The idea that gay marriage will lead to demands for polygamous marriage and people marrying their pets is often pooh-poohed as scaremongering and ‘gay bashing’, and the so-called ‘slippery slope effect is often decried as nonsense:
A notary in the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo has sparked controversy by accepting a civil union between three people.
I wonder what those people are saying now?
Ms Domingues, who is based in the Sao Paulo city of Tupa, said the move reflected the fact that the idea of a “family” had changed.”We are only recognising what has always existed. We are not inventing anything.”
“For better or worse, it doesn’t matter, but what we considered a family before isn’t necessarily what we would consider a family today.”
Thoughts?
If we are for liberty, we are for the libery of people to marry whoever they want, so long as the other party is willing (clearly this removes children and animals, neither of which categories can express their own will in any legal system worth mentioning). If we oppose this due to our own beliefs or reactions, we are not for liberty but for imposing our own views – and how does that make us any different from the bulk of modern politicians and their ‘principles’?
And anyway, if you are in a committed-three way relationship, why are you not allowed to express this publically? Is it simply because one particular model of marriage, that of the Romans (our marriage model is not ‘Christian’), is privileged because of some accidents of history, so we can only accept marriage if it is between one man and one woman. If you want to get married to those you love, regardless of who or how many they are, why should anyone stop you? No-one can be forced to host the wedding obviously, but someone, somewhere will be happy to do so (probably the Methodists…).
Sorry, I can’t help but make a suggestive connection between the handle “watchman” and a threesome.
Wrong form of literature I’m afraid…
Although if there is nothing else on TV mind.
Ah, the graphic novel?
Marriage should be a matter between adults, with whatever religious issues being decided by the churches.
The only role that the government should have is contractual, to protect children, and to levy the appropriate taxes.
That being said, I have a theory that one of the contributing factors in the violence in many Islamic countries is the fact that richer old men have multiple wives, leaving the poorer young men with no available women, rather like rogue male elephants.
VoR,
Actual multiple marriages are rare (and not permitted in some Islamic countries) – it is female infanticide which is the major cause of too many males along with the pecularity that because male babies are more likely to die in infancy, the birth rate is slightly skewed towards males, so with modern medicine there will always be more men growing up than women. All of which stresses we need to cater for those who can’t have a conventional relationship due to numbers…
Watchman. I disagree. You say: “And anyway, if you are in a committed-three way relationship, why are you not allowed to express this publically?” But why stop at three on your premise?
Thats fine but if your wife/husband/daughter decided to shack up with one or more others can that be called marriage by any stretch, and would you still be in favour of it? In legal terms who takes responsibility for say, children, and who decides, and by what law? On what principle should the children if any, lose the exclusive ownership of their biological parents to be “shared” with others with all the implications of that.
In the present context of an imposed re-definition of marriage a change in the law allows the uniqueness of real marriage to be degraded by encouraging any number of sexual perversions and alliances to be established legally – bigamy, polygamy, polyamoury etc without legal restraint. Where does it end?
Such groups will quickly demand legal recognition of their liaisons as “marriage”.
From there it is a very small step to criminalise dissident objectors as being “discriminatory” and there are examples of this happening right now:
For example, in Sweden, expressing a moral objection to homosexuality is illegal, even on religious grounds, even in church, and a pastor minded to cite the more robust verses of Leviticus would risk four years in jail. In Canada, the courts rule that Catholic schools must allow gay students to take their same-sex dates to the prom. So much then for freedom and the operation of the law of unitended consequences.
We are not there yet but on the same road, where an imposed SSM by the State radically changes traditional concepts and understanding of marriage. That is the logical extension of this government’s proposed legislation which is the thin end of a very big wedge indeed.
We should not forget that it is the existence of law under the status quo which PROTECTS against such chaos for parents, children and families alike. In the final analysis it depends on how you define marriage.
Graham,
If my wife (regardless of how many husbands and wives we mutually have) shacks up with someone outside the relationship, it is still breaking up the relationship whether she cheats on me or on me and our three other husbands and wives – I don’t see your point really. As a libertarian I can’t stop them doing this after all…
As to the what about the children argument there, I don’t get it. It’s up to a family unit to decide who a child’s parents are, as now: there are plenty of people who cut out another parent, and add in a non-biological parent, and no evidence this is harmful on its own, although the way it happens may be harmful. The logical corollary of your argument seems to be, incidentally, that fostering and adoption should be opposed as well, although I am not sure I fully understand what you are saying.
