First, to be clear I wouldn't personally call people opposed to same sex marriage 'bigoted' (since I don't know enough about the wider effects of SSM to make a definitive judgement) so your article may not be addressed to me.

I think the ethical basis for at least some of those who favor same sex marriage is that traditional marriage discriminates based on sex and they are opposed to sexual discrimination. There are certainly instances where I think people go way overboard here. I'd be happy if 'equality' were simply equality before the law. But support for SSM is conceivably based on a consistent set of standards (whether good or ill) at least for some individuals.

In terms of sibling marriage, there's pretty indisputable objective proof of genetic damage to offspring.

For polygamy; I think women are too politically powerful in this nation for that to gain traction. If a man wanted to marry a second woman, the first wife should be considered a stakeholder and have veto power over the deal, at the least. I don't believe that's traditionally true in most polygamist practices. Without such a veto right, I don't think such a practice would fly or even be ethical for that matter. If the first wife did have veto power, I don't think that the practice would be exercised much in mainstream America.

In those instances where I've heard of polygamy being generally practiced, it typically involves women severely lacking in political clout, and tremendous inequalities between men as well.

To put it another way, as historically practiced polygamy does not seem to be about 'eqality' in any sense but exists precisely because of various economic and gender inequalities. Therefore it isn't hypocritical or inconsistent for a person
to favor one arrangement and oppose another. Whether SSM is good is another question.

The case for SSM ->therefore-> polygamy might be stronger if someone could show harm to children was comparable.

I suggest you try this: Ask someone who supports gay marriage why they're "bigoted" against Muslims.

Because Muslims don't tend to support gender equality before the law?

... support for SSM is conceivably based on a consistent set of standards (whether good or ill) at least for some individuals.

That's the argument I'm looking to hear.

In terms of sibling marriage, there's pretty indisputable objective proof of genetic damage to offspring.

If so, then wouldn't "consistency" require preventing all unions which could result in offspring with "genetic damage"? For example, if two midgets marry, there's a higher-than-normal chance children will be midgets. Same goes for diabetics.

Further, if consideration for children is the prime concern for incest, then why aren't we similarly waiting for long-term studies of children raised in by cohabiting gay partnerships?

Looking for consistency, here, again.

For polygamy; I think women are too politically powerful in this nation for that to gain traction...

That's an argument about whether it's going to happen, not whether it's morally consistent with the arguments above.

To put it another way, as historically practiced polygamy does not seem to be about 'eqality' in any sense but exists precisely because of various economic and gender inequalities....

I can give you a half-dozen arguments against polygamy too: rival families, often-absent fathers -- and that doesn't even being to touch on other forms than polygyny.

But the question wasn't: "Why don't you personally like polygamy?" It was: "If love and desire are the basis for gay marriage, and failure to recognize that is the violation of a 'right', then how can we rationally prohibit incest and polygamy?"

You're proposing, if I understand correctly: "Well, perhaps inequality is a more important value." Okay, I'm game: but who else is really taking that argument seriously? Do gay marriage supporters also show similar concerns about unequal or exploitative gay or straight relationships? Or do they simultaneously favor, defend, or tolerate "gay porn" (or straight porn) which exploits teenagers, or elevates depictions of relationships between adults and (rather) young people? Would they be willing to have us test proposed sexual unions and marriages for economic or intellectual inequality?

And if we don't want to get into testing specific relationships, only FORMS, then can't it be argued, legitimately, that perhaps gay marriage should be the BEST form, as two men, since they are more similar, are also more likely to be "equal" than, say, a man and a woman? (Now there's an argument and implication I'm sure most voters would love to consider!)

And, concerning unequal or exploitive sexual behavior: what about strippers, prostitutes, and other sex industry workers? Don't they also tend to come from a situation of economic disadvantage, often coupled with a painful childhood? Shouldn't we prohibit that? Or if we argue they're making an informed choice, then why shouldn't women who want to enter into polygamy be held as making a similarly informed choice?

I apologize: It just doesn't strike me as consistent to first say: "If we're in love, then it's a violation of 'rights' for us not to 'marry'!" and then say, when other forms of union are considered: "Well, there are of course more important factors." That strikes me as highly selective. (I'm not saying this is your argument -- nor that it isn't -- just that we're trying to put together a hypothetical rational argument.)

