Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Obama on same-sex marriage


Off-Topic Discussions

301 to 350 of 525 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

I only raised the issue because NC just illegalized civil unions, regardless of the sex/gender of the people involved. Civil union, domestic partnership, whatever you call the alternatives, they're all constitutionally invalid in North Carolina now.

I think marriage should require wanting to get married, but I am not a civil lawyer...


Ninja'd by thejeff.

Again.

Andoran

Samnell wrote:
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.

What preponderance?

We have basically no evidence or hard data of any sort on what plural marriages are like outside of isolated cult-like environments that are so abusive they get people arrested, or otherwise wind up in the news. We don't even really know what they're like in the cults that don't get in the news (or have lots of people leave and then talk), never mind what such things are like in normal society.

That's the definition of sampling bias. It's like basing all your opinions on gay people (or black people, or whatever) on those who are convicted felons.
.
.
.
Also, there's a polygamy thread that this discussion should probably move to to stop cluttering up this one. :)


Deadmanwalking wrote:
We have basically no evidence or hard data of any sort on what plural marriages are like outside of isolated cult-like environments that are so abusive they get people arrested, or otherwise wind up in the news. We don't even really know what they're like in the cults that don't get in the news (or have lots of people leave and then talk), never mind what such things are like in normal society.

So the only hard evidence we have defines plural marriage as such? Thank you.

I don't think was a need to start another thread, I can have two conversations at once.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
Would you be equally suspicious of polyandry?

It's the difference in the prevalence of polyandry and polygyny that's raising all my red flags. So yes. Men and women are equally capable of love, jealousy, etc. Likewise the proportion of bisexuals in either sex is probably about the same. So we should expect about zero difference in their inclinations to enter polygamous unions.

That's not what we observe. Rather in the wild we see an extreme tilt towards polygyny. An equally extreme tilt towards polyandry would be equally concerning.

Andoran

Hitdice wrote:
So the only hard evidence we have defines plural marriage as such? Thank you.

Fine, polygamy. Or whatever you want to call it.

And yes, because in today's society, people who want to love each other in a group situation don't tend to try and claim they're married (since, legally they aren't)...unless they happen to be religious nutjobs.

It's the same problem as looking at a society that bans firearm ownership and seeing that most of the notable gun-owners are criminals of other sorts as well. Of course they are, they're the kind of people who think little of breaking the law.

Doesn't mean most of the people who own guns in Montana are criminals.

Hitdice wrote:
I don't think was a need to start another thread, I can have two conversations at once.

Well, it's already been started...

Samnell wrote:

It's the difference in the prevalence of polyandry and polygyny that's raising all my red flags. So yes. Men and women are equally capable of love, jealousy, etc. Likewise the proportion of bisexuals in either sex is probably about the same. So we should expect about zero difference in their inclinations to enter polygamous unions.

That's not what we observe. Rather in the wild we see an extreme tilt towards polygyny. An equally extreme tilt towards polyandry would be equally concerning.

Well, our society has been relatively misogynistic for a long time. And multiple spouses are historically a sign of authority...so yeah, more common among men.

Doesn't mean the whole idea is bad any more than monogamous 50 year olds marrying 13 year olds means monogamy is bad. It just means we've still got some serious cultural baggage regarding the treatment of women to ditch.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:


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'd say the same thing as if you are a same sex couple living in NY that got legally married and then moved to NC or any other state that does not recognize same sex marriages. In other words, you just in a relationship, living in sin because your not married or if your the same gender you living in sin because GA-AWD Says that your are and that you will burn in the Fi-i-re pits of Hh-e-ll! Re-E-pent and cu-ume on into the Ho-ouse of Thy Lo-ord! (Sorry my poor southern baptist preacher accent took over there)

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Bringing up polygamy is a common distraction tactic in discussion of gay marriage. Perhaps some arguments against banning gay marriage also work as arguments against banning polygamy. So what? If banning polygamy is an injustice, then address it but don't stymie efforts to allow gay marriage until it is addressed.

It's usually being raised as a distraction, though, and can be safely ignored as an attempt to derail.


Whats the difference between a guy having multiple wives and children, and a guy who is a player who has multiple girls that he's knocked up, but they happen to all get along with each other? Why does the marriage certificate suddenly make it icky?

Andoran

A Man In Black wrote:

Bringing up polygamy is a common distraction tactic in discussion of gay marriage. Perhaps some arguments against banning gay marriage also work as arguments against banning polygamy. So what? If banning polygamy is an injustice, then address it but don't stymie efforts to allow gay marriage until it is addressed.

