Quote: Original post by slayemin
Not true. (Washington Post: In Afghanistan, New Misgivings About an Old but Risky Practice, 17 April, 2005)

If there was a psychological pathology which causes the idea of incest to be revolting to us, then it would be universal to humanity. Yet, in Afghanistan, its common practice for families to marry cousins (~10%-25%). Therefore, I will argue that incest is revolting to us because it is a cultural value ingrained into us through socialization processes. Where and when that began, I'd guess to be some time in the medieval period.

I just saw a special on Discovery that related a woman's sense of smell to attraction in males. Women were generally repulsed by the smell of a man. They found that a woman would be attracted to a man's BO if only two conditions were met:

1. She was +-2 days from ovulation
2. The man had a significantly different genetic structure than her own. This was determined by the body through the bacterial makeup of the sweat.

They hypothesized that this was necessary in certain cultures with smaller populations where genetic relationships may not be as widely known (for example, half the village are first cousins).

I think it is widely recognized by the genetic community that the closer the genetic information is when breeding, the more susceptible to sickness and disease the offspring become. This is why inbreeders of domestic animals practice culling instead of inbreeding the same animal over and over to their family.

I may be bombarded with "explain yourself"s and what-not but here's my astounding one-word answer:

No.

Quote: Original post by Way Walker

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
The "the government needs to get out of the marriage business" argument favors the homophobes. You only ever hear it as an alternative to legalization of gay marriage. I'm sure there's folks who genuinely believe this argument, but who's fighting for it?

Do you lump in "Let's rename the legal concept of 'marriage' to 'civil unions' and let any two consenting adults be joined in this union," with, "The government should stay out of the marriage business"?

Yes. They are obviously two different positions, but they both have the same effect I've been talking about. Just as with the other position, there is no discernible activism for your position. This not a slam on those who hold the position, but it's important that this be acknowledged. The fact is that the real-world path to equal rights for homosexuals in regards to marriage is going to be legalization of such marriage under the current system. Period. It isn't going to be your position or "get government out of marriage" because nobody is fighting for these ideas, whereas there has been and continues to be a strong fight for legalization of gay marriage. There's nothing inherently wrong with simply holding these other positions, but what is offensive is that the stating of these positions is never coupled with an acknowledgment of this reality (Dredd's latest post excepted, but that was a direct response to my observation about this very lack). (And if I may engage in a bit of dickery for a moment, the irony is not lost on me that many of the same people who offer "get gov out of marriage" as a solution can be quite vocal about how they live in the real world as opposed to their ivory-tower opponents)

Your position, when stripped of the real-world context of no activism on its behalf, benefits the anti-gay-marriage crowd just as the "get government out of marriage" position does. (although it isn't a safe position for those guys to pretend to hold as GGooM is). Before anybody gets too defensive, I'm not demanding that you provide the real world context every single time you put forth your position, but it is remarkable that the real-world context is always absent and that this absence is never commented on. The cumulative effect is to draw support away from the only real-world activism that is actually making progress in gaining gays equal rights, which is something you would allegedly like to see. The cumulative effect is to allow your position to be used as a tool by those who oppose equal rights for gays.

The toolishness aspect is also disturbing. That was my point in another post about pointing out that GGooM only comes up in relation to gay marriage, and never in regard to heterosexual marriage or in regard to discussions about the role of government. This is in part due to people who only break out these semi-progressive opinions to intentionally split up support for legalization of gay marriage. But people who genuinely hold these positions have been trained, for lack of a better word, to only think think of these things in regard to gay marriage. And it's not just this forum, it's politicians and pundits and columnists and all the rest of the opinion-makers. And yes, politicians and pundits and the rest are stupid and they pander and they're dishonest and not worth listening to, etc, but that doesn't change the fact that they are listened to and do help shape the national opinion. The cumulative effect is damaging to the real-world progress being made, and the cumulative effect is quite large.

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish

If the idea of government involvement in marriage is truly a bee in your bonnet, then discussion of heterosexual marriage is also a reasonable context for introducing this opinion, as is any discussion regarding the role of government. That we never see "government needs to stay out of marriage" in these discussions says a thing or two.

