So in nature animals abandon their young or kill off their young if they are sick. Is this a behavior that humanity should embrace because it happens in nature? Lions who take over a pride will kill the cubs so that their own babies can be born. Should people do this as well?Now you're being inconsistent. You're the one arguing that people should only do what nature impels them to. Nature does indeed favor the actions you suggest, and so by your argument people should indeed engage in that behavior...which is a very good reason to ignore natural law entirely as applied to the behavior of human beings.
Or to put it another way: If we're going to behave unnaturally by withstanding the temptations of infanticide, why should we care about 'natural law' at all?
I was retorting IceniQueen's argument and playing to her conclusions. Never once did I advocate that it was a human course of action.
|
What exactly are the legal theories that are being used to justify gay marriage?
Well, if you're going to use the Declaration...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Liberty and the pursuit of happiness both tend to require marrying who you actually want to. Probably even calling it marriage, based on how many people seem to care about that.
|
So in nature animals abandon their young or kill off their young if they are sick. Is this a behavior that humanity should embrace because it happens in nature? Lions who take over a pride will kill the cubs so that their own babies can be born. Should people do this as well?Once again HUMAN BEINGS HOMOSAPIANS are NOT the only species to have sex with the same gender. Thus you cannot say it is NATURAL Law. NATURAL LAW is what MOTHER NATURE dictates not what Mankind dictates
Humans HAVE Done this!!! Maybe not in what we call modern times, and in some places on Terra/Earth it MAY still happen. Actually I can say it does happen in Modern Times
late 1600's - early 1900's USA Killing and removal of Native populations
1939 - 1945 - Nazi Germany
1990's with Boznia
1990 - 2010 - Iran
What exactly are the legal theories that are being used to justify gay marriage?...and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Preamble to the Declaration of Independance
The Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document per se. Certainly not one defining the basis for the new nation, concerned as it was with the basis for defecting from the old.
And perhaps more importantly, they were referring to a very different definition of 'natural law' from the one you put forward.
British Whighist theory which Jefferson was heavily influenced from (developed by Locke and even underpinning by Hobbes) is part of the core understandings of the legal system in the country.This is true. So? What you're advocating has nothing to do with any of the legal theories espoused by the people in question.
It has to do with Full Faith and Credit and Equal Protection; If I can turn the question around, what are the legal standards being used to bar it?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shalafi,
No one's denying you have the right to disagree. However, you are claiming that your disagreement should mean other people are denied equal treatmetns under the law. As that's guaranteed under your Constitution, we need something a little more substantive than your disagreement to accept you're right.
|
|
I was retorting IceniQueen's argument and playing to her conclusions. Never once did I advocate that it was a human course of action.
I didn't say you did. But if behaving in a natural way (sex for procreation only, for example) is so important to you, why wouldn't you be inclined to infanticide?
I realize you object to it, I'm asking you to define why.
As much as I have enjoyed this conversation and the divergent points that been made, I have to get to work. Maybe we can continue this latter?
What exactly are the legal theories that are being used to justify gay marriage?Well, if you're going to use the Declaration...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Liberty and the pursuit of happiness both tend to require marrying who you actually want to. Probably even calling it marriage, based on how many people seem to care about that.
Actually persuit of happiness was meant to imply land ownership.
So in nature animals abandon their young or kill off their young if they are sick. Is this a behavior that humanity should embrace because it happens in nature? Lions who take over a pride will kill the cubs so that their own babies can be born. Should people do this as well?Once again HUMAN BEINGS HOMOSAPIANS are NOT the only species to have sex with the same gender. Thus you cannot say it is NATURAL Law. NATURAL LAW is what MOTHER NATURE dictates not what Mankind dictates
Humans HAVE Done this!!! Maybe not in what we call modern times, and in some places on Terra/Earth it MAY still happen. Actually I can say it does happen in Modern Times
late 1600's - early 1900's USA Killing and removal of Native populations
1939 - 1945 - Nazi Germany
1990's with Boznia
1990 - 2010 - Iran
And were those actions moral?
I was retorting IceniQueen's argument and playing to her conclusions. Never once did I advocate that it was a human course of action.I didn't say you did. But if behaving in a natural way (sex for procreation only, for example) is so important to you, why wouldn't you be inclined to infanticide?
I realize you object to it, I'm asking you to define why.
The natural law then informs morality.
