How Far Would Gay Marraige Get With Polygamy Along For The Ride?

Seems you are the one who can't handle the heat, since you've run out of arguments and must now resort to being dismissive.

 

Your childish response of "ridiculous" spoke volumes. Are you tomfoo's twin? Because you both failed to give a basis for discrimination and you both failed to address that is a necessary component for discrimination to exist. Last time, for all the really slow tomperrifoos:

They are not discriminated against based on:

race
sex
religion
age
physical condition
education
income
ethnicity


At least one would need to apply for discrimination to exist and none do. Now impress us all with another long, rambling useless response.

 

Some on the right do not really have enough faith in Capitalism, which merely discriminates on an economic basis, not a social basis.

 

Silhouette, Why do you have such a hard time grasping the concept that queers or multiple consenting adults getting married, in no way affects your life, or your marriage, if you have one?

 

So according to you, if I owned a store and put a sign in the window barring members of the military from coming in my store, you would say that I am not discriminating against members of the military? But if I change "members of the military" to "rich people" then the same action suddenly becomes discrimination?

 

No, that is not according to me. This is just another lame straw man on your part. You still fail to grasp there is no one status reason why polygamists aren't discriminated against for marriage licenses.

 

Just answer the question: If I put up a sign saying that members of the military are not allowed to come into my store, would I be discriminating or not?

 

The question was addressed. Now if all you have left are more straw men.....

 

Still...gays are still coming on and trying to justify denying other consenting adults the privelege to marry?

Really? Why, because polygamy is "icky"? Because polygamy is "too complicated to sort out in family court"? Any other non-starters I forgot?

 

A gross oversimplification.

The contention is that polygamous marriages are not "similarly situated" to any two person couples with respect to the administration of the contract.

Same sex couples have already shown to the satisfaction of a number of Federal courts that they are similarly situated (which is an actual legal yardstick) to the majority of opposite sex couples (those who can procreate biologically with each other) and identically situated to the rest (those that can't).

At the moment because of the structure of the law you are correct that polygamy is "too complicated to sort out in family court". That's why they are not similarly situated with respect to the administration of contract law. I've supplied numerous legal scenarios for you to argue "on point" to prove your contention that they are but you have summarily ignored EVERY SINGLE ONE! That's because you know attempting to do so would reveal the paucity of your argument. Glib one-liner responses might give you a smug sense of satisfaction on an internet forum but do you think that will get you anywhere in a serious court of law? Think again, your losses are mounting.

Numerous posters have offered to consider the kind of contract which might work for polygamists because, contrary to your almost religious belief, we have NO MORAL OBJECTION TO POLYGAMY. I know this is hard for you to follow because you probably have a moral objection to the wind, rain and the sun but it's a fact. Get over yourself!

 

Are you capable of debating the point instead of attacking the person making it?

Whether or not something is discrimination is not based on some list.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=discriminate&searchmode=none

Discrimination does not refer solely to adverse discrimination against certain groups, targeted for some characteristic irrelevant to the law. You're stuck on that meaning alone, and have blinded yourself to the fact that the law more often discriminates between classes of people for valid reasons.

Please try to get this through your head: I'm not taking a position on whether or not the law's discriminating between single and plural marriage is legitimate.

I am solely taking the position that you are dead wrong about the meaning of the word "discrimination" and it's related forms.

Tomfoo13ry actually gave you a completely valid example contradicting your list - discrimination against someone based on their military service. You can insert just about anything in place of the words on your list. The question would remain whether the discrimination had a legitimate purpose. Can you not think of any situation where the law can legitimately discriminate based on a factor from your list? I certainly can.

The point stands as proved: You do not understand the meaning of the word "discrimination". You think it means only one thing and only applies to a set list of characteristics, and you're completely mistaken in that.

Concede the point, admit your error and we can move on.

 

It's a very minor change to the language of the law and requires no changes to the body of family law, except where marriage is not an equal partnership. Polygamy requires massive change to family law. Even the change to traditional marriage to make the woman equal to the man and no longer the property of him wasn't nearly as drastic as what polygamy would require.

Minors don't have the same property rights and cannot be equal partners in a state recognized marriage. I don't have a problem with immediate family members being recognized as partners in a household. State marriage does not require a romantic relationship, so why should it be restricted to just a man and woman?

