Canada: Dangerous case study in the perils of same-sex marriage

[Asher]

How is the discrimination in the first case different from discrimination in the second case?

Mental state.

No, it's not ambiguous. Consent is pretty clear, otherwise marriage altogether couldn't legitimately happen between anyone else.

Consent is ambiguous. We do not allow 12 year olds to consent, because we judge them as not being mentally capable of it. There's a tremendous amount of evidence that polygamous relationships involve compromised mental states of the women that clouds the issue of consent.

And gay marriage will bring down's God's wrath. Bigotry isn't justification for discrimination. Just because you're a bigot to people who think differently then you, doesn't make it right, now does it?

Who is bigoted?

First, did you ever see me say polygamy should be illegal?

My personal opinion is the government should be 100% out of the marriage/civil union game.

Consent's pretty easy to establish, this argument could be placed against any marriage between anyone at all.

Consent is not easy to establish in situations with mentally compromised people, such as in cult settings.

So, what's up, Asher. Are you in favour of marital discrimination against people who aren't in the same relationship as you?

I'm in favour of zero martial discrimination, because this shouldn't be done by government in the first place.

If you want to start your own cult with Filipinas and marry them all because it makes you righteous in God's eyes, then good ****ing luck with that. None of my business.

[Ben Kenobi]

Mental state.

Heh. I;ve got a bridge in brooklyn to sell you.

Consent is ambiguous. We do not allow 12 year olds to consent, because we judge them as not being mentally capable of it.

Indeed. Are you arguing that they should be permitted to marry? You aren't helping your argument by arguing that one of the crucial things necessary for marriage is consent and then arguing that consent is ambiguous.

If consent is ambiguous, then having a harem can be explained away by saying that they consented to do so.

There's a tremendous amount of evidence that polygamous relationships involve compromised mental states of the women that clouds the issue of consent.

Eh, you can't prove lack of consent, if consent in general is ambiguous. Consent is huge. I'm arguing that polygamy can be done with proper consent, and I don't see how arguing that 'mental state' inhibits people from consenting to such a marriage.

Who is bigoted?

You, you're in essence arguing that people in polygamy are cultists, etc. That's obviously not true, and is a bigoted statement.

First, did you ever see me say polygamy should be illegal?

So again, you admit that you think Polygamy is ok.

My personal opinion is the government should be 100% out of the marriage/civil union game.

Then why are you arguing for gay marriage, and increasing government intervention and intrusion? You should be happy that it's not in play, because when it's there, there will be more intrusion. That much is inevitable. Marriage is not a private institution, it's very much a public one.

Consent is not easy to establish in situations with mentally compromised people, such as in cult settings.

Arguing that people engage in polygamy only because they are compromised is a bad argument.

I'm in favour of zero martial discrimination, because this shouldn't be done by government in the first place.

But you are arguing that the state should discriminate against a gay man who wants to marry both of his gay lovers. You're saying he has to choose between one or the other. You don't think that's wrong?

If you want to start your own cult with Filipinas and marry them all because it makes you righteous in God's eyes, then good ****ing luck with that. None of my business.

But you think it is your business. Otherwise you'd be fine with the state recognising these relationships as valid and a blessing to everyone.

[Asher]

Indeed. Are you arguing that they should be permitted to marry? You aren't helping your argument by arguing that one of the crucial things necessary for marriage is consent and then arguing that consent is ambiguous.

If consent is ambiguous, then having a harem can be explained away by saying that they consented to do so.

It is quite clear you are intellectually incapable of understanding my argument. You will forever remain ignorant, then.

Eh, you can't prove lack of consent, if consent in general is ambiguous. Consent is huge. I'm arguing that polygamy can be done with proper consent

Good for you. Why don't you try getting one woman first before building your own Christian harem? You wouldn't be the first Apolytoner to do that.

You, you're in essence arguing that people in polygamy are cultists, etc. That's obviously not true, and is a bigoted statement.

Never heard of one not in a cult-like situation.

So again, you admit that you think Polygamy is ok.

I think seafood should be legal, but I can't ****ing stand it either.

The fact that I refuse to get into your bedroom and tell you what to do doesn't mean I think what you do is okay.

