Any atheists against same sex marriage?

[tomndebb]

@ElvisL1ves

Your saying you ‘give him a pass’ was a joke? Ri-i-i-ght.

Yes. I am saying it was a joke. Most of what randyjet has posted in this thread has been emotionally laden insistence on the status quo in which he has thrown out random numbers to support his position of whom he believes shares his opinion.
When Antinor01 took the time to actually attempt to refute his numbers, (that I was pretty sure he made up, to begin with), I said to “give him a pass.” I did not go back through all randyjet’s posts to discover that he had used his “98.4%” in more than one post, so I misstated his actual claim. I also posted (without review) before I saw that Antinor1 had dug up the information from Hawaii, etc. that fully put the lie to randyjet’s claim.

If you wish to try to hammer me for trying to poke some fun at randyjet, in a joke that fell flat, feel free.

@ElvisL1ves

I merely observed that your view, quite adamantly expressed at that, is that most state governments positively disagree that there is a right to single sex marriage. I did not impugn that view you and Randyjet hold other than to help point out its falsehood, as others have done as well.

These personal attacks you’ve been making recently are quite out of character, I must say.

You have mischaracterized my actual argument, here, just as you have failed tio read or understand it in the other thread. Claiming that I share a view on the topic with randyjet is a display of either a complete lack of comprehension or a deliberate lie. I have not attacked you, personally, although I have pointed out that you are posting falsely. Stop the false posts and I will have no need to point out your error.

Mischaracterization can legitimately be described as impugning.

[randyjet]

[

QUOTE=tomndebb]Which is exactly what I said. You have no reason to oppose same sex marriage accept an emotional atttachment to the status quo.

[/QUOTE]

I think that the reasoning of the overwhelming majority of legal opinion on the matter by people far more qualified than you or I on the subject is quite sufficient REASON. Since you feel that you are far better legal mind and scholar than all of them, I do not find that a compelling argument. THAT is pure emotion on your part that YOU have the law right, and they don’t. As I said previously, that is the most arrogant thing I have heard in quite awhile.

[Excalibre]

@randyjet

I think that the reasoning of the overwhelming majority of legal opinion on the matter by people far more qualified than you or I on the subject is quite sufficient REASON. Since you feel that you are far better legal mind and scholar than all of them, I do not find that a compelling argument. THAT is pure emotion on your part that YOU have the law right, and they don’t. As I said previously, that is the most arrogant thing I have heard in quite awhile.

Perhaps you missed the bit where your claims got torn apart, dear. Incidentally, you are still stuck in your legalist mindset; no one has argued that gay marriage is presently a legal right in the United States. Rather, the argument is that legalizing it is morally right. This is a distinction I haven’t seen you make; further, it’s a distinction that I think a lot of people don’t make. Nonetheless, you have yet to come up with any convincing moral argument for your mindset. When you argue over whether it is currently a legal right, you’re arguing over a matter of fact, and an irrelevant one, since it’s easy to determine that it’s not currently a legal right. All you have to do is head down to city hall and apply for a marriage license.

[tomndebb]

@randyjet

I think that the reasoning of the overwhelming majority of legal opinion on the matter by people far more qualified than you or I on the subject is quite sufficient REASON.

That is simply one more emotional appeal to the status quo. Courts are obliged to interpret law. Barring extraordinary circumstances, changes to law should come from the legislative portion of government. That fact that some courts have not chosen to overrule existing law, (ignoring, for the moment, that courts in Hawaii, Alaksa, and Massachusetts actually have voted to re-interpret law based on individual state Constitutions and that the issue has not yet been decided in about a half dozen other states), the fact that a court may rule to interpret old laws in the frame in which they were written says absolutely nothing about the reasons to support or oppose changes. They are merely indicators that laws as written were written in a particular way with a particular understanding. Claiming that the fact that a law exists is a “reason” to keep the law the same is mere tautology and appears to be based in emotion.

