02 August 2007

Where to draw the line on marriage?

William B Kelley critiques the article by Tan Seow Hon in the Straits Times (30 July 2007). If the State permitted same-sex marriage, would it be imposing a certain morality on its citizens, or just being morally neutral? Guest essay.


Anonymous said...

heterosexual marriages exist as a tradition; it does not require a new legal endorsement; homosexual marriages not having such a status, requires this; this is what traditionalists meant

obviously, current laws do not treat heterosex and homosex equally; however, if officially homosexuality is still a crime, though usually unprosecuted, it is hard to see how homosexual marriages can be legally endorsed; you guys are fighting the wrong battle


Anonymous said...

Perhaps the bigots out there are realising that their arguments against decrimilisation are flimsy, so they are changing to a scare-mongering tactic by subtly shifting the debate to gay marriage, the prohibition of which enjoys more support. By the way, has he submitted his rebuttal to the assistant professor's comments to the Straits Times? Was it rejected for publication?

Anonymous said...

Lets say today we legalise homosexual marriage, tomorrow you will find triple saying they love each other, and we should legalise marriage to 3 persons. So where do we stop?

tabula rasa said...

Erm, polygamy is already legal in many states.

Enough with the slippery slope argument already. I take it you were against inter-racial/inter-social caste marriages back when it was considered taboo?