Because it would be a radical redefinition of the term.Why not? What does it matter if it's called marriage or not? Religions don't own the word.If they want a civil union that is fine by me. Just do not call it marriage.If that's not your call, why is whether two men can get married?Should they be banned? That is not my call. However, would I use them? No.Shalafi,
So, are you saying condoms should be banned? Or is your desire to enforce natural law selective?
It's already been radically redefined at least a dozen times in the past 3000 years. Hundreds of times if you take into account every civilization on earth in all parts of the globe. Marriage today does not mean what marriage meant 300 years ago.
In fact, marriage was very much altered about 150 years ago, after the civil war. Widows were coming to government offices seeking pension checks for the dead soldier husbands, which they were entitled too. A problem was discovered that women were getting multiple checks, or multiple women claiming the same man, etc, corruption, graft and fraud. So the government figured out a way to solve this problem for the future, they issued marriage certificates.
Marriage is a word. Like all words, it's meaning and use can change with time.
All right, Team Pro-Gay, some things: (and I apologize if someone's mentioned them and I missed it, I kind of skimmed over the debate with Shalafi)
--I think we need to more forcibly demolish head-on the idea that sex is for having children.
--Obama saying he's for gay marriage is to stop all of you homosexuals out there who've been talking to the Occupy kids and thinking that maybe the Democrats are part of the problem, too.
--We need more Gay Musical Interludes
All right, Team Pro-Gay, some things: (and I apologize if someone's mentioned them and I missed it, I kind of skimmed over the debate with Shalafi)
--I think we need to more forcibly demolish head-on the idea that sex is for having children.
--Obama saying he's for gay marriage is to stop all of you homosexuals out there who've been talking to the Occupy kids and thinking that maybe the Democrats are part of the problem, too.
--We need more Gay Musical Interludes
I'm not saying you're wrong Doodle, but what can I say, in primaries I vote for my ideals, in generals I pick the lesser of two weevils.
Do as thou wilt.
(Nudge, nudge, little Alan Moore for you there--didn't get a chance to bring him up re: polygamy up above)
Also, just general punning or Master and Commander referncing?
Also also, where's your Gay Musical Interlude?
|
|
I have no problem with North Carolina admitting that they are a bunch of bigots. Its their right to be wrong. Just like it's my right to boycott businesses located in North Carolina, while letting them know why I'm boycotting them until the law is overturned or they leave North Carolina.
So are you boycotting businesses in the other 30 states that have done the same thing?
You're starting with the completely incorrect assumption that all plural relationships are that way. They are not. What you are presenting is a good reason why there should be oversight for the marrying of otherwise minors, and why religious cults are bad. You're not presenting evidence as to why or how ALL plural relationships are abusive, or why ALL polygamous marriages should be banned. Only some. Do better.If it's exploitative it's by definition not consensual. And observation of actual polygamous groups bear this out. You think teenage girls are just lining up on their own to marry nonagenarian prophets?
As often as not, yeah. Which brings me back to: if gay marriage is okay because it's the will of two consenting adults, why isn't polygamy okay because it's the will of 3 or more consenting adults?
Hypothetically, there may be some adult and twelve year old sexual relationships that aren't abusive either. Say the kid's really, really, really mature and the adult's extremely careful not to abuse authority or coerce. Yeah, we've got a pair of horny saints. This might seem like a pretty damned remote a possibility, only because it is, but it's not impossible. Why should their relationship be illegal just because the vast majority of such relationships both that we observe now and that we have observed in the past actually are abusive?
I see no need to "improve" on the vast preponderance of the evidence.
Do as thou wilt.
(Nudge, nudge, little Alan Moore for you there--didn't get a chance to bring him up re: polygamy up above)
Also, just general punning or Master and Commander referncing?
Also also, where's your Gay Musical Interlude?
Those two women went off together to indulge in Sapphic pleasures and just left poor Alan Moore all alone--that should be illegal! Seriously though, if there's a huge groundswell of people seeking legal recognition of polygamy, we should consider it (al a Trouble on Triton, thank you Comrade Delany) but at present the only organized example appears to be full on, old school, women-as-chattel misogyny.
Also, I'd heard the joke before, but yeah M&C was on yesterday.
Also also, until I can find an internet link to Desert Peach: The Musical, I respectfully decline to answer. (It was a real thing.)
