Does "supporting the freedom to love" apply to incest and polygamy?

[happiness]

1. It is my aim that this post could, in keeping with the spirit of intellectual debate and sharing, contribute in furthering our understanding of why we think (or do not think) legalising same-sex marriage is the just thing to do.

 

2. I'd like to say that I support same-sex marriage. And my coming to this opinion is not just based on primitive emotions or a personal wish, but also on much research and study that I've done on the topic. And I believe many, many people, especially law professors and judges, have done a lot of work on and contributed invaluably to this topic, from improving our understanding of justice to doing the right things and implementing the right laws to uphold justice and equality. This intellectual debate on the topic may be of interest: 

 

3. I came across a comment which I find thought provoking. It raises some issues worth thinking over—deeply. It's attached at the end of the post. (You can skip it if you can't follow him; I've provided explanations below.)

 

4. I have to say his points were not presented in a straight-forward, easily understandable way. So you, like me, may not be able to understand him fully when you first read it.

 

5. Therefore, I've re-constructed his arguments as follows.

 

(a) He is basically against gay marriage but he is for gay civil union. This is because gays, he argues, are fundamentally different from straight people. Consider this, we do not have women and men in the same 100m running competition because men will always win. And so the fair thing to do is to segregate the two genders into two different competitions.

 

(b) The oft-cited reason why straight siblings can't get married is that it would be harmful to their children, due to the high risk of illnesses and physically abnormalities caused by inbreeding. But this reason does not apply if the straight siblings cannot or will not have children. Therefore, we should allow infertile straight siblings who are romantically in love (and those fertile who vow not to inbreed) to get married too. So if you support the freedom to love, then you should support them getting married too.

 

(c) The inbreeding-problem reason also does not apply to gay siblings, since they cannot have children with each other even if they are fertile. So if you support the freedom to love, then you should support gay siblings getting married too.

 

(d) His next argument is against the inbreeding-problem reason. We allow people with genetic defects to have children, such as those with Down syndrome and those with a family history of cancers, even though there is a high risk of their children having Down syndrome or cancers. So allowing people with Down syndrome or cancers to get married but not a pair of loving straight siblings is discrimination and inequality, and also it shows a logical inconsistency.

 

6. On his argument (a), I'd say it doesn't matter whether we call gay marriage a marriage or a civil union. He supports "civil union with same rights like marriage" (hash tagged in his second comment, attached at the end of the post). But if the proposed civil union is exactly the same as marriage, then why give it a different name, right? The important thing is that the law governing gay marriage should not promote discrimination and hatred. I am all for recognising that there are differences between gays and straight people, so these two groups may have to be treated differently sometimes, but fairly. For example, we can have laws that protect gays from harassment and hate crimes, just like we have laws that protect other minority groups, the elderly and the handicap. But many people who are against gay marriage (but are for gay civil union) are demanding that gay couples have LESS rights, not equal rights and definitely not more rights.

 

7. As for his arguments (b)-(d), I currently have no firm position yet. What's your take on these?

 

8. Nonetheless, I'd say that there is no inconsistencies by allowing gay marriage but not incest and polygamy. This is because we are allowing monogamous marriage across all sexual orientations, and the ban on incest and polygamy is also applied across all sexual orientations. So he is already discriminating when he says unless we want to allow incest and polygamy, we should keep monogamous straight marriage and ban monogamous gay marriage. We are consistent as long as we apply what is allowed and what is banned similarly across all sexual orientations. So the consistent position would be either

(1) we ban all marriages for all sexual orientations, or

(2) we allow only monogamous marriages (2.1), or only incest (2.2), or only polygamy (2.3), or any two of the three items in (2.1) to (2.3), or allow all, regardless of sexual orientations.

 

His first comment:

"Also legalize incest and polygamy while you are at it, give me one argument why two men should be allowed to be married but not two brothers ? Their relationship will be homosexual, how could they potentially get a child which is harmed (assuming they don't use any technology etc). Now for the second part, straight sibling couples, first off all, they could either get sterilized or just adopt, they don't have to fuck to get a child, so where is your probably strongest argument about the harmed third party aka child now ? Secondly I could make the argument, are women allowed to smoke, drink, etc during pregnancy or people with gene defects, where to draw the line ? Oh it harms the child, it is legal, so why can't a sister fuck her brother and get a child with him, maybe it's less harmful ? If love is love and all that matters is consenting adults and you truly believe it, then incest is also love, disgusting ? I could say the same about homosexuality yet if I did that you would call me a homophobe, can't imagine yourself doing that ? I can't imagine myself fucking a guy either since I'm straight just like the majority of guys, yet some would call me a homophobe for saying that, be consistent with your logic guys, legalize this and you should legalize other forms of love/marriages who are you to be so selective about who can marry etc. How do some of you call it, ah I get it tolerance, be tolerant, we either legalize all kind of marriages or we keep it the way it is and just give them a civil union etc. If you want equal treatment for everyone then treat all forms of love equally, if that's your argument, if you think that different things should be treated differently then go the civil union, I don't know what route but be consistent."

