Minnesota is DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED! (But it feels so good!)

Like a Christian high schooler who sees their peers having pre-marital sex and thinks “I want to try that” despite the promises of hell from their faith, Minnesota has taken a swift look at Delaware and decided they want a taste of that hot, steamy equality action, even though it means the state will be DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!

Gay couples will be permitted to wed in Minnesota starting in August, making it the 12th state to permit same-sex marriage and the first in the Midwest to take such a step outside of a court ruling.

Hundreds of people gathered in the Minnesota Capitol on Monday, singing, waving signs and shouting loud enough to be heard inside the Senate chamber as the debate went on before the vote on same-sex marriage.

The State Senate, controlled by Democrats, voted 37 to 30 on Monday to allow same-sex marriages, after approval by the State House last week. Gov. Mark Dayton, also a Democrat, had urged lawmakers to pass the measure and said he would sign the bill on Tuesday afternoon.

“In my heart of hearts, I know that today love wins,” State Senator Tony Lourey, a Democrat, said Monday during a tense, often personal debate before the vote. Hundreds of people on both sides of the issue packed the halls of the Capitol here, chanting, cheering and waving signs with clashing messages — “Don’t Erase Moms and Dads” and “Marriage Equality, You Betcha.”

Yes, the bolded part refers to an unwritten portion of the bill, which only religious people seem to be aware of (they probably have faith in it), which decrees that all straight, one woman-one man parents will be forbidden from having children.  Allowing other people to marry the consenting adult of their choice will mean that good, wholesome Christians can’t raise children or enjoy their marriages.

If you’re not convinced, check out this commercial:

Proper response to “Don’t erase moms and dads”: “Okay” and then pass the bill.

Sen. Torrey Westrom (Republican, go fig), was succinct in echoing the inane argument that somehow gay marriage will affect straight parents at all:

“Where does this stop?” said State Senator Torrey Westrom, a Republican. This choice, he said, will send Minnesota “down that road of taking mother and father out of our recognition of what our children need.”

Children don’t “need” a mother and a father.  They need loving parents and a stable environment.  If that’s one man and one women, rock on!  If it’s two moms or two dads, spectacular!  People’s parenting skills and emotional stability don’t change based on what set of genitalia they find appealing.

Opponents of same-sex marriage argued that voters had elected lawmakers to manage the state’s fiscal issues, not take significant steps on divisive social issues. Some cited religious beliefs for their opposition.

These were the same people who were practically touching themselves in 2011 when a Constitutional amendment was on the table in Minnesota to ban same sex marriage.  Back then, this was the responsibility of elected officials in Minnesota to protect straight marriage (gag me).  Religion, I’m thinking, has some serious deleterious effects on one’s memory.

“It’s an objective reality that every baby has a mom and a dad,” said the Rev. Thomas McCabe, a Catholic priest who stood among a crush of people inside the Capitol.

First, to hear someone who believes a guy rose from the dead citing objective reality is funnier than listening to Glenn Beck rant about conspiracy theorists.

Second, yes, it is a matter of objective reality that babies are made with the sperm from a man and the egg from a woman.  So what?  It’s also an objective reality that some babies’ straight parents suck as parents and many same sex couples are wonderful parents, which is what really matters.  The process by which babies are made has literally zero relevance to an adult’s proficiency as a parent.

And if you think the kind of sex a person has is the most important factor in how they will perform as a parent then:

1.  You’d probably be a shitty parent.

2.  The irony of your allegiance to an organization that shielded the sexual abusers of children while simultaneously touting itself as a moral beacon does not surprise me in the least.

If you’re part of subset 2, let’s not pretend you are an authority on what is best for children, ok?


PZ Myers, as he so often does, captures my feelings on the matter perfectly:

Not everyone is happy about it.

“In my heart, I grieve on both sides. Because I know what it’s like to be alone and I know what it is like to have somebody close to you and love you. But I grieve inside because I feel we are opening the doors to Sodom and Gomorra. And in the end, God is going to be the judge,” said Nelson, of Blaine, tears running down her cheeks.

I would bottle your tears and perhaps dot a little on my wrists every morning — Eau de Schadenfreude. Or perhaps I would drink them like a rich bitter wine, and laugh. Those aren’t tears of sorrow, but of nasty cruel bigotry — you didn’t get your way, you weren’t allowed to demean other citizens of this state in the way you wanted, and now you get to weep in frustration, while I have no sympathy.

And to compare the happy men and women who can now aspire to share equally in love and marriage with evil, wicked horrible people from your book of lies, to tell yourself they are damned and will be destroyed…well, I’ll dance an especially happy spiteful dance on your broken dreams of oppression, lady.

Yup.  I there is a dearth of sympathy in me that rivals the absence of faith.

  • Glodson

    Remember, those against Marriage Equality aren’t bigots, they just want to deny rights to a certain group of people for the children. Unless those children are a part of that group.

    • Aoife O’Riordan

      Funny the way that whenever kids of same-sex couples say things like “I really want my moms/dads to be able to marry each other, and also they are both awesome parents”, while generally being well-adjusted, the Won’t Someone Think Of The Children brigade seem to be strangely absent.

      • Glodson

        Yea. It is just another stupid rationalization.