You also speak of ‘real’ marriage and then say that sexual peversions such as bigamy (is sleeping with women really a sexual peversion?) threaten to be degraded. This seems a rather moral viewpoint from the language, and surely the point of liberty, as I say above, is to allow others to do as they will, not to impose our morality. You might be opposed to bigamy (I am in my own life – and would appreciate my wife not trying biandry either…) but you have no more right than me to impose your views on others, so if they are happy in that relationship, it’s up to them.
As to the statist nonsence of banning criticism, that’s a separate matter (albeit, I would withhold state funding from any school that did not allow same-sex couples the same rights as hetrosexual ones, as government should not support restriction of liberty due to personal views). Free speech is not linked to the right to marry unless someone uses one to affect the other – and there is no point in suggesting allowing gay people to marry will lead to hate speach laws since the hate speach laws predate the right of gay people to marry.
My concern is your objections are based on a set of moral values that I for one don’t share – so why should you as a (presumed) liberarian expect government to feel the need to protect these from the chaos of people having total freedom?
“My concern is your objections are based on a set of moral values that I for one don’t share – so why should you as a (presumed) (sic) liberarian (sic) expect government to feel the need to protect these from the chaos of people having total freedom?”
Your post represents a typical post-modern approach under the cloak of being “libertarian” for you appear to favour dumping all absolutes, and accepted concepts of morality within personal and sexual relationships. In effect then, anything goes.
I understand where you are coming from now. Its as if there were no Renaissance, no Enlightenment, or 2000 years of Christian or secular history and civilised progress. So its back to the cave, to the Neanderthals and the law of the jungle.
As for “the chaos of people having total freedom?”. I believe very strongly in freedom, but there is no such thing as “total” freedom. It simply does not, and cannot exist, for society itself, public opinion and not least the existence of laws all act as powerful constraints. You confuse freedom with licence. The rule of law and government policy generally reflects the consensus of any given society. So be it. You want to be a ‘libertarian’ campaigner for full sexual freedom – a sort of amoral Luddite?
I don’t think many women would form a queue to offer you their support, let alone their ‘services’. But nobody is “imposing” their morality on you – we just have mutually exclusive viewpoints.
Divorce lawyers approve.
Don’t care. Their business, not mine.
Don’t mix marriage with union. The former is a religious concept. The later is legal concept.
How a religion wants to perform it’s marriages is up to it. If their relgion means that pologymay is the correct way then they can do that. If it means everyone marrying the priest then so be it. It could be a man and woman is the right marriage. Some religion might say that only people of the same race can marry. All are perfectly valid.
The legal aspect is mostly to do with money and property with a bit to do with responsibilities. How is the money inherited, how it and property is shared, and who gets the state’s handouts. The responsibilities mainly being to do with children. There is no reason why it could be two, three or more signing this legal contract. Nor is there a reason why the people involved can’t be related. For instance, two siblings having a union to facilitate inheritence or two help in the responsibilities over children.
The two unions should be seperate. A relgious one does not give any legal rights. And you can have any sort of legal union without upsetting relgious people whose union is totally seperate.
In some way you could be campaigning for religious equality. To make Christianity the same as Islam. Muslims already have to have a relgious and civil ceremony, so Christians should do too. As should Jews.
link to news.bbc.co.uk
Disestablishment of the church from the state is the way forward.
Church of England priests are also registrars, the necessity of separate ceremonies is obviated in this way. I don’t think Roman Catholic priests are so a registrar also has to be present at the ceremony, similarly tying the two together.
DaveE.
Disestablishment of the church from the state is the way forward.
Yet our State Laws are based on the 10 commandments. What you suggest opens the door for direct influence from other religions.
Is that a good way to go forward, dya think ?
No it doesn’t – and our laws are not based on the ten commandments (unless you believe their inclusion in the Lawcode of King Alfred is significant) – it’s based on the common law, with a hell of a lot of amendments and additions.
As for direct influence from other religions – if that’s the will of the people, that’s democracy. But you are assuming the state should be in a position to impose morality (which is what religions create), when we should be trying to ensure it cannot do this.
“our laws are not based on the ten commandments
I disagree but just to play along with you for a bit, for fun….
Where do youthink we get the “no killing, no stealing and no slagging off people you don’t like”… or the “any of the above just because the jealousy of your neighbour and his stuff is eating you alive from the inside-out” kinda laws from…. if not The Bible ?
Dunno where you get the idea that I assume the State should be in a position to impose morality….you’re the one making the assumption here….but, if pressed on the point, I believe that The State has to be in a position to enforce some basic morality in the form of Laws we ALL must follow. The only real questions, in that case, are:
1) How far we allow them to go to do it.