I think it primarily says that but for legislated restrictions on who can tie the knot with whom, there's not much of a practical difference between state-recognized marriage and state-recognized registered partnerships. Secular officials can already marry people, and I don't recall god being mentioned on my marriage license. Offhand, the only other thing I can really think of is lingering laws about circumstances under which a marriage can be annulled. Drop the one-man-one-woman restrictions and you've pretty much turned state-recognized marriage into state-recognized partnerships, no matter what you call them. So I think it makes sense that if you're sick of the government deciding what "real love" and "real marriage" are--positively OR negatively--, that only really tends to come up on the occasion of the government saying "no, that's not real love/marriage".

Look, the battle against miscegenation laws has already been fought and won. The battle against same-sex exclusions is being fought right now. In twenty years we'll be fighting the battle against polygamy exclusions. Can you blame people for starting to talk in terms of just cutting the damn Gordian knot of state/religious marriage links already?

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
Before anybody gets too defensive, I'm not demanding that you provide the real world context every single time you put forth your position, but it is remarkable that the real-world context is always absent and that this absence is never commented on.

I'll admit that I don't bring in the real-world context, but I do bring up the idea any time it seems relevant. When my sister got married, it came up in a conversation I was having with some friends (she was signing the legal papers a few days after the religious ceremony, and we were discussing which of either or both was sufficient to say she was married). Of course, in that conversation, gay marriage was completely irrelevant so I didn't bring up the "real-world context" mentioned above. The problem is that most of the times it's relevant are in the context of the discussion of the legalization of gay marriage.

To be clear, though, I don't want the government to get out of marriage completely. The whole reason there's a fight for gay marriage is to get legal recognition and protection for the rights and responsibilities that are expected as a part of a social marriage, and I think that's a good thing. However, I argue that I'd like to see it renamed to make it clear that this is saying nothing about what the social practice ought to look like. For my own part, I do support the legalization of gay marriage, and am actually a bit disgusted that people often want to give it a different name from straight marriage.

Quote: Original post by Way Walker
For my own part, I do support the legalization of gay marriage, and am actually a bit disgusted that people often want to give it a different name from straight marriage.

The problem is that the word marriage already has a well established definition, and that definition extends far beyond the legal rights and responsibilities.




Expanding the word marriage to include homosexual and/or polygamous partnerships is simply not the right approach.

As an analogue, imagine a crusade that the word "blue" will now be defined to include the similar colors green and purple.


Just because the variations are very similar to the traditional and established meaning of the thing does not mean that those similar items should be included. While it may work within the limited scope of definitions within a courtroom, redefining a long-established word is a non-trivial thing.


Should any couple be granted the same legal rights? Sure. Should it be called "marraige"? No. If that means the government gets out of the marriage business and in to the registered domestic partnership business, then I'm completely fine with that.

Quote: Original post by frob
Expanding the word marriage to include homosexual and/or polygamous partnerships is simply not the right approach.

As an analogue, imagine a crusade that the word "blue" will now be defined to include the similar colors green and purple.


Just because the variations are very similar to the traditional and established meaning of the thing does not mean that those similar items should be included. While it may work within the limited scope of definitions within a courtroom, redefining a long-established word is a non-trivial thing.


Should any couple be granted the same legal rights? Sure. Should it be called "marraige"? No. If that means the government gets out of the marriage business and in to the registered domestic partnership business, then I'm completely fine with that.

This, I think, demonstrates how the "government out of the marriage business" could be a smoother path to the acceptance of gay marriage. If it becomes "marriages and civil unions" then that gives homophobes a standardized, legislated name to call things that they don't want to call marriages. If there's only one legal category for everyone, on the other hand, then calling certain partnerships anything other than "marriages", given that that's all that they'll be calling themselves, will show itself clearly to be just as narrow-minded and bigoted as it actually is.

Quote: Original post by frob

Quote: Original post by Way Walker
For my own part, I do support the legalization of gay marriage, and am actually a bit disgusted that people often want to give it a different name from straight marriage.

The problem is that the word marriage already has a well established definition, and that definition extends far beyond the legal rights and responsibilities.

But we're not expanding all definitions of marriage, just the legal one. If you read my posts, you'll see that I'm all for giving it a new name to avoid this confusion, but, in the end, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

And it's something we do all the time in the sciences. For example, one sometimes comes across temperatures below absolute zero. Of course, the every day concept of temperature cannot go below absolute zero, but the thermodynamic concept of temperature is somewhat broader than the every day concept.

