"the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

source:dictionary.com

is that definition wide enough for today's world?

1) personally speaking, i would be more than happy if gay marriage is legalised. social approval is a different agenda and in a country like ours, it will take decades if not centuries. but i guess, legalisation should be done first. that will keep the negative attitude against gay marriage under check. REMEMBER, gays are NORMAL human beings. it's just the way they think and perceive sex/marriage.

2) social vs legal. which should come first?. i mean just as i said in case of gay marriage, the social perception will shape up in favor of them with time, but legalisation is necessary at the moment.

Let's look at the bigger picture:

3) gay marriage is just one instance we are facing today. it's the word "marriage" where the focus should be on. we should focus on its definition, form and manifestation. can it include all form of bondages?

4) so say, if fair amount of population practice "direct/indirect sibling marriage" (if that is the right terminology), why not legalise sibling marriage? (social approval may/will follow afterwards).

why not legalise marriage with animals? (ditto)
why not legalise any form of marriage that is/will be seen in the society?

let us redefine the word "marriage". let it make completely liberal and boundless. let it include anything and evreything.

LooTe

typos at the last line:

let's make it*

"the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

The definition of marriage stated above was created centuries ago. The definition needs to be changed as the scenario has changed now. I believe it was created during the time when divorce, adoption were not even defined. The husband and wife terms are defined so bold, the definition of being a husband has been drawn of merely being a male now a days. If we see the definition of husband during those days and now-a-days it has been changed a lot.

In other words, we need to seek proper definition of husband and wife. The definition has changed a lot over the ages. The definition states that commitment religious ceremonies mentioned is also vague in today's scenario. It gives space for polygamy which is not acceptabe in today's scenario.

To sum up the arguement, the arguement, definition of marriage needs to be ratified. I am not the best of the definer but here is my proposal,

"Marriage is desicion of two beings to live and share togather for life".

There should be no mention of time, sex, legal or religious terms in definition of marriage.

- http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

Argument: "Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences."

A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.

If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lootekukur - Thanks for starting this thread. It is a very vast topic that a psychology or sociology student can probably select for a dissertation. I am neither such a student nor do I intend to write a dissertation. So what I have to say about this issue will not be as in-depth as you might like but everything I have to say, I think, is captured in the excerpt above and my comments below.


(1) Agree 100% with you. I don't doubt your position on the issue and your intent here seems to be an academic excercise to dive deep into the issue of moral legislation which, as a topic by itself, is a fair one.

(2) If you look back at the history of civil and human rights, the legal framework was built long before social acceptance. Slavery was abolished long before black were assimilated into the mainstream. Masses can commit atrocities too. Democracy is a tricky system: there are times when the leadership has to step up and take a stand based on all the aspects of an issue and do the right thing. We can disagree on what the right thing is but history has shown that those struggling for equality and dignity *always* win in the long run. Those opposing gay rights are on the loosing side of the argument.

(3) Not sure I understand this point.

(4) In my opinion, gay marriage stands at a different moral level from incest and sex with animals. The raison d'etre of gay marriage is not sex: gays can have sex without getting married. It is about dignity and equality. In the case of incest and zoophilia, the act of sex, seems to be the thrust of the issue. Also, zoophilia is a serious psychological condition and perhaps needs to be be addresed by trained professionals and not legislators and politicains. Therefore I don't see gay marriage and incest/zoophilia in the same moral light and I am of the opinion that gay equality needs to be given a higher standing and you can have a society where gay marriage is legal without having to legalize the other things you talk about. This is about relative moralism and gay relationships are on a much higher moral plane than animal sex.

In summary, I support gay marriage, although I myself am heterosexual, and oppose incest and zoophilia, and I feel that is a fair position to take for the reasons explained above. That's all, Lootekukur.

" If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist?"
This is a spurious argument. The gay rights movement has been doing its thing for decades now, while groups who promote pedophilia and incest are still fringe groups today. Which just begs the question. What guarantee can anyone give that these fringe elemtns won't become mainstream some day in the future? Netherlands supposedly has a pedophile political party now.

And how much support do they attract? People can see through such crap. Inter-racial marriage was banned in many US states at one time based on the same arguments. Since inter-racial marriage has been allowed people haven't started humping animals - so why then should they start if gay marriage is legal? Pedophilia was a problem back in the days of same-race marriages too - by allowing blacks and whites to marry, I doubt it has affected pedohile incidents in any way. And legalizing gay marriage in unlikley to do that either.

"And how much support do they attract"

I already addressed this question. As I said, fringe elements of today may not be mainstream tomorrow. It of course depends on our actions. My belief is that legalizing gay marriage may serve to embolden these fringe elements. Only a few decades ago, nobody could have even thought that we would even be talking about gay marriage sometime in the future. And today gay marriage is becoming a reality in many places.

