Emphasis mine. Why should people be limited to one wife or husband? No one wants to address this point. Why isn’t polygamy a civil right? If marriage at it’s simplest is about caring, why shouldn’t someone with the capacity to care for and support multiple spouses be allowed to do so?
I still believe this is an important consideration in the homosexual-marriage debate.
**NaSultainne wrote:
Okay, dogsbody, how are hetero and homosexuals fundamentally different? A hetero couple can produce offspring, perpetuating the species. IMO, society naturally would seek to encourage relationships which promote social stability. It’s a basic biological fact.**
I’ve always wanted to ask someone who puts forth this arguement, when you’re dating someone, what goes thru your mind? For the sake of arguement, I’ll assume you’re male. Is this what you think: “How many children can this woman give me? How many child-bearing years does she have? Hrm… are her hips wide enough for easy childbirth? Does she or any of her female relatives have a history of childbirthing problems?”
If you insist that the only (or major) reason for marriage is procreation, I can’t see how these question can NOT be going thru either person’s mind as they get to know each other and prepare for marriage. Otherwise, they’d be wasting their time instead of looking for a better breeding partner.
I think that’s the appropriate word for it: breeding. By insisting that the only or major point of marriage is procreation, you’re reduced it to a breeding program.
Fenris, for better or for worse, the government and our legal system has defined marriage and given it certain privledges and responsibilities. A straight couple can simply appear before a Justice of the Peace, say a few words, pay a simple fee and gain those privledges and responsibilities. A gay couple needs to consult a lawyer and pay several thousand dollars in fees for documentation and paperwork to gain those same privledges and responsibilities. And sometimes, even that doesn’t help with something like inheiretence rights, etc. The government has put an undue burden on gay couples for no good reason.
I do not believe this is an important consideration in the homosexual marriage debate. Why not? Because it has nothing to do with the question. It is a false comparison. To suggest that we expand the definition of marriage to include marriages between people of the same sex does not mean that we must expand it to include anything and everything under the sun. Just as expanding marriage to include marriages between people of different races had nothing to do with homosexual marriage.
I really hate to use analogies in GD, because they always lead to more questions than they resolve, but here are two:
When the 19th amendment expanded the vote to include women, did that mean that children had to be included? Pets? Non-citizens?
When laws were passed to make medical marijuana legal in some states, did that mean that LSD was also legal? Or cocaine? Or heroin?
The fact that we expand a law to better reflect current conditions in no way negates that law or expands it infinitely. To argue otherwise makes no sense.
[There is however, a compelling difference between a marriage between two consenting adults, and a marriage among more than two people. If marriage is a set of rights granted by the government, then those rights become infinitely more complicated when more than two individuals are involved. How are marital estates to be divided in the event of divorce or death? What are the provisions for a joint tax return among more than two people? If medical benefits are provided, to whom are they paid? If one spouse has the right to make medical decisions for the other, what happens if two of the spouses disagree? None of these issues come up if the only change to the definition of marriage is to expand it to include two people of the same sex.]
Finally, to answer the OP, I agree 100%. There is no compelling reason not to allow gays to marry. Back in 1976, when I first learned what homosexuality was, it seemed obvious to me that homosexuals should have the same marriage rights as anyone else. I’ve held that position consistently for 25 years now, and I’ve yet to hear anything to change my mind.
Sorry, I made that post before I had time to get my thoughts together (I had the urge to be insanely hyperbolic). I just meant to say that being against gay marraige is, of course, homophobic (or maybe heterosexist if you want to get literal with the term) because you’re assuming you know what’s better for two remote adults then they do. If you want to deny a group of law-abiding adults the same rights you enjoy, it’s an obvious show of blatant disrespect and condescending.
SpoilerVirgin might be right in that the whole point is a red herring, but you can have a poly marriage with this arrangement. I choose Bob, Bob chooses Karen, Karen chooses Jennifer, who chooses Phil who chooses me.
Or, I can choose one person only to be my partner, but my partner may have more than one person. For idnstance, should my husband die, I would choose my Mom - who already has my Dad. The fact that I do not have sex with either of my parents being irrelevant to the governments interests.