I make no claim to be a better legal scholar than various justices; I simply point out that interpreting existing law is irrelevant to a discussion regarding a desire to change the law.

You still have no reason other than an emotional attachment to the status quo.

[cosmosdan]

@randyjet

I think that the reasoning of the overwhelming majority of legal opinion on the matter by people far more qualified than you or I on the subject is quite sufficient REASON. Since you feel that you are far better legal mind and scholar than all of them, I do not find that a compelling argument. THAT is pure emotion on your part that YOU have the law right, and they don’t. As I said previously, that is the most arrogant thing I have heard in quite awhile.

This argument may sound reasonable on the surface to some but it seems pretty clear form the last series of posts here that it really is an empty argument. The absence of decisions for or against is not an argument against. How many states have specific laws against gay marriage? Obviously several have state supreme courts have decided it is a right. It seems your numbers are pretty far off.

Either way your argument that these legal experts must be correct since they are more knowledgeable is a bogus argument. We know from history that some legal decisions are politically motivated. Years ago similar legal experts decided to deny voting rights to woman and blacks. Blacks were not allowed to eat at the same restaurants or use the same bathrooms. In some states interracial marriages were illegal. Were these laws morally justified because so called legal experts supported them? Obviously not. Rather they were laws supported by bigots and moral cowards and fear born from ignorance.

The reason** you** object is that someone else decided it wasn’t a right and they’re smarter than you or other posters on this board? That’s dishonest. I see no reason other than bigotry and a homophobic interpretation of the Bible to deny human beings the same rights others enjoy, that is to be in a marriage recognized by the state with someone you are in love with. To deny people this right when there is no evidence that it poses any harm to those individuals or society as a whole is morally repugnant. To resist the granting this right for political expediency is moral cowardice. To defer your own judgement to others that way is a total cop out. Are you incapable of calling injustice what it is?

Regardless of your insistance your arguement doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny or sincere consideration.

[Blalron]

@Happy Clam

In any case, tha argument for polygamy is not quite so cut-and-dried as that for gay marriage. No mistake, I’m still in favour of it’s legalisation for those who want it, but it does present worries about exploitation of some groups by others that are not present in the issue of gay marriage. For example, I think that, given the history of polygamy being applied almost exclusively towards multiples wives, many women’s groups might oppose it as being intrinsically mysogynistic. In addition, the somewhat ignominious history of polygamy in the US, for example among the Mormons (I realise the the modern Church of Latter-Day Saints does not practise nor condone polygamy, I am speaking of the historical situation, which I think most would agree was not without coercive or exploitative elements) would work against its legalisation in the US.

One serious argument against polygamy as it is commonly practiced (to be more specific, polygyny) is that it will lead to “bride shortages.” Unless polyandry (multiple men married to a woman) catches on at nearly the same rate (worldwide polyandry is only practiced by a few remote tribes and hasn’t gained the same level of popularity). A lot of men will be left out in the cold, so to speak. There’s a certain polygamous religious sect in Utah (which I need not name) which is notorious for kicking out boys for minor infractions so they won’t get in the way of older men marrying more women.

[Miller]

@randyjet

I think that the reasoning of the overwhelming majority of legal opinion on the matter by people far more qualified than you or I on the subject is quite sufficient REASON. Since you feel that you are far better legal mind and scholar than all of them, I do not find that a compelling argument. THAT is pure emotion on your part that YOU have the law right, and they don’t. As I said previously, that is the most arrogant thing I have heard in quite awhile.

This is like the fifth time you’ve said this, and you still haven’t caught on yet that no one is making the argument you’re trying so strenuously to rebut. There are some posters who claim that the current law ought to be interpreted to allow SSM, but tomndebb is not one of them. Nor am I, for that matter. Neither of us are arguing that the US law, as it stands, allows for or requires SSM. What we are arguing is that US law should be changed to allow SSM. Stating again and again that judges have ruled that the law doesn’t say that is worse than useless. We’ve already conceded that as a necessary condition to our argument: if it were already legal, we wouldn’t need to change the law to legalize it. And your only argument against legalization - political expedience - is, frankly, the most heartless and amoral argument I’ve ever heard in this debate short of Fred Phelps. Say what you wants about the tenets of fundamentalist Christianity, at least its a moral system. Those folks are doing what they’re doing because they think its right, not just because they think its easy.

