Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

[Major Robert Dump]

Marriage is on the decline.
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

The economy is in a rut
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

Fewer people are buying houses
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

There are too many single parent households
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

There are too many uninsured Americans
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

We need more educated immigrants
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

Marriage creates a more stable tax base
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

Its too hard to get financial aid for college
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

We need more tax revenue without raising taxes
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

America is secular
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

America is free
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

[Husar]

I disagree.
So legalize same sex marriage, dummy

[Lemur]

https://i.imgur.com/G5uvlzv.jpg

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't think gay marriage as a social and moral issue should be conflated with economic imperatives.

[Major Robert Dump]

I don't think gay marriage as a social and moral issue should be conflated with economic imperatives.

There is no social or moral issue.

And since Republicans are all economy and taxation experts and stuff, and they talk about how totally awesome family values are and stuff, then I would think they would be all about creating some more families and some more good old dependable tax payers and economic stimuli.

[Rhyfelwyr]

There is no social or moral issue.

The issue is primarily social and moral in nature, for both sides of the argument. Some people see homosexuality as immoral, some people see the denial of marriage rights to homosexual couples as immoral.

While you are obviously free to challenge this focus on the moral side of things, you need to offer some sort of refutation of it before you start calling people dummy and making points that most people regard more as tangential than disagreeable.


And since Republicans are all economy and taxation experts and stuff, and they talk about how totally awesome family values are and stuff, then I would think they would be all about creating some more families and some more good old dependable tax payers and economic stimuli.

If you're going to take the liberty of completely redefining what they mean when they talk about certain concepts, how can you expect to engage with them?

[drone]

The injection of fresh, gay money into the Wedding Industrial Complex would be a definite boon to the economy. Because, you know, those weddings have to be faaaaabulous!

[Major Robert Dump]

I don't expect to engage them. There is nothing to engage.

We are a secular society. Marriage is already secular. The vast majority of the opposition to gay marriage is based on religious grounds.

The rest of the opposition is in the "ewwww, gross!" camp. If that is the standard, then I have a list of gross and unappealing behavior I would like to add to the list.

Consenting adults want to do adult things. Let them.

Use of the word "dummy" is not an attack. It's meant to emphasize that this entire issue is a no-brainer. DOMA is unconstitutional and they knew it when they passed it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm not American, but from the articles I've read and the stuff I've seen on the internet, the arguments against gay marriage are rarely expressed in outright religious terms, whatever the underlying motivations might be.

I think a big reason behind why people are shooting past each other on this issue is because for some bizzare reason, whenever it is brought up, everybody seems to be come over with some sort of Ayn Rand idealism. Yeah, OK, its unfair and discrimination that two gay guys don't get tax breaks and legal recognition like a straight couple do. The thing is its not just unfair to gay people, its unfair to everybody that isn't part of a heterosexual couple. It's unfair to people who choose to be single (oh but they were born that way!), it's unfair to people who don't practice monogamy etc.

The problem with that take on things is that while idealism is nice, it's not realistic. To oppose traditional marriage on that basis will fail in that same way that it fails to challenge concepts like progressive taxation. Heterosexual couples get the privileges they do because of their historic and continuing social role.

If you want that privilege extended to gay couples, then make a case for it. You can challenge to modern relevance of theheterosexual couple. You can argue the social benefits of allowing gay marriage and the role they could have in adopting foster kids, for example.

But don't reduce this issue to being about petty economic gains.

[Major Robert Dump]

I'm not American, but from the articles I've read and the stuff I've seen on the internet, the arguments against gay marriage are rarely expressed in outright religious terms, whatever the underlying motivations might be.

I think a big reason behind why people are shooting past each other on this issue is because for some bizzare reason, whenever it is brought up, everybody seems to be come over with some sort of Ayn Rand idealism. Yeah, OK, its unfair and discrimination that two gay guys don't get tax breaks and legal recognition like a straight couple do. The thing is its not just unfair to gay people, its unfair to everybody that isn't part of a heterosexual couple. It's unfair to people who choose to be single (oh but they were born that way!), it's unfair to people who don't practice monogamy etc.

The problem with that take on things is that while idealism is nice, it's not realistic. To oppose traditional marriage on that basis will fail in that same way that it fails to challenge concepts like progressive taxation. Heterosexual couples get the privileges they do because of their historic and continuing social role.

If you want that privilege extended to gay couples, then make a case for it. You can challenge to modern relevance of theheterosexual couple. You can argue the social benefits of allowing gay marriage and the role they could have in adopting foster kids, for example.

But don't reduce this issue to being about petty economic gains.

I do not need to argue the social benefits because they are the same social benefits that exist for hetero couples, the same social benefits so espoused by pro family rhetoric.

Two parent households, in general, raise more stable kids. People who get married tend to drop anchor, grow roots and become stable, predictable taxpayers. Communities with more homeowners and 2 parents households tend to create more prosperous communities, better social services, less crime, better schools. No couple in the history of couples ever said "hey lets move to the neighborhood with lots of crappy apartments and absentee parents." All of this is a no brainer. Families = stability. Let them make families.

