CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by Ming
I have no problem with with any pair of consenting adults getting married.

None of the arguments against such marriages hold up at all.

When people claim that marriage is for producing children, and that gays can't do so... They ignore the fact that many couples can't have children, but nobody is arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to get married.
And this is because they are hetro.

When it comes to related people, the argument seems to be possible birth defects... but they ignore the fact that many normal couples, due to their genes, also face the risk of having children with birth defects, but nobody is arguing that they can't get married...

If it is against your religious beliefs/moral code, then you don't have to do it yourself... but religious beliefs are not universal, and you have no right cramming your beliefs down everybodies elses throat.

As far as bigamy goes, I'm open minded about that as well... as long as everybody in the relationship truly consents to it.

I see no reason why consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to get married if they want to.

If the government is going to give special rights to people who get married, those rights should be available to all.

Well stated Ming!

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
I personally would allow people to register "communities" whether these are elders living together, relatives or gay couples, the state should recognize this and its social implications.

Spain does this. Some of the major profiteurs of the gay marriage and civil unions law are elder persons and people in homa care situations.

[Ming]

There are big differences between all types of marriages. None of them are really the same.
Opposite sex, same sex, multiple partners, relatives, they are all different...

I'm saying that if the government is going to provide special rights to those that get married, it shouldn't discriminate against any specific group.

There is no reason to do so. All the objections are usually just a sham to cover up bigotry, religious and moral beliefs, or just plain stupiditiy.

The argument that gays can't produce children is irrelevant since many couples that can't have children, or don't ever want children are allowed to get married now.

The argument that relatives have a chance for birth defects is irrelevant since many couples that have a high probablity of passing on generic defects are allowed to get married now.

The argument that bigmy might lead to emotional abuse is irrelevant since couples who are prone to be abusive are allowed to get married now.

Each marriage is different, and carries a risk that is based on the individuals and not the generic type of marriage. If we are going to allow high risk peope to get married just because they fit some BS acceptable social norm, then we shouldn't use lame excuses to keep those that don't fit the acceptable social norms to get married.

If we are going to stop marriages for any reason, it should be applied across the board to all types of marriages.

[DinoDoc]

Asher disagrees.

[Asher]

Damn right I do.

I actually resent the fact that gay marriage is compared to incestuous marriages. People who lump them together simply because they are "different" from heterosexual marriage aren't looking at it clearly. This isn't a thread about incest, if you want to talk about why you want to **** your sister, we can do that in another thread.

This thread is about gay marriage...please focus. We can deal with incestuous and polygamous marriages when and if they become challenged.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian


Clearly I am insane

-Arrian

Clearly. Welcome to the human organ market, or public suicides on television, or homeless people fighting for the amusement of the middle classes.

Thinking is good.

[Wezil]

Asher - They are already challenged. See Bountiful.

[Jon Miller]

I disagree. Look at society now, compare the amounts of abuse that goes on now to a society that allows bigamy. Bigamy is always used by the powerful (The old and wealthy and male) to gain benefits and cement them with legal binding.

Mistresses can at least choose to do otherwise easily, if economics allow.

Marriage isn't a right. Who you sleep with is (sorta). Marriage is government and societal support for the relationships that benefit it.

It is in the governments interest for long term stable family raising relationships. It is in the governments interest for stable relationships for the health benefits (mental/physical/sexual). It is in the governments interest for stable relationships so that gay men aren't looking for sex in airport bathrooms (to give a specific example).

These hold true for hetero and homo monogamous relationships. Bigamous (And incestial) relationships have added issues that I have referred to.

JM

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil
Asher - They are already challenged. See Bountiful.

What?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Agathon


Clearly. Welcome to the human organ market, or public suicides on television, or homeless people fighting for the amusement of the middle classes.

Thinking is good.

Those are clearly the same as gay marriage.

[snoopy369]

Incest will never be legal; it is actually destructive to the society (it decreases genetic variation, and increases birth defects, which have a societal cost, both in health care and in making society directly weaker). You can't say that "they can just not have kids"; the state cannot and will not enforce this effectively, and the point of marriage is generally to have a family, hetero or homo - it's not to identify 'this person is the person I sleep with', but to allow one person to take care of the other person financially (and generally kids). Incest doesn't have that need - you can already call your brother/sister/blood family member a dependent, legally, which gives you nearly all of the important benefits of marriage.

Bigamy is ... more interesting. You can't call the 'abusive relationship' card, because:
1. Plenty of monogamous couples are abusive; I'm not even sure it is more common with bigamous relationships, if you exclude the fact that only law-breakers are bigamous right now [and perhaps more likely to be abusive]. Just like you can't exclude homosexual marriages for not producing children, same here; the argument works on all sorts.
2. Innocent until proven guilty. There's no reason to assume someone is going to be abusive; so it's not legal to forbid something on that grounds, without at least a reasonable suspicion.

Bigamy is clearly against the law for religious/cultural reasons, and IIRC in the US it's primarily an anti-Mormon law [became more significant/enforced as a result of anti-Mormon sentiment].

The one significant argument that could be made against it is that it is much harder to support two spouses than one, and it may significantly increase the chances of one or more spouses being left unsupported (and supported by the state as a result). A fairly weak argument, as it is (again) also relevant to any other couple.

It will certainly be interesting to see if there are other, valid arguments; and if there is enough support for bigamy for it ever to be changed. I doubt it; the only reason homosexual marriage is changing to becoming legal, is because of the large and very active gay community. The bigamist community is rather smaller...

[Jon Miller]

In a society that widely practices bigamy, and with the differences in how people look for relationships, you are going to have a preference for older/wealthier/men. This is going to leave the young/poor/men shafted.

You can see this in cultures which allow bigamy now.

It is not in the states interest to have a large sexually frustrated populace.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

You are ignoring the reality that often times people are not allowed to vote. Age is a restriction. Criminal record is a restriction. Citizenship is a restriction.

True, 14th amendment explicitly says 'all citizens', which confirms what you were saying earlier that it's not a fundamental freedom, but an extension thereof, requiring the state in order to enact the law.

There is a difference between marriage and voting. There is no obligation from any woman to marry you, bu the state (at least in a democracy), has the obligation to provide the means which you may vote. Voter registration is not a restriction, it is merely confirmation that you are who you say you are. You can vote without appearing on the list, I've done so myself many times, due to the fact that I have moved.

[Arrian]

One could also argue that if was bigamy legal it would actually cut down on the potential for abuse. The wives would have legal rights under the law.

Incest - the genetic issue does make it a different case.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
In a society that widely practices bigamy, and with the differences in how people look for relationships, you are going to have a preference for older/wealthier/men. This is going to leave the young/poor/men shafted.

You can see this in cultures which allow bigamy now.

It is not in the states interest to have a large sexually frustrated populace.

JM

Marriage isn't a requirement for sex. Not anymore, thankfully.

But I see the line of argument...

-Arrian