Ok. I am of the opinion that if the government wants to deny rights, they are the ones that have to show why it is in society’s interest to not have these people have these rights.
Appealing to the possibility that granting SSM rights will inevitably lead to poly android animal marriages is not showing why SSM marriages are wrong. It is implying that there is something wrong with poly android animal marriage. If this is the case, then we can go ahead and ban that marriage. If there is a compelling reason to ban SSM, it must stand on its own without referring to other forms of marriage.
If you take a look at banning polygamous marriage and the arguments put forth to ban that, you will notice that they do not refer to the opening up of the possibility of different types of marriages. It is based on the effects that that particular type of marriage has, namely the difficulties of administering the claims that might come up, dividing property in the case of divorce, etc. While you might not agree with these objections you can certainly see that they are of a different kind than the objections thrown up about SSM.
If you are against SSM, put up arguments that deal with SSM. If you are against polyamorous marriages, put up arguments against poly marriages. Don’t try to confuse the issue by putting the possibility of allowing one type of marriage will allow them all.
Necessarily is a key word here, and points to something you’re consistently ignoring: there’s no one-size-fits-all set of arrangements for polygamists. That’s not a moral judgment; that’s empirical fact. The old-school Mormon family is going to want different legal arrangements from the complex-marriage hippies, who will want different legal arrangements from the Yemeni sheik immigrant family. These arrangements are a vast and thorny and largely unexplored issue of law in the United States, and even countries that recognize polygamy tend to recognize only one flavor of it. Whereas institutionalizing SSM would mostly involve replacing a couple of pronouns in the law books, institutionalizing polygamous relationships is a nightmare of complications. It should be done to the extent that it’s practical, sure, but it absolutely should not be tied to SSM.
Nothing wrong with spraying a dog, now (At least you didn’t say “spaded” – Lord, do I get tired of hearing that!) Nonetheless, you’re pointing to a nonexistent inconsistency. People tend to believe that sexual harm is sui generis: it’s a type of harm that is different from other types. I’ve known rape victims, for example, who would rather die than be raped again. In any case, “marriage” is a relationship between consenting adults, and that’s where there’s a legitimate interest in the state’s recognition.
Even if bestiality is A-OK, that’s irrelevant: whether you can fuck your dog has nothing to do with whether your dog ought to be entitled to half the marriage property in the event of a divorce, or whether your dog can have visitation rights to you in the hospital, or whether your dog can file its annual taxes jointly with you.
Strangely, I get the impression that you’re dodging the complexity issue when it’s presented to you, singing your own lalalas in order to avoid facing the fact that polygamous marriage is fundamentally a different issue from SSM.
Great. Then, we’re in agreement (except for the part about me being a retard, but that’s your priviledge).
And the existance of same-sex-union is 100% irrelevant to whether or not polygamy should be legalized. Except of course that in both case people are denied the right to marry.
While when someone doesn’t have a spouse, but has several children, issues like inheritance rights, or decisions at the hospital, or the right to carry out the parent’s funeral wishes, etc… are totally unsolvable from a legal point of view? :rolleyes:
And then? Does it mean that since gays are a minority, it’s unecessary to pay much attention to their claims?
So, it would be complicated. That’s the issue? You know, it’s was really much simpler too when only the husband could made decisions in the family’s behalf. No issue when the parents were in disagreements about where school to send the child to, no issue whan one would sign a contract and the other didn’t want it to be signed, etc…I’m wondering why people have accepted to find a way around these complicated issues.
See above for property division and funeral wishes. How can these issues be handled when someone dies and has several children? Obviously, that’s plain impossible.
As for custody right, I could say the same : how do we manage to handle the situation when two parents are in disagreement? But actually, my position is different. I don’t think that a child should have an unlimited number of “parents”. It’s only an issue with adopted children, by the way.
It’s related because it’s the same issue. People have a different lifestyle, sexual attraction, etc…, but some benefitits, by law from advantages which are denied to others.
Finally, once again, I remind you that my stance is essentially that marriage shouldn’t be sanctionned at al by the government. So, most of these points are not very relevant to me.
Interesting. So, how would you know what I think? What is it in my posts which made you think that I had an issue with gay rights to marry? Where did I say that it feels wrong to me to let gay people to marry? Should I assume that because you advocate for the right of gays to marry, it means that you’re opposed to let people of different races marry each other? While you’re at it, perhaps you could tell me also on what grounds I’m opposed to this right? Enlighten me, please.
If you really want to be sure, you could have try to read al the posts I wrote in the past, and you’ll eventualy find some others where I already advocated for polygamy. I suppose a search with my name and “polygamy” would turn some. You could try also a search with my name and “gay rights” or “homosexuality”, or something like that, and I’d interested to know if you find any which support your “belief” about me.
