I’ve wondered about the OP myself, and this is the first explaination of this I’ve heard that makes any sense to me. Thanks, **X~Slayer(ALE) **.
For the sake of this debate, it’s too bad this hasn’t already been argued in front of the SCotUS. Can anyone here seriously say that the question “How does leagalizing gay marriage not imply that other groups, including polygamists, shouldn’t be recognized by law?” would NOT be asked by one of the Judges?
If so, you’re living in fantasyland. Moral of the story: it’s going to be a issue and if you want gay marriages recognized you better have a damn good response. Go ahead and try telling the Supreme Court that that argument is “silly” and see where that get you.
According to the search function on my browser, John, you’re the first person in this debate to use the word “silly”. I do, however, see a whole lot of arguments as to why the legalization of gay marriage should not imply the legalization of polygamy.
Being able to ask a question doesn’t imply that there’s no good answer. In this case, the answer is that each case has its own particular considerations as to whether it makes sense. Homosexual marriage makes sense. Whether polygamy does or does not is its own issue.
Otherwise, we’re left with arguments like “Doesn’t allowing men and women to marry imply that you should let gerbils marry?”
It would probably be easier to just replace the Supreme Court. (And why shouldn’t polygamists be able to marry whomever they please? As long as everyone in the marriage agrees to accept a new member…)
You’re right. The term you used was “ridiculous”. Thanks for correcting me. I understand the Supreme Court responds much better to “ridiculous” than it does to “silly”. You have indeed refuted my argument.
Correct. It does not imply that. But it doesn’t change the fact that one is needed. Maybe I’m missing something here, but I have not heard a cogent argument, in a legal sense, that polygamists don’t deserve the same “right” to marriage as gays do. You gotta be able to say more than that they are just “different”. What makes them different? Is gay marriage more differnet form straight marriage than polygamy is from either one of them? Etc, etc, etc. Quiet a few people here have weighed in with the same thought.
Remember, this is an argument in front of the Supreme Court, not just in the legislature. The former is **very[b/] concerned about precident. You can guarnatee any law that gets passed will end up in the SCotUS.
And I don’t think you have to worry about Scalia asking anything about gerbils. Now that would be both silly and ridiculous.
What makes polygamy wrong and same-sex marriages right? I honestly don’t know that anything does. However, there are studies proving same-sex relationships can and are just as viable as opposite-sex, just as healthy for all involved, and just as nurturing for any child that might be raised within it. If polygamy can prove the same, then yes of course I would support it. Different does not equal bad, but different must be studied to make sure it isn’t.
Until I see case-studies and statistics proving those facts, however, I don’t see why SCotUS or the legislature must, by precedent set, recognize any other form of marriage. It could fall in the same category as incest. The Supreme Court has recognized the heterosexual right to privacy, yet maintains incest as a crime. Why? Because genetic inbreeding can cause serious deformities down the line, many such relationships (especially father/daughter) have tendency towards abuse, all of which can be discouraged by law.
I disagree that a two-parent household is more “stable” or “productive” at raising a child than a three-parent (or more) household. Nor do I believe that is inherently confusing to children.
In a three-parent household, you have three caregivers, instead of two, meaning that caregivers get more opportunity for rest and diversion. In addition, it is much easier to support three adults and a child on two incomes than two adults and a child on one income, meaning that you’re much more likely to be able to have a stay-at-home parent, which is universally acknowledged as better for children than daycare. A multiple parent environment is also more able to absorb parental illness or a loss of income.
It is widely regarded that multipartner relationships are less stable than two-partner relationships, but I do not believe there is any evidence to support this assertion. I do not believe that there have been any systematic studies of polygamous relationships other than the form practiced by separatist Mormons. Also, in a three-parent family, if one should choose to leave the relationship, the child still has two remaining parents, which is probably better for the child than the sole custodial parent that would remain in a standard monogamous divorce.
Nor will children be confused about their family situation. What will happen is that the children will run into intolerance from others who insist that their family has to have one mommy and one daddy. This same problem already occurs in children raised single-parent families and in same-sex partnerships. The solution to this is to stamp out the intolerance, not to stamp out the situations that narrow-minded people refuse to tolerate.
So I challenge elJeffe’s claim that a monogamous relationship is more stable, more productive, and less confusing, for the purpose of childrearing, as lacking either rational basis or supporting empirical evidence.
I think you have it backwards. We shouldn’t have to prove that same-sex marriage (or polygamy) are safe for children. They should have to prove that they’re not. I hope you realize why this is the case: it is very hard, from a practical standpoint, to prove the safety of something which is illegal to do.
No, the burden of proof must be on the hypothesis that gay marriage is harmful, and absent such proof we must assume that it is not. Any other stance arbitrarily denies freedom.
And you’ve ignored everything I’ve said in order to repeat something that’s been addressed any number of times. Whee! This is fun!
