|
I find it hilarious when people bring up polygamy when the issue of gay marriage is brought up. How does on jump logically from the legalization of all marriages between two consenting adults to polygamy? What is the logical connection there? Surely it isn't just that both are not defined as traditional? Is it that weak?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Actually, no, they don't. The voters of state don't get to decide to violate human rights.
As for the rest of your rant...you worldview is utterly divorced from reality, and I pity you.
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.
It's not the tradition part, but the definition part that was my argument. Replace "traditionally" with "until now".
If you're rewriting the dictionary, or legal code in this case, to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples, then why don't you eliminate ALL discrimination written into marriage laws?
Sadly, many people don't know how to make a coherent argument. I think that's why they associate marriage with a person you love to marriage with a lot of people you love.
As I asked before, can anyone point to any evidence whatsoever that gay marriage creates the same kind of abuse that polygamy does? No one has been able to provide that evidence.
Yep, cuz insults help. People moved to a polygamy thread so you can continue to badmouth them in THIS thread. That's a fair tactic *eyeroll*.
Here's my argument:
As it has been defined until now, marriage is a union, recognized by either church, state, or both, between a man and a woman. There is great historical precedence for marriage with multiple wives, and some historical precedent for marriage with multiple husbands.
Polygamy was outlawed in the US, largely, because of cultural reasons. The puritans who settled America, as well as the Anglicans and Catholics, saw marriage as only between two people. Well, a man and a woman.
As time passed, marriage became a union between romantic and sexual partners. It is a legal acknowledgment of an existing relationship. There are no laws, nor CAN there be any laws, on the books to prevent anyone from loving anyone else.
We now have a movement in this country that wants to redefine marriage to remove institutional prejudice and discrimination against a union that is, at its heart, two people who love one another, regardless of sex. They simply want the state to recognize their union and provide them equal protection under the law.
IF you say that all healthy, loving relationships should be recognized by the state as marriage, ASSUMING it is between consenting adults (which you need to be to enter into any contract or legal agreement anyway) then there is no reason not to allow polygamy. IF you are taking out the pen and redefining marriage, under what historical or linguistic basis do you define it between ONLY two people, since there is enormous historical precedent for polygamy. Furthermore, I would say that given this and the LACK of historical precedence for same-sex marriage, that same-sex marriage is in fact the more radical redefinition.
The marrying a dog thing is nonsense, because dogs can't consent, which is why we have animal cruelty laws. The marrying children thing, also, can easily be countered by insisting on consent. Being that healthy, committed relationships exist in groups numbering more than 2, the state should equally recognize those unions, however.
I will also poison the well and say that polygamy doesn't CREATE abuse. Polygamy, when unchecked and forced into the dark corners of society, has historically been abused. But there are already legally actionable mechanisms to prevent abuse.
Yes, some laws will have to be tweaked, but those laws have to be tweaked for gay marriage as well. Gay marriage can easily be abused to grant legal protections to two heterosexual men (or women), in many states legal guardianship is assumed to be the spouse of a mother unless there is protest (so a pregnant lesbian's wife would be the baby's "father"), etc. However, I AM NOT MAKING THE ARGUMENT that these potential abuses trump the right of two people to enter marriage together.
I understand that people think polygamy and immediately think of cults in Arizona, or old style mormonism, which was rife with abuse, but that does nothing to prove that polygamy CREATES abuse. Polygamy could just as easily be between 3 women. Or 3 men. It could just as easily be in San Fransisco or Madison or Seattle or Dallas, since those RELATIONSHIPS already exist in those places.
Bringham Young...and bring 'em often!
Homosexuality is a fringe cultural activity right now, prevented from getting any larger by the simple fact that it is a crime.
If it were no longer a crime, then it would be more widespread. This kind of abuse would become more frequent.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Homosexuality is a fringe cultural activity right now, prevented from getting any larger by the simple fact that it is a crime.
If it were no longer a crime, then it would be more widespread. This kind of abuse would become more frequent.
Go to the polygamy thread please...
Homosexuality is a fringe cultural activity right now, prevented from getting any larger by the simple fact that it is a crime.