To argue that marriage is something sanctimonious is to ignore the state of marriage today. People get married less and later. And here you have this one demographic that is begging to be married, begging to share benefits (like the whole reason the DOMA case from New York is before SCOTUS), begging to adopt children that are living in state custody or bouncing between foster homes, and we are denying them that right with the left hand while reaching out our right hand and telling people to espouse family values.

Everything in this post was also contained in the first post. I was happy to explain it to you, though.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Everything in this post was also contained in the first post. I was happy to explain it to you, though.

No, minus a couple of rehashed economic benefits that I have already acknowledged, there is not a single point you made there that was also in the first post. Apart from maybe some sort of implied benefit by mentioning the number of single-parent households.


I do not need to argue the social benefits because they are the same social benefits that exist for hetero couples, the same social benefits so espoused by pro family rhetoric.

Two parent households, in general, raise more stable kids. People who get married tend to drop anchor, grow roots and become stable, predictable taxpayers. Communities with more homeowners and 2 parents households tend to create more prosperous communities, better social services, less crime, better schools. No couple in the history of couples ever said "hey lets move to the neighborhood with lots of crappy apartments and absentee parents." All of this is a no brainer. Families = stability. Let them make families.

Well it's nature that doesn't let them make families the traditional way, and the reality is that that has always been by a long shot the biggest social role of marriage. Much of the social stability of marriage that you mention also comes at least in part from the process of raising kids - without it couples will not "drop anchor" in the same way. Of course we can take artificial measures to get round that by giving them other peoples' kids, but........


To argue that marriage is something sanctimonious is to ignore the state of marriage today. People get married less and later. And here you have this one demographic that is begging to be married, begging to share benefits (like the whole reason the DOMA case from New York is before SCOTUS), begging to adopt children that are living in state custody or bouncing between foster homes, and we are denying them that right with the left hand while reaching out our right hand and telling people to espouse family values.

I know the situation in American could be different from that of the UK, but here there is a massive demand for foster kids from heterosexual couples that is not being taken advantage of because of excessive red-tape. So how far homosexual couple would help in that regard is very much questionable, if the demand is already there they won't make a difference. As far as taxes go, any tax breaks they get are a personal benefit, not a societal contribution. Married couples get those in return for the social contribution of raising kids.

I also don't see how the current poor state of marriage can be an argument in favour of gay marriage until we establish whether or not gay marriage can really fulfill the same social roles of heteresexual ones or strengthen the institution of marriage in general.

As opposed, you know, just pronouncing it to be so and making that an axiom of debate when you know full well the other side doesn't agree with it.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well it's nature that doesn't let them make families the traditional way, and the reality is that that has always been by a long shot the biggest social role of marriage. Much of the social stability of marriage that you mention also comes at least in part from the process of raising kids - without it couples will not "drop anchor" in the same way. Of course we can take artificial measures to get round that by giving them other peoples' kids, but........


The question is not really about "what used to be the biggest [social] role of marriage" the question is about "what is the social role of marriage" or what should it be? Different tense is not merely being pedantic, it is the core of the argument. We do not live in the 18th or 19th century slums any more, so why let 19th century ideals borne out of that situation and fitted to the limits of that era rule us now?

Does the children argument still apply (if it ever did at all) ?

[Ibrahim]

well, it's an unimportant issue. at least compared to the overseas fighting, the wasteful spending, and so on.

just let people marry who they want, however many they want. there's nothing wrong with same sex marriage, and even if there was, I don't see how it is relevant to the national level.

[Xiahou]

Does the children argument still apply (if it ever did at all) ?And if it doesn't, why do we even need marriage?


Marriage is on the decline.
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummyHomosexuals make up about 3-4% of the population. How many would like to get married? Half? Claiming this is the solution to the decline of marriage and the myriad of other problems you tick off is.... dumb?

[Major Robert Dump]

Rhyfelwyr I hope you understand that I am being a smart ass and not trying to pick a fight with you. But "there are too many single parent households" and "we need a stable tax base" covers much of the family/social aspect of my subsequent posts. A same sex couple raising kids yet not recognized as a legal couple and qualifies as a single parent household since both parties cannot legally adopt the child unless they are married. Incidentally, the additional able bodied adult in the house will, however, reduce their eligibility for public assistance. This is funny, because it is typically a way to get unwed parents to marry, and a way to keep a woman from breeding with multiple partners with no intent of staying with any, it is a way to keep people from "shacking up" with children if they are not also going to marry..... and here we have people who are actually trying to get married and stabilize a home and they are rejected. Funny

I read that there are 40,000 kids in California in same sex parental homes. That is just in California. Banning same sex marriage seems to be working at getting same sex couples not to raise kids. OH WAIT......

Yes there is red tape on adoption. But adoption from an agency IS NOT the only mechanism for same sex couples to raise kids. There are plenty of people who try heterosexuality, have kids, and then "go gay" mid life. I -- just me -- know a dozen people that fit this description, and they all have kids, and they all now have same sex partners. In addition to kids from previous marriages, there is also the significant number (20 percentiles??) of grandparents/siblings etc becoming legal guardians of children. If a parent/brother/aunt has the ability and desire to raise a related child and they happen to be homosexual, it is patently unfair that they are willing to sacrifice themselves to raise kids that are not theirs, yet they cannot even get married to their same sex partner to make the child rearing easier.

