CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
The state has the option of testing everyone, or saying that this one group that will have trouble 90% of the time should just not engage in it.

Hmmm...90% Care to prove that.
Plus, care to prove that a straight with a proven genetic disorder is LESS likely to pass on a genetic desease than two random relatives...

The state does NOT sanction marriages solely for the sake of children, since having children is not a requirement for marriage.

It provides legal protection for people who want to commit their lives to each other.
That right should be available to any consenting adults.

All the arguments laid out so far are just excuses to cover simple discrimination and bigorty. because all of the problems people see with all other types of marriages are currently allowed and sanctioned by the state now for any hetero couple. It's that simple folks.

[Jon Miller]

Reasons why the state supports heterosexual marriage:

Children
Stability
Health (sexual/mental/physical/emotional)

Reasons why the state should support homosexual marriage:

Stability
Children (if adopted)
Health (sexual/physical/emotional/mental)

For incest:

There is already a stable relationship?
They shouldn't have children together.
Most agree that these relationships are negative emotionally/mentally.

So the state should not support incestal relationships.

It is not that simple. These other relationships don't provide what the state wants to provide. If you are quite about it, the state won't interfere if you are having sex with your siblings (and might not even interfere if you are open about it?). But it has no cause to support it.

By the way, for bigamous relationships:

Not stable.
Children (OK, that one works, as long as they aren't married away when they are 16 or 18)
Not healthy for all parties emotionally/mentally.

JM

[Arrian]

Not healthy for all parties emotionally/mentally.

I'm not sure you can say that, like it's fact.

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ming
Plus, care to prove that a straight with a proven genetic disorder is LESS likely to pass on a genetic desease than two random relatives...

Use your brain a bit Ming, how much of a hassle would it be for the state to go through and check to see if everyone had proven genetic disorders. It doesn't do that sort of checkup. It doesn't even do a real check up to see if the people are siblings (in most states first cousins can marry).

JM

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I agree. Ergo, the idea that you can read that in is also preposterous.

Goddamn it Ben what is the point of talking to you if you don't read my posts? I'm not reading it in. I just said that it doesn't mention anything about homosexuals or gay rights. Are you really this dense? Do I have to quote myself again here?

Your effort to read your agenda into a 40s era document is laughable, and you misinterpret me - I'm not trying to suggest it supports gay rights. It's not pro-gay or anti-gay, it just is.

The only reason I brought it up was to demonstrate that, as per the UDHC, marriage is a universal, individual human right.

It's really hard to take you seriously when you don't read, Ben.

I also showed that by the actual words of the document that there are significant distinctions between marriage and the individual rights, such that marriage is not truly an individual right as it requires the consent of another person.

Your "individual rights" argument is, in a single phrase, utter bull****. There is no meaningful difference that springs forth from the fact that married people must have each others' consent. It is either a right of people or it is not; in US society, and in world society in general based on the UDHC, it is.

You never heard that term before? I have, many times.

I live in the Bay Area. I know a lot of gay people, and many more people who are pro gay rights. Not one of them has ever expressed to me that gays or gay marriage or the "gay lifestyle" (whatever that is) should be elevated above anything. Every one of them just wants equality.

Stability has no propensity to encourage raising children. This is a curious statement. You need to take it p with Imran and Asher who would say the opposite.

The stability of gay couples has no propensity to encourage the bearing of children, because they aren't bearing children anyway regardless of whether they are married or not. It would affect the raising of children in that they might have a greater ability to adopt because of newfound legal rights, but that's irrelevant to population growth.

Hardly. The majority who oppose this ruling support birth control.

Irrelevant. Those who are for "abstinence-only education" are also, almost without fail, against gay rights because of a belief in conservative Christianity.

To be honest I find the whole issue of reproduction to be completely irrelevant to this debate. We're talking about expanding the right of marriage to all people; unless you're a totalitarian statist who thinks the rights of people should be subordinated to the dubious interests of the state, and the citizenry should be treated as a baby mill, there is no relevance between reproduction and marriage worthy of discussion. As has been pointed out, many marriages do not produce children, and many children are produced out of wedlock. The entire field of discussion is a red herring.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian


I'm not sure you can say that, like it's fact.

