[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Well I’m of the opinion that polygamy should be legal.
I would not particularly have a problem with it if the primary effect would not foster Utah, compound-like, cultish, pseudo-slave polygamy. From things I’ve read in the past, it’s a big problem.
I will go back and see what I can find on the status of polygamy in this country when I have time. If it’s just isolated incidents and the majority of polygamous relationships are truly consenting, I don’t particularly care.
Hey there you are again talking about abusive polygamists but still offering no proof and whinning about not having time.
At least you’re consistent.[/quote]
So what, you do not offer any proof for your dangerous stoned drivers story AND you call people idiots that show you how wrong you are.
So at worst he is as bad as you, just with better manners.
So what, you do not offer any proof for your dangerous stoned drivers story AND you call people idiots that show you how wrong you are.
So at worst he is as bad as you, just with better manners.
My gosh horion it seems like every thread that you enter you take a huge crap in, and everyone is worse off for even being around it.
You witless boob…No one ever has to “prove” that one can drive better without actually being stoned. I want everyone who reads your incredible stupidity to fully absorb it.
YOU WANT PROOF THAT PEOPLE DRIVE BETTER WHO ARE NOT STONED
This speaks to your amazing lack of intelligence. I used to think that lixy was the village ass clown around here but you’re quickly catching him. In fact in shear stupidity you have no equal on this site.
[/quote]
That is not exactly true.
I want to show, and have done so, that there are a lot of studies out there that show that driving stoned is not more dangerous than driving sober.
They might even drive safer.
That shows that your claim that legalizing cannabis would lead to more stoned driving would not even be an argument IF IT WERE TRUE.
You in turn have nothing to show but your gut feeling.
How does allowing consenting adults to enter a civil contract of marriage spell the end of the public institution of marriage?[/quote]
Because if any relationship that a group of consenting adults comes up with is valid as a marriage under law, then there is no operable way to set aside any public benefits/recognition for marriage at all - no ability to have tax benefits, property ownership benefits, intestacy divisions, medical powers of attorney…the list is practically inexhaustible.
Definitionally, marriage laws must confine their benefits to a prescribed type of arrangement, and all others must be left out if we want any public benefits at all. If every relationship is allowed to be “marriage”, then everything is marriage, and naturally, then nothing is.
Who in the world cares how other countries define marriage for the sake of defining what marriage means in our country?
And you said it best - it most certainly does spell the end of marriage as I, and the rest of society over time, have defined it. Thanks for making my point.
A flawed and silly analogy, because allowing women to vote didn’t change suffrage laws all that drastically - there were just more votes to count.
Having a different definition of marriage doesn’t make marriage obsolete any more than allowing women to vote makes voting obsolete.
A flawed and silly analogy, because allowing women to vote didn’t change suffrage laws all that drastically - there were just more votes to count.[/quote]
Why?
Voting originally was for white landowners over thirty.
Than it gradually included other people.
That included as much “redefining” as gay marriage would “redefine” marriage.
Voting originally was for white landowners over thirty.
Than it gradually included other people.
That included as much “redefining” as gay marriage would “redefine” marriage.[/quote]
Incorrect - because the entire system of law w/r/t marriage would have to be changed. Outside of a toked-up coffee-house libertarian utopia, there exists a world of nuts-and-bolts that must deal with child custody, medical powers of attorney, Social Security benefit distribution, insurance rights and duties, intestacy statutes, tenancy of property, and on and on and on.
If a gaggle of two men and three women decide that their arrangement should be a marriage and march up to the courthouse and say “we want a marriage certificate honoring what we, as consenting adults, want”, every such arrangement would be sui generis for purposes of all those various public policies attached to marriage and child custody - and would thus end any coherence among public laws w/r/t marriage.
And that is the case for every consenting adults relationship - the sui generis problem - and that is why the relativistic notion of “all consenting adult relationships are welcome and equal” would spell the end of traditional marriage as a publicly recognized institution.
As allowing more voters into the franchise - more paperwork, and more votes to count.
Voting originally was for white landowners over thirty.
Than it gradually included other people.
That included as much “redefining” as gay marriage would “redefine” marriage.
Incorrect - because the entire system of law w/r/t marriage would have to be changed. Outside of a toked-up coffee-house libertarian utopia, there exists a world of nuts-and-bolts that must deal with child custody, medical powers of attorney, Social Security benefit distribution, insurance rights and duties, intestacy statutes, tenancy of property, and on and on and on.
