Dumping gay marriage prop in California is getting intense

[opebo]

I'm curious - did you hate a gay before Christ entered you, or only after?

Please don't.

Actually I was genuinely curious.. but you have a point, Brittain33.

[CARLHAYDEN]

What principle is it that says homosexuals should be allowed to marry but plural marriages should not be allowed?

I would say it is a pragmatic argument. We have a structure of contract and marriage law that is framed around the idea of two parents with rights to property and children, and we have many same-sex couples leading lives parallel to those of opposite-sex couples but without those legal protections for our families. Extending that umbrella to include same-sex couples is a simple change because it only involves making the laws blind to gender, which has been an ongoing process anyway. Considering evolving assumptions about custody and alimony which shouldn't be determined solely or even largely by gender, but on an individual basis. Consider, too, how historically marriage meant that women signed over all their property and even legal identities to their husbands, and how anachronistic that would seem today.

Plural marriages have two obstacles. One, they're just very rare and only found in isolated communities, so  there isn't the perception that society has moved out ahead of the law into a void that needs to be filled. Secondly, we'd have to change our contract law and legal framework for families to go from two parents to more, and that creates a whole lot of dilemmas and practical situations that no one knows how to answer, in part because we have so few models of families living this life to indicate a possible new framework. It's a much more complex fix and there's far fewer people in need of it.

I'm sure one could argue that it's all about principle and if it's good for the half-million same-sex families  raising children it should be good for a much smaller population or even one, but that's not how law works, IMO.

Essentially what you are saying is that principles be damned, gays are special and deserve special treatment. 

[Alcon]

What principle is it that says homosexuals should be allowed to marry but plural marriages should not be allowed?

I would say it is a pragmatic argument. We have a structure of contract and marriage law that is framed around the idea of two parents with rights to property and children, and we have many same-sex couples leading lives parallel to those of opposite-sex couples but without those legal protections for our families. Extending that umbrella to include same-sex couples is a simple change because it only involves making the laws blind to gender, which has been an ongoing process anyway. Considering evolving assumptions about custody and alimony which shouldn't be determined solely or even largely by gender, but on an individual basis. Consider, too, how historically marriage meant that women signed over all their property and even legal identities to their husbands, and how anachronistic that would seem today.

Plural marriages have two obstacles. One, they're just very rare and only found in isolated communities, so  there isn't the perception that society has moved out ahead of the law into a void that needs to be filled. Secondly, we'd have to change our contract law and legal framework for families to go from two parents to more, and that creates a whole lot of dilemmas and practical situations that no one knows how to answer, in part because we have so few models of families living this life to indicate a possible new framework. It's a much more complex fix and there's far fewer people in need of it.

I'm sure one could argue that it's all about principle and if it's good for the half-million same-sex families  raising children it should be good for a much smaller population or even one, but that's not how law works, IMO.

Essentially what you are saying is that principles be damned, gays are special and deserve special treatment. 

No, he's saying that pragmatism has to enter the equation above philosophical purity.  The idea is that governmental sustainability must be brought into a holistic view of the situation, which several posters in this thread (e.g., muon2) have argued without you attacking them.

Or, alternatively, his argument is that marriage should be defined as "two consenting adults," instead of "two consenting adults of the opposite sex" -- which is not really any more philosophically unsound than "marriage is between a man and a woman."  There's a strong pragmatic argument that the potential for abuse is much greater when there are more than two partners in a contract, and that the governmental twisting involved does not justify the small population it would affect.  Of course, that's in the past been a justification against same-sex marriage, but there's an argument that the burden on government v. burden of non-recognition has shifted toward the latter; probably not so with plural marriages.

Calling that "gays deserve special treatment" is weird, because they'd be getting identical treatment to heterosexuals, but whatever?

[afleitch]

I use to believe that you are not born gay, however in recent years after research and being around some gay folks I now believe you are born gay.

Yeah. I don't know if I was born gay or it comes from environment (I was not molested, thank you very much, in response to another poster) or whatnot, but whatever it is, it was clearly a physical manifestation and is nothing I ever had any say in.

well, I was also born a liar...so what does being born that way have to with it?

I hate to be pendantic here, in child development the ability to lie only really manifests itself from age 2 to 3. Due a limited vocabulary, a young toddler responding to a question in such a way that we may perceive the response as a lie, may be due simply to a lack of vocabulary or undersanding of what words mean.

So no. You were not born a liar.

[CARLHAYDEN]

What principle is it that says homosexuals should be allowed to marry but plural marriages should not be allowed?