Oh, come now. I brought up "pandering" which you'd think a whole bunch of D&D dorks could've taken in a million directions. Shakespeare, Chaucer, that Age of Bronze comic.As far as Samnell's anti-polygamy argument, Samnell, quit beating around the bush: MARRIAGE, historically speaking, is an institution for the oppression of women. (Mentioned in passing by Irontruth.)
I'm well aware. I am agnostic on the question of whether marriage can successfully transition from being about buying a sex slave from her previous owner into a union of two consenting equals, but see no reason to deny it to those couples who want it.
By contrast, as someone pointed out the only group pressing for polygyny in the US at present has demonstrated many times over that they want it chiefly to get more legal cover for the abuse they're already doing.
Was that the Rommel's gay brother comic?
Also also, until I can find an internet link to Desert Peach: The Musical, I respectfully decline to answer. (It was a real thing.OK, I have to hunt this down.
Desert Peach was great.
I've never seen any kind of recording, but one of the issues in the teens (18 I wanna say but don't quote me) was the program. There might be a CD out there, but I haven't found it.
Yeah Kryz, that's the one.
Tell you what, I'm straight but I'll gay marry both you guys just for recognizing the title. :)
Look, Samnell, look!
Non-oppressive polygamy in action.
Feel it. Live it. Be it.
Goblins do it in the street!
I have no idea what DP means...in this context!
I can't play it here, but it looks like the audio is here
You're right, Lord Dice. I never listen to you.
LOLOL nice!
A friend of mine had a copy of that YEARS ago. I read it on account of Zorro: The gay blade.
Those two women went off together to indulge in Sapphic pleasures and just left poor Alan Moore all alone--that should be illegal!
Is this true or are you just funnin'?
'Cuz, I think, every relationship I've ever known with a guy and a girl that involved bringing other women into the bedroom ended up with the women taking off together. It's sad, but it's true. Even sadder, I've never been in one of those relationships. :(
Known fact: Communists get laid less.
Vive Le (John) Galt!
:P
Those two women went off together to indulge in Sapphic pleasures and just left poor Alan Moore all alone--that should be illegal!Is this true or are you just funnin'?
'Cuz, I think, every relationship I've ever known with a guy and a girl that involved bringing other women into the bedroom ended up with the women taking off together. It's sad, but it's true. Even sadder, I've never been in one of those relationships. :(
I believe so, but now that you ask, it's just something I heard; even all the Alan Moore's 50th Birthday books didn't get into how the relationship ended.
Regarding this "natural" law nonsense: that gravity exists has never struck me as a reason to abolish standing. Just because some state is supposedly natural is no reason to force people to live in it, in the face of reasons to do otherwise.
Well, not until it can be proven in a Natural Court, right? :P
Known fact: Communists get laid less.
Vive Le (John) Galt!
:P
Dear Paizo,
Can we have a "I hate this post, the poster is a real jerkface" button? Please?
Thank you in advance for your kind consideration in this matter, I'm real sorry I made fun of a staff member a couple of weeks ago,
Doodlebug Anklebiter
:P
Do as thou wilt.
(Nudge, nudge, little Alan Moore for you there--didn't get a chance to bring him up re: polygamy up above)
That's not Alan Moore, that's Aleister Crowley.
Hypothetically, there may be some adult and twelve year old sexual relationships that aren't abusive either. Say the kid's really, really, really mature and the adult's extremely careful not to abuse authority or coerce. Yeah, we've got a pair of horny saints. This might seem like a pretty damned remote a possibility, only because it is, but it's not impossible. Why should their relationship be illegal just because the vast majority of such relationships both that we observe now and that we have observed in the past actually are abusive?I see no need to "improve" on the vast preponderance of the evidence.
Well, apart from the fact that WE DO ALLOW 13 year olds to marry, given parental consent, in many states... And the age of consent is not much older in some states as well. However, what you're talking about is blurring legal distinctions. Clearly 12 year olds are not able to consent. CLEARLY 18+ YEAR OLDS ARE. You're equating a consensual relationship to a nonconsensual one and expose both your ignorance and prejudice.
What is this vast preponderance of evidence? Seriously! There are millions of people the world over living in polygamous marriages. You'll have to show me some study proving that they are inherently abusive. Until then you're just talking out of your ass.
Oh yeah? Well, I've got another Gay Musical Interlude right here for you, buddy.
I"ve already linked Warren Jeffs; if you're asking for further examples of a vast preponderance of american legal evidence, I don't know what to tell you.
Look, if you're in a plural marriage that bucks the stereotypes, good for you; the next time someone infringes on your rights, take them to court. That's what the gay marriage crowd did; that's what the courts are there for.