The arguments that two dads or two moms cannot provide guidance to a child of the opposite sex are untrue. There are actually people out there arguing that My Two Dads will not be able to get a teenage girl through her first period, or that My Two Moms will not be able to guide their son through a bullying situation. Seriously? Have no single parents ever done this? and please do not say that single parents get remarried, because that is patently false, and in the event that he/she does remarry the chances that it will be in time to contribute to the social adjustment of the child are completely based on situation and not some written rule that can be measured or used for statistics.

It also ignores the fact that hetero parents can be terrible parents, can be abusive, can be absent even in marriage, all of which are things that will happen with gay couples as well. It is called being human. Deal.

Do I want to explain to my kids about the two men kissing in public, or his friend with two moms? No more or less than I want to explain intercourse, how the Senate works or why his/her mom is half my age. I'm a grown up, I will figure it out.

We are not pioneers and villagers fighting a 50% birth mortality rate anymore. There is no race to out populate the enemy, or to build a big tribe so we can take down the saber tooth. We can practically engineer our own babies. The traditional purpose of marriage is irrelevant in this industrialized country, and that role needs to evolve. Few reasons that anyone gives in opposition to gay marriage is a problem that is exclusive to same sex couples, and the reasons that are exclusive go back to the "eeeew gross" and the religious camps.

People are doing it. They live together in same sex partnerships for decades. They will continue to do it, no matter how much hate and rage and politics keeps them down, and eventually it will be legal, like we said all along, just like so many other things involving equal rights and people just wanting to live and let live. And in 30 years, our kids will think we were monsters and dinosaurs, and wonder what the big deal was.

Party of small government my ass

[Major Robert Dump]

And if it doesn't, why do we even need marriage?

Homosexuals make up about 3-4% of the population. How many would like to get married? Half? Claiming this is the solution to the decline of marriage and the myriad of other problems you tick off is.... dumb?

Never said it was the solution. Never said it will reverse or solve a problem. Merely pointing out my fascination of people talking out of both sides of their mouth. People who oppose gay marriage should also work to prohibit marriage and breeding between stupid people, poor people, ugly people, and people who like Creed.

[Xiahou]

Never said it was the solution. Never said it will reverse or solve a problem. I guess I wasn't following you then. I thought you were talking about how marriage makes for stable communities and creates economic stimulus and that homosexuals want to get married. I thought you were trying to make the connection that it helps address certain problems that you outlined in your OP. My mistake.

[Major Robert Dump]

I guess I wasn't following you then. I thought you were talking about how marriage makes for stable communities and creates economic stimulus and that homosexuals want to get married. I thought you were trying to make the connection that it helps address certain problems that you outlined in your OP. My mistake.

That is exactly what I was saying. And if people want in on the action that is supposed to benefit society, then why not let them in on the action so they can contribute, even if it is small? That, however, is not the same saying that it is a solution.

If so few people are gay, and it affects such a small percentile, then what is the problem? Are we scared the gay agenda is going to turn into a snowball of gay momentum and cover us with a big gay avalanche? Is it irrelevant because they are single digit representative of the population? If that is the yardstick by which we measure the worth of a cause, or a law, or a debate, then I am afraid Congress and SCOTUS just became irrelevant, and that argument itself defeats the entire spirit of DOMA to begin with, i.e. whats.the.big.deal?

[Strike For The South]

I disagree with your notion of cake

[Major Robert Dump]

I disagree with your notion of cake

I took it out, Boo, just for you

[Lemur]

If so few people are gay, and it affects such a small percentile, then what is the problem?
Most recent large-scale polling suggests homosexuals make up approx 2.5% of the general population. Which makes plenty of sense.

Allowing gay marriage can be quite honestly argued as a conservative stance. (Assuming normal linguistic meaning for the word "conservative," and not the radical, ideology-bound, utopian Theory of Everything that it currently means in the USA.)

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am in favor of gay marriage, but it is important that we listen to what Rhy has to say. It's lazy and borderline scary to say that since people don't take an institution seriously, then we are allowed to change the institution as we see fit. Talking only about how we treat marriage now is also lazy.

What needs to happen is a comprehensive discussion on the purpose of marriage that take into account its history and the whys/hows it came to be how it is today. If institutionalized marriage was originally put in place by Christians who wanted to promote Judeo-Christian values, then how can we say that the secularization of it over time invalidates the reason why we have it in the first place? It would be akin to saying that undeclared wars are a-ok now because that is how the institution of government is operating currently when its original form had checks and balances and an emphasis on Congress declaring hostilities beforehand.

[Catiline]

2.5 % seems remarkably low.


Most recent large-scale polling suggests homosexuals make up approx 2.5% of the general population. Which makes plenty of sense.

Allowing gay marriage can be quite honestly argued as a conservative stance. (Assuming normal linguistic meaning for the word "conservative," and not the radical, ideology-bound, utopian Theory of Everything that it currently means in the USA.)

