Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by martha

I was thinking about this whole "gay marriage/polygamy" bullshit the other morning.

Have any of the countries or states that have legalized SSM (I really hate that acronym) gone on to legalize polygamy?

Is this a real and credible threat?

Or is it just bullshit?

To be very honest, sometimes I think anyone wanting to legalize polygamy may have an argument, considering that polygamy is supported by some religions, like Islam and Mormonism. At least they can claim freedom of religion, and the fact that polygamy dates back to ancient times, unlike SSM. And if there were any SSM back in the day, it was not as common as polygamy.

And then there are those who really believe that no one has the right to say that multiple people can't be in love as a group and can't get married. I think some time ago, some lawyer in Brazil somehow got three people married and had other clients who wanted polygamous marriages.

But as you said, any country that allows SSM has not allowed polygamy either. Plus, there aren't a large number of people lining up and demanding their right for polygamous unions. So I don't think worrying about polygamy is really worth it. And I don't think there will be a demand in the future. Besides, having two people in a relationship is hard enough, who would want a third or fourth? Heck, some people are swearing off marriage and relationships altogether because its such hard work.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

Some people think it is their right to stone a woman for looking at a man, or driving a car... your point is?

Well, one difference is no harm is done to anyone in a polygamous marriage (assuming everyone involved are consenting adults).

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

Well, one difference is no harm is done to anyone in a polygamous marriage (assuming everyone involved are consenting adults).

Not accounting for the financial harms imposed on the state and taxpayers at large.

[Galeongirl]

Originally Posted by AEON

Well, one difference is no harm is done to anyone in a polygamous marriage (assuming everyone involved are consenting adults).

True, but in our current financial system it would give heaps and heaps of troubles. While SSM gives benefits to gay people, rather than trouble for everyone else in the financial system. How would we do custody, partnership benefits, marriage benefits, when divorce occurs alimentation rights. Everything is dependent on the relationship being two people being married. If people want another man or woman on the side, be my guest, but marriage won't work in our current financial system.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

I can get you 1972.

Baker v. Nelson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's actually interesting, something I was not aware of. But anyone can sue declaring their rights infringed upon. Where were the legal scholars, politicians, historians, journalists, religious leaders, etc, writing amicus briefs on his part?

Hey, 1972! I get it. I was 12 and I had no idea my favorite singer Elton John was gay (not that many 12 year-olds including myself even knew what "gay" was in 1972) because he and his management knew such a fact would ruin his career. And it did in 1976. Society has changed, for the better in that regard.

The point being though, throughout history there has always been critics and opponents of slavery, segregation, apartheid and all the other great human wrongs that SSM advocates like to compare their struggle to; yet we are to believe that -- in just 40 years - we have gone from "no argument for it" to "no argument against it."

[Irvine511]

Other than your own personal discomfort, what is the argument against it?

[Galeongirl]

Did Elton John's career ended in 1976? As far as I'm aware he's made some great music since, and is still regarded as a great artist.... Last time I checked you didn't have to be straight to make good music (Queen anyone?).

[INDY500]

[QUOTE=Irvine511;7751895]Is there something wrong with gay people forming nuclear families? I don't see how SSM does anything but further the social engineering goals of the Right, as INDY has laid out.
[quote]
That is an argument for SSM. I have never said there are not arguments for it, only that I find arguments against it more compelling. It is only The Herd leftists (many on display here) that declare "There is no argument against same-sex marriage," or "Opposition to same-sex marriage is based only on ignorance or homophobia."

There is the libertarian argument of live and let live but we don't hear that argument here because a libertarian would also oppose the Welfare State, judicial oligarchy, oppressive government regulation and intrusion into all aspects of life, etc.

Another good argument is equality before the law. The equality of individuals not the equality of identity politics. I support the legal recognition and granting of equality in the form of civil unions. It was a strong case to point out that gay couples were denied visitation in hospitals, the legal right to share inheritances and other basic human dignities. That the Marriage Equality movement has gone from those early pleas of compassion and fairness to "We don't give a damn about your constitutional rights, bake our wedding cake or we'll see you in court" speaks volumes about the totalitarian nature of the Left.

Racial discrimination in marriage, as was the case up until 1967, is precisely analogous to discrimination in marriage on the basis of sexual orientation.

It is not because there is no real physiological difference between races but great differences between the sexes.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

Did Elton John's career ended in 1976? As far as I'm aware he's made some great music since, and is still regarded as a great artist.... Last time I checked you didn't have to be straight to make good music (Queen anyone?).

He disappeared after the Rolling Stone article. Check the charts. He also separated with his writing partner and fired his kick-ass band which might have something to do with it.

It was the MTV era before he started selling records again. He also rehired his band and Bernie Taupin.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by deep

Virginia is for lovers.


