Gay Marriage

[Darat]

...snip...

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.

To use the UK as an example - population of around 60 million.

The original official estimate was for between 11,000 and 22,000 Civil Partnerships by 2010, (it was introduced in Dec 2005) however by September 2006 i.e. not quite a full year after it's introduction there were already 15,672 partnerships. (See: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1685)

 

[Upchurch]

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.

Where the heck were all you guys when I was arguing these points?

Let me re-frame what I am saying in a different light:

If polyamory were socially acceptable at a comparable level that homosexuality is now and interracial attraction was, I don't know, 40-50 years ago, would we be considering the effort vs number effected ratio or would we pushing for legal polygamy on the principle of equality and that one should be able to live one's life as s/he sees fit?

 

[Darat]

mylfmyhnr - glad some Members have been able to help you come to your own conclusions.

 

[steverino]

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

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.

 

[skeptifem]

wow neato, usually people are really stubborn about things like this. good for you, op!

 

[Rasmus]

If polyamory were socially acceptable at a comparable level that homosexuality is now and interracial attraction was, I don't know, 40-50 years ago, would we be considering the effort vs number effected ratio or would we pushing for legal polygamy on the principle of equality and that one should be able to live one's life as s/he sees fit?

Our laws do allow for certain kinds of discrimination and they forbid others. Race and gender are criteria that the law may not use as a basis for discrimination. Numbers, however, are not thus protected.

That is why I don't think you can simply make an appeal to equality for polygamy. There is no similar basis on which you could place these demands.

A black person is entitled to all the same rights as any white person, just as a man is entitled to all the same rights as any woman. This a rule that you can test current marriage laws against.

There is no rule like that which forbids to look at the numbers of people and base a descision on that. Maybe there should be, but you'd have to make the argument first.

I also agree that a marriage between more than two people will be fundamentially different than one between exactly two people. That is not saying that there couldn't be a similar construct for several people but it simply cannot be the same.

Gays are only asking to be allowed to enter into a marriage. The marriage would stay the same as it has been before. This is not possible if a thirdperson wants in on it, though.

 

[steverino]

I also agree that a marriage between more than two people will be fundamentially different than one between exactly two people. That is not saying that there couldn't be a similar construct for several people but it simply cannot be the same.

Gays are only asking to be allowed to enter into a marriage. The marriage would stay the same as it has been before.

Hogwash. Some (not me) feel tradition is tradition, and to marry in the true sense, one person needs a penis, the other, a vagina. To say "exactly two people" is as biased as saying "exactly one man and one woman." Wouldn't it be more consistant to say, "exactly the number of consenting adults willing to commit?"

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

If polyamory were socially acceptable at a comparable level that homosexuality is now and interracial attraction was, I don't know, 40-50 years ago, would we be considering the effort vs number effected ratio or would we pushing for legal polygamy on the principle of equality and that one should be able to live one's life as s/he sees fit?

I think we have to consider it. Idealism is great, but anything we wish to put into practice must be, well, practical. For polyamory to be that socially acceptable would probably require similar numbers to homosexuality anyway, so it is likely that were this scenario ever the case, that part of the argument would be taken care of.

Which still does not mean it should be legal. In what sense is a polyamorous person not given the same rights as anyone else? What is it they cannot do? Marry multiple people. And nobody else can, either. That is why polygamy does not follow from inter-racial or homosexual marriage. The reason a prohibition against a black man marrying a white woman is discriminatory is not that you are denying him (and her) the right to do what he wants. It is that you are denying him what others can do. No such right is denied the polyamorous individual.

 

[steverino]

What is it they cannot do? Marry multiple people. And nobody else can, either.

So because I, a straight man, can't legally marry another man, gays should give up their desire to marry?

 

[Alt+F4]

Marriage, as defined in our society, is between a man and a woman.

Yawn.

 

[Rasmus]

Hogwash. Some (not me) feel tradition is tradition, and to marry in the true sense, one person needs a penis, the other, a vagina.

I wasn't arguing "tradition", and I wasn't even arguing "marriage" as such. I was arguing "stuff" (marriage in this case, admiteddly) as an application of other laws that mandate gender-equality.

To say "exactly two people" is as biased as saying "exactly one man and one woman."

No, it's not.