If a gaggle of two men and three women decide that their arrangement should be a marriage and march up to the courthouse and say “we want a marriage certificate honoring what we, as consenting adults, want”, every such arrangement would be sui generis for purposes of all those various public policies attached to marriage and child custody - and would thus end any coherence among public laws w/r/t marriage.
And that is the case for every consenting adults relationship - the sui generis problem - and that is why the relativistic notion of “all consenting adult relationships are welcome and equal” would spell the end of traditional marriage as a publicly recognized institution.
As allowing more voters into the franchise - more paperwork, and more votes to count. [/quote]
But that is not how voting originally worked.
You had to prove that you had a certain income, that you could defend your city and so on.
That was very “nuts and bolts” for the Greek city states.
Meaning there were rights and obligation that had to be administrated.
I also do not know what to think of the argument as a whole, that, once something has become a bureaucratic nightmare we ought not to touch it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Because if any relationship that a group of consenting adults comes up with is valid as a marriage under law, then there is no operable way to set aside any public benefits/recognition for marriage at all - no ability to have tax benefits, property ownership benefits, intestacy divisions, medical powers of attorney…the list is practically inexhaustible.[/quote]
You’re catastrophizing here. Polygamy is included in the definition of marriage in other countries, so your claim that it is impossible to accommodate that definition doesn’t reflect reality.
But for the sake of argument, let’s say you’re right. Wouldn’t your argument illustrate a qualitative difference between gay marriage and other kinds of civil unions?
Allowing two people of the same gender to marry doesn’t invoke the bureaucratic nightmare that you describe. So why not allow it?
Because you gave the impression that there is some universal, inalterable definition of “marriage” which must be defended at all costs. My point was that many countries and cultures define marriage differently, and there is no compelling reason that the current definition in our country couldn’t evolve to reflect the values of our society.
Just as allowing same sex couples to marry wouldn’t alter marriage laws all that drastically - there would just be more marriages to perform.
You’re catastrophizing here. Polygamy is included in the definition of marriage in other countries, so your claim that it is impossible to accommodate that definition doesn’t reflect reality.
But for the sake of argument, let’s say you’re right. Wouldn’t your argument illustrate a qualitative difference between gay marriage and other kinds of civil unions? [/quote]
You would do yourself a favor by wading through the 30 some odd pages here. This debate has been hashed out.
The principle that gay marriage should be allowed - that consenting adults’ choices should be honored as a matter of right because the non-traditional arrangements are not less worthy than the traditional arrangement - cannot, as a logical matter, draw a line leaving others’ out.
As in, even if we drew a line and said gay binary marriages and marriages with one man, two women (in addition to traditional marriage) you have now been unfair as a matter of right - the right that underpins your claim - to other consenting adults’ relationships you have left out.
And, as such, you are now guilty of the same sin you once preached against, as they have the right to have their choices validated as much as you.
I don’t operate by that principle - so I am not encumbered by its end result. If we permit gay marriage on that principle, you see where it leads.
The bureaucratic nightmare isn’t just a problem all on its on, but you have confounded your argument again - you now make the argument that we “just allow gay binary marriage”. On what principle are you leaving out other non-traditional arrangements?
The bureaucratic nightmare, as it were, is a symptom, not necessarily the problem itself.
And those countries are free to experiment at will.
And yes, there are plenty of compelling reasons to protect existing institutions from naive experimentation. Not all change is “progress” - and we have covered, extensively, what those changes could bring about. In short, no thanks.
The primary compelling reason? We don’t actually think opening the franchise of marriage to alternative relationships is “evolution” - we think it risky and hubristic and therapeutic. Marriage has many benefits in society - none of which are served by expanding the franchise.
Incorrect - for the reasons outlined above and over 30 some odd pages.
But, interestingly, you seem awfully ready to throw other non-traditional relationships under the bus in order to promote gay marriage - why be so callous of their “rights”?
Check out this logic and tell me if you see anything wrong with it:
Group A enjoys rights.
Groups B and C are entitled to enjoy the same rights.
However, since it is administratively impossible for group C to enjoy rights, you must also deny those rights to Group B.
Does that make sense to you? Seriously?
Either your claim that it is administratively impossible to support polygamy is true or it is not. If it is true, then there is a qualitative difference between polygamy and gay marriage, and the slippery slope ceases to exist.
If it is not true, then you have no reason to deny the same rights across the board, assuming it is a mutually consensual informed adult relationship.
