I’m not going to argue about it anymore. We are not going agree on this. I do find it interesting that the only thing you’ve been able to do is pull out the old slippery slope argument. And repeatedly throw out the slur of ‘bigot’ WITHOUT actually refuting that polygamist marriages are qualitatively different and oppressive and miserable institutions for most of the women in them. I TOLD you to look at the legislative history and do some research on the state of polygamy in this country. If you choose to remain ignorant, that’s your choice. It’s not my job to educate you. Oldtimer. You might take a jaunt to local library in between your Bengay applications and Canasta games and learn something.
Your arguments are totatally disingenuous anyway. You don’t actually approve of polygamy. And don’t think it should exist. And could care less about discrimination against polygamists.
Opponents should just stick with realistic arguments. Everyone can appreciate the claim that extending legal benefits to same-sex couples will destroy the sanctity of marriage and reach havoc in this country. I think it’s nonsense and don’t agree with it. But it’s plausible. I get it. The slippery slope arguments, and ‘Ooh, polygamy.’ ‘What about polygamy?’ ‘Polygamy’s next!.’ “Polygamy, polygamy, polygamy!.” No. That’s just bullshit.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Opponents should just stick with realistic arguments. Everyone can appreciate the claim that extending legal benefits to same-sex couples will destroy the sanctity of marriage and reach havoc in this country.
I think it’s nonsense and don’t agree with it. But it’s plausible. I get it. The slippery slope arguments, and ‘Ooh, polygamy.’ ‘What about polygamy?’ ‘Polygamy’s next!.’ “Polygamy, polygamy, polygamy!.” No. That’s just bullshit.[/quote]
I actually do think that polygamy is next.
I also do not think that you have any means to prevent this, because a man can already live with as many women as consent to live with him.
All you can do is make life hard for the children of such arrangements.
[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Opponents should just stick with realistic arguments. Everyone can appreciate the claim that extending legal benefits to same-sex couples will destroy the sanctity of marriage and reach havoc in this country.
I think it’s nonsense and don’t agree with it. But it’s plausible. I get it. The slippery slope arguments, and ‘Ooh, polygamy.’ ‘What about polygamy?’ ‘Polygamy’s next!.’ “Polygamy, polygamy, polygamy!.” No. That’s just bullshit.
I actually do think that polygamy is next.
I also do not think that you have any means to prevent this, because a man can already live with as many women as consent to live with him.
All you can do is make life hard for the children of such arrangements.[/quote]
Maybe. It is already criminal, though. Preventing it by actively enforcing the law and extending legal benefits to such arrangments are two very different things. I don’t see that happening. Nor do I view failing to do so as unfair ‘discrimination’ to polygamists.
There is a qualitative difference between polygamy and gay relationships whatever Mick tries to say. And most of the country recognizes this. You don’t see over 30% (a conservative estimate of those-mostly straight-who’d extend legal benefits to gays) arguing the same for polygamists.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Opponents should just stick with realistic arguments. Everyone can appreciate the claim that extending legal benefits to same-sex couples will destroy the sanctity of marriage and reach havoc in this country. I think it’s nonsense and don’t agree with it. But it’s plausible.
I get it. The slippery slope arguments, and ‘Ooh, polygamy.’ ‘What about polygamy?’ ‘Polygamy’s next!.’ “Polygamy, polygamy, polygamy!.” No. That’s just bullshit.
I actually do think that polygamy is next.
I also do not think that you have any means to prevent this, because a man can already live with as many women as consent to live with him.
All you can do is make life hard for the children of such arrangements.
Maybe. It is already criminal, though. Preventing it by actively enforcing the law and extending legal benefits to such arrangments are two very different things. I don’t see that happening. Nor do I view failing to do so as unfair ‘discrimination’ to polygamists.
There is a qualitative difference between polygamy and gay relationships whatever Mick tries to say. And most of the country recognizes this. You don’t see over 30% (a conservative estimate of those-mostly straight-who’d extend legal benefits to gays) aruging the same for polygamists.[/quote]
It is entirely irrelevant to me how many people choose to approve of other peoples private lives.