        This is the attempt to flip the script. They aren’t against families, they are pro-family as long as the family is like their own. They are for marriage, as long as the marriage is like their own. They don’t want to say it is about denying people their rights, it is about protecting their own rights.

        Don’t look at me like that, this is really how they think!

    • Chris

      Are you for complete deregulation of marriage? That is ANY person can marry ANY other person?

      • Glodson

        Any adult. So yes.

        Why wouldn’t I be? Why should I have a say in what two or more adults do?

        And what’s the relevance?

        • Chris

          Just to clarify, I don’t want to assume. You are fine with legalizing siblings to marry each other if they so desire. As long as they are adults.

          • Glodson

            It is unhealthy, and likely damaging. But what’s your point?

            Seriously. Are you trying to link marriage equality to incest? Is that what you are trying to do? Do you think that if we completely deregulate marriage to allow any relationship between adults to be recognized by the state that this will affect the rates of incest between adults?

          • Jasper

            There’s nothing stopping us from considering these things on a case-by-case basis. We don’t have to allow incestuous marriages because we allow homosexual marriages. That slippery slope doesn’t exist.

          • Chris

            So, you too are for restricting marriage to a degree. But why is your degree of restriction better?

          • Jasper

            Due to an evaluation of reality. Children are not harmed by being raised by gay parents (any more than hetro parents). Homosexual marriages have no particular harm over hetro marriages in general, etc.

            And ultimately, if the goal of society is to maximize freedoms, this particular question has been evaluated, and passed.

            If it wasn’t for incestual sex, I wouldn’t care about siblings marrying either (but as Glodson points out, people do that anyway), so it’s a minor point.

            My point is that each potential scenario can be evaluated on its own terms, it’s own harm versus benefit. Just because we allow one doesn’t mean we MUST allow people to marry their dogs, for instance.

          • Chris

            So certain criteria must be met for marriage to be allowed. Why?

          • Glodson

            So certain criteria must be met for marriage to be allowed. Why?

            Get JAQing off and making your fucking point, you dishonest weasel.

          • Jasper

            To minimize harm and maximize benefit – the same reason why set rules for anything else in society. There’s no need to get excessively solipsistic about this question.

            We have a society, and we like to be happy. Like streamlining an airplane, or determining a set of traffic laws, we can maximize this effort, while minimizing harm.

            We’ve analyze gay marriage and ascertained it’d make many people happy, without placing significant harm on anything – therefore, it passes.

          • Spuddie

            Because it can be justified by something other than your ignorance, bigotry and religion.

            Incest bans are due to bloodline and family relationship issues. Consent is at issue here as well.

            Polygamy bans are due to the havoc it wreaks on various laws concerning legal obligations of married couples.

            Pederasty, buggery… no consent, not adults, not human, etc.

            There is no secular or rational basis behind gay marriage bans. The closest you come up with are some dreadful reductive and insulting views of marriage or fictional harms.

          • baal

            Actually, the main problem with polygamy in the US was mormon sister wives – some of whom were quite young and not necessarily willing. Outside of that, I don’t see a problem with updating the laws.

          • Spuddie

            Trying to figure out the permutations of custody and estate issues alone would give most legislators a conniption. Debt and default legal obligations become somewhat troublesome as well. There really is few ways to work it out that won’t result in something either arbitrary or inequitable.

            For a great humorous fictional example of the pitfalls on how a simple will and guardianship can be in a polygamous marriage, watch the episode of Big Love called “Where’s there a Will”

          • baal

            Probate court deals with similar levels of complexity and children all the time. So do the general courts for private businesses with a small number of share holders (sans kids).

          • Spuddie

            Q: What do you call a lawyer with a 2 digit IQ?
            A: Your Honor.

            If a probate court is involved, it is always a complex case. The purpose of most estate laws is to keep things out of the probate courts as much as possible. If polygamy is to work, it has to have rules which avoid relying on courts to figure out basic estate issues.

            A major purpose behind marriage laws are to simplify legal relationships and obligations among spouses. It creates shorthands and default rules for how the law handles them. Polygamy shoots these to hell. If you notice the countries which have polygamy usually limit them to the oligarchic class or have little to any actual rule of law.

            I just can’t see a streamlined polygamy which isn’t either loaded arbitrary rules or creates some kind of inequitable situation.

          • baal

            So we shouldn’t even try?

          • Spuddie

            I would leave it to the polygamy lobby to figure it out.

            If they want it bad enough, they can work out the details. Maybe come up with proposals which could make it function effectively.

            I am not asking for much here?

      • Spuddie

        Not at all. Just removal of bans on marriage which lack rational and secular justification. There is no rational or secular basis for banning gay marriage.

        There, nipped your canned hackneyed, ignorant, illogical, counterfactual argument in the bud.

  • Christopher Borum

    i work across the street from the Capitol and watched the live feed of the debate all afternoon. The GOP tried to introduce two amendments, one of which would have gutted the state’s human rights act, which includes orientation as a protected class. It would have exempted not just religious organizations, but any entity associated with any religious organization, and even private businesses and even individual employees from any penalty for denying services on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. I.e., florists, photographers, banquet halls, etc, could reject same-sex couples. The DFL made the valid counterpoint that this would also allow anyone to reject inter-racial couples, inter-faith couples, atheist couples, etc. GOP had no valid response and the amendment failed.