Ok. let's imagine that Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice are in a polygamous marraige. Bob is married to Carol and Ted. Alice is married to Carol and Bob. Ted is not married to Alice but his spouse is married to her. Alice decides to divorce Carol, leaving her just married to Bob who is still married to Carol and Ted. Given that Alice is married to Bob who is married to Carol, how much of Carol's property is Alice entitled to?

If you wish to move this to the situation of probate, then advocate for that. However, homosexuals rightly recognize that polygamy requires a sea change in the structure of family court and therefore isn't worth fighting for on the same level as homosexual marriage which requires almost no change at all. It would be like saying that motorcyclists, wanting the right to ride without helmets, must fight for the right of airlines to choose their security. The situations are largely unrelated.

Yours sounds like the typical strawman. I gave no objection to polygamy-marriage. I only explained why it is not the same as gay marraige and why homosexuals. I am fine with polygamy-marriage so long as it is not a form of marriage that makes one person subjugated to any of the other partners in the marriage. I doubt most gays are against equal partner polygamous marriage. Perhaps some of them here would weigh in on that, but it doesn't detract from their particular advocacy.

Don't make up arguments for me, and I will try to avoid to do the same for you, k?

Sure, let it stand side by side. If polygamists who want equal partnerships wish to come out and fight for that, they probably won't be turned away. What you are suggesting is that homosexuals should fight for *unequal* polygamy where one man gets to marry a bunch of women who have very little rights in the marriage. That is the sort of marriage most polygamists favor and I don't see why you expect homosexuals, who want *equal* rights, support that.

Alright, I'll leave it to you to EXACTLY define what you mean by polygamy, and then you can explain why it fits the definition of equal rights that gays advocate. I suspect that your version of polygamy is not an equal rights proposition and therefore shouldn't be supported by anyone. Well, other than those, like you, who prefer inequality under the law.

 

In light of the question proposed on this thread, let me ask those in favor of gay marriage this question:

Would you be for, or against, multi-partner marriages in which each man or woman who is involved in the chain may be married to any of the other parties in the marriage, or not.

I give the example of Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice where Bob is married to Carol and Ted. Alice is married to Ted and Bob. Carol is only married to Bob. Ted is married to Bob and Carol. All are technically equal partners in the marriages in which they are involved and are not responsible for those to whom they aren't married. Who of you would be opposed to this setup and why?

 

To me, it boils down to at least two issues (and there may be others that don't immediately occur to me):

1) Logistics. There simply are not the provisions needed in the law to accommodate polygamy, group marriage, or any combination thereof.

2) The issue of some partners being less equal than others; though this too is really a logistical issue. If we write the law to make all parties equal in the marriage, this may not fit the actual situation and wishes of the parties involved. It's easy to say the parties should work it out contractually beforehand, but what if they fail to do so? The law will have to impose some sort of default handling in the absence of such agreements.

Resolve these issues, and I can think of no reason to object. It's not something I can imagine ever wanting for myself, but maybe plural relationships work for some people.

My focus in the debate has never been on retaining a ban on polygamy or group marriage. It has always been on rebutting the assertion by opponents that 1) same-sex marriage establishes a path to polygamous or other marriages, and 2) the idea that gay people have to conform to some monolithic opinion on the issue - that we aren't allowed to have our own, individual, heartfelt convictions in favor or against.

If there's a valid argument in favor of polygamy or other kinds of marriages, then those arguments could be made right now without same-sex couples' marriages enjoying recognition, and I do not see how providing that recognition furthers the causes of these other groups. I maintain that it is the nature of law to discriminate between classes of people who are not similarly situated with respect to the specifics of the law in question, and that doing so does not violate inherently violate due process or equal protection. I do not buy the argument that the intention behind establishing the equal protection clause was to make everyone equal despite their significant, relevant difference. I hold the firm opinion that the purpose of the equal protection clause is to protect people from undue discrimination which targets them based on their insignificant, irrelevant differences.

Bottom line: Do I think polygamy or group marriages should be banned? Not if the logistical issues can be resolved.

Do I think the government has to recognize other asserted forms of marriage if same-sex couples' marriages gain legal recognition? Not in the least.