When gay marriage is advocated, we argue about the lovers' feelings, not the outcomes of the children. When incest is advocated, we then elevate concerns about the outcomes of possible children, with no regard to the lovers' feelings.

When we advocate gay marriage, we talk about possible inequalities. Yet we don't limit male/female unions on that basis (despite the fact that women carry many inherent disadvantages, even in "straight" relationships), and we don't carry that alleged concern into any other area of sexual interaction.

Because Muslims don't tend to support gender equality before the law?

So the argument here is that if someone doesn't support "gender equality", they can't marry???

If we're going to (again) be consistent here, that leaves us with three rather interesting implications, it seems.

1. Since certain Christians, it can be argued, don't support "gender equality", then shouldn't they also be prohibited from marrying?

2. What if there are polygamists who do support "gender equality"? For example, those advocating group marriages? Or those supporting polyandry? (Indeed, wouldn't that be superior, by that standard, to regular male/female relationships?)

If so, then wouldn't "consistency" require preventing all unions which could result in offspring with
"genetic damage"?

If we set the speed limit at 70 and 60 is safer and 50 is safer than that... where do we draw the line?
Genetic "damage" seems like a bit of a continum. Everyone has a few lethal recessives (~4 per person.
Possibly fewer in very vigerous people.) Some are even beneficial as
recessives (tetrachromatic women and their red-green colorblind sons or resistance to malaria.) Where do we draw the line on risk?
While legal benefits (like hadicapped parking spaces) for midgets might imply disability in the eyes of the law,
perhaps some midgets might protest the notion that their condition was "damage" that should restrict their choices.
It seems an honestly good question; should two people with a specific recessive, harmful mutation be legally allowed to marry?
An understanding of genetics (along with possible technological workarounds) is a recent thing and tradition only
vaguely accounts for it.

One difference between cousins marrying in the modern age and a point mutation like, say, sickle cell anemia is that
you can do prenatal testing to see if a fetus has the disease. Some parents would choose to terminate such a fetus.
Incest doesn't allow for testing or consideration of the likely risks, since the genes in question are unknown.
But the use of abortion in that way opens a whole other can of political and moral worms.

And as far as consistency goes, states and nations don't seem to be particularly consistant on how close a relation is "too close"
or what the age of consent should be, or what statutory rape is.

Incidentally, inbreeding followed by outbreeding may improve genetic stock by removing lethal recessives.

then why aren't we similarly waiting for long-term studies of children raised in by cohabiting gay partnerships?

1. Impatience?
2. To what degree is cohabitation the same as marriage? If conservatives want no-fault divorce eliminated,
they seem to believe that an institution can alter a relationship. In which case we couldn't properly study
same sex marriage without same sex marriage.

"If love and desire are the basis for gay marriage

I understand what you're saying, I think. There should be a hierarchy of priorities. Children first. Love second.
Some people advocate the reverse and this seems a legitimate danger. I think SSM supporters assume that SSM is not
worse for children. They would therefore be consistant in their beliefs regardless of if they were correct or not.

I think, in part, not legally discriminating based on sex was supposed to be the legal basis for gay marriage. The 14th amendment and all...

Do gay marriage supporters also show similar concerns about unequal or exploitative gay or straight relationships?
Or do they simultaneously favor, defend, or tolerate "gay porn" (or straight porn) which exploits teenagers, or elevates
depictions of relationships between adults and (rather) young people?

Fair question. Personally I've never known any gay people that
openly favored pedaresty and I've never watched gay porn, but I don't think my friends are nessicarily representative.
I'll keep an eye out. Though I should restrict my argument to discrimination via the law.

then can't it be argued, legitimately, that perhaps gay marriage should be the BEST form

Heh. Interesting.

and we don't carry that alleged concern into any other area of sexual interaction.

Who is 'we' here? The law? Or individuals?

So the argument here is that if someone doesn't support "gender equality", they can't marry???

Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that. If a man can marry another woman without the consent of his first wife then
that is wrong and traditional polygamy should be opposed for that reason (among others.)

Then wouldn't it subject gay marriage to questions regarding the good of the children?
Yes, but I'd like to see the person alleging harm to be the one to support their case.

But then, when we add the accusations of "bigotry" (against "heterosexists"), what does that do?
I think some SSM proponents assume SSM to be equally capable of raising children (of those couples who choose to do so.)
If true, that would justify charges of bigotry. But I think this is an unsupported assumption.

