Gay Marriage

[ponderingturtle]

It is not discriminatory. A polyamorous individual is afforded precisely the same rights as every other adult citizen.

I am not sure how different this argument is from the argument "it is not discriminatory, someone interested in a inter racial marriage has the same right to marry an individual of the same race as everyone else" or the same argument about homosexuals being not disseminated against because they can marry an individual of the opposite sex.

Arguments against polygamy are not required. The illegality of polygamy is the status quo. If changes are to be made to the status quo, the onus is on those wishing the changes to provide compelling arguments.

So you do not need to show that the law is baseless, you need to show that it is harmful? I disagree with this strongly on priciple, the arguements for banning something must always come from the proponents of the ban. I don't place any strong value on maintaining the status quo.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, yes. Just because something is an inference into the future doesn't make it a slippery slope.

In the case of ID, for instance, there are some very clear documents (such as the Wedge Document) that explicitly describe how ID is to be used as the "phase 1" of a campaign with the long-term goal of "replac[ing]materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God." Specifically, pushing "intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory" is one of the five-year milestones to that goal.

I'm unaware of any such document -- or evidence in general -- suggesting that the primary reason that gay marriage is being pushed is to further the legalization of bestality, polyamory, and all the rest of the Sodom and Gommorah scenario the social conservatives fear.

This is basically what I was saying, that with ID and abortion, it is hard to call it a slippery slope fallacy when it is clear that it is the agenda to get to the end point being argued against.

 

[Upchurch]

It is not discriminatory. A polyamorous individual is afforded precisely the same rights as every other adult citizen.

And gay men are afforded precisely the same rights as every other adult male citizen: they can marry a woman.

[way back machine]
and interracial couples are afforded precisely the same rights as every other adult citizen: they can marry people of their own race.
[/way back machine]

Arguments against polygamy are not required. The illegality of polygamy is the status quo.

So is the illegality of gay marriage and, in some states, homosexuality.

If changes are to be made to the status quo, the onus is on those wishing the changes to provide compelling arguments.

Equality, freedom, liberty. Are those compelling enough or do we need something stronger like not making the majority feel uncomfortable?

 

[toddjh]

So you do not need to show that the law is baseless, you need to show that it is harmful? I disagree with this strongly on priciple, the arguements for banning something must always come from the proponents of the ban. I don't place any strong value on maintaining the status quo.

It's not "banned," it's just not recognized by law. What legal recognition of polygamy would mean is that the state is forced to enter into a legal contract with the parties involved. What's the justification for that?

The justification for forcing the state to recognize gay marriage is that discrimination on the basis of sex is illegal. Discrimination on the basis of numbers, however, is not.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Because TM is talking about treating all relationships equally.

No. TM is talking about treating all matings equally.

Person A is Person B's mate. They can function as a combined unit in many ways, such as medical decisions. They have both agreed to this, and notified the state.

Why does the state retain the power to ignore some matings and recognize others?

 

[Upchurch]

It's not "banned," it's just not recognized by law.

Not entirely true:{

Parts of the United States, however, criminalize even the polygamous lifestyle;

What legal recognition of polygamy would mean is that the state is forced to enter into a legal contract with the parties involved. What's the justification for that?

Yes, this could also be used as a reasoning against gay and interracial marriage. What is the justification for any of these?

The justification for forcing the state to recognize gay marriage is that discrimination on the basis of sex is illegal. Discrimination on the basis of numbers, however, is not.

And why not?

 

[toddjh]

Why does the state retain the power to ignore some matings and recognize others?

Because the state is a party to the contract underlying that "mating." A marriage is not a contract between individuals, it's a contract with the individuals on one side and the state on the other. Both sides have rights and responsibilities under the contract.

Now, the state must obey anti-discrimination laws when it decides with whom it should enter into such a contract, but that doesn't mean that all "matings" qualify. If there is a good reason why the state doesn't want to enter into a contract with the "mating" (the fact that the "mating" consists of six people, which would be a recordkeeping nightmare, sounds like enough to me), then I see no reason why it should be forced to.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Like Strimmer and mylfmyhnr, I started out opposed to gay marriage , until I asked myself why I was opposed and realised I hadn't a clue.

