Washington to Legalize Gay Marriage

[a.kitman]

whats wrong whit polygamy anyway? as long as everyone is into it i dont see the problem.

[notyoueither]

In Argentina, in the XIX century, when no one even imagined Gay marriage, marriage, by law, was defined as between 1 man and 1 woman.

We legalized gay marriage last year by removing the gender from that law. If the gender can be removed from marriage defined as between 1 man and 1 woman, why not the number? Could polygamy be made legal in the same way?

There was widespread fear that Canadian Law against polygamy would not stand up versus a challenge based on our Charter based religious rights.

A government eventually worked up the courage to send the issue to the courts. The court ruled something to effect that the harms associated with polygamy were serious enough that religious freedom is rightly infringed.

I disagree with how we are handling our break-away mormons (and others who form multi-adult families). I think it should be legalised and the stigma removed. Don't force people to hide their lifestyle and allow law enforcement and social agencies to protect the people who need protection.

The real offence is the treatment of minors. Grooming and managing child brides, and the treatment of non-favoured young men in undergorund polygamous families (pseudo-Mormon). There is also a recent case of honour killing of a first wife and three daughters by a Muslim family. In these cases, allowing the women to be open about their lifestyles would get them closer to the help they may need.

There are also polyamorous families where several adults share homes, responsibilities, and romance (if they wish). They establish legal rights through contracts and form pretty healthy homes for themselves and their children, but they are forced to hide from society and that hiding has negative consequences sometimes.

[notyoueither]

Does being treated as a normal human being entail:

1. The right to marry a partner of whatever sex you wish?
2. The right to a home?
3. The right to food?
4. The right to a job?
5. The right to medical care?
6. The right consume whatever one desires?

Just as a small subset, and the ones which are currently popular, and which I have some desire to support. And for most of the last 100 years, 2-6 have been held more often than 1.

Do you see the issue?

JM

I would say yes to all of the above if the right to means not being interfered with arbitrarily in the pursuit of.

[Aeson]

Does being treated as a normal human being entail:

1. The right to marry a partner of whatever sex you wish?
2. The right to a home?
3. The right to food?
4. The right to a job?
5. The right to medical care?
6. The right consume whatever one desires?

...

Do you see the issue?

The issue is you are conflating freedom of choice (1, 6 in specific cases) with forcing people to do something for you (2, 3, 4, 5). They are very different things.

[Jon Miller]

You are forcing people (society) to recognize your marriage.

You are forcing people (society) to not say 'Aeson has just consumed the wacky OrangeSoda, remember Ben? Better kick him out of the community'.

Whether the community/society is recognizing marriage, or seeing that you get necessary medical care, or saying that you are safe to consume OrangeSoda if you think you are safe to, doesn't change the fact that it is the community/society.

People always have the right to say 'screw you society, I am doing things my way'. Whether it be for a home, consumption, or relationships.

JM

[a.kitman]

jon are you fine with forcing me to recognize your same sex marriage?

[DaShi]

You are forcing people to recognize your marriage.

This sounds childish.

[regexcellent]

Suggesting that gay marriage was is a constitutional right means that the people who wrote it and the 14th amendment more than a hundred years ago thought that gay marriage should be legal. They didn't.

[Jon Miller]

jon are you fine with forcing me to recognize your same sex marriage?

Yep, I think that law givers should pass laws to do so like they did in Washington.

JM

[Elok]

Yeah, they didn't anticipate the First Amendment covering cyberspace either. Is there any particularly compelling reason why gay marriage should not be allowed? I guess you could make some argument that stable gay relationships aren't worth the lost tax revenue or something, but you never hear that. It's all about gay marriage threatening straight marriage, whatever the hell that means.

Xpost

[Jon Miller]

They did have gay people 200 years ago. You cant use the "new thing" reasoning.

JM

[DaShi]

Just to be clear, do you think reg's point is correct, Jon?

[a.kitman]

Yep, I think that law givers should pass laws to do so like they did in Washington.

JM

uhm i thought you were against gay marriage? have i misunderstood you that badly?

[Hauldren Collider]

Personally, I'm not opposed to gay marriage (it is an issue I care very little about), but I am opposed to courts trying to legislate. I have no problem with states passing laws to recognize it. I suspect Jon's position is similar to my own.

I do think that allowing gay marriage and banning polygamy is hypocritical, however. I am uncomfortable with polygamy, which leads to me being somewhat ambivalent about gay marriage. Ultimately though I just don't care enough about it to pick a side.

[DaShi]

Maybe you should just change how you think.