If homosexual marriage will be OK'ed

[one_raven]

Because you make a commitment to each other to stay together for the rest of your lives and try to make each other happy???

What does that have to do with marriage?
A commitment is simply a promise.
You can do that with or without a marriage certificate.

With or without a wedding.
With or without a ceremony.
With or without a ring.
The marriage certificate is only a piece of paper for legal purposes.

Without the legal benefits and responsibilities, what's the point of getting married?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Should we continue and repeat the same point indefinitely? I'm not going to.

bloody hell..getting married because of the legal benefits. That most be the most silly thing I have ever heard. But it is just my opinion.

 

[one_raven]

I'm not looking for repetition, I'm looking for an explanation.

If a commitment is simply a solemn promise to someone, please explain to me the point of getting married and having it sanctioned by anyone other than your word and honor.

What is the purpose of marriage?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Ok, so maybe for me personally there wouldn't be a point to marriage.

 

[one_raven]

Ok, so maybe for me personally there wouldn't be a point to marriage.

So, are you Ok with not being allowed to:
Visit your partner in the hospital?
Cover your partner on your medical insurance?
Ensure your partner can legally keep custody of your child if you die?
Or any of the other benefits that married couples take for granted?

That's the point of marriage (in the legal sense).

 

[spuriousmonkey]

So, are you Ok with not being allowed to:
Visit your partner in the hospital?
Cover your partner on your medical insurance?
Ensure your partner can legally keep custody of your child if you die?
Or any of the other benefits that married couples take for granted?

That's the point of marriage (in the legal sense).

I doubt that we have the same kind of arrangements or laws in holland. If I am not mistaken even homosexual marriages are allowed.

 

[Neildo]

Because you make a commitment to each other to stay together for the rest of your lives and try to make each other happy???

So much for trust then. I don't believe what you say. I don't believe you want to be comitted to me even though you say so unless you spend $100,000 on a wedding for us to seal the deal. Heh, all it then turns into is kind of when a guy continues staying with their girl even if she's a total bitch all because he's invested so much time and money in her that he doesn't want to feel as if it's all gone to waste even though it already has.

Marriage is a joke. It's for the insecure unless the two actually do want to have a nice "joining" party, but if two people trust each other, marriage shouldn't be needed.

bloody hell..getting married because of the legal benefits. That most be the most silly thing I have ever heard. But it is just my opinion.

The the more common excuse I hear from people getting married. Marriage today isn't as "precious" as it once was. It's more like just a traditional thing to do just because everyone before you has done it. I'm never gonna have a ceremonial marriage.

But back to the main point of this thread, I say anyone should be able to.. wed (*gags*).. anyone they want so long as both people consent to it whether it's two strangers, two relatives, or any combination involving multiple people. Too many people stick their noses in other peoples business, and then try to dictate, where it doesn't belong.

- N

 

[Mystech]

I did not study U.S. constitution's treatment of polygamy etc. Constitution is just a paper written by people. It can be changed provided the will. If homosexual marriage will be OK'ed, then all constitutional bans on polygamy (if they exist, which I doubt) MUST be revoked. If refusing same-sex marriage rights is a violation of the U.S. constitution than refusing polygamy and incest rights are also violations of the U.S. constitution. Homosexual marriage rights and polygamy rights come together not separately. There will be no legal reasons to deny polygamy rights after homosexual marriages will be OK'ed.

You strike me as a guy who really doesn't know a single thing about the legal system, or federal/state laws as they stand. Do yourself a big favor and shut up before you make a bigger ass of yourself. Maybe go take some introductory course to US government, and then maybe come back and try to have a conversation on this topic. Same sex marriage and polygamy are two very different things, and thus far every law I've ever seen regarding either reflects that.

What you’re doing here is just mindlessly repeating meaningless neocon rhetoric. Go out and learn something for yourself before you allow yourself to just become another of the unthinking conservative rabble.

 

[Mystech]

I think I'm starting to understand the argument against gay marriage.
Married couples recieve benefits from their country as a reward for helping in establishing the next generation of that country.
Gay couples can't do that so why should they be given money for nothing? Its not discrimination, its simply not giving people something for nothing.

This is an entirely inaccurate depiction of the situation. Show me where it says in any US legal document (state, federal or local [assuming you even know under which of these any legal protection of marriage is guaranteed]) that any benefit tied to marriage is a reward?