Then why are you arguing for gay marriage

I want equality, not specifically gay marriage. As I've explicitly and repeatedly said over many years, ideally the government has nothing at all to do with anyone's marriage.

and increasing government intervention and intrusion?

Yeah, I can see where you get this from. It's typically an attitude of big government supporters such as myself to tell the government it has no right whatsoever to regulate and/or sanction my personal relationships. It's the small government heros like you, campaigning to get the government to specify who can marry, that drive the libertarian movement.

Arguing that people engage in polygamy only because they are compromised is a bad argument.

I've seen tons of evidence of it, nothing to say otherwise. I personally believe the women involved in polygamous relationships are brainwashed.

That's not to say I don't think they should be able to do what they want.

But you are arguing that the state should discriminate against a gay man who wants to marry both of his gay lovers. You're saying he has to choose between one or the other. You don't think that's wrong?

I cannot even fathom how you think saying the government should not regulate any personal relationships means that it discriminates against gays. You are a very stupid man.

But you think it is your business. Otherwise you'd be fine with the state recognising these relationships as valid and a blessing to everyone.

It is not my business. It is not the state's business. My opinion is the state should recognize no personal relationships.

Your logic skills are on par with a three year old retarded raccoon, Ben.

[Ben Kenobi]

Good for you. Why don't you try getting one woman first before building your own Christian harem? You wouldn't be the first Apolytoner to do that.

What's wrong with a harem, asher, other then the fact that you think they are stupid?

Never heard of one not in a cult-like situation.

So you are suggesting the people that wrote that article are cultists and not say swingers? Plenty of swingers out there, Asher.

I think seafood should be legal, but I can't ****ing stand it either.

That about ends this argument. Once again, someone who claims that one does not lead to the other and swears up and down left and right that he believes it to be wrong, is ok with polygamy being legal.

The fact that I refuse to get into your bedroom and tell you what to do doesn't mean I think what you do is okay.

You tell me all the time what I should be doing, just like you just did now. So yes, you want to be the one in charge telling people what to do with their love lives.

I want equality, not specifically gay marriage.

But you don't. You don't want polygamy, you find it detestable, despite the fact that if they love each other, why shouldn't they be married? You don't want equality at all. You want the line to end where you are and no further.

Yeah, I can see where you get this from. It's typically an attitude of big government supporters such as myself to tell the government it has no right whatsoever to regulate and/or sanction my personal relationships.

Isn't that what marriage is about, regulating your personal relationships?

It's the small government heros like you, campaigning to get the government to specify who can marry, that drive the libertarian movement.

You just specified it here that you don't believe people can legitimately marry more than one person with consent. Isn't that the government specifiying who can and can't marry.

I've seen tons of evidence of it, nothing to say otherwise. I personally believe the women involved in polygamous relationships are brainwashed.

And I think the same about homosexuality. Yet you would argue strenously to the contrary. Odd that, I find my arguments coming right back at me, isn't it? For the titan of tolerence and the radisson of relativism.

I cannot even fathom how you think saying the government should not regulate any personal relationships means that it discriminates against gays.

So you are saying it's ok for the government to regulate personal relationships, just not yours? And I'm the believer in big government?

Big story here, Asher hates polygamy, but thinks it should be legal, and proves my argument here. He wants to limit it to just himself, but is hamstrung by the philosophical limitiations of his position. Which is what I was saying all along.

You cannot get one without the other. You cannot change that which is to suit yourself, and expect the change to not continue to change to something that is disgusting. You cannot argue that the winds of liberalism and relativism uphold your own convictions.

[Flubber]

It is not my business. It is not the state's business. My opinion is the state should recognize no personal relationships.
.

I am not quite sure how you accomplish this. Sure you could change the tax code so that its neutral on marriages and everyone is treated as an individual. I guess you could do it for the income support programs too but then I guess a millionares wife would collect welfare while still with him.

But how do you do child custody? Biological parents works sometimes but if I married a widow with a 2 year old and helped raise that child for 10 years I would be pissed at the idea if the mom passed I have no status at all as a parent ?

Asher I am probably misreading your argument but there are a number of statutes where marriage can matter currently.

