I TOLD YOU SO ! This is why we shouldn't allow same-sex "marriage"

The BBQ Pit
121

You’re not polyamorous?? Wow, the fact that you’re clearly a tireless crusader for polyamorous rights is impressive then, given that legalizing polyamorous relationships won’t help you in any way.

And you used to have the right to marry a person of the same race. And everybody, black and white had this right. Granted, that didn’t help people who went ahead and fell in love with someone of a different race, now did it?

Eh, I have nothing else to say that hasn’t been said a hundred times before in this thread alone. Your argument is contrived nonsense based on a false premise. People want to grant the right to own either a blue or pink house. That’s it. No one wants two houses!! Shit, you can currently only buy a blue one. That sucks. Let’s get some color variety in our houses before we start buying them in two-packs!

Christ.

122

Jimmy Joe, this is a very, very, incredibly and painfully simple situation: You have committed the fallacy of the excluded middle, by claiming that if you change ONE thing of a law, you must change ALL things.

Let’s look at an example. Suppose, for a moment, hypothetically, that there were a law that requires all cars to be colored blue. This lasts for a hundred years, and everybody on the planet enjoys the sea of blue on the congested 405. Then, one day, a revolutionary - that probably smoked reefer in his younger days, the cad - comes along and proposes that cars be allowed to be colored blue OR red… red! Gasp! The horror!

Well, along comes Jimmy Joe, saying, “Why, if you allow RED, then clearly you must allow GREEN and PURPLE!! And, dare I say it, ORANGE!!”

But then the reefer-smoking revolutionary - let’s call him, oh, SPOOFE - responds: “Why?”

Sayeth thou: “Why… because… because!”

Sayeth SPOOFE: “What makes blue intrinsically superior to red?”

Sayeth thou: “Because that’s how it’s always been!”

See, buddy, marriage is a funny thing… words and definitions are funny things, because they change as the populace changes. If the populace suddenly decides that “chair” means “table”, well, that’s the way it goes. There’s nothing inherent to the word “chair” that requires, by any law, natural or otherwise, that it mean “a thing to sit on”. That’s just what is COMMONLY accepted.

Of course, words change definition. Language - and the species that gave rise to it - is notoriously flexible and fluid.

To state that people who support same-sex marriage must also support dog-human marriage, or group marriage, is akin to me stating that anyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage must also believe that people should be REQUIRED to be married, forced to be married.

Of course, you don’t really believe that marriage should be mandatory, do you? No, of course you don’t. Because extrapolating that conclusion from what you have stated in this thread would be insulting, now, wouldn’t it? And I don’t want to be insulting. Of course not. 'Tis not the SPOOFEy way, grasshopper.

123

It is totally relevant to the argument ** Giraffe ** made, which was that marrying ** a person ** was an existing right which only had to be extended to everybody, while marrying two persons wasn’t an existing right. But no such right as marrying a person currently exists. The right which exists is the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, which is open to everybody. And Giraffe states that changing “a” to “two” is creating a new right, while changing “of the oposite sex” to “of any sex” isn’t.

There’s no difference. In the first case, you’re creating a new right open to everybody (marrying two persons) which benefits to polyamorous people, and is mostly irrelevant for monogamous people.

In the second case, you’re creating a new right open to everybody (marrying a person of the opposite sex) which benefits to homosexual people, and is mostly irrelevant for heterosexual people.

A monogamous person can get married with the person she cares for (as long as they are of age and not related) and a polyamorous one can’t. Is this particularily complicated? Someone in this scenario is plainly being denied an option.

124

That’s twice in this stupid thread that my head has said “merits” and my fingers have typed “marriage”. Very odd. Carry on.

125

Feel free to shut the fuck up any time with this psycho bullshit if being challenged on your shit answers upsets you.

BZZZT! Oh, so sorry, if something is the right thing to do then it’s the right thing to do whether 50% or 80% or 99.999999infinity% don’t like it. If the best you can come up with for denying legal SSM is “people don’t like it” then it’s crap and you’re full of shit.