Of course the fact I realised I was being an ass doesn't mean gay marriage is a good idea: Or non gay marriage. (I'm 52 and never been down the aisle).

I do accept the slipperyslope argument within certain limits: Humans have mating habits like any primate. Polyandry is rare. Polygamy not so rare, but not that common. As much of this is about males assuring that the kids are theirs- and we now have DNA tests and it's high time we stopped having kids anyway- maybe the more gay marriages, the better? (But that supposes gay marriage = childless marriage, which does not seem to be the case).

Until recently we all accepted, by default, mylfmyhnr's OP definition, that marriage WAS one man one woman: Having abandoned that, we must ask ourselves what is and is not acceptable / useful to society.

Group marriage with several partners sounds like a reasonable notion to me, at least economically, - but how likely is it given the realities of human nature? Sexual jealousy is very, very real. (Got that teeshirt. I expect many of us have)- and in any group there's someone who wants to be leader. A clan-like extended family as economic unit seems possible, but probably based on a cluster of pairs sharing costs and kid raising, rather than some sort of free love cooperative. Divorce lawyers will love it.

Like any institution, marriage must change to suit the changing world. Right now, many people are choosing to remain unmarried all their lives, to live alone and to be responsible for their own life to a degree that would have been thought rather abnormal even twenty years ago.
(I remember when my father's few middle aged bachelor friends were considered a bit odd.)
As energy and housing costs escalate , the singleton trend may be unsustainable long term. I have a 12 year long relationship with someone who lives forty miles away. If global warming and fuel rationing or some other draconian event makes that untenable, we either separate or live together. Future society may have less mobility than we have enjoyed.

And then , there is tax. And pensions. And other financial legal hoohah.

If men have better pensions on average , but women live longer, will gay marriages be polarised financially among older people into poor women and rich men?

I also wonder about the extension of civil contracts to people not in a sexual relationship. If two non gay men decide to share a home and expenses and mutual support, but have heterosexual relationships outwith that pairing- is this a marriage? If the relationship is stable , does it matter?

I have no answers, but lots of questions.

 

[Upchurch]

Now, the state must obey anti-discrimination laws when it decides with whom it should enter into such a contract, but that doesn't mean that all "matings" qualify. If there is a good reason why the state doesn't want to enter into a contract with the "mating" (the fact that the "mating" consists of six people, which would be a recordkeeping nightmare, sounds like enough to me), then I see no reason why it should be forced to.

It should be forced to because it is the government's responsibility to serve the people and being lazy is not a valid excuse. If it is really a problem, charge a per-participant record keeping fee for the marriage license and hire more people.

 

[toddjh]

Yes, this could also be used as a reasoning against gay and interracial marriage. What is the justification for any of these?

Er...I gave the justification in the very next paragraph.

And why not?

Well, my amateur understanding is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as race, religion, and national origin. It's primarily concerned with employment but my understanding is that it applies to areas such as marriage as well. Therefore it's illegal (in the U.S., of course) for the government to deny marriage on the basis of sex. There's no such legal restriction on discrimination on the basis of numbers, as far as I know.

 

[Upchurch]

Group marriage with several partners sounds like a reasonable notion to me, at least economically, - but how likely is it given the realities of human nature? Sexual jealousy is very, very real.

It helps if you can put a human face on the situation. I know some polyamerous people. They claim that it is perfectly natural for them and not a problem. Who are you or I to tell them that they don't really feel the way they say they feel?

It's very easy to draw a parallel between this an homosexuality or interracial relationships, but I feel like I'm beating that drum pretty heavily in this thread, and I'm sure you can see where I would be going with that by now.

 

[toddjh]

It should be forced to because it is the government's responsibility to serve the people and being lazy is not a valid excuse. If it is really a problem, charge a per-participant record keeping fee for the marriage license and hire more people.

Well, "should" is one thing, although I disagree with you here -- and I'm in a non-monogamous relationship myself, so I'm not taking this position out of ignorance or dislike for the concept.

