For those of you who perpetuate the hilariously stupid old meme regarding marriage to inanimate objects and animals, I have one question: Can a toaster or a goat sign a legal agreement such as a marriage license?
Take all the time you need…
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
No matter how this issue gets flipped, smacked, turned around, or whatever else to present it from another angle, it’s discrimination. Period. [/quote]
Saying “period” doesn’t make a false statement fact.
First off, the government doesn’t grant or give rights. The government can only take them away. Secondly marriage isn’t a right, neither are any tax write-offs or shared insurance plans.
No privileges were denied to anyone based on who they were. Privileges were (and are) granted based on behavior. A behavior everyone was allowed to partake in. They just had to meet certain conditions.
Using your logic, people who rent could sue the government for discrimination because they can’t deduct mortgage interest on their taxes. The government was rewarding a certain behavior, that anyone was free to engage in.
We have 3 laws that also appear in the 10 commandments. Murder is illegal, theft is illegal and so is perjury. Therefore you must believe we should remove those laws from our books then?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
For those of you who perpetuate the hilariously stupid old meme regarding marriage to inanimate objects and animals, I have one question: Can a toaster or a goat sign a legal agreement such as a marriage license?
Take all the time you need…[/quote]
Oh calm down…I was using it as a humorous way to make a point…so you are ok with Polygamous marriage then? Because that is coming.
Trust me, shit is gonna get really ugly (ever seen any of the documentaries on Polygamy?).
But go ahead and single out the one far fetched example and ignore the two nasty ones that are on the horizon.
While I myself think one wife is enough, what is inherently wrong with polygamy? As long as it is not forced or based on lies, like the spouses not knowing about each other, I dont see the problem. One would have to revisit the benefits of marriage, like family reunion, or one person could marry the whole of Pakistan into Norway by “family reuinion”, so I see that could be a problem.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I see it as expanding the religious freedom of the gay person and curtailing the right of people to tell others how they should live
[/quote]
I see it as expanding the religious freedom of the gay person and curtailing the right of people to tell others how they should live… by telling non or even anti-gay people how they should live.
Doublethink at it’s finest.[/quote]
Scenario 1:
Jim and John want to get married. Harry and Sally are married, but oppose Jim and John getting married for religious reasons and because it makes them feel icky, so they convince the state to prohibit gay marriage. The state does not issue a license and Jim and John are prohibited from getting legally married.
Scenario 2
Jim and John want to get married. Harry and Sally are married, but oppose Jim and John getting married for religious reasons and because it makes them feel icky, but the state ignores their pleas and issues a marriage license to Jim and John. Jim and John get married, and Harry and Sally remain married, although now they feel icky.
In Scenario 2, how is the state telling Harry and Sally how to live their lives? Homosexuality and gay marriage makes them feel icky in both scenarios and nobody is telling them they can’t feel this way.
In Scenario 1, how is it fair for the state to deny Jim and John their wishes regarding relationships that affect them directly because of the wishes of others who, if Jim and John’s relationship affects them at all, does so only indirectly or tangentially?
Assuming without conceding that the interests–I purposefully didn’t use the words rights because some think “rights” is a loaded word–of one of these two parties will be adversely affected by either scenario, whose interests are more directly impacted by the decision one way or the other?
[/quote]
Heh, you’re considerate enough to leave the question of rights out of the argument but, politely offer me only ‘icky feelings’ as justification for Harry and Sally’s position? Why are Jim and John’s motivation to marry not mentioned but Harry and Sally’s strictly delineated as a religious bias and ‘icky feelings’? Am I to assume that their marriage is purely virtuous or somehow valued more than Harry and Sally’s religion or ‘icky feelings’?
I could go into the details of your small and contrived scenarios and why your stereotyping of Harry and Sally is no more appropriate than the supposed stereotyping of Jim and John by Harry and Sally, but to cut to the chase, the only people that are going to benefit from this type of marriage are those affiliated with or dependent upon the federal government. DOMA prevented a tax break from being exercised by a woman on a $2M estate while the poorer individuals will fall into higher brackets filing jointly as states allow it. I don’t, by any means, intend to portray myself as an advocate of ‘gay rights’. Quite the opposite, because I’m not falling all over myself to ignore any fundamental truths about homosexuals and gay marriage, I can understand that gay marriage might not be a good idea for a lot of reasons. [/quote]
I’ll concede the icky comment (that I now realize I subconsciously stole from Lewis Black) was probably condescending and could have been left out of the hypothetical, but I don’t see it as a secret that the most vehement or vocal opponents of gay marriage are tied together on religious grounds. My observation in the gay-marriage thread on here that ran for awhile, for example, was that the sides were pretty well aligned based on religious affiliation or lack thereof.
