Alternatives to the Simple Majority Vote?

[Bob Blaylock]

Throughout all of human history, marriage has always been been understood and defined as a union between a man and a woman. That is what marriage is.

First of all, no, this is not correct.

Second, you're a Mormon. How can you make this claim with a straight face? It's not even true for your own religion.

I take it, then, that you can provide some evidence to support the claim that Mormonism has ever recognized any union between two men, or two woman, or between a man and a horse, or a woman and a pig, or whatever else, as a “marriage”?

 

[Cleon]

I take it, then, that you can provide some evidence to support the claim that Mormonism has ever recognized any union between two men, or two woman, or between a man and a horse, or a woman and a pig, or whatever else, as a “marriage”?

Oh, please. Don't be dense, Bob. You know damn well what I'm talking about.

Unless you're planning on denying that "plural marriage" ever existed within LDS, the fact remains that your own religion for quite a while had a definition of marriage that was significantly different from "a union between a man and a woman."

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Oh, please. Don't be dense, Bob. You know damn well what I'm talking about.

Unless you're planning on denying that "plural marriage" ever existed within LDS, the fact remains that your own religion for quite a while had a definition of marriage that was significantly different from "a union between a man and a woman."

Again, that's completely false. Nothing about plural marriage is inconsistent with what I have stated. Even under plural marriage, marriage was still a union between a man and a woman. Under plural marriage, a man was allowed to enter into more than one marriage, but each marriage was still between a man and a woman.

 

[Cleon]

Again, that's completely false. Nothing about plural marriage is inconsistent with what I have stated. Even under plural marriage, marriage was still a union between a man and a woman. Under plural marriage, a man was allowed to enter into more than one marriage, but each marriage was still between a man and a woman.

Riiiiiiight.

 

[Morrigan]

Throughout most of history, a marriage was simply the act of selling your daughter to her new husband.

But nowadays these uppity wenches want their voices to be heard in this arrangement, they even want to choose their husband? Not only that but they also want love to be a part of the arrangement? How utterly unacceptable. What a mockery of the fine, upstanding tradition and institution of marriage that has been going on for thousands of years now.

 

[openingmind]

I take it, then, that you can provide some evidence to support the claim that Mormonism has ever recognized any union between two men, or two woman, or between a man and a horse, or a woman and a pig, or whatever else, as a “marriage”?

I don't think you'll find evidence that the LDS church ever sponsored the marriage of only two women. However, if you do just a little research, you'll find that homosexuality was practiced in these marriages (between the wives).

The thing is male/female monogamous marriage is only a social arrangement. Social monogamy is totally different from sexual monogamy. A person can be socially monogamous but sexually polyamorous (and the latter may be homosexual).

Plenty of straight people are only socially monogamous. Plenty of gay people are sexually monogamous and would like to recognized as monogamous by society.

Throughout history there's been female-to-female sexual monogamy and male-to-male sexual monogamy. Only in isolated patches have societies deemed this legitimate.

Marriage is nothing more socially recognized monogamy.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't think you'll find evidence that the LDS church ever sponsored the marriage of only two women. However, if you do just a little research, you'll find that homosexuality was practiced in these marriages (between the wives).

I rather doubt that you can produce any credible evidence to support this claim. Certainly, the church itself never sanctioned or condoned such behavior. whether such behavior ever actually took place, or not, I very much doubt if those involved in it would have publicly shared such details in public of their private, intimate relations.

 

[Mashuna]

Throughout all of human history, marriage has always been been understood and defined as a union between a man and a woman. That is what marriage is.

This has been true in nearly every society, all over the world, even in those societies that have had no connection with western religions.

It is the proponents of “gay marriage” who are making the extraordinary claim here—that a vulgar mockery of something is, and should be treated as, exactly the same thing as the real thing that is being mocked.

So because it's historical bigotry, it's all ok?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So because it's historical bigotry, it's all ok?

I disagree with the characterization as “bigotry”. Marriage is what it is, what it has always been, and what it will always be—a specific sort of union between a man and a woman, as the basis for a family, which is the basis of every stable society.

There are groups, now, that are actively trying to redefine the word to cover something that it does not, to define as “marriage” unions that are not marriage at all. Not only is this a mockery of genuine marriage, but it is a direct attack against the very foundation of a stable society.

 

[Cleon]

I disagree with the characterization as “bigotry”. Marriage is what it is, what it has always been, and what it will always be—a specific sort of union between a man and a woman, as the basis for a family, which is the basis of every stable society.

Except for those points of history when it was a union of multiple women to one man. Oh, wait, that was different.

 

[cwalner]

I take it, then, that you can provide some evidence to support the claim that Mormonism has ever recognized any union between ... a woman and a pig

are you married?

 

[bookitty]

I disagree with the characterization as “bigotry”. Marriage is what it is, what it has always been, and what it will always be—a specific sort of union between a man and a woman, as the basis for a family, which is the basis of every stable society.

There are groups, now, that are actively trying to redefine the word to cover something that it does not, to define as “marriage” unions that are not marriage at all. Not only is this a mockery of genuine marriage, but it is a direct attack against the very foundation of a stable society.

The definition of marriage has included many variations that are no longer used. For example, the practice of marrying a woman to her rapist is no longer the fashion here in the west. This is because, as a culture, we no longer see women as mere vessels for childbirth. We accept that women are equal partners in society and in marriage.

Society is finally starting to accept the fact that homosexuality, although not as common as heterosexuality, is normal. This means that homosexuals are accepted within our society and given the same rights. These rights include marriage, a contact that offers legal protection as well as a celebration of the relationship.