[Lynwood_Slim]

@panache45

Married people live longer than single people, but I seriously doubt that most people get married for that reason.

It wasn’t that married people lived longer, it just felt as if they lived longer (if I recall the research correctly).

[Azov]

@Miller

I don’t view the illegalization of polygamy as nearly as great an injustice as the illegalization of SSM.

From a quick glance it looks like you didn’t elaborate on this for clairobscur, so I’m responding.

What is your reason? Because you are gay and have an emotional attachment to the issue? Why is your opinion better than others who think both are equally just? Another thread (“interracial marriage”) is already arguing about the legalities of this and why it is justified to have certain marriage laws.

[ElvisL1ves]

This completely-straight, long-time-married guy has an answer there, which may or may not be Miller’s but still makes sense to him. In a polygamous relationship, like in a supervisor-worker relationship or adult-child relationship (or, okay, even a human-turtle relationship like Santorum has hypothesized), there is a strong possibility of coercion of one (or more) of the partners being involved. That is a possibility which no amount of external questioning can completely eradicate. The government provides blanket protection of children below a certain age of presumption, as well as workers and even animals, from such coercion by a blanket prohibition of such an act. It’s a blunt instrument of social policy, obviously, but solidly intentioned, and there’s no good way to sharpen it.

That coercion problem doesn’t apply to a relationship consisting of 2 loving, committed adults. There is no coercion, or anything else that either partner has a plausible presumption of needing protection from. Certainly it’s *possible * that some coercion can be involved in one adult’s marrying another, sure, but that’s equally true of 1-man-1-woman marriages.

[Ensign_Edison]

@ElvisL1ves

This completely-straight, long-time-married guy has an answer there, which may or may not be Miller’s but still makes sense to him. In a polygamous relationship, like in a supervisor-worker relationship or adult-child relationship…

The problem with this argument is that it doesn’t make much sense. What in the nature of marrying more than one person implies coercion? So much so that “no external questioning” could “ever eradicate” it? Are you just thinking of polygamists like those Mormon schismatics or whatever? Polyamorists come in many forms, and most people interested in multiple marriage rights aren’t at risk for being forced into or forcing anyone else into marriage, believe me.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Polygamy laws do not discriminate against a single group. It applies to homos and heteros alike. That’s why it’s not the same kind of injustice. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation.

I personally don’t give a shit either way. Legalize polygamy or not. I don’t care, but it shouldn’t be compared with SSM.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Ensign Edison

Are you just thinking of polygamists like those Mormon schismatics or whatever?

Those are the most prominent practitioners of it, aren’t they? It wasn’t that long ago they weren’t even schismatics, ftr.

Polyamorists come in many forms, and most people interested in multiple marriage rights aren’t at risk for being forced into or forcing anyone else into marriage, believe me.

I’d ask how you know, but I’m not sure I want to.

[Excalibre]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Polygamy laws do not discriminate against a single group. It applies to homos and heteros alike. That’s why it’s not the same kind of injustice. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation.

Well, a lot of polyamorous people would claim otherwise.

I have yet to figure out any legitimate basis to claim that they’re wrong about it.

[Ensign_Edison]

@ElvisL1ves

Those are the most prominent practitioners of it, aren’t they? It wasn’t that long ago they weren’t even schismatics, ftr.

I’d ask how you know, but I’m not sure I want to.

Excuse me? Do you have a problem with polyamory? I think perhaps you need to educate yourself about it, and if you still have a problem with it, take it to the Pit, because it’s not appropriate to be bigoted about here.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Polygamy laws do not discriminate against a single group. It applies to homos and heteros alike.

