Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[Ben Kenobi]

The act is prima facie bigoted. The argument is whether or not it's an appropriate bigotry, or not.

I rest my case then. "Bigotry" as you've defined it is nothing different than holding a contrary opinion.

I suggest that many of the people in California _have changed their minds_ and are embarrassed to have held that opinion at one time (see Clinton, Bill).

I submit that those who uphold the teachings of the Catholic church that homosexuality is sinful are not embarrassed in the least to hold said opinion. Sure, some people may have changed their mind, but until we have actual documentary evidence of this, then I'm not sure why you would assume this to be the case for even a substantial portion of the opposition - let alone the majority of it.

Hey at least be honest about it- I don't argue that you are embarrassed to embrace sodomy, do I? Then why do you turn around and argue that I must be embarrassed to say that homosexuality is sinful?

It has nothing to do with the 52-48 and everything to do with the 61%+ opposed to it now.

It has everything to do with the 52-48. That is what proposition 8 was and is - and that is what is before the courts now. You want 60+ to matter - run your own ballot proposition.

[snoopy369]

If it's nobody's business to know who I am married to, then why can't I marry 2 women? Yes, it is someone's business. This is why you are pushing for the state to recognize your opinion and enforce it by law.

Let's be honest here, MtG.

Largely because it would be hard for polygamy to be permitted without some issues arising relating to misogyny and womens' rights. For example, let's say a man and a woman are married. Twenty years later, he decides to marry a second woman. Under the current system, he must first divorce his wife, and give her a reasonable divorce settlement (half of her community property, etc.) Under a polygamist system, he might simply marry again, and cease reasonably supporting his first wife - staying above any legal limits, but only _just_ within them. That would be highly unfair to the first wife. You also would likely see significantly larger problems with spousal abuse. Finally, you would have serious questions to resolve regarding the estate; those problems somewhat exist now with divorces (divorce 3 times, not married at the end, whose kids get the estate?) but would amplify with a polygamist society.

Polyandry would theoretically have the same problem, but given that men still have somewhat more earning power (as well as typically being physically dominant), it's unlikely to be as severe.

Honestly though, it's probably only a matter of time before multiple marriages are legal in some fashion. You could probably work through the issues; requiring both spouses to consent to a third spouse would be required, and permitting unilateral divorce without cause probably would be as well. I think that once we reach true gender equality (which is not very far off; we'll likely never reach salary equality until the external uterus is common, but at least a reasonable parity of salaries and political power) this will be something that is possible to do in a fair and equitable fashion.

More likely the true barrier will be the lack of people wanting to have multiple marriages - I can't imagine it's more than a tenth of a percent of the population at the current time. Although who knows, one of the rationales for not having gay marriage was not enough people wanted to, and once it became a possibility that argument went away. You'd need #polygamy #polyandry to at least trend on twitter first though

[Hauldren Collider]

And now that this has become a pileup of everyone on poly vs. ben, I'm out.

[Ben Kenobi]

We havent developed the law far enough to deal with a 3 person marriage.

I rest my case then. Thank you MRT. There is nothing wrong then with 3 people being 'married' to each other, or 4 or 5 or 17.

Since you've argued 'nobody needs to know whether I am or not married', then what exactly does marriage mean? Absolutely nothing.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your values are harmful where as love is not harmful.

I'm not the one on the record of supporting bigamy and polygamy. Enjoying "Big Love" I suppose?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ant-miscegenation laws were coupled, pun intended, with illicit cohabitation laws. Color was entirely relevant

Arguing that color is relevant doesn't advance the argument that sex is irrelevant.

[MRT144]

I rest my case then. Thank you MRT. There is nothing wrong then with 3 people being 'married' to each other, or 4 or 5 or 17.

Since you've argued 'nobody needs to know whether I am or not married', then what exactly does marriage mean? Absolutely nothing.

It means whatever you want it to mean. Why do you want to deprive people of legal standing of marriage?

And you keep driving on this point about polygamy like you have some sort of "AHA, GOTCHYA" point but we already went over this - most people here are fine with polygamy as long as no one is being exploited.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Humor me. Why can't I marry two women if I love them both? It's all about loving and being with the people you love, right?

So to Saudi where you belong, and you can have four.