    The other amendment would have established that we would continue to use the terms “mother” and “father” when dealing with opposite-sex couples in divorce, child support, etc, types of situations. The marriage access law states that those terms should not be used in the cases of same-sex couples in those situations, and it is explicit about limiting that to just same-sex couples. That’s where some of the “Don’t Erase Moms and Dads” stuff comes from. That amendment also failed.

    Watching the statements during the afternoon was alternately infuriating and uplifting, especially the closing statements by Sens. Scott Dibble and Tom Bakk. Dibble is the sponsor of the bill and is gay and has been in a relationship with the same person for years. They got married in California in 2008, during the brief summer of love that existed ante-Prop 8. They now plan to renew here in August. And Bakk is the Majority Leader in the Senate. He told a personal story of a family friend, a pastor, who had performed or attended numerous family events, both highs and lows-weddings and the terminal illnesses of some of Bakk’s siblings. But when he finally came out, he was ostracized by his church (Lutheran, natch), and really suffered as a result. He performed so many weddings but couldn’t have one himself.

    When the vote was over, I could hear the crowds at the Capitol from my desk. Really a wonderful thing to be here for, even though I had to work through, I can still say I was here, and my grandkids can say that their grandfather was part of the process of change for the better, to protect ALL marriage in Minnesota.

    Thanks for reading to the end. :>

    • http://www.facebook.com/park.james.102 Park James

      I work in dt St. Paul as well, and I stopped by the capitol at lunch just to see what the crown was like. It was pretty awesome, except all the pro-gay folks were singing religious music, which is a bit lame (I’m sure this especially angered the deranged bigots though, so it wasn’t all bad.)

  • Jasper

    The idea that children need both male and female parents is an inherently sexist attitude.

    • Spuddie

      But they would rather have parents facing legal hurdles in raising children together.

      Even worse they would rather have children in foster care or raised single parents than part of a gay married family.

      So they are not really considering child welfare as much as just being spiteful dickweeds.

  • Chris

    Glod, sex is not a requirement for marriage. So, no I’m not talking about incest. I’m talking about two people getting married. You didn’t really answer, so can I assume you aren’t for it.

    We already know that you are for restricting marriage based solely on age. I’m trying to find out if you are okay with ANY adult marrying ANY other adult.

    Seems you might have some restrictions about that too.

    If not, please correct me and answer if you are fine with siblings marrying each other if they desire to, as long as they are adults.

    • Glodson

      Tell me what your point is. I suspect you are acting dishonestly. I want to know what your fucking point is before I continue with you. What is your point? Why is this relevant to marriage equality? What point are you trying to make?

      • Chris

        No dishonesty here. Why you fail to answer the question is interesting. As I said, I’m trying to find out what, if any restrictions you are willing to place on marriage.

        So far, age is one.

        What about siblings? You stated ANY adult marriage was fine. I’m trying to clarify your position.

        • Glodson

          I am intentionally not answering because I want to know what your fucking point is.

          Speak it plainly as my suspicions are that you are being dishonest. If you want to have a talk about what marriages should and shouldn’t be allowed, a discussion on adult aged people engaged in incest would be interesting. That is a subject worth delving into, as there are questions about why the state should or should not allow this. It is unhealthy, but there’s a number of unhealthy relationships. Why does the state intercede on this and not those? There’s question of grooming and age differences, but those can happen in non-familial settings as well.

          My point is that I suspect you are trying to make a slippery slope argument, or trying to poison the well.

          So. What is your fucking point?

          • Chris

            How much plainer can: I am trying to clarify your position on what restrictions you are willing to place on marriage?

            Not certain why that’s difficult to answer.

            I wish not to assume your position.

          • Glodson

            What is your point in asking? What is the relevance?

            Further. I can honestly say that I don’t know. I’ve not considered this. My concerns with incest start before I even get to their right to marry. I don’t know. It is unhealthy, and likely the cause of some serious issue from childhood, if the two knew each other as children. But is the health of the relationship sufficient cause to deny marriage? I have not done enough research into the subject to have a meaningful response.

            I can say that the marriage between two unrelated adults, or more, shouldn’t be regulated. There is not a reason to restrict their right to marry. As for two related adults, for that I would need to do more research. I would want to read up on ethical concerns, and not to mention the psychological concerns. However, why should my objections factor into this? I honestly am unsure. I’m leaning towards saying they should have the right to marry despite my misgivings.

            Now. What’s the fucking point in asking this question?

          • http://www.facebook.com/park.james.102 Park James

            The point is Chris is a dishonest asshole JAQing off, and will just continue to ask irrelevant questions ad infinitum, or until he believes he has proven that the gays shouldn’t marry.

          • Spuddie

            Restrictions which are not based on rational and secular reasons have no business existing.

            This is distinguished from any of the examples of the typical “slippery slope”

          • Loqi

            You are doing what’s called JAQing (“just asking questions”) off. It’s when someone comes into a thread with a specific “gotcha” they want to say, but they need someone to set them up for it. So they ask leading and usually irrelevant questions until someone on the other side of the debate says the words they needed to spring the gotcha (the gotcha is, without fail, a complete dud. It relies on an extremely contrived situation and equivocation fallacies). Everyone in the atheist blogoshpere can spot it coming because it’s so common. That’s why everyone is calling you dishonest. We know you’ve got your little canned statement that you want to throw out, but you need one of us to take the bait first.

