Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[Solly]

"then on what principle can polygamous relationships between bisexual/gay partners of the same gender be prohibited?"

On a principle with which you would not agree, I would think.

[MrFun]

Oh, I'm not surprised what you would come up with but I'm waiting for someone who is more grounded in rationality and fairness to contribute something here -- no matter what their opinion is, and regardelss if I end up agreeing with it.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Aeson


But I am talking about the US Federal government, and to refute my point you would need to as well. Refuting points which were not made is called a red herring. You asked for an example of a state which allows marriage, but doesn't recognize it, and I gave you one. Very simple.

The US government allows homosexual marriages in it's jurisdiction. The US government does not issue the marriage liscences itself. Massachusetts does. If you are still getting stuck on the words "allow" and "recognize", I suggest you look them up in a dictionary to see what they mean. They are not the same thing.

While your assertions that Massachusetts doesn't allow and disallow marriage are correct, they don't apply to anything I've said.

If anyone is guilty of a red herring, it's you.

Please explain to me how the state Massachusettes allows marriage but does not recognize it. I'm quite clear that the US federal government doesn't view it as a marriage, but I want to know how the the state of Massachusettes pulls off this feat.

And perhaps you need to look something up:

ju·ris·dic·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jrs-dkshn)
n.
Law. The right and power to interpret and apply the law: courts having jurisdiction in this district.

Last time I checked, marriage fell under the purview of the states. I don't recall too many divorce proceedings going to the federal courts.

Or look at it another way. The term "marriage" has certain implications, many of them legal. If you do not allow a union to have those implications, then what you are allowing isn't "marriage".

[Solly]

On what grounds do you base rationality though?

And I've said in another thread I'm going to calm down round here, be a bit more cheerful

But if you allow gay marriage I don't see any further reasons why you can't allow polygamy - be it two women and one man or two men and one woman if that's what they want. Who's being exploited if they agree to it?

[Giancarlo]

Gay marriage again has nothing to do with polygamy. Polygamy is between more than two people, while gay marriage is between two people. Don't see why you can't understand that, PA. Is it that difficult?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by MrFun
Some people would argue that we can include all monogamous marriages between two consenting adults and exclude polygamous partners on the claim that polygamy is based on sexist, unfair exploitation of women (even for those women who choose to submit to such exploitation).

How much of that claim makes sense??

I would say a good deal. And you don't necessarily have to agree with it for it to make sense. I'm not a libertarian, so I have no problem drawing a line in the sand. That's why I'm saying I have a problem with thinking of marriage as a "right".

Same thing goes for incest.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
On what grounds do you base rationality though?

And I've said in another thread I'm going to calm down round here, be a bit more cheerful

hmmm . . . . your last few posts did seem to have much less blatant distortions/insults

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kontiki


I would say a good deal. And you don't necessarily have to agree with it for it to make sense. I'm not a libertarian, so I have no problem drawing a line in the sand. That's why I'm saying I have a problem with thinking of marriage as a "right".

Same thing goes for incest.

I want to know if there is some rational, fair way that we can refuse legal recognition to polygamous marriages -- regardless if some/all partners are of same gender or opposite gender.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by MrFun


I want to know if there is some rational, fair way that we can refuse legal recognition to polygamous marriages -- regardless if some/all partners are of same gender or opposite gender.

I think I actually posted some on another thread a while back. I'll see if I can't dig them up.

[Kontiki]

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=2756581&highlight=polygamy#post2756581

I also say at the end that I don't have that big an issue with polygamy, so take it for what you will.

[MrFun]

from Kontiki:

"Actually, it's easy to make an arguement that two is not less arbitrary.

In today's society, despite what some may believe, we strive for equality. In a marriage, the two spouses are looked upon as equal partners, sharing each others commitment with no one else. It's what allows for the default 50% ownership of assets, decisions rights (eg:for medical procedures), implied POA, etc. When you start splitting the same issues among various people, you potentially run into problems. Some examples:

A spouse has been in an accident and needs contsent for a certain procedure. One spouse is fully willing to proceed, another disagrees - who's opinion takes priority?

Divorce. Let's say there are five spouses in total. One files for divorce from the other four (which, in and of itself would likely cause another problem), how do you deem the assets to be divided up? Does everyone own a one-fifth share? Most likely, not everyone got married at the same time, so how do you justify that spouse #5 that wants a divorce is entitled to the same amount as spouse number one who entered the union 10 years before? With two person marriages, it's simple because everyone (both) concerned entered the union at the same time.

Having said that, I'm not adamently against polygamy, as long as everyone consents. I think it makes more sense to not allow it, but I wouldn't actively fight it or have an aneurysm if they were allowed. It might, however, cause me to love my wife less."



excellent point, Kontiki

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Please explain to me how the state Massachusettes allows marriage but does not recognize it. I'm quite clear that the US federal government doesn't view it as a marriage, but I want to know how the the state of Massachusettes pulls off this feat.

I have never said that it does. If you want the answer to that, you'll have to make it up, just like you made up the reference.

I specifically stated that the US government was the state that allows homosexual marriage but does not recognize it.

And perhaps you need to look something up:

ju·ris·dic·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jrs-dkshn)
n.
Law. The right and power to interpret and apply the law: courts having jurisdiction in this district.

Selective quoting of the dictionary! You failed to include:

"2a. Authority or control: islands under U.S. jurisdiction; a bureau with jurisdiction over Native American affairs.
2b. The extent of authority or control: a family matter beyond the school's jurisdiction.
3. The territorial range of authority or control."