The legal protections and guaranties associated with marriage, are granted simply as a social agreement that these conditions are befitting of this institution which is so common thought our society. Joint property rights, hospital visitation, immigration considerations, and child custody considerations, including a much easier time adopting children. . . OH fuck I guess that means homosexuals do help the next generation along. . . and that's not even counting the fact that they keep society running just as much as the next man, if not more with their many contributions to art and literature (yeah I'm a little bitter about your blindly ignorant insults to the value of homosexuals). The point is that homosexuals are human beings, tax paying citizens of these united states, and they already partake in this institution whether you want to recognize it or not. As such they should be entitled to these same protections.

 

[Persol]

This is an entirely inaccurate depiction of the situation. Show me where it says in any US legal document (state, federal or local [assuming you even know under which of these any legal protection of marriage is guaranteed]) that any benefit tied to marriage is a reward?

If doesn't say that, but that seems to be the basic intent. Well, that and greed.

I think there can be a valid argument about calling same-sex marriages 'marriages'. (A valid argument, but a juvenille and spiteful one.) I have yet to see anyone suggest a valid reason same-sex-legal-whatever shouldn't be on an equal legal footing with marriages. The thread author put up a slippery slope red-herring which doesn't even follow the logical progression needed for a slippery-slope argument.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat - Just a note on the topic

When this topic was in Free Thoughts, I made no attempt to bring it here; my thought at the time was that I would use my authority to close it for its inflammatory and insupportable (pseudo-) thesis.

Nonetheless--

What you’re doing here is just mindlessly repeating meaningless neocon rhetoric. Go out and learn something for yourself before you allow yourself to just become another of the unthinking conservative rabble.

--the topic's time in Free Thoughts found me posing the very questions I consider relevant to establishing a basis for the inflammatory thesis. As such, while I do consider such unfounded "slippery-slope" arguments beyond simply unethical, I have posed the question and do await the topic poster's provision of a basis for the inflammatory thesis.

Additionally, I am loath to simply tell the civilized portion of this discussion to move along and find a different topic.

However, without an appropriate basis for such an inflammatory shadow of a thesis, I will be locking this one down and asking people to hop over to any of a number of topics relating to same-sex marriage existing around the EM&J forum. I suppose I could start merging them into one, since they largely reiterate the more general points of the issue, but I'll worry about that later.

Lacking any demonstration that the topic assertion is not, in fact, meaningless partisan rhetoric, it will be closed sometime around or shortly after midnight, PDT.

 

[dixonmassey]

Same sex marriage and polygamy are two very different things, and thus far every law I've ever seen regarding either reflects that.

What you’re doing here is just mindlessly repeating meaningless neocon rhetoric. Go out and learn something for yourself before you allow yourself to just become another of the unthinking conservative rabble.

OK, allknowing freak. All your fucking knowlege of the legal system just enabled you to write pathetic, and unsupported with anything except your bigotry sentence Same sex marriage and polygamy are two very different things+ insults. Great. Prove it. Repeating BS is not a proof in itself.

"Equal protection" principle could well be extended to the polygamy. There is no discrimination against people who like meat or people who like vegies. Right? Then, there should not be discrimination against people who prefer 2 or more partners, as long as everything is voluntary. Do polygamously inclined people hurt anyone by marrying each other? Hell no. Then, they should be "equally protected" as those who like just one legal partner.

It's absurd to assume that equal protection is limited just to gender&race. There is no mentioning of impaired folks in constitution? Right? Yet, they are theoretically protected against discrimination.

 

[dixonmassey]

The point is that homosexuals are human beings, tax paying citizens of these united states, and they already partake in this institution whether you want to recognize it or not. As such they should be entitled to these same protections.

The point is that polygamous folks are human beings, tax paying citizens of these united states, and they already partake in this institution whether you want to recognize it or not. As such they should be entitled to these same protections. I'll add that they grow lots of their children too.

Are you that blind not to see analogy?

 

[Mystech]

dixonmassey, you're arguing from a purely nonsensical moralistic slippery slope premise. In legal terms there isn't a single reason why same sex marriage could be allowed and polygamy could not.

First, allow in your own mind to realize that these are two entirely different types of relationships. I know it may be hard to think past the pain induced by the bile frothing around in your throat at the mere mention of evil deviant relationships, but go take a look in a dictionary and allow yourself to realize that the merits of an argument for one are not the merits of another, and that they are indeed two different subjects.

Now, lets take a look at an example of a state law barring same sex marriage. This particular law is from Arizona's revised statues:

25-101. Void and prohibited marriages

A. Marriage between parents and children, including grandparents and grandchildren of every degree, between brothers and sisters of the one-half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews and between first cousins, is prohibited and void.