 

His second comment:

"Youngsters pick Civil union with equal rights over gay marriage, different institutions for different kind of sexual orientations, I believe this kind of "equality" is more proper and logical, now someone might say: "Seperate but equal.", ahaha I wonder how you guys feel about women sports, paralympics, etc then, if you believe so much in equal treatment for everyone then force every child who is deaf to speak as good as one who can, force a child with one arm to do the same amount of work as a child with two arms but no we don't do that nor expect that because that would be ridiculous expecting that, that's why we treat them differently, same with women sports, it's proven and you can look at most world records in sports etc than men on average and at their peak through training perform better in most sport activities than women, forcing a woman to compete against a man is unfair and ridiculous, why should we treat different and unequal things equally, the equal thing to do would be to reat them differently, it might also appeal more to the "religious" harmony of Singapore #CivilUnionWithSameRightsLikeMarriage"

 

Source of comments (see comments, posted 11 months ago by Lee Shingyu): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZDUNxCMMek

 

Edited June 29, 2017 by happiness

[SuperSentai]

Since most straight siblings out there are fertile and thus can't get married, if we allow infertile straight siblings / gay siblings to get married, it would be inequality to the fertile straight siblings. We are (currently) asking for equality with the (current) straight community norms in terms of marriage rights and recognition. EQUALITY is the issue here, I'll say. At the end of the day, all we want is to raise the social status of LGBT to be on par with the straights.

Edited June 29, 2017 by SuperSentai

[Blogger Adam]

8 hours ago, happiness said:

1. It is my aim that this post could, in keeping with the spirit of intellectual debate and sharing, contribute in furthering our understanding of why we think (or do not think) legalising same-sex marriage is the just thing to do.

 

2. I'd like to say that I support same-sex marriage. And my coming to this opinion is not just based on primitive emotions or a personal wish, but also on much research and study that I've done on the topic. And I believe many, many people, especially law professors and judges, have done a lot of work on and contributed invaluably to this topic, from improving our understanding of justice to doing the right things and implementing the right laws to uphold justice and equality. This intellectual debate on the topic may be of interest: 

 

3. I came across a comment which I find thought provoking. It raises some issues worth thinking over—deeply. It's attached at the end of the post. (You can skip it if you can't follow him; I've provided explanations below.)

 

4. I have to say his points were not presented in a straight-forward, easily understandable way. So you, like me, may not be able to understand him fully when you first read it.

 

5. Therefore, I've re-constructed his arguments as follows.

 

(a) He is basically against gay marriage but he is for gay civil union. This is because gays, he argues, are fundamentally different from straight people. Consider this, we do not have women and men in the same 100m running competition because men will always win. And so the fair thing to do is to segregate the two genders into two different competitions.

 

(b) The oft-cited reason why straight siblings can't get married is that it would be harmful to their children, due to the higher risk of illnesses and physically abnormalities caused by inbreeding. But this reason does not apply if the straight siblings cannot or will not have children. Therefore, we should allow infertile straight siblings who love each other romantically to get married too. So if you support the freedom to love, then you should support them getting married too.

 

(c) The inbreeding-problem reason also does not apply to gay siblings, since they cannot have children with each other even if they are fertile. So if you support the freedom to love, then you should support gay siblings getting married too.

 

(d) His next argument is against the inbreeding-problem reason. We allow people with genetic defects to have children, such as those with Down syndrome and those with family history of cancers, even though there is a high risk of their children having Down syndrome or cancers. So allowing people with Down syndrome or cancers to get married but not a pair of loving straight siblings is discrimination and inequality, and also it shows a logical inconsistency.

 

6. On his argument (a), I'd say it doesn't matter whether we call gay marriage a marriage or a civil union. He supports "civil union with same rights like marriage" (hash tagged in his second comment, attached at the end of the post). But if the proposed civil union is exactly the same as marriage, then why give it a different name, right? The important thing is that the law governing gay marriage should not promote discrimination and hatred. I am all for recognising that there are differences between gays and straight people, so these two groups may have to be treated differently sometimes, but fairly. For example, we can have laws that protect gays from harassment and hate crimes, just like we have laws to protect other minority groups, the elderly and the handicap. But many people who are against gay marriage (but are for gay civil union) are demanding that gay couples have LESS rights, not equal rights and definitely not more rights.

 

7. As for his arguments (b)-(d), I currently have no firm position yet. What's your take on these?

 

8. Nonetheless, I'd say that there is no inconsistencies by allowing gay marriage but not incest and polygamy. This is because we are allowing monogamous marriage across all sexual orientations, and the ban on incest and polygamy is also applied across all sexual orientations. So he is already discriminating when he says unless we want to allow incest and polygamy, we should keep monogamous straight marriage and ban monogamous gay marriage. We are consistent as long as we apply what is allowed and what is banned similarly across all sexual orientations. So the consistent position would be either

(1) we ban all marriages for all sexual orientations, or

(2) we allow only monogamous marriages (2.1), or only incest (2.2), or only polygamy (2.3), or any two of the three items in (2.1) to (2.3), or allow all, regardless of sexual orientations.