    • Edmond

      One of the primary purposes of marriage is to take two people who are strangers to one another, and make them into family. They become next-of-kin, where before they were unrelated, and this is extremely important when it comes to making legal arrangements and decisions for one’s family.
      Siblings are ALREADY family. They are already next-of-kin. They are not denied the family benefits that gay partners are denied. There is no purpose to allowing family members to marry, since they do not lack the bond of family which gay partners seek.

      • Chris

        So a piece of paper filed with the state provides this bond?

        • phantomreader42

          Chris, are you physically capable of being honest? Even for a few seconds?

        • http://twitter.com/AlmostAmbitious Almost Ambitious

          A piece of paper from the state extends to a non-family member a certain set of rights which are automatically afforded to blood family (inheritance, powers of attorney, some tax breaks, proximity for the purposes of tort law etc).

          I’m not actually that keen on the state being allowed to dictate which of our relationships are close enough to have legal weight, especially as the current set-up of ‘legally significant relationships have to involve family or marriage’ doesn’t reflect the reality of everyone’s relationships. However, the state has put itself in the position of differentiating between relationships and now it has a duty to make sure that as far as possible no one is suffers unduly because of the state’s position.

    • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

      I agree with Glodson’s main general restriction on marriage being age restrictions. If polyamory were easier to implement legally, I’d be all for group marriages too, but practically it’d be very hard and it’s not something I really care enough about to work for.

      I think mutigenerational incest is extremely problematic (parent/child, aunt/uncle and nephew/niece, etc) because of the power differential involved, and while it’s possible that some pairings are psychologically healthy, on average they’re not. So a blanket ban makes sense to me. Sibling incest doesn’t usually have that particular issue, but children raised as siblings wanting to marry and have sex definitely raises some serious issues as well. Frankly, it usually means sexual abuse somewhere in the family. Siblings separated at birth, meeting later, have only genetic concerns and not psychological ones. I think the idea is icky, and I would strongly encourage them to never have children, but I don’t think such marriages should necessarily be banned either. It’s a tough issue.

      The point is that none of my objections to incest are religious. They’re based in what we know about people, what’s good/bad for society, and so forth. If your objections to anything are based on Godsaidso, I simply can’t take you seriously.

      • Chris

        Then why should someone who does believe in God take you seriously?

        After all, God may well exist. You may believe otherwise, however you may be wrong.

        So just because someone has a difference in belief you are willing to outright reject their beliefs if they don’t jive with yours.

        But I’m guessing you want those who differ with
        You to take you seriously.

        • Glodson

          Then why should someone who does believe in God take you seriously?

          Why should we take anyone who believes in something with no evidence seriously?

          After all, God may well exist. You may believe otherwise, however you may be wrong.

          Smurfs may exist, but I want more than what might exist. A teacup between Earth and Mars might exist. Bigfoot might exist. I have no reason to take any of these seriously absent evidence, and any conclusions based on their existence is entirely suspect given the lack of evidence.

          So just because someone has a difference in belief you are willing to outright reject their beliefs if they don’t jive with yours.

          If they lack reason and evidence, then we can safely reject them. If they have reason and evidence behind them, we need to carefully examine the claims before accepting or rejecting them.

          But I’m guessing you want those who differ with
          You to take you seriously.

          They don’t have to take us seriously. But if they don’t provide evidence with which to prove their points other than their religious views, I see no reason to take them seriously at all.

        • RobMcCune

          Then why should someone who does believe in God take you seriously?

          Presumably because Feminerd’s views are based on reality and logical arguments, which should be common the religious and non-religious alike.

          • Chris

            Reality as she has experienced it which may or may not truly reflect reality. She’s willing to reject others reality why should they accept hers?

          • Glodson

            Reality as she has experienced it which may or may not truly reflect
            reality. She’s willing to reject others reality why should they accept
            hers?

            Look, pointless sophistry, and a solipsistic argument. That’s not worthless at all.

          • RobMcCune

            My atheist sense is tingling, I sense the presence of presuppositionalism near.

          • Glodson

            That’s fine. I always keep my Null Hypothesis at hand.

          • RobMcCune

            You’re not familiar with the word ‘reality’ are you? Again people can evaluate her stance on it’s own merits, both what they observe about the world and her reasoning. How is not having a god in the picture an automatic disqualification as you suggested?

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            I have reasons, logic, and empirical evidence for my contention of what reality is.

            You have a 2,000+ year old, contradictory, ethically hideous, mistranslated book.

            I reject your reality for logical impossibility. I don’t claim to know what reality is, just what it is not.

          • islandbrewer

            Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ on a popsicle stick, your going to be one of those fucking “my reality might be different from your reality” or “reality is just our perception and they should all be treated equally”, aren’t you.

          • phantomreader42

            Ah, so Chris is a solipsist! Or a poorly-written spambot masquerading as one.
            If a solipsist argues in favor of solipsism, then he is admitting that other people exist to argue with, which means that he is admitting that solipsism is false, and that his arguments are therefore worthless. Why should a person who admits his own arguments are worthless be taken seriously by anyone with a functioning brain?