To put it another way, lets say there's a ruling that the 14th amendment allows same sex marriage because to do otherwise would be to discriminate on the basis of sex violating the equal protection clause of the constitution.

How is polygamy more consistent with SSM than with traditional marraige? It seems less so. You've brought up the number of polygamous marriages that exist. I'm not sure your purpose in doing that, if you're interested in consistency rather than liklihood. Polygamy isn't part of the American legal tradition and as you say its only remotely part of the Christian legal tradition. But if we accept that such marriages are recognized by a monotheistic tradition, wouldn't 'traditional' marriage be closer to polygamous marriage then marriage predicated on legal equality?

Can we agree, at least, that the overwhelming bulk of such marriages are not polyandrous or group marriages? The foundation of polygamous marriage is that men have different (legal) rights in marriage than women do.

If we set the speed limit at 70 and 60 is safer and 50 is safer than that... where do we draw the line? Genetic "damage" seems like a bit of a continum...

I agree with what you're saying in this section -- about line drawing etc. But that's why I raise the question about relative priorities (which you address next). I think the best counter-argument would be that we can discourage certain forms (without getting into individuals) which are more likely to produce bad problems.

Aside: I'm not impressed with "abort the child" as an example of how to deal with this. I doubt most dwarves or midgets (to cite a borderline example) wish they'd been aborted before birth. Same with, say, diabetics.

Incest doesn't allow for testing or consideration of the likely risks, since the genes in question are unknown.

Huh?? How is that any different? Do MOST possibly-procreative sexual unions submit to genetic testing before copulating? I mean, guy and girl hook up after a few drinks. Do they run their at-home electrophoresis test before making out? I mean, even married couples don't typically submit to DNA tests before their wedding night.

And of course the "libertarian" answer to just about everything is "well, just legalize and regulate it." Father-daughter incest? Ah, the main problems there stem from covertness! We should just encourage them to register their union, force them to use birth control, and kill the child if one results!

And as far as consistency goes, states and nations don't seem to be particularly consistant...

You're talking about among each other -- but even if their inconsistent internally, that's due to the messy attributes of voting. You can end up with silly stuff like subsidizing tobacco AND taxing it highly.

I expect more from individuals, who are free to make their own moral case, without regard to the sometimes-inconsistent laws of their state, nation, or another. In particular, if a rationale is being promoted, it should at least make some kind of internal sense.

... then why aren't we similarly waiting for long-term studies of children raised in by cohabiting gay partnerships? 1. Impatience?

Exactly. Impatience. If we rush ahead on change X, without waiting to see what affect change X has on, say, children, then it's hypocritical to turn around and say we're opposed to change Y primarily because we're so much more concerned about children than adult feelings -- feelings such as impatience.

2. To what degree is cohabitation the same as marriage? If conservatives want no-fault divorce eliminated, they seem to believe that an institution can alter a relationship.

"Institutions" do affect relationships. In fact, that's much of the case being made: that altering the institution itself will also, in the long run, alter individual relationships.

However, you can't then just label one thing an "institution", and then assert blindly it will affect something else of my choosing.

Does the "institution" of "gay marriage" affect gays? How many participate? How much has it been shown to alter their behavior? And how much of that is relevant to children under such?

Yet it seems to me we're getting the cart & horse reversed here, Ryan. We don't have to study the impact of a single word to study the characteristics it's supposed to connote.

Marriage doesn't help kids because stable, committed, lasting monogamous heterosexual relationships are called marriage, given hospital visitation, immunity in court, tax breaks etc -- to the contrary, they're called marriages, and given those protections precise because we first recognized that this form existed and was beneficial.

I imagine if you looked at kids raised by parents who had the characteristics of being married, but simply failed to call it that for whatever reason (such couples do exist), that they would have outcomes very similar to married couples.

(I'm not referring to merely cohabiting partners, but heterosexual unions who refer to the other as "my life partner" but don't buy into the whole word "marriage" for whatever reason.)

So I don't see why we can't ask similar questions about outcomes even now.

Okay, that's false: I suspect I know exactly why: because the answers aren't flattering. "Gay marriage" is hardly used at all by gays. And it doesn't tend to settle them down much, as most evidence seems to show they still have an "open" relationships. Etc, etc -- as stated elsewhere.

And none of these characteristics bode well for the children being raised in such situations.

Likewise, we can study children who lack a parent of either gender. Again, not rocket science. And again, doesn't seem to bode well for this idea. I doubt applying the word "marriage" will somehow fundamentally alter this result.