 

His first comment:

"Also legalize incest and polygamy while you are at it, give me one argument why two men should be allowed to be married but not two brothers ? Their relationship will be homosexual, how could they potentially get a child which is harmed (assuming they don't use any technology etc). Now for the second part, straight sibling couples, first off all, they could either get sterilized or just adopt, they don't have to fuck to get a child, so where is your probably strongest argument about the harmed third party aka child now ? Secondly I could make the argument, are women allowed to smoke, drink, etc during pregnancy or people with gene defects, where to draw the line ? Oh it harms the child, it is legal, so why can't a sister fuck her brother and get a child with him, maybe it's less harmful ? If love is love and all that matters is consenting adults and you truly believe it, then incest is also love, disgusting ? I could say the same about homosexuality yet if I did that you would call me a homophobe, can't imagine yourself doing that ? I can't imagine myself fucking a guy either since I'm straight just like the majority of guys, yet some would call me a homophobe for saying that, be consistent with your logic guys, legalize this and you should legalize other forms of love/marriages who are you to be so selective about who can marry etc. How do some of you call it, ah I get it tolerance, be tolerant, we either legalize all kind of marriages or we keep it the way it is and just give them a civil union etc. If you want equal treatment for everyone then treat all forms of love equally, if that's your argument, if you think that different things should be treated differently then go the civil union, I don't know what route but be consistent."

 

His second comment:

"Youngsters pick Civil union with equal rights over gay marriage, different institutions for different kind of sexual orientations, I believe this kind of "equality" is more proper and logical, now someone might say: "Seperate but equal.", ahaha I wonder how you guys feel about women sports, paralympics, etc then, if you believe so much in equal treatment for everyone then force every child who is deaf to speak as good as one who can, force a child with one arm to do the same amount of work as a child with two arms but no we don't do that nor expect that because that would be ridiculous expecting that, that's why we treat them differently, same with women sports, it's proven and you can look at most world records in sports etc than men on average and at their peak through training perform better in most sport activities than women, forcing a woman to compete against a man is unfair and ridiculous, why should we treat different and unequal things equally, the equal thing to do would be to reat them differently, it might also appeal more to the "religious" harmony of Singapore #CivilUnionWithSameRightsLikeMarriage"

 

Source of comments (see comments, posted 11 months ago by Lee Shingyu): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZDUNxCMMek

 

 

Reading this has certainly set me thinking.

 

Based on the arguments you helped reproduce, I really did go through some scenarios - such as imagining myself marrying my younger brother, or marrying one, if not two of my older sisters at the same time. Or even marrying all of three of at the same time.

 

This visualisation helped me understand how some straight people might shudder at the thought of homosexuality - because they must have put themselves in the homosexuals' (stylish) shoes and cannot imagine themselves doing anything gay, the way I cannot imagine walking down the aisle with my siblings.

 

That said, I think that each scenario has to be contextualised.

 

Without the benefit of research data, all I can say is that there is no critical mass among siblings who want to marry each other. I'm not saying there isn't such a figure. I'm merely saying that there aren't many known cases.

 

Gays on the other hand, oh, we have knowledge of our existence not just in Singapore but all over the world. Many prominent characters have come out openly in society (Other prominent characters are still in denial like Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street, but I'll leave those puppets alone for now). So where gays are concerned, there is critical mass (in some cases, some gays have too much mass but let's not be distracted).

 

When there is critical mass, that growing group forms ideals within that context. And so, there's been discussion going on about equality, rights, acceptance among gays.

 

Sibling marriages on the other hand, because there isn't critical mass, is thus a group that hasn't found its footing in society. It's unheard of, unlike the term LGBT.

 

And when such a group exists, but fails to exist prominently, society doesn't pay much attention to it until it needs to - like how LGBT groups have, over the years, been making itself know and are gaining the attention of lawmakers, civil groups, religious bodies, and my grandmother.

 

In years to come, if more advocates for sibling or inter-family marriages emerge, then that group may go down the same track as the LGBTs too: 1) they come out 2) they tell the world that there are many of us out there 3) you need to pay attention to us 4) we need to exist equally as other beings.

 

Separately, some terms are used very loosely (on that same note, certain parts of our body also can get used very loosely, but again, let's focus. This is a serious topic, guys).

 

The phrase "freedom to love" refers to gays because of this current Pink Dot context and climate. Taken out of context, "freedom to love" could cover a wider scope, including allowing anyone to marry his sister, grandaunt, shoes, or his favourite dish of Char Kway Teow.

 

Similarly, the term depression is also used loosely - it's no longer just a medical term, but used as an adjective to describe someone's mood. The effect is that, the real definition of depression is thus watered down because over time, people disregard the seriousness of depression because "depression" is associated with an emotion and not a mental illness.

 

My point is, whatever term or words are used, they'll have to be used with context.

 

Okay, I have to get back to work now - I see my boss looking at me with keen interest, and I can only keep up with my current frown and pretending that I'm typing a serious email for this long.

 

 

 

 

 

[happiness]

4 hours ago, SuperSentai said:

Since most straight siblings out there are fertile and thus can't get married, if we allow infertile straight siblings / gay siblings to get married, it would be inequality to the fertile straight siblings. We are (currently) asking for equality with the (current) straight community norms in terms of marriage rights and recognition. EQUALITY is the issue here, I'll say. At the end of the day, all we want is to raise the social status of LGBT to be on par with the straights.

 

Then, as he argues, we shouldn't ban fertile straight siblings from getting married, but only ban them from having children via inbreeding. They should be allowed to have children via adoption or surrogacy.

Edited June 29, 2017 by happiness

[SuperSentai]

6 hours ago, happiness said:

 

Then, as he argues, we shouldn't ban fertile straight siblings from getting married, but only ban them from having children via inbreeding. They should be allowed to have children via adoption or surrogacy.

