Gay Marriage

[Upchurch]

but allowing one DOES NOT equate to allowing the other. Period.

Sorry, this is what I was getting at.

Why not? If gender is not an issue in marriage why should the number of people involved matter?

 

[Lonewulf]

Sorry, this is what I was getting at.

Why not? If gender is not an issue in marriage why should the number of people involved matter?

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.

 

[mylfmyhnr]

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.

 

[Upchurch]

Ugh. Did you even hear the part where countries have allowed gay marriage while still banning polygamy? Are you saying that to allow one, we must automatically be required to allow the other? That's stupid.

No, I'm trying to keep this on a purely philosophical level.

If we allow that marriage need not be restricted to one man and one woman, but that it can be extended to two men or two women, why not multiple partners?

The obvious answer that I, myself, used in response to this question was exactly the same as yours:

Kids. Divorce. Alimony.

Yes, these are complex issues in their own right, but are arbitrated through the civil system. Is there any reason the civil system could not also arbitrate among more than two parties?


eta: I should mention that I don't see the possibility of allowing polygamy as a reason to not allow gay marriage. I am saying that there is little rational reason to allow one and deny the other.

 

[Mercutio]

mylf--

Re-read your OP, with a slight change: each time you write about same-sex unions, write instead about mixed-race unions. That was the debate last time around; the same arguments you use now were used then. Have mixed-race marriages led to dire consequences?

New Hampshire will have same-sex Civil Unions beginning next year. My only opposition to it (I feel strongly about this, but not enough to oppose Civil Unions) is that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal. My neighbors, two wonderful women, should be married, not united.

 

[Kerberos]

And who does someone who is XXY marry?

XXY does not mean hermaphrodite. XXYs are males. So are XXXYs I think.

 

[Lonewulf]

mylf--

Re-read your OP, with a slight change: each time you write about same-sex unions, write instead about mixed-race unions. That was the debate last time around; the same arguments you use now were used then. Have mixed-race marriages led to dire consequences?

They have us discussing gay marriage, for instance.

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?

Why was it so wrong to segregate certain portions of the populous? Why was it so wrong to put africans in the back of the bus? Why was it so wrong to control what race gets mixed with what?

Oh, that's right. Because bigotry is bad. Moving on.

 

[Spindrift]

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?

So, in other words, "You've come a long way Brucie, but that's as far as you go?"

Why not marriage, why not now?

Let's flashback to the 1960's: "You've gotten the right to sit in the front of the bus, do they really need the right to use the same bathroom? Why not one bathroom for blacks, one for whites? Why is that so wrong?"

 

[Thanz]

Why not? If gender is not an issue in marriage why should the number of people involved matter?

Because of the reasons you have already referred to. Changing the gender of those involved in the marriage does nothing to change the substantive law of marriage. Or of the breakdown of marriage. Changing the number of people involved in a marriage requires significant and complex changes to the law of marriage.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

But requiring a complex system is not a rational reason for keeping it from happening.

It can be, depending on two things: the complexity of the system and the demand for polygamous marriage.

The question that must be asked is Is the amount of effort required to work out the details and put them into effect worth it with regard to the number of people who would take advantage of it? I don't pretend to know the answer to that question, but if the answer was no, then it is rational to reject the legalisation of polygamous marriage. If yes, then go for it.

Incidentally, and to bring this post marginally on topic, I also think this is a valid question to ask in regard to homosexual marriage. The answer there is a pretty obvious yes, though--it requires very little effort to change and there does seem to be quite some demand for it--so I don't think it can be used as a rational argument against it.

 

[mylfmyhnr]

I would want someone (and FSM knows there are a boatload of them on this board) who is much more knowledgeable about law to speak to this point. So, if I become a post-op transsexual, my husband is stuck with me? How about if I am a post-op transsexual male - do I marry a girl based on my current equipment, or a boy based on my XY status? And who does someone who is XXY marry?

Well, I was trying to be savvy... Apparently I failed I'm just saying that the law does, in fact, allow same gender marriages in this case. Not that the marriage must continue and I believe that as a transgender man-to-woman an remarriage would, as the law is now, require she marry a man.

 

[Ipecac]

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?

Because gays want to get married. That's why. To forbid them from getting married is discriminatory and wrong. Doesn't need to be any more complex than that.

Here's another difference between gay marriage and polygamy. (As far as we can tell, for all intents and purposes) People are born gay. They're not born polygamist. Banning gay marriage is the equivalent of banning interracial marriage.

 

[bluess]

XXY does not mean hermaphrodite. XXYs are males. So are XXXYs I think.