I would say it is a pragmatic argument. We have a structure of contract and marriage law that is framed around the idea of two parents with rights to property and children, and we have many same-sex couples leading lives parallel to those of opposite-sex couples but without those legal protections for our families. Extending that umbrella to include same-sex couples is a simple change because it only involves making the laws blind to gender, which has been an ongoing process anyway. Considering evolving assumptions about custody and alimony which shouldn't be determined solely or even largely by gender, but on an individual basis. Consider, too, how historically marriage meant that women signed over all their property and even legal identities to their husbands, and how anachronistic that would seem today.

Plural marriages have two obstacles. One, they're just very rare and only found in isolated communities, so  there isn't the perception that society has moved out ahead of the law into a void that needs to be filled. Secondly, we'd have to change our contract law and legal framework for families to go from two parents to more, and that creates a whole lot of dilemmas and practical situations that no one knows how to answer, in part because we have so few models of families living this life to indicate a possible new framework. It's a much more complex fix and there's far fewer people in need of it.

I'm sure one could argue that it's all about principle and if it's good for the half-million same-sex families  raising children it should be good for a much smaller population or even one, but that's not how law works, IMO.

Essentially what you are saying is that principles be damned, gays are special and deserve special treatment. 

No, he's saying that pragmatism has to enter the equation above philosophical purity.  The idea is that governmental sustainability must be brought into a holistic view of the situation, which several posters in this thread (e.g., muon2) have argued without you attacking them.

Or, alternatively, his argument is that marriage should be defined as "two consenting adults," instead of "two consenting adults of the opposite sex" -- which is not really any more philosophically unsound than "marriage is between a man and a woman."  There's a strong pragmatic argument that the potential for abuse is much greater when there are more than two partners in a contract, and that the governmental twisting involved does not justify the small population it would affect.  Of course, that's in the past been a justification against same-sex marriage, but there's an argument that the burden on government v. burden of non-recognition has shifted toward the latter; probably not so with plural marriages.

Calling that "gays deserve special treatment" is weird, because they'd be getting identical treatment to heterosexuals, but whatever?

First, I find it intresting that you lefties find that when a conservative disagrees with a contention made by another lefty, such disagreement is deemed an "attack" on the poster.

Second, its nice to see that lefties follow the party line rather than principles, and when inconsistencies are pointed out, they engage in "pragmatic" gobbledygook.  Throw in a few catch phrases like "holistic," and "sustainability," and no logic is required.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I use to believe that you are not born gay, however in recent years after research and being around some gay folks I now believe you are born gay.

Yeah. I don't know if I was born gay or it comes from environment (I was not molested, thank you very much, in response to another poster) or whatnot, but whatever it is, it was clearly a physical manifestation and is nothing I ever had any say in.

well, I was also born a liar...so what does being born that way have to with it?

I hate to be pendantic here, in child development the ability to lie only really manifests itself from age 2 to 3. Due a limited vocabulary, a young toddler responding to a question in such a way that we may perceive the response as a lie, may be due simply to a lack of vocabulary or undersanding of what words mean.

So no. You were not born a liar.

obviously, I didn't start lying on the first day of my life, but I inherited a sinful nature that predisposed me to sin. 

[Alcon]

First, I find it intresting that you lefties find that when a conservative disagrees with a contention made by another lefty, such disagreement is deemed an "attack" on the poster.

An attack on his ideological consistency, then? 

As opposed to call me a "lefty" ad nauseam, which I guess is just your favorite adjective, not meant as an implied attack?

Second, its nice to see that lefties follow the party line rather than principles, and when inconsistencies are pointed out, they engage in "pragmatic" gobbledygook.  Throw in a few catch phrases like "holistic," and "sustainability," and no logic is required.  

So, you do not believe that a philosophically-sound government policy should not be followed because its value is outweighed by its difficulty of implementing?  Unless one dismisses all arguments that gay marriage may be impractical relative to its benefit, there's no hypocrisy there.

I was just pointing out that you were botching his argument, not endorsing it one way or the other.  Apparently you need definitions of those words, if you thought I was using them as a "catch phrase."  Here you go: holsitic, sustainability.  I hope you are less confused all-around, now.

[Earth]

Essentially what you are saying is that principles be damned, gays are special and deserve special treatment. 

Homosexuals are no more "special" than heterosexuals. People aren't asking for homosexuals to gain special treatment, just that they receive the same rights as heterosexuals. It's simple. People could do themselves a big favor and realize that marriage need not be a religiously motivated, or mandated institution, just a union that is legally recognized by the state. As far as I'm concerned, no one should be in the position to dictate who can and cannot consensually marry.

[Torie]

OK, beyond all the sound and fury, signifying nothing, why do we care we about the nomenclature of gay legal relationships, inasmuch as civil unions attend all the legal rights and duties as marriage, except with respect to social security under Federal law?  Is it the appelation, the appelation, is the thing, which is the ultimate trump card, and are we just jacking off about this?