Now, i’m going to explain to you why I posted in this thread. The OP wrote basically : “I told you so…if we allow gay people to marry, then polygamy wil be made legal, then marrying toasters, etc…”
Then people attacked him, several of them stating things along the lines : “you moron! it’s not because we allow gay to marry that we’re going to allow polygamy!!”. This irritated me a great deal. Because these people proudly displayed their liberal ideas about gay rights while at the same time stating clearly or understating that polygamy wouldn’t, and shouldn’t be allowed. Mob mentality. Double standarts. That’s the same kind of mentality which would have made people clamor, in the past, “You moron! It’s not because we’re granting equal rights to black people that we’re going to do the same for gay people!”. Or from a more personnal experience : “A protest against the US? That’s cool! I’m in!” and “A protest for gay rights? Like i’m going to walk in the street with fags!”
Second reason : I have an opinion about the issue at hand, so I wanted to express it. I do believe in the OP’s sliperry slope argument. Except that, as I already stated, I intend to push the ball down the slope. I wanted to give my opinion, and I did so in my first post. The rest was your own projection about what you believed I was thinking. Next time, try paying more attention to what I actually write. I’ve tendancy to write what I think. However, since I too sometimes believe a poster didn’t actually write what he thinks, I can understand that. On the other hand, I rarely call people “retards”. Even in the pit.
Finally, I don’t feel passionately about polyamory and polygamy. Look at my post count. I wrote a lot of posts. About a lot of issues. Polygamy is very, very low in the list. But I happen to have an opinion about it. And a clear one. So I express it. And I see no reason not to respond when I’m tasked about it, despite not feeling “passionately”. Except when I feel too lazy to do so.
And I like to argue, also…
Briefly, because it’s really, really late, here, and it’s the fou=rth night in a row or so :
I think that simple polygamous marriages could be implemented relatively easily. But I already considered that actually, once you allow such marriages, there’s no particular reason not to allow more complex ones, or to limit the number of partners, etc…
That’s why I came to the conclusion that no marriages should be sanctionned by the state. That’s what I wrote in my first post.
Roughly and briefly, two things :
-It’s not because people believe that sexual harm is worst than / different from other harms that I share this opinion. Whatever people (and even some victims) could think, I stil believe murder is worst than rape. There’s no possible recovery when you’ve been murdered.
-More importantly : animals aren’t humans. Projecting human feelings onto animals doesn’t make much sense to me. Why makes you feel that animal could be traumatized by an intercourse with an human (I don’t use the world “rape” because I’d rather reserve it for humans and because…err…these kind of intercourses can work both ways), for instance?
But you’re unlikely to know any murder victim and to hear their opinions.
Actually, when I gave my opinion about bestiality, it was just because someone mentionned it. It was a side comment, not related to the issue of marriage in my mind.
Definitely. And I don’t advocate for marriage rights for animal-lovers, nor to give “human” rights to dogs and toasters. But since, once again, I think that marriage shouldn’t be state-sanctionned, it doesn’t matter. As ** Miller ** stated, who cares if people have a moving marriage ceremony with their dog? it wil give us something to laugh about, that’s all. After all, there are already people who want their dog to inherit.
Different problems, since stating “I’m pro or against gay marriage/ polygamy, etc” is a simple thing. So, I don’t reproach to people not to have an answer to complex questions, involving many legal issues but to have double standarts “animal’s consent should be needed to “rape” it, but isn’t needed to kil it” or “gay can’t be denied the right to marry, but on the other hand, polyamorous people…”
It’s obvious that I can’t write a fully fledged set of laws about polygamy, since to do so, I would have to be an american lawyer, specialized in family matters, and work for years on this issue. Asking me to do such a thing would be absurd. However, I responded to the examples which were presented (inheritance, etc…)
But it doesn’t seem to me that the arguments given until now against it are very compelling, either. They mostly amount to “it would be complicated”, with some examples (like OKeying medical treatments) which actually aren’t an issue since we already have to deal with this kind of issues when there’s no spouses but several other relatives.
And…once again…since I believe that the governement shouldn’t be involved in marriage, I’m not sure why I should explain how polygamy should work from a legal point of view. My response would be simple : marital status shouldn’t have any legal consequences. If you want that someone could decide in your behalf when you’re comatose, then, pick whoever you want and give him/her an endorsement to do so, for instance. Plenty of people manage to survive without being married, and without major legal issues. So, the lack of officially sanctionned marriages shouldn’t be an issue, either.
Although I have married my same sex partner, and our marriage is, for the moment, ordered by a judge to be registered with the state as legal, the more I read this thread, the more I think a hermaphroditic toaster/dog android is the missing component in our otherwise perfect bliss.
