It's not a murky grey issue at all, Mack. State legislators decide what laws are made and unmade and are influenced by their constituents in the process. If people like me cause a big enough political stir that legislators fear the loss of their seats, they'll pass a law allowing same-sex marriage. If enough people like you convince them that they'll be voted out of office if they pass such a law, they'll maintain the status quo.
Que? Wow Ruf. In what language does what you just said appear to highlight a straightforward or easily applied process to you? You must define "Gray" differently than oh...just about everyone else. I believe you have just made my point, and to illustrate same, I have highlighted for you in pertinent part those words you've shared that I think signal "GRAY" or "MURKY" to me. I actually agree with every sentence in this quote but your first one, and the difference is that to me, your entire paragraph underscores the murkiness/greyness of the issue at hand. From a legislative standpoint the issue of marriage is currently fraught with political turmoil, and the matter of
influence itself is a dicey thing. If words like "influence" and "politics" and "fear" dont signal "gray area" or "murky issues" to you, Im not sure we'll ever be on the same wavelength. Suffice to say that Merriem-Webster defines Gray in pertinent part thusly:
Main Entry: 1gray
Function: adjective
5 : having an intermediate and often vaguely defined position, condition, or character <an ethically gray area>
but just in case the meaning is unclear, here's the def for Murky:
Main Entry: murky
Function: adjective
1 : characterized by a heavy dimness or obscurity caused by or like that caused by overhanging fog or smoke
2 : characterized by thickness and heaviness of air : foggy, misty
3 : darkly vague or obscure <murky official rhetoric>
IF what you suggest about the legislative process is true (and it is), it means that legislators do not make decisions based on what they truly feel/believe - instead, they make decisions based on public sentiment, which is always subject to change. So as advocacy groups go about to influence public sentiment, individual legislators are in the unenviable position of walking a fine line of public adoration or outcry, depending on the decision they make at that moment, and the palate of the public at the time. Once loved, now hated. Once hated, now loved.
You dont consider that a murky decision-making situation? I do.
But there is nothing that obligates them to pass laws permitting poligamy, whether or not they approve same-sex marriage. That's a fallacious argument that opponents trot out to try to scare off anyone on the fence in this issue. "If we allow same-sex marriage, society will go to hell in a handbasket." There are a couple of states that today allow same-sex marriage, but no one has proposed that they also allow bigamy, which is the legal term for polygamy.
I think you are missing the point. No one has ever suggested that the government is
obligated to do anything. The point is simply an academic discussion of ethical soundness in application. Simply put, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Nor does your point that "only opponents of gay marraige would argue that one necessitates the other" track, because I would not place Adidasss in the "opponents" of gay marriage category, and unlike yourself, I think his point is also the academic point that allowing polygamy is logically inseperable from allowing gay marriage. Assuming one can surmount the practical and emotional hurdles accompanying polygamy, I agree. And that places us on opposite sides of both debates, because I'm not prepared to allow either.
It's "logical" because you oppose both and because you don't want to acknowledge that government makes illogical decisions daily.
Wow ruf, really? Consider it acknowledged. And, if you can, I'd like you to point out an instance where I have refused to "acknowledge that the government makes illogical decisions." You wont, because you cant. And I honestly think that generally, I am very accepting of, and candid about governmental mistakes and human error. Anyone who actually reads my posts knows that.
It's easier to maintain your argument against same-sex marriage on some philosopical plain instead of applying it to the real world of practicality. According to your theory, if a youth can enlist in the Army and go to war at age 18, then by "logical" extension he should be able to buy and drink booze at 18 instead of 21. It would seem even more "logical" in that both cases apply to the same 18-year-old, where as same-sex marriage and polygamy as envisioned by most, addresses very different groups in very different circumstances and are not at all compatable in real life.
Hmmm. No. If you actually read my prior posts, you'll discover the only ones discussing the very real
IMpracticalities of polygamy were you and me. In fact, I mentioned it BEFORE you, and your touching on the subject is the only reason I've been + repping you. Additionally, I've already clearly acknowledged in a previous post that gay marriage can practically fit within the current framework of marriage, as opposed to polygamy, which cannot. I have, therefore, applied my argument "to the real world of practicality," and I am hard-pressed to find a disagreement here.
I'm for same-sex marriage but every bit as much against bigamy as you are. And I see absolutely no risk of bigamy getting a free ride on the coatails of same-sex marriage. That's just not at all "logical" in the real world.
Why not? Because bigamy is impractical? What that means, "logically" is that the moment it becomes practical, you'll agree with it as well. I honestly think that for some, the only real deterrent to bigamy is its impracticality. If not, and you base your anti-polygamous leanings on some personally held values or morals, then I submit to you that your arguments are nothing more than the flip side of the coin to mine opposing gay marriage - two peas in a pod, if you will. THIS is the logical argument - that [practicalities aside] any REAL proponent of gay marriage, must necessarily be a proponent of polygamy as well. Practical reasons aside, anything less is hypocritical.
I don't see myself as inconsistent on this issue according to my philosophy of right and wrong.
That is your opinion of yourself. But academically (or philosophically), you are inconsistent in your acceptance of gay marriage and not polygamy.
You're consistant on this issue, anyway, but I suspect that, like most of us, if you examine your philosophy on other subjects, they may not all be consistant with what you advocate in this case.
You suspect? That's kind of a random generalization to make without tangible proof otherwise, dont you think? AS my old man always says
"Talk what you know, and let the rest of it go!" No need to speculate on some inconsistency elsewhere - the one thing you DO know is that I'm consistent on this subject.
Anyway, I don't see this as a philosophical exercise in contemplating one's own navel. I live in the real world where the practicality of solutions do matter. Some of us support same-sex marriages. Only a nut-fringe would advocate doing away with laws against bigamy, and that is unlikely to obtain widespread support. Some states already allow same-sex marriage, so for all practical purposes, it's already a done deal. My cousin and her signifcant other went from Dallas to some New England state last summer to be married. So far, I haven't seen any cracks in society's foundation from that.
You dont see this as a philosophical excercise - fair enough. Granted, you do seem a very concrete person. But allow me: my mom once bought me a little wall hanger as a child, and it said
"Great people talk about ideas. Average people talk about things. Small people talk about other people." I am as concerned with the concrete reality and practicalities as the next man - perhaps even more so. I do, however, also think there is real merit in also considering the larger abstract. This is what I am trying to say - not that I am unaware of your concrete reality - but that I am also willing to discuss future possibilities.
Surrendering one's freedoms to Homeland Security is a slippery slope. Allowing same-sex partners to obtain and excercise state marriage licenses merely extends existing law to remove discrimination against a large part of our population. To me it seems "logical" that since the states have corrected previous discrimination against interracial marriage, they should end discrimination against homosexual marriages.
Agreed. But following that line of thinking, its also "logical" that it would then move to end discrimination against polygamous unions as well. If you dont see that, then your argument is short-sighted, and actually prejudicial. I'm completely comfortable with that, but are you? If not, how would you deal with the argument that the government is discriminating against adult consenting polyamorous (couples? groups?) who want joint/several medical, taxes, parental rights, etc.?
New issue, same tired old tune.