It was my understanding from some reading that they can present either as males or females, depending on how much different bits develop. So, if you never knew my genetic code, and I looked like a girl, and a small vagina and a rather large clitoris, was a bit flat chested and has great skin and hair, and dressed like a girl, why should I be a guy? Or, what if I looked like a guy, with small testes and a small penis, very little facial hair, and dressed like a guy, why should I be a girl?

 

[mylfmyhnr]

Because of the reasons you have already referred to. Changing the gender of those involved in the marriage does nothing to change the substantive law of marriage. Or of the breakdown of marriage. Changing the number of people involved in a marriage requires significant and complex changes to the law of marriage.

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.

 

[tsg]

And, no, I’m not going to mention marriage to an animal, that’s a stupidly ignorant argument that is useless and idiotic.

But you apparently don't understand why given that the rest of your argument is the same slippery slope crap. All you've done is change "bestiality" to "polygamy".


Yawn.

ETA: Change the definition of marriage to "between two people" because that's all they're asking for. If you can't argue against that without invoking "but it will open the door to", you have no argument.

 

[Lonewulf]

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.

Ugh, another stupid slippery slope argument? Do you have ANYTHING remotely rational to bring to the table?

Seriously. You see the problem with saying that being able to marry someone of the same sex will lead to marrying animals, but you see no problem at all with saying that it will lead to marrying 14 year olds?

Are you for real?

 

[bluess]

Well, I was trying to be savvy... Apparently I failed I'm just saying that the law does, in fact, allow same gender marriages in this case. Not that the marriage must continue and I believe that as a transgender man-to-woman an remarriage would, as the law is now, require she marry a man.

Its not that the law is allowing same gender marriages. The law does not consider a person's genitalia in the case you mentioned to affect their gender. Unfortunately, the law is behind technology.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

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.)[/COLOR (bolding mine)

That depends on the state. Some states let/forbid transgenders marry based on their pre-op physical gender, and others based on their post-op physical gender.

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.

[/FONT]
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?

And what about age of consent in relation to marriage? If marriage is going to be redefined, what’s to stop it from going further to keep the next set of minorities happy? There are those that believe a girl is of marrying age when she is old enough to bear children. Is this acceptable? Well, not to today’s society, but what about tomorrow? Can changing the way marriage is perceived lead here? The only thing that separates child from adult is the social law that defines adult as 18. Well, we already have parental consent at younger than 18… So what’s the difference between parental consent at 17 and non parental consent when it’s the rights of the individual that’s paramount? If it’s undeniable that all have the same right to marriage, then what makes a 14 year old different from 2 men? Societal views of normal, right, wrong and acceptable.

Slippery slope arguments a depend on two assumptions. The first is that every change along the slope is equivalent. That is why some people do bring up the dogs and horses argument. The underage argument is also a seriously over-exaggerated argument, and for similar reasons -- one of the parties cannot give informed, legal consent.

The second flawed assumption is that the law can't be arbitrary. The law is always arbitrary. What it can't be is fundamentally unfair. There is no law against constituting a family however you want. But if you want the marital relationship(s) at the basis of the family to entitle you to government benefits, you need to register the relationship(s). An arbitrary definition of marriage which restricts a group from registering and recieving those benefits is fundamentally unfair. An arbitrary definition of marriage that restricts "double-dipping" is still arbitrary. It may even be situationally unfair. But it is not fundamentally unfair.

There is no logical reason to restrict marriage to monogamous relationships. Nor is there any logical reason not to open it up to polygamous relationships. It is an arbitrary benchmark. But it is only fundamentally unfair if there is no provision for adjusting the relationship(s). Allowing for divorce and re-marriage provides those adjustments. Yes, allowing same-sex marriage makes arguments for polygamous marriages stronger. Perhaps society will even approve the change. But there is no reason to assume that accepting same-sex marriage necessitates accepting polygamous marriage.

 

[mylfmyhnr]

So, in other words, "You've come a long way Brucie, but that's as far as you go?"

Why not marriage, why not now?

Let's flashback to the 1960's: "You've gotten the right to sit in the front of the bus, do they really need the right to use the same bathroom? Why not one bathroom for blacks, one for whites? Why is that so wrong?"

This is where I trip. Whiny ranting aside, I am torn. I took the view that I grew up with as a test for me, to see if it still fit. I'm still uncomfortable with it all, but I can't see that I still get to be. I'm at a loss with this issue... It got brought up and I ran with it to see what I really think... And though I see the points and validity I'm still struggling.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'm really interested in the answer to this...

You said in the other thread you are ok with civil unions. What differences are there between marriage and civil unions as you conceive them?