B. Notwithstanding subsection A, first cousins may marry if both are sixty-five years of age or older or if one or both first cousins are under sixty-five years of age, upon approval of any superior court judge in the state if proof has been presented to the judge that one of the cousins is unable to reproduce.

C. Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/25/00101.htm&Title=25&DocType=ARS

I can assure you that this law is fairly typical of those thought the nation which bar same sex unions. They don't just say "Deviant marriages aren't allowed" or the like, there is distinction and specificity. In Arizona we can see, for instance that inessential marriages are allowed so long as one of the partners is infertile or they are both over 60 years of age. To make same sex unions legal all that would have to be done is to repeal subsection C and Arizona's laws regarding inessential relations are still in tact.

In other words, you're the only one who seems to have trouble telling these two situations apart, the law, as it often likes to be, gets pretty specific. The same thing goes for Polygamy.

 

[Roman]

If homosexual marriage will be OK'ed, then all constitutional bans on polygamy (if they exist, which I doubt) MUST be revoked.

Dixeycup, you should have been called on this by the first poster, and only Tiassa has so far, but your slippery slope logic doesn't really hold up.
By your (fallacious) logic, if alcohol and tobacco are legalized, then marijuana, cocaine, heroine, LSD and MDMA MUST be legalized. The agruments for the continued legalization of alcohol are essentially the same as the arguments for legalizing illicit drugs.
Furthermore, if murder in self defence is legal, then that will encourage vigilantism, which will eventually lead to lawlessnes in the streets.
If Bush invades Iraq pre-emptively, claiming the presence of WMDs, or terrorists, then he will invade Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan for similar reasons.

While you're taking that government class, go grab a book on logic.

The point is that polygamous folks are human beings, tax paying citizens of these united states, and they already partake in this institution whether you want to recognize it or not. As such they should be entitled to these same protections.

Actually, the majority of polygomous relationships in the US are practiced by fundamentalist Mormons whom don't pay taxes but suscrube for VERY large welfare checks. These polygomous relationships lead to abuse and subjagation of women, including brainwashing and rape, sometimes murder.
It's found that polygomy doesn't work well, and is far more detrimental to society. For instance, it is very hard to support large families, as well having to spend money on multiple wives (one is expensive enough). (Under the Banner of Heaven[/] Jon Krakauer)
Actually, in Brunei, where polygomy is legal (Muslim country), the Sultan passed a law that you could marry as many women as your banker would allow.

Incest is recognized as a psychosis or something. That, and it's biologically bad news. Incest = bad, just like crack babies = bad. Both may result in offspring that will damage the social welfare system.

Edit My bad, Mystech called you on the slippery slope fallacy. Hey, and life isn't a dichotomy, as much as you'd like it to be, there does happen to be gray in life.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat - Tick-tock .....

Mod Hat - Tick-tock ....

"Equal protection" principle could well be extended to the polygamy.

How? This is the case that needs to be made in order to qualify the topic "thesis" as anything but inflammatory partisan rhetoric.

Tick-tock.

 

[dixonmassey]

Mod Hat - Tick-tock ....



How? This is the case that needs to be made in order to qualify the topic "thesis" as anything but inflammatory partisan rhetoric.

Tick-tock.

Well, I think I've tried to do that a few posts above.
I am not a lawyer or near that, I could be simply dumb (invitation for insults phrase) but it seems to me that if discrimination according to the race/gender/disability/food one eats/drink one drinks/words one uses/and so onnnnnnnnnnn are prohibited (explicitly or implicitly) then what is so special about the number or partners one has? Why one is discriminated cause he/she is in polygamous relationships?
It does not make any sense (except that might makes right, of course).

What if NY legislature will write a law prohibiting its citizens to eat all kinds of apples? Will it be constitutional just because such a law was passed? Or, US citizens implicitly have a right to eat apples wether or not "apple eating clause" is mentioned in the constitution? Everything that is not prohibited explicitly is allowed.

The very same constitution was used to make absolutely different decisions by different sets of judges. So, it's not some kind of magic document. Humans decides what it means. And, usually, humans see what in every document whatever they want to see.

Personally, I do mind both homosexual and polygamous marriages. Well, I simply do not like the idea. No rationale.
However, I realize that there are basically two argument against them:
1) traditional morality (whatever that means). Christian roots. Bible.
2) Might makes right argument. We are in majority, we do not like it, do what we say or else.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat - Done

Lacking any substantial discussion to support the derogatory thesis of the topic post, the discussion is hereby closed.

Thanks to those who attempted to inject some sense into the discussion.