Quote:
Expanding the word marriage to include homosexual and/or polygamous partnerships is simply not the right approach

To put it another way, it's not a matter of "expanding" the defintion, it's a matter of "not constricting" the definition.

Quote: Original post by Sneftel
This, I think, demonstrates how the "government out of the marriage business" could be a smoother path to the acceptance of gay marriage. If it becomes "marriages and civil unions" then that gives homophobes a standardized, legislated name to call things that they don't want to call marriages. If there's only one legal category for everyone, on the other hand, then calling certain partnerships anything other than "marriages", given that that's all that they'll be calling themselves, will show itself clearly to be just as narrow-minded and bigoted as it actually is.

Or they'll just start calling them "civil marriages" and consider them not "real" marriages.

Of course, that's how I view it now. To me, the "civil marriage" isn't the important part, and, if you find the legal issues it brings inconvenient (e.g. I hear this is the case for many elderly couples) then I see no reason to enter into it just because you have a "social marriage". In this way, I'd recognize many homosexual couples as being married already, regardless of whether or not their state currently provides legal recognition of the fact.

Of course, I'm also not denying that the sort of people you're referring to above would make the distinction for a different reason.

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
This not a slam on those who hold the position, but it's important that this be acknowledged. The fact is that the real-world path to equal rights for homosexuals in regards to marriage is going to be legalization of such marriage under the current system. Period. It isn't going to be your position or "get government out of marriage" because nobody is fighting for these ideas, whereas there has been and continues to be a strong fight for legalization of gay marriage. There's nothing inherently wrong with simply holding these other positions, but what is offensive is that the stating of these positions is never coupled with an acknowledgment of this reality (Dredd's latest post excepted, but that was a direct response to my observation about this very lack).

I have actually considered fighting for the idea at the upcoming Pride parade, but I'm afraid of being shouted down and/or misunderstood.

Quote: (And if I may engage in a bit of dickery for a moment, the irony is not lost on me that many of the same people who offer "get gov out of marriage" as a solution can be quite vocal about how they live in the real world as opposed to their ivory-tower opponents)

No idea what you're talking about here, sorry.

Quote: but it is remarkable that the real-world context is always absent and that this absence is never commented on. The cumulative effect is to draw support away from the only real-world activism that is actually making progress in gaining gays equal rights

Are there that many GooMers that the trend is really noticeable? Strange. As far as I can think of at the moment, I never met any others before this thread, and had only seen one example of political writing that might be construed as pro-GooM.

Of course, it should be noted that "gaining gays equal rights" has to do with a lot more than marriage. There are parts of the world where it's a struggle just to protect them from grossly disproportionate amounts of random violence. (And I don't deny that "hate crime" takes place even around here.)

Quote: The cumulative effect is to allow your position to be used as a tool by those who oppose equal rights for gays.

Come, now. You wouldn't blame the authors of the Bible for the actions of Southern fundamentalists, surely. To "use the position" in that way would require egregious misinterpretation.

Quote: The toolishness aspect is also disturbing. That was my point in another post about pointing out that GGooM only comes up in relation to gay marriage, and never in regard to heterosexual marriage or in regard to discussions about the role of government.

I'll give you "role of government", although recently the conversation there has been much more focussed on financial matters. But when does "heterosexual marriage" ever get spontaneously discussed? It's not a political issue because "heterosexuals can marry" has really never been questioned. It's just the status quo. A GooMer would effectively have to start a conversation out of nowhere with "you know, this whole marriage concept in our current system is a complete sham, etc. etc.", and have a motive for doing so.

That said, I actually had planned to blog my position, spontaneously, before this thread rolled out. I just haven't actually really started my blog at all yet. x.x Bad timing.

Quote: This is in part due to people who only break out these semi-progressive opinions to intentionally split up support for legalization of gay marriage. But people who genuinely hold these positions have been trained, for lack of a better word, to only think think of these things in regard to gay marriage.

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't encountered the former, and the latter is a logical artifact - to the extent that it makes sense - of the nature of the current inequality. Although one could pose the question: but for the inability of homosexuals to marry, would GooMers have gotten the GooM idea? And I'm not qualified to answer that, even of myself.