Gay Marriage

[Alt+F4]

Why can't marriage just be with one guy and one girl? Why is that so wrong?

If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex then don't. But keep your morality the hell out of who I decide to marry.

 

[Z]

Cute, but irrelevant. You will note the bit you quoted that said "...nobody else can, either." [emphasis added] Obviously, there are people that can marry men. We call them women. To deny a gay man the same right is discriminatory. Marriage to multiple partners (simultaneously) is something which no-one in this country has a right to do, so it is illogical to say a particular subset of the citizenry is being treated unfairly in this regard.

However, the moment it's allowed, it will be allowed for everybody simultaneously.

And multiple-partner marriages were permitted in parts of the U.S. at various times, in various states. And though not legally recognized, multiple-partner marriages do exist - officials know about them, but prefer to turn a blind eye.

 

[Earthborn]

If you allow the definition of marriage to be changed, what stops it from being changed further?

Ask yourself this: what stops marriage from being changed now? What is preventing polygamous marriages and marriage with 14 year olds now? The thing that prevents such marriages now (if it exists) is the same thing that prevents such marriages after same sex marriage is legalised.

If you can come up with reasons why such marriages should not be allowed, then those same reasons will exist after same sex marriage is allowed. If you cannot come up with any reasons to disallow them -- other then that it is a change in the definition of marriage -- then maybe you think they should be allowed.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

However, the moment it's allowed, it will be allowed for everybody simultaneously.

True, but that doesn't change the fact that as it stands now, the law is not discriminatory.

And multiple-partner marriages were permitted in parts of the U.S. at various times, in various states. And though not legally recognized, multiple-partner marriages do exist - officials know about them, but prefer to turn a blind eye.

All true, as well. That something was at one time legal, or is practiced but ignored, however, does not necessarily mean it should be legal.

Now might be a good time to point out that I am not deadset against the legalisation of polygamy. I am against it essentially by default. That is the way it is and I have not been convinced it should be otherwise. If there was a big push in this country to legalise it, I would not support it, but I wouldn't actively oppose it, either.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Let's just get rid of marriage for everybody. It's just getting a piece of paper when you shack up. What's the big deal? You can have the ceremony and the party and the gifts without that. In fact, the gifts might be more interesting. "We're getting married." "Lovely, here's a place setting." "I'm shacking up with Tom." "Lovely, here's a riding crop."

What's the benefit to society for recognizing some couplings? It can't be for the kids, because you can have them without it. It can't be for the permanent nature of the coupling, because you can quit (and half do). It can't be for the blessings of imaginary friends, because we pretend to be secular. It's really just an excuse for blowing a hundred bucks on a cake, isn't it?

 

[geni]

If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex then don't. But keep your morality the hell out of who I decide to marry.

Given that someone cannot be forced to give evidence against a spouse in court there are situations where it would be argued that societly does have a right to take a moral interest.

 

[Z]

At heart, I'm with the monkey. Abolish marriage as a legal institution altogether, and replace the entire kit-and-kaboodle with an entirely secular living contract, period. Put marriage back in its place as a purely religious ceremony, with no legally recognized status whatsoever.

Sounds fine to me!

 

[steverino]

It's really just an excuse for blowing a hundred bucks on a cake, isn't it?

You haven't bought a wedding cake lately have you?

 

[Lonewulf]

Forget the wedding cake. I promote having a wedding feast, like in greek weddings. Only, BYOB.

 

[capracus]

Ugh. Did you even hear the part where countries have allowed gay marriage while still banning polygamy? We don't need to allow one to have the ability to allow the other. But you're arguing it from a personal perspective, so...

Why should the number of people involved matter? Okay, do I really need to explain this?

Kids. Divorce. Alimony.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, but I could write a thesis on those three words alone.

What's the difference between polygamy and multiple marriages when it comes to these issues? In both cases the end result is liability for the remnants of the failed relationships.

 

[capracus]

True, and another point I missed. It's the whole "I don't want to change but they are going to make me" thing.
Perhaps it was my own attempt at controlling my suroundings. Like there was going to be some big Gay coup and they were going to force their views on me.

Maybe subconsciously you're preparing for an alternative lifestyle and relationship in the future.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I brought up gay marriage in the religious board but thought that, beacuse the point is non-secular reasons, that a new thread night be more appropriate, and here more than there.

My reasoning for not supporting G/L marriage:

Marriage, as defined in our society, is between a man and a woman. Anything outside this is not considered to be a lawful marriage. (This does break down in truly transgendered relationship where an actual operation takes place. In this case the law still recognizes the marriage that took place between the opposite genders prior to the change.) However, when this idea of marriage is changed, it opens up the idea that marriage is simply between two consenting adults and can have larger ramifications. And, no, I’m not going to mention marriage to an animal, that’s a stupidly ignorant argument that is useless and idiotic. No, my concern is more polyamory, at the moment. My family has been Mormon for many a generation and the first question I get when mentioning a Mormon past is the old “aren’t they the one’s with more than one wife” question. And this is where the question has led me in connection with G/L marriage.

If you allow the definition of marriage to be changed, what stops it from being changed further? If it’s between consenting adults, why not polygamy? And what’s wrong with polygamy? In the polygamist off-shoot of the Mormon culture, that still exist, the family is dominant, the marriage and the family unit stay intact because of hardcore religious beliefs… But what happens if that religious belief is removed? The marriages are held together by the same string that hold together today’s marriages and, if you look around, that string is a bit frayed. So, here’s a scenario, a man and a woman get married. Soon enough they have a baby and sometime after than the husband comes home and says “Hey honey, meet my new wife!” Is the husband bound by law to get the first wife’s consent? Is this, then, a marriage of 3 and not 2? If the first wife refuses the marriage and looks to dissolve the marriage, is the second marriage grounds for adultery? Or is the dissolution on her, as the husband did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law?