However, I must point out that the only examples we have at present are The Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints, and in terms of women's rights they have more in common with the Taliban than me.
If you want to federally mandate 18 as the age of consent, I'd be fine with that, too.
Well, apart from the fact that WE DO ALLOW 13 year olds to marry, given parental consent, in many states.
Yes, and I think that's a horrible idea. But you're just plain missing the point that we make judgments every day based on the preponderance of the evidence instead of every last conceivable possible situation.
You know people in a polyamorous relationship. Good for them. I don't care. In fact I'm all in favor of free love, open marriages, whatever. I don't have any problem with polyamory at all. It's strictly polygamy I've got an issue with. Even if we left aside what I consider the much more pressing issues of abuse and exploitation, the legal issues would still be immense and possibly insuperable. Others have pointed out several to you, which I shall not repeat.
And the age of consent is not much older in some states as well.
I think a single, national age of consent would be a great idea. Doing it state-by-state just sets up all kinds of strange issues.
What is this vast preponderance of evidence? Seriously! There are millions of people the world over living in polygamous marriages. You'll have to show me some study proving that they are inherently abusive. Until then you're just talking out of your ass.
Can you show me that there are an equal number of polygynous marriages and polyandrous marriages? If you can I'll at least look at the rest. Until you can I see something that disproportionately effects women and take it as a given that such things are generally not going to be positive for them. Misogyny is ubiquitous.
I"ve already linked Warren Jeffs; if you're asking for further examples of a vast preponderance of american legal evidence, I don't know what to tell you.
Okay, again, you're pointing out instances of institutional child abuse. Which is already illegal. So there's already an actionable mechanism to prevent that. And there are millions of people the world around living in polygamy. There are also a whole lot of people in abusive marriages, but that's no reason to legally prevent them from being in those relationships, or recognizing them.
This argument for keeping it illegal is akin to arguing that drugs should be illegal because of all the gang violence and overdoses. Or saying communal living should be illegal because of Waco. It's philosophically dishonest. I just think it's very odd that a group of people so vehemently espousing equality in marriage laws don't see the hypocrisy in then having institutional prejudice against other types of non-traditional marriages.
To me, the judgment of whether those relationships should be recognized by the state has to do with the quality of the relationship and the consent of those involved. You can't make the argument "gay marriage should be legal because gay marriage isn't abusive" because, until it's legal, there's no data. You can, however, say gay marriage should be legal because they are consenting adults that want the state to recognize their loving, healthy, domestic union. The same can be said about all forms of polygamy.
You know people in a polyamorous relationship. Good for them. I don't care. In fact I'm all in favor of free love, open marriages, whatever. I don't have any problem with polyamory at all. It's strictly polygamy I've got an issue with. Even if we left aside what I consider the much more pressing issues of abuse and exploitation, the legal issues would still be immense and possibly insuperable.
Okay, so you're fine with two men living with one woman in a loving relationship. They can have children and raise them communally. In fact you can't stop that. These three people are committed to living in a union for the rest of their life. But WHOA NO, let's not let the state recognize that union through marriage?
Please explain this stance. How, exactly, does legally legitimizing their relationship AUTOMATICALLY make it an abusive one?! There is this enormous logical disconnect.
You say there are legal issues, there are obvious legal issues with gay marriage as well that I'll be happy to enumerate if you're unable to imagine them.
My point was that, legally speaking there's no "argument for keeping it illegal." If you can get it judged as legal, go for it.
Speaking personally, I have seen no plural marriages that deserve legal protection; YMMV.
Can you show me that there are an equal number of polygynous marriages and polyandrous marriages? If you can I'll at least look at the rest. Until you can I see something that disproportionately effects women and take it as a given that such things are generally not going to be positive for them. Misogyny is ubiquitous.
Again, you seem to be fine with 3 people of any gender living together in a healthy relationship. If you can admit that actually exists, then why not allow them to legalize their union? The only arguments you have are pretty much the EXACT arguments that the (we can all agree, I'm sure) blatantly bigoted anti gay marriage activists use.
Explain to me the process by which 3 people in a healthy relationship MAGICALLY BECOMES a misogynistic and abusive one by virtue of a legal document. That is exactly what you are telling me.
My point was that, legally speaking there's no "argument for keeping it illegal." If you can get it judged as legal, go for it.
Speaking personally, I have seen no plural marriages that deserve legal protection; YMMV.