It's usually being raised as a distraction, though, and can be safely ignored as an attempt to derail.

I don't know about 'ignored'. The two really are unrelated injustices, though. And polygamy isn't gonna be legal any time soon, while gay marriage may.

So go marriage equality of whaever sort we can get. *fist pump*


Shalafi2412 wrote:
Homosexuality, according to the natural law, goes against the purpose of the sexual act, from the very notion that a man and a man and a woman and a woman cannot naturally bring forth a child.

Are you trolling? I can't tell.

What you just posted (that I quoted) makes so little sense that when you add that its inflammatory I think you're trolling. For example, no one really believes that sex is only for impregnating women. Almost all sex is for either for recreation (including stress relief) or developing strong social bonds (which leads to developing the stable family unit needed for the years and years of raising children from newborn to adult).


Deadmanwalking wrote:


We have basically no evidence or hard data of any sort on what plural marriages are like outside of isolated cult-like environments

That's actually not true. There are a lot of examples of polygamy that anthropology can point to.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
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.

Except there IS lots of data, seeing how same-sex marriage (and registered partnerships/civil unions) has been legal in many countries for quite a while now (since 1989 here in Denmark, the first country to make it legal - same-sex registered partnerships that is).


GentleGiant wrote:
meatrace wrote:
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.
Except there IS lots of data, seeing how same-sex marriage (and registered partnerships/civil unions) has been legal in many countries for quite a while now (since 1989 here in Denmark, the first country to make it legal - same-sex registered partnerships that is).

Its also been legal in Massachusetts since 2004. Again, as in Denmark, no evidence of it being harmful has been found.

Andoran

Darkwing Duck wrote:
That's actually not true. There are a lot of examples of polygamy that anthropology can point to.

Technically true perhaps, but they don't have data on things like comparative rates of spousal abuse in a modern first-world nation, I don't believe. Which is the relevant kind of data to this discussion, and the sort I was referring to (perhaps less than perfectly clearly).


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
That's actually not true. There are a lot of examples of polygamy that anthropology can point to.
Technically true perhaps, but they don't have data on things like comparative rates of spousal abuse in a modern first-world nation, I don't believe. Which is the relevant kind of data to this discussion, and the sort I was referring to (perhaps less than perfectly clearly).

What's your definition of a 'first world nation'? Which countries in the Middle East count? Which countries in Africa count?


Don't chase down this path. It isn't useful.

Besides there's another thread started for the polygamy argument.

Andoran

Darkwing Duck wrote:


What's your definition of a 'first world nation'? Which countries in the Middle East count? Which countries in Africa count?

The usual definition is North America and Western Europe, plus Japan and a few others.

But really, I was using it for shorthand for 'A country that looks something like the U.S., culturally speaking, and has a similar standard of living.' Canada or most of Western Europe would be close enough, but even Japan would probably be stretching things too far, culturally.

Polygamy as practiced in the Arab world isn't something I've done a lot of research on, but the culture there is different enough from the U.S. that any comparisons should be made to monogamous relationships within the same cultural milieu. Those, being comparisons between monogamy and polygamy in a consistent cultural framework, might be really useful, actually.

Know of any?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:


What's your definition of a 'first world nation'? Which countries in the Middle East count? Which countries in Africa count?

The usual definition is North America and Western Europe, plus Japan and a few others.

But really, I was using it for shorthand for 'A country that looks something like the U.S., culturally speaking, and has a similar standard of living.' Canada or most of Western Europe would be close enough, but even Japan would probably be stretching things too far, culturally.

Polygamy as practiced in the Arab world isn't something I've done a lot of research on, but the culture there is different enough from the U.S. that any comparisons should be made to monogamous relationships within the same cultural milieu. Those, being comparisons between monogamy and polygamy in a consistent cultural framework, might be really useful, actually.

Know of any?

Your argument seems to be that we have no evidence of what the effects of polygamy may be, so we shouldn't do it, and we have no idea of what the effects of polygamy are because we haven't done it.

Its circular.

Paizo Employee Webstore Gninja Minion

Removed some posts. Please keep this topic civil, or it will be locked.

Cheliax

I think this is the product of the President's advisers from Hollywood.

May Tank or Not on Election Day.