Also, what support do you have for the proposition that “the only people that are going to benefit from this type of marriage are those affiliated with or dependent upon the federal government”? There are lots of rights/obligations/default decision making procedures/ bundled in with marriage that benefit anyone who is married. I also think there is a pretty compelling social-science case to be made for the proposition that the normalization of gay relationships in-and-of-itself will benefit homosexuals and society at large. Basic human dignity has real value even if it can’t always be monetized or measured in objective terms, and treating gays like they are sick perverts on the fringe of society as a matter of course is just a shitty way to treat other human beings, IMO. Its not like treating them shitty or “discouraging” their behavior is going to turn them straight so I don’t see what legitimate purpose it serves trying to marginalize them or keep them on the fringes of society.
I’m also not certain about what “fundamental truths about homosexuals and gay marriage” you are talking about.
[quote]espenl wrote:
what is inherently wrong with polygamy? As long as it is not forced or based on lies, [/quote]
The majority of Polygamists (at least the ultra traditional Mormon’s) have a ton of marriages of girls as young as 13-15 to men in their 40-50’s…there is also a LOT of interbreeding.
We are talking men with 15-30 wives.
Sound’s good!!
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
what is inherently wrong with polygamy? As long as it is not forced or based on lies, [/quote]
The majority of Polygamists (at least the ultra traditional Mormon’s) have a ton of marriages of girls as young as 13-15 to men in their 40-50’s…there is also a LOT of interbreeding.
We are talking men with 15-30 wives.
Sound’s good!! [/quote]
This isn’t an “inherent” problem with polygamy, but I’d agree its a real and historical problem that might be one justification for line drawing. In other words, I think the real issue boils down to exploitation/consent problems rather than an inherent problem with polygamy.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
what is inherently wrong with polygamy? As long as it is not forced or based on lies, [/quote]
The majority of Polygamists (at least the ultra traditional Mormon’s) have a ton of marriages of girls as young as 13-15 to men in their 40-50’s…there is also a LOT of interbreeding.
We are talking men with 15-30 wives.
Sound’s good!! [/quote]
This isn’t an “inherent” problem with polygamy, but I’d agree its a real and historical problem that might be one justification for line drawing. In other words, I think the real issue boils down to exploitation/consent problems rather than an inherent problem with polygamy.
[/quote]
I agree. The people involved will have to be of age, and consenting to the agreement.
When 2 women want to marry 4 men, and have a 6 way marriage, we will just have them fill out a 1065, rather than a 1040. Holy shit, that is hilarious.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
what is inherently wrong with polygamy? As long as it is not forced or based on lies, [/quote]
The majority of Polygamists (at least the ultra traditional Mormon’s) have a ton of marriages of girls as young as 13-15 to men in their 40-50’s…there is also a LOT of interbreeding.
We are talking men with 15-30 wives.
Sound’s good!! [/quote]
This isn’t an “inherent” problem with polygamy, but I’d agree its a real and historical problem that might be one justification for line drawing. In other words, I think the real issue boils down to exploitation/consent problems rather than an inherent problem with polygamy.
[/quote]
Oh I agree…and I really have no problem with gays getting married(as long as none of them sue churches to force them to allow ceremonies inside) but I think the long term ramifications of this will be interesting indeed.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
what is inherently wrong with polygamy? As long as it is not forced or based on lies, [/quote]
The majority of Polygamists (at least the ultra traditional Mormon’s) have a ton of marriages of girls as young as 13-15 to men in their 40-50’s…there is also a LOT of interbreeding.
We are talking men with 15-30 wives.
Sound’s good!! [/quote]
This isn’t an “inherent” problem with polygamy, but I’d agree its a real and historical problem that might be one justification for line drawing. In other words, I think the real issue boils down to exploitation/consent problems rather than an inherent problem with polygamy.
[/quote]
I agree. The people involved will have to be of age, and consenting to the agreement.
When 2 women want to marry 4 men, and have a 6 way marriage, we will just have them fill out a 1065, rather than a 1040. Holy shit, that is hilarious. [/quote]
Haha. Partnership dissolution is a fucking complicated pain in the ass, another reason to justify line drawing, IMO, especially if kids are involved.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
When 2 women want to marry 4 men, and have a 6 way marriage, we will just have them fill out a 1065, rather than a 1040. Holy shit, that is hilarious. [/quote]
Haha. Partnership dissolution is a fucking complicated pain in the ass, another reason to justify line drawing, IMO, especially if kids are involved.