My friend Zee has been in a committed relationship with her girlfriend for at least 7-8 years now. I'm sure they'd like to get married. I mean they live together and all. However, her gf has also been in a relationship with another man for that same time. And Zee was married to someone else as well. It's a clusterf*&~, to be sure, but I've never seen or heard of any abuse whatsoever.
As to, I BELIEVE it was your comment earlier regarding my SO and common law marriage. That only exists in 10 states at the moment, mine is not one of them. Luckily my state recognizes domestic partnerships, which Jen and I have just recently entered into, which is really just a way for me to scam free healthcare from her job hehe.
Y'know Meat, I'm not saying your reasoning is bad. If NAMBLA was the only organization lobbying for gay marriage, I'd have some problems with that, y'know?
Yes, that was me talking about Common Law Marriage. I guess all I have to say is congratulations. :)
Speaking of civil unions/domestic partnerships, what will happen to the legal right of you and your SO should you move to NC? I mean, not to put you on the spot, this a internet message board so I doubt any of us are experts, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, you seem to be fine with 3 people of any gender living together in a healthy relationship. If you can admit that actually exists, then why not allow them to legalize their union? The only arguments you have are pretty much the EXACT arguments that the (we can all agree, I'm sure) blatantly bigoted anti gay marriage activists use.
I'm afraid I don't see any commonality between them at all, save for basic subject matter (both are about marriage) and that you disagree with them. Sorry.
As a matter of fact, I don't think I recall ever hearing a homophobe claim that gay marriages would be inherently exploitative.
Explain to me the process by which 3 people in a healthy relationship MAGICALLY BECOMES a misogynistic and abusive one by virtue of a legal document. That is exactly what you are telling me.
No, but I'm sure you think so. I am suspicious because the format is so consistently one guy and multiple women. If the relationship were inherently equitable, I would expect to see a rough parity in the gender balance. Why wouldn't multiple guys want to be married to a single woman in about equal numbers to the multiple women who want to be married to a single guy? Why don't we see more multiple men and women engaging in such relationships? If this is really a perfectly normal, non-exploitative situation we would expect no substantial differences.
I know one real world situation where this occurs (Tibetan fraternal polyandry) but it has to do entirely with property issues and an extreme shortage of arable land. I suspect it's probably still exploitative, but it's impelled strictly by economic imperatives.
If people want to do this on the side, have some kind of open marriage, or whatever, I don't care. If they want to establish it with all the legal entanglements of marriage, I am far more suspicious given the incredible preponderance of actually abusive polygynous situations in the real world and the difficulty of dissolving a marriage vs. the difficulty entailed in a simple "I'm not going to have sex with you anymore" declaration.
Would you be equally suspicious of polyandry?
Also, I'd like to point out that NO marriage or romantic relationship is truly equal. People come from different racial and socio-political backgrounds. Two members of a hetero union do not have equal say in whether they will have a child. The solution is not to disallow marriage or other relationships but to make sure there is adequate legal recourse for an aggrieved member.
You've reiterated again that somehow legalizing this union is different than allowing a relationship to flourish.
I dunno, maybe you'll change your mind once you meet a nice poly couple. Like I imagine is what changed peoples minds about gay marriage: actually meeting gay couples and seeing it's not the end of the world.
But clearly there's no convincing you so I'm done with the threadjack. Good day, sirs.
Speaking of civil unions/domestic partnerships, what will happen to the legal right of you and your SO should you move to NC? I mean, not to put you on the spot, this a internet message board so I doubt any of us are experts, right?
I have no idea. I don't know if NC recognizes those institutions. It's a shame because NC is a nice state, as far as the south goes.
Wisconsin has domestic partnership, civil union, and marriage. The domestic partnership doesn't require even being in a romantic relationship. I could do it with a hetero roommate if we were both committed to being equals in domestic life for a long time. I used to joke about my (completely hetero) friends Jeff and Justin being "hetero life mates" because they were roommates for about 10 years out of high school (barring the 18 months Jeff was in jail) and neither had a girlfriend in living memory.
Oh, so I wanted to bring it up, and I'm sorry if it's just a FURTHER 'threadjack' but, what about other non-traditional marriages?
Do you think marriage should require living with one another and communal property? What about long-distance relationships? What about marriage where the people have never met in person? Mind you I'm NOT talking about arranged marriage, but assume for all examples they are two consenting adults of sound mind.