In which case we couldn't properly study same sex marriage without same sex marriage.

And therefore, what? Since we can't study the results just yet, we should instantly rush in and make it normative in every state? To me, that seems to imply the opposite: that caution is called for.

Of course, you could let one region go ahead and try it (Europe, say, or certain states) without needing to ratify the experiment everywhere. But the problem is always feelings: If it doesn't work out as beneficial, who's gonna have the heart to "take it back" after each passing year? Even if it is creating unacknowledged victims.

I think SSM supporters assume that SSM is not
worse for children. They would therefore be consistant in their beliefs regardless of if they were correct or not.

They wouldn't be inconsistent on the incest question. But then how do they square that with opposing polygamy or group marriage? The usual argument that same-sex marriage is that daddy and daddy will have a friend or sister or someone else over to help expose the children to people of that gender. Yet in a polygamous or group marriage, that "friend" could be around a lot more often, no?

I think, in part, not legally discriminating based on sex was supposed to be the legal basis for gay marriage. The 14th amendment and all...

The 14th amendment established certain protected categories. Sex, religion and race were enumerated, who you wished to sleep with, what hand you preferred to use, your level of education, how often you visit bars or strip clubs, or your political views are not among them.

Some wish to change that, of course, but that's why we're having this debate.

Personally I've never known any gay people that openly favored pedaresty...

I'm sure many don't, and I doubt those who do would admit it -- like most straight men would probably not be publicly honest about how much time they spend looking at porn.

BUT, there is a tremendous emphasis in gay cultures (including our contemporary ones) in young males. Consider the recently-disgraced Republican representative who waited until the page boys turned exactly 18. Even if you argue that isn't the case now, I would argue that gay-friendly societies have always historically trended towards accepting that also. (Go ahead and find me a counterexample, if you can.)

Look, for example, at the recent scandals within the Catholic church. Did you notice that most of those molested where young men in their early teens? The Catholic church had been very open to having gay men serve as priests. I'm sure none of them would have openly admitted to their desires for choirboys.

It might be argued this isn't too different than straight men who like teenage girls. Indeed -- I included that example too. But your point was a concern about equality re polygamy, so I'm pointing out that "gay culture" isn't exactly obsessed with ensuring economic, age, etc. parity in relationships.

If you want a really troubling example, I can probably dig up some rather mainstream-sounding groups I came across a while back who were arguing that gay kids needed an adult "mentor" to help them explore their sexuality.

Tim: When we advocate gay marriage, we talk about possible inequalities. Yet we don't limit male/female unions on that basis (despite the fact that women carry many inherent disadvantages, even in "straight" relationships), and we don't carry that alleged concern into any other area of sexual interaction.

Ryan: Who is this we, Kemosabe?

Our nation, us, generally, as a people -- and especially named groups, such as men who like teen girls, and "gay culture" which doesn't seem to spend much time condemning the kinds of couples I'd see in the Central West End of St. Louis: A clearly filthy rich old guy with a young lad he was "keeping" and buying things for.

Again, I'm not saying we have to get our panties in a bundle about that, I'm just saying we can't look the other way about such relationships, and sex workers more generally, and and ALSO argue that polygamy shouldn't be allowed because of the possibility of exploitation.

One could make either argument handily -- but not both.

I didn't mean to imply that. If a man can marry another woman without the consent of his first wife then that is wrong and traditional polygamy should be opposed for that reason...

Interesting modification.

Yes, but I'd like to see the person alleging harm to be the one to support their case.

I disagree: The burden should not fall on those "alleging harm" (or those not) but rather on those who are proposing the more radical change. It is an odd time when people proposing a first-time-ever sweeping, radical change to one of society's core institution have ZERO burden of proof, and those who want to continue with a known quantity are tasked with evaluating their opponent's proposals.

(This has happened before, of course. Private property and trade are similarly old. When some people proposed that perhaps all property should be owned by the state, and that it should be illegal to exchange property, it was, oddly, those who opposed the new arrangement who were tasked with showing harm -- not people like Marx. This general principle -- those wanting radical change must show the benefit -- would seem to be mere common sense, but it's far from common, I guess.)

Correction: Answered the wrong question in the last two paragraphs. I answered the question: "Aren't the overwhelming bulk of marriages not polyandrous or group marriages?" Your question was in regard to polygamy, not marriage in general.