-Arrian

Yes, I can.

All evidence in the past shows this. Additionally, women and men still value the same sort of things that led to this in the past. Namely, women are more likely to value wealth/success/confidence and men are more likely to value looks.

You don't want a large underclass of poor men who are sexually frustrated. You do not want a large class of women who are lesser in their relationships. Who have their status supported with the rule of law (rather than just being strippers/mistresses/etc).

I agree, occasionally you would have 1 woman with a number of men (or other groups). But even in the US with our gender equality, if we allowed bigamy now it would be men with multiple women 100x as often as a woman with multiple men. Men are more dominant, this is still true and likely a result of biology and not just culture.

And people can form those relationships (bigamist) now. It is just not in the states interest to encourage them with legal and societal support.

Finally, a lot of the health benefits come from the stability. A 3 person relationship has 3 bonds to keep up. A 2 person relationship only has 1 bond. Since a 2 person relationship isn't to stable in our individualist culture now, how much less stable will a 3 person (where everyone is equal as individuals, not where the male (most often, sometimes female) dominates) relationship?

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
To be honest I find the whole issue of reproduction to be completely irrelevant to this debate. We're talking about expanding the right of marriage to all people; unless you're a totalitarian statist who thinks the rights of people should be subordinated to the dubious interests of the state, and the citizenry should be treated as a baby mill, there is no relevance between reproduction and marriage worthy of discussion. As has been pointed out, many marriages do not produce children, and many children are produced out of wedlock. The entire field of discussion is a red herring.

I am not. I think it is obvious that it isn't a right of all people.

I am just saying that almost all of the same advantages that are the reason why there is state sponsered marriage between straight people apply to relationships between homosexual people and so they should have state sponsered marriage also.

JM

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Use your brain a bit Ming, how much of a hassle would it be for the state to go through and check to see if everyone had proven genetic disorders. It doesn't do that sort of checkup. It doesn't even do a real check up to see if the people are siblings (in most states first cousins can marry).

JM

Use your brain and PROVE that 90% of all children born of close relatives will have birth defects, because that is what you stated

Your whole argument against it is the possiblity of defects in children (your arugment of negative emotional relationships is just pure BS). If this was such a great concern, you should be arguing for state testing instead of calling it a hassle. In addition, some people already have proven genetic orders, but that doesn't stop them from getting a state sponsored license to get married, as long as it is to consenting member of the opposite sex. I don't see you arguing about how they shouldn't be allowed to get married.

And what about once a couple gets older and their children have all left the nest. Based on your opinions, shouldn't the state then nulify their marriages since children are no longer involved. I bet you would argue that the emotional advantage of them staying together is enough for the state to continue to sanction their marriages.... well guess what, that applies to relatives who want to get married. The fact the state might not allow a couple to get married simply because they are relatives or homosexual causes them incredible emotional harm and provides less stability in their lives.
It's in the states best interest to sanction these relationships as well... relationships where people love each other and want to spend their lives together.

What's good for normal heteros is good for everybody else as well.

So come up with some real arguments and lets put aside the bigotry and religious beliefs.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am just saying that almost all of the same advantages that are the reason why there is state sponsered marriage between straight people apply to relationships between homosexual people and so they should have state sponsered marriage also.

JM

And what about mormons, or other religions that see multiple spouses as an advantage and a beautiful thing.
Should they be discriminated against just because their beliefs are different than yours?

The level of spousal abuse in this country is terrrible amoung hetero couples, so don't even try to bring it up as a reason why bigomy between consenting adults is bad.

Again, you are trying to instill your religious beliefs on other people, and doing it by hiding behind arguments that aren't logical.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
You don't want a large underclass of poor men who are sexually frustrated.

So you're saying China should require (at least a certain amount of) bigamy to account for their gender gap?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ming
Use your brain and PROVE that 90% of all children born of close relatives will have birth defects, because that is what you stated

I honestly don't remember the exact number right now. It is something very high for siblings but not high at all for cousins (and pretty much at norm for anything further than cousins).

