Gay Marriage

[Rasmus]

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?

Thge big deal is that marriage is a way of "being together" that has to be recognized by the government and, I think, other third parties. Two or n people that want to have a contract about their relationship cannot force other people to agree to the terms of their relationship. With marriage, they can - for a pre-defined set of issues, at least.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

Sure, but then again, partial birth abortion is also a wedge stratagy, as it is not a medical term, and for some reason people think pulling a fetus apart is so much nicer.

There are slippery slopes that do matter, an ID is one of them. That is my point.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Sure, but then again, partial birth abortion is also a wedge stratagy, as it is not a medical term, and for some reason people think pulling a fetus apart is so much nicer.

There are slippery slopes that do matter, an ID is one of them. That is my point.

Nope, slippery slope is an argument that if you do something then it may/will lead to something else happening.

Slippery slope argument - allowing ID in schools may result in schools being required to teach every religious group's theory of who the designer is.

Not slippery slope argument - allowing creationism in schools means allowing creationism in schools. As ID and creationism are interchangeable terms, then it is meaningless to talk of one leading to the other.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nope, slippery slope is an argument that if you do something then it may/will lead to something else happening.

Slippery slope argument - allowing ID in schools may result in schools being required to teach every religious group's theory of who the designer is.

Not slippery slope argument - allowing creationism in schools means allowing creationism in schools. As ID and creationism are interchangeable terms, then it is meaningless to talk of one leading to the other.

They are not entirely interchangeable because that is the whole point of the wedge strategy. They reduce creationism and removing things like the flood, and make it more palatable.

The slippery slope is that if we get ID in school we will get 6000 year history into school and such. This is a slippery slope argument, it is also the agenda of one side.

This is why I did not feel that the abortion claim is a fallacy in the same degree, because the end point of both is a stated agenda of its proponents.

 

[Z]

If 'less sophisticated' people can't hack a system of polymarriages, then, yes, they should be washed out of the system.

I am very tired of dumbing down the entire world because of a few evolutionary throwbacks in the system. I'm all for aide devices for the physically handicapped, like wheelchairs and scooters and such - but those who lack the general mental sophistication to keep up have no such devices... and I lack any pity for those that aren't actively mentally disabled.

I'm not talking autistic people or MRDD - I'm talking all the normal folks who, whether through genetics or environment, can't wrap their heads around any concept that they didn't grow up with... let 'em fall behind. Screw 'em.

And yes, I feel the same way about myself... and I'm pretty much in that boat financially. I don't have the financial savvy to become wealthy or even well-off. Oh well - too bad for me.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If 'less sophisticated' people can't hack a system of polymarriages, then, yes, they should be washed out of the system.

I am very tired of dumbing down the entire world because of a few evolutionary throwbacks in the system. I'm all for aide devices for the physically handicapped, like wheelchairs and scooters and such - but those who lack the general mental sophistication to keep up have no such devices... and I lack any pity for those that aren't actively mentally disabled.

I'm not talking autistic people or MRDD - I'm talking all the normal folks who, whether through genetics or environment, can't wrap their heads around any concept that they didn't grow up with... let 'em fall behind. Screw 'em.

And yes, I feel the same way about myself... and I'm pretty much in that boat financially. I don't have the financial savvy to become wealthy or even well-off. Oh well - too bad for me.

So the intelligent and wealthy deserve more rights than the rest of the population then. Or rather will simply have them.

 

[steverino]

Could this be some kind of record? PONDERING TURTLE posted 7 posts consecutively.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So, I'm still coming at it from the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" point of view? I guess. I still think of Marriage... You know, capital m and all. It's conditioned in to see it differently because marriage... Wait... Yeah, conditioned. Okay, I see my problem...

Damn you made me feel bad continuing to argue with you after you changed your mind already.

Still that is a very difficult thing to admit that you have changed your mind about anything, so congratulations.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Could this be some kind of record? PONDERING TURTLE posted 7 posts consecutively.

