In point of fact, under the California constitution, gays were guaranteed a right to marry. Proposition 8 amended the constitution to explicitly remove this right. So in that instance, at least, people were indeed voting away a minority’s rights.
It is indeed hypocritical, in my opinion, to DEMAND that gays should be able to marry while keeping other restrictions in place. So the definition changes from one man + one woman to two people. But, really, you know there will be a push for polygamy. I don’t believe there is any state interest in denying polygamists the right to marry once you start tinkering with the definition of marriage. As I stated earlier, you can’t demand that one-half of the definition change and not expect there to be a push to change the second half. Eventually, marriage will be defined out of existence (this last point is slippery slope, admittedly, but not that far down the slope).
Well, your opinion is pretty silly.
Possibly. If there is, they’ll have to argue it on its own merits. Although there is some overlap, the arguments in favor of gay marriage are not identical to the arguments in favor of polygamy. Nor, for that matter, are the arguments against them both identical. Supporting one does not, of necessity, require supporting the other.
That only makes sense if you believe that the state’s interest in denying gay marriage is nothing more than, “The definition of marriage should never change.” If there’s an actual reason the state has for denying polygamous marriages, that reason does not go away if it recognizes gay marriage. Even if it’s exactly the same reason: gay marriages and polygamous marriages are not the same thing. The reasoning to oppose them might be valid in one circumstance, and invalid in the other.
And that’s just patently ridiculous. As has been pointed out ad inifinitum, many societies already recognize polygamous marriages, and this hasn’t caused marriages to be “defined out of existence.” Likewise, several societies now recognize gay marriage, and yet the institution of marriage still exists in those countries, and the word “marriage” still has a clearly understood meaning. That’s not a slippery slope your proposing, it’s a non-sequitor that’s so far removed from objective reality that it probably deserves its own listing in the DSM.
Well, you are wrong. Not all restrictions are baseless, the way that forbidding SSM is baseless. Not all restrictions have the same motivation as forbidding SSM. They aren’t the same. It’s not “hypocrisy” when the cases are actually different.
Probably. I wouldn’t be surprised if it ends up legal eventually. So what? While there are better arguments for forbidding it than for SSM, it’s not prima facie evil like rape or murder. Nor is there any straightforward link between legalizing SSM and legalizing polygamy, despite your hand wringing; SSM is just a small extension of an existing institution, while polygamy would require building a new legal framework to handle the complexities.
Great argument. Let me give it a try…well, your opinion is silly. Yeah, that was easy.
Incorrect. The arguments are identical. Polygamists are excluded based on the definition of marriage. Sure, you can change the definition to include gays but still exclude polys but what, really, would be the point? Why are you so hung up on the number two?
The reasoning DOES go away if the state recognizes gay marriage. Why do we now not allow polys to marry? Because their relationship does not fit our definition of what a marriage should be. Same with SSM. If you allow one then there is no reason not to allow the other.
I don’t claim a link between the two and, in my opinion, if one is legal then the other should be as well. SSM is not just an extension of an existing institution…it is a rebranding of the institution and makes the case against other unions weaker.
The rules exist for a reason, and you don’t get to be an exception from the rules.
Except of course, some rules don’t exist for a reason. Those rules right-minded people try to overturn, especially when they are limiting people’s liberty and making them unhappy.
Cite that penises were designed at all? And since we’re talking about an issue fraught with legality here, please restrict yourself to sources that congress can make laws respecting.
It is precisely as hypocritical as demanding that we make murder of humans illegal while still allowing the flagrant murder of houseflies.
Bullshit, every part of this is bullshit, and you know it.
Point by point:
-
Granting gay marriage will not increase the push for polygamous marriage, because they’re separate issues, and there people who are arguing for gay marriage are not terribly interested in polygamous marriage. Two separate motivations; two separate groups.
-
You know for a fact that the state has two separate reasons not to permit polygamous marriage that do not relate to gay marriage: polygamous marriage is prone to abuse, and would require a mugh greater effort to make existing laws compatible with it.
-
It’s retarded nonsense to claim that the minute any word changes partially in meaning, it utterly loses all meaning. Nobody believes this, not even you. Youre statement of this hilights just how empty your self-contradictory nonsensical “slippery slope” argument is.
Also, let’s look at what you’re claiming here: if we let gay marriage happen, then that will force somehow to make polygamous marriage exist in the world, and the mere presence of polygamous marriage in the world will make paired hetero marriage vanish from the earth. Does anybody else see the problem with this? Yes, you in the back who is aware that the universe doesn’t end at the borders of their provincial town? You say that polygamous marriage already exists? That’s precisely right! Polygamous marriage is already a reality. As anybody with both a bible and the ability to read knows, polygamous marriage has been around forever.
From which we can conclude that in yorick73’s mind, the word “marriage” is already meaningless. Which makes it awfully silly for him to argue about a word that he thinks has no meaning, doesn’t it?