Interracial marriage is a totally different issue. We're talking about what may be perceived by many(including yours truly) as abnormal sexual orientation of individuals. Interracial marriage is about race, not sexual orientation. It's a different issue.

captain

thaks for your comprehensive reply. and thanks for that useful link. my views are greatly resonating with yours on this issue. :)

i like this argument:

We can disagree on what the right thing is but history has shown that those struggling for equality and dignity *always* win in the long run

i am not sure if blacks have achieved everything for which they started their revolution against whites though.....time will tell, i believe.

my third point is meant to ask the definition of marriage---the umbrella of marriage--what it should/should not include. perhaps your argument that it has to be processed stepwise makes sense. Since gay marriage is our main agenda here, we should focus on justifying it rather than bringing more complex and psychological issues like bestiality or pedophilia. also there may NOT be consent from both parties in the latter two.

but i believe that incest (sibling marriage) can stil well be on the following agenda after gay marriage. who knows?
.
LooTe

But the arguments used against it are the same ones you are using against gay marriage viz the argument of reductio ad absurdum. Because both arguments have the same moral basis ie. threatens our existing culture, they are both likely to meet the same fate.

Last comment was for RPU.

Rudra,

as samir pointed out in the other thread, consent from both parties IS necessary for something to be legalised. since pedophila and bestiality involve kids and animals, they cannot be justified.

however, incest can still be in the agenda...if both parties are happy. in fact, many societies do practice it. Should it be legalised if asked for?

LooTe

kids and animals respectively**

No it's not. Interracial marriage is a totally different issue. You're bringing a whole new subject to the equation: the subject of race.
Homosexuality has to do with ones sexual predilection
same with pedophilia
same with bestiality
same with incest.

"consent from both parties IS necessary for something to be legalised"
Let me get this straight. So you're okay with a 40 yr old having sex with/marrying a 9 yr old if the 9 yr old really feels like (s)he is in love with the 40 yr old? As in the case of Mary Kay Latorneau(i can't spell this name) and the Samoan kid? They're happily married now, after they became adults, but clearly the kid is a bit cuckoo for cocoa puffs. He has mental problems if you ask me, the way he acts. The kid has always said he loves this woman. Clearly something wrong with him.

9 years of age is not the age for giving valid consent in any country that i know. so even if the 9 yr old girl gives consent, it will be legally invalid.

*9 yr old boy

Consent within the age defined by the law.

"9 years of age is not the age for giving valid consent in any country that i know"

What's the point you're making? By your logic, the two homosexuals getting married in Nepal are not doing it legally as well, since gay marriage is not legal in Nepal.. That's exactly what I'm saying.

From the same link I posted above

The real reasons people oppose gay marriage

So far, we've examined the reasons everyone talks about for opposing gay marriage. Now, let's examine now the real reasons, deep down inside, that people oppose it, hate it, even fear it:

Just not comfortable with the idea. The fact the people aren't comfortable with the idea stems primarily from the fact that for many years, society has promoted the idea that a marriage between members of the same sex is ludicrous, mainly because of the objections raised above. But if those objections don't make sense, neither does the idea that gay marriage is necessarily ludicrous. Societies have long recognized that allowing civil rights to certain groups may offend some, and at times, even the majority. But that is why constitutional government was established -- to ensure that powerless, unpopular minorities are still protected from the tyranny of the majority. Simple discomfort with a proposal is no reasonable basis for not allowing it - how many Southern whites were once uncomfortable with allowing blacks to ride in the front of the bus, or allowing black children to attend the same schools as their own, or drink at the same drinking fountain? Half a century ago, those ideas were just as unthinkable - yet nowadays, hardly anybody sees them as a problem, seeing the fears as nothing more than racism, pure and simple.

It offends everything religion stands for. Whose religion? Many mainstream Christian denominations, to be sure, and definitely most branches of Islam and Orthodox Judaism, but outside those, most religions are unopposed to gay marriage, and many actually favor it. When the Mormon church arrogantly claimed to represent all religions in the Baehr vs. Lewin trial in Hawaii, the principal Buddhist sect in that state made it very clear that the Mormon church didn't represent them, and made it very clear that they support the right of gay couples to marry. That particular Buddhist sect claims many more members in Hawaii than does the Mormon church. In a society that claims to offer religious freedom, the use of the power of the state to enforce private religious sensibilities is an affront to all who would claim the right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience.

Marriage is a sacred institution. This is, of course, related to the motive above. But it is really subtly different. It's based on the assumption that the state has the responsibility to "sanctify" marriages - a fundamentally religious idea. Here we're dealing with people trying to enforce their religious doctrines on someone else, but by doing it through weakening the separation of church and state, by undermining the Bill of Rights. Not that there's anything new about this, of course. But the attempt itself runs against the grain of everything the First Amendment stands for - one does not truly have freedom of religion if one does not have the right to freedom from religion as well. It would seem to me that anyone who feels that the sanctity of their marriage is threatened by a gay couple down the street having the right to marry, is mighty insecure about their religion and their marriage anyway.

