Well in the context of marriage, only the last 5000 years may matter.
I'm not defending the guy, I just think ZOMG YOUNG EARTHER is a stretch.
|
Well in theory it's not that hard. There are other fractions than 1/2 and I'm sure people have access to calculators. Also, prenuptial agreements.
Nothing is hard in theory, but take a quick glance at the laws of just about anything and you'll see two things. First, they are long, complicated, filled with weird and unintuitive definitions and special cases - which happens because when you make up the law you try yo have it cover every scenario you can conceive of in the best possible way. Second, you will often see a long list of corrections and edits that have been logged over the years - and that is because nobody can think of every conceivable scenario ahead of time and there are always surprising edge case scenarios.
Besides, there are many complications that happen in numbers larger than 2 that wouldn't with just two. Just to throw one example in the air, say you have a group of four splitting into one group of two and two other groups of one. There are six kids, all of whom have been raised communally by the whole group, such that four have one parent in the couple that stayed together and on in one of the individuals who set on their own way, and two are of the individuals who went separately. Both the couple and the two individuals each wants possession of as many kids as they can get. Now on top of the children conundrum say that the group lived in two apartments in the same floor of the same building (essentially owning that floor) and three cars and a trust fund to get the kids through college and...
Just consider the headache. There are so many different permutations and combinations. The growth in numbers also means an exponential growth in options. It's no longer just about determining whom among a couple gets to keep what (nor can the children realistically just spend some time each week with each split party or conceivably stay all together). AND you also have to figure out how the possessions will be redistributed within each group that has more than one members remaining, and so on.
It's an order of magnitude more complex than just a couple.
I am speaking of people like the BDSM community and the poly-amorous. I am mostly aware of there portrayal in the media, particularly in crime TV where they are always killing and/or being killed, and often treated as a joke.
It seems to me they sometimes play the role blacks or gays would 40 or 50 years ago, someone its easy to treat as a joke.
There is a major difference between being ridiculed for your choice of life style (BDSM, going to college, living in NY city, and so forth) and being discriminated against because of what you are. Saying "I don't trust politicians" is fine, and not in any way like saying "I don'y trust homosexuals". This is the reason that religious people so often try to present homosexuality is a choice rather than state of being.
So, I wouldn't call what the BDSM and polygamous folks are going through as "discrimination" as that needlessly cheapens the word. I might go for "misrepresentation in the media", in which case... welcome to the club.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone should probably remind Scalia that Catholic schools don't teach young earth creationism.
|
|
Another complication in polygamous marriage that is not found in monogamist analogs is that not everyone had to join in the same time. So pile on top of my previous example that the marriage of 4 was first of 2, and then another one joined and then someone left and then another two joined. Now you have the question of "who came first" to consider in case of splitting, which has to have some weight.
Just to throw one example in the air, say you have a group of four splitting into one group of two and two other groups of one. There are six kids, all of whom have been raised communally by the whole group, such that four have one parent in the couple that stayed together and on in one of the individuals who set on their own way, and two are of the individuals who went separately. Both the couple and the two individuals each wants possession of as many kids as they can get. Now on top of the children conundrum say that the group lived in two apartments in the same floor of the same building (essentially owning that floor) and three cars and a trust fund to get the kids through college and...
Currently I have three parents. One mother, one father, and one stepmother. If my father and stepmother were to get divorced, then my stepmother would have no legal standing for a parental relationship with me. So in your example, there is a two parents and two step-parents. Once the marriage is dissolved the step-parents can feel like they have a relationship with the children that have no biological connection to them, but they would not have any legal standing for such. We already handle this. Likewise, I would not have any legal claim upon my stepmother after a divorce, so she would not be required to contribute to a college fund or some such.
Three cars and four adults? How about two adults and one car? Again, we already handle this. Divorces are messy, that is why we give judges latitude to handle the specifics, because as you say it is too difficult to write a law that covers every situation.
We already have pre-nuptial law, why not make this a requirement for plural marriage. Also this court decision changes things. Before if you had one man and three women involved (the "traditional western" version of plural marriage), you had to have three marriages. The women couldn't be married to each other, instead each one was individually married to the man. Now we can have one marriage for all of them since women can now marry women. This means that the marriage must be agreed upon by all parties.
Saying the legal can't handle that is silly. We have multiple owners of businesses and sometimes someone wants to leave (usually get bought out) or some owners want to bring in a new owner (either the whole group agrees or those that don't get bought out). We handle that type of thing already. I fail to see a big difference.
Also there is something distasteful for people to claim that some people should have their rights withheld because it causes some paperwork difficulty. People are being harmed right now because we as a society can't get past our own prejudices and get our act together. I don't expect proponents of "traditional marriage" to embrace plural marriage, but those that say they support polyamorous relationships and also same-sex marriages (i.e. non-"traditional marriage") should be ashamed of themselves for not supporting plural marriage (if they don't of course).
When history looks back on them, they will be no more noble than those that stood against mixed race marriages.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saying the legal can't handle that is silly. We have multiple owners of businesses and sometimes someone wants to leave (usually get bought out) or some owners want to bring in a new owner (either the whole group agrees or those that don't get bought out). We handle that type of thing already. I fail to see a big difference.
I don't think anyone is saying the law CAN'T handle this.
However, current law DOESN'T handle this, and handling it will be an extremely messy process. The courts are generally very reluctant -- and for good reason -- to simply come in and say "nope, the current system doesn't work, throw it out" if there's no obvious alternate way to handle things, and they're even more reluctant to dictate a mandatory but inobvious way to handle things.
Gay marriage didn't open any procedural cans of worms, so it was a relatively easy decision. Plural marriage will be a much harder decision, so I don't expect it to happen soon simply for that reason. If you're serious about supporting plural marriage, one way to make it happen that much sooner is to work on your legislature to formalize a framework under which it could happen.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to throw one example in the air, say you have a group of four splitting into one group of two and two other groups of one. There are six kids, all of whom have been raised communally by the whole group, such that four have one parent in the couple that stayed together and on in one of the individuals who set on their own way, and two are of the individuals who went separately. Both the couple and the two individuals each wants possession of as many kids as they can get. Now on top of the children conundrum say that the group lived in two apartments in the same floor of the same building (essentially owning that floor) and three cars and a trust fund to get the kids through college and...Currently I have three parents. One mother, one father, and one stepmother. If my father and stepmother were to get divorced, then my stepmother would have no legal standing for a parental relationship with me. So in your example, there is a two parents and two step-parents. Once the marriage is dissolved the step-parents can feel like they have a relationship with the children that have no biological connection to them, but they would not have any legal standing for such. We already handle this. Likewise, I would not have any legal claim upon my stepmother after a divorce, so she would not be required to contribute to a college fund or some such.
Three cars and four adults? How about two adults and one car? Again, we already handle this. Divorces are messy, that is why we give judges latitude to handle the specifics, because as you say it is too difficult to write a law that covers every situation.
We already have pre-nuptial law, why not make this a requirement for plural marriage. Also this court decision changes things. Before if you had one man and three women involved (the "traditional western" version of plural marriage), you had to have three marriages. The women couldn't be married to each other, instead each one was individually married to the man. Now we can have one marriage...
I'll say again that I support polygamous marriage and add that I myself am living in an open, long term relationship. So no need to raise your hackles. When it comes to principles and ideological standpoints I'm with you and I would like to see this happen.
What I said was entirely within the realm of practicality. Making laws for polygamous marriage is not impossible (obviously) merely hard. I used my examples to illustrate this. It would probably take a lot of precious time and other resources for such laws to be passed, and there aren't really any groups that have sufficient political power to pressurize anyone into passing these laws, so other ones are going to take priority over them.
So, not saying that it shouldn't happen or even that it wouldn't eventually. Just not in the foreseeable future.
Edit: ninja'd by the mindflayer :)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the whole point of the courts is they are supposed to NOT follow public opinion. Their purpose is to arbitrate the law as it is, not as 50.1% want it to be.What I said was entirely within the realm of practicality. Making laws for polygamous marriage is not impossible (obviously) merely hard. I used my examples to illustrate this. It would probably take a lot of precious time and other resources for such laws to be passed, and there aren't really any groups that have sufficient political power to pressurize anyone into passing these laws, so other ones are going to take priority over them.
So, not saying that it shouldn't happen or even that it wouldn't eventually. Just not in the foreseeable future.
Pretty much this. It's not really that it's more complicated legally, though that will affect things.
It's that the law doesn't work that way, even if it should. This decision or the decisions and laws that originally changed state policies on gay marriage don't set up a slope where poly marriage is the next step. That's been a standard attack on marriage equality from the beginning.If poly marriage is going to happen, it's going to happen because there's a constituency that both demands it, has the legal clout and resources to push lawmakers and courts in that direction and, more importantly, is able to change broad public opinion in it's favor. The courts will follow public opinion. Just like they did with same sex marriage.
You mean like prop 8 was?
But the whole point of the courts is they are supposed to NOT follow public opinion. Their purpose is to arbitrate the law as it is, not as 50.1% want it to be.
But one of the factors that is explicitly used in arbitrating the law is the practicality of implementing decisions. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is not an official legal maxim, but it might as well be.
If one side walks in with an imperfect-but-workable proposal while the other side walks in with a theoretically-perfect-but-in-practice-unimplementable one, the judiciary will have no problem with choosing the first side, and in fact, a decision in favor of the second side would likely be reversed on appeal.
|
|
But the whole point of the courts is they are supposed to NOT follow public opinion. Their purpose is to arbitrate the law as it is, not as 50.1% want it to be.What I said was entirely within the realm of practicality. Making laws for polygamous marriage is not impossible (obviously) merely hard. I used my examples to illustrate this. It would probably take a lot of precious time and other resources for such laws to be passed, and there aren't really any groups that have sufficient political power to pressurize anyone into passing these laws, so other ones are going to take priority over them.
So, not saying that it shouldn't happen or even that it wouldn't eventually. Just not in the foreseeable future.
Pretty much this. It's not really that it's more complicated legally, though that will affect things.
It's that the law doesn't work that way, even if it should. This decision or the decisions and laws that originally changed state policies on gay marriage don't set up a slope where poly marriage is the next step. That's been a standard attack on marriage equality from the beginning.If poly marriage is going to happen, it's going to happen because there's a constituency that both demands it, has the legal clout and resources to push lawmakers and courts in that direction and, more importantly, is able to change broad public opinion in it's favor. The courts will follow public opinion. Just like they did with same sex marriage.
Earlier in this thread I described a behavior of religions, where they reinterpret their core values to adapt and stay afloat as times and circumstances change. Law-making has something in common with that. The figures of authority convene, debate, and - guess what? that social issue that people are worried about now? Well, we looked at the core principals of our morality again, and turns out the opinion people have now was right all along! So great that we don't need to come up with new principle values, just reinterpret the old ones.
I do think this is considerably less hypocritical of secular governments than it is of religious institutions, though, because secular schools of thought are often much less reliant on the concept of absolute truth to justify themselves, recognizing that they are working with fallible, man-created concepts that can and should change with time.
There is no constituency with enough political and legal clout to get it done? You mean there is no constituency with enough influence to overturn the current marriage system? I guess I just dreamed the last week's decision and this entire thread, but I could have sworn that there is in fact a very large constituency with enough influence to get this done if they would actually stand for what they say they believe. But hey, they got theirs right, so why bother.
Currently I have three parents. One mother, one father, and one stepmother. If my father and stepmother were to get divorced, then my stepmother would have no legal standing for a parental relationship with me.
Actually, in some cases acting in a parental role has created an obligation for child support. However, they have been slower to interpret that in terms of rights like visitation.
|
|
There is no constituency with enough political and legal clout to get it done? You mean there is no constituency with enough influence to overturn the current marriage system? I guess I just dreamed the last week's decision and this entire thread, but I could have sworn that there is in fact a very large constituency with enough influence to get this done if they would actually stand for what they say they believe. But hey, they got theirs right, so why bother.
You seem to be entirely unwilling to separate abstract concepts from their implementation in reality.
conceptually, most who fought for same-sex marriage should be willing and eager to fight for other, similar causes as well.
But they are not. It's just how things are. Public awareness of polygamy is very low, to my knowledge there has never been any serious campaign to give them the rights to live their life as they choose, and they don't have a history of oppression that weighs heavily on the collective conscience like that of the homosexuals.
So, practically, as things stand - no, there is no constituency with enough political and legal clout to get it done.
There is no constituency with enough political and legal clout to get it done? You mean there is no constituency with enough influence to overturn the current marriage system?
No, there isn't any constituency with enough influence to overturn the current marriage system. That's one of the reasons that the court decided as it did, because it has become obvious (after several years) that allowing gay marriage does not overturn the current marriage system.
In fact, one of the arguments made by several of the opponents of same-sex marriage was that it would overturn ("destroy" was the usual word, IIRC) the existing system. When that failed to materialize and the sky failed to fall, this argument lost a lot of its force, since it was clearly and self-evidently wrong.
What constituency? Does the movement for same sex marriage even claim to be in favor of polygamous marriage? Has public opinion changed in favor of poly marriage?
You are right, they are as morally upstanding as those that supported interracial marriage, but looked down on same-sex marriage. Well that is until others made it popular to support it, then they changed their tune.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are right, they are as morally upstanding as those that supported interracial marriage, but looked down on same-sex marriage. Well that is until others made it popular to support it, then they changed their tune.What constituency? Does the movement for same sex marriage even claim to be in favor of polygamous marriage? Has public opinion changed in favor of poly marriage?
Once more, you don't seperate reality from principles.
You don't even know if in principal those people support polygamy. I would bet you a pretty penny many of them do.
But conceptually supporting something is very different from deciding to invest your time, money and energy on actively fighting for it. Especially when you know you are looking forward to a long, uphill battle that you have no guarantee of winning.
It's not as if there aren't many people out there fighting for causes equally as just and/or important, all the time, to various degrees of success. None of them is a hypocrite for choosing "the wrong fight" or for not doing even more than they are right now. It should be a personal choice for any person when to fight and when to take to the sidelines. It just so happens that we are far from critical mass on people willing to pick up this particular fight. This doesn't make anyone morally corrupt.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since I had Eric Foner's Reconstruction open anyway:
Some amendments, dealing with narrow, immediate concerns, can be thought of as statutes write large; altering one aspect of national life, they leave the larger structure intact. Others are broad statements of principle, giving constitutional form to the resolution of national crises, and permanently altering American nationality. The Fourteenth Amendment was a measure of this kind. In language that transcended race and region, it challenged legal discrimination throughout the nation and changed and broadened the meaning of freedom for all Americans.
On the precise definition of equality before the law, Republicans differed among themselves. Even moderates, however, understood Reconstruction as a dynamic process, in which phrases like "privileges and immunities" were subject to changing interpretation. They preferred to allow both Congress and the federal courts maximum flexibility in implementing the Amendment's provisions and combating the multitude of injustices that confronted blacks in many parts of the South. [...] Now, discriminatory state laws could be overturned by the federal courts regardless of which party dominated Congress. (Indeed, as in the Civil Rights Act, Congress placed great reliance on an activist federal judiciary for civil rights enforcement-a mechanism that appeared preferable to maintaining indefinitely a standing army in the South, or establishing a permanent national bureaucracy empowered to oversee Reconstruction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the standpoint of Roberts' dissent when he bases it on the claim that "one man-one woman" has always been the definition of marriage for all people across all time periods. Aside from it being factually wrong*, it would also seem to be irrelevant. The majority decision isn't changing any definitions; it's throwing out a supposed "reason" for violating equal protection as being insufficient demonstrated as being a necessary/appropriate one.
Scalia's dissent is typical for him -- a lot of bombast and Chicken Little, but very little actual substance.
Thomas' dissent started off good, insofar as he actually attempted to start with a basis of actual Constitutional law. Unfortunately, then he sort of went off the rails into some mousehole he only thinks he found, and the whole thing goes nowhere. I would very much like to see where he'd have ended up if he'd stayed in sight instead of suddenly ducking into a broom closet, as it were.
It's interesting to me that the only people in the U.S. to (relatively) recently practice polygamy, did so for religious reasons.
In general, the only people who are against gay marriage for actual reasons (as opposed to party/tribal loyalty), are against it for religious reasons.
Yet it's overwhelmingly the religious people who are equating gay marriage with polygamy.
I believe Roberts did discuss the historical aspects of plural marriage. I think the idea of a marriage being between a man and woman historically had to do with the idea that while a man might have several wives, each one is bound to him by an individual marriage. There is not one marriage that binds all the people to each other. So if a man had three wives, he also had three marriages, one for each wife. So each individual marriage was between a man and a woman, thus Roberts was factually correct. This was because in most societies historically same-sex people couldn't marry each other. So different wives couldn't be married to each other, even if they were already married to the same man.
The allowance of same-sex marriages changes that dynamic and allows (obviously not legally ... yet) a group to form a single marriage, as there is no reason that same-sex partners couldn't be married to each other as well as to opposite-sex partners.
There is no constituency with enough political and legal clout to get it done? You mean there is no constituency with enough influence to overturn the current marriage system? I guess I just dreamed the last week's decision and this entire thread, but I could have sworn that there is in fact a very large constituency with enough influence to get this done if they would actually stand for what they say they believe. But hey, they got theirs right, so why bother.You seem to be entirely unwilling to separate abstract concepts from their implementation in reality.
conceptually, most who fought for same-sex marriage should be willing and eager to fight for other, similar causes as well.
But they are not. It's just how things are. Public awareness of polygamy is very low, to my knowledge there has never been any serious campaign to give them the rights to live their life as they choose, and they don't have a history of oppression that weighs heavily on the collective conscience like that of the homosexuals.
So, practically, as things stand - no, there is no constituency with enough political and legal clout to get it done.
Actually, their history overall is MUCH worse than Homosexuals. Mormons, when they were polygamists, were legally allowed to be hunted and killed. They had an extermination order written.
That order was not repealed until the past score of years.
In a great irony, the descendants of those Mormons have continued this work in persecuting the polygamists in their communities. In this one endeavor, they have had the assistance of the Southern Baptists.
You see, to be a Polygamist means that the Utah police and others along that Mormon corridor can come and arrest you, take your children, and toss them into child protective services for no other reason than you are a polygamist.
SOOOO...a bunch of them fled to Texas...expecting for better. Instead, the Texas rangers came in, arrested all the men on child molestation charges (irregardless of whether they were guilty, and on lack of any evidence for 99.9% of them. They were acting on one or two cases of a legitimate grievance...but based on that arrested the ENTIRE COMMUNITY). Then they took all the kids and separated them from their parents, tried to prevent parental visitation rights for their mothers, and gave the children up to protective custody.
Enter the legal fights to get the men out of prison, and then to get the children back...much less to see the property confiscated.
Back in the Mormon corridor, they typically go after them to seize their lands at the slightest provocation, and arrest the husbands. The typical court case they bring the wives in and ask them if they were forced, at which the wives are dismayed at what they are doing to their husband...and then the wives are shamed on the stand.
Now, there are some legitimate terrible things that go on in these communities (children are given away as wives sometimes, young men with no education are kicked out on their own before legal age...etc), but many of the cases that occur don't actually have any evidence and they arrest them on the hope that they have enough people that can convince a jury without the necessary evidence they'd need for most other cases.