By the way, our marriage has not caused God to tip our state into the Pacific Ocean.
Firstly I wasn’t trying to suggest that SSM’s are harmful it was a mere metaphor and not meant to convey that.
Secondly I personally have no beef with the SSM crowd, and in fact believe that they should be allowed to marry and have all the concordant rights and privileges the same as a traditional marital union. Also, if the current campaign isn’t successful, I’m sure all the SSM proponents aren’t going to change their minds and go home. They would start a new campaign, and continue until society allows them the same rights as other couples.
What I mean is that the inertia of tradition has resulted in marrriage laws that conform to what was assumed to be what everybody wanted.
Assumptions can be explicitly stated; why would this not be the case? - Speaking an assumtion or setting it in writing doesn’t promote it to the status of fact.
In the sense that I don’t have any moral objections to same-sex marriages, I also don’t have any objections to polyamorous ones; the difficulty with them is purely practical and administrative; dividing responsibility/ownership etc between three people is not merely half as difficult again as it is for two - it is hugely complicated, however, if acceptable procedures can be formulated for dealing with these problems, my concern dissolves.
Whether polyamorous marriages are more different to heterosexual pairings than are same-sex marriages is a really difficult thing to judge; take an apple and an orange; is a pair of oranges more or less different from these than two apples and an orange? The answer depends entirely on your criteria for judging ‘difference’.
Well. Fine. But I was refering as tha marriage laws as they were, not as they could be if society had been different.
You’re right. But here also, I don’t see the point. If they’re written, they’re part of the law. So, why does this contradict my statement?
Actually, I wasn’t thinking to you, when I wrote that. I wrote several posts in a row, and this comment ended up in my response to your post because I was thinking more and more strongly along this line.
Sure. But my point was that you can’t say that two oranges is diffferent from one orange because there isn’t the same number of oranges and at the same time say that one apple is the same thing that an orange because they are both fruits.
OK. But the goevenrment’s role in each is vastly different. In the case of marriage the government is merely recognizing a sociological bond that already exists. The government is saying “you have a bond – we will recognize that bond and treat you like a family unit for various legal purposes”. The government is not creating this relationship; the government is merely acknowledging that it already exists. By acknowledging a relationship that does not already exist in society the government would be taking on a new role, and an improper one, IMHO.
In the case of government, by granting or not granting women the right to vote, the government is not recognizing or not recognizing a sociological concept that already exists. The entire concept is only creating by government grant. To the extent that voting is a sociological function it will necessarily be affected by such decisions, but there’s no way out of it. I don’t think the governmet should be in the business of trying to reshape society, but if that aspect of society is governmental, that would be the proper role of government.
Otto, I would sum up your post this way: “I have no idea what you are talking about and I’m not going to even think about it long enough to find out, BECOUSE I’M MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!! YYYYAAAAARRRRRRR!!!” (I am not completely unfamiliar with this concept, as I’ve read some of your other posts previously.) Fine.
Given that government is a social construct, I think I see where we’re having trouble communicating: I’m not considering the government as an entity apart from society, but rather as a construct that folks in a society have created. In the case of participatory democracy, people are simply deciding how to handle relationships of power in their community. These relationships of power exist, just as surely as marriage exists, but they can be formed and defined in different fashions by the participants.
Not sure how this would work. If the government said, “George, c’mere, and you, Yvonne, c’mere. You’ve never met before, but we’re declaring there’s a relationship between you, and poof! you’re married!” then the government (i.e., the people who are acting within the social structure of a government) would be acknowledging a relationship that does not already exist in society. But if George and Tom are lovers, then their relationship already exists in society. The question is whether the people acting in a government role recognize that bond that exists, not whether they’re creating a previously nonexistent bond.
And who creates the government, but society? What, again, is government, except for a way people have of defining the power structures of their community?
That may be so, but it is a limited role. There are certain functions in life that are difficult to manage individually, so they are managed collectively. Now this collective management will necessarily entail sociological aspects and shifts in power, as you say. But these are necessarily created by government only to the extent that they are in the process of fulfilling the specific governmental role. IOW, there’s things that we need government to do, and by setting up a government to do them we are thereby engaging in some collective action, and altering our sociological structure. But that does not mean that the role of government becomes managing all aspects of sociology including aspects that are not byproducts of necessary governmental functions.