[Fragony]

I am in favor of gay marriage, but it is important that we listen to what Rhy has to say. It's lazy and borderline scary to say that since people don't take an institution seriously, then we are allowed to change the institution as we see fit. Talking only about how we treat marriage now is also lazy.

What needs to happen is a comprehensive discussion on the purpose of marriage that take into account its history and the whys/hows it came to be how it is today. If institutionalized marriage was originally put in place by Christians who wanted to promote Judeo-Christian values, then how can we say that the secularization of it over time invalidates the reason why we have it in the first place? It would be akin to saying that undeclared wars are a-ok now because that is how the institution of government is operating currently when its original form had checks and balances and an emphasis on Congress declaring hostilities beforehand.

Keep it seperately, there isn't any mixture between marriage as a holy institution and legal discrmination that is worth considering. It aren't the same things, marriage as an institution isn't under attack here. Gay couples should get all the benefits a heterosexual couples gets. It's unfair to deny them that, if they want some ceremony with that power to them. They aren't asking for recognision of any church

[The Lurker Below]

Sorry, I'm sure this is off topic, but I was just wondering if anybody else noticed this:

when my 2.5% gay personality takes over it seems like a lot more people enjoy my company.

no? ah, maybe it's just me.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Matrimony is a sacrament, granted by the church. The Church is unlikely to sanctify a same-sex union in the foreseeable future.

Marriage, however, has ALWAYS been a civil contract issue centered on property. The state has always been involved and always taxed it. That said, it is a fairly simple logic chain to reach MRD's conclusion. The DOMA will be struck down...probably pretty soon...and more same-sex unions will style themselves as "married." Any other conclusion is legally insupportable short of an ammendment to the Constitution.

Eventually, this will also lead to the adoption/sanction of other, less-frequent forms of marriage such as group marriages, triads, and the like. Heinlein's view of marriage in the future will seem more and more prescient as we continue blundering our way through history.

[Lemur]

this will also lead to the adoption/sanction of other, less-frequent forms of marriage such as group marriages, triads, and the like.
On the face of it, this seems unlikely. Our system of law and property is well established for two-person issues, not so much for multiples.

Figuring out benefits, inheritance, custody, etc., for 3+ people? I dunno. I'd be interested to hear from a person who practices family law.

But speaking with nothing more than layman knowledge, seems to me that same-sex marriage can be integrated with minimal fuss, while group marriage would open a big ol' can of worms.

[The Lurker Below]

open a big ol' can of worms.

Most issues deserve to be discussed on the merits of that issue alone, not on those that may possibly be related to it. Is gay marriage ok, yes or no? I remember back in 1994 there was a huge outcry about the assault weapons ban and the resulting loss of rights that would follow. Everything was going to be banned after that. Didn't work out that way. The ban came, and went, and nothing more was made of it. Based on the outcry at the time though, one would expet that the Constitution, the government, and all life as we know it were in serious danger.

When the issue of group marriage comes up for discussion, then it's merits should be considered without thought of gay marriage.

I agree with you, I also think gay marriage can and should be implemented with minimal fuss.

edit - Actually I want to rant some more. I never bothered to respond but on the facebook somebody posted something that annoyed me. There were a couple implications that I took issue with. They started with something like "even if gay is a choice, what difference does that make, we allow people that choose to be assholes to marry." First, I don't believe that people wake up in the morning and decide that today they want to be an asshole. I believe that their genetics and environment has shaped them to respond as they do. Secondly, it pissed me off that they used the term asshole. Now readers of that are going to relate gays to assholes, which is way off base. I wish that person had used the term "brunette lovers" instead.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

On the face of it, this seems unlikely. Our system of law and property is well established for two-person issues, not so much for multiples.

Figuring out benefits, inheritance, custody, etc., for 3+ people? I dunno. I'd be interested to hear from a person who practices family law.

But speaking with nothing more than layman knowledge, seems to me that same-sex marriage can be integrated with minimal fuss, while group marriage would open a big ol' can of worms.

Can of worms indeed. But, as Sotomeyor [sic?] herself questioned, once you establish that marriage is an individual right and constitutionally protected, how can you curtail that right, not just for sex but for a slew of other conditions that might appertain? Aside from the ability to require "informed consent" what restrictions can be reasonably imposed? And the argument before the court is very much centered on an individual's right to marry.

[Lemur]

once you establish that marriage is an individual right and constitutionally protected, how can you curtail that right
I find this argument fishy. Lots of rights are curtailed, heck, under the correct conditions all of our rights are curtailed. Theaters and yelling "fire" come to mind. My 2nd Amendment right is curtailed if I am a felon. My voting rights are curtailed if I'm in prison. My right to life can be kinda curtailed if I join the military. And so on and so forth. Seems like you're indulging in a slippery-slope moment.

Also, look at the time, population, and pressure required to get same-sex marriage to a point where Americans are ready for it. Do you honestly see anything of the sort for polygamy? Can you point to anyone or anything that indicates there's a groundswell growing?

As a legalistic thought-exercise, I guess you've sorta-kinda got a point, but I don't think it would stand up in court. And given that well over half of Americans are in favor of SSM, note that the Supremes are still wobbly about giving it protection. So ... nah. Not a very compelling or realistic scenario.