No modern marriage in the west offers the "foundation of a stable society" because divorce is too common and anyone over the age of consent can get married for any frivolous reason they choose. If there is any mockery going on, it's from the hetero community which treats it as a joke, not the gay community which treats it as a precious right.

 

[Giggywig]

Not only is this a mockery of genuine marriage,

Is your marriage weaker in some way if two men down the street are allowed to marry?

but it is a direct attack against the very foundation of a stable society.

Oh, not only does it risk your own marriage, but society itself would crumble! is it the hot steamy lesbian sex?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Except for those points of history when it was a union of multiple women to one man. Oh, wait, that was different.

I have to agree with Bob, you're deliberately missing his point and twisting what he says. Even in bigomy cases marriage is between one man and one woman, it's just that the man has multiple marriages. There isn't a single marriage between the man and all the women which is what you are trying to claim. If you want to make a good point, then actually use a correct argument.

 

[PhantomWolf]

These rights include marriage, a contact that offers legal protection as well as a celebration of the relationship.

See my argument is from a whole nother side of the coin. I don't believe marriage is a right. Marriage seems to confer rights on people in some countries, but this in itself is wrong in my view. What should confer those rights is for people to be in a long term steady relationship, so once a couple are together for a certain time (6, 12, or 18 months) all of those rights and responsibilities should kick in, unless the couple opt out of receiving them. It shouldn't matter if the couple are straight or not, it should only matter if they are living together in a relationship, that should be what society and the law recognises.

As far as rights go, marriage should have nothing more on that, it should be something that is just done for religious or family reasons.

If this was the way that it was, there would be nothing stopping any couple from holding a commitment celebration when they had been together long enough to qualify as a legal coupling and everyone is happy.

 

[GreyArea]

@GreyArea: Yeah, that's totally what I'm thinking about now, how voting needs to escape the binary form. I think in some way it reinforces people falling for false dichotomies and getting so polarized.

I noticed a blog post (on a blog I don't usually read), which touches on the majority vote question you raised. In fact, it has to do with marriage equality, so I thought it especially apropos.

They looked at a recent poll of people in the state of Washington. You will be interested to see the way that the final question in this poll is broken down into more than two choices. PDF: "KCTS‐9 / KPLU / Washington Poll for October 15, 2010"

Q.42 Which of the following statements best describes your views on the issue of same‐sex marriage?
(READ AND ROTATE IN ORDER FRONT TO BACK)

• Gay and lesbian couples should have the same legal right to marry as straight couples.
• Gay and lesbian couples should be able to have the same legal rights as straight couples but it should not be called marriage.
• There should be domestic partnerships that give gay and lesbian couples only some of the benefits and protections of marriage.
• There should be no legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples.
• (Don't Know)
• (Refused)

The blogger then compared these results with the results from similar questions in the recent past. "Washington keeps trending towards marriage equality but isn't there yet"

But what I find interesting in the poll is to see where the differences are in the public, and where there is some common ground. Asking for more than mere "yes versus no" gives one more information, with more nuance. These questions are like the ones I quoted from Benjamin Barber.

I anticipate that in another few years the margin between proponents and opponents of gay marriage will slide in the direction of those "for" and what I'm talking about will be moot.

I think that you are right.

A similar story was reported in California two years ago. The Los Angeles Times has a cool infographic here: PROPOSITION 8 AND PROPOSITION 22 -- Gay marriage ban: A tale of two votes

 

[NoScotsman]

This is a slippery slope... If we allow gays to marry, pretty soon they'll be demanding the right to divorce

 

[openingmind]

Asking for more than mere "yes versus no" gives one more information, with more nuance.

This is where the future of democracy is, I think. Number-crunching nuanced responses is more difficult than accounting for "yes versus no," but it isn't that much harder.

If we allow everyone to submit a nuanced vote, we indirectly encourage nuanced thinking. We foster a society of careful thinkers.

I also feel that this style of voting is more in line with how we regularly make choices. Very rarely are choices made out of two, stark, dueling emotions. Think for a second what it was like when you had some input into who would fill a position at your company and both (or more than two) people were well-qualified.

This is (somewhat) flippant, but I've been thinking recently that a reality-TV style presidential election would be better than what we have now. That is, if all the presidential candidates lived together in an apartment for a few weeks and were videotaped ~24/7, were interviewed, issued challenges, etc., the American public might be better informed. Certainly the candidates would be performing for us, but we'd be able to see that, see cracks in their performances, see them under pressure, see them uncertain, see them lose their cool, see them stand up, speak out, be honorable. And then the public could vote by cell phone for each candidate on a confidence scale of 1 to 10.

The idea is ridiculous, but as ridiculous as it would be it'd be so much more transparent than what we have now!

 

[Trakar]

What I hadn't thought of before today is that the opponents of gay marriage are making a deep assumption: that the matter can be solved by a simple majority vote.
...

well, some issues aren't about majority rule, even in a titular democracy, but most especially because we are a republic designed specifically to avoid the problems of the tyranny of the majority and the complete disenfranchisement of the various minorities. We can't vote to bring back slavery, take away women's human rights, or to subjegate and repress those who follow religions we disagree with. These aren't issues of majority versus minority opinion.

 

[Trakar]

Is your marriage weaker in some way if two men down the street are allowed to marry?

Oh, not only does it risk your own marriage, but society itself would crumble! is it the hot steamy lesbian sex?

We obviously need some studies to look into this issue in greater detail!