[Asher]

What's wrong with a harem, asher, other then the fact that you think they are stupid?



So you are suggesting the people that wrote that article are cultists and not say swingers? Plenty of swingers out there, Asher.



That about ends this argument. Once again, someone who claims that one does not lead to the other and swears up and down left and right that he believes it to be wrong, is ok with polygamy being legal.



You tell me all the time what I should be doing, just like you just did now. So yes, you want to be the one in charge telling people what to do with their love lives.



But you don't. You don't want polygamy, you find it detestable, despite the fact that if they love each other, why shouldn't they be married? You don't want equality at all. You want the line to end where you are and no further.



Isn't that what marriage is about, regulating your personal relationships?



You just specified it here that you don't believe people can legitimately marry more than one person with consent. Isn't that the government specifiying who can and can't marry.



And I think the same about homosexuality. Yet you would argue strenously to the contrary. Odd that, I find my arguments coming right back at me, isn't it? For the titan of tolarence and the radisson of relativism.



So you are saying it's ok for the government to regulate personal relationships, just not yours? And I'm the believer in big government?

Unsurprisingly, every single sentence in this post is flat-out wrong. Why don't you just post another reply and pretend I wrote a long post, because it's not like you can read it anyway.

[Asher]

I am not quite sure how you accomplish this. Sure you could change the tax code so that its neutral on marriages and everyone is treated as an individual. I guess you could do it for the income support programs too but then I guess a millionares wife would collect welfare while still with him.

But how do you do child custody? Biological parents works sometimes but if I married a widow with a 2 year old and helped raise that child for 10 years I would be pissed at the idea if the mom passed I have no status at all as a parent ?

Asher I am probably misreading your argument but there are a number of statutes where marriage can matter currently.

There's a million ways around each of those. For instance, if you are involved in raising a child to XXXXXX degree, you get rights to that child (not no status).

Marriage is just a convenience factor; an easy way out for legislators.

[Asher]

I also find it very amusing that a hyper-hardcore Christian thinks homosexuals are brainwashed, BTW.

[Ben Kenobi]

I also find it very amusing that a hyper-hardcore Christian thinks homosexuals are brainwashed, BTW.

I personally find it hilarious that you think anyone who wants to be married to more than one person is brainwashed. I couldn't believe you said that, but given your convictions it makes sense.

I didn't use to think that, but given the diversity training necessary for my employment, it has become obvious that it's brainwashing. Given how they (homosexuals) treat anyone who deviates from their opinion, and how they strive to ensure that all are educated in the true faith, it's clear to me.

As for Christianity, nobody forced it on me. They came to me and helped me when no one else cared. And for that reason I am one today and I am eternally thankful for them. Christians didn't mandate 'diversity training' in order for me to seek employment, rather they asked for a hand at the till.

[giblets]

Yeah, which is why plenty of hardcore Christians end up with homosexual children... they must have brainwashed their kids to be that way... yeah, that really makes sense...

[Flubber]

How is the discrimination in the first case different from discrimination in the second case?


.

Ben -- most arguments you can make about gay marriage could have been made and probably were made at some point in the past about inter-racial marriages. The racial/homosexual argument would be almost the same in that in each case people are advocating for two human beings to be able to link themselves in a legally recognized fashion.

I was a supporter of gay marriage-- still am. On polygamy I have mixed feelings. I don't care how many people choose to sleep together or how consenting adults choose to live their lives if they are not harming others. So live as you will.


But recognizing polygamous marriages changes the institution of marriage fundamentally. Before gay marriage or after, it remained a one to one linkage recognized by the law for a number of purposes. The implementation of gay marriage required a few modest legislative wording changes and the impact was to provide rights and responsibilities to two people who were denied the rights of two other people .


Over in the polygamy thread I was trying to come up with the problems in recognizing polygamous marriages and in the exercise I did come to the conclusion that moving marriage from a twosome to 3 or 4 or 6 or 8 or 123 some (because once you go beyond two there can be no logical stopping point) does fundamentally alter how marriages work in our society (gay marriage really altered it not at all) On the matters where marriage can matter such as medical decisions, child custody , tax treatment, welfare eligibility, property division moving to more than a twosome often makes the existing structure completely inadequate. Many of these issues are not insurmountable but they would require work.