[HoreTore]

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN??? THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I find this argument fishy. Lots of rights are curtailed, heck, under the correct conditions all of our rights are curtailed. Theaters and yelling "fire" come to mind. My 2nd Amendment right is curtailed if I am a felon. My voting rights are curtailed if I'm in prison. My right to life can be kinda curtailed if I join the military. And so on and so forth. Seems like you're indulging in a slippery-slope moment.

Also, look at the time, population, and pressure required to get same-sex marriage to a point where Americans are ready for it. Do you honestly see anything of the sort for polygamy? Can you point to anyone or anything that indicates there's a groundswell growing?

As a legalistic thought-exercise, I guess you've sorta-kinda got a point, but I don't think it would stand up in court. And given that well over half of Americans are in favor of SSM, note that the Supremes are still wobbly about giving it protection. So ... nah. Not a very compelling or realistic scenario.

Fair points. Nor am I asserting that allowing same-sex marriages today will mean that next week people will be marrying their pets -- an allusion favored by one of the right-wing radio pundits.

I don't think the government will start sanctioning honor killings within a marriage or paederastic marriages or any of the other silliness that you do hear bandied about.

However, if marriage is NOT confined to a one man-one woman definition, why would a polyandrous or polygamous marriage be still be preventable (assuming such things as informed consent; non-fraudulent participants and other generally accepted legal basics are within norms)? On what grounds can such a union be denied? As with same-sex unions, there are a number of such "poly" marriages functioning informally but successfully and rewardingly for the participants even as we converse. Yet those unions, comprised of adults who wish to be united, are denied some of those very same benefits sought by same sexers. As a matter of personal rights, wherein lies the difference that would validate differing treatment by the government?

[Papewaio]

Would poly matter if all are consenting non-related (ie the fairly common cult phenomena of uncles and nieces) adults?

=][=

My quip has been if same sex are going to hell, then why not allow them a preview with marriage?

[Lemur]

However, if marriage is NOT confined to a one man-one woman definition, why would a polyandrous or polygamous marriage be still be preventable [...]? On what grounds can such a union be denied?
On the grounds that there is no popular or political support for such a change. The law is not an abstract exercise in logic, but rather a clumsy, ham-handed attempt to regulate the affairs of citizens. (Emphasis on "attempt.") Look, Seamus, you've heard the expression that, "A cult is a religion with no political power," right? I would apply that maxim here. A variation on marriage with no political or popular will behind it is marginal, and shall remain so until conditions change. (E.G., we all knew that marriage between blacks and whites was an illegal abomination, until we collectively realized it wasn't. Likewise, we all knew gays were wicked pedophiles who could never marry, until one day ....)

One can theorize all one likes about "if we treat X then we must allow Y," but at the end of the day, you're gonna need that argument and (much more importantly) about nine bucks to get a Denny's Grand Slam Breakfast.


Would poly matter if all are consenting [...] adults?
Our body of law is not set up to handle this sort of arrangement. Consider inheritance. Consider benefits. Consider custody. Consider all of the ways a family can disintegrate, and all of the props and stop-gaps we have set up to manage these events. All can be applied to a same-sex couple with low to no work. Almost none can be applied to a hippie commune in Oregon where eight people married each other. Our body of family law would need to be amended or rewritten from the ground up.

Like I said, big ol' can of worms.

[Xiahou]

On the grounds that there is no popular or political support for such a change.Popular & political support for something is a great reason for legislative change. It's not a very good basis for Supreme Court decisions. Please don't have the courts invent a right to marry which doesn't exist in the Constitution.

I can't think of a compelling reason to support homosexual marriage personally- but if enough people disagree with me (which looks to be the case), they can change the laws. But don't do it by having the courts abuse the Constitution- it has been tortured enough.

[Rhyfelwyr]

@MRD: No problem, I apologise if I have been overly-confrontational.

I don't think homosexual marriages would be by any means disastrous, and I think they could be OK for raising kids. Often, alternative arrangements can be better than regular but poor parents. But I still think that a one male/female arrangement is best for the kids, all other things being equal.

[Lemur]

Popular & political support for something is a great reason for legislative change. It's not a very good basis for Supreme Court decisions.
Well, if you believe the prognostications from sources such as Scotusblog, the justices are of much the same mind. My guess: DOMA gets the beat-down, Prop 8 gets left alone for reasons of standing.

-edit-

Hmm, thinking about it, the most appropriate body of law to apply to poly marriages might be ... corporate law. Go smoke that, you dirty hippies!

Consider: What existing body of statutes and precedents covers multiple people entering into binding arrangements?

[a completely inoffensive name]

One can theorize all one likes about "if we treat X then we must allow Y," but at the end of the day, you're gonna need that argument and (much more importantly) about nine bucks to get a Denny's Grand Slam Breakfast.

Why the **** would you spend your 9 dollars at Denny's?

[Papewaio]

Hmm, thinking about it, the most appropriate body of law to apply to ploy marriages might be ... corporate law. Go smoke that, you dirty hippies!

Consider: What existing body of statutes and precedents covers multiple people entering into binding arrangements?