My primary disagreement with incest is due to it being the cause/caused by emotional/mental problems rather than the children aspect.

Your whole argument against it is the possiblity of defects in children (your arugment of negative emotional relationships is just pure BS). If this was such a great concern, you should be arguing for state testing instead of calling it a hassle. In addition, some people already have proven genetic orders, but that doesn't stop them from getting a state sponsored license to get married, as long as it is to consenting member of the opposite sex. I don't see you arguing about how they shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Actually, the children part of the arguement is the minor part (which I pointed out, and is only valid in heterosexual relationships). Experts are the ones who say that incestal relationships cause (and are caused by) mental and emotional disorders. So no, not crap... This is the major part. Additionally, as already pointed out by others, relatives already have stable bonds, why do they need more?

Finally, I already pointed out that the state checks basically nothing out when it gives you a marriage license. It doesn't check (really) if you are siblings, or even if you were married before. There is no background check for any of the other stuff, so where would they start checking for genetic disorders?

(I am by the way fine with close relatives marrying eachother if they didn't know they were close relatives and don't have children. The couple who didn't know they were siblings and married shouldn't be forced to get a divorce in my opinion. The only place biological relation matters is with children, it is emotional relations that matter as far as mental/emotional health.)

And what about once a couple gets older and their children have all left the nest. Based on your opinions, shouldn't the state then nulify their marriages since children are no longer involved. I bet you would argue that the emotional advantage of them staying together is enough for the state to continue to sanction their marriages.... well guess what, that applies to relatives who want to get married. The fact the state might not allow a couple to get married simply because they are relatives or homosexual causes them incredible emotional harm and provides less stability in their lives.
It's in the states best interest to sanction these relationships as well... relationships where people love each other and want to spend their lives together.

Umm, I already pointed out that there were two other things which the marriage relationship gives and is actually central to my reasoning why homosexuals should be allowed to marry. That is stability and mental/emotional/physical/sexual health. These things still hold true after the children leave or if no children are had in the first place.

While there might be some negative emotions due to relatives being unable to marry, there is also emotional harm in the relationship in the first place. Therefore it is in the states interest to discourage those sort of relationships.

Note that I am assuming that there is no emotional/mental harm inherent to homosexual relationships.

What's good for normal heteros is good for everybody else as well.

No. There are a number of things that the state wants to encourage. All of them are present in normal hetero relationships and the vast majority are present in monogamous homo relationships.

So come up with some real arguments and lets put aside the bigotry and religious beliefs.

Quit attacking straw men.

JM

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Aeson


So you're saying China should require (at least a certain amount of) bigamy to account for their gender gap?

Wouldn't that more be {bi, poly}andry?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Aeson


So you're saying China should require (at least a certain amount of) bigamy to account for their gender gap?

Actually, their gender gap is made worse by the fact that it is standard there for the powerful to keep mistresses.

It would be in the states interest to ban mistresses (which isn't what I am arguing for here). We don't have a physical gender gap, but if we allowed bigamy we would have one in practice. Like most traditional societies.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ming
And what about mormons, or other religions that see multiple spouses as an advantage and a beautiful thing.
Should they be discriminated against just because their beliefs are different than yours?

And mormons can live together and have sex together in any group they like. They just shouldn't get the state sponsership of marriage for their activities.

The level of spousal abuse in this country is terrrible amoung hetero couples, so don't even try to bring it up as a reason why bigomy between consenting adults is bad.

And the instability of hetero-marriages is pretty bad too. Doesn't mean it isn't better than the other possibility.

Again, you are trying to instill your religious beliefs on other people, and doing it by hiding behind arguments that aren't logical.

Nope. You are the one who isn't applying logic at all and is rather arguing from an idealistic fantasy land. Logic must be based on reality for it to be worth while applying to reality.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Note, 11 years ago I held the position that many of you do. I favored group marriages. Than I started looking at reality and actually studied a bit and realized how wrong I was.

studying

JM