Same sex marriage

“The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which ‘the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one’s skin or color or race’ are minor indeed.

Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs.”

Via Andrew Sullivan, in the aftermath of a court decision overturning California’s same sex marriage ban.

2 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Tom Amyx
    Mar 30, 2013 @ 06:49:03

    So, what you’re saying is… it is OK for a son to marry his Mother, or even his Father, a Father to marry his daughter, a 50 year old man to marry a boy, a man to marry a sheep, etc. etc. If it is, as you say, Ok for anyone to marry whomever they choose, you have to eliminate ALL boundaries, or else there is hypocrisy, and the law itself becomes discriminitory.


    • audiodictat
      May 23, 2013 @ 06:57:30

      No, that’s not what I’m saying. In Canadian law, it is OK to discriminate if/when discrimination is justified. The question then becomes, Is there a valid reason to discriminate against same sex couples with respect to marriage (or adoption, or immigration, or military service, or whatever the specific issue may be).

      Neither in the USA nor in Canada have opponents of same sex marriage been able to demonstrate a valid reason for discriminating against same sex couples with respect to marriage. Because they can’t have children? That doesn’t work, because heterosexual couples can marry even if they are too old to have children, or won’t be having children for some other reason. Because social harm will result from permitting same sex couples to marry? No one has been able to demonstrate any social harm. For example, permitting same sex couples to marry will not block heterosexual couples from marrying. Nor is it likely to increase the divorce rate, which is already ridiculously high among heterosexual couples.

      But if a father marries his daughter, inbreeding leads to birth defects and degrades the gene pool. There are also potential problems of consent, depending on the age of the daughter and/or how much she is controlled by her father. Those are valid reasons to discriminate against fathers who wish to marry their daughters.

      How about a man marrying a sheep? Now we’re talking about a completely different scenario: a human being marrying some other kind of animal. That’s not the same as a man marrying a woman, or a man marrying another man, or a woman marrying another woman. As they say on Sesame Street, one of these things is not like the other. We can establish different rules (marriage is permitted in one case; but not permitted in the other) with respect to two entirely different things (marriage of any two human beings; marriage of a human being and another species of animal).

      So your arguments are “straw men”. You’re trying to justify a pre-existing prejudice by introducing false equivalencies, or making an ad absurdum argument.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: