again : the “leap” already happened. No need to slip. We are already there.
Marriage has become an “universal individual right”.
Once it is the case, there is no distance left between that and polygamy.
If we are wrong, you can prove it rather easily :
Just tell us why we should outlaw polygamy now that marriage is an universal right.
and just tell us how we could do it without discrimination.
[quote]kamui wrote:
again : the “leap” already happened. No need to slip. We are already there.
Marriage has become an “universal individual right”.
Once it is the case, there is no distance left between that and polygamy.
If we are wrong, you can prove it rather easily :
Just tell us why we should outlaw polygamy now that marriage is an universal right.
and just tell us how we could do it without discrimination.
[/quote]
The leap has already happened everywhere. That’s why you’re dealing in fallacy. It’s got nothing to do with the particulars of polygamy.
Alcohol is legal. Cocaine is not. Tell me why we should outlaw cocaine now that alcohol is legal.
And yet, cocaine is not legal.
Look at that.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Every single person subject to an anti-miscegenation law is barred from the same act–marriage to a person of another race. [/quote]
Yes, but this fact alone doesn’t make it equally discriminate.
This is where you fall of the train tracks.
It certainly matters, because it hurts one group more than the other group. It places more of a restriction on one group than it does another. It puts one group at a massive disadvantage as compared to the other.
This makes it unequal in the eyes of the law.
Correct again, you just have to take the next step and look at what the restrictions effects are, and if those effects are spread equal among the population.
Interracial marriage bans are harder on minority races. Even if you ignore the disadvantages the particular minorities in question already had, this placed more on them by denying them access to the same pool of potential partners as others races.
Same sex marriage bans equally restrict both sexes from entering into a particular type of contract. The ban doesn’t hurt one sex more than the other, as they are both denied access to the benefits of the contract in the eyes of the law.
Again though, I’m not opposed to same sex marriage. Maybe it is me, maybe I’m young, maybe I’m stupid, but I haven’t seen enough to make believe that allowing two members of the same sex to file joint and be on eachother’s insurance as something we should deny.
But at the same time, if calling same sex marriage something other than marriage, but with 100% the same benefits from the government is a step towards resolution and compromise on the issue, then both sides need to embrace the idea with at least tolerance if acceptance is beyond them for what ever reason.
There is no harm done to society or to anybody on the planet by granting two men a marriage license. None.
And that’s what really matters here.
If you want to start arguing about polygamy afterward, go ahead. But we don’t withhold privileges in this country on the singular basis that someday, somewhere, somebody might use the logic underpinning the granted privilege to push for another, different privilege of which we’re warier. Otherwise alcohol would be illegal. Otherwise every firearm would be illegal in every state whose citizens didn’t like the idea of Browing .50 Cal’s being sold at Walmart. Otherwise, no privileges would exist at all.
So either gay marriage is in itself and on its own merits a cause of harm to the citizens of the United States of America, or it is not.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Again though, I’m not opposed to same sex marriage. Maybe it is me, maybe I’m young, maybe I’m stupid, but I haven’t seen enough to make believe that allowing two members of the same sex to file joint and be on eachother’s insurance as something we should deny.
But at the same time, if calling same sex marriage something other than marriage, but with 100% the same benefits from the government is a step towards resolution and compromise on the issue, then both sides need to embrace the idea with at least tolerance if acceptance is beyond them for what ever reason. [/quote]
I still disagree re: the rest of the post, but this here is good. If it’s just the name, then I don’t actually care, though I side with the gays because I believe that there has to be a compelling reason to bar someone from saying or doing or calling themself what they want.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
And what is that basis?
[/quote]
Give me your basis for justifying gay marriage and I will repeat it virtually word for word to justify polygamy.
On top of that I will point out the widespread “successes” of polygamy across the planet throughout history.
I will use all your sappy “love” bullshit AND funnel you to how pragmatic polygamy can be in many cases. [/quote]
It is in the best interest for society to promote monogamy, which the government does via marriage.
Polygamy has other consequences most importantly is social darwinism which has caused it to fail so many times in the past.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
And what is that basis?
[/quote]
Give me your basis for justifying gay marriage and I will repeat it virtually word for word to justify polygamy.
On top of that I will point out the widespread “successes” of polygamy across the planet throughout history.
I will use all your sappy “love” bullshit AND funnel you to how pragmatic polygamy can be in many cases. [/quote]
It is in the best interest for society to promote monogamy, which the government does via marriage.
Polygamy has other consequences most importantly is social darwinism which has caused it to fail so many times in the past.[/quote]
Push: I look forward to your justification of polygamy with the words, “it is in the best interest for society to promote monogamy.”
[quote]smh23 wrote:
There is no harm done to society or to anybody on the planet by granting two men a marriage license. None.
[/quote]
About that… MA allows Married Filing Joint for same sex couples. The Feds don’t.
So I get to bill MFJ same sex couples more because I have to file 3 different returns for them.
So there is a little harm in my billings. 
(I’m serious in the billings being a smart ass in the harm, I wouldn’t reduce the bill.)
And by the way, re: slippery slopes: pro-gay marriage advocates can’t have it both ways.
You can’t, on one hand, claim that there is no reason to think that gay marriage will lead to another form of marriage, when you yourselves, on the other hand, claim that gay marriage is justified because interracial marriage was justified years ago.
“Slopes” don’t start and stop where convenient to your argument. If you want to claim that interracial marriage begets gay marriage down the slope of “progress”, everyone is likewise entitled to look further down that exact same slope to see what gay marriage begets.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
“Slopes” don’t start and stop where convenient to your argument.[/quote]
They start and stop when we decide that we want them to. See my above arguments for examples.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
There is no harm done to society or to anybody on the planet by granting two men a marriage license. None…
[/quote]
There is no harm done to society or to anybody on the planet by granting three men a marriage license. None.
There is no harm done to society or to anybody on the planet by granting fifty men a marriage license. None.
There is no harm done to society or to anybody on the planet by granting two men and a Longhorn steer a marriage license. None.[/quote]
Then support the legitimization of those arrangements. Or don’t. It has no bearing on this discussion.
What’s in question here is gay marriage, on its own merits.
And see my previous posts re: slippery slopes for a full answer to you here.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And by the way, re: slippery slopes: pro-gay marriage advocates can’t have it both ways.
You can’t, on one hand, claim that there is no reason to think that gay marriage will lead to another form of marriage, when you yourselves, on the other hand, claim that gay marriage is justified because interracial marriage was justified years ago.
“Slopes” don’t start and stop where convenient to your argument. If you want to claim that interracial marriage begets gay marriage down the slope of “progress”, everyone is likewise entitled to look further down that exact same slope to see what gay marriage begets.[/quote]
Interracial marriage was justified via discrimination laws as is gay marriage, they are very similar hence the comparisons but I don’t think anyone used interracial marriage to directly justify gay marriage. If you want to say anti discrimination laws are a slippery slope to gay marriage then I won’t disagree with you there.
[quote]iVoodoo wrote:
I see.
So, this argument is pretty pointless.
Arguing for an arbitrary point in a flawed institution.[/quote]
I have a hard time thinking that the President, Congress, and SCOTUS are involved in a pointless argument. But yeah, attempting to repair something FUBARed, I guess.
Evidence would suggest that the minority group in question is generally unsatisfied with or without marriage. I would also assert that there are some perceived social coffin nails involved as well (the first religious institution that is forced, against it’s beliefs, to provide health insurance to one man’s husband or a woman’s wife will be a pretty grievous social injustice).
[quote]Tough call.
Definitely sounds like marriage needs an overhaul, regardless.
That’s the takeaway I’m getting from this.[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
And what is that basis?
[/quote]
Give me your basis for justifying gay marriage and I will repeat it virtually word for word to justify polygamy.
On top of that I will point out the widespread “successes” of polygamy across the planet throughout history.
I will use all your sappy “love” bullshit AND funnel you to how pragmatic polygamy can be in many cases. [/quote]
It is in the best interest for society to promote monogamy,
[/quote]
Why?
I think you know this already but are just being difficult. One simple reason that comes to mind is married people live longer. Regardless of the number of reasons, the pros will outweigh the cons unless you can convince me otherwise.
As long as the birth rate is around 50% for each sex polygamy will displace a large portion of society. This will result in things like higher crime or even a takeover of that society by another.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
(the first religious institution that is forced, against it’s beliefs, to provide health insurance to one man’s husband or a woman’s wife will be a pretty grievous social injustice).
.[/quote]
Or private company for that matter…
I didn’t think of this layer of complexity prior to you mentioning it.
Ouch, this part is going to be sticky.