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

          1) The existence of God doesn’t negate any real-world implications of our actions. If God says “go murder 500 kittens”, you should go do it if you’re religious. Expect to feel the wrath of many cat-lovers and go to jail for a long time for animal cruelty, though.

          2) Godsaidso should not trump real world implications of our actions. If God hates gayness, but what happens in the world is that some people get bullied, brutalized, and denied human rights, then who the fuck cares what God thinks? Real harm to real people on Earth trumps Godsaidso every time.

          3) Why wouldn’t someone who believes in God not take me seriously? I’m not denying God at all in these reasons. They’re secular arguments (that is, religion-neutral) instead of atheist ones. Theists don’t ignore every argument that doesn’t have God in it. What does my personal position on the (non)existence of God have to do with the validity of my arguments that don’t have anything to do with God one way or the other?

  • Chris

    Well if I have a point it would be this: you clearly have a view of hat marriage is and what it should/shouldnt be and you too are willing to allow government to restrict the right to marry to only a select group of people due to you morals, preferences, beliefs and “concerns.”

    Yet I would guess you feel justified and correct in your stance. And might even defend it.

    Yet if someone else does exactly what you are doing but to a different extent, you hold animosity toward them, call them names such as “bigot” etc.

    Yet, if I were to disagree with you and believe marriage should be further expanded- do I get to call you a bigot and closed minded since you are for more restrictions than I am?

    I wouldn’t.

    You too are for restricting marriage, though you vilify those who view marriage different than you over a particular group if people you personally are okay with letting be married.

    With siblings, you are fine with restricting their right to marry because of what “might” happen. But not every sibling couple that would marry would engage in incest, not does not letting them marry keep them from engaging in incest.

    Well a lot “might” happen in a “traditional” marriage, but might is not considered in allowing two people to get married.

    So a follow up question would be: why is your restrictive view of marriage better? So much so that a different view of marriage warrants your indignation?

    • http://www.facebook.com/park.james.102 Park James

      As long as we’re just JAQing off, what is your rational, secular reason for wanting to outlaw gay marriage?

      • Chris

        Um…I don’t have one. I’m all for Gay marriage. You just jumped to an assumption.

        • http://www.facebook.com/park.james.102 Park James

          My mistake. I guess I came to that conclusion because it took you several posts to actually make any type of statement, and I’m still not entirely sure what your point is. Would I be off base if I said that your point is that calling bigots bigots for opposing same sex marriage is bigotry? If s not your point, I don’t know what is.
          Edit: that point is stupid as fuck.

          • Glodson

            Concern trolling, isn’t it fun?

            Spoiler: it isn’t. It is annoying bullshit which mars a good topic and even an interesting line of questioning concern where, if any, restrictions between consenting adults who wish to marry should be.

    • Spuddie

      The problem with this whole line of argument is anyone can come up with a rational reason to justify restrictions on your various slippery slope examples and bad analogy.

      You can’t come up with one for restricting gay marriage. This is why you feel the need to derail the discussion to things which on their facts have nothing to do with gay marriage.

      By keeping the argument as general as possible, you hope to avoid discussing it on the facts. You engage in pointless sophistry to get away from what boils down to making excuses for justifying bigotry.

      • Chris

        Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

        Who’s justifying bigotry on here? Though I agree, I do see some evidence of it on this thread.

        • Spuddie

          It is not intolerance and hatred to point out bigotry and people who employ it. Its speaking truth to power.

          Unless you can cough up a rational and secular argument against marriage equality, one rooted in its actual facts, then one has to conclude it is based in bigotry.

          You can either waste time to argue this, or you can prove me wrong by giving an actual rational, non-religious reason based on its own facts.

          • Chris

            Prove you wrong about what?

          • Glodson

            Prove you wrong about what?

            You can either waste time to argue this, or you can prove me wrong by
            giving an actual rational, non-religious reason based on its own facts.

            It is such a grande mystery.

          • Chris

            I’m
            Not interested in arguing what bigotry is, he stated I was justifying bigotry. I’m not anger and hat toward someone for their beliefs is bigotry as well. And while folks may not believe they are bigots, sometimes it does show through. And yes I have seen evidence of it here. Now does that mean you all are bigots? Of course not. But one shouldn’t throw the word around so much and forget they might too display it.

          • Glodson

            Chris, your line of questioning and posts read as if you are trying to justify bigotry. We’ve heard this before. Whether you like it or not, you are using those styles of arguments.

            As such, you sound like you are against gay marriage, and my very first concern was that you were going to try to use the slippery slope, or a false equivalence to link incest to homosexuality.

            Instead, you are trying to cast people against allowing incestual marriages as possible bigots by suggesting the false equivalence that they are the same as those objecting to gay marriage. This does not hold as the objections to allowing incestual marriage stem from the problematic aspects of incest itself rather than a cultural or religious take on the practice.

            This is a major difference. A vital one. I am willing to look at the evidence and change my view on incestual marriage. I would even consider my point of view on marriage equality as a whole if presented with sufficient evidence. I am confident that the latter will never happen, and I’m not sure about the former.