Gay sex is unnatural. This argument, often encoded in the very name of sodomy statutes ("crime against nature"), betrays a considerable ignorance of behavior in the animal kingdom. The fact is that among the approximately 1500 animal species whose behavior has been extensively studied, homosexual behavior in animals has been described in at least 450 of those species. It runs the gamut, too, ranging from occasional displays of affection to life-long pair bonding including sex and even adopting and raising orphans, going so far as the rejection by force of potential heterosexual partners, even when in heat. The reality is that it is so common that it begs an explanation, and sociobiologists have proposed a wide variety of explanations to account for it. The fact that it is so common also means that it clearly has evolutionary significance, which applies as much to humans as it does to other animal species.

Making love to another man betrays everything that is masculine. Well, I've known (and dated) plenty of very masculine gay men in my day, including champion bull-riding rodeo cowboys and a Hell's Angel biker type, who, if you suggested he is a limp-wristed fairy, would likely rip your head off and hand it to you. There was a long-honored tradition of gay relationships among the tough and macho cowboys of the Old West, and many diaries still exist detailing their loving and tender relationships out on the range, and the many sacrifices they made for each other. Plenty of masculine, respected movies stars are gay - indeed, Rock Hudson was considered the very archtype of a masculine man. Came as quite a shock to a lot of macho-men to find out he was gay! So what's wrong with all these kinds of men expressing love for each other? Why is that so horrible about it? A society that devalues love devalues that upon which civilized society itself is based - love and commitment.

The core fear here is the fear of rape and a loss of control or status as a masculine man. This is instinctual and goes right to the core of our being as primates. If you examine what happens in many animal species, especially displays of dominance in other primate species, dominance displays often have sexual overtones. When, for example, in many species of primates, a subordinate male is faced with aggression by a dominant male, the dominant male will bite the subordinate, causing him to squeal in pain, drop the food or the female and present his rump. This is an act of submission, and it is saying to the whole troupe that the subordinate is just that - subordinate.

This happens in humans just as it does in other primates. It is the cause of homosexual rape in prisons. Homosexual intercourse in prisons is not an act of sex as much as it is an expression of dominance and a means of control. Nearly all of the men who aggressively rape other men in a prison setting actually revert to (often promiscuous) heterosexual sex once they're on the outside.

So is this something straight men should fear from gay men? Well, you can relax, all you straight guys. You've nothing to worry about. The vast majority of gay men prefer sex in the same emotional setting most of you do - as a part of the expression of mutual love, affection and commitment. We're not out to rape you or force you into a subordinate position. The majority of gay men don't want sex with you because we're looking for the same thing in a sexual relationship that you look for - the love and affection of a devoted partner. Since we're not likely to get that from you, you're not desirable to us and you have nothing to fear from us. The small minority of us (and it's a very small minority - less than 3%) who do enjoy sex with straight men understand your fears and are not going to have sex with you unless it's clearly and completely understood on both sides to be on a peer-to-peer basis and your requirement for full and complete consent and need for discretion is honored.

The thought of gay sex is repulsive. Well, it will come as some surprise to a lot of heterosexuals to find out that, to a lot of gays, the thought of heterosexual sex is repulsive! But does that mean the discomfort of some gays to heterosexual couples should be a reason to deny heterosexuals the right to marry? I don't think so, even though the thought of a man kissing a woman is rather repulsive to many homosexuals! Well then, why should it work just one way? Besides, the same sexual practices that gays engage in are often engaged in by heterosexual couples anyway - prompting the ever-popular gay T-shirt: "SO-DO-MY -- SO DO MY neighbors, SO DO MY friends."

They might recruit. The fear of recruitment is baseless because it is based on a false premise - that gay people recruit straight people to become gay. We don't. We don't recruit because we know from our own experience that sexual orientation is inborn, and can't be changed. Indeed, the attempts by psychologists, counselors and religious therapy and support groups to change sexual orientation have all uniformly met with failure - the studies that have been done of these attempts at "therapeutic" intervention have never been shown to have any statistically significant results in the manner intended, and most have been shown to have emotionally damaging consequences. So the notion that someone can be changed from straight to gay is just as unlikely. Yet there remains that deep, dark fear that somehow, someone might get "recruited." And that baseless fear is often used by bigots to scare people into opposing gay rights in general, as well as gay marriage.

The core cause of this fear is the result of the fact that many homophobes, including most virulent, violent homophobes are themselves repressed sexually, often with same sex attractions. One of the recent studies done at the University of Georgia among convicted killers of gay men has shown that the overwhelmingly large percentage of them (more than 70%) exhibit sexual arousal when shown scenes of gay sex. The core fear, then, for the homophobe is that he himself might be gay, and might be forced to face that fact. The homophobia can be as internalized as it is externalized - bash the queer and you don't have to worry about being aroused by him.

The opposition to gay marriage stems ultimately from a deep-seated homophobia in American culture, borne out of religious prejudice. While many Americans do not realize that that homophobia exists to the extent that it does, it is a very real part of every gay person's life, just like racism is a very real part of every black person's life. It is there, it is pervasive, and it has far more serious consequences for American society than most Americans realize, not just for gay people, but for society in general.

that's just one example rpu, you cannot generalise.

can you right a clause out of it? moreover 9 is underage and hence illegal in almost all countries. that means they don't have mature enough mind to think what's good and what's not for them.

LooTe