I hate the whole idea that anyone makes me pay at gunpoint to subsidize anyone else’s private life, whether that involves a man, several women or a pony.
The government should never have gotten into the relationship sanctioning business and most definitely not in the relationship rewarding business.
The mere fact that a government thinks it can tell me who I am married to is an insult to me, as it should be to any free man.
The only authority on my marriage status is me and me alone.
The only reason why this discussion even takes place is because of the original sin of governments involvement in deeply private matters.
As long as people actually think they can vote on other peoples private lives however, I, and other people will push for the recognition of polygamous marriages, not to destroy the sanctity of marriage, but to destroy the ridiculous notion that a government can bestow sanctity on anything.
And, since I do not need my governments approval regarding private matters, all they could do is go fuck themselves if I ever chose to live with two or more women.
Or a donkey, a lampshade and 9/10 of a banana.
All they can do is to deny me some petty cash I was otherwise “entitled” too. I´ll just subtract that sum next time I declare my income.
[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Opponents should just stick with realistic arguments. Everyone can appreciate the claim that extending legal benefits to same-sex couples will destroy the sanctity of marriage and reach havoc in this country.
I think it’s nonsense and don’t agree with it. But it’s plausible. I get it. The slippery slope arguments, and ‘Ooh, polygamy.’ ‘What about polygamy?’ ‘Polygamy’s next!.’ “Polygamy, polygamy, polygamy!.” No. That’s just bullshit.
I actually do think that polygamy is next.
I also do not think that you have any means to prevent this, because a man can already live with as many women as consent to live with him.
All you can do is make life hard for the children of such arrangements.
Maybe. It is already criminal, though. Preventing it by actively enforcing the law and extending legal benefits to such arrangments are two very different things. I don’t see that happening. Nor do I view failing to do so as unfair ‘discrimination’ to polygamists.
There is a qualitative difference between polygamy and gay relationships whatever Mick tries to say. And most of the country recognizes this. You don’t see over 30% (a conservative estimate of those-mostly straight-who’d extend legal benefits to gays) aruging the same for polygamists.
It is entirely irrelevant to me how many people choose to approve of other peoples private lives.
I hate the whole idea that anyone makes me pay at gunpoint to subsidize anyone else’s private life, whether that involves a man, several women or a pony.
The government should never have gotten into the relationship sanctioning business and most definitely not in the relationship rewarding business.
The mere fact that a government thinks it can tell me who I am married to is an insult to me, as it should be to any free man.
The only authority on my marriage status is me and me alone.
The only reason why this discussion even takes place is because of the original sin of governments involvement in deeply private matters.
As long as people actually think they can vote on other peoples private lives however, I, and other people will push for the recognition of polygamous marriages, not to destroy the sanctity of marriage, but to destroy the ridiculous notion that a government can bestow sanctity on anything.
And, since I do not need my governments approval regarding private matters, all they could do is go fuck themselves if I ever chose to live with two or more women.
Or a donkey, a lampshade and 9/10 of a banana.
All they can do is to deny me some petty cash I was otherwise “entitled” too. I´ll just subtract that sum next time I declare my income.
[/quote]
I think this is a fair view. I can appreciate what you’re saying. Hell, in a sense I even agree with it. Marriage is not the government’s business. Nevertheless, I don’t think the government is going to revoke the special status and legal entitlements it’s extended to couples anytime soon.
Since that is the case, they should have a compelling reason not to extend it all couples engaged in relationships that are by their nature equal and consensual and not rooted in oppression, domination, and coercion. It should be more than the couple is of the same sex and likes to take it up the pooper.
If some guy wants to go home to their wife, husband, 7 wives, or 3 sheep I don’t really care. That’d be fine with me. If it was fair to the sheep and 7 wives. But I don’t think it is. As a general matter anyway.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Opponents should just stick with realistic arguments. Everyone can appreciate the claim that extending legal benefits to same-sex couples will destroy the sanctity of marriage and reach havoc in this country. I think it’s nonsense and don’t agree with it.
But it’s plausible. I get it. The slippery slope arguments, and ‘Ooh, polygamy.’ ‘What about polygamy?’ ‘Polygamy’s next!.’ “Polygamy, polygamy, polygamy!.” No. That’s just bullshit.