Because you can't stop a legally married couple (siblings or otherwise) from having unprotected sex and getting babies from it. It's either legally married or not, regardless of whether they are blood-related, if you want to view all married couples as equals. You can't have one group of legally married couple having more rights than another group of legally married couple. Total equal rights clearly wasn't in his mind when he proposed his argument. This type of people are those who think that one group of human beings is more superior than another group of human beings.

Edited June 29, 2017 by SuperSentai

[happiness]

1 hour ago, SuperSentai said:

Because you can't stop a legally married couple (siblings or otherwise) from having unprotected sex and getting babies from it. It's either legally married or not, regardless of whether they are blood-related, if you want to view all married couples as equals. You can't have one group of legally married couple having more rights than another group of legally married couple.

 

So basically your argument is that it is an inequality because we allow all married couples except married straight siblings to have children of their own.

 

My response to that would be that it is not an equality because we are banning all married couples to inbreed, regardless of whether or not they are straight siblings. In this sense, we are treating everyone equally. So what might seem to be an inequality is in fact not an inequality. And even if you think that it is an inequality, banning straight siblings from getting married would be an even greater, more impermissible inequality! And it just doesn't make sense to ban them from getting married just so that they won't be "discriminated" as a married couple who may or may not want to have inbred children. Firstly, it is equivalent to imposing on them a greater injustice just so that they won't suffer a smaller injustice (which I argue, isn't actually an injustice at all). And secondly, not all married straight siblings want to have inbred children. We have to protect the rights of these people. We cannot ban them from getting married just because someone else want to have inbred children, just like we don't ban people from getting married because some people beat up their wives. That would be unfair to people who don't beat up their wives. What we do instead is to have laws that deal with people who beat up their wives. Similarly, we have laws against inbreeding.

 

Disclaimer: I'm not for or against incest or polygamy. As mentioned before, I currently have no firm position on these issues. I'm merely pointing out the logical inconsistencies in the argument.

Edited June 29, 2017 by happiness

[doncoin]

There are differences in the definition of "marriage" and "civil union/domestic partnership etc." It comes down to the laws of the state/country and how it may affect their significant other. 

 

Using the term "marriage" it basically means pretty much the same as a hetero-couple as we know it. Acknowledgement in the eyes of the law as Next-of-Kin (NOK), jointly file taxes, apply for HDB (in Singapore's case) amongst other things. 

 

However, civil union is a relatively new terms, designed for couples who do not want to define their relationship in the traditional marriage sense. There are straight couples in civil unions. Not just gay. However, because it is not a "marriage" per se in the eyes of the law, there are differences to the rights that are applicable. I.e. the NOK thing may not apply. Hence if one partner passes away, the other is not acknowledged at the widow/widower. Property may be contested by the deceased's family after. You have to file your taxes separately, not as a couple. 

 

If you think about it, the freedom to love is really about LGBT wanting to be like any other straight relationships. Fall in love, get married, build a home. Maybe have kids for some. It is not about destroying the concept of family. 

 

So, does freedom to love apply to incest and polygamy? It really depends.

 

In the case of incest, would the mother/ daughter/sister be agreeable to marry the father/son/brother? Is it romantic love? There really isn't enough data to know the outcomes of such relationships when compared to LGBT people. Personally I have to admit that I disagree with incest, and to me there is something fundamentally wrong and often I think it destroys a family and not build one. 

 

For polygamy, it is a practice that is still going on today. If all parties involved are agreeable with it, and managed to work out their issues to make the relationship successful, why not? It is no different than a husband having a mistress and a wife. The only thing missing is the legal acknowledgement of the mistress. 

[SuperSentai]

50 minutes ago, happiness said:

 

So basically your argument is that it is an inequality because we allow all married couples except married straight siblings to have children of their own.

 

My response to that would be that it is not an equality because we are banning all married couples to inbreed, regardless of whether or not they are straight siblings. In this sense, we are treating everyone equally. So what might seem to be an inequality is in fact not an inequality. And even if you think that it is an inequality, banning straight siblings from getting married would be an even greater, more impermissible inequality! And it just doesn't make sense to ban them from getting married just so that they won't be "discriminated" as a married couple who may or may not want to have inbred children. Firstly, it is equivalent to imposing on them a greater injustice just so that they won't suffer a smaller injustice (which I argue, isn't actually an injustice at all). And secondly, not all married straight siblings want to have inbred children. We have to protect the rights of these people. We cannot ban them from getting married just because someone else want to have inbred children, just like we don't ban people from getting married because some people beat up their wives. That would be unfair to people who don't beat up their wives. What we do instead is to have laws that deal with people who beat up their wives. Similarly, we have laws against inbreeding.

 

Disclaimer: I'm not for or against incest or polygamy. As mentioned before, I currently have no firm position on these issues. I'm merely pointing out the logical inconsistencies in the argument.

Unfortunately, as of now, the law of any country does not ban unprotected sex between a legally married couple. And the law of any country does not allow marriage between two blood related siblings. Equal rights are written into the law. You can assume many things, but until that law changes, the gay community is just asking for legal equality as the straight community with regards to the present law, nothing more nothing less. Like how Taiwan phrases it, 婚姻平权.

 

And besides, there already exist a form of love between siblings and their family: familial love. "Freedom to love" doesn't just mean romantic love, you know.