If it were no longer a crime, then it would be more widespread. This kind of abuse would become more frequent.What kind of abuse??
I've given you a link to identify the kind of abuse that I'm talking about linked to polygamy.
I've asked you to point out how gay marriage is tied to abuse the way that polygamy is tied to abuse. You are absolutely impotent on this point. You have not been able to identify any abuse inherent to gay marriage as an institution.
Nor have you in polygamy. You have given examples of where it has been abused, and when it is unregulated and unchecked it breeds abuse. No argument!
Are you saying that NO HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS are physically or emotionally abusive? Or for that matter heterosexual relationships?
The things you talk about? They are bad things. But they only happen in religious cults. I'm more inclined to blame religion for those problems, but I'm sure you're completely unwilling to explore since religion never hurt anyone as far as you're concerned.
Go to the polygamy thread please...Homosexuality is a fringe cultural activity right now, prevented from getting any larger by the simple fact that it is a crime.
If it were no longer a crime, then it would be more widespread. This kind of abuse would become more frequent.
I did.
Then I came back to see what I was missing and saw DD badmouthing me.
I'm not in favor of polygamy Meatrace, but I understand what you're saying. I would be willing to support the recognition of multiple partnerships if I could be assured of mechanisms to prevent abuse.
The problems people are discussing are real. If gender inequality didn't exist in our country, I don't think abuse in polygamous relationships would be a serious problem. Since gender equality is a problem, recognized polygamous relationships could make it harder for those in them to get help. Abuse of women and children is already too common for my tastes, I need guarantees of how we'll prevent it before I support something that increases it.
These are problems in normal marriages as well, but we're stuck with normal marriage. It's not going away anytime soon, so any discussion about trying to do that is just a philosophical exercise.
Found this posted on Facebook, haven't checked out the historical evidence behind it, but found it interesting anyway:
"The interesting thing about watching the debate about same-sex marriage, especially the declaration by many that marriage has always been a Christian family tradition, is that so many of these folks seem not to have an actual grasp of church history.
Leaving aside for a moment the fact that same-sex marriages were routinely conducted by the Catholic Church for nearly three hundred years, from the 10th to the 12th centuries under what was variously termed “the Office of Same-Sex Union” or the “Order for Uniting Two Men,” what’s more compelling is what the Church felt about marriage between a man and woman for the first nine hundred years of its existence.
Basically, they were against it. Marriage created issues of property that could potentially be inherited by offspring rather than granted to the church or seized by lords in the absence of an heir. Marriage was considered by many of Christendom’s brightest lights to be something vile and repugnant. Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (160-225 AD), one of the most regarded Christian writers of his age, often derided marriage, saying that it “consists essentially in fornication.” Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus, the Bishop of Carthage, believed that marriage and childbirth was no longer necessary since the world was now full and ready for Christ’s return.
Consequently, for over eight hundred years the Church refused to have anything to do with marriage. It refused to allow marriages to take place on church grounds and prohibited members of the clergy from taking part in marriage ceremonies outside church grounds. They were to be performed strictly according to local customs without Church recognition, sanction or involvement.
It was only during the late 9th century that the Catholic Church, under pressure from followers, finally began to recognize marriage as a sacrament to be included in the list of other church rituals. But even then, it was considered a second-rate “lesser sacrament,” a poor cousin to the other, more important sacraments such as Baptism, Confirmation and the Holy Orders. It wasn’t until the Council of Trent in 1547 that marriage was finally accorded equal status with the other sacraments. (Ironically, many of the arguments raised at Trent against including marriage with the other sacraments were similar to the arguments being made against same-sex marriage today.)
So the next time you hear someone talking about marriage between a man and woman being a Christian tradition, after you mention the same-sex marriages of the 10th-12 centuries, remind them that conventional marriage, marriage between a man and a woman, was derided, ignored, prohibited, diminished or dismissed by the church for ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY SEVEN YEARS.
Then sit back and enjoy the ruffled-feather symphony, knowing that history and the facts are on your side."
Good find, gentlegiant.
a quick google search turned this up. I like learning new things.