Because other laws allow me to count people, but they do not allow me to look at their skin or into their pants. These other laws already exists, and current marriage laws are in violation thereof.

Wouldn't it be more consistant to say, "exactly the number of consenting adults willing to commit?"

Consistent with what?

I am sorry, but I truly see no inequality in a rule that allows everyone to marry up to one partner at a time. I do see inequality in a rule that only lets some people marry black partners, or female partners, or catholic partners or french partners.

 

[Upchurch]

Our laws do allow for certain kinds of discrimination and they forbid others. Race and gender are criteria that the law may not use as a basis for discrimination.

But this hasn't always been the case. There was a time when race and gender could be and was used as a basis for discrimination.

Numbers, however, are not thus protected.

And why not? What is so magical about the number 2? We already have a legal system that allows for legal multiple member partnerships in business world and they seem to be able to manage the business equivalent of divorce and such.

There is no rule like that which forbids to look at the numbers of people and base a descision on that. Maybe there should be, but you'd have to make the argument first.

Freedom and liberty, so far as it does not impinge on the freedoms and liberties of others.

I also agree that a marriage between more than two people will be fundamentially different than one between exactly two people. That is not saying that there couldn't be a similar construct for several people but it simply cannot be the same.

I think it was Merc who tried the substitution test earlier. Let's try it here:

I also agree that a marriage between different races will be fundamentially different than one between people of the same race. That is not saying that there couldn't be a similar construct for interracial couples but it simply cannot be the same.​

Was this not something that could have easily been heard 50 years ago before the idea of interracial couples became socially acceptable?

Gays are only asking to be allowed to enter into a marriage. The marriage would stay the same as it has been before. This is not possible if a thirdperson wants in on it, though.

How would marriage be different if a third person wants in on it? Would they no longer be or act as a family unit? Could they no longer raise children? Could they no longer love and support one another?

What does "marriage" mean and how would it be different in this context?

 

[GodMark2]

How would marriage be different if a third person wants in on it? Would they no longer be or act as a family unit? Could they no longer raise children? Could they no longer love and support one another?

What does "marriage" mean and how would it be different in this context?

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.

 

[Rasmus]

But this hasn't always been the case. There was a time when race and gender could be and was used as a basis for discrimination.

But we have moved beyond that.

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.

And why not? What is so magical about the number 2? We already have a legal system that allows for legal multiple member partnerships in business world and they seem to be able to manage the business equivalent of divorce and such.

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.

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.)

Freedom and liberty, so far as it does not impinge on the freedoms and liberties of others.

The freedom to do what exactly, though? Three people cannot marry just the same way that two can. (Maybe it would work the other way, though.)

I think it was Merc who tried the substitution test earlier. Let's try it here:

I also agree that a marriage between different races will be fundamentially different than one between people of the same race. That is not saying that there couldn't be a similar construct for interracial couples but it simply cannot be the same.​

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.

Was this not something that could have easily been heard 50 years ago before the idea of interracial couples became socially acceptable?

Yes. So?

How would marriage be different if a third person wants in on it? Would they no longer be or act as a family unit? Could they no longer raise children? Could they no longer love and support one another?

What does "marriage" mean and how would it be different in this context?

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?

Yes, it would be simple to reconcile that, but you would need a different formula.

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 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?

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

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

Is sleeping around a reason to get a divorce? And what would be different if I was married to the ppl I slept around with? Who my spouse wasn't married to, and who my spouse wouldn't neccesarily want or like?

As far as I am aware, many of these situations would not even be possible (oe legal) today. In others, the consequences are very straight forward. That might or might not be a good thing, but I see it as a clear difference.

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.

ETA: What GodMark2 said.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Why do alleged "straight" people insist on having this conversation? I would much prefer a referendum on gay marriage" be conducted only allowing gay people to vote, since this decision only affects their rights. Yes, I realize how problematic that would be.

Charlie (straight but gay friendly) Monoxide

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Gays win again ! Soon the Agenda will take over the wo- I mean...

Thanks for being open-minded mylfmyhnr!

 

[Rasmus]

Why do alleged "straight" people insist on having this conversation? I would much prefer a referendum on gay marriage" be conducted only allowing gay people to vote, since this decision only affects their rights. Yes, I realize how problematic that would be.