No it is just that I was away from the boards do to internet failures and read through while responding to the thread. Most of my points where redundant anyway as others had already made them.

 

[TragicMonkey]

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

My suggestion is to either grant those rights and priveledges to all couplings, or get rid of them. It's discriminatory to assign benefits to an "approved" mating and not to others.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

They are not entirely interchangeable because that is the whole point of the wedge strategy.

IMO one of the key points to arise from the Dover trial is that the terms are entirely, 100% interchangeable.

That is why "Of Pandas and People" could be updated by doing a find and replace on the text to remove "creationism" and insert "intelligent design".

And that is why the judge in his decision said ""The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism".

The ID movement try and pretend there is some difference between ID and creationism because they know that they if they do not do so they cannot get it taught in US schools. The reality is that there is no difference.

 

[ponderingturtle]

My suggestion is to either grant those rights and priveledges to all couplings, or get rid of them. It's discriminatory to assign benefits to an "approved" mating and not to others.

So common law marriage for everyone if you want it or not?

So you would always want your most recent sexual partner to be the one to make medical decisions if you are incapacitated?

I really do not understand what you are argueing for.

 

[ponderingturtle]

IMO one of the key points to arise from the Dover trial is that the terms are entirely, 100% interchangeable.

That is why "Of Pandas and People" could be updated by doing a find and replace on the text to remove "creationism" and insert "intelligent design".

And that is why the judge in his decision said ""The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism".

The ID movement try and pretend there is some difference between ID and creationism because they know that they if they do not do so they cannot get it taught in US schools. The reality is that there is no difference.

BUt the point is there are differences. Creationism includes the flood and many other specific events, ID is much more nebulous.

They are different, you are ignoreing the whole point of the wedge stratagy that they had. Well why should creationists be the only ones to use a wedge stratagy and isn't that essentialy a slippery slope?

A wedge stratagy is what you call a slippery slope when you want the end result.

 

[brodski]

So common law marriage for everyone if you want it or not?

So you would always want your most recent sexual partner to be the one to make medical decisions if you are incapacitated?

I really do not understand what you are argueing for.

Why should the fact that you choose to sleep with someone indicate that you think they should take medical decisions for you? Why not have a “nominated next of kin” system which takes no account of who is sleeping with who?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why should the fact that you choose to sleep with someone indicate that you think they should take medical decisions for you? Why not have a “nominated next of kin” system which takes no account of who is sleeping with who?

Because TM is talking about treating all relationships equally.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

BUt the point is there are differences. Creationism includes the flood and many other specific events, ID is much more nebulous.

They are different, you are ignoreing the whole point of the wedge stratagy that they had. Well why should creationists be the only ones to use a wedge stratagy and isn't that essentialy a slippery slope?

A wedge stratagy is what you call a slippery slope when you want the end result.

The judge says they are the same - specifically after considering the evidence presented to him. He describes ID as "a mere re-labeling" of creationism.

The wedge strategy is entirely built on the ID proponents claim that they are not the same. The judgement destroys that myth. ID = creationism. No wedge, no slippery slope. Teaching ID in US schools is not allowed precisely because it IS creationism and therefore religious.

From two separate editions of "Of Pandas & People"

"Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands."

&

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera."

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Sometimes posters bring up the phrase "the spirit of JREF," or "the spirit of this forum." In my opinion, Mylfmyhnr and this thread just epitomized for me what that is.

I will second that enthusiastically

 

[Upchurch]

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 these situations already exist in that two people (parents) have joint power of attorney to make medical decisions for a third (their child). Why would a polygamous marriage be treated any differently?

But we have moved beyond that.

So? Why couldn't we move beyond this as well?

The instant you can show me that "number of people" should not be used as a factor for permissable discrimination I am going to be all for polygamy.

But you have to show either that, or that polygamy is a good thing.

I'm not sure why it is my responsibility to show that not restricting freedom is a good thing. Shouldn't you be providing a compelling reason to restrict such freedoms?