Also,@ Corey Stafford 29: I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you have never read any other post of mine ever.
No.And how did that work out?
With Nazis and abortion, as I recall.
Shiznit.
EDIT: Shiznit! I thought that link was Cabaret! What a waste of a good post...
I honestly don't know which it is. I've heard both lower estimates and higher estimates, from .5% to 10%. I don't really know which to believe or how we could know which to believe.
How many people self-identify as gay, and how many are gay but keep it on the DL? It's not like asking people whether they prefer Coke or Pepsi. Being openly gay can get you fired (as Mitt recently showed us,) or shunned by your loved ones, and even get you killed in some parts of the world.
As to the issue, it's a civil rights issue and therefore a federal one.
If a marriage is a contractual relationship between people, any addition of people later is a breach of that original contract.
Polygamy aside, is it your opinion that contracts in general cannot be renegotiated? Because, again, this goes to consent. It's not consensual if there is a breach of contract. It is consensual if the contract is renegotiated. And, since I made it very clear that we're discussing only consensual relationships, we don't have to worry about imaginary breaches. This holds for hetero relationships, same-sex relationships, etc.
|
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 everThis 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?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)
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'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.)
NO, They are not required to. State law does not cross bourders. Now IF the Federal Government said they had to, then they would have to. But as it stands, If you cross the boarder another state does NOT have to recognize your same sex marriage nor do they have to recognize a common law marriage
NO, They are not required to. State law does not cross bourders. Now IF the Federal Government said they had to, then they would have to. But as it stands, If you cross the boarder another state does NOT have to recognize your same sex marriage nor do they have to recognize a common law marriage
I think you've hit on a good point and potential loophole here. States don't have to recognize even hetero marriages if they don't want to, such as common law marriages.
I think it would probably fly to force all states to allow same sex marriage, under the flag of civil rights, but those states could ignore the marriages of those that lived in other states when they were married. It's a weird loophole.
Alternatively, we could either a)get ALL government out of marriage or b)make marriage certification a federal process rather than a state one.
|
|
If a marriage is a contractual relationship between people, any addition of people later is a breach of that original contract.Polygamy aside, is it your opinion that contracts in general cannot be renegotiated? Because, again, this goes to consent. It's not consensual if there is a breach of contract. It is consensual if the contract is renegotiated. And, since I made it very clear that we're discussing only consensual relationships, we don't have to worry about imaginary breaches. This holds for hetero relationships, same-sex relationships, etc.
Contracts can be renegotiated, but when you add a third party as a full equal stakeholder, that is more than a renegotiation.
Particularly when the original contract generally has an exclusivity clause...
If a marriage is a contractual relationship between people, any addition of people later is a breach of that original contract.Polygamy aside, is it your opinion that contracts in general cannot be renegotiated? Because, again, this goes to consent. It's not consensual if there is a breach of contract. It is consensual if the contract is renegotiated. And, since I made it very clear that we're discussing only consensual relationships, we don't have to worry about imaginary breaches. This holds for hetero relationships, same-sex relationships, etc.Contracts can be renegotiated, but when you add a third party as a full equal stakeholder, that is more than a renegotiation.
Particularly when the original contract generally has an exclusivity clause...
This is a really stupid argument. Who the hell cares about whether it's a renegotiation or a "breach". Everyone agrees to it, so there's no problem. Stop making this non-issue into an issue.
If one of them marries another person with the others consent its not polygamy anymore, that's bigamy. Let's not confuse the two.
EDIT
Yes I know bi means 2 and poly means many. Legally they have a different meaning.
|
|
This is a really stupid argument. Who the hell cares about whether it's a renegotiation or a "breach". Everyone agrees to it, so there's no problem. Stop making this non-issue into an issue.If a marriage is a contractual relationship between people, any addition of people later is a breach of that original contract.Polygamy aside, is it your opinion that contracts in general cannot be renegotiated? Because, again, this goes to consent. It's not consensual if there is a breach of contract. It is consensual if the contract is renegotiated. And, since I made it very clear that we're discussing only consensual relationships, we don't have to worry about imaginary breaches. This holds for hetero relationships, same-sex relationships, etc.Contracts can be renegotiated, but when you add a third party as a full equal stakeholder, that is more than a renegotiation.