That’s overstating it a bit. Obviously some degree of relationship exists. The question is how it is defined, and I think this is more of an attitudinal question than a practical one. In our society for example, a parent child relationship is considered a uniquely strong bond, but in other primitive societies (if I am not mistaken) children are raised by groups of adults, some of whom may not be biologically related to them. My position would be that in such a society all the children are related to all the adults, in that these people’s attitudes make it that way. In America, even if there was an instance of a child being raised by a group of adults that would not make them all one family unit, because this is not how our society views such relationships. Suppose the government were to declare that all children were considered “related” (for whatever legal purposes, e.g. inheritance, or legal standing) to all people who had a major role in raising them, including teachers and day care people, for example, the government would be creating a new relationship in the sense that I used the term, although obviously some relationship already exists in the sense that you describe it.
Izzy, I’m afraid you lost me in that last post; I’m not sure from it what you see as the relevant difference between the government saying, “Hey, guys, despite what you may think, we’re declaring that women are capable of entering into a political relationship with the state,” and saying, “Hey, guys, despite what you may think, we’re declaring that women are capable of entering into a marriage relationship with each other.” I think you’re saying that one involves the government whereas the other doesn’t; even if this were true (marriage does involve the state, and to the extent that the state is making any declaration about marriage, it’s only making a declaration about those aspects of marriage that DO involve the state), I’m not sure how it’s relevant.
One involves the government attempting to redefine relationships that exist independently of government and one involves the government redefining the governmental relationship itself. The first should not be the role of government and the second necessarily is.
(Even without all of the above, it is also possible that society’s attitude towards women had changed at the time the amendment was passed beyond the point that society’s attitude about gay relationships has.)
Yes, it took me four pages of this thread to realize that, although clairobscur initially appeared to be arguing on the same side as the OP (who is an idiot), in fact she is not trying to justify outlawing same-sex marriage but instead just likes to argue. Fair enough.
Keep in mind that the government, when talking about marriage, is only defining marriage to the extent that it relates to the state. Those aspects of marriage that have no state involvement are unaffected. Given that government IS tied up in marriage right now, I think it’s paramount of government to apply principles of justice and equity to how it handles that.
That depends on how you define relating to the state. I would consider things relating to governance, e.g. voting or eligibility for office etc. as state matters, but things like inheritance and legal standing etc. are not really state matters - they are private matters that are merely regulated by the state.
On a tangential topic (as this thread seems to be bogging down a bit) I think it is a political miscalculation for Bush to bring up his amendment in an election year. Polls do show a lot of support for it, but it is a mistake to look at polls this way. You have to consider who will actually change his or her vote on the basis of this issue. Which means people in the middle of the political spectrum whose votes are up for grabs (thought to be possibly as small as 20% of the electorate) who also care enough about this issue to change their vote based on it.
In this case, a lot of people have enough of an opinion to tell a pollster what it is, but relatively few care that much about it. It’s a good bet that anyone who cares a lot about opposing gay marriages (mostly Christian fundamentalists) is likely so conservative on other issues that they will vote for Bush anyway. By contrast there are gay people who are conservative on other issues that would vote for Bush but would strongly support gay marriage (Bush got about 25% of the gay vote in the last election). Also, it seems to me that there might be a lot of people who have gay friends or relatives who might also be politically conservative or moderate but might strongly support gay marriages. In sum, I don’t see Bush gaining any votes from his stand, and I can see him losing a few.
Oh, you may choose to sum up my post that way if you wish. You would be 100% wrong, another concept you are not completely unfamiliar with. I find it bizarre that repeatedly asking you to clarify just what in the hell you’re trying to say translates into “I have no idea what you are talking about and I’m not going to even think about it long enough to find out” in your world. You seem to be saying that government shouldn’t recognize SSM because not enough people consider same-sex couples to be “legitimate.” Yet you also allow for the possibility that government should be empowered to do things that are right despite opposition from the people. Which leads me to ask yet again why it is that legalizing SSM despite the objections of some percentage of the population is something that shouldn’t be done. As soon as you concede the power of gov’t to act in ways that the people oppose then you lose the ability to point to “the people don’t want it” as an excuse for objecting. The people of Virginia didn’t want blacks and whites to marry each other. The people of Kansas didn’t want them going to school together. The people of Colorado didn’t want gays to have the right to petition government for redress of grievances. The people of Texas didn’t want us having sex. In each of these instances, the government stepped in and said we don’t care what you want, these things are wrong and you may not do them. This all comes back to your personal opposition to SSM and as much as you want to cloak it in “the will of the people” it’s all about “the will of Izzy” and it’s bullshit.
(At least you didn’t say “spaded” – Lord, do I get tired of hearing that!) Nonetheless, you’re pointing to a nonexistent inconsistency. People tend to believe that sexual harm is sui generis: it’s a type of harm that is different from other types. I’ve known rape victims, for example, who would rather die than be raped again. In any case, “marriage” is a relationship between consenting adults, and that’s where there’s a legitimate interest in the state’s recognition.