But "legally required" is something else, and, unlike gay marriage, I see no reason why the U.S. government is legally required to recognize polygamy.

 

[Upchurch]

Er...I gave the justification in the very next paragraph.

Sorry.

Well, my amateur understanding is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as race, religion, and national origin. Therefore it's illegal (in the U.S., of course) for the government to deny marriage on the basis of sex. There's no such legal restriction on discrimination on the basis of numbers, as far as I know.

Did social progress stop in 1964?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I am not sure how different this argument is from the argument "it is not discriminatory, someone interested in a inter racial marriage has the same right to marry an individual of the same race as everyone else" or the same argument about homosexuals being not disseminated against because they can marry an individual of the opposite sex.

A law against inter-racial or homosexual marriages means that there is some x which is available to marriage to some members of the population but not to others. A white woman is available for marriage to a white man, but not a black man. A man is available for marriage to a woman, but not to a man. This is discriminatory.

A law against polygamy creates no such x that is available to one segment of society but not another. Hence, no discrimination.

Note: This does not mean that polygamy should not be legal. It just means that the discrimination argument for it is bunk.

So you do not need to show that the law is baseless, you need to show that it is harmful?

It needs to be shown that the benefits of the change outweigh the costs of the change.

And gay men are afforded precisely the same rights as every other adult male citizen: they can marry a woman.

[way back machine]
and interracial couples are afforded precisely the same rights as every other adult citizen: they can marry people of their own race.
[/way back machine]

Not analogous, sorry. Read my reply to pt above.

So is the illegality of gay marriage and, in some states, homosexuality.

Right. And I believe there are compelling arguments that this should not be so. I am certainly not in favor of maintaining the status quo, whatever it is, at any cost. I am in favor of not changing things without good reason.

Equality, freedom, liberty. Are those compelling enough or do we need something stronger like not making the majority feel uncomfortable?

There is no inequality. As to freedom and liberty, nobody is saying polyamorous groups cannot do whatever they like. I hope it is understood that when I say polygamy, I am referring only to the legal recognition of such relationships, and the according to them of the rights and privileges normally associated with marriage. If you want that legal recognition, you should show a good reason why it should be granted. I have seen none I find compelling. (That is not to say they don't exist. I've just never seen them.)

 

[Upchurch]

But "legally required" is something else, and, unlike gay marriage, I see no reason why the U.S. government is legally required to recognize polygamy.

Yes, we're getting tripped up on what is and what should be.

 

[Upchurch]

A law against inter-racial or homosexual marriages means that there is some x which is available to marriage to some members of the population but not to others. A white woman is available for marriage to a white man, but not a black man. A man is available for marriage to a woman, but not to a man. This is discriminatory.

A law against polygamy creates no such x that is available to one segment of society but not another. Hence, no discrimination.

Note: This does not mean that polygamy should not be legal. It just means that the discrimination argument for it is bunk.

x = relationship of your choosing

(assuming, as always, that all parties are capable of giving consent and do so)

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Not entirely true:

Parts of the United States, however, criminalize even the polygamous lifestyle

This, I have a problem with. The government should certainly not be telling people what lifestyle they can live. If four guys and four gals all move into a house together, it's none of the government's (or anyone else's) business what goes on inside. They could all be sleeping together. They could be one guy with a four girl harem and three guys not getting any. They could be four monogamous couples. They could be eight celibates. Whatever.

 

[toddjh]

Did social progress stop in 1964?

No. In fact, since then legal discrimination on the basis of sex has been found by the courts to be a violation of equal protection under the law, and there must be an "exceeding persuasive justification" in order to tolerate it. So there is a judicial objection to banning gay marriage in addition to a legislative one.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

x = relationship of your choosing

(assuming, as always, that all parties are capable of giving consent and do so)

Not all choices are available, but the same choices are available to everyone (or should be, once we get this gay marriage thing worked out). This is not discrimination.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's not "banned," it's just not recognized by law. What legal recognition of polygamy would mean is that the state is forced to enter into a legal contract with the parties involved. What's the justification for that?

Bigamy is a crime.