Charlie (straight but gay friendly) Monoxide

Whenever I say "gay marriage" please substitute "same sex marriage". Just because I personally don't care to marry another man doesn't make it right to deny me that possiblity.

Also, if all but two gay people didn_'ät want to get married I think these two should still be allowed, so why have a referendum to begin with?

 

[Z]

I'd say gay marriages are coming over the next decade to the U.S. Polyamorous marriages, within another 30 years. The reason I say this is there actually is a fairly well organized movement for polyamorous people blooming even now, and I know personally no less than six non-Mormon polyamorous families who have been together for 3 or more years, of which five have children and two have additional partners beyond their arrangement, which are permitted under the terms of their personal agreements. And, oddly enough, that's about 2/3 of the people I know here in town.

Of course, I seem to be in a town that's amazingly progressive on its ideas of relationships and such...

The thing about poly marriage is it's really neither unprecedented nor impossible to deal with. And the issues are really no different between two, three, four or more people - you get many of the same arguments in any separation. Who gets the kids? Either there's some pre-nup, or they take it to court, where the court decides who's best fit to care for the kids. Property? Same thing. Alimony? Ditto. And so on and so forth. Adding an extra adult or two might mean a longer court case, but the issues don't actually change at all.

And what's even funnier is, at least locally, pretty much everyone is aware to some degree what families are poly already - including social services, the courts, the schools, and so forth. And their opinion is 'So what?'

Honestly.

I sat through a court case involving custody of children between two polyamorous families (the mother had left one family and joined another). The fact that there was polyamory involved was simply dismissed as irrelevant, and the case proceeded on the same merits it would have for any 'ordinary' couple. When social services was called in, the polyamory wasn't a concern at all for anyone involved - in fact, the social workers were impressed with a household structure that allowed for two working adults and one stay-at-home caregiver.

And so on and so forth, yada yada yada.

Now, as a matter of fact, I don't think all of these relationships will last and/or are happy ones - but then again, most regular marriages I know of aren't happy and aren't going to last, either. In fact, these relationships have already outlasted every 'normal' marriage of every person I knew in high school. And maybe it's just some strange cosmic fluke, but there it is.

As for people not being born polyamorous, I'd be inclined to disagree, though I don't know of ANY research done in that area. What evidence is there that humans are naturaly inclined to a single partner? History certainly doesn't support that claim - from biblical references to harems and multiple wives and concubines, to the 'uncovered scandal' of our founding fathers and their mistresses and slave-lovers, having multiple partners seems to be the NATURAL way for humans to be - not this self-enforced single-life-partner model that people wish they had today (and most never actually get).

My parents have been together faithfully since my mom was 18, with nothing on the side ever - but that's the ONLY couple I've ever seen that's been that way.

In fact, I'd be willing to claim (understanding I lack evidence as well) that monogamy is, in fact, what people are not born as - what people must be conditioned to be.

Think about all the relationships you know, for a moment - then consider: how many are second or third marriages (or worse)? How many have girlfriends or boyfriends on the side? How many have either admitted infidelity, or suspected it of their partner? And so forth.

Now, it may very well be that I've managed to spend my life surrounded by the 0.01% of freaks and geeks, but so far it's been my observation that most people cannot commit to monogamy without first undergoing extensive conditioning/training/practice, etc. Of course, I'm also not surrounded by staunchly Christian folks, or Bush-ites, or PTA-soccer-moms... in fact, since leaving home I've never once actually seen the standard-issue nuclear family. Usually mom has a career or two as well as dad, or often instead of dad; kids are latch-keyed or spend the day playing tag among a number of neighbors and relatives; and at least half the time, the age of the youngest child is how long it's been since Mr. and Mrs. have had sex.

Pretty sad, really.

But all ranting and moronic babbling aside, the issues about polyamory are almost entirely unrelated to the issue of GLBT marriage, and deciding the case of one should have no impact on the other at all. But rest assured - both are coming, and some of you reading this today will be alive to see it happen.

 

[Alt+F4]

The slippery slope arguments are not generally a very good place to start from...

Government studies have PROVEN that if you start smoking cigarettes on Monday that by Thursday you will be selling crack to third graders.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

So because I, a straight man, can't legally marry another man, gays should give up their desire to marry?

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.