Edited June 29, 2017 by SuperSentai

[happiness]

2 hours ago, SuperSentai said:

Unfortunately, as of now, the law of any country does not ban unprotected sex between a legally married couple. And the law of any country does not allow marriage between two blood related siblings. Equal rights are written into the law. You can assume many things, but until that law changes, the gay community is just asking for legal equality as the straight community with regards to the present law, nothing more nothing less. Like how Taiwan phrases it, 婚姻平权.

 

And besides, there already exist a form of love between siblings and their family: familial love. "Freedom to love" doesn't just mean romantic love, you know.

 

Yes I support marriage equality, 婚姻平权. What Lee Shingyu (the person whose comments inspired me to start this post) is arguing is that if all you have to argue for gay marriage is "freedom to love", then we should also legalise incest and polygamy. (It's not that I agree with him; I'm just crystallising his argument.)

 

Yes "freedom to love" doesn't just mean romantic love. But when we use it to argue for gay marriage, then it means romantic love. If Pink Dot is just about the freedom to love your friends and family and not the romantic love between gays, then nobody would be against Pink Dot. I'm not saying Pink Dot can't celebrate the love among friends and family; I'm just pointing out that we should remain logically consistent when using "freedom to love", and using it to promote gay romantic love while keeping quiet on incest romantic love and polygamous romantic love is anything but logically consistent. (Again, I'd like to say I support gay marriage; I'm just crystallising Shingyu's argument.)

Edited June 29, 2017 by happiness

[Guest GUEST]

I think "Freedom to Love" sounds like a good slogan and is very catchy.  But unfortunately, it does not reflect the true meaning of Pink Dot and has it own pitfalls.  Pink Dot is a fight for gay marriage and marriage itself is far wider than just love.  Marriage (at least from the Chinese perspective) is to establish a family (which is parents+children from the traditional views.  However, gays naturally exclude themselves from this naturally and therefore why anti-LGBT people cannot bridge this gap and is a big gap really.

 

"Freedom to Love" also fights on the grounds of Human Rights.  It focus on the individual.  While the traditional marriage supporter focus on the relation inside the marriage, not just the individual.  By focusing on the relationship in the marriage, they set rules to this relationship, eg no incest, no bestiality, no polyetc.  But focusing on the individual rights, anything goes.  "Freedom to Love" does open a huge pandora box of "anything goes".  We may choose to say social morality will prevail and prevent incest and the rest but reality has shown in the west that 3some parenting is already a REALITY !

 

 

 

 

[doncoin]

36 minutes ago, Guest GUEST said:

I think "Freedom to Love" sounds like a good slogan and is very catchy.  But unfortunately, it does not reflect the true meaning of Pink Dot and has it own pitfalls.  Pink Dot is a fight for gay marriage and marriage itself is far wider than just love.  Marriage (at least from the Chinese perspective) is to establish a family (which is parents+children from the traditional views.  However, gays naturally exclude themselves from this naturally and therefore why anti-LGBT people cannot bridge this gap and is a big gap really.

 

"Freedom to Love" also fights on the grounds of Human Rights.  It focus on the individual.  While the traditional marriage supporter focus on the relation inside the marriage, not just the individual.  By focusing on the relationship in the marriage, they set rules to this relationship, eg no incest, no bestiality, no polyetc.  But focusing on the individual rights, anything goes.  "Freedom to Love" does open a huge pandora box of "anything goes".  We may choose to say social morality will prevail and prevent incest and the rest but reality has shown in the west that 3some parenting is already a REALITY !

 

Yes, marriage is about setting families. However, with today's technology, it does not have to be a man and woman any more. Even in the cases of a straight couple, we still hear about surrogacy as an option that they explore for various reasons. The definition for "family" really is wide and has multiple variations. In the strictest traditional sense, yes, a family has 2 parents and children. However, for a single parent, and child or children, they are still a family. For some families, it is just 2 adult and no children. So, the definition for families do change depending on the people involved in it. Just because the members of the family do not consist of a father and mother + child, it does not make them less of a family. 

 

The Freedom to Love, is also about the freedom to love yourself, IMHO. In a society like Singapore where there are so many closeted cases, and very often not by choice, but by society and family demands, it does take away some of the self-love. To live life unapologetically as who you are, gay, lesbian, trans etc. is something that is still a dream to many. The closet is like a prison. So, to me, the Freedom to Love, includes loving yourself. 

 

[Guest GUEST]

25 minutes ago, doncoin said:

 

Yes, marriage is about setting families. However, with today's technology, it does not have to be a man and woman any more. Even in the cases of a straight couple, we still hear about surrogacy as an option that they explore for various reasons. The definition for "family" really is wide and has multiple variations. In the strictest traditional sense, yes, a family has 2 parents and children. However, for a single parent, and child or children, they are still a family. For some families, it is just 2 adult and no children. So, the definition for families do change depending on the people involved in it. Just because the members of the family do not consist of a father and mother + child, it does not make them less of a family. 

 

The Freedom to Love, is also about the freedom to love yourself, IMHO. In a society like Singapore where there are so many closeted cases, and very often not by choice, but by society and family demands, it does take away some of the self-love. To live life unapologetically as who you are, gay, lesbian, trans etc. is something that is still a dream to many. The closet is like a prison. So, to me, the Freedom to Love, includes loving yourself. 