[/quote]
You accountants.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Haha. Partnership dissolution is a fucking complicated pain in the ass, another reason to justify line drawing, IMO, especially if kids are involved.
[/quote]
Right, but what is going to happen when polygamists start crying about discrimination and bigotry?
We won’t be able to say no, and still be intellectually consistent. Just being honest.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Haha. Partnership dissolution is a fucking complicated pain in the ass, another reason to justify line drawing, IMO, especially if kids are involved.
[/quote]
Right, but what is going to happen when polygamists start crying about discrimination and bigotry?
We won’t be able to say no, and still be intellectually consistent. Just being honest.
[/quote]
I think the case for polygamy is much less compelling and there is also simply less demand for it. But I don’t really disagree with you.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Haha. Partnership dissolution is a fucking complicated pain in the ass, another reason to justify line drawing, IMO, especially if kids are involved.
[/quote]
Right, but what is going to happen when polygamists start crying about discrimination and bigotry?
We won’t be able to say no, and still be intellectually consistent. Just being honest.
[/quote]
I think the case for polygamy is much less compelling and there is also simply less demand for it. But I don’t really disagree with you. [/quote]
Sort of like the LBGT movement in the 80s… 
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Haha. Partnership dissolution is a fucking complicated pain in the ass, another reason to justify line drawing, IMO, especially if kids are involved.
[/quote]
Right, but what is going to happen when polygamists start crying about discrimination and bigotry?
We won’t be able to say no, and still be intellectually consistent. Just being honest.
[/quote]
I think the case for polygamy is much less compelling and there is also simply less demand for it. But I don’t really disagree with you. [/quote]
Sort of like the LBGT movement in the 80s… ;)[/quote]
Just thinking about it from a purely mechanical standpoint, a gay married couple can slide seamlessly right into pretty much every state legal marriage/divorce system without much if any adjustment to laws/defaults for resolving disputes and determining duties and obligations and splitting up property. You just can’t say the same thing for polygamy–the entire structure of the defaults would need to be revamped. I think that’s a pretty real and important distinction.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Oh I agree…and I really have no problem with gays getting married(as long as none of them sue churches to force them to allow ceremonies inside) but I think the long term ramifications of this will be interesting indeed.[/quote]
I consider a 40+ year old marrying a 15- year old pedophilia, and not okay 
I dont see why people want to marry in institutions that are against them being lesbians, gay or polygamists. It would be like a black person insisting on joining the Ku Klux Clan
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Also, what support do you have for the proposition that “the only people that are going to benefit from this type of marriage are those affiliated with or dependent upon the federal government”? There are lots of rights/obligations/default decision making procedures/ bundled in with marriage that benefit anyone who is married. I also think there is a pretty compelling social-science case to be made for the proposition that the normalization of gay relationships in-and-of-itself will benefit homosexuals and society at large.[/quote]
There’s plenty of epidemiological data that suggests the opposite. Homosexuals in more tolerant countries with explicitly stipulated marriage rights are still discriminated against and still suffer socially and emotionally. It’s clear that being discriminated against hurts, but it’s not clear that legally barring the practice of discrimination helps at all.
Currently, the treatment for gender identity disorder is gender reassignment surgery. However, there is every indication that this procedure has a minimal to borderline negative effect on it’s patients. It is suggested that (unlike homosexuality) the issue lies with the person’s acceptance of themselves and their physicality is at issue rather than just their gender. No amount of gender reassignment or marriage equality will improve their situation.
Not saying that the worst case of transgender surgery should represent all of homosexuality, but there is a recurring undertone of unquenchable dissatisfaction (in this case necessitating government action).
Basic human dignity may have some real value but, IMO, if your derivation of human value is solely or firmly dependent on sex or the gender of the person with whom you have sex, you’ve got a pretty poor source of dignity.
From Ernst Rohm to Freddie Mercury and Michael Stipe, homosexuals have had little opposition to their success due to their sexuality. To act like they’ve been downtrodden is a false portrayal of history.
What fucking fringes? There’s a gay pride parade in every major city in this country every year. From exercise videos to kids cartoons they hold jobs in every portion of society. There used to be a time when you had to be an astronaut or war hero to get a parade. Now, the astronauts lose their jobs and the people who actually have kids, raise families, and hold jobs get to sit in the traffic backup caused by the gay pride parade.