I actually do think that polygamy is next.
I also do not think that you have any means to prevent this, because a man can already live with as many women as consent to live with him.
All you can do is make life hard for the children of such arrangements.
Maybe. It is already criminal, though. Preventing it by actively enforcing the law and extending legal benefits to such arrangments are two very different things. I don’t see that happening. Nor do I view failing to do so as unfair ‘discrimination’ to polygamists.
There is a qualitative difference between polygamy and gay relationships whatever Mick tries to say. And most of the country recognizes this. You don’t see over 30% (a conservative estimate of those-mostly straight-who’d extend legal benefits to gays) aruging the same for polygamists.
It is entirely irrelevant to me how many people choose to approve of other peoples private lives.
I hate the whole idea that anyone makes me pay at gunpoint to subsidize anyone else’s private life, whether that involves a man, several women or a pony.
The government should never have gotten into the relationship sanctioning business and most definitely not in the relationship rewarding business.
The mere fact that a government thinks it can tell me who I am married to is an insult to me, as it should be to any free man.
The only authority on my marriage status is me and me alone.
The only reason why this discussion even takes place is because of the original sin of governments involvement in deeply private matters.
As long as people actually think they can vote on other peoples private lives however, I, and other people will push for the recognition of polygamous marriages, not to destroy the sanctity of marriage, but to destroy the ridiculous notion that a government can bestow sanctity on anything.
And, since I do not need my governments approval regarding private matters, all they could do is go fuck themselves if I ever chose to live with two or more women.
Or a donkey, a lampshade and 9/10 of a banana.
All they can do is to deny me some petty cash I was otherwise “entitled” too. I´ll just subtract that sum next time I declare my income.
I think this is a fair view. I can appreciate what you’re saying. Hell, in a sense I even agree with it. Marriage is not the government’s business. Nevertheless, I don’t think the government is going to revoke the special status and legal entitlements it’s extended to couples anytime soon.
Since that is the case, they should have a compelling reason not to extend it all couples engaged in relationships that are by their nature equal and consensual and not rooted in oppression, domination, and coercion. It should be more than the couple is of the same sex and likes to take it up the pooper.
If some guy wants to go home to their wife, husband, 7 wives, or 3 sheep I don’t really care. That’d be fine with me. If it was fair to the sheep and 7 wives. But I don’t think it is. As a general matter anyway. [/quote]
But then Mick28 has a point.
Maybe the first one ever.
The fact that you think that polygamous relationships are demeaning oppressive and whatnot (when they are in fact highly problematic for men, not for women, at least in a free society) can hardly be the yardstick for a law.
If your ideas of how a polygamous marriage would look like is all you have you are like the conservatives who imagine gay marriage as an all-out gay orgy.
Those horror scenarios might be right, they might be wrong, what remains that legislating morality is divisive, discriminating and unenforceable.
[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Opponents should just stick with realistic arguments. Everyone can appreciate the claim that extending legal benefits to same-sex couples will destroy the sanctity of marriage and reach havoc in this country. I think it’s nonsense and don’t agree with it.
But it’s plausible. I get it. The slippery slope arguments, and ‘Ooh, polygamy.’ ‘What about polygamy?’ ‘Polygamy’s next!.’ “Polygamy, polygamy, polygamy!.” No. That’s just bullshit.
I actually do think that polygamy is next.
I also do not think that you have any means to prevent this, because a man can already live with as many women as consent to live with him.
All you can do is make life hard for the children of such arrangements.
Maybe. It is already criminal, though. Preventing it by actively enforcing the law and extending legal benefits to such arrangments are two very different things. I don’t see that happening. Nor do I view failing to do so as unfair ‘discrimination’ to polygamists.
There is a qualitative difference between polygamy and gay relationships whatever Mick tries to say. And most of the country recognizes this. You don’t see over 30% (a conservative estimate of those-mostly straight-who’d extend legal benefits to gays) aruging the same for polygamists.
It is entirely irrelevant to me how many people choose to approve of other peoples private lives.
I hate the whole idea that anyone makes me pay at gunpoint to subsidize anyone else’s private life, whether that involves a man, several women or a pony.