Hey, you’re the one who says that it’s OK for government to refuse to protect the rights of people if enough of the general public doesn’t like it. You’re the one who wants to put civil liberties to the popular vote so pony up some examples of rights that you think should be denied on that basis. If the only one you can come up with is SSM, then fuck off.

126

The law expect nothing. It doesn’t allow you to marry the partner of your choice, be it a person of the same sex or a toaster. If it was a mere arbitrary interpretation of the facts, there would be plenty of gay people married. The law doesn’t expect your choice to be a partner of the opposite sex. You’re given only one choice : a partner of the same sex. I can’t see how something explicitely stated can be “an assumption”
And it flatly forbids you to marry two persons. Polygamy is a prosecutable offense.

Since you gave your feeling, i’m going to give mine : now, many people are comfortable with the concept of a gay couple. Being supportive of the right of gay people to marry has become quite mainstream. So, plenty will argue in their favor. But, the wide majority of people aren’t comfortable with the concept of polygamy. It’s not mainstream. So, plenty will argue against the right of polyamorous people to marry.
There is, in most case, zero difference between the overall attitude of many people denying gays the right to marry and the overall attitude of many people denying polyamorous the right to marry. It’s generally the same basis “people should live their live according to my moral standarts, even if it doesn’t harm me in any way”

127

Ah, Giraffe, I have been looking for a new sig line. Thank you.

128

Are you under the impression that people “crusading” (by that, I assume you mean : “advocating”) for the right of gay people to marry are all gays?

Is it an answer to my point? I don’t think so. You still failed to explain why changing “a” to “two” (hence allowing polyamorous people to marry whoever they want to marry) is any different from changing “of the opposite sex” to “of any sex” (hence allowing gay people to marry whoever they want to marry) or, for that matter changing “of the same color” to “of any color” (hence allowing “trans-racial” people to marry whoever they wanted to).

Exactly the same situation in the three cases. A right which is granted to everybody but of no use to some is replaced by a new right which allow the people who were previously excluded to benefit from the same advantages.

But for some reason, you’re convinced that there’s a major difference, and that two of these changes are somehow natural and right, but that the third is somehow different and do not deserve to be implemented.

What is the false premise? That there’s no difference between a gay wanting to marry someone he loves and being prevented to do so and a polyamorous person wanting to marry the personS he loves and being preventing to do so. If it’s a false premise, what issue have you with polyamorous people?

Counter-argument, using your own words : “people want to grant the right to own two houses. That’s it. No one want a pink house!!!”

Are you satisfied or is there something which seems incorrect to you in my statement? If so, think twice, since I reused your words.

And why? Why not the other way around? Because you happen to support people who want to be able to buy pink houses but don’t care for people who want to be able to buy two houses?

129

Absolutely right. Just because we think these things are icky (or insane), is absolutely no reason to forbid them.

I, for one, say let the dog-fuckers marry. Who cares? It’s be a largely meaningless gesture. I can’t think of any of the spousal rights an animal would be capable of claiming. I certainly understand the revulsion caused by the thought of beastiality, and share in it to some degree, but, oddly enough, Jimmy Joe Meagre has a point: just because I don’t like doesn’t mean I get to tell people not to do it. And, sorry, I’m not terribly swayed by consent arguments. I didn’t have to get my dog’s consent when I bought him from the pound, I didn’t have to get the consent of the turkey before he was slaughtered to make my sandwich for lunch, and I didn’t have to get the consent of the cow that was skinned to make my shoes. I don’t really see the legal precedent for requiring someone get their husky’s consent before screwing it up the ass, or whatever it is these people do to their pets in the privacy of their bedrooms.

Similarly, I don’t see any reason to forbed close relatives from marrying, provided they’re of legal age. It’s majorly gross, and I would definetly choose not to socialize with someone in such a relationship, but again, me being grossed out isn’t much of a legal pretext. If it were, tofu would be a controlled substance. If someone wants to marry their sister, well, just don’t invite me to the ceremony, is all. And before anyone mentions inbreeding: sorry, but even if that were a legitimate concern (studies show that the dangers of inbreeding take several generations before they begin to appear) I’m morally opposed to government legislation that is based on eugenics. The government does not, and should not, ban people with (for example) sickle-cell anemia from marrying. It’s not the job of the government to protect the human genome, nor should it be.