This is really weird as you failed to include 2b, which seems to be the best one (very shakey) to use to support your argument. 1 (the one you included) definitely applies to SCOTUS even in Massachusetts.

Last time I checked, marriage fell under the purview of the states. I don't recall too many divorce proceedings going to the federal courts

Loving vs. Virginia never happened...

The US Constitution and SCOTUS have jurisdiction over marriage whether you think it should or not, and whether they address the issue currently or not.

Or look at it another way. The term "marriage" has certain implications, many of them legal. If you do not allow a union to have those implications, then what you are allowing isn't "marriage".

This is your best argument. You should stick to it. All you are saying here agrees with me.

In the US, homosexuals can get married in Massachusetts. "Marriage" in that part of the US means one thing. Other parts of the US (and the US federal government itself) do not consider those marriages because of DOMA (or in the case of the US, no current law addressing the issue). "Marriage" in those other parts of the US means another thing.

So in the US, homosexual marriage is allowed, and the same union is not recognized as a marriage by the US.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kontiki

Yes and no. My point is simply that if you start thinking of marriage as an absolute right, then you need to consider why you can regulate it at all.

Like voting, driving, residency, the age of consent, et cetera.

All of them are regulated in one way or another, but regulation is not the same as forbidding, nor defining.

I recall from my reading that Jerry Lee Lewis married his 14 year old cousin in the United States, at such a time when the said marriage would have been impossible in other parts of the United States and in Western Europe-two issues, consanguinity and his bride's tender age, did more than raise eyebrows elsewhere in the world.

At the same time, more than one state had laws relating to the prohibition of interracial marriage.

I suspect the reason why Western societies view polygamy with distaste is the old reason (a reason going back to Ancient Greek times, if I'm remembering an episode in Herodotus correctly): we don't do it here.*

Those people (Muslims, animists, Christian schismatics such as Mormon splinter groups) do it, and we aren't those people, so we don't do it.

* "One might recall, for example, an anecdote of Darius. When he was king of Persia, he summoned the Greeks who happened to be present at his court, and asked them what they would take to eat the dead bodies of their fathers. They replied that they would not do it for any money in the world. Later, in the presence of the Greeks, and through an interpreter, so that they could understand what was said, he asked some Indians of the tribe called Callatiae, who do in fact eat their parents' dead bodies, what they would take to burn them. They uttered a cry of horror and forbade him to mention such a dreadful thing. One can see by this what custom can do."

http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodotus/herodotus07.html

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Like voting, driving, residency, the age of consent, et cetera.

All of them are regulated in one way or another, but regulation is not the same as forbidding, nor defining.

I recall from my reading that Jerry Lee Lewis married his 14 year old cousin in the United States, at such a time when the said marriage would have been impossible in other parts of the United States and in Western Europe-two issues, consanguinity and his bride's tender age, did more than raise eyebrows elsewhere in the world.

At the same time, more than one state had laws relating to the prohibition of interracial marriage.

I suspect the reason why Western societies view polygamy with distaste is the old reason (a reason going back to Ancient Greek times, if I'm remembering an episode in Herodotus correctly): we don't do it here.*

Those people (Muslims, animists, Christian schismatics such as Mormon splinter groups) do it, and we aren't those people, so we don't do it.

* "One might recall, for example, an anecdote of Darius. When he was king of Persia, he summoned the Greeks who happened to be present at his court, and asked them what they would take to eat the dead bodies of their fathers. They replied that they would not do it for any money in the world. Later, in the presence of the Greeks, and through an interpreter, so that they could understand what was said, he asked some Indians of the tribe called Callatiae, who do in fact eat their parents' dead bodies, what they would take to burn them. They uttered a cry of horror and forbade him to mention such a dreadful thing. One can see by this what custom can do."

http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodotus/herodotus07.html

My apologies, Molly, but I'm not really sure what you're getting at here - or perhaps it's just a case of mutual misunderstanding. Driving, to take one of your examples above, is certainly not a right so we needn't worry about placing restrictions on it. Now, one can argue where those restrictions should be, but I think we can all agree that some restrictions are necessary. Marriage, IMO, is also not a right, so we as a society can put restrictions on it. However, if you take the view that marriage is a right, then you are, by default, opening the doors to the slippery slope. If you have the fundamental right to get married, then on what basis do you deny polygamy and incest? If, however, you don't have a problem with either of these practices (and frankly, I wouldn't loose much sleep if they were allowed), then the slippery slope is meaningless to you. My position, though, is designed more to placate those who actually are afraid of the slippery slope. That is, realize that there are strong arguments to be made in favor of homosexual marriage that don't rely on making marriage a right. We can then look to moving where we place our restrictive line (allowing homosexual marriage) while not necessarily opening the doors to other marriage practices.

In sum, argue marriage is a right if you want, but realize that it does open the doors to polygamy. If you don't have a problem with that, then great - a right it is. But if you do, then stick to arguments that directly address the benefits of gay marriage but that steer away from a "right to marriage" position. It's just attacking the issue from two different angles.

Hope this clears up any confusion.

[MrFun]

Voting is a right, but we still have regulations on that.

So you're saying that since voting is a right, that we need to remove all regulations on it? That we should grant suffrage to everyone regardless of age? And that we should allow all immigrants to vote in United States regardless of their status and how little time they have been living here?

Rights, IMO does not automatically mean that there is to be no regulation of it.