IceniQueen wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


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'd say the same thing as if you are a same sex couple living in NY that got legally married and then moved to NC or any other state that does not recognize same sex marriages. In other words, you just in a relationship, living in sin because your not married or if your the same gender you living in sin because GA-AWD Says that your are and that you will burn in the Fi-i-re pits of Hh-e-ll! Re-E-pent and cu-ume on into the Ho-ouse of Thy Lo-ord! (Sorry my poor southern baptist preacher accent took over there)

This is why I raised the Full Faith and Credit issue; Suppose you are full on gay married in Massachusetts; y'know, to anther dude. And then you move to North Carolina. NC has outlawed civil unions, but marriage between persons of whichever gender still counts, right?

Taldor

Hitdice wrote:
IceniQueen wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


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'd say the same thing as if you are a same sex couple living in NY that got legally married and then moved to NC or any other state that does not recognize same sex marriages. In other words, you just in a relationship, living in sin because your not married or if your the same gender you living in sin because GA-AWD Says that your are and that you will burn in the Fi-i-re pits of Hh-e-ll! Re-E-pent and cu-ume on into the Ho-ouse of Thy Lo-ord! (Sorry my poor southern baptist preacher accent took over there)
This is why I raised the Full Faith and Credit issue; Suppose you are full on gay married in Massachusetts; y'know, to anther dude. And then you move to North Carolina. NC has outlawed civil unions, but marriage between persons of whichever gender still counts, right?

NO, Only in the states that recognize it. Lets say I am Gay, I go to Iowa and get married to my gay partner. We then go back to Nebraska, that marriage is null in the state of Nebraska. If you live in Iowa and get married and then move to Nebraska, it is still null and void as they do not recognize same sex marriage. Screwed, So if you get married in Iowa, only move to a state that has same sex marriage like Washington or NJ or where ever


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shalafi2412 wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
Shalafi2412 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Shalafi2412 wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:

Shalafi,

So, are you saying condoms should be banned? Or is your desire to enforce natural law selective?
Should they be banned? That is not my call. However, would I use them? No.
If that's not your call, why is whether two men can get married?
If they want a civil union that is fine by me. Just do not call it marriage.
Why not? What does it matter if it's called marriage or not? Religions don't own the word.
Because it would be a radical redefinition of the term.

Language evolves. Deal with it. We're changing it because the current definition is inadequate for the needs of some, and because changing that definition to incorporate their desires does not harm you or anyone else in any way whatsoever.

Again, the time for debate on this is over. History has made up its mind and the wheels are rolling. You have two choices remaining: support the cause of equality, or be quiet and stay out of the way. There is no other option that allows you to keep your humanity intact.

In fact, I'm inclined to say that anything less than full-throated support for same-sex marriage rights makes you something less than human. Twenty years from now, we will look back on those who stood on the sidelines, and we will shame them for their cowardice.


IceniQueen wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
IceniQueen wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


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'd say the same thing as if you are a same sex couple living in NY that got legally married and then moved to NC or any other state that does not recognize same sex marriages. In other words, you just in a relationship, living in sin because your not married or if your the same gender you living in sin because GA-AWD Says that your are and that you will burn in the Fi-i-re pits of Hh-e-ll! Re-E-pent and cu-ume on into the Ho-ouse of Thy Lo-ord! (Sorry my poor southern baptist preacher accent took over there)
This is why I raised the Full Faith and Credit issue; Suppose you are full on gay married in Massachusetts; y'know, to anther dude. And then you move to North Carolina. NC has outlawed civil unions, but marriage between persons of whichever gender still counts, right?
NO, Only in the states that recognize it. Lets say I am Gay, I go to Iowa and get married to my gay partner. We then go back to Nebraska, that marriage is null in the state of Nebraska. If you live in Iowa and get married and then move to Nebraska, it is still null and void as they do not recognize same sex marriage. Screwed, So if you get married in Iowa, only move to a state that has same sex marriage like Washington or NJ or where ever

I'm not saying you're wrong Iceni (love the name), but what about the Full Faith and Credit Clause? If you're married in any one state, all other states are required to recognize that legal relationship, right?

(Look, whatever, I used to live in San Francisco and I preferred it there.)

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Scott Betts wrote:
In fact, I'm inclined to say that anything less than full-throated support for same-sex marriage rights makes you something less than human. Twenty years from now, we will look back on those who stood on the sidelines, and we will shame them for their cowardice.

