Thursday, February 25, 2010

The Last Post Unless Alan Can Actually Address The Relevant Issue

This is the last time I am going to say this because you really are going down your own rathole.

My logic is this:
The state ought not involve itself in the activities of consenting adults. Therefore, gay marriage should be legal.

The problem:
3 or more people are consenting adults. Therefore, polygamy should be legal.

Your logic seems to be this:
Not allowing gay marriage is discriminatory against gays. Therefore, gay marriage should be legal.

The problem:
Only allowing two people discriminates against would be polygamists. Therefore, polygamy ought to be legal.

In either case, what we are talking about is rights. Mine is that people ought to be free to pursue their happiness. For you, the emphasis is on equal protection under the law. When the justification is rights, I completely reject the idea that changing legal forms and perhaps more complicated division of assets are sufficient barriers. We impose costs and create legal complexity all the time in the name of equal rights. Therefore, I find this distinction completely without merit.

The only argument that I can see that justifies gay marriage, but not polygamy is the determination is made by what there is democratic support for. But in that case there is not right to gay marriage and it could be rescinded at anytime based upon the political winds. Moreover, judicial rulings stating that gays have a right to marry are without merit because a judge is in no position to determine what there is or is not democratic support for. That would have to be left to legislatures or a referendum. But then my question would be upon what basis out the public support gay marriage? And we are back to the issue above.

No comments:

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.