Gay marriage = Straight marriage. Not true, never will be, no amount of legislation can make it so.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Also, what support do you have for the proposition that “the only people that are going to benefit from this type of marriage are those affiliated with or dependent upon the federal government”? There are lots of rights/obligations/default decision making procedures/ bundled in with marriage that benefit anyone who is married. I also think there is a pretty compelling social-science case to be made for the proposition that the normalization of gay relationships in-and-of-itself will benefit homosexuals and society at large.[/quote]
There’s plenty of epidemiological data that suggests the opposite. Homosexuals in more tolerant countries with explicitly stipulated marriage rights are still discriminated against and still suffer socially and emotionally. It’s clear that being discriminated against hurts, but it’s not clear that legally barring the practice of discrimination helps at all.
Currently, the treatment for gender identity disorder is gender reassignment surgery. However, there is every indication that this procedure has a minimal to borderline negative effect on it’s patients. It is suggested that (unlike homosexuality) the issue lies with the person’s acceptance of themselves and their physicality is at issue rather than just their gender. No amount of gender reassignment or marriage equality will improve their situation.
Not saying that the worst case of transgender surgery should represent all of homosexuality, but there is a recurring undertone of unquenchable dissatisfaction (in this case necessitating government action).
Basic human dignity may have some real value but, IMO, if your derivation of human value is solely or firmly dependent on sex or the gender of the person with whom you have sex, you’ve got a pretty poor source of dignity.
From Ernst Rohm to Freddie Mercury and Michael Stipe, homosexuals have had little opposition to their success due to their sexuality. To act like they’ve been downtrodden is a false portrayal of history.
What fucking fringes? There’s a gay pride parade in every major city in this country every year. From exercise videos to kids cartoons they hold jobs in every portion of society. There used to be a time when you had to be an astronaut or war hero to get a parade. Now, the astronauts lose their jobs and the people who actually have kids, raise families, and hold jobs get to sit in the traffic backup caused by the gay pride parade.
Gay marriage = Straight marriage. Not true, never will be, no amount of legislation can make it so.[/quote]
I appreciate your post. I disagree with a lot of it, but it is thoughtful and well stated. I respect epidemiological studies if done properly, so I’d be interested to see them as to your first point. I’d also certainly concede that causation of things like depression or low self esteem are individualized to a certain extent and difficult to pinpoint with certainty and that gay marriage isn’t a magic fix for everything.
Another point I agree with is that gays are much less on the fringes than they used to be; but disagree that this isn’t a recent phenomenon or isn’t the result of a lot of hard work and struggle; or that they are now entirely accepted. How many openly gay NFL players are there? There’s still plenty of gays in the closet–especially outside hollywood and the music scene–but, again, things are certainly better than they were even a decade ago.
Time will tell on your last point.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Just thinking about it from a purely mechanical standpoint, a gay married couple can slide seamlessly right into pretty much every state legal marriage/divorce system without much if any adjustment to laws/defaults for resolving disputes and determining duties and obligations and splitting up property. You just can’t say the same thing for polygamy–the entire structure of the defaults would need to be revamped. I think that’s a pretty real and important distinction.[/quote]
First, quit deceiving yourself, you’re not thinking about this mechanically (biologically) or legally. This same argument is/was used against homosexuals. They can’t inherently procreate so custody becomes and issue. This is only one of several instances;
Additionally there is no or hardly any default dissolution process for regular marriage. Some states automatically split down the middle, some don’t. Infidelity is treated differently virtually everywhere. Custody typically follows income/providence but is easily swayed by other factors. Acting like marriage/divorce law is a smooth running machine is a flawed perception. IMO, acting like divorce law should run like a well oiled machine is one as well.
Second, you’re right, the entire structure of defaults needs to be revamped and that’s part of the issue. When citizenship became a condition of marriage, both immigration and marriage (as well as other factors) were in very different situations than they are now. Many of these flaws were socio-politically used to justify gay marriage. Which is like cramming more people under an umbrella full of gaping holes so that fewer people get wet.
Third, we have property partnerships from dozens to hundreds if not thousands of people form and dissolve every day in this country in the form of co-ops, business partnerships, and corporations (and it’s done regardless of sexual orientation, gasp!). I leave you to do the statistics, but a marriage of 3 or more is increasingly unlikely to completely dissolve (three way split) and is much more likely to leave children with a more stable two (or more) parent home. Acting like the same can’t be done for polygamous families or relationships shows that you just find polygamy to be ‘icky’.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Now, the astronauts lose their jobs and the people who actually have kids, raise families, and hold jobs get to sit in the traffic backup caused by the gay pride parade.
[quote]
I’m thinking the gay astronauts need to come out of the closet. Then we could have parades for gays and astronauts at the same time. Everybody wins.