News flash: homosexuality exists in nature, which makes it part of biology.
Vaccination requirements for marriage are gradually being rolled back and you can get married in most places in the US without a blood test of any kind. No idea how that applies to the argument you’re trying to make.
With respect to “ancestry” (by which I would imagine you really mean “kinship”), are you trying to make the point that gay marriage would necessarily open the door to marriage between siblings? If that were true, why hasn’t it happened in any of the many places where gay marriage is legal?