Patently false, and you know it.
And if the “definition of marriage” was incompatible with the concepts of gay marriage and polygamous marriage, then the terms “gay marriage” and “polygamous marriage” would be meaningless and incomprehensible. They’re not. Therefore, arguments based on the definition of the word are all completely without merit.
I think that’s a fair point. We should legalize polygamy, too, as soon as we work out the laws that are specific to 2 people, and add government funding to domestic abuse programs.
Let’s look at the logic here (if we can call it that):
- SSM would “weaken” the “marriage brand”. This is its only negative effect.
- The “weakening” of the “marriage brand” would magically force us to make PolyM legal too.
- In your “opinion”, there is nothing wrong with PolyM that would apply if SSM were legal. So, it has no further negative effects beyond SSM.
- This is bad…why?
If the only reason two things are bad is because one or the other is imagined* to make the other more probable, then that means that there are no actual negative effects at all when both are legalized.
Of course, this presumes that you were telling the truth when you said you thought that PolyM should be legal if SSM is legal…
- given a wild enough imagination
You’re posting that from your computer? Keyboards are an unnatural use for hands. Have you ever been vaccinated? Had modern medical care? Eaten food from a store?
Is reading a natural use for eyes? Are you against kids getting vitamins? Video games?
How about birth control?
In short your position is loony and either bigoted or mind numbingly ill-thought out.
And in the past interracial marriage was codified against. Can you give one argument against gay marriage that couldn’t be used against interracial marriage in the precivil rights movement south, nor against a couple with fertility problems marrying?
First of all, thank you for responding politely, and I hope you will continue to do so if I do likewise.
So, I’m still a bit confused about what you are saying. You seem to be making two different points here:
(1) SSM supporters do not also support incestuous/poly marriage. This is a contradictory position and reveals them as hypocrites, and their hypocrisy weakens any arguments they might be making
(2) if SSM becomes legal, poly/incestuous marriage will surely also become legal, and they are so horrible that they would (do something vague but bad), and that eventuality must be avoided, therefore SSM should remain illegal
Do you in fact make both of those claims? If not, how would you modify those statements so that they in fact reflect your beliefs?
(I want to respond further, but I first want to make sure I’m responding to what you actually believe.)
I vented earlier, but will keep this post simple and polite:
Question: are we talking about the definition of the word “marriage”, or the american legal institution of civil marriage?
If we are talking about the definition of the word, then how can polygamous marriage be damaging to the word’s definion? Polygamous marriage has been considered to be included in the definition of the word “marriage” for centuries.
If we are talking about the american legal institution of civil marriage, how can there be a slippery slope from one set of legal rules to another? Legalizing SSM would not cause polygamous marriage to be legal; that would require a separate (and much more comprehensive) set of legal acts.
Are all definitions of Polygamous marriages considered between a man and several women? Or are there cases where there are a couple men and a couple women (other than in Heinlein’s work)
I know there are cultures that practice many men and one women; it’s not popular, even with the people who practice it ( the motive is economic ).
I think it’s always been a one-to-many relationship, with one-man-to-many-women being by far and away more common.
My information comes from vague recollections of threads like this one, though, so take it for what it’s worth.
Nice try, but the next step is to show why the opinion is silly. You’ve kind of fallen down on the job on that part, I’m afraid, as I’m going to demonstrate.
So, what you’re saying is that literally the only reason to exclude gays from marriage, is because gays are excluded from marriage? Allow me to introduce you to my friend, Mr. Tautology.
You’re wrong both coming and going on this one. You are, evidently, unaware of the most common arguments against both gay marriage and polygamous marriage. The arguments against gay marriage have been pretty roundly debunked. Polygamous marriage? Maybe not so much. Polygamous marriages, historically speaking, have tended to be fraught with abuse and are strongly correlated with cultures that are severely repressive towards women. There’s also a good argument to be made that it increases criminal behavior among young men, as, in highly polygamous cultures, you tend to have an imbalanced ratio of unmarried men to unmarried women. Now, one can certainly make the argument that these are not sufficient reason to deprive people of the right to enter into polygamous marriages, and I’m somewhat sympathetic to that view. But those arguments are entirely independent of the gay marriage debate, and will need to be addressed on their own terms if there’s ever a serious push to legalize polygamous marriage, regardless of how the gay marriage debate eventually shakes out.
I don’t see the hypocrisy you’re claiming, since your conclusion relies on a more-simplistic-than-average stereotype. A position with a little nuance might assume that liberals want MORE government in order to pursue economic equality as they define it, while conservatives want MORE government in order to pursue morality as they define it.
One can be rich under a liberal government if you’re willing to pay high taxes, while one can be free under a conservative government if you’re white, Christian, male, etc. Clearly, both are happy with more government where it suits them and call for less government where it doesn’t.
What exactly is being forced on people with making SSM legal? I have yet to understand how my marriage to my partner would have any effect on ‘people’.