Solo marriage and marrying an inanimate object are meaningless, of course. Doing so would give the person entering the marriage no advantages or legal rights that they would not already have by not entering into the marriage. If some loon really does want to marry his teapot, I say, humor him. Where’s the harm?

Android marriage is something I will have to reserve judgement on until we actually have some real androids. Sci-fi geek that I am, I can see this being a legitimate concern in two hundred years or so, but I can’t say if I’m for it or against it until I can learn if the androids will be peaceful “I-wanna-be-a-real-boy” types or murderous “kill-all-humanoids” types.

Lastly, as to the actually legitimate issue of legally recognizing polyamorous relationships, I say go for it. Sure, the legal ramifications would be difficult to resolve, but that’s no reason not to try. Polygamy and even polyandry exsist in many cultures around the world, and I think allowing them in the U.S. would be kinda cool. Not something I’d go in for myself, but the extra cultural variety would be interesting, at the very least.

130

Language nitpick: polyandry is a form of polygamy. Polygamy is gender-neutral; distinguishing them that way is like saying “siblings and brothers” or “parents and fathers”. The gender-specific term for marriage to multiple women is “polygyny”, with the same root as “gynecologist”.

I don’t point this out to be a pedant – well, I don’t just point this out to be a pedant – but because I know a lot of people (some of them even polyfolks) who are opposed to legalisation of polygamy because they think it’s sexist. I’ve got a suspicion that getting marriage rights for multiple-adult families is going to go nowhere as long as the equivalence of polygamy with polygyny (especially patriarchal religious polygyny) is common.

131

Problem is : I want to exclude the middle. Not only I think that people should be able to buy blue and red cars, but also purple vans. See…I want to puch the ball further down the slipery slope… And though there aren’t many people at this point considering purple vans, when you’ll have allowed red cars, more and more people, like me, will ask why blue and red cars are allowed, but not purple vans. And then, it will be green buses that I don’t care much for, and brown bicycles that I dislike.
But in the same way that I don’t see on what basis people who currently ask for red cars wouldn’t allow me to have a purple van, I can’t see on what basis , once purple vans will be allowed, green bicycles should stay forbidden.
So, I’ve a simple answer to that : that the government stop trying and regulate the colors of the vehicles, as long as they aren’t a traffic hazard, and stop giving the right of way to vehicles which are of the officially mandated shape and color.

132

D’oh! I knew that. “Polygamy” was a typo in that sentence. Thanks for catching it.

-Miller, Nationally Ranked Pedant

133

I for one am not opposed to polyamorous marriage in principle, although I think it might be a bit difficult to work out the legal bugs. After all, we currently use marriage as a way of designating one person who’s more important than any other in our lives.

How would succession work? Divorce? Of course, I think unanimous consent among partners would be necessary to add a partner to a relationship.

clairobscur mentioned that some countries currently practice polygamy. I’m wondering if their models would be adaptable to ours, or whether something would have to be developed from scratch. I’m talking out of my ass here – someone correct me if I’m wrong – but aren’t most of these societies very different from ours in terms of divorce and such?

As for animals, definitely opposed. clairobscur, you’re right – we already do every manner of horrible thing to these poor creatures. For me, though, that means that that the few rights we’ve extended them – such as the right not to be raped – out to be preserved. :frowning:

IMHO, food is the only allowable excuse for killing an animal, and I think there should be some protections for animal treatment even on farms. Just because we eat them doesn’t mean we have to make their short lives a living hell, too.

134

A relationship, sure. I have more than one, myself.

Personally, I think that extant spouses should have to give consent to people marrying additional people, though not because I think that those people are necessarily a part of the other relationship. Rather, I think that marriage fraud should remain a crime, and the best way of distinguishing polygamy from bigamy is requiring explicit giving of consent.

Not readily adaptable; most of them presume some form of distinct head-of-household.

