Had The Most Bizarre Of Thoughts On Gay Marriage...

[ForbiddenFruit]

I've been abroad over the last fortnight, and had a crazy thought.

A few days ago, the UK government said it was planning to legislate gay marriage (as an add-on to civil partnerships) by the year 2015. Unsurprisingly, this was met by the Church of England (CoE is a specific denomination) whining "bu-bu-bu-but teh sanctutty" while marrying women who weren't virgins, infertile people, and people who decided to replace "'til death do us part" with "'til something better comes along". The government responded with a nice big secular progressive "fuck you!" Well, not in those exact words, but they said they're approving the legislature anyway

So, my mother was beside me as I was watching this on BBC News as I've taken a liking to, and I'm working up to coming out so I decided to say something, and gave one of my usual comments:

"Saying that marriage is between a man and a woman isn't an argument, it's a statement of the status quo. Beforehand it was between a man and a woman where the dowry and permission of the parents were the most important things. Before that it was between a man and a woman of the same race. Even earlier it was arranged between parents and matchmakers just for power and money." Got a smile and a nod out of her.

So, I was going about my day, and I like to think over a lot of my arguments then counterpoint my own counterpoints as an exercise, and I've hit a bit of a brick wall that terrifies me. It's stayed with me since I thought of it, instead of going away with sleep and earwax removal, so I know it's not just a random brainfart.

To go with that "saying marriage is between X and Y is a statement of the status quo" argument and move along with it, alongside that you've got the 'consenting, able adults' parameter. This is what people use when idiots liken gay marriage to beastiality, because obviously animals can't consent to marriage.

...But...what if someone had a really smart ape that could fully understand the concept of marriage and was articulate enough to give consent?

I know, it's bizarre. But - "Marriage is between two human beings". That's not an argument, that's a statement of the status quo. The animal can give consent and fully knows what it's getting into in this situation.

...there has to be something wrong with this. There has to be. I know there is but I just can't find it. All I can tell is that it's A: hypothetical and B: a 'slippery slope' argument (I think that's the term I'm looking for) which isn't usually held in high regard.

There's just got to be some gaping whole I'm missing to prove myself wrong on this. Can someone point out the logical howler for me, wherever it is? This is the freakiest thought I've had in a long time, but why the hell won't it go away?!

[FretaBWet]

My Aunt is profoundly retarded. She is old enough to get married, is an XX cromosomaly and a wonderful human being. She has the intelectual capacity of a six year old and has been stuck at that level all of her adult life. Your slippery slope would have to include her before it got to a primate and that's not about to happen. Slippery slope is the argument people use as a hail mary when they don't really have a logical argument.

Hugs,

Freta

[WBDaddy]

My Aunt is profoundly retarded. She is old enough to get married, is an XX cromosomaly and a wonderful human being. She has the intelectual capacity of a six year old and has been stuck at that level all of her adult life. Your slippery slope would have to include her before it got to a primate and that's not about to happen. Slippery slope is the argument people use as a hail mary when they don't really have a logical argument.

Hugs,

Freta

For the record, slippery slope has its usefulness - usually when discussing an abridging of rights, not an expansion of them.

Unfortunately, most garden-variety idiots don't understand the difference between more rights and fewer rights...

[Bettypooh]

Here's what you seek (I hope) Like Greta's Aunt, fully-knowledgeable adult-level consent could not be positively ascertained here. The level of mental capacity could not be indicated simply by either a 'yes or no' answer, which some trained apes are capable of doing already through signs and gestures We know that the apes understand the "yes or no" part, but so far they lack the ability to decide well at deeper levels of understanding. In fact, that confuses them and they revert to their instinct-pattern behavior when you task them with such things That gives pretty good proof of their immature mental ability which gives rise to the denial of their being competent enough to make decision of that depth for themselves.

As to the slippery-slope arguments and those who use them, they are a last-ditch attempt to justify stands where there is nothing left to support them. I am the first to tell people to investigate the whole depth and scope of things- which includes all the possible outcomes based on the current possible decisions, but in itself there is not enough validity in this alone to cause one to change a decision The part of future possibilities is very minor in comparison to everything else involved in making a good decision. It is something to consider, but not a deciding factor, as it is simply good to know what may be possible later on regardless of which way any decision goes.

Being the subversive type, I like to make the point that the "slippery slope" argument was also used in regards to women's rights. Once upon a time women were essentially owned property of their husbands and it was said that to allow them a higher status would destroy the social structure The same type of argument has been used through every step along the way to where that matter stands today, with women having legal (but not not always full or true) equality to men. We know that equal rights are good, and it was indeed a "slippery slope" which brought us to this point, as those rights came in steps- they were not given all at once. So a "slippery slope" can be a good thing too In fact, when you get right down to it just about every advancement of human society has followed that pattern of slow advancement by stages. The difference is how one views the matter from their current perspective. Me, I see no slopes at all and I am happy to have whatever assistance I can to achieve progress of any kind

As to your personal dilemma of whether it's time to try to bridge the issue of your sexual preferences with your people, all I can say is see things realistically and know fully well what you're doing every step of the way. There is never a guarantee of success in this life even when you're in the right Do know that over time most people will come around to understanding that it's the person they love or care about that matters- not what other parts of their lives are about. Leave that door open for them and for yourself too for sometimes your best friends and allies are the ones who were slowest to come around. Give people the chance you want them to give you And good luck!

Bettypooh

[ForbiddenFruit]

I, uh, I apologise if I'm not reading this right, Freta, but are you saying there are people (e.g. those declared legally incompetent) that are unable to marry?

[Bettypooh]

The short answer is that here in S.C. USA at least, it is nigh on impossible for a legal incompetent to become legally married though it has been allowed a few times.

The long answer here is that State law prohibits persons previously deemed to be legally incompetent from making any decisions on their own without a legal caretaker's oversight and agreement. It has also been deemed that the legal incompetent must agree to any such marriages before they can be allowed, and that they must be capable of a full understanding of it.This includes minors as they are not yet legally competent but presumably will be on reaching their majority. In the few cases here that I have any knowledge of, marriage of a legal incompetent is accompanied with a transfer of caretakership and is very carefully investigated before the State allows it- it is commonly denied because abuse would be easy to hide should it occur. Sometimes the deciding Court will offer to allow such a marriage via Common Law, but not through Law by Decree*. Here, it is the legal responsibility of the State to ensure that anyone other than a minor whom it has previously deemed to be legally incompetent is taken care of properly, even in cases where any form of marriage has been allowed. Incompetents without care-takers will become wards of the State, who will assume the care-taker's role. Sadly this usually means the legal incompetent will be locked away in one of the State's Mental Hospitals forever

This will vary from place to place and all I know anything of is here

* SC Law is based on 'Common Law' at lower levels. "Common Law Marriage" here occurs when a man and a woman of majority age agree to, and do, cohabitate for more than 90 days continuously intending marriage, when such persons cohabitate the majority of the time for more than 365 days without one or more of the parties assenting to marry, or when either one of the parties publicly claims marriage with the other person's knowledge and without their immediate objection. In any situation where these requirements have been met, the couple is to be considered legally married if such a marriage is not otherwise prohibited. Law by Decree here are the usual steps to marriage- ie marriage certificate issued and some kind of publicly known ceremonial rite affirming the marriage. Marriage must be between a man and a woman only here, though neither of those terms are well-defined. Again I speak only of S.C.- laws vary widely based on location!

Bettypooh