This argument seems specious to me. It discriminates in exactly the same way that anti-miscegenation laws discriminate and that anti-SSM laws discriminate: it prevents you from marrying whom you want to marry.

The coercion argument seems equally spurious to me. The difference between kids and adults is that kids legally cannot consent to certain relationships. Adults can. Comparing polygamy to statutory rape is insulting to polygamists. And we don’t forbid power-differential relationships when the power differential is much greater. An intern is allowed to marry the president; a secretary can marry his boss; a student can marry her professor (legally speaking–the university may say something about it).

The only grounds on which I believe the two may be separated are logistical grounds: whereas SSM may be implemented with the stroke of a pen, polygamous relationships require a whole new body of law to implement, and so the issues should be decided separately.

Daniel

[Ensign_Edison]

@Excalibre

Well, a lot of polyamorous people would claim otherwise.

I have yet to figure out any legitimate basis to claim that they’re wrong about it.

Exactly. Would and do. Do people really feel like monogamy is a “choice”? That they could live poly instead but just choose not to? This is not for this thread, of course, but the sudden influx of misinformation required comment. Many poly people do indeed feel that they did not choose to be poly, but rather are oriented that way just as most people are oriented mono, or straight, for that matter.

Anyway, it’s clear that the people making assumptions here know very little about polyamory as a movement and a community, and are thinking “but swinging isn’t a civil right!” or something. Polyamorists have the same kinds of loyal, loving relationships as monogamists.

That said, I agree it’s different issue to be handled in a different discussion, and equal marriage rights for two-person couples is, in my opinion, something that effects many more people and just deserves more attention and effort at this time.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Do people really feel like monogamy is a “choice”? That they could live poly instead but just choose not to?

Yes. That’s pretty much exactly how this monagmist feels.

[Ensign_Edison]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Yes. That’s pretty much exactly how this monagmist feels.

Okay, I can’t wait to hear the hordes chiming in that the thought of being poly feels just as natural and right to them as the thought of being mono, but just doesn’t happen to be what they feel like doing.

Especially since this would contradict years of my experience with monogamus people who insist they could never begin to imagine living poly.

[Miller]

In defence of my statement that banning polygamous marriage didn’t seem as great an injustice as banning SSM:

For starters, the only time I ever hear anyone talking about legalizing polygamy is (clairobscur excepted) when it’s someone trying to argue against SSM. I don’t think I’ve ever heard an actual polygamist complain about not being able to get married. So I’m not at all convinced that this is a legitimate issue, and not a gigantic red herring. Again, polygamists are welcome to correct me on this issue, assuming any of them care about it any more than I do.

Alternatively, there’s the fact that polygamists (if they’re straight) can marry at least one person they’re in love with, while gays can marry precisely zero people that they’re in love with. So from a mathematical perspective, no SSM is clearly a greater injustice than no polygamy.

As well, I am not aware of any evidence that an inclination to polygamy is an innate biological drive, a function of genetics, or an immutable psychological condition. While no one knows why some people are gay, there’s plenty of evidence that it is unchangable, and that being in a lovng relationship is as vital for the psychological (and, in many ways, physical) well being for gays as it is for straights. Polygamy, to the extent that it matters in this debate, seems to be very clearly a choice. It would be virtually impossible for a homosexual to be happy in a heterosexual marriage. I do not know that the same could be said of a polygamist in a monogamist marriage. Although, again, I’m open to correction on this point.

Or, there’s the simple fact that polygamists are sinners who should only burn in hell for their wicked, wicked ways.

Pick whichever answer you feel best fits your preconceptions of my position on this issue.

@Ensign Edison

Excuse me? Do you have a problem with polyamory? I think perhaps you need to educate yourself about it, and if you still have a problem with it, take it to the Pit, because it’s not appropriate to be bigoted about here.

Which is what I said three pages ago: this is the thread for being bigoted about SSM. Folks who want to be bigoted about polygamy can go find their own thread.

But somehow, when I said it, that made me the bad guy.