Because, in practice in New Jersey, civil unions have proven unworkable. There are thousands of service workers who are trained in treating marriages a certain way and non-married relationships another way, and when someone comes up and says "civil union," they get confused or get it wrong or use it as an excuse to play dumb. You would think they would all know, and they should have gotten some memos from their employers, but it doesn't work that way. Corporations which, one would think, we compelled to treat civil unions the same as marriages are lawyering up to prevent actually doing so and are looking for loopholes to avoid giving the same benefits. This has happened over and over again and causes innumerable problems to same-sex couples in order to provide... what benefit? Avoiding hurting the sensibilities of people who aren't directly affected and who choose not to observe a distinction between civil law and religious institutions?

Civil unions aren't just a nomenclature difference. By distinguishing between the names, the states inadvertently created a new legal structure. People who have a lifetime of experience dealing with existing legal structures of marriage don't know what to do or don't care, and the lawyers are swarming in to poke at every crack and rotten board to knock it apart. "Separate but equal" is just not working. As with Jim Crow, it becomes an excuse for people who don't or can't accept it to make it unequal.

Believe me, if it could work out and give same-sex couples the same rights without offending traditionalists, I wouldn't care as much. Unfortunately that's just not how it's working out and this imposes a burden on same-sex people. It's not mental masturbation.

Thanks B33. I didn't know that. Of course, I don't support the difference in nomenclature anyway. I never have. I suppose however as a fix for the chamber of horrors which you elucidate  that laws could be passed prohibiting drawing a distinction between the two vis a vis employment benefits, intestacy laws, etc., while preserving the "pristiness" of the use of the term "marriage" for those whose genitals are built differently.  The big fiscal issue is whether gay couples can get Social Security benefits and file tax returns jointly under federal law. I support that too, but it will entail a substantial expense.

[??????????]

As far as I'm concerned, no one should be in the position to dictate who can and cannot consensually marry.

So can five guys marry one woman? How about the other way around? Should sisters and brothers be allowed to marry? Where does it end?

[Alcon]

As far as I'm concerned, no one should be in the position to dictate who can and cannot consensually marry.

So can five guys marry one woman? How about the other way around? Should sisters and brothers be allowed to marry? Where does it end?

I hate to play this card, but we've already covered that debate several pages back -- including from other perspectives, such as that being a defense of anti-miscegenation laws.  If you care, you may want to read the thread for it.

(That's not a "f**k off and read the thread" thing, you're just more likely to find a response there.)

[Torie]

As far as I'm concerned, no one should be in the position to dictate who can and cannot consensually marry.

So can five guys marry one woman? How about the other way around? Should sisters and brothers be allowed to marry? Where does it end?

Polygamy raises a series of policy problems and issues that do not arise in the case of the issue of a gay marriage involving but one pair. The slope in my view is not that slippery, indeed, hardly a slope at all, much less a slippery one.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Essentially what you are saying is that principles be damned, gays are special and deserve special treatment. 

Homosexuals are no more "special" than heterosexuals. People aren't asking for homosexuals to gain special treatment, just that they receive the same rights as heterosexuals. It's simple. People could do themselves a big favor and realize that marriage need not be a religiously motivated, or mandated institution, just a union that is legally recognized by the state. As far as I'm concerned, no one should be in the position to dictate who can and cannot consensually marry.

Earth,

Apparently you have not been following the full conversation.

Alcon and the other lefties on this site would support 'gay marriage' but deny multiple partner marriage based on their own personal approval of homosexuality and opposition to multipoe partner marriage.

They denounce others for opposing 'gay marriage' on the basis of personal disapproval.  Its sort of like a person denouncing discrimination against blacks, but then supporting discrimination against asians. 

[Alcon]

Um, CARL?

I was just pointing out that you were botching his argument, not endorsing it one way or the other.

And your other analogy doesn't make sense.  Endorsing heterosexual, but not homosexual marriage, as you do, fits your analogy just as aptly as homosexual marriage/polygamous marriage.

[Brittain33]

Apparently you have not been following the full conversation.

Oh, the irony.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Um, CARL?

I was just pointing out that you were botching his argument, not endorsing it one way or the other.

And your other analogy doesn't make sense.  Endorsing heterosexual, but not homosexual marriage, as you do, fits your analogy just as aptly as homosexual marriage/polygamous marriage.

I realize it is hard for you to remember and understand what I have previously posted, so I will try to simplify it for you.

Marriage is a legal institution whose primary purpose is the protection of children who may issue as a consequence of the consummation of the union,

Homosexuals couples cannot naturally conceive children.

I have no problem with adults who wish to have a legal relationship while cohabiting but for whom children are not involved, to have the protection of a 'civil union.'

So, the distinction is quite clear.