Actually, I specifically said that I supported polygamy as long as it was mutually consensual and there was no inherent harm in the relationship. I was addressing your “bureaucratic nightmare” argument, proving that even if you were right the slippery slope doesn’t exist.
Could you please expand on this? I’m not clear why you thnk gay marriage is “risky and hubristic and therapeutic” while straight marriage is not. Gay marriage provides social stability just as straight marriage does, and in both cases society benefits from it.
Check out this logic and tell me if you see anything wrong with it:
Group A enjoys rights.
Groups B and C are entitled to enjoy the same rights.[/quote]
Stop here. This is the point I made earlier. You are too wrapped up in the bureaucratic nightmare symptom.
Groups B and C are not entitled to enjoy the same rights - that is the essence of the point, and has been for pages. The fact that a “bureaucratic nightmare” ensues is only to reinforce the idea that it is impossible to have the public institution of marriage for every “consenting adults relationship” - it would effectively end it, if we operate by the principle that every consenting adults relationship is “equal” and deserves the status of marriage.
But, that isn’t the true crux - the true crux is that because of these end results (including not just a bureaucratic nightmare, but also the loss of other benefits, covered previously), I don’t believe in the relativistic notion that other Groups are equal to Group A. Period.
[quote]However, since it is administratively impossible for group C to enjoy rights, you must also deny those rights to Group B.
Does that make sense to you? Seriously?
Either your claim that it is administratively impossible to support polygamy is true or it is not. If it is true, then there is a qualitative difference between polygamy and gay marriage, and the slippery slope ceases to exist. [/quote]
Negative, as has been explained over and over - we are in the territory of rights, as repeated over and over. If the right exists to have all consenting adults relationships deserving of something other than a lesser status, you can’t exclude them, even if it is convenient to your cause.
Polygamy is just as valid as gay marriage under this “rights” theory - which you can’t seem to grasp. You seem to think the objection is basically about administrative efficiency, and that is the main obstacle. It isn’t.
If we hypothetically allow Group B to marry, excluding Group C - you win, personally, but now you are in the exact same territory as the people you accuse of denying you rights.
As I mentioned earlier, if you operate by that principle, you’ll be hung by it, because it shoehorns in the exact problem - denial of some consenting adults’ rights - you claim to be a victim of.
Wrong from the outset - the main problem is not administrative ease, the main problem is how the introduction of alternative arrangements on a “rights” basis dissolves any privileged institution we know, and have known throughout Western civilization, as marriage.
You haven’t proven anything at all, except for the fact that under a “rights” theory, you’d deny polygamists their right to marriage.
The slippery slope most certainly exists, because you haven’t made an explanation why someone’s “rights” get to be trumped by administrative efficiency. “Rights” are, well, “rights” for a reason - they are universal claims on a legal foundation whether it is convenient or not.
The solution? Libertarians have an easy one - make all consenting adults relationships “equal” by taking away any legal privilege for any of them. If you operate on the relativistic principle that all consenting adults’ relationships are inherently equal as a matter of right, that is the only place you can come out to guarantee those rights.
I don’t believe in such a principle, so I don’t have to come out there.
Straight marriage has been around since before the birth of our country as one of our seminal institutions. Experimenting for the sake of therapy - changing a venerable institution’s parameters for the sole purpose of making people feel better about themselves - is hubristic in the sense that we have the confidence to think we can monkey around with existing traditions and think we can rationally engineer society according to new dictates.
That doesn’t mean we should never change - but it means the change should be cautious and considered and that our institutions like marriage deserve a rebuttable presumption.
Straight marriage does all kinds of things - it orders lineage, it puts guardrails on child rearing, it attaches moral and social opprobiums to irresponsible behavior w/r/t to sex and having kids out of wedlock, it helps temper sexual jealousy and civilizes men…
…gay marriage, for its purposes, isn’t an institution that soaks up such responsibility in our society. In fact, the primary reason gay marriage advocates want gay marriage is cultural - they want validation of their relationship as equal to heterosexual coupling. It is therapeutic - its primary thrust is to make people feel better about something.
Traditional marriage is already limping around these days - experimentation that might lead to its cultural demise is not worth the risk considering the return.
I thought the US government was all about not discriminating and refusing to enter a business contract based on gender, race or sexuality?
Did I miss something?[/quote]
Where do you get your information? Do you get any information?
Gender and race are protected classes, with some caveats - sexual orientation is not.
Need an example? “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the military. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has these as listed protected classes from employment discrimination: “race, color, religion, sex or national origin”. As examples.
To repeat, sexual orientation is not a protected class.