Does anyone have an argument against gay marriage that wasn't also used against interracial marriage/miscegenation laws? Because we all know how that turned out.

Andoran

Darkwing Duck wrote:

Your argument seems to be that we have no evidence of what the effects of polygamy may be, so we shouldn't do it, and we have no idea of what the effects of polygamy are because we haven't done it.

Its circular.

No, my argumenet is that we should do it (or, more accurately, alow it). Because it's the fair thing to do, and we have no evidence it's abusive in normal practice (since, as mentioned, we lack real evidence of what it's like at all).


A Man In Black wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
In fact, I'm inclined to say that anything less than full-throated support for same-sex marriage rights makes you something less than human. Twenty years from now, we will look back on those who stood on the sidelines, and we will shame them for their cowardice.
Does anyone have an argument against gay marriage that wasn't also used against interracial marriage/miscegenation laws? Because we all know how that turned out.

Sure. Marriage has traditionally been defined as between a man and a woman.

FWIW I don't think that's good enough to disallow gay marriage, but it was not used as an argument against interracial marriage that I know of, which is all you asked.


Hitdice wrote:
IceniQueen wrote:


NO, Only in the states that recognize it. Lets say I am Gay, I go to Iowa and get married to my gay partner. We then go back to Nebraska, that marriage is null in the state of Nebraska. If you live in Iowa and get married and then move to Nebraska, it is still null and void as they do not recognize same sex marriage. Screwed, So if you get married in Iowa, only move to a state that has same sex marriage like Washington or NJ or where ever

I'm not saying you're wrong Iceni (love the name), but what about the Full Faith and Credit Clause? If you're married in any one state, all other states are required to recognize that legal relationship, right?

(Look, whatever, I used to live in San Francisco and I preferred it there.)

Currently, the Defense of Marriage Act says that states do not have to recognize same sex marriages from other states. This is blatantly unconstitutional under the FF&C clause, but until that gets challenged and makes its way through the system and is actually struck down you'd be out of luck.

And remember that not everything that's blatantly unconstitutional gets struck down by the Court.


"I think gay marriage is an incredibly boring subject, though I do like to hear right-wingers say that it will bring the whole edifice of western civilization crashing down. It’s hard these days to find such messages of good cheer. I don’t yearn for such a union, so have no personal stake in the issue. Occasionally my gay friends tell me they’d got married, perhaps remembering my denunciations some years ago of the whole campaign for being essentially conservative.

"So the liberal progressives glory in Obama’s “courage” and many a doubting heart about the President’s betrayals is lighter and more forgiving. Trashing the constitution, green-lighting torture, claiming the unilateral right to order the execution of anyone, anywhere on the planet… wiped clean off the windscreen."

I bow to my Politroll Master

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Dear Paizo,

Can we have a "I hate this post, the poster is a real jerkface" button? Please?

You do... it's the flag and move on button. If the poster is a jerk, it'll reveal itself in the contents of the flagged post.


I don't flag. It reminds me of snitching.

Also, the post was a joke. :)

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:
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.

Bigots? They have a right to decide what is legal in their state. If what they decide doesn't agree with you, that makes them bigots? Whose the real bigot? That's the left for you, they are tolerant only if you share their views, otherwise they are the most intolerant bigots out there. I'm sick of liberal hypocrisy. I bet you liberals would be the first to refuse having a gay couple babysit your kids.

Andoran

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Cory,
You are aware theWhietKnife is a libertarian and not a liberal, aren't you? Care to rethink your screed?

Plus, which is more tolerant: expressing disdain for a person's views or banning them from marrying because of their sexuality? One of these thigns is justa little less tolerant than the other. Let's see if you can figure out which.

Also, civil rights are not up for popular vote. That's what makes them rights. Would you support a state that said all Christians couldn't marry? How about one that banned mixed race marriages? Would you call the people calling for such laws bigots? If so, what's the difference? If not, could you give your defnition of the word as I'm not sure it matches the one in common usage?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
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.
Bigots? They have a right to decide what is legal in their state. If what they decide doesn't agree with you, that makes them bigots? Whose the real bigot? That's the left for you, they are tolerant only if you share their views, otherwise they are the most intolerant bigots out there. I'm sick of liberal hypocrisy. I bet you liberals would be the first to refuse having a gay couple babysit your kids.

You know I bet you could have heard exactly the same rant back in the '50s or '60s. Just substitute "black" for "gay".