Well there are practical differences between these two cases. In one case you are just changing the requirement for it to be two people of different sexes. No laws regarding divorce and other marriage rights will have to be rewritten, as it is still two people, and the court is not supposed to recognize gender in those proceedings anyway.

With poly marriages things become much more complicated and the current laws are wholly insufficient for the task. For example if Husband A is married to Wives B and C. B is the primary source of income. C Wants to divorce A, how does this effect B? What about if A gets into an accident and B and C have differing views on treatment and his wishes?

These are not irreconcilable problems, but poly marriage is much more legally complex an issue with many more things to be legally resolved than same sex marriage. It is not a simple change of removing a requirement for the individuals to be of opposite sexes.

And why would poly marriage be so wrong to recognize? These relationships exist why would societal recognition be so wrong? At certain levels it would seem similar to arguing against the equality of women and removing the idea that they are the property of their husbands after marriage with the argument that then couldn't two women or two men get married if they are equal partners?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, I do understand that. But I believe that more care needs to be taken when deciding to change the entire way a society views marriage than because one group wants it changed. There are ramifications beyond just the Gay community and that has to be understood as well.

And what are they? You presented a slippery slope argument that does not work with the laws as they do not work for more than two people as written.


The only issue I think has substance is the one of age, and that is just as much an issue with traditional marriage anyway.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I come at the polygamy issue from them Mormon perspective because I saw it in action and beacuse it exists in America today. 50 years ago being homosexual was totally off the radar, it just wasn't something that people knew or dealt with. So with as far as it's come, and with issues still to deal with, why marriage? Why now? Why can't marriage just be with one guy and one girl? Why is that so wrong?

ETA: I actually know the answer to this... guess you'll just have to reread it in my whiny voice.

Why can't marriage be between two individuals of the same race is that so wrong?


YES!

You are claiming rights for yourself that you are denying to others by forcing them to only have the choices you want available to them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I concede this point. My idea was that most American see Gays as a minority trying to get thier way... The next minority is the Pligs, the next are the Pligs who want to marry the 14 year old down the street. Perhpas my problem is, in fact, that this is how the Pligs work and that, granted one portion of legality, they would push for more.

Funny, but you know that marrying 14 years olds is legal in some states with parental consent. So if you want to make a slippery slope argument you need to choose something that is currently illegal. In new Hampshire you can marry a 13 year old girl with parental permission.

You will get people arguing here about how poorly implemented age of consent laws are, but no one here has argued that they should not exist, even when they argue for things like poly marriage, removal of incest laws or legalization of bestiality.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Exactly. Consenting adults is consenting adults. If you insert the number "two" into the phrase you get "two consenting adults" and you are therefore imposing your negative value system on the three or more consenting adults and so you are a "numberist," to borrow a Shemp-ism.

If I were running for president I would try to OK gay marriage, and therefore wonder why not one candidate yet has made such a promise.

Also, this slippery slope thing cuts both ways. "Gun nuts" say that if the government takes away our assault rifles, government will eventually take away our butter knives.

Pro-choice folks say that if partial-birth abortion becomes a routine procedure in the 8th or 9th month, soon abortion will be forbidden in the earlier stages.

Anti ID people think that if they let ID into the schools Creationism is next.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Among other things, marriage is a legal shortcut allowing access to many rights and responsibilities. One such right is to choose which medical procedures can/should be taken. If one partner is unable to make that choice for themselves, marriage allows the surviving partner the right to choose.

If a third partner is allowed into that legal relationship, we now have two different people, both of whom can claim the legal ability to decide the treatment. If one wants to remove a feeding tube, and the other wants to continue life support, we now have to call in congressmen pretending to be doctors to get the Supreme Court to decide what to do, and no one wants to see that (again).

But letting only two people to enter such an agreement allows for only one person to be the designated decider (each for the other), regardless of the sex of either participant.

That's why "Polygamy" isn't the same as "Same Sex" with regards to the issue of marriage.

Also if you make marriage rights individually designate-able you will get people who miss rights that they would want if they know about it. That is the problem with a more complex system, there are many people who will not be able to navigate it. So the real question might be, can you keep marriage between two people a fixed collection of rights, and let multiple partner groupings be more selective in their choices?

Complexity is bad because you will lose people who will not be sophisticated enough to navigate it. That is the harm of complexity.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Let's just get rid of marriage for everybody. It's just getting a piece of paper when you shack up. What's the big deal? You can have the ceremony and the party and the gifts without that. In fact, the gifts might be more interesting. "We're getting married." "Lovely, here's a place setting." "I'm shacking up with Tom." "Lovely, here's a riding crop."

What's the benefit to society for recognizing some couplings? It can't be for the kids, because you can have them without it. It can't be for the permanent nature of the coupling, because you can quit (and half do). It can't be for the blessings of imaginary friends, because we pretend to be secular. It's really just an excuse for blowing a hundred bucks on a cake, isn't it?

There are many rights and privliges that only marriage can get you so this arguement does not hold.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Anti ID people think that if they let ID into the schools Creationism is next.

Not a slippery slope - ID and Creationism are the same thing. It is not possible to let ID into school without Creationism.

 

[ponderingturtle]

At heart, I'm with the monkey. Abolish marriage as a legal institution altogether, and replace the entire kit-and-kaboodle with an entirely secular living contract, period. Put marriage back in its place as a purely religious ceremony, with no legally recognized status whatsoever.

Sounds fine to me!

Well as long as you can afford the lawyers fees to draw up the contract and resolve disputes and such. And are happy with less sophisticated individuals getting shafted.

Every way of dealing with this has problems with it.