 

 

The is where the contention lies.  Both sides believe in different definition of marriage.  Given the situation, the incumbent usually wins.  And it does not help that in the west, after changing the definition of marriage, they start to corrupt the new definition with different forms of loves (pedo, 3some, etc) and using the same arguments for gay marriage to gain inroad to marriage.  Thus, making it even more difficult for the traditional marriage supporters to accept.  For the benefit of gay people, it would be better not to fight for the word marriage for the sake of it but to get as much protection outside that word.  I think that's best for the gay community.

 

How many closeted cases are there ?  I think we agree that there are cases but without some solid statistics, it will be different to move ahead to justify anything.  

[tomcat]

I think he is presenting a thought exercise, utilising the all famous Catch 22 logic.

 

My stand on this is that, just because you open one gate, doesn't mean that you should open all the gates at the same time.

These are not the same circumstances, and so cannot be measured and treated the same.

 

To a similar effect is the feminist (female equality) movement. Women cannot be treated the same as men, simply because

they have different needs. Essentially, they want what men want and then some more. So is that really equal?

 

What is happening here is an "eye for an eye" mentality. 

 

I say that this prof is just either being willfully daft (not that uncommon even for educated people) or just being contrary. 

 

Being contrary these days can do wonders for your academic career, because hey, people want to know what you said and who you are.

 

And if what is said is worded well enough, the support will come. Just look at scum like Trump.

 

 

[Cube3]

1) Siblings may fall in love, but they can also choose to legally form loving relationships with others to whom they are not related. That is their right. LGBTs don't get to fall in love and legally form loving relationships at all. That is unequal.

 

2) Polygamists can choose to legally form a monogamous loving relationship too. That is their right. LGBTs don't get to legally form a monogamous relationship. That is unequal.

 

Really, are the unhappy arguments of Happiness helping to clarify, or confuse?

 

[Guest Foryou]

3 hours ago, Cube3 said:

1) Siblings may fall in love, but they can also choose to legally form loving relationships with others to whom they are not related. That is their right. LGBTs don't get to fall in love and legally form loving relationships at all. That is unequal.

 

2) Polygamists can choose to legally form a monogamous loving relationship too. That is their right. LGBTs don't get to legally form a monogamous relationship. That is unequal.

 

Really, are the unhappy arguments of Happiness helping to clarify, or confuse?

 

Precisely! TS must be really blurred in his dimmed head comparing apple with orange!

Incest and polygamist: they choose to be that way.

Gays is a part of nature, they have no choice, God made them gays.

Now for TS and those who are debating about incest/polygamist, do they choose to be foolish or are they born foolish? umm...

[happiness]

53 minutes ago, Guest Foryou said:

Precisely! TS must be really blurred in his dimmed head comparing apple with orange!

Incest and polygamist: they choose to be that way.

Gays is a part of nature, they have no choice, God made them gays.

Now for TS and those who are debating about incest/polygamist, do they choose to be foolish or are they born foolish? umm...

 

This post is aimed at promoting sharing and understanding of why we support (or do not support) certain causes.

 

What I pointed out gives real insights to why some people do not support gay love/marriage. By calling these people foolish and dimmed head, you are promoting hate speech, warranting and inciting them to further call us by hateful homophobic slurs. Isn't it ironic that you purport to support love and advocate equality and inclusivity but at the same time resort to name calling and hate speech against people who may not agree with you? You want equality and inclusivity but yet you insult and exclude people who may not understand or share the same opinions as you.

Edited June 30, 2017 by happiness

[Guest GUEST]

11 hours ago, tomcat said:

My stand on this is that, just because you open one gate, doesn't mean that you should open all the gates at the same time.

These are not the same circumstances, and so cannot be measured and treated the same.

 

 

"doesn't mean that you should open all the gates at the same time." ?

 

So open later or what ?  If you claim human right to justify gay marriage, you cannot prevent the use of human right for incest and poly.  It's the premise you have used to justify gay marriage that is also blind to incest and poly -> human right.  

[Guest GUEST]

5 hours ago, happiness said:

 

This post is aimed at promoting sharing and understanding of why we support (or do not support) certain causes.

 

What I pointed out gives real insights to why some people do not support gay love/marriage. By calling these people foolish and dimmed head, you are promoting hate speech, warranting and inciting them to further call us by hateful homophobic slurs. Isn't it ironic that you purport to support love and advocate equality and inclusivity but at the same time resort to name calling and hate speech against people who may not agree with you? You want equality and inclusivity but yet you insult and exclude people who may not understand or share the same opinions as you.

 

LGBT has been calling their opponents haters.  But when I read many of the post, I actually find them committing the same.

[Guest GUEST]

10 hours ago, Cube3 said:

1) Siblings may fall in love, but they can also choose to legally form loving relationships with others to whom they are not related. That is their right. LGBTs don't get to fall in love and legally form loving relationships at all. That is unequal.

 

2) Polygamists can choose to legally form a monogamous loving relationship too. That is their right. LGBTs don't get to legally form a monogamous relationship. That is unequal.

 

Really, are the unhappy arguments of Happiness helping to clarify, or confuse?

 

 

Actually, gay people also married willingly to the opposite sex.  When I read some of the post in BW, I came across gay (not bi) man willing to married woman and start a family. They don't seem to be coerced by their family.  They just want to have a family and settle down and they make that choice.  So I don't think it's right to say gay man don't have a choice.  But may be there are some who don't. I can't look into all gay man and do a count of each.  But I don't agree that gay man have no choice.  May be some have and some don't have.  