Yes, I agree that today, and probably as long as men and women are what they are, most such multi-partner marriages will be one guy with multiple women. But I could be mistaken, of course.

I've been wanting to write a proper response for a while, but don't have time to do it properly. (And,
like yourself, I'd like a more rigerous public debate on the topic.) Forgive me for
not responding to a lot of points that you've brought up. Also, sorry this is rushed.

I think some SSM proponents assume SSM to be equally capable of raising children...

Here again, we talk at cross purposes. I say: "Children, statistically do better in parents with one parent of each gender" and you respond with the argument: "Some of these are good at raising children." Well, yes, I expect quite so. But that's a change of topic.

First, a lot of people don't consider that matter proven, therefore their beliefs are consistant with the evidence they've seen (myself included). Also, we'd have to make sure we compare apples to apples. SSMs raising kids from divorces vs. traditional marriages raising kids from divorces and not SSMs vs. the children of their biological parents. (I had at least one friend who suffered sexual abuse from her mother's boyfriend, for instance.)

Further, if SSMs are less likely to choose to raise kids, it's possible that this would select for those most capable of couples. We don't need to worry about all SSMs, just those who end up raising kids.

1. There seem to be more than one type of 'homosexuality' which are muddled by our use of the generic term. Chimps use mounting to indicate dominance or submission. Bonobos seem to use same sex coupling in a less agressive context. I'd argue that these behaviors should be considered differently rather than being lumped together.

2. In societies where pedaresty is common, the relationship seems to end fairly consistently after puberty (when the young boy appears less feminine and more masculine), even in widely divergent cultures. Perhaps some of those who participated in pedaresty were actually heterosexually oriented? We have age of consent laws in our culture, which other cultures did not.
The importance of agency in relationships in our culture seems an important difference.

3. How is polygamy more consistent with SSM than with traditional marraige? It seems less so.
I'm not seeing any justification for this assertion, even in the text which follows it. I'm not trying to be obtuse, I simply don't see where you're making the case for this point.

An extremely strong preference for heterosexuality (consider lot offering his virgin daughters, assuming for the moment that that biblical passage is about homosexual rape) and differing treatment of men and women is more consistent with both traditional marriage and polygamy than SSM, which is argued for on the ethic of equal treatment of the sexes before the law.

4. If the 14th Amendment forbids discrimination based on sex that seems to support the legality of SSM. And if judges argue for SSM on this basis, it seems unfair to call them 'activist.'

You agree that the 14th amendment considers sex a protected class. I'm not sure why we disagree on the implications of that.

From elsewhere: But you didn't answer my question earlier about the implications of the 14th amendment as it applies to same sex marriage. If it's unconstitutional to discriminate based on sex, then isn't a prohibition on same sex marriage unconstituional (if not 'un-American.')

It appears to me that I did. Previously: "The 14th amendment established certain protected categories. Sex, religion and race were enumerated, who you wished to sleep with, what hand you preferred to use, your level of education, how often you visit bars or strip clubs, or your political views are not among them." Sexual orientation is not the same thing as "sex."

Before going further, let me first admit: Any piece of legislation can be construed by judges as meaning nearly anything. So of course, I only hope here to show what's reasonably implied, not what a judge might do.

To understand what was and wasn't implied, think of the context of the Civil Rights act, or 14th Amendment. People were being prohibited from using certain public accommodations or ovting because of their race. So, for example, no blacks could enter so-and-so's bathroom. Being a member of one particular race prevented you from doing activity X.

But its not true that people are being prevented from "marrying" (meaning here the forming a union with a member of the opposite sex) on the basis of sex. Any man or woman can "marry" -- no one is being prevented from doing it because of their particular sex. Any adult woman can legally "marry" a man, any adult man, straight or gay, can legally "marry" a suitable woman.

Thus what is wanted here is to redefine marriage -- to remove one of the many constraints on it, in regards to prospective partners. Right now there are several limits: limits on how many partners, what sex, familial proximity, and age. They may be others too, of which I'm not familiar.

(The more I watch politics, the more I see it as a struggle to redefine words, without admitting that's what you're doing, or prevent such attempts. Orwell zeroed in on this.)