No. You don't have the right to decide to discriminate against minorities in your state. Whether those are racial, sexual, religious, ethic, or other minorities.


houstonderek wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
The NPC wrote:
Marriage is a state issue not federal.
Ahem (thanks to a Facebook friend for the link).
You rock for posting that. And, you're welcome.

I finally got around to watching this (I usually have music playing 24-7, which reminds me: Gay Interlude from a Musical!!!).

I hope you're bookmarking, Citizen Duck.

EDIT: Also, see the oppression that you are causing, Samnell and Hitdice, by your anti-polygamy position?

Hee hee! added so that Samnell doesn't go all asp on me.


meatrace wrote:
Sure. Marriage has traditionally been defined as between a man and a woman.

If you think "tradition" wasn't used as an argument against interracial marriage, you're very much mistaken.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Bigots? They have a right to decide what is legal in their state. If what they decide doesn't agree with you, that makes them bigots?

The fact that they want to deny others the rights they enjoy makes them bigots. The fact that they view one kind of consensual, committed love as better than another kind makes them bigots. The fact that they feel they have a moral duty to "fix" or chastise someone for who they are makes them bigots. The fact that they scrabble in the dirt for whatever reason they can find to present to the rest of the world in order to cover up the hate in their hearts makes them bigots.

And the fact that you defend them makes you a bigot.

Quote:
Whose the real bigot? That's the left for you, they are tolerant only if you share their views, otherwise they are the most intolerant bigots out there.

We are intolerant of intolerance. If you do not recognize that, or believe that it's a problem, then please get out. We no longer want your kind in the United States. Find a backwater to inhabit. Watch as the world that you feel comfortable in shrinks around you.

Quote:
I'm sick of liberal hypocrisy.

We are way past caring what you're sick of. You have failed your country, and refuse to defend what it stands for.

Quote:
I bet you liberals would be the first to refuse having a gay couple babysit your kids.

I bet you really wish that were the case.

I'm getting tired of things like this being a topic of discussion. I am more and more convinced that people like Cory here represent a school of thought that is truly alien to the rest of the world. There can be no meaningful communication between us and them, and they have repeatedly and prolifically demonstrated physical hostility to those who disagree with them. War is a terrible thing, but when confronted with issues as important and fundamental as this, I can really start to see the justification in why they are fought.


Scott Betts wrote:
The fact that they view one kind of consensual, committed love as better than another kind makes them bigots.

So any consensual committed relationship between any number and kind of people should be viewed as equally "good", and if anyone dares differ from that viewpoint is a bigot?


pres man wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
The fact that they view one kind of consensual, committed love as better than another kind makes them bigots.
So any consensual committed relationship between any number and kind of people should be viewed as equally "good", and if anyone dares differ from that viewpoint is a bigot?

I used the word "kind" there for a reason. I can't judge individual relationships, but I do know that one kind of committed, consensual relationship is not any better than another.

It's important to note that the word "consensual" here implies an adult relationship - it is generally accepted that before a certain age we are unable to give fully-realized consent.

So yeah, I'm gonna go with, "Shut up about other peoples' committed, consensual relationships - it's not any of your business."


Polygamous marriages between consenting adults are fine and absolutely should receive full legal benefits and if anyone thinks otherwise, they are a bigot. Got it.


pres man wrote:
Polygamous marriages between consenting adults are fine and absolutely should receive full legal benefits and if anyone thinks otherwise, they are a bigot. Got it.

I'm having a hard time coming up with a moral reason to disagree with that. If you've got one, please lay it out for us. "It would be hard to figure out, legally," is not a moral defense, by the way. I'm not the type to get involved in a relationship like that, but really, who the hell are we to judge that relationship as worse than any of ours?

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
pres man wrote:
Polygamous marriages between consenting adults are fine and absolutely should receive full legal benefits and if anyone thinks otherwise, they are a bigot. Got it.

Absolutely.

Of course, the adults who enter into consensual relationships like that have no one to blame but themselves if it goes poorly. They can't come crying to everyone else for allowing it.

They CAN come crying about abuse and other such things, but those things have nothing to do with the kind of relationship they are in or being allowed to have that relationship.

Andoran

Just an observation, because my only objection, so to speak, to same-sex marriage is semantic and I don't feel like that discussion right now...

If memory serves, every time there has been a voter referendum on this issue, it has been voted down, i.e., the populace as a whole has not backed it. I may be wrong, but I don't recall this passing by referendum.