Giving a right to a specific group of people doesn’t imply that that right should be universal. Otherwise, when SCOTUS legalized interracial marriage, everything up to the gerbil marriages would have had precedent.
It may be a question, but it’s not a good one. I’ll ask you a good one. Please demonstrate how passing legislation that specifically extends the right to marriage to same-sex couples sets a precedent for extending the right to marriage to polygamous groups.
Because if you can’t prove that, you don’t have an argument.
ElJeffe already provided one good answer. Another might be that gay marriage doesn’t involve changing anything other than the gentials of the individuals forming a union, while polygamy essentially changes the entire nature of the legal and personal relationship.
TVAA, thank you, quite sincerely. I’d always skimmed past the “traditional” modifier and your point is very cogent.
I’m not sure what the age is when one begins saying, “Things were so much better when I was a kid” – I haven’t reached it yet. But that sort of feeling-based argument is often the toughest sort to combat, and your point is very much a major influencer.
One point, touched on in passing by TVAA and picked up later in the thread, is that religious definitions of marriage are an influence on the civil definition – if nothing else, consider who is entitled to preside over a marriage in most jurisdictions.
Ethilrist, this has to be a contender for funniest serious post in a GD in 2003.
Mr Visible, I agree in general terms with everything you say here, and I would be the first to say that a step-by-step approach is probably the right way to accomplish anything. (In fact, I believe I angered KellyM a few months ago by suggesting that while transgendered rights are important, it might be advisable for everyone with a dog in this fight to campaign on behalf of gay rights first and deal with that later, for just that reason.)
However, I do have one strong argument to make in your direction as regards the pro-polygamy folks – and that is the one that Pastor Martin Niemoeller so memorably phrased. My marriage is not under attack (other than by the occasional jerk who cannot understand marriage as having any other purpose than progenation), but it’s important to me to stand by you and yours. Those who would try to shoehorn us all into behaviors they find acceptable will take the classic one-at-a-time approach, and even if one is not part of a given minority, the only moral thing to do is to stand by those who are. By the same token, I feel that you and yours are morally obliged to stand by the polyamorists who would seek to legalize plural marriages.
X-Slayer, this is an interesting point, picking up as it does on what TVAA had said earlier. However, may I point out to you that there are several Christian denominations, plus two Jewish groups, which either approve of gay commitment ceremonies (marriages in intent if not in law) or have a strong and numerous group within them advocating for such approval.
Your last sentence is accurate, except for the fact that only some – probably a majority, but still only some – of the “same people” are opposed to same sex marriages. Even the couple who was most outspoken on the sinfulness of homosexuality generally on this board agreed that, while in their opinion God would not recognize a gay marriage as a real marriage and in consequence would oppose their church conducting such, gay people should be free to commit to each other in a civil marriage.
[quote]
Marriage doesn’t fit this description. Marriage is a set of benefits the government chooses to give to certain people who meet certain qualifications. To claim that joint tax status, for instance, is a “right” is ludicrous, whether the SCOTUS says so or not. Note that refusing to legalize gay marriage does not prohibit two people of the same sex from deciding to spend the rest of their lives together, raising children, or any of the things that are commonly understood by “marriage” in a non-legal sense. It simply removes a small set of privileges granted to some (not all) other people. Just like unemployment benefits are benefits granted to a small class of people who meet certain requirements. Or should I be suing the government for my “right” to receive tax-payer money like the unemployed do?[.quote]
Strangely enough, there is a school of constitutional lawyers who would agree with you, that our “rights” are the gracious gifts of an all-powerful government. But I think you will find that the overwhelming majority of Americans, from James Madison and George Washington down to the present, would see them as something very much more. I won’t snidely quote the Declaration of Independence to you, but you might rethink your point here in terms of that. Marriage is a commitment made in love which two people have the freedom to make; government recognition or its lack is not the creation of that right but its legal acceptance. The legal consequences of marriage should not be confused with the institution itself. And the Supreme Court has specified that the right to marry is “one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.” That, my friend, is the law of the land, whatever your opinion about pickles and cheese may be.
Do you ever get the feeling that one side in these debates seems to be quoting Yossarian?
I think this is a very important point, and I would like to see anyone who opposes the legalization of gay marriage or civil unions address why they feel that Mr Visible should be obliged to go through all this to obtain (part of) some things that they got handed to them as the result of 15 minutes before a minister or a justice of the peace?
And Scalia isn’t? :dubious:
Finally, I like KellyM’s final point, and while I deplore the idea that this thread needs to explore legalized polygamy, just because somebody brought it up as a “slippery slope” argument, I’d like to see what the responses to it would be.