So far, no one has come up with a legal situation that isn't already dealt with in one way or another. We are, of course, talking about consenting adults so I don't see how allowing polyamorous groups marry hurts anyone.

I don't know why not. I am not saying that it shouldn't be possible. I am rejecting the argument that more than two people should be allowed to marry, because two people can marry. It doesn't seem to follow.

But why are you rejecting the argument? What you said above is a circular argument: marriage is between two people, therefore only two people can be married.

And I am rejecting the claim that a marriage between three or more people would be the same as one between two peolpe in the same way as a marriage between two men would be the same as one between a man and a woman. (Or mixed-race marriages the same as segregated marriages.)

Why?

The freedom to do what exactly, though?

The freedom to marry whomever we choose.

Three people cannot marry just the same way that two can. (Maybe it would work the other way, though.)

What does that even mean? Why can't three people marry just the same way that two can?

Show me one current marriage law that has the words "if the man is black" or something similar in them. Show me one law that gives the husbands rights that the wife doesn't have.

Chances are, I'll think this law would be in violation of other laws that demand the equality of races and/or gender.

I'm making an historical comparison. Laws against interracial marriages no longer exist because they were realized to be discriminatory and baseless. Why, then, are laws against polygamy not also discriminatory and baseless? So far, you have only provided arguments that closely parallel arguments against gay and interracial marriage.

Right now, if I was married and fell into a coma my wife would by default get to decide when the plug is pulled. Who should decide that when i had two wifes, or a wife and a husband?

Let's rephrase the question to a parallel situation that already exists:

Right now, if I, a widower, had son and a daughter and fell into a coma, my children would by default get to decide when the plug is pulled. Who should decide that when i had two children, my son or my daughter?​

How, then, would having multiple spouses be any different than having multiple children?

Right now, if i get married, it means my spouse can rely on me not having any other similar relationships (as far as their legal standing is concerned)

That pertains to your personal relationship with your wife and is not a legal distinction.

That would be very different. If I was married to a woman, should I need her agreement to get married to another woman? If I did, would we all three be inter-married? Or would I be in two separate marriages and my wifes in one marriage each?

How would you and the women in your life want the matter arranged? If a polyamorous group wants to enter into a marriage, it is up to them to define their relationship and the boundries thereof. It is not a legal matter, beyond how they set up the marriage contract.

Suppose all three of us were married "together" - what if someone wanted a divorce from just one of the two other parties? Possible?

Absolutely. It would be like dissolving a corporation.

Would my other marriages ever be a reason for one of my wifes to divorce me?

Anyone can leave a marriage contract at any time for any reason. There may be penalties for doing so, but that is always a matter of arbitration in the courts anyway.

If gay marriage was allowed and I would marry another men, I'd only be facing the same situations I'd face now if I had a wife.

If something is different, is that reason enough to deny it from occurring?

If you are not polyamorous, don't get into a polygamous marriage. For that matter, if you can't be monogamous, don't get into a monogamous marriage. But if you are willing to deal with the responsibilities and consequences, why shouldn't you be allowed to do so?


I'm not hearing any arguments against polygamy that either aren't already being delt with in some form or that haven't already been used to deny interracial or gay marriages. I'm not saying let's push this through this very second, but we're talking about rational reasons and no one is providing me with any that don't involve an unfair double standard.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'm making an historical comparison. Laws against interracial marriages no longer exist because they were realized to be discriminatory and baseless. Why, then, are laws against polygamy not also discriminatory and baseless? So far, you have only provided arguments that closely parallel arguments against gay and interracial marriage.

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

I'm not hearing any arguments against polygamy that either aren't already being delt with in some form or that haven't already been used to deny interracial or gay marriages. I'm not saying let's push this through this very second, but we're talking about rational reasons and no one is providing me with any that don't involve an unfair double standard.

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.

 

[drkitten]

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

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.