 

When it comes to incest, well, they can claim they don't have a choice either.  If a gay man falls in love with his partner and now you tell him that he has to change his partner, would he ?   So if a person falls in love with his/her siblings, you now tell him/her to change ?   If you can claim human right ALONE, why can't they ?  It's their human right to love anyone, inc their siblings.

 

Human right is blind to who you choose.  Unless you say "Freedom to love except....."

[happiness]

5 hours ago, Guest GUEST said:

 

Actually, gay people also married willingly to the opposite sex.  When I read some of the post in BW, I came across gay (not bi) man willing to married woman and start a family. They don't seem to be coerced by their family.  They just want to have a family and settle down and they make that choice.  So I don't think it's right to say gay man don't have a choice.  But may be there are some who don't. I can't look into all gay man and do a count of each.  But I don't agree that gay man have no choice.  May be some have and some don't have.  

 

When it comes to incest, well, they can claim they don't have a choice either.  If a gay man falls in love with his partner and now you tell him that he has to change his partner, would he ?   So if a person falls in love with his/her siblings, you now tell him/her to change ?   If you can claim human right ALONE, why can't they ?  It's their human right to love anyone, inc their siblings.

 

Human right is blind to who you choose.  Unless you say "Freedom to love except....."

 

That's a good counter argument! As you argued, gays are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. So in this sense, everyone is bound by the same rule—you can only marry someone of the opposite sex; thus everyone is being treated equally.

 

So we can't just use "freedom to love" alone to justify gay marriage, because as shown earlier, that would not justify why only straight and gay marriages are allowed but not incest or polygamy. And even using "freedom to love" and equality together doesn't provide sufficient justification either, as shown by GUEST's argument.

 

Many gays at this point may feel indignant, when they lose an argument or when they can't provide a justification. Some may resort to name calling. Some may appeal to sentimentality to influence you to agree with them and to support their cause. But I believe we can do better than that, and all the more so, if we believe in justice and in fairness. We (everyone, both pro-LGBTs and anti-LGBTs) should demand ourselves to be open, to be willing to consider opinions that may be different from those of our own, and we should demand ourselves to be able to come to the right conclusion independently and objectively regardless of our initial biases or personal wishes and inclinations. If we feel indignant, we should look inwards, examine the reasons, and then explain why and what makes us feel so.

 

And when I looked inwards, I found the reason why I still support gay marriage despite GUEST's opposing argument. I'll share my reason below, but I hope, before you look at my reason, you could do this self-reflection and self-examination too, and share with everyone if you have a different reason.

 

While I agree that gays don't have fewer choices than straight people in choosing someone of the opposite sex to marry, I'd say that those choices are not meaningful to gays because gays won't be happy to marry someone of the opposite sex. Gays won't fall in love with someone of the opposite sex, and so won't have a genuinely happy marriage. And the key, I believe, is that sexual orientation (1) cannot be changed—it stays the same for your whole lifetime—and (2) cannot be consciously chosen, like the way you choose to be on time for work or choose to eat chicken rice for lunch. And these two key characteristics are what set monogamous love (both gay and straight) apart from incest and polygamy.

 

Consider this, the stipulated time to report for work is the same for everyone, but if you were late for work because you boarded a train that exploded due to a terrorist attack, then you shouldn't be penalised as though you were late by your own choosing. So after taking into consideration characteristics (1) and (2), it would be an injustice to deny gays to marry someone they love. "Marriage is at the same time a deeply personal commitment, and also a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family."—Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. And to deny gays marriage is to deny them the very thing that makes us human.

Edited June 30, 2017 by happiness

[Cube3]

26 minutes ago, happiness said:

 

That's a good counter argument! As you argued, gays are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex...So we can't just use "freedom to love" alone to justify gay marriage...

 

Um, excuse me, it is not a good argument. Is "Gays are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex" really freedom to love? Or is it freedom to marry and not-love?

 

5 hours ago, Guest GUEST said:

 

Actually, gay people also married willingly to the opposite sex...I don't agree that gay man have no choice.  May be some have and some don't have.  

 

 

Dear anonymous Guest GUEST, yes I am sure you are right. As a straight - not bisexual - person, since you believe it is possible (or beneficial) to ignore one's sexual orientation, you can also fall in love with or marry the same sex.

 

I don't agree that you have no choice. Please set a fine example and be our role model.

[happiness]

45 minutes ago, Cube3 said:

 

Um, excuse me, it is not a good argument. Is "Gays are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex" really freedom to love? Or is it freedom to marry and not-love?

 

 

Please don't take my words out of context. "So we can't just use 'freedom to love' alone to justify gay marriage ..." is unrelated to GUEST's counter argument. The full sentence is "So we can't just use 'freedom to love' alone to justify gay marriage, because as shown earlier, that would not justify why only straight and gay marriages are allowed but not incest or polygamy."

 

GUEST was countering your earlier argument on equality. He argued that everyone is bound by the same rule, thus everyone is being treated equally.

 

And your argument of "it is freedom to marry and not love" is lacking because as GUEST argued, some people fall in love with their siblings (incest) and some people fall in love with two or more people (polygamy). So why rob them of the "freedom to love"? Why give gays and straight people the "freedom to love" but give these people only the "freedom to marry"? As GUEST argued, love is blind—you can't choose who you love, how you love and how many people you love. He and, I believe, many others are not convinced by your argument, because the distinctions between incest, polygamy and gays were not made explicit or emphasised.