Virginia's New Attorney General Will Not Defend Gay-Marriage Ban : The Two-Way : NPR

Irvine, you live in Virginia. Did the new attorney general run on this during the election?
Didn't he win in a recount by just 800 votes?
Did he swear an oath to uphold the constitution the the commonwealth of Virginia?
Do you think he would still have won if he had been forthright about overturning the will of the people in regards to their marriage laws?
Are you proud of your new attorney general?
Can you think outside of your box just long enough to see what a dangerous precedent is being set in Virginia, California and by our president when members of the executive branch, who are sworn to uphold the law, decide "Hey, I don't like that law." and by fiat overrule legislation or popular vote?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

That is an argument for SSM. I have never said there are not arguments for it, only that I find arguments against it more compelling. It is only The Herd leftists (many on display here) that declare "There is no argument against same-sex marriage," or "Opposition to same-sex marriage is based only on ignorance or homophobia."

what are the arguments against? they don't seem to be holding up too well in courts across the country, including redder-than-red states like OK and UT.

Another good argument is equality before the law. The equality of individuals not the equality of identity politics. I support the legal recognition and granting of equality in the form of civil unions. It was a strong case to point out that gay couples were denied visitation in hospitals, the legal right to share inheritances and other basic human dignities.

so you support separate but equal? doesn't this actually dilute the importance of marriage, offering a marriage-lite alternative? and why the need to draw these utterly semantical distinctions between gay and straight couples if you think gay couples deserve equality in all but name?

That the Marriage Equality movement has gone from those early pleas of compassion and fairness to "We don't give a damn about your constitutional rights, bake our wedding cake or we'll see you in court" speaks volumes about the totalitarian nature of the Left.

it's totalitarian to point out that your rights don't include the right to deny rights to others?

It is not because there is no real physiological difference between races but great differences between the sexes.

what are the requirements of marriage that cannot be performed by two people of the same sex?

and you realize that 70 years ago there would have been many people pointing out the physiological differences -- and especially differences in intelligence -- between the races, and deep concern for the interracial children born of such unions. what about the children?

[martha]

[QUOTE=INDY500;7756011]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

That the Marriage Equality movement has gone from those early pleas of compassion and fairness to "We don't give a damn about your constitutional rights, bake our wedding cake or we'll see you in court" speaks volumes about the totalitarian nature of the Left.

This is the part I don't get. How does Irvine getting married trample anyone else's CONSTITUTIONAL rights???

Where is there a Constitutional right to not bake a fucking wedding cake?

No anser will be forthcoming, I know that.

[martha]

Originally Posted by martha

I was thinking about this whole "gay marriage/polygamy" bullshit the other morning.

Have any of the countries or states that have legalized SSM (I really hate that acronym) gone on to legalize polygamy?

Is this a real and credible threat?

Or is it just bullshit?

Only Galeongirl has answered so far. None of the folks actually using this argument have answered.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Irvine, you live in Virginia. Did the new attorney general run on this during the election?
Didn't he win in a recount by just 800 votes?
Did he swear an oath to uphold the constitution the the commonwealth of Virginia?
Do you think he would still have won if he had been forthright about overturning the will of the people in regards to their marriage laws?
Are you proud of your new attorney general?
Can you think outside of your box just long enough to see what a dangerous precedent is being set in Virginia, California and by our president when members of the executive branch, who are sworn to uphold the law, decide "Hey, I don't like that law." and by fiat overrule legislation or popular vote?

i don't live in Virginia. i live in DC. i used to live in Virginia. and before that DC. one of the reasons we left Virginia was because of that awful 2006 law.

yes, i think he still would have won. in fact, he might have won by more because VA is such a strange state. the northern suburbs are modern, educated, wealthy, and therefore quite blue. however, state races often make little sense to them -- what goes on in Richmond seems a million miles away from the diverse dynamism of the Dulles corridor or Arlington and Alexandria. a lot of people living in those states are from elsewhere, so when they hear about the craziness that goes on in Richmond -- forcing women to have a transvaginal ultrasound? wtf? -- they can't relate, and are more likely not to vote in off-year elections, but they do turn out in presidential races when national issues are on the ticket. this is why Obama won VA twice, why the Senators are D's, and why the state will be blue for the foreseeable future. had this been an issue in the 2013 campaign, it might have actually motivated more in the blue DC-suburbs to get out and vote since this is now an issue that moves the D base.

i'd also argue that Cuccinelli's rather shocking anti-gay record worked against him in VA. it shouldn't have been hard to beat a loser like McAuliffe in a purple state, but Cuccinelli was a special breed of crazy.

i am proud of our new attorney general. he realized that the 2006 law -- one of the worst in the country -- was unconstitutional, especially in light of the DOMA ruling. how can he, as the AG, enforce a law that is unconstitutional? you're constantly deifying the Constitution as if it were written by the hand of God himself, who is he to deny the protections of the 14th Amendment to the citizens of Virginia? there is precedent for an AG to do such a thing.

further, have you seen the polls on this issue? a majority of Virginians support SSM, and it's adoption will make VA more competitive, especially since DC and MD have SSM.

i know very well two women with two adopted children who are waiting with baited breath to see if they'll be allowed to be married. i hope it will happen soon.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by martha

Only Galeongirl has answered so far. None of the folks actually using this argument have answered.