The government should never have gotten into the relationship sanctioning business and most definitely not in the relationship rewarding business.
The mere fact that a government thinks it can tell me who I am married to is an insult to me, as it should be to any free man.
The only authority on my marriage status is me and me alone.
The only reason why this discussion even takes place is because of the original sin of governments involvement in deeply private matters.
As long as people actually think they can vote on other peoples private lives however, I, and other people will push for the recognition of polygamous marriages, not to destroy the sanctity of marriage, but to destroy the ridiculous notion that a government can bestow sanctity on anything.
And, since I do not need my governments approval regarding private matters, all they could do is go fuck themselves if I ever chose to live with two or more women.
Or a donkey, a lampshade and 9/10 of a banana.
All they can do is to deny me some petty cash I was otherwise “entitled” too. I´ll just subtract that sum next time I declare my income.
I think this is a fair view. I can appreciate what you’re saying. Hell, in a sense I even agree with it. Marriage is not the government’s business. Nevertheless, I don’t think the government is going to revoke the special status and legal entitlements it’s extended to couples anytime soon.
Since that is the case, they should have a compelling reason not to extend it all couples engaged in relationships that are by their nature equal and consensual and not rooted in oppression, domination, and coercion. It should be more than the couple is of the same sex and likes to take it up the pooper.
If some guy wants to go home to their wife, husband, 7 wives, or 3 sheep I don’t really care. That’d be fine with me. If it was fair to the sheep and 7 wives. But I don’t think it is. As a general matter anyway.
But then Mick28 has a point.
Maybe the first one ever.
The fact that you think that polygamous relationships are demeaning oppressive and whatnot (when they are in fact highly problematic for men, not for women, at least in a free society) can hardly be the yardstick for a law.
If your ideas of how a polygamous marriage would look like is all you have you are like the conservatives who imagine gay marriage as an all-out gay orgy.
Those horror scenarios might be right, they might be wrong, what remains that legislating morality is divisive, discriminating and unenforceable.
[/quote]
I see what you are saying and you make a good point. The difference though is that in one instance the prohibition is to prevent outsiders from being offended and to protect a concept. The other is to protect individuals from oppression.
It IS a difficult issue. Some polygamous relationships may be entirely fine and no oppression may exist at all. But laws cannot act on a case-by-case basis. We can only go by the evidence of the effects of a practice as a whole. There is a lot of evidence that polygamous relationships in THIS country have been miserable for most of the participants.
(I’m studying for the bar exam and don’t have time to cite it right now. But I’ll see what I can dig up for you once all this crap is over. I’d do the homework for you because you’re capable of having a legitimate discuss. Mick can drag his own ignorant ass to the library).
It’s a different thing to say the government shouldn’t promote something that’s been shown to be an oppressive institution in this country (it’s different in other countries where polygamy has been part of the social fabric) than to say those who have actively demanded legal benefits should be refused based on other’s rights not to be offended.
We actually legislate morality all the time. We proscribe murder, and rape, and arson. The problems only arise when there is no consensus on whether something is moral.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Opponents should just stick with realistic arguments. Everyone can appreciate the claim that extending legal benefits to same-sex couples will destroy the sanctity of marriage and reach havoc in this country.
I think it’s nonsense and don’t agree with it. But it’s plausible. I get it. The slippery slope arguments, and ‘Ooh, polygamy.’ ‘What about polygamy?’ ‘Polygamy’s next!.’ “Polygamy, polygamy, polygamy!.” No. That’s just bullshit.[/quote]
It’s not bullshit, and that has been the entire point of the polygamy argument, whether you get it or not - you can’t make a principled argument for extending marriage rights to homosexuals but excluding every other alternative marriage arrangement, and that includes polygamy.
The argument that a marriage “right” should extend to homosexuals on the basis that a majority should have no power to restrict non-traditional relationships from the franchise of marriage is perfectly good for polygamy (and all others).
If you deny consenting adults the “right” to get married to multiple partners - which, by the way, actually has a historical predicate on which to argue, as much as gay marriage does not - you have denied bigamists the same “right” you have afforded gays.