If you are a polygamist, and STICK to the polygamist communities, you can many times find work. If you are NOT in a polygamist community, many times if they find out you are a polygamist, you are fired on the spot. The state will NOT do anything to protect you or help you, even if polygamy is part of your religion.
Welcome to the life of a Polygamist in the US.
And that's just the actual Americans...you also have those who are Muslim that move to the US and are polygamists...but admittedly they normally have a slightly easier time in that regard, with most of the discrimination coming upon them due to skin tone, looks, and religion instead.
I'd say Polygamists haven't actually had an easy time at all, seeing in many states you can be arrested and tossed in jail for almost forever simply because you are one, even if your religion states that it is something that you should do.
Not that I particularly have any fondness of polygamists, but I don't think they actually have it easy at all, and in fact are perhaps one of the more discriminated groups in regards to their sexuality (I'd say Trans in regards to their gender probably have it worse overall though) and practices in the US today.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that's just the actual Americans...you also have those who are Muslim that move to the US and are polygamists...but admittedly they normally have a slightly easier time in that regard, with most of the discrimination coming upon them due to skin tone, looks, and religion instead.
I actually oppose the Muslim version of polygamy as it is more of an expression of the lowly status of a woman in that society than it is of an honest bonding of love between more than two people.
Not that there aren't cases of honest love of course, but they are rare. For the most part there's always a heavy suspicion that such marriages border on crimes of various sorts.
And that's just the actual Americans...you also have those who are Muslim that move to the US and are polygamists...but admittedly they normally have a slightly easier time in that regard, with most of the discrimination coming upon them due to skin tone, looks, and religion instead.I actually oppose the Muslim version of polygamy as it is more of an expression of the lowly status of a woman in that society than it is of an honest bonding of love between more than two people.
That will effectively be another barrier to legalized polygamy. If we accept that there is "good" polygamy and "bad polygamy" -- as I think most of the participants on this thread do, with the distinction based largely on issues of autonomy and equality among the participants -- there needs to be a way to articulate the difference that doesn't rely on the goodwill (and good faith) of all participants.
Barring that kind of articulation, I think the sewage-to-wine ratio in this particular bottle is too high for me to feel comfortable encouraging people to drink from it.
It's interesting to me that the only people in the U.S. to (relatively) recently practice polygamy, did so for religious reasons.
In general, the only people who are against gay marriage for actual reasons (as opposed to party/tribal loyalty), are against it for religious reasons.
Yet it's overwhelmingly the religious people who are equating gay marriage with polygamy.
Well, part of that is the archaic legal system, and hence an artifact of history. Polygamy has been illegal in Western Europe since 285 AD, so the entire English Common Law tradition is against it. This means that, literally, since the colonial era and before, if you wanted an openly polygamous marriage, you needed either to get beyond the reach of English Common Law, or you needed to not call it a marriage.
When the Mormons tried it, there were still spots in North America they could go that were beyond the effective reach of the law. This worked for a while, but not for long. When the free-love hippies of the 1960s tried it, they had nowhere to go, so instead they lived in communes and didn't call their lovers "spouses."
I have no problem calling at least some of the hippies polyamorous,... but I can't (legally) call them polygamists, because they never married.
I believe Roberts did discuss the historical aspects of plural marriage. I think the idea of a marriage being between a man and woman historically had to do with the idea that while a man might have several wives, each one is bound to him by an individual marriage. There is not one marriage that binds all the people to each other. So if a man had three wives, he also had three marriages, one for each wife. So each individual marriage was between a man and a woman, thus Roberts was factually correct.
To me, the hair-splitting with this example is reeeeeeeeeeealllllly stretching it -- and you still ignore the other examples that don't fit your narrative (e.g., child brides). I know you can do better, even if Roberts can't (or, more likely, won't).
As I said earlier in this thread, I'd rather this lead into more protections for LGBT people than to more different types of marriage.