            And as I pointed out, if one made an argument against gay marriage based on reason and evidence, they wouldn’t be a bigot. When one tries to get their view of marriage enforced by the state with statements like:

            “Where does this stop?” said State Senator Torrey Westrom, a Republican.
            This choice, he said, will send Minnesota “down that road of taking
            mother and father out of our recognition of what our children need.”

            That is bigotry. That is trying to fearmonger in order to assert an implausible scenario and ignores that children with two mothers or two fathers are just as well off as other children. This is not a reasonable objection, but one made to appeal to emotions and cast the bigots as the wronged party.

          • RobMcCune

            Yet, if I were to disagree with you and believe marriage should be further expanded- do I get to call you a bigot and closed minded since you are for more restrictions than I am?

            Not interested in arguing what bigotry is…

            So you’re interested in whether a use of the word is appropriate, but have no interest in what the word actually means? Those two things kinda go together.

          • Spuddie

            In other words, you would rather take issue with my description of your POV as bigotry than do anything substantial to deny it. Such as giving a rational secular objection to gay marriage.

            I didn’t ask for much. Your avoidance tells us everything we need to know here.

        • Jasper

          I’m sorry, but you don’t get to invent your own definitions:

          Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

        • Glodson

          That’s not bigotry. The way you define the word saps the word of any true meaning, making it a scare word to throw at people who holdfast to their opinions.

          If one is denying the rights of others based on their religious view(which is already a right the person doesn’t have), then that person is a bigot. They are denying rights to a group with a reason that is legally baseless.

          Now, one can try to make an argument against gay marriage which is based in evidence and reason, and if those points are shown to be false, concede them. That would be an objector who is not a bigot.

          So…. if you are going to draw parallels with your example and gay marriage, what are the secular and well reasoned objections to gay marriage?

          I’ve seen a few different ones concerning incest. I don’t agree with a few of them as I don’t think they apply, but it is that the objections are not based on subjective feelings, or religious dogma.

          • Jasper

            He seems to be having a lot of difficulty with the bigotry issue.

            The gay marriage opposition aren’t bigots merely because they oppose gay marriage… it’s the attitudes they have towards the class of people who want to have gay marriage.

            It’d be the difference between being opposed to gangs because they’re prone to violence, versus being opposed to gangs because they’re composed of black people who tend to be violent.

            He seems to be painting the root cause for the bigotry accusations with a white-washing brush.

          • Glodson

            The gay marriage opposition aren’t bigots merely because they oppose gay
            marriage… it’s the attitudes they have towards the class of people
            who want to have gay marriage.

            Exactly. The objection to gay marriage is symptomatic of their larger bigotry and the casting of the homosexual community as second class citizens. This is just the most obvious one in that it is fought directly in the public arena.

            They aren’t bigot because of this one issue. They want to deny the right to marriage as a function of their bigotry.

        • Azkyroth

          …JT, don’t you ever take out the trash?

    • Jasper

      Well if I have a point it would be this: you clearly have a view of hat marriage is and what it should/shouldnt be and you too are willing to allow government to restrict the right to marry to only a select group of people due to you morals, preferences, beliefs and “concerns.”

      For me at least, you’re right in that I am willing to allow government to restrict/allow things. It’s called basic society. However, I patiently explained that it’s not based on mere preferences/beliefs/concerns. It’s based on the goal of maximizing freedom, and assessing whether we can allow something based on whether it’s objectively harmful or beneficial.

      Yet if someone else does exactly what you are doing but to a different extent, you hold animosity toward them, call them names such as “bigot” etc.

      Incorrect. You don’t understand the basis of the discussion.

      The assertion that the anti-gay marriage people are bigotry stems from their position that homosexuality (and homosexuals) are wrong/immoral, therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to get married. All the asserted harms form around that basis.

      Whereas, for instance, my position on incestual marriages, stems from the objective harm of inbreeding, and has nothing to do with a class of people.

      Yet, if I were to disagree with you and believe marriage should be further expanded- do I get to call you a bigot and closed minded since you are for more restrictions than I am?

      You call us whatever you like, but to assert bigotry would simply be factually incorrect.

      You too are for restricting marriage, though you vilify those who view marriage different than you over a particular group if people you personally are okay with letting be married.

      I don’t vilify them. I may attack and criticize the basis for their position, but that’s an incorrect assessment. I disagree with the basis for their position, and they’re free to disagree with me too.

      With siblings, you are fine with restricting their right to marry because of what “might” happen. But not every sibling couple that would marry would engage in incest, not does not letting them marry keep them from engaging in incest.

      … which is why I added that caveat. One of the primary aspects of marriage is sex, which inst’ a “might”, but a “most likely”. Your’e equivocating between “gays might rape the child” with “a married couple might have sex” – when there’s an enormous discrepancy between the incidence rates.

      Sex in a marriage is just to be expected. Child molestation isn’t from married gay people – and it is bigotry to assert that there’s a risk for gay couples raping children.

      If you don’t understand this difference, then it’s no wonder we’re having problems communicating.

      Well a lot “might” happen in a “traditional” marriage, but might is not considered in allowing two people to get married.