To see the absurdity of conflating a limit on the prospective target with a limit on participation, simply substitute in the various other restrictions in the same manner. Is having criteria which define number "discrimination based on religion"? (Since some religions allow multiple marital partners.) Is having restriction on family membership then "discrimination against families"? And are prohibitions on age differences thus "age discrimination"? Most people wouldn't be comfortable with these uses, which belies the oddness of the formulation.

Is having criteria which define number "discrimination based on religion"?

I think this analogy supports the assertion that same sex marriage is discrimination based on sex, not sexual orientation.

You don't have to know a person's religion to prohibit polygamy. You don't have to know a person's sexual

orientation to enforce traditional marriage. You do have to know a person's sex(and define it in a clear-cut binary fashion) to enforce traditional marriage. Thus, legal prohibitions on SSM are based on sex, not sexual

orientation.

And are prohibitions on age differences thus "age discrimination"?
Yes. Personally, it seems perfectly logical to discriminate based on age in many circumstances. If I needed to pass a

constitutional amendment to enforce such things as 'age of consent' I'd vote for it. If I could remove age as a protected

class, I would. There is, at least, some constitutionally mandated age discrimination which might provide constitutional

support. The age a person has to be to be president, for instance, or voting.

family membership

Is 'blood relationship' a protected class?

why it isn't similarly wrong to have "men only" bathrooms and locker rooms

Personally, my concerns are with privacy and consent. I could have done without being forced to undress in front of other

guys in gym class.

But I'm primarly concerned with equal treatment before the law, public institutions, etc.
I'd be fine with private institutions doing more or less what they wanted, though I recognize that it isn't often legal or popular for them to do so.

Ryan: First, a lot of people don't consider that matter proven...
Tim: So? What do I care?

Your concern, as I read it, was with the intellectual consistency of those who disagreed with you. If that's your concern, your opponents beliefs are relevant.

By your own argument, you can't say it's "just as good" using an apples-to-apples comparison because you can't actually

GET an apple for the second case.

If the second case is unlikely to occur, it seems odd to worry about the outcome of it. It seems more reasonable

to compare situations which can actually happen. So my primary concern is whether same sex adoptions are as good as heterosexual adoptions, of those who apply. In either case, I'm going to drop the matter till I can do more research and get hard data, since we're just exchanging hypotheticals here.

Earlier, it sounded like you were grouping SSM and polygamy.

I don't recall doing that. I thought that was your point. You were asking if SSM proponents could dispel a slippery slope argument that SSM -> Polygamy.

And what's the bigger point (sorry, being lazy)?

That traditional marriage is as much or more of a slippery slope to polygamy as SSM since their premises are closer? (except for those people who believe polygamy and SSM are both bad for kids, and group the two together for that reason.)

Though I suppose, on some reflection, going from one to two bases for an institution may make a third more likely.

Best to you!

You don't have to know a person's religion to prohibit polygamy.

Well, then you don't need to know a person's "sexual orientation" to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Again, the argument usually offered (by others, not you apparently) is that traditional marriage discriminates against "gays and lesbians" (i.e. by sexual orientation) not "men" nor "women" (i.e. by sex).

The argument is that the sex-of-partner limitation has a disparate impact on gays and lesbians. If so, then laws which prohibit polygamy can also be said to have a disparate impact on those whose religions allow or even encourage different marital structures, too.

Thus, legal prohibitions on SSM are based on sex, not sexual orientation.

You can't refute a point simply by ignoring it. Again, please read my response above: I have distinguished between "who can participate" and "who one may be grouped with."

Look, again, you have to know a person's sex to enforce rest-room laws. That doesn't mean, therefore, that having men's v women's restrooms is a form of "sexual discrimination" in the legal sense connoted by the Civil Rights Act or 14th Amendment.

There are all kinds of things like life where you "look at" religion, gender, sex, age, etc. (The census, marital law, anything which separates out people by age, sex, etc.) That doesn't mean they all legally qualify as an unconstitutional discrimination. That's a fantastic logical leap.

Tim: And are prohibitions on age differences thus "age discrimination"?

Ryan: Yes. Personally, it seems perfectly logical to discriminate based on age in many circumstances...

Then how do you square that with allowing limits on age differences in marriage laws? After all, we can look at the age of those getting married, just as we look at sex -- therefore, by your usage, this is "age discrimination" -- and "age discrimination" is also illegal, right?

Is 'blood relationship' a protected class?

You missed the context again: I asked if you'd be willing to phrase this constraint within marriages as "discrimination against families." Would you be comfortable using that phrase ("discriminates against families") to characterize our marriage laws?