The problem with this reasoning is that it posits marriage as a one-way arrangement. That’s not the way it works. If Bob is married to Karen, and Karen is married to Jennifer, who gets to claim who on the income tax? Who gets to make medical decisions if a spouse is unable to make them? Etc., etc., etc. As currently envisioned, marriage is an equal partnership between two people (meaning that there isn’t a party of the first part, and a party of the second part, there are just two parties to whom the rules apply equally). Extending current marriage laws to allow same-sex spouses would not require any changes to these rules. The system you posit would require a wholesale reworking of the marriage laws, the tax laws, and a host of other provisions.
That said, I stand by my earlier post that the issue of poly-marriages is entirely irrelevant to the debate over gay marriage.
Sure it does. It has everything to do with the question. In fact, it is the crux of the debate. Why should some relationships be sanctioned (heterosexual marriage), others outlawed (bigamy), and yet others ignored (homosexual marriage)? Why is the relationship between a woman and two men any less worthy of recognition than that between two women? I’m really not trying to lead the debate astray. Those who support the status quo will want to know why homosexual marriage needs to be sanctioned by the government when the arguments in its favor fit these other types of relationships as well. A valid, and reasonable distinction needs to be drawn in order to convince those on the fence that endorsement by the government is desirable or necessary.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by evilhanz *
**
The government grants to its citizens certain rights. Among those rights is the right to marry the person whom they love. There is a complex structure of laws designed to allow two people who love each other to marry. This structure is based solely on a marriage being between two partners. Inheritance laws, tax laws, insurance laws, and dozens of other aspects of the marriage contract all are specifically designed to accommodate the needs of two people entering into the contract. In order to allow the possibility of poly-marriage, all of those laws would have to be rewritten. It would be an enormous and time-consuming task that would fundamentally alter our tax and insurance structures, and probably a bunch of other areas I’m missing.
OTOH, nothing in the marriage laws is designed to accommodate a male and a female partner. There is no civil law that requires that the “male” partner will do “X” or the female partner will do “Y”. (Given the relative chromosomes, maybe that should have been reversed.) In any case, looking purely at the civil contract of marriage, not one iota of it (excepting of course the recently passed “definition of marriage” laws which were enacted with the sole purpose of preventing gay marriage) would have to be changed to allow gay people to marry. In fact, the only reason gay people are not allowed to marry under current laws is societal prejudice. Gay people are denied the right to marry for one simple reason – bigotry. That reason is neither acceptable nor compelling to me.
To sum up:
Allowing gay marriage = life goes on exactly as before, only with less prejudice and rights extended to everyone.
Allowing poly-marriage = fundamental changes in our legal structure to accommodate an entirely new form of civil relationship.
Do you see the difference?
Of course. One of the reasons it would never fly. Very complicated and quite possibly impossible to impliment.
But it irks the hell out of me that we have so much of our society structured on who you have sex with and if that sex is sanctioned. Gay marriage simply sanctions an alternate sexual relationship. I don’t have a problem with that, I just think its solving the wrong problem.
Years ago I got divorced and my sister, also going through a rough patch, moved in with me. She was temporarily unemployed (and therefore uninsured) and I was her primary financial and emotional support. She was my primary emotional support. We had a very traditional marriage (except, perhaps for the seperate bedrooms), in which she cooked, cleaned and did the grocery shopping in exchange for me “bringing home the bacon.” She got a job rather quickly, but the emotional support and joint financial help and living arrangments lasted for about two years, longer than my marriage did - it was, sans the sex part, a significantly more rewarding partnership.
In the city I live in, we could, had we not been sisters, run down to the courthouse and registered our “domestic partnership.” Granted, around here that doesn’t have a whole lot of the marriage rights and responsiblities associated with it.
Rewriting the laws to accomodate this scenario is just as easy as rewriting for gay marriage. Its the extra dependencies of an extended family (my mom, dad and the widow Dangerosa with her kids) or a poly marriage where we would really need to rethink our laws.
Actually, the government does not grant rights. Rights are inherently reserved by the people. See Amendments IX and X. Unfortunately for same-sex marriage advocates, Supreme Court case law on the "right to marry as a natural right is linked with procreation, child-rearing, and the traditional family structure. I am not up on current case law, but reinterpretation is certainly possible.