Alonically a Partnership would perhaps be the closest along with Unit Trusts.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Hmm, thinking about it, the most appropriate body of law to apply to ploy marriages might be ... corporate law. Go smoke that, you dirty hippies!

Consider: What existing body of statutes and precedents covers multiple people entering into binding arrangements?

Don't think so. Corporate law is mostly concerned with defining the legal persona of a fictitious "person" otherwise known as the corp, its liabilities viz legal responsibility for the actions of- and ownership of that persona/corp by the parties known as shareholders. You can choose various flavours/characters of your new persona, LLC, Inc. etc.

OTOH, marriage is about what happens if you pool assets without drawing up the legal paperwork to define a third party (corp) to manage it. Fundamentally you consent to sharing or to co-operation, you do not actually address the question of dividends.

That is before you look at the employer <-> employee entanglement which is part of marriage but not of corporate law: all individuals in the marriage are assumed to have "worked" for it in a way, unless it can be proved otherwise -- hence the fun that can be had with alimonies (golden parachutes if you like).

[Ronin]

The issue is primarily social and moral in nature, for both sides of the argument. Some people see homosexuality as immoral, some people see the denial of marriage rights to homosexual couples as immoral.


actually no....I´m for allowing gay marriage because I don´t care what they do.....it's not an issue that affects me in anyway, and if 2 consenting adults want to do something why should I be against it?
It's called compassion through not giving a :furious3:

[Fragony]

actually no....I´m for allowing gay marriage because I don´t care what they do.....it's not an issue that affects me in anyway, and if 2 consenting adults want to do something why should I be against it?
It's called compassion through not giving a :furious3:

Damn right. I have been absolutily wrong about that in the past but I am not afraid to admit that I was an idiot. Learning as I go. There really is no argument to be against it that I can accept anymore really.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

On the grounds that there is no popular or political support for such a change. The law is not an abstract exercise in logic, but rather a clumsy, ham-handed attempt to regulate the affairs of citizens. (Emphasis on "attempt.") Look, Seamus, you've heard the expression that, "A cult is a religion with no political power," right? I would apply that maxim here. A variation on marriage with no political or popular will behind it is marginal, and shall remain so until conditions change. (E.G., we all knew that marriage between blacks and whites was an illegal abomination, until we collectively realized it wasn't. Likewise, we all knew gays were wicked pedophiles who could never marry, until one day ....)

One can theorize all one likes about "if we treat X then we must allow Y," but at the end of the day, you're gonna need that argument and (much more importantly) about nine bucks to get a Denny's Grand Slam Breakfast.


Our body of law is not set up to handle this sort of arrangement. Consider inheritance. Consider benefits. Consider custody. Consider all of the ways a family can disintegrate, and all of the props and stop-gaps we have set up to manage these events. All can be applied to a same-sex couple with low to no work. Almost none can be applied to a hippie commune in Oregon where eight people married each other. Our body of family law would need to be amended or rewritten from the ground up.

Like I said, big ol' can of worms.

Vis-à-vis popular sentiment, you are quite correct in that there is little support for polymarriage or the like, while a significant body of support exists for same sex unions.

Legally, I concur that same-sex unions based on the tried and known one and one pairing will require little alteration aside from neutering the language. So the doability factor vis-à-vis laws, probate etc. is fairly simple. As an aside, I suspect that contract law and the byzantine nature of probate as is would allow polys and other forms to be handled nearly as swiftly as same sex unions. Yes, more hassles and redefinitions, but what are tax lawyers and actuaries for anyway?

We are a constitutional nation, however, and certain steps -- once connected to that constitution -- can have a profound impact, and even an unintended impact. Dred Scott effectively legalized slavery in all of the states; Miranda established legal services paid for by the state for all citizens. Once the High Court accepts that X is a right, and that Government is limited in its ability to curtail that right (and all of them have Some limitations, as you noted before), then the potential for sweeping and unintended/unquantified changes chaining off that decision is present. That's one of the reasons the High Court is slow to take many cases.

[Kralizec]

That is before you look at the employer <-> employee entanglement which is part of marriage but not of corporate law: all individuals in the marriage are assumed to have "worked" for it in a way, unless it can be proved otherwise -- hence the fun that can be had with alimonies (golden parachutes if you like).

Not quite; unless you make a prenuptial agreement in the Neth's the assets brought into marriage and acquired during will be considered to be property of both spouses together and will be divided equally when they separate. Irrespective of the lenght of marriage or what the spouses actually contributed themselves.
Alimony is entirely seperate from that and can/will be awarded by the judge regardless of wether there's a prenuptial agreement; it can only be waived at the actual moment of divorce and not sooner. It's based on only on the bare fact that there was a marriage, and the height is only determined by ability to pay and the need for it (the latter is fairly subjective)

That's from a Dutch perspective; the legal specifics vary greatly between countries.

[Lemur]

I suspect that contract law and the byzantine nature of probate as is would allow polys and other forms to be handled nearly as swiftly as same sex unions.
Two men and three women have been raising a little boy. One woman who has functioned as a mother-figure, but is not the biological mother, leaves the group. She demands visitation. Does she have any rights in this situation? She claims to have raised this child since birth.