I believe I answered too

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Diemen

How charitable of you.

Regarding your request, I fail to see the point in it since same sex marriage is in no way analogous to affirmative action. And w/r/t the 14th amendment, I'm sure the core issue you're arguing is this:



The only way I can see same sex marriage coming into conflict with this is if one believes that homosexuality is a choice instead of an innate characteristic of one's being. Because if you agree that homosexuality is just as innate to a gay man as heterosexuality is to a straight man, then I fail to see how "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" is anything but an argument in favor of same sex marriage, not against.

And if you think homosexuality is a choice, well...

Well what? I might be in agreement with Camille Paglia. Obviously individuals are born with traits but sexuality like any action is always a choice. One chooses to be celibate or promiscuous for example. In addition, there are environmental, family and sexual abuse issues. Homosexuality is part of the human condition but no, I don't feel one is born gay which is not to say that there are not men who find, for example, the thought of sex with women repulsive.
Many lesbians have long insisted that their homosexuality was an expression of feminist empowerment. Which explains the many examples of ex-lesbians.

It's also not to say that it's not a very complicated issue as simple as "praying away the gay" or however I imagine some of you will twist my social heresy.

By the way, Ms Paglia (an atheist and certainly no conservative) also called out the fascist nature of gay activists ie. Duck Dynasty and as Irvine will surely tell us she is hated by them for straying from the accepted orthodoxy.

I gave you an honest answer now it's Indy's turn to ask a tough question.

The current activist dogma states that sexual orientation is innate while one's sex is subjective and malleable.
Do you believe that?
How many, to use the current accepted language, genders are there Diemen?

[cobl04]

"I don't feel one is born gay"

Case closed, people. Can't argue with that..!

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i don't live in Virginia. i live in DC. i used to live in Virginia. and before that DC. one of the reasons we left Virginia was because of that awful 2006 law.

yes, i think he still would have won. in fact, he might have won by more because VA is such a strange state. the northern suburbs are modern, educated, wealthy, and therefore quite blue. however, state races often make little sense to them -- what goes on in Richmond seems a million miles away from the diverse dynamism of the Dulles corridor or Arlington and Alexandria. a lot of people living in those states are from elsewhere, so when they hear about the craziness that goes on in Richmond -- forcing women to have a transvaginal ultrasound? wtf? -- they can't relate, and are more likely not to vote in off-year elections, but they do turn out in presidential races when national issues are on the ticket. this is why Obama won VA twice, why the Senators are D's, and why the state will be blue for the foreseeable future. had this been an issue in the 2013 campaign, it might have actually motivated more in the blue DC-suburbs to get out and vote since this is now an issue that moves the D base.

i'd also argue that Cuccinelli's rather shocking anti-gay record worked against him in VA. it shouldn't have been hard to beat a loser like McAuliffe in a purple state, but Cuccinelli was a special breed of crazy.

i am proud of our new attorney general. he realized that the 2006 law -- one of the worst in the country -- was unconstitutional, especially in light of the DOMA ruling. how can he, as the AG, enforce a law that is unconstitutional? you're constantly deifying the Constitution as if it were written by the hand of God himself, who is he to deny the protections of the 14th Amendment to the citizens of Virginia? there is precedent for an AG to do such a thing.

further, have you seen the polls on this issue? a majority of Virginians support SSM, and it's adoption will make VA more competitive, especially since DC and MD have SSM.

i know very well two women with two adopted children who are waiting with baited breath to see if they'll be allowed to be married. i hope it will happen soon.

I'm sure your analysis is mostly correct but it doesn't hurt that Northern Virginia has several of the nation's wealthiest counties largely immune from the recession because of the explosion in federal spending. Kinda makes for a natural breeding ground for Democrats doesn't it?

But we can't talk about the income inequality between counties that surround Washington D.C and the rest of the country can we?

[Irvine511]

Setting how you "feel" aside -- since your opinion is more important than the lives of millions of gay people, many of whom have been violently killed because they are gay -- what observations have led you to the conclusion that no one is born gay and this there is a choice that is made?

I agree that actual sex of any kind involves a choice, but that confuses action with orientation.

[cobl04]

In Stephen Fry's Out There doco, I'm pretty sure he said he has never had anal sex. He was arguing with a Ugandan pastor, saying that he just is gay, and that it's about love, not "sodomy".