This argument doesn’t hold much weight. Complexity in lawmaking has never been an obstacle before. The US Tax Code contains 2.8 million words and 6000 pages of text. If there’s any revenue to be gained, it will find it’s way into the tax code. There is an entire industry of legal professionals devoted to understanding and interpreting the most convulted regulations our lawmakers can devise.
Wrong again. Let’s ignore for a moment the recent statutes which prohibit same-sex marriage, of which there are many. There certainly are statutes which specifically relate and refer to the male-female relationship. You can view Marriage Laws for all 50 States, DC, Puerto Rico at the Cornell Law website. Although not all states maintain complete online database, in a few short minutes you should be able find various examples, particularly related to rights and responsibilities involving property. You may find the term “feme sole” particularly interesting. Should we dismiss the idea of recognizing same-sex marriages because changing these existing laws would be too difficult and time-consuming?
I tend to disagree. There certainly is a great deal of intolerance out there. That’s undeniable. However, open homosexual partnerships have gained a great deal of acceptance, judging by our popular culture. I believe the reason why homosexual marriage has not been recognized is more benign. There is a natural tendencey not to alter the status quo, at least not suddenly. New, liberal ideas have a natural progression. When the more militant members of the pro-homosexual marriage movement attempt to force their way through the legal system, there’s a reactionary movement against it. With the spate of marriage definition clauses, that should be obvious. These tactics hit at people’s comfort zones. Rather than widespread bigotry, I think the general atttiude is that recognition is unnecessary. While some people may not like the idea, or find the concept repugnant, or contrary to religious principles, acceptance of these relationships will probably come with time and patience. (perhaps a long time). What is needed are logical, affirmative reasons for average people to accept these relationships as equivalent to the traditional male-female marriage.
I don’t follow. How does legally recognizing same-sex marriages reduce prejudice? As far as I know, no law can change what’s in a person’s mind.
No more fundamental or complex than the changes required to recognize same-sex marriages. In the case of polygamy involving one man and multiple women, I would argue that the legal changes would be less complex. But again, complexity has never been a legal barrier before. That’s one of the reasons why we have lawyers 
Not yet. Got any other reasons?
Evilhanz, forgive me for saying so, but you’re obviously fishing for something here. What is your point in comparing gay marriage and polyamorous marriages?
The question of legalizing polyamorous marriage is a good one, but unless you can come up with a concrete link to the question being asked, you might want to consider addressing it in another thread.
I find your contention that “A valid, and reasonable distinction needs to be drawn in order to convince those on the fence that endorsement by the government is desirable or necessary” is questionable. The boundaries that are being pushed back are well-defined; the gender of partners in a marriage should be legally irrelevant. That does not bring up the question of the number of partners. The legalization of interracial marriage did not bring up the question of gay marriage. The legal concerns in the legitimization of gay marriage and polyamorous marriage are worlds apart, and would have to be tackled separately, even if the tide of public opinion turned in favor of both simultaneously.
But these things are done one step at a time. We may be able to get legislation passed to allow gay people to marry; the goal is distant, but at least it’s in sight. I have no idea how one would go about legalizing all possible forms of human marriage; I don’t even know where to start. I agree that it would be a good cause, and only logical. But given the hornet’s nest that gay marriage has stirred up, I can’t even imagine what the reaction to an all-marriage-legalization movement would be.
If you can suggest a way to begin such a movement, I’m eager to hear about it. But in the meantime, it’s just another slippery slope argument.
And Scylla, thank you for your clarification. As I suspected, your perspective on the subject is perceptive and well thought out. I agree that there are legal issues that will need to be dealt with; it will get sticky. But it will be worth it, in terms of net societal gain. The current law structure disenfranchises an entire segment of the population; bringing them back into the societal fold would, in my opinion, help to strengthen the fabric of society.
I’m at the point where I don’t care if it’s called schpedoinkling in the bullrushes- I’d just like quietgirl and myself to have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
This is what I’d like out of gay marriage:
Civil marriage rights with all of the same benefits as heterosexuals. Taxes, wills, next of kin, children… all that jazz.