      If there was consistent demonstrable harm in gay couples being married (like there’d be with marrying 7-year-olds, for instance), then yes, it is considered. That was a major point in what I was saying.

      Were you not listening?

      So a follow up question would be: why is your restrictive view of marriage better?

      I’ll restate it – because of an objective assessment of harm versus benefit in reality. This isn’t complicated.

      The reason we don’t let children marry is because we’ve assessed they aren’t mentally or physically competent enough, on average, to handle it. Therefore, we restrict that. There is no equivalence when it comes to gay marriage.

      So much so that a different view of marriage warrants your indignation?

      It warrants an objective and analytic assessment of the harm versus benefit. Gay marriage passed. It’s debatable about incestual marriage.

      • Chris

        A lot to reply to. Maybe I can later. However harm v benefit is based on preference. We prefer benefits, which is why we promote them. But that doesn’t make them right/wrong etc. now perhaps some of what I wrote doesnt apply to you? Great. Glad to hear it. But don’t put words in my mouth about what you feel I’m equivocating. I said nothing of a gay person raping a child, why bring that up?
        You are the one arguing what “might” happen and a reason for restriction. I’m not. I’m just pointing out that if two siblings want to marry, what’s the harm? You say sex!!!! Yet sex is NOT a requirement for marriage. That you can’t think outside of just sex that siblings may want to get married o my further shows my point you, like this opposed to gay marriage, can find justification and feel correct in that justification though it restricts someone rights.

        • Jasper

          A lot to reply to. Maybe I can later. However harm v benefit is based on preference.

          Incorrect. It’s objectively harmful to fall into a vat of acid. It doesn’t magically become harmless because you prefer it.

          We prefer benefits, which is why we promote them. But that doesn’t make them right/wrong etc.

          I didn’t say anything about right/wrong. I said harmful versus beneficial.

          Of course we prefer it – that’s biologically programmed into us… but whether or not a particular action or event is harmful or beneficial is not a question of preference. Inbreeding causes objective disorders and genetic deformities. This is not a question of preference.

          now perhaps some of what I wrote doesnt apply to you? Great. Glad to hear it. But don’t put words in my mouth about what you feel I’m equivocating. I said nothing of a gay person raping a child, why bring that up?

          I didn’t say you did. I was making a valid point about the basic concept you brought up… comparing the “might” of one type of marriage versus the objections some people raise about gay marriage. Reading is fundamental.

          You are the one arguing what “might” happen and a reason for restriction. I’m not. I’m just pointing out that if two siblings want to marry, what’s the harm? You say sex!!!! Yet sex is NOT a requirement for marriage.

          True, and it’s also possible to own a car without driving it, but that tends to be a primary purpose for owning one. But if you don’t understand the difference between “might get in a car accident” versus a primary activity of driving is to get to various destinations, that might be the source of your confusion.

          The core problem of incestual marriage would be the incest – which was what we’ve specifically pointed out. If incest is common in incestual marriage, that’d be a problem. If not, then incestual marriage is fine.

          That’s the basis of the restriction, as we’ve explained several times now.

          That you can’t think outside of just sex that siblings may want to get married o my further shows my point you, like this opposed to gay marriage, can find justification and feel correct in that justification though it restricts someone rights.

          You don’t appear to be understanding what we’re saying. I’m becoming less surprised at that.

        • Glodson

          Are you reading the same replies as the rest of us, or does your browser put the posts through a crazy filter?

          He didn’t say any of that. He’s not talking about the morality. He’s given an objective reason as to why one would be against incestual marriages.

          You either don’t understand or are shockingly dishonest.

      • Chris

        In addition you seem to imply that incest is immoral, so that would be imparting your belief onto them. Why do you get to do that and others can’t?

        • Jasper

          In addition you seem to imply that incest is immoral, so that would be imparting your belief onto them. Why do you get to do that and others can’t?

          Your reading comprehension is failing you. I said no such thing.

          It’s objectively harmful. We as a society improve ourselves by minimizing harm and maximizing benefit. That’s why we regulate human activity. This isn’t a new concept.

          The difference between my position, and theirs (the anti-gay marriage position), is a question of objective harm versus benefit, and whether it’s real or not.

        • Jasper

          To clarify, it’s not a question of them not being allowed to “do that”, and I am. We’re operating under one standard. Their position stems from either bigotry and/or faulty information about harm versus benefit. My position is based on factual assessment of reality.

          Factual assessments of reality are what society strives to operate on.

    • Glodson

      Well if I have a point it would be this: you clearly have a view of hat
      marriage is and what it should/shouldnt be and you too are willing to
      allow government to restrict the right to marry to only a select group
      of people due to you morals, preferences, beliefs and “concerns.”

      No. View on marriage restrictions is much the same as my view on restrictions of sex. It has more to do with the ability of informed consent. Two people who are closely related and in an incestual relationship have an increased risk of one being denied. But I don’t know of the psychological involved to make a cogent statement on this matter. I do have an ethical concern, which stems from the same source. The problem is the nature of the relationship, and if this is enough of a basis on which to deny the right of two adults.

      Yet I would guess you feel justified and correct in your stance. And might even defend it.

      Considering that I would want to base mine on the best available evidence, and not my personal feelings on the matter of incest, as per your example. Yes, I made a board statement in which I didn’t consider incest, as typically incest that isn’t considered abusive is very rare. This is not a sufficient justification to deny them the right, but it is why I didn’t think of it.