Eight lesbians have been married, and have (collectively) five children. They all divorce. Please explain custody and visitation.

One man is married to four women. Only the man is employed, and he doesn't make much. How do we calculate poverty programs such as food stamps or welfare? I read somewhere that welfare benefits are capped at two kids. Is that two kids per woman? Per partner? For the entire union? Can the man claim all four women as dependents at tax time?

I'm not saying any of these scenarios are insoluble, just that they present a significantly larger headache than a couple of old hill men tying the knot.

https://i.imgur.com/4ATnI6s.jpg


Once the High Court accepts that X is a right, [...] then the potential for sweeping and unintended/unquantified changes chaining off that decision is present.
I understand your point, but you'd have to admit that history is littered with examples on both sides of this, as you make clear in citing both Dred Scott and Miranda. One radically curtailed rights, one radically expanded them, both in unanticipated ways.

It's certainly possible that crazy new rights will be derived from any decision legitimizing SSM, but I don't really know where you go with that. It's pretty rare that grand new rights are granted unless there is popular will to do so. Interracial marriage, for example, did not inevitably lead to gay marriage, poly marriage, dog marriage, or any other oddity. It just led to legal interracial marriage (which is still pretty rare). So ... I'm not trying to be dense, and I am most certainly not a lawyer, but I'm not sure where your argument leads.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Not quite; unless you make a prenuptial agreement in the Neth's the assets brought into marriage and acquired during will be considered to be property of both spouses together and will be divided equally when they separate. Irrespective of the lenght of marriage or what the spouses actually contributed themselves.
Alimony is entirely seperate from that and can/will be awarded by the judge regardless of wether there's a prenuptial agreement; it can only be waived at the actual moment of divorce and not sooner. It's based on only on the bare fact that there was a marriage, and the height is only determined by ability to pay and the need for it (the latter is fairly subjective)

That's from a Dutch perspective; the legal specifics vary greatly between countries.

The reason you are getting alimony (pay) after the divorce (termination of contract) is because there is the assumption that whatever assets and jobs managed by the various parties are the result and benefit of the shared work and investment by all parties. Each contributed to make it happen, even if the job/assets happen to be "managed" by only one of them. So because one party holds a much better paying job it doesn't mean all the cash is his/hers for the keeping: the other invested time, effort etc. to make that work previously, so part of the revenue from that job is rightfully his/hers as well. Alimony is simply a means to settle accounts.

True, that is before you factor in the Anglo-Saxon angle into the legal theories. (Basically: all bets are off.)

[HoreTore]

Alimony is the silliest woman-hating practice in the western world.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Two men and three women have been raising a little boy. One woman who has functioned as a mother-figure, but is not the biological mother, leaves the group. She demands visitation. Does she have any rights in this situation? She claims to have raised this child since birth.

Eight lesbians have been married, and have (collectively) five children. They all divorce. Please explain custody and visitation.

One man is married to four women. Only the man is employed, and he doesn't make much. How do we calculate poverty programs such as food stamps or welfare? I read somewhere that welfare benefits are capped at two kids. Is that two kids per woman? Per partner? For the entire union? Can the man claim all four women as dependents at tax time?

I'm not saying any of these scenarios are insoluble, just that they present a significantly larger headache than a couple of old hill men tying the knot.

https://i.imgur.com/4ATnI6s.jpg


I understand your point, but you'd have to admit that history is littered with examples on both sides of this, as you make clear in citing both Dred Scott and Miranda. One radically curtailed rights, one radically expanded them, both in unanticipated ways.

It's certainly possible that crazy new rights will be derived from any decision legitimizing SSM, but I don't really know where you go with that. It's pretty rare that grand new rights are granted unless there is popular will to do so. Interracial marriage, for example, did not inevitably lead to gay marriage, poly marriage, dog marriage, or any other oddity. It just led to legal interracial marriage (which is still pretty rare). So ... I'm not trying to be dense, and I am most certainly not a lawyer, but I'm not sure where your argument leads.

Lemur:

I am not sure where it leads either. Like you, I don't think that society will collectively say "no rules, marry your schnauzer if you want." You put up some nice scenarios, by the way. Got my head spinning (and a chuckle over the picture). I suspect that we are entering a phase wherein the religious aspect of marriage is going to be decoupled from the civil contract aspect of marriage more or less entirely -- which may be to the good.

I believe that we are not going to stop this redefinition with a simple inclusion of same sex -- and it is relatively simple on the contractual side as you have consistently noted. I suspect we will have a longish pause here, but that change will continue. Perhaps I am too slippery slope in my assessment with this -- I have been wrong before and will no doubt be so again.

I just think that there are more unintended consequences here than, at first, meet the eye.

I enjoy discussing stuff with you. You make me think.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Alimony is the silliest woman-hating practice in the western world.

Hmmmmm. "The" silliest? Not sure that I can agree. There has been quite a lot of woman-hating silliness over the centuries. Alimony was at least an attempt at forcing men to care for the property they were discarding and leaving without resources.

[Lemur]

a chuckle over the picture
That's a pic from the first day SSM was legalized in WA state. Kinda made me teary when I saw it in the news.