Civil marriage is also about dozens of distinct property ownership, child custody, visitation, survivorship and other rights. So in your polygamy framework, how do you divide those interests? If you die, do your widows have any hierarchical rights and interests? Are they separate or divided. In other words, how do you resolve joint tenancy, tenancy in common or tenancy by the entirety rights arising from trinary, quaternary or other multi-party relationships? Find a simple, consistent way to resolve the cans of worms, and frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about polygamy in any form of multiple marriage. It doesn't affect me one bit.

[MRT144]

I'm not the one on the record of supporting bigamy and polygamy. Enjoying "Big Love" I suppose?

So all polyamorous relationships are harmful. You're so stupid.

[snoopy369]

I rest my case then. "Bigotry" as you've defined it is nothing different than holding a contrary opinion.

No, bigotry as defined in the english language is oppressing someone else for having a contrary opinion. That's rather different from simply holding that opinion... the _action_ is what is relevant.

I submit that those who uphold the teachings of the Catholic church that homosexuality is sinful are not embarrassed in the least to hold said opinion. Sure, some people may have changed their mind, but until we have actual documentary evidence of this, then I'm not sure why you would assume this to be the case for even a substantial portion of the opposition - let alone the majority of it.

Even the Catholic Church doesn't really care about this anymore, to a large extent.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/5706/roman-catholic-church-historical-reversal-backed-gay-marriage-in-new-hampshire

But it doesn't matter; I simply argued that many people will feel embarrassed, and thus want to clear that feeling out by passing a new proposition. The fact that some people (~30%?) won't is irrelevant.

Hey at least be honest about it- I don't argue that you are embarrassed to embrace sodomy, do I? Then why do you turn around and argue that I must be embarrassed to say that homosexuality is sinful?

Again, I didn't argue _you_ must be. I said _some people_ will be. I don't care what you want to believe.

It has everything to do with the 52-48. That is what proposition 8 was and is - and that is what is before the courts now. You want 60+ to matter - run your own ballot proposition.

You don't even remember the original statement, do you.

I said that I suspected California would pass a new ballot proposition confirming gay marriage in the state, even if Prop 8 is invalidated, because enough people in the state would feel embarrassed at having supported Prop 8 and/or not opposed it sufficiently and/or being associated with the people who did support it that they needed a strong statement pro-gay marriage. That was the entire point - my supposition as to the feelings of some percentage of Californians. Not a statement of fact, not a statement of they-should-feel this way; simply a guess as to what would happen based on my opinion on their emotional state.

Why was this such a big issue for you? Just reading comprehension problems?

[Ben Kenobi]

Largely because it would be hard for polygamy to be permitted without some issues arising relating to misogyny and womens' rights.

That really doesn't address the point, now does it? If someone told you that polygyny was restrictive of women's rights then I'm not sure what to say here. At the very best you could only argue this to a small subset of the options and not to others. The argument that certain relationships should be prohibited because they can be abusive strikes me as rather paternalistic, and I'm not sure how tenable they would be arguing that only the class of relationship with at least one more woman than men is inherently wrong but all the other relationships are ok.

Honestly though, it's probably only a matter of time before multiple marriages are legal in some fashion.

Hence the points I've raised here. The combination of arguing that marriage is private business and that private desires trump public scrutiny will inevitably destroy the protections that marriage provides to women. Perhaps you don't see this, but I do see it happening already. You may think, "this is a great argument that gets me what I want", but it doesn't, not really. There is a reason for societal regulation of marriage and a big part of it is that it does protect women.

I see a lot of informal arrangements - that, and I'll be honest, aren't working very well at all. Marriage in all but name seems to be morphing into all but marriage at least on the woman's side of the deal. All the regulations and the requirements and none of the benefits.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Arguing that color is relevant doesn't advance the argument that sex is irrelevant.

I keep forgetting you have only two digits of working IQ and reading comprehension problems, Forrest. I'm not arguing either. I'm using a thick coating of racial sarcasm to point out the ridiculousness of bigoted groups using legislative powers to compel limitations or regulations on personal relationships.

Explain to me how you personally or any third party other than the consenting participants are actually harmed if MrFun or Asher or any other gay wants to marry their same-sex partner?

[Ben Kenobi]

Why do you want to deprive people of legal standing of marriage?

That's a good question.

Why for me personally? Because I believe homosexuality is sinful and harmful to the participants.

[Ben Kenobi]

Civil marriage is also about dozens of distinct property ownership, child custody, visitation, survivorship and other rights

What makes you think that you can remove one thing without other people removing things?

[Sava]

Because I believe homosexuality is sinful and harmful to the participants.

I believe your face is sinful and harmful to everybody.