Particularly when the original contract generally has an exclusivity clause...
1. This belongs in the other thread.
2. Until everyone doesn't agree.Divorce Court doesn't exist because everyone is always on the same page, and when you have two people who are bound under the law, then you bring in a third party, are they entitled to a third of everything at the time they came in, or are the original couple splitting what they had when they got married, and this person gets some of each...
As someone who works in family court, it is not a simple thing to define things in thirds with co-equal partners. I don't even want to imagine how it would proceed if the new couple wants to stay together and divorce the old wife...
It is fun to think of things in the abstract, but there are actual logistics to be resolved.
But again, take it to the other thread, we are all already over there.
NO, They are not required to. State law does not cross bourders. Now IF the Federal Government said they had to, then they...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 everThis 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?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)
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'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.)
Actually, Article IV of the Constitution says that they do. It seems that marriage falls pretty squarely under this clause.
I'm not sure exactly what implications this clause takes in court decisions, but it is in the Constitution and it might make North Carolina's law unconstitutional since the law explicitly says that same-sex marriages from other states are void.
NO, They are not required to. State law does not cross bourders. Now IF the Federal Government said they
Actually, Article IV of the Constitution says that they do. It seems that marriage falls pretty squarely under this clause.
I'm not sure exactly what implications this clause takes in court decisions, but it is in the Constitution and it might make North Carolina's law unconstitutional since the law explicitly says that same-sex marriages from other states are void.There appears to be no case-law on this. Article 4 was not used to require states to accept interracial marriages, for example.
The Defense of Marriage Act specifically prevents states from having to recognize other states same-sex marriages. Of course, there are arguments that it is unconstitutional. Again, it's never been litigated.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was tested in the near future.
Actually, it hasn't been challenged in the Supreme Court yet, but there are multiple cases in lower courts. The White House recently refused to continue defending the law, so the House, being dominated by Republicans, stepped in to keep the law on the books.
I do know that the interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit clause has changed considerably over time, so it is not terribly surprising that it might not have been used in this way in the past.
More on the definition of what a marriage is and reactions to Obama's statement.
Why Does Tony Perkins Even Bother Going on TV…?
Tony Perkins is president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian think tank and public policy foundation based in Washington, D.C.
He gets slammed pretty hard for his comments by Barney Frank and Chris Matthews on Hardball in the first video.
The ending of the second video (which you should watch even if you dislike Lawrence O’Donnell) is great!
Breaking news! This just in! Read all about it!
Because Obama supports same-sex marriage it must obviously mean that Obama is gay!
This would be a huge facepalm moment if it wasn't for the scary fact that these people really believe it (an lots of their followers do so too).
These people don't represent all right wingers anymore than Westboro Baptist represents all Christians.
|
Interesting article from CNN on the Gay/Bible issue. The author debunks various commonly cited sources from the Bible in the argument against homosexuality.
link.
Man, I went looking for you to point out Citizen Aux's post and you're already here!
I searched your posts for Helminiak, but nothing came up (I can't remember which thread that was in). Who was your source?
So, to all you pro-big federal government people out there, THANK YOU.
You're welcome!
These people don't represent all right wingers anymore than Westboro Baptist represents all Christians.
You're right, that's why we don't see new laws being made to discriminate against same-sex couples and DOMA has long ago been repealed...
If you think all conservatives or 'right wingers' are on board with DOMA, you're mistaken.
|
|
They say get marriage out of government... But who issues the marriage licence? And who collects the money to file the Marriage Licence? Not the church. If that where the case, then a church would be a profit business and have to be taxed for such. it would also mean that If you are Protestant and marry a Baptist, that both churches would have to issue a licence as both would want to take the money and file it in their records.
SO keep it government and just allow everyone to get married. You now then make money on same sex marriages as well as same sex marriages.
Would a church want the responsibility of having to take the licence and then file it with the government so said person could then be valid for taxes?