Edited June 30, 2017 by happiness

[happiness]

On a side note, do you think it is more difficult to legalise same-sex marriage if only straight people and bisexuals exist? No gays, no lesbians, etc.

 

Suppose only straight people and bisexuals exist, would you legalise same-sex marriage but not incest, or would you legalise both? Considering that bisexuals can fall in love with the opposite sex, just like siblings with incestuous inclinations may fall in love with people unrelated to them, what justifications do you have if you choose to legalise same-sex marriage but not incest? (apart from the oft-cited reason of inbreeding problems)

Edited June 30, 2017 by happiness

[SuperSentai]

When considering the meaning behind such slogans, it is important to think of why such slogans exist. "Support the freedom to love" was created in response to the discrimination faced by LGBT, just as "black lives matter" was created in response to the violent discrimination faced by Blacks mainly in USA. "Black lives matter", so "All other human lives don't matter"? "Malay lives don't matter"? "Hispanic lives don't matter"? No, but in the context of violent discrimination of the Blacks, "black lives matter" stand correct. In fact, in African country when Blacks are the majority, "black lives matter" don't even apply. So, it is important not to misunderstand such slogans used to push for reforms.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter#Criticism_of_.22All_Lives_Matter.22

Edited July 1, 2017 by SuperSentai

[Guest Guest]

I'm of the view that legalising gay marriage implicitly legalise all forms of marriage.  When the judge says ok, you can get marriage because of your rights as a human, there is nothing he can do to prevent a person marrying his father, brother, son or all of them - a foursome.  He cannot deny his marriage because it's his rights.  I also cannot think of a reason why a man cannot marry his dog if he truly loves his dog.  Also his car... you know, some guys really love his car more than his wife.  Well, may be that's what marriage is supposed to be.  We just have to adjust our mindset to the ultimate reality. 

[happiness]

10 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

I'm of the view that legalising gay marriage implicitly legalise all forms of marriage.  When the judge says ok, you can get marriage because of your rights as a human, there is nothing he can do to prevent a person marrying his father, brother, son or all of them - a foursome.  He cannot deny his marriage because it's his rights.  I also cannot think of a reason why a man cannot marry his dog if he truly loves his dog.  Also his car... you know, some guys really love his car more than his wife.  Well, may be that's what marriage is supposed to be.  We just have to adjust our mindset to the ultimate reality. 

 

I think this is a troll. Lolz. But I'll response to this nonetheless just in case you are genuinely a person with such thinking.

 

These arguments that you mentioned made me think of 張守一 (Andrew Chang), a Taiwanese anti-LGBT who is vehemently fighting against marriage equality. In fact, he uses these exact same arguments.

 

Firstly, marriage equality is talking about marriage between two consenting adults. So talking about getting married to dogs or cars makes no sense and has no relevance to the topic. Next, marriage equality doesn't pursue the legalisation of incest or polygamy. Nonetheless, I understand your argument about human rights. But LGBTs are not asking for more human rights than straight people. What we/they want is to be treated equally. And that's the basis on which the supreme courts all over the world legalise gay marriage. In other words, the judges and the justices, after much lengthy, intense study, fastidious examination and careful deliberation of all the principles and intricacies for the purpose of upholding justice, rule that legalising gay marriage is granting sexual-minority groups the same rights as everyone else, rights that should be recognised in every human being; this is totally different from the idea of lavishing them with more rights than everyone else.

 

In this sense, the reasons for legalising gay marriage are the same as those for granting women the right to vote and those for allowing lovers of different races, castes or status classes to marry, despite strong personal or religious beliefs some people may have during those times in the past.

 

On a personal note, I believe people who subscribe to these arguments have their minds clouded by their religious indoctrinations, and people who proliferate these arguments are motivated by irrational fears and again, by their religious indoctrinations.

Edited July 1, 2017 by happiness

[tomcat]

On 6/30/2017 at 10:24 PM, Guest GUEST said:

 

"doesn't mean that you should open all the gates at the same time." ?

 

So open later or what ?  If you claim human right to justify gay marriage, you cannot prevent the use of human right for incest and poly.  It's the premise you have used to justify gay marriage that is also blind to incest and poly -> human right.  

 

Well, gay people have been fighting for rights for years. if you count Stonewall (1969) that is almost 50 years.

 

And during that time, the issues have been analysed and debated with the final outcome that gay rights are human rights. 

 

It is also during these discussions that transgenderism and other sexualities/gender issues are uncovered and addressed. 

 

I have yet to see the same level of activism for incest and polygamy.

 

Judging from the comments in here, these two still elicit the same knee-jerk reaction, that they are automatically bad.

 

Because of these, we CANNOT lump them as the same issues. They are obviously not at the same level of mature discussion.

 

Whoever is trying to compare the two as the same, is either being purposely stupid or just contrary for the sake of it. 

[tomcat]

I think we should move this discussion to member's only. the Guests are obviously just saying nonsense and trolling senselessly.

 

If it is enough of an important issue for them, then they should create a profile like the rest of us, and join in the discussion in a responsible manner, and be subjected to the same level of accountability as actual members. 

 

Being able to just come in and shoot off their mouths on such a hotbed issue is not only not-conducive, it can be outright dangerous, as these guests might be journalists, or anti LGBT members, just fishing for a juicy headline.

 

It has happened before in other forums. 

Edited July 3, 2017 by tomcat