Particular among this is recognition of the validity of same-sex marriage where one member of the couple is not a citizen. And while we’re speaking of immigration, I want sexual orientation to be a reason that someone can seek amnesty.
I want my gay marriage to hold the same equal status in every state. Yes, it’s a victory that Vermont has civil unions. Quietgirl and I have discussed getting one in time. But it doesn’t do any good in New Hampshire or any other state- I don’t want to be denied the ability to be beside her in a hospital because of where we’re located.
What it’s called and religion don’t come into play. I want something that doesn’t vanish by the whimsey of state lines.
To return if I may to the OP.
erislover asked if there are any compelling arguments against gay marriage.
evilhanz suggested the fact that polymarriage is not allowed as a compelling reason not to allow gay marriage.
I reject that argument based on my statements above. A civil marriage contract between two people of the same sex much more closely resembles the existing civil marriage contract between members of the opposite sex, which is legal, than it does a non-existent, and therefore vague and undefined potential civil contractual arrangement among more than two people. This reasoning therefore compels me to support gay marriage.
evilhanz has now suggested that the general tendency not to want to alter the status quo is a compelling reason not to allow gay marriage.
I reject that argument on its face. The only way the status quo is ever altered is if those who believe the status quo to be wrong stand up and say so.
I said
**evilhanz responded that
Do you not see that we are saying the same thing? The only reason that people’s comfort zones are being threatened is because they are prejudiced. They judge a loving, committed relationship between two people as being somehow different from existing loving, committed relationships between two people as somehow “different” or “uncomfortable” for the sole reason that the two people are of the same gender. I don’t know any better example of prejudice.
evilhanz asked
It doesn’t reduce societal prejudice, it reduces legal prejudice. At this very moment, the law is entirely prejudiced against same sex marriages. It categorically rejects couples who would like to marry on the basis of their genders. I’m well aware that legalizing gay marriage wouldn’t change people’s minds. However, it would instantly remove the very real and devastating legal prejudice that prevents same sex couple from enjoying the benefits of marriage.
Finally, evilhanz suggests that the need for slow, gradual change is a compelling argument against gay marriage.
This is potentially a compelling argument against making the change “posthaste” as suggested in the OP. It is certainly not a compelling argument that allowing gay marriage is not the right thing to do. Perhaps the Supreme Courts famous request for “all deliberate speed” is most appropriate here. Same sex couples need to be allowed to marry, as soon as it is feasible for the laws to be passed. Those who stand in the way of this change are the ones who need to present a compelling arguments for their case. I have yet to see one.
Not true. In Turner v Safley, 482 US 78 (1987), the USSC struck down a blanket ban on inmates marrying, requiring that any such restriction had to be bear a “reasonable relationship” between the prison’s interest in preventing the marriage and the remedy of actually barring it. Justice O’Connor, writing for the majority, stated the following:
The possibility of procreation is not what makes marriage a cundamental constitutional right according to the USSC. Richard Ramirez, the serial killing “Night Stalker,” was allowed to marry on death row. He will never consumate the marriage, let alone procreate with his wife. No society that allows Ramirez to marry with its blessing while denying marriage to non-murderous same-sex couples is truly a civilised one.
“The Defense of Marriage Act, this law where two gay men who’ve been together for 25 years can’t get married, but a guy can still get drunk in Vegas and marry a hooker at the Elvis chapel! The sanctity of marriage is saved!!”
I find this usage of “civilized” to be incorrect.
After all, marriage when considered as a legal entity is a privilege granted to an arbitrary (seemingly!) set of the population.
Living together? You can do that. Call your boyfriend your wife/husband/life partner/ spouse? You can do that. Have a ceremony to celebrate your romance? You can do that. Share food expenses, adopt children, open a joint checking account? You can do that.
You simply cannot get the legal system to care about it.
Now, I agree totally and always have that homosexual marriage should be allowed (as well as polyamorous marriages, but that’s another thread I think) but I don’t feel that a society which grants privileges to certian members of it [i[only* is uncivilized, merely that it is ruled by some arrogant people.