 

same sex couples want the same rights, not additional rights

were only allowed one civil marriage, as for religious marriage, marry as many as you want, they are not recognized under the law for hetero or homo sexuals

 

I know of three Christians who married Mormons.
The Christians were Nellie, Rita and Bay. All were woman you will notice.
Polygamist societies gather extra females they need from the surrounding population. You wonder why they were so umpopular in frontier America.
Polygamus sects also drive their excess teenage boys out of their communities. These boys I believe are referred to as "The Lost Boys".
It's a way for the polygamist sects to dump the problems they created on the rest of the nation.

 

What is or is not discrimination is based on a list, which is why it is spelled out in Federal and State law. That is why I have been pointing out over and over polygamists are not discriminated against because there is no basis for the discrimination. Tomfoo did not contradict my list in any way and military status could be added to it as well. Let's add more to the list, even though they are not all protected by the law, it illuminates my point there is no basis for the discrimination because they are not denied based on:

military status
eye color
sexual activity
favorite foods
if they sing in the shower
punctuality
how many jobs they have had
the vehicles they drive
least favorite songs
height
if they are in the mile high club
if they watched Battlefield Earth.....to the end
if they never heard of Ferris Bueller
who they voted for
if they have never voted
tobacco consumption
know the difference between tannin and tanning
got a speeding ticket
are honest and admits the Godfather series seriously sucks


Now go ahead and post the definition of discrimination again...it was an awesome rebuttal!

 

I think it's very important not to lose sight of one important thing with regards to this topic:

If polygamists stood shoulder to shoulder with gays at parades, marches and legislative sit-ins [hint hint] on primetime [hint hint] the gay-marraige movement would be dead in the water..

And that is because the number one demographic that supports this cultural usurping via marraige outside gays themselves are heteorsexual women in relationships. You make gay marraige = polygamy in their minds and that support will be withdrawn quicker than money at a bank that's rumored to fail soon..

 

In my opinion and even in modern times, I think we should lose less sight of our temporal and secular and civil morals as established in our federal and Constitutional form of government.

Denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States can only happen with the abomination of hypocrisy in our time, even after two thousand years of some religious moral injunctions against it.

 

Gay marriage has a lot of the same. There is a very large movement within gaydom to lower the age of consent below 14 -- because they want to be able to have intercourse with young children. Nambla is their silent partner in the movement. They just do not want people to know about it. It's why Gays NEVER condemn the acts of child molesters -- they have a large minority that ARE child molesters, so any group that does so will lose the gay funding. Also why they are so adamant about "adopting" kids.

 

Why is it the bigots always want to use government solutions to enforce their positions, then turn around and decry government solutions when their position is threatened by them?

Looks to me the religious goons on the right are standing on a fault line.

 

Lets get this straight (no pun indtended.) Nobody has a "right" to get married. Where is that in our constitution?

Marriage is not a right. It's a public recognition of the appreciation of the society for a man and woman pledging fealty to each other and maybe to the children they produce.

It's like the public recognition of the appreciation of society for the acts of veterans.

What you do have a right to is a sexual relationship with someone, barring of course underage or closely related persons.

Gays are not demanding a "right" and they know it. What they are demanding is the homage of society for the acts they chose to do.

Well they can't demand I pay homage to their acts nor can they demand society pay homage to their acts.

 

All other things aside, you are right, gays are not being denied a "right" to marraige. They are being denied a privelege to marry. And they are not alone in this denial. Ergo, they are not being singled out. Close blood relations may not marry [some would say this is arbitrary because if they are "in love" and consenting, on what basis would/should we deny them?]. Minors may not marry. And polyamorous groups may not marry. Any one of them could be argued to be an arbitrary exclusion. And that would be correct. Priveleges are arbitrary.

What strikes me as unbelievable is how the very same groups of people chanting, beating their chests, screaming and crying and playing the violin of sympathy for their groups' wishes to gain final mainstreaming [marraige] of their sexual fetish are the same groups lining up in unison to argue and wordsmith against allowing polygamists to stand by their side in retooling the definition of marraige. Gays argue "between a man and a woman" is arbitrary. Polygamists argue "between one ane one" is arbitrary. Both are arbitrary and yet gays bristle at the idea of standing shoulder to shoulder with the "dissolve one and one" crowd.

And I know why...

 

From my understanding of our federal and Constitutional form of government, marriage can be considered a natural right secured under our Ninth Amendment and its State equivalents.

 

There is no civil, moral or ethical reason to deny and disparage the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States.