Well, I don't think it has to be an either-or. If for some reason it has to (money, time, and political will are all limited, I recognize that), I think you're likely to get your wish.
|
|
As I said earlier in this thread, I'd rather this lead into more protections for LGBT people than to more different types of marriage.Well, I don't think it has to be an either-or. If for some reason it has to (money, time, and political will are all limited, I recognize that), I think you're likely to get your wish.
Yeah, that. And, the sad truth is that there's no guarantee or even in particular indication that this will lead into anything. Are further anti-discrimination laws more likely as a result of this ruling? (I am asking seriously, not rhetorically).
It seems that in the current Obama administration many small steps towards increased liberalism have been taken, including legalization of same sex marriage, of marijuana and the crown jewel, the new healthcare. Place is gonna be full of stoned, happily married same sex couples in a few years. It seems to me that the only way this trend continues is if the democrats win the 2016 elections, which are going to be more important for the chances of further anti discrimination laws that the precedent set by this one.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because someone does not agree with a lifestyle does not mean that they are bigots.
No. But by the same token, just because someone objects to being called a bigot doesn't mean they aren't a bigot.
And when I find a non-bigotry based argument against allowing same-sex couples to marry, it will be the first. You are invited to help out here by providing one, if you think you know of one.
|
|
Just because someone does not agree with a lifestyle does not mean that they are bigots.No. But by the same token, just because someone objects to being called a bigot doesn't mean they aren't a bigot.
And when I find a non-bigotry based argument against allowing same-sex couples to marry, it will be the first. You are invited to help out here by providing one, if you think you know of one.
I can give you several off the top of my head!
1) More children are likely to be adopted
2) allowing more families to live in a lifestyle that does not conform to the old ways might soften gender roles in future generations, allowing individuals more freedom to live their life as they choose!
3) Any show of public support for homosexuality could immensely ease the life and minds of many people who, out of fear, currently live in the closet.
4) Same sex marriage are a direct and unavoidable derivative of the core concept and values of humanism.
I feel like I'm making a worse case than I usually do.
Just because someone does not agree with a lifestyle does not mean that they are bigots.No. But by the same token, just because someone objects to being called a bigot doesn't mean they aren't a bigot.
And when I find a non-bigotry based argument against allowing same-sex couples to marry, it will be the first. You are invited to help out here by providing one, if you think you know of one.
I can give you several off the top of my head!
1) More children are likely to be adopted
2) allowing more families to live in a lifestyle that does not conform to the old ways might soften gender roles in future generations, allowing individuals more freedom to live their life as they choose!
3) Any show of public support for homosexuality could immensely ease the life and minds of many people who, out of fear, currently live in the closet.
4) Same sex marriage are a direct and unavoidable derivative of the core concept and values of humanism.
I feel like I'm making a worse case than I usually do.
Er, those seem like arguments in favor of allowing same-sex marriage to me, not against it.
|
|
Er, those seem like arguments in favor of allowing same-sex marriage to me, not against it.Just because someone does not agree with a lifestyle does not mean that they are bigots.No. But by the same token, just because someone objects to being called a bigot doesn't mean they aren't a bigot.
And when I find a non-bigotry based argument against allowing same-sex couples to marry, it will be the first. You are invited to help out here by providing one, if you think you know of one.
I can give you several off the top of my head!
1) More children are likely to be adopted
2) allowing more families to live in a lifestyle that does not conform to the old ways might soften gender roles in future generations, allowing individuals more freedom to live their life as they choose!
3) Any show of public support for homosexuality could immensely ease the life and minds of many people who, out of fear, currently live in the closet.
4) Same sex marriage are a direct and unavoidable derivative of the core concept and values of humanism.
I feel like I'm making a worse case than I usually do.
I noticed ;)
|
|
More seriously, your challenge to find any reason for objecting to same sex marriage that does not come from some bigoted view based on outdated morals had me pause to consider if there is, indeed, any such reason to be found. I tried to consider ways in which other aspects of lives could be effected by allowing this freedom, I considered long term future ramifications...
Unsurprisingly there really isn't anything and the 4 points I raised are just stuff I came up with then. Still, an interesting thought exercise.