135

Jesus Christ. I personally fully support polyamorous unions, although I think that working out the legal details would be incredibly difficult. However, the existance or non-existance of polyamorous unions is 100% irrelevant to whether or not same-sex unions should be legalized. You know why? Because from a legal standpoint, two is different than three.

To summarize:
2 != 3

From a legal standpoint, giving a same-sex partner inheritance rights, or decisions at the hospital, or the right to carry out the partner’s funeral wishes, etc. is very straightforward. Also, the denial of said rights affects a large number of people in this country. Polyamorous unions on the other hand is very complicated legally, as there are a number of legal precedents which are based on the assumption of two people per marriage. For example, if the other spouses disagree on funeral wishes, who prevails? How do custody rights and property division work in the case of divorce? And so on. (On preview, I see Hamish already raised all those points.) Additionally, the number of polyamorous couples in this country is much smaller than the number of gay couples. In any event, it is a legitimate issue for discussion, but as its own separate topic, completely unrelated to same-sex marriage.

Moreover, I don’t believe that you or the OP actually oppose same sex unions because you passionately support legal polyamorous unions, and feel that one without the other is unfair. I think it’s a complete strawman that you’ve invented to muddy the waters and/or to give you a nicer sounding reason than “it just feels wrong to me to let gay people marry”.

136

:o
I was thinking “marriage.” Not sure how I wrote “relationship”…

…probably has something to do with not sleeping at all yeasterday…

137

Perhaps you’re reading a different Supreme Court decision than I am. But the one I read in Loving clearly states that the the right to marry is a fundamental right and makes no mention of the genders of the participants. Your arguement is further weakened by the events in Oregon, California and Mass. It’s clear that at least some judges and government officals feel that the right does exist.

Someday the 14th Amendment will be extended to include the right of homosexuals to marry.

138

Sure. But nevertheless, they have a working legal system which allow for polygamy, so it’s possible. There’s no reason to believe that polygamy necessarily results in an inequality between the partners.
Actually, though extremely few people know this, polygamy is legal in some of france’s oversea territories (ort at least were until last year, I vaguely heard somewhere that the last government intended to put an end to it). A very close friend of mine’s job (she was working in the ministery in charge of these issues) included rewriting bills and laws related to family issues in such a way that they would cover the situation of polygamist without this being mentionned or clearly apparent in the text. According to her a major pain in the ass, but done by only a handful of people working at this from time to time. Though I assume that the situation of the spouses was more satisfying than in some develloping countries currently allowing polygamy, it still was only what ** Lilairen ** insists on calling polygyny. So, it wasn’t an equal situation.
However, it means that somehow, laws intended to apply to an usual monogamous situation could be refitted with a limited effort and some creativity to be implemented also in a place where polygamy was legal.

That’s a consistent stance, so I don’t have an issue with this. But I’ve an issue with people clamoring that bestiality should be forbidden because animals can’t consent, while munching on their hamburger, walking their sprayed dog on a leash, and riding horses wearing leather boots, and not perceiving the blatant contradiction.
My take is that for most of these people, the “consent” issue is an intellectual excuse to forbid something they find disgusting. That or they just didn’t have really thought about the issue. I vastly prefer a consistent and well-thought disagreement.
I think essentially the same about people grandstanding about gay rights, but hiding under the carpet singing “lalalalala” when polygamy is mentionned.

139

I think you’re intentionally being obtuse and not debating in good faith. Either that are you are truly a stupid individual. This example is so far-fetched that it is I can hardly reply. But I’ll try.

The legal age for marriage in most states is 18. With parental consent the age can be lower but stipulations vary based on which state. Parental consent, however, is actually the parents consenting to allow the kids’ consent to be legal. It presumes the kids involved are also consenting to the marriage. Parental consent doesn’t stand in lieu of the kids’ consent, it only validates it and makes it legal.

In your outlandish hypothetical case the parents give consent and even pressure the kids into the marriage; but the kids also give their consent. They are the ones who ultimately sign the license and go through with the marriage.

The dog can never give consent.

140

Hell, it wouldn’t be so bad marrying myself. That way, if I broke up with myself, I’d still get 100% of everything.