Also we talk generally about a polygamous marriage but

1. Is it one indivisible marriage. ie 4 people are married so if one person wants to leave that marriage ends and the 3 others would have to remarry as a 3some if they wished to be married? Would they have to wait a year before remarrying (waiting for the divorce to be final.

2. Or is it one big organic marriage. So if there are 4 and one leaves, the 3 marriage continues ( so we would need a concept of partial divorce for the 3some). In this model the 3 could be come a 4 or a 5 by adding people into one big marriage

3. Or is it multiple marriages? So in our 4 some example each person would be married to 3 others. But if you use this model then why cannot someone marry individually someone outside the foursome which the others do not

4. or some other model entirely.


My problem with polygamous marriages is that marriage is a legal construction with a model amd a set of rights and responsibilities. You cannot easily apply the existing model to polygamous relationships and I have little idea what a poluygamous model might look like but it will be fundamentally different than the existing model.

So I hesitate to endorse it--

[Flubber]

There's a million ways around each of those. For instance, if you are involved in raising a child to XXXXXX degree, you get rights to that child (not no status).

Marriage is just a convenience factor; an easy way out for legislators.

I agree that marriage make it easier for legislators to define family units and create default situations for things like property division on death, ,medical decision making etc

But in your million ways around these issues you would have to redesign how many social programs work. I guess you could repeal marriage and divorce legislation and come up with new family law systems since you wouldn't have the crutch of marriage to legally deliniate certain linkages

[Dinner]

I also find it very amusing that a hyper-hardcore Christian thinks homosexuals are brainwashed, BTW.

Bachmann's husband runs a reeducation camp where gays are supposed to pray the gay away (and if that doesn't work they use electro-shock). FACT!

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben -- most arguments you can make about gay marriage could have been made and probably were made at some point in the past about inter-racial marriages. The racial/homosexual argument would be almost the same in that in each case people are advocating for two human beings to be able to link themselves in a legally recognized fashion.

No they weren't. Words are important. They advocated that marriage should be a man and a woman, and it's important to get their argument right. They did not say that marriage should be a union of two persons, they said something very different.

The question around interracial marriage amounted to a question of humanity. Why the division between the two was because one were persons and the other were not. That's not the argument wrt to gay marriage, it revolves around the insitution, what does marriage mean, and not the persons. The rationale given against interracial marriage is because the white man and the black man were not the same. That's not the argument wrt gay marriage. The argument is that the union is not the same.

But recognizing polygamous marriages changes the institution of marriage fundamentally.

And gay marriage does not? See this is what I don't understand how can the one change be fundamental and the other is not? Why is the one crucial but the man and woman is not?

Over in the polygamy thread I was trying to come up with the problems in recognizing polygamous marriages and in the exercise I did come to the conclusion that moving marriage from a twosome to 3 or 4 or 6 or 8 or 123 some (because once you go beyond two there can be no logical stopping point) does fundamentally alter how marriages work in our society (gay marriage really altered it not at all) On the matters where marriage can matter such as medical decisions, child custody , tax treatment, welfare eligibility, property division moving to more than a twosome often makes the existing structure completely inadequate. Many of these issues are not insurmountable but they would require work.

Your best argument is again the union between a man and a woman is fundamentally equal because each wife has her own husband and each husband her own wife. Anything else is inherently inequal and denies the fundamental equality between a man and a woman in value. The reason you can't find this argument is becuase you've moved far enough down that it's not there for you. Which is the problem.

The institution at least in Canada has fundamentally changed. Not for the better, and it will continue to change. This isn't goling to stop here.

My problem with polygamous marriages is that marriage is a legal construction with a model amd a set of rights and responsibilities. You cannot easily apply the existing model to polygamous relationships and I have little idea what a poluygamous model might look like but it will be fundamentally different than the existing model.

One question, what is your model for marriage?

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah, which is why plenty of hardcore Christians end up with homosexual children... they must have brainwashed their kids to be that way... yeah, that really makes sense... '

I'm, a convert here. Never grew up with that life.

Mandatory diversity training is brainwashing.