gay marriage revisited (англ.)

[avva]

Вот (англ.) наиболее рассудительная и убедительная из статей против гомосексуального брака, из тех, что я видел в последнее время.

Далеко не со всем так согласен, итп. — но почитать стоит. Хороша, кроме прочего, тем, что в ней честно и подробно описываются другие точки зрения и (некоторые) аргументы противной стороны.

Comments

[angerona.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with what Steve said, and igorlord and I just went through out own version of "well, then, shouldn't you allow polygamy?" -- personally, I think that we should, but polygamy should be much like any other marriage: all people who enter into it are going to be married to all the other people in that marriage, with corresponding consequences during the break-up of it.

So, in a way, the polygamous marriages in Utah are not truly marriages by that definition (because there one man is married to a number of women, but those women are not married to each other. When the man dies, all of them are considered widows, as opposed to still being married to each other. I wonder if they would enter into that marriage realizing that, upon divorce (all right, say the man dies and they want to get divorced), there is a chance that they won't get custody of their own children, etc..).

How will it work? it's a hard and confusing question, with many repercussions, but so is straight marriage.

[avva.livejournal.com]

So, how about incest between consenting adults?

[angerona.livejournal.com]

You and igorlord must really have similar minds. That was the next question from him, verbatim, and there I drew the line. My argument (arguably still not entirely thought-through) was that "with future medicine, it will probably be possible to have kids that have genetic make-up of any two adults, regardless of their sex, but I am still against closely related people having kids with their genetic make-up (because of the danger to the child), and marriage is still very much an institution designed for kid care").

But maybe, really, that's my own close-mindedness, and even incest is ok between two consenting adults (or, maybe, I'm missing a better argument that will separate incest from gay marriages and polygamy). But, really, the way I see it, the arguments for drawing a line between straight and gay marriages are no better than my attempts at drawing a line between polygamy and incest.

[avva.livejournal.com]

I am still against closely related people having kids with their genetic make-up (because of the danger to the child), and marriage is still very much an institution designed for kid care

Well, you seem to agree with Steve when he dismisses as bullshit all arguments that have to do with children, but somehow children function prominently in your argument against incest. Will you allow incestual marriage between consenting adults who promise not to have children? if one of them is sterile?

But, really, the way I see it, the arguments for drawing a line between straight and gay marriages are no better than my attempts at drawing a line between polygamy and incest.

But if you see it that way, you ought to be against gay marriage; if indeed your attempts at drawing the line between polygamy and incest are convincing enough for you to advocate allowing the first, but restricting the individual liberties of consenting adults with respect to the second (think of the anguish of people in love! think of the discrimination they will suffer, being unable to enjoy the benefits bestowed upon married people by our society!), then the attempts to draw a line between straight and gay marriage don't have to be better than that for you to argue against gay marriage — just as convincing will do.