I was trying to make clear that the religious thing was a generalization. I also deleted from my post a specific reference to Utah, although I imagine most of the polygamous marriages in this country - although I don’t know if or where you’d find reliable stats about this - are from Mormons. I don’t know of any major lobbying efforts because from what I can tell, even though polygamy is illegal in Utah (as everywhere else), and the Mormon church has officially banned it, the people who want to do it pretty much get away with it. When Tom Green was prosecuted for polygamy a few years ago, it was unusual not just because we regard polygamy as weird. It’s unusual that the statute is enforced. Do you know how manypeopoele are in the Allred clan out there due to polygamy and incest?
And anyway, many Mormons seem to feel that god has sanctioned the practice, and they’ll do it whether it’s legal or not. Maybe there’s a lobbying effort, but as I said, the practice continues anyway since the law is rarely enforced.
Studies show that’s true. And atheists and skeptics have the lowest divorce rates. Chew on that for a minute.
It wasn’t meant to be an argument. I said directly that precedent isn’t the same as legitimacy, THAT was an argument. I added that the practice was stupid because I think it is.
The notion that gay men can’t be monogamous is a stereotype, and it’s a rather bigoted one. Why does fidelity impact their right to marry anyway? Plenty of straight men cheat on their wives and vice versa, and I’ve never heard anyone say straight people shuldn’t be maried. For that matter, plenty of people who are cheated on/cheat stay together.
Polycarp, you may rest assured that I have never felt angered at you for any reason. If your words have ever inspired anger in me, it has not been directed at you.
If my final point was my response to ElJeffe, please kindly address those comments in the companion thread. If, however, you are referring to my comments to Priam about burden of proof, those should be address here. Polyamory is a difficult topic for people to deal with and I fear a discussion of it here is bound to detract from the original focus of this thread.
Normally I would agree with you, Kelly. In the case of polygamy, as it stands I wouldn’t stop someone else from advocating a widening of laws to accept such marriages if they could present a viable framework for recognition. However, to gain my support I need more than “innocent until proven guilty”.
As for gay marriage activists shifting the burden of proof to where it most likely does belong, I would actually disagree. Why? Because we can absolutely argue convincingly the case that same-sex commited relationships do work out just as well as opposite sex, and even better in the case of lesbians. Because we do have such proof, it behooves us to present it at every opportunity.
And so I will. When the time comes for that particular fight. The polyamorists have a lot of work to do to lay the foundations of a successful battle for legal rights. They need research, they need numbers, they need vocal advocates, they need to sway public opinion to the point where, when they force their issue to the forefront, they have a chance at succeeding.
I will be happy to support them along every step of that process. But it is, and it should be, a separate issue. They’re demonstrably different, and instituting polyamorous marriage will take entirely different legal approaches. And if the issue of GLBT rights is conflated with polyamorist rights, then nobody wins.
Like I said above; in 1967, if the people trying to win the right to interracial marriages had tried to win the right to gay marriages too, would they have won? I don’t think so. Would forcing them to have to carry the burden of trying to legalize gay marriage, well before the groundwork for that had been laid, have been fair? When they spent years trying to have their relationships legally recognized?
I don’t begrudge the interracial marriage activists their focus on the one issue. It got the job done; it worked. They got the rights that had been denied to them, and that they so obviously deserved. (As a side note, if they hadn’t done so, I’d be fighting for those same rights today; my boyfriend and I are different races. So I’m very, very grateful for what they accomplished.) And I personally will march in the polyamorist parades, and I will sign the polyamorist rights petitions, I will work for polyamorist equality. While recognizing that it is a separate issue from the right of gay people to have their marriages legally recognized.
I agree that such a case can be made - although I doubt you’ll ever convince someone who opposes those marriage of that. I’m 100% pro-gay marriage and you’ll NEVER convince me lesbian marriage beats the vanilla 
kind. In fact, if you make a case like that, eventually someone will come up with a study “proving” straight marriage is better (many claim to do so) and that’ll be the end of it. This isn’t just a question of statistics.
I think burden of proof is extremely important and it should be in the right place, otherwise (this may sound dumb) bad things happen. It may sound trivial compared to getting the marriages legal in the first place, but to keep them legal, it has to be done right.
I regret that my wording led you to believe I was attacking you with this thread. I sincerely offer my apoligies. Yours was simply the latest time I’ve seen the phrase used as if it were an axiom that Gay Marriages hurt traditional marriage. That was the point I wanted to discuss. The rest of your post was irrelevant to that point. It was not meant to be personal. In retrospect, I should have used “a poster” instead of your name.
:rolleyes: Basic reading comphrension problems? Let me rephrase.
Polygamy is a Red Herring in this discussion. Thus identified, I trust you will understand that it is irrelevant to this discussion and therefore drop the topic. In other words, take it elsewhere.
For most readers, that second sentence was understood. Obviously autz understood what it meant and started another thread to discuss the issue. If you wish to discuss it, please take it there.
No offense taken: but still, the point is that I wasn’t trying to state anything as an axiom at all: I made a conditional comparison between two claimed threats, and then afterwards even attacked the very same claimed threat that you are in this thread.