"Yes" is the necessary implication of doing the same linguistic trick on sex.

"If marriage laws prevent you to marry someone of a particular ______, then they can be said to discriminate on the basis of ______."

The argument you've proposed above substitutes "sex" into the blanks. Great. Now substitute "family" and see if you find that acceptable. And, again, I mean "discriminate" not as "look at", but in the sense of being prejudiced or bigoted against.

Ryan: Your concern, as I read it, was with the intellectual consistency of those who disagreed with you...

To recap: I suggested it was important to have a consistent set of hierarchy of criteria for evaluating the utility of various marital forms. I suggested that Christians perhaps placed "one man / one woman" in the first position, and asked for a similar hiearchy of criteria describing the positions of those advocating same-sex marriage. (Still waiting, actually.)

Then I asked: if Christian criteria #1 ("one man, one woman") was bigotry, then on what basis? And why wouldn't that also apply to the other criteria given for a hierarchy of concerns which allowed same-sex marriage, but not also polygamy or incest?

You then said, regarding "bigotry": "I think some SSM proponents assume SSM to be equally capable of raising children." Well, yes, I have already agreed with you. But I don't see how it connects to what was being discussed there. How do you get from "one man, one woman" to "bigoted" by saying: "I think I'm good at raising children"?

And, by whatever means (I don't see it yet) couldn't you also then say that siblings, polygamists, etc, must also be allowed to "marry" as long as they, also feel they are good at raising children?

I could have done without being forced to undress in front of other guys in gym class...

LOL... well, yes, I can understand that view. I never particularly enjoyed the experience either. I think most my classmates felt the same, because nobody ever showered despite the teacher's insistence we all do so. I laughed when Woody Allen quipped, in "Annie Hall": "I don't like to get naked around a man of my, uh, gender."

But I wasn't asking about your personal feelings. I was asking about the rather more strict, rigorous implications of the "logic" being used to justify "marriage is sex discrimination."

If we don't look towards participation to determine "discrimination" (since anyone, of any gender is allowed to participate in traditional marriage), but only who one may participate WITH, then it seems we should be able to do so in other areas. If its "discriminatory" or "bigoted" to look at sex when grouping people into marriages, then BY THAT ARGUMENT it must also be similarly "discriminatory" to look at sex when we group people into locker rooms or bathrooms.

Answers like "I don't like being forced to undress in front of other people", however much I may agree with the sentiment, aren't really related to this calculus, it seems to me. (Feel free to show otherwise.)

But I'm primarly concerned with equal treatment before the law...

Yes, and I'm trying to get you (or anyone, really) to define "equal treatment" in a rigorous, rational fashion. Hence I'm asking very specific questions, which I'd be greatly amused to see addressed.

1. Do we look at mere ability to participate, or also criteria for groupings? When and why?
2. How must the answers given in #1 then play out in other areas, if we're being consistent?
3. What rational set of criteria can be applied to justify SSM, but not incest, polygamy, etc. -- and still allow for philosophically consistent accusations of "bigotry"?
4. What does "discrimination" even mean? Or conversely "equal treatment"?

If the second case is unlikely to occur, it seems odd to worry about the outcome of it.

It does? Let's say we're comparing cancer treatments. You want to know the effects after 10 years of treatment. One drug kills you after 5 years. So we can GET that "apple" for the comparison you just demanded.

So you say this situation would "odd to worry about"??? Indeed, the fact there are no apples which can even provide a comparison is VERY telling in that case.

I don't see why this is so hard.

Again, you suggested we compare biological parents raising children between SSM and traditional marriage. Of course, you can't even GET that kind of affinity between parents and children with SSM. And you don't see, by your own criteria (I presume you think biology is important, having introduced it) that isn't an argument against SSM?

Tim: Earlier, it sounded like you were grouping SSM and polygamy.

Ryan: I don't recall doing that. I thought that was your point. You were asking if SSM proponents could dispel a slippery slope argument that SSM -> Polygamy.

Yes, I was. What does "slippery slope" have to do with affinities or grouping? They're entirely different concepts, and you can't blithely equate them, as it seems you're trying to do here.

If we have A, B, and C, and we say that A & B are most similar in some way, we don't automatically prove C doesn't lead to B. Which is the form of argument, it seems to me, you're trying to imply here.

That's not a rational kind of argument, Ryan.