At the state-legislative level, however, I think the success rate of same-sex marriage being allowed by law is a little over 50% passed.

Andoran

Scott Betts wrote:
pres man wrote:
Polygamous marriages between consenting adults are fine and absolutely should receive full legal benefits and if anyone thinks otherwise, they are a bigot. Got it.
I'm having a hard time coming up with a moral reason to disagree with that. If you've got one, please lay it out for us. "It would be hard to figure out, legally," is not a moral defense, by the way. I'm not the type to get involved in a relationship like that, but really, who the hell are we to judge that relationship as worse than any of ours?

I'm not. It is actually quite simple.

One is a contract between two people, who then have full shares of everything each person have, and will have.

Bringing a third person in breaks the original contract. Perhaps an argument could be made that if all of the people were married at the same time and all had equal shares of the collective pot. But that isn't how polygamy generally works.

It is against the law because of many reasons, one being that it is a fundamental breach of the original marriage contract.


ciretose wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
pres man wrote:
Polygamous marriages between consenting adults are fine and absolutely should receive full legal benefits and if anyone thinks otherwise, they are a bigot. Got it.
I'm having a hard time coming up with a moral reason to disagree with that. If you've got one, please lay it out for us. "It would be hard to figure out, legally," is not a moral defense, by the way. I'm not the type to get involved in a relationship like that, but really, who the hell are we to judge that relationship as worse than any of ours?

I'm not. It is actually quite simple.

One is a contract between two people, who then have full shares of everything each person have, and will have.

Bringing a third person in breaks the original contract. Perhaps an argument could be made that if all of the people were married at the same time and all had equal shares of the collective pot. But that isn't how polygamy generally works.

It is against the law because of many reasons, one being that it is a fundamental breach of the original marriage contract.

I'm not sure how you can make the argument that a relationship can be consensual for all parties and yet still involve a breach of contract. A consensual arrangement would involve a renegotiation of the contract, not a breach.

Again, you're trying to mount a defense that boils down to, "It would be hard to figure out legally." I don't consider that a valid defense for the withholding of rights. You shouldn't, either.


Bringing up polygamy in the context of gay marriage is always an attack on gay marriage, hoping to associate it with something even less acceptable. A slippery slope argument, if you will.

It's not worth responding too and there's another thread for it, if you really feel you must.

Andoran

Scott Betts wrote:


I'm not sure how you can make the argument that a relationship can be consensual for all parties and yet still involve a breach of contract. A consensual arrangement would involve a renegotiation of the contract, not a breach.

Again, you're trying to mount a defense that boils down to, "It would be hard to figure out legally." I don't consider that a valid defense for the withholding of rights. You shouldn't, either.

If a marriage is a contractual relationship between people, any addition of people later is a breach of that original contract.

If marriage is not a contractual agreement between people, what is it?

I can see some grey area if you have the people all go in at the same time, but if you agree to whatever marriage is for you and another person at a set time, and then later you add another person, at that point you breached the original contract.

The whole process is an exchange. You are giving up X to receive Y. If you stop giving up X, you are no longer entitled to Y, and the contract is breached and void.

If I agree to buy a piece of land with you, we will work out a contract. If someone else then later wants to join with us, we will need an entirely new contract, as the new person was not a party to the original contract.

Andoran

Cory Stafford 29 wrote:

Bigots? They have a right to decide what is legal in their state.

Just like slavery. Am I right! ;)


ciretose wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


I'm not sure how you can make the argument that a relationship can be consensual for all parties and yet still involve a breach of contract. A consensual arrangement would involve a renegotiation of the contract, not a breach.

Again, you're trying to mount a defense that boils down to, "It would be hard to figure out legally." I don't consider that a valid defense for the withholding of rights. You shouldn't, either.

If a marriage is a contractual relationship between people, any addition of people later is a breach of that original contract.

If marriage is not a contractual agreement between people, what is it?

I can see some grey area if you have the people all go in at the same time, but if you agree to whatever marriage is for you and another person at a set time, and then later you add another person, at that point you breached the original contract.

The whole process is an exchange. You are giving up X to receive Y. If you stop giving up X, you are no longer entitled to Y, and the contract is breached and void.

If I agree to buy a piece of land with you, we will work out a contract. If someone else then later wants to join with us, we will need an entirely new contract, as the new person was not a party to the original contract.

Response in polygamy thread

301 to 350 of 525 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Obama on same-sex marriage All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.