[Brittain33]

Marriage is a legal institution whose primary purpose is the protection of children who may issue as a consequence of the consummation of the union,

Does marriage protect the children who may be adopted by the couple in that union? How about children conceived through medical means and not actual consummation?

I know what the answer is legally and for most people, even those who oppose same-sex marriage; was wondering if you're going to stand on principle and disagree, or revise your answer.

[Alcon]

I realize it is hard for you to remember and understand what I have previously posted, so I will try to simplify it for you.

Marriage is a legal institution whose primary purpose is the protection of children who may issue as a consequence of the consummation of the union,

Homosexuals couples cannot naturally conceive children.

I have no problem with adults who wish to have a legal relationship while cohabiting but for whom children are not involved, to have the protection of a 'civil union.'

So, the distinction is quite clear.

OK.  So, let me get this straight:

1. You have a distinction between heterosexual versus homosexual marriage -- procreation -- and that is a fundamental bedrock belief of yours.

2. You have a distinction between heterosexual AND homosexual marriage versus polygamy -- exclusivity (and/or practicality of governmental enforcement being sufficient to not justify limitation) -- but this is analogous to being prejudiced against one race but not another.

um?

And I'll note that you didn't offer any apology for, or recognition of, the fact that you totally misrepresented my clearly-stated opinion.  I mean, I would note it, but I'm not sure you genuinely care.

[Alcon]

Marriage is a legal institution whose primary purpose is the protection of children who may issue as a consequence of the consummation of the union,

Does marriage protect the children who may be adopted by the couple in that union? How about children conceived through medical means and not actual consummation?

I know what the answer is legally and for most people, even those who oppose same-sex marriage; was wondering if you're going to stand on principle and disagree, or revise your answer.

That's another good point.  CARL, you criticized britain for putting pragmatism before philosophical purity.  Why are you not clamoring to revoke the marriages of infertile couples, or those who have no interest in having children, etc.?

Or do you support that actively?

[afleitch]

Marriage is a legal institution whose primary purpose is the protection of children who may issue as a consequence of the consummation of the union,

That is not the primary purpose of marriage. The number of aristocratic bastards born out of wedlock who were treated well and enobled 400 years ago shows that even then children could be provided for. Providing you have money, or if not that then you actually give a sh-t about your own children.

Moving on to today, marriage can also be the worst environment for children who have an abusive parent or parents. A divorce can, in such cases, be of the greatest benefit.

And finally, regardles of marital status, the children have hereditary rights. They have, under current laws (and I am speaking of Scots Law here) the right to inherit, or contest the inheritance of a deceased parent. The biological parent of a child is entitled by law to be supported financially by that parent. Whether or not one parent is married to another is irrelevant under current law, that child will still have rights to contest the estate of the decased and for the state to demand financial support and security.

[Earth]

As far as I'm concerned, no one should be in the position to dictate who can and cannot consensually marry.

So can five guys marry one woman? How about the other way around? Should sisters and brothers be allowed to marry? Where does it end?

I personally don't have a problem with polygamy, but if it were to be recognized legally, then having extra spouses shouldn't entitle one to gain a bigger tax break, or to abuse that.

Earth,

Apparently you have not been following the full conversation.

Alcon and the other lefties on this site would support 'gay marriage' but deny multiple partner marriage based on their own personal approval of homosexuality and opposition to multiple partner marriage.

They denounce others for opposing 'gay marriage' on the basis of personal disapproval.  Its sort of like a person denouncing discrimination against blacks, but then supporting discrimination against asians.  

I've been a part of this argument before, so I haven't read the entire thread, but I understand their points. I'm just throwing in my two cents.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOLZ.  Hey, Opebo, I'm a leftist! Who knew? 

[Хahar 🤔]

I use to believe that you are not born gay, however in recent years after research and being around some gay folks I now believe you are born gay.

Yeah. I don't know if I was born gay or it comes from environment (I was not molested, thank you very much, in response to another poster) or whatnot, but whatever it is, it was clearly a physical manifestation and is nothing I ever had any say in.

well, I was also born a liar...so what does being born that way have to with it?

I hate to be pendantic here, in child development the ability to lie only really manifests itself from age 2 to 3. Due a limited vocabulary, a young toddler responding to a question in such a way that we may perceive the response as a lie, may be due simply to a lack of vocabulary or undersanding of what words mean.

So no. You were not born a liar.

obviously, I didn't start lying on the first day of my life, but I inherited a sinful nature that predisposed me to sin. 

No, you didn't. You were born free of sin.

[Earth]

... Like I said before in this post - homosexual marriage will  NEVER BE ACCPECTED.  By forcing this without taking a step back and maybe reevaluate the issue, or finding common ground will not help the case for gay rights. 

How do you know that it would never be accepted? And how are any of us forcing this?

[Flying Dog]

Give it 15-20 years.