And that is precisely the point - since you must, as a matter of principle, honor all consenting adult relationships (since you have no ability, as a relative matter, to say one is better than another), then you have effectively ridded the world of the privileged, traditional form of marriage and all of its benefits.
You may think that a grand idea, that is fine - but don’t try and pass off that the comparison between gay marriage and polygamy as outlandish. They are both non-traditional forms of marriage competing for a spot of legal distinction whose recognition would have major (negative) consequences for marriage as we know it.
Slippery slope works to a limit. I see no problem with polygamy, simply because we already have laws in place to prevent incest and statutory rape. Where slippery slop fails is when people bring up bestiality.
How can an animal give informed consent?
I’m just throwing this out there because I’m sure someone is going to go down that road. Don’t.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Slippery slope works to a limit. I see no problem with polygamy, simply because we already have laws in place to prevent incest and statutory rape. Where slippery slop fails is when people bring up bestiality.
How can an animal give informed consent?
I’m just throwing this out there because I’m sure someone is going to go down that road. Don’t.[/quote]
It’s like we are starting the thread over. We are 30 some odd pages in - the bestiality argument was covered.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
It’s like we are starting the thread over. We are 30 some odd pages in - the bestiality argument was covered.[/quote]
Yeah, but I think we were going to end up there anyway. Think of it as a preemptive strike.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Opponents should just stick with realistic arguments. Everyone can appreciate the claim that extending legal benefits to same-sex couples will destroy the sanctity of marriage and reach havoc in this country.
I think it’s nonsense and don’t agree with it. But it’s plausible. I get it. The slippery slope arguments, and ‘Ooh, polygamy.’ ‘What about polygamy?’ ‘Polygamy’s next!.’ “Polygamy, polygamy, polygamy!.” No. That’s just bullshit.
It’s not bullshit, and that has been the entire point of the polygamy argument, whether you get it or not - you can’t make a principled argument for extending marriage rights to homosexuals but excluding every other alternative marriage arrangement, and that includes polygamy.
The argument that a marriage “right” should extend to homosexuals on the basis that a majority should have no power to restrict non-traditional relationships from the franchise of marriage is perfectly good for polygamy (and all others).
If you deny consenting adults the “right” to get married to multiple partners - which, by the way, actually has a historical predicate on which to argue, as much as gay marriage does not - you have denied bigamists the same “right” you have afforded gays.
And that is precisely the point - since you must, as a matter of principle, honor all consenting adult relationships (since you have no ability, as a relative matter, to say one is better than another), then you have effectively ridded the world of the privileged, traditional form of marriage and all of its benefits.
You may think that a grand idea, that is fine - but don’t try and pass off that the comparison between gay marriage and polygamy as outlandish. They are both non-traditional forms of marriage competing for a spot of legal distinction whose recognition would have major (negative) consequences for marriage as we know it.
[/quote]
You missed the part where I said that polygamy was an inherently oppressive institution (in this country) and it is proper to refuse to recognize and extend benefits to an arrangement that subjugates those subjected to it who DON’T consent in any real sense of the word.
You may not agree that this is how polygamy plays out in this country, but from everything I’ve read on it, that is what I think. So, yes, I AM advocating extending legal benefits to all consenting (non-oppressive, non-coercive) adult relationships. I don’t belief polygamy is one of those. If I thought it was, I would not have a problem extending legal benefits to that either. Though I don’t think polygamy is the right waive to behave, even when freely entered.
People do things all the time I don’t approve of. The way many people have conducted themselves in the confines of heterosexual marriage is worse and more damaging to the institution than anything I can think of that homosexuals will do. However, that has not tarnished the marital ideal.
I also acknowledged that robbing same sex couples of legal benefits would be appropriate if there was compelling evidence that extending benefits to them would fundamentally tarnish or damage civil marriage. But I don’t think it does. I haven’t found any arguments on this thread or outside internet-land to the contrary to be convincing.
You don’t have to agree. That is the crucial lynchpin of this argument. There’s a fundamental disconnect on how gay marriage in the civil world would effect marriage. If there wasn’t, there’d be no argument at all. I don’t see it being resolved any time soon.