      Yet if someone else does exactly what you are doing but to a different extent, you hold animosity toward them, call them names such as “bigot” etc.

      Tu quoque, and strawman. We are trying to base any objection, if we have any, for your example of incest on reason and evidence. Not on our personal morality or take of the practice. Since this is not based on a religious objection, or a person objection, to incest, to draw the lines between a possible objection to incestual marriage in connection with the objections of gay marriage is dishonest. Further, even if this objection did hold water, to say that we’re doing something just as bad as the other side as a basis for an argument is fallacious.

      Yet, if I were to disagree with you and believe marriage should be further expanded- do I get to call you a bigot and closed minded since you are for more restrictions than I am?

      A bigot is one that has an irrational hatred of another. Acting to restrict access on the basis of sexual orientation can be called bigotry because it is the active attempt to deny rights of another for an arbitrary difference.

      This is not the same thing as questioning the ability for a party to give informed consent to a marriage, and that type of commitment. If the argument was that incest shouldn’t be allowed because it is somehow wrong or abhorrent, that would be a good comparison. That wouldn’t be my argument if I were against it. My point would be that it seems to deny a party the ability to truly consent. Which would be the only reason to deny the right.

      As my reading of this, disentangling incestual feelings from childhood trauma is difficult.

      With siblings, you are fine with restricting their right to marry
      because of what “might” happen. But not every sibling couple that would
      marry would engage in incest, not does not letting them marry keep them
      from engaging in incest.

      The inbreeding concerns are there, but they are really ancillary. I would consider them on the same level as I would concerns over other genetic defects. In other words, not at all. Their ability to have healthy children is not germane to a discussion on their rights.

      However, to suggest that a couple who went to the bother of getting married in light of the existing social pressures against incest strains credibility. If one was going to make this argument, suggesting they might not wish to have biological children makes more sense.

      Well a lot “might” happen in a “traditional” marriage, but might is not considered in allowing two people to get married.

      Which is why I never mentioned inbreeding in my original response. My concern has been for the couple, the entire time. Funny how my concern is more about the people involved, and the possible problems they have. The incest is likely symptomatic of a larger problem. That’s my first concern.

      So a follow up question would be: why is your restrictive view of marriage better? So much so that a different view of marriage warrants your indignation?

      So… I say that I’m leaning towards being on the side of the practice and my reasons why aren’t enough.

      Anyways, as I and others have laid out for you: there’s a substantive difference in objections. If we based our objections on a cultural or religious idea of what marriage should be, we would be in the same boat as people against marriage equality.

      We aren’t. In fact, unless someone can come up with a reason why I should be overly concerned with what two closely related people do who are of the age of consent, I don’t see how I could argue that they don’t have the right to marriage.

      But this is a poor attempt at concern trolling, as you have to ignore the major concerns with incestual relationships stems from the psychology involved and not from our personal views on incest.

      We aren’t trying to enforce a religious view on anyone, and we don’t want to needlessly deny rights.

    • RobMcCune

      Many people who oppose gay marriage have bigoted views toward gay people in general. Just like opposition to interracial marriage was about racism, rather than simply the definition of marriage or societal constraints, homophobia plays a big role in the opposition to same sex marriage. If this were solely about marriage you might have point, but you’re ignoring a broader context of bigotry.

    • baal

      Harms. Start doing analysis on harms and benefits (consider the alternatives). Better is that which harms least and benefits most. Note that having gay parents doesn’t put you at any disadvantage other than what anti-gsy bigots put only the children of gay couples.

  • Chris

    And for clarification on my part. I’m all for same sex marriage and in fact as one who soon will be able to marry people will gladly and proudly marry any same sex couple that would ask me to do so.

    • Glodson

      Then why are you JAQing off in here?

      Why are you derailing a thread about gay marriage? To show that we have restrictions on marriage? So?

      Why didn’t you start with your point rather than wasting my time with your asinine line of questions?

    • kagekiri

      The more you state that you support gay marriage while trollishly defending bigots via slippery slope BS and multiple pointed attempts to miss the point and pin imagined moral hypocrisy on other supporters of gay rights, the less I believe you.

      Sorry, “well, all views are equally valuable and worth basing laws around” isn’t what secularists believe, nor what anyone has ever said.

      We will, in fact, reject other people’s views of reality, especially when all the evidence they bring up is obviously cooked or entirely unverified, as is the case with almost all religious arguments about marriage.

      And it’s not just our opinion verses theirs: they know they don’t have the evidence. That’s why they’re constantly trying to make it up with deceptive studies and twisted statistics and bizarre anecdotes. Reality is not on their side, not even subjectively in their own heads.

      • Jasper

        I don’t know that his goal was the slippery slope fallacy.. it seems more like an “everyone’s opinion is equally valid” type argument.

        • kagekiri

          The mentions of “well, can ANY one marry ANY one?”, with mentions of incest, sounded like an implied slippery slope argument to me, though yeah, it was founded on “well, if you both think your views are right, who’s to say who is actually right?”

          The answer, obviously, being “the not-delusional ones”, but Chris is full of crap.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X