2) Which religion…or even parts of various religions…we base at least some of our laws on.
You appear to assume that “morality”…which I call “a personal sense of right and wrong”…comes ONLY from religion. It doesn’t.
Now then..for all the smokescreen talk of religion here which I’d like wafted away for a second…if Gay Marriage or any other kind of marriage is to become acceptable to the majority and…more importantly… enshrined in law then every single one of us must be given a vote on it and the result must be binding.
Otherwise it’s simply a matter of a few people saying “fuck you, your religion and your laws…I’m going to do precisely what I want and not even TRY to dress it up in pretentious twaddle designed to persuade you that what I’m doing should be acceptable to you.”
To be perfectly honest I could at least have some respect for the honesty of the latter.
What I do not accept is that an authority figure…in this case the Brazilian notary…has any right to accept anything or make pronouncements on the judgements of a supposed majority. Especially when such has taken place in public in the complete absence of any kind of formal permission from the public.
The same would apply to a priest.
One correction – marriage is not a religious institution, but simply an institution colonised by religion, specifically Christianity – most other religions may bless a marriage but don’t claim to regulate it.
Although moralists have been going on about marriage (especially about how it was the only state in which one could have sex) since the beginning of Christian writing (see Paul’s letters), as something actually controlled by the church it was not until the twelfth century that this was established – so less than half the history of Christianity. It seems a bit strange on the basis of the centralising tendencies of one religions common ancestor (with apologies to all Maronites, Copts, Eastern Orthodox believers etc…) to assume that marriage is actually a religious thing, when in most socieites now and historically it was a civil thing – religion might approve of marriage, but it did not regulate it.
So why should we attribute the ‘higher’ form of bond to the religious only. That seems insulting to those of us who do not follow the teachings of men dead for many centuries and the interpretations of those who twisted those teachings for their own ends. Religion is a personal matter – it should not be given a priviliged status (and marriage is more prestigious than union in any linguistic game) due to what were in effect statist popes attempts to control the lives of others.
You are right that Christianity has coopted marraige for their own purposes and use it as part of their mumbo-jumbo practises. I did know that marriage existed before Christianity. However in these modern times marriage is seen more for it’s relgious aspects than legal. It’s like the legal is a bit tacked on to the relgious when it should be the other way round.
And Tatty, disestablishment does not mean that our existing laws have to be ripped up however they may have been created. They will carry on as they are. Like Watchman I don’t think they were created based on the ten commandments. Murder and theft might appear in the ten, but they are also concepts that are pretty basic in all societies.
Laws have no sense of morality. In the past it was moral to view homosexuality as illegal, now it isn’t. How can a moral issue change, it either is or isn’t. Morality is all about personal views which are shared by a group of people.
“And Tatty, disestablishment does not mean that our existing laws have to be ripped up however they may have been created. They will carry on as they are.
Disestablishment: To deprive (a church) of official governmental support.
So…no, they won’t carry on as before and…since this is basically a Christian country… it will open the door to influence from other religions. My question was where such a scenario would lead and would that be a good thing ?
Unless…”disestablishment” meant the door is slammed shut to religion of any kind. Where would that lead, I wonder.
Perhaps make the wish absolutely clear and then…just to be on the safe side for all our sakes…maybe take a second to consider just what it is you are wishing for.
Disestablishment means no religion has any state support. They’ll have recognition which will mean they can get special treatment for their places of worship and possibly charity status, etc. Religions can carry on as before. But it doesn’t mean that the whole country will suddenly turn non-Christian.
Society takes eons to change and tends to rebel against impositions which it doesn’t agree with. For instance, the acceptance of homosexuality is less about the law changing and more about modern society coming to terms with other peoples differences and being more accepting of them.
“But it doesn’t mean that the whole country will suddenly turn non-Christian. ”
True, but then that’s from one extreme to the other and not what I said or meant.
The standard libertarian position would be, I expect, to leave it to the individuals involved. As long as it’s all voluntary, who can complain? But the other side of the libertarian position is, if someone doesn’t approve of same sex marriage, they are free to say so and to refuse to have anything to do with it.
As the civil partnerships law already establishes a legal parity between same-sex unions and marriage, what exactly is being demanded here? Civil partners can call each other whatever they like, husband, wife or whatever. This change to the law seems to be mainly directed at dissenters, taking away the second part of the liberty above.
“what exactly is being demanded here?”
Total rejection of thousands of years of various religious teachings, complete submission of a church along with annihilation of independant thought and free speech of all individuals backed with the full force of the law.
I can only laugh and wish them good luck with that.