Let's say I have three ball bearings: 8mm, 10mm, and 25mm in diameter. I had a 9mm hole, so only the 8mm bears fit through. Now I try to expand the hole to accommodate the 25mm bearing. Does that create a "slippery slope" also allowing the 10mm bearing through? Why yes, it does. Yet aren't the 8mm & 10mm bearings most similar? Why yes, they are.

It seems to me you've again pointed out a weakness if your own position: If polygamy and monogamy are most similar, then expanding the "marriage" hole to fit someone much less like either, and never before seen in history (same sex marriage) might easily allow polygamy to slide right on through too. See above for details.

That traditional marriage is as much or more of a slippery slope to polygamy...

"Traditional marriage is... a slippery slope to polygamy?" Pardon me, while I'm stunned for a moment.

Well, I admire your bravery! You only have several thousand years of hard evidence going against your position here. Indeed, it seems traditional marriage in the West shut out polygamy, rather than leading to it. But I suppose theoretical scenarios are no match for the results of an experiment which has actually been run, eh?

All I can say is it never occurred to me anyone could actually be meaning that.

Though I suppose, on some reflection, going from one to two bases for an institution may make a third more likely.

Yay! Yes, that's part of it. But the affinities matter, too. If you become open to something very unlike the previously-allowed things, then you probably also open yourself up to something which is much more similar to the previously-allowed things. Again, that's not (explicitly) the argument I was trying to make (though it may, in the end, boil down to it), but it seems you've raised a valid point.

Hope things are well in LA!

Again, the argument usually offered (by others, not you apparently) is that traditional marriage discriminates against "gays and lesbians" (i.e. by sexual orientation) not "men" nor "women"

This is only a refutation of the argument that you say is usually offered if gays and lesbians are not also men and women.
But discriminating against men and women and discriminating against gays and lesbians are not mutually exclusive. A thing might be unconstitutional if it discriminates against men or women, and the impact may be borne by gays or lesbians.

To use a parallel example, does miscegenation discriminate against blacks or whites or interracial couples? I'd say "yes, all three, with interracial couples bearing the brunt of the discrimination. Would it be out of bounds, then, to state that miscegenation discriminates against interracial couples?

Look, again, you have to know a person's sex to enforce rest-room laws.

You'd have some trouble showing a substantial difference between male and female restrooms, which may allow the matter to pass.

Tim:And then also explain, if its wrong to have "blacks only" bathrooms (a form of unconstitutional discrimination based on race), why it isn't similarly wrong to have "men only" bathrooms and locker rooms. Go right ahead and do so.
Or you can agree with me, and say that a limit on who can participate is not he same as a limit on who they can be grouped (bathrooms) or partnered (marriage) with.

Tim: Again, please read my response above: I have distinguished between "who can participate" and "who one may be grouped with."
This sounds like you're edging towards "separate but equal" as a standard, no? But who one may be grouped with often affects participation. Black-only fountains next to white-only fountains or segregated schools are based on who one may be grouped with (co-racialists). You don't seem to argue with the illegality of race-based bathrooms. On what standard? Simple revulsion? "Separate but equal" was not considered a maintainable legal standard as it applied to segregation. Segregated schools were not really equal. You could argue, theoretically, that traditional marriage does not discriminate based on sex because marrying a woman is functionally equivalent to marrying a man, as you might argue that restrooms that discriminate on sex are still equal because the facilities are functionally equivalent (and people have won cases arguing that lack of changing rooms in male restrooms were discriminatory.) But I think such a line of reasoning would totally take the wind out of the conservative argument. It'd make more sense for conservatives to stick to utilitarian arguments rather than trying to portray their opponents as judicial activists on this particular issue.

Ryan: Yes. Personally, it seems perfectly logical to discriminate based on age in many circumstances...

Tim: therefore, by your usage, this is "age discrimination" -- and "age discrimination" is also illegal, right?

Yes, age discrimination is illegal. Should I be obliged to defend laws that I disagree or that I think are inconsistant or to show how my beliefs are consistant with them. I acknowledged that banning age discrimination is the law and pointed to a few constitutional rulings which discriminate based on age to demonstrate that the federal constitution is inconsistant, or at least carves out exceptions, on this point. How else do you want me to 'square' things? What are you asking me to do? Are you just arguing for the weakness of the 14th amendment?

Would you be comfortable using that phrase ("discriminates against families") to characterize our marriage laws?