I enjoy discussing stuff with you. You make me think.
Likewise, friend, likewise.

[HoreTore]

Hmmmmm. "The" silliest? Not sure that I can agree. There has been quite a lot of woman-hating silliness over the centuries. Alimony was at least an attempt at forcing men to care for the property they were discarding and leaving without resources.

I was referring to the present day ~;)

It made sense back in the day when women weren't allowed to work. But at that time, the silliest woman-hating practice was not allowing women to work...

[Kralizec]

The reason you are getting alimony (pay) after the divorce (termination of contract) is because there is the assumption that whatever assets and jobs managed by the various parties are the result and benefit of the shared work and investment by all parties. Each contributed to make it happen, even if the job/assets happen to be "managed" by only one of them. So because one party holds a much better paying job it doesn't mean all the cash is his/hers for the keeping: the other invested time, effort etc. to make that work previously, so part of the revenue from that job is rightfully his/hers as well. Alimony is simply a means to settle accounts.

True, that is before you factor in the Anglo-Saxon angle into the legal theories. (Basically: all bets are off.)

The only reasoning behind alimony is that in a marriage spouses are expected to support eachother, finances included, and that if a marriage breaks down it's not reasonable for the one with no or little income to suddenly suffer an immense drop in living standards while the other one just walks away.
Sometimes (almost always in earlier days) one spouse didn't have a paying job but stayed at home to manage the household, raise kids and whatnot, while the other one works and builds a carreer. It's one of the ways the concept of alimony has been, and still is rationalized, but it's not a requirement in any way.

Not really - marriage stuff and family law in general varies considerably among "civil law" states at well.


Alimony is the silliest woman-hating practice in the western world.

It's gender neutral nowadays, at least over here. So here's your chance - marry a female CEO and let the marriage break down!

Or a male CEO, but not all countries allow that.

[HoreTore]

It's gender neutral nowadays

Completely irrelevant, it's still woman-hating.

[Noncommunist]

However, if marriage is NOT confined to a one man-one woman definition, why would a polyandrous or polygamous marriage be still be preventable (assuming such things as informed consent; non-fraudulent participants and other generally accepted legal basics are within norms)? On what grounds can such a union be denied? As with same-sex unions, there are a number of such "poly" marriages functioning informally but successfully and rewardingly for the participants even as we converse. Yet those unions, comprised of adults who wish to be united, are denied some of those very same benefits sought by same sexers. As a matter of personal rights, wherein lies the difference that would validate differing treatment by the government?

What truly makes a marriage fraudulent? If it's a contract between two people, why shouldn't they decide what meaning marriage has for them?



It's pretty rare that grand new rights are granted unless there is popular will to do so. Interracial marriage, for example, did not inevitably lead to gay marriage, poly marriage, dog marriage, or any other oddity. It just led to legal interracial marriage (which is still pretty rare). So ... I'm not trying to be dense, and I am most certainly not a lawyer, but I'm not sure where your argument leads.

It didn't? While it hasn't legally been a precedent as far as I can tell, people supporting gay marriage tend to use it as an example when arguing for gay marriage.

[HoreTore]

I have long had the idea of marrying a mate for cha-ching benefits.

I just need to find a benefit I can exploit like a whore, and then I'm a married man.

Edit: and on that note: if any of you, or your friends, wants to live in Norway, but are having trouble gaining access, just PM me and we'll have a proper fake marriage. I don't care one inch about either immigration restrictions nor marriage, so I have no moral qualms whatsoever. I won't need payment either, as I know that can get me into legal trouble. I'm all free, baby!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What truly makes a marriage fraudulent? If it's a contract between two people, why shouldn't they decide what meaning marriage has for them?.

I was referring to such things as: being part of another marriage contract without notifying the would-be partner of the intended contract; not being of legal age to execute a contract; entering into such a contract only so as to pilfer the resources of the new partner -- in other words, fraudulent for the kinds of legal reasons that ANY contract can be considered fraudulent/not executed in good faith.

[Fragony]

Really unfair to deny gay couples the tax-breaks heterosexual couples get. Not so sure where I stand with adoption my views evolutionised, I used to be dead against it, now just uncomfortable, but that's nasty. Homosexual couples should get all the benefits

[Fragony]

Nice results, it only covers a small part of the Netherlands but only 2% is opposed to equal rights for gays. In the area covered a significant part of the population is of non-western descent (read muslim), we are doing just fine here I think. 86% of the overall population has no problem with it at all, two% are deeply opposed, the remaining are neutral on it. Faith in humanity restored

edit, made a tiny mistake, 7% is against gay marriage, of which 2% are against homosexuality alltogether.

[Papewaio]

What percentage are against marriage?
What percentage are in a defacto relationship?

For instance if 7% of the population are against marriage then the stance against gay marriage is the same.

[Fragony]

What percentage are against marriage?
What percentage are in a defacto relationship?

For instance if 7% of the population are against marriage then the stance against gay marriage is the same.

7% are against gay mariage, of which 2% are against homosexual behaviour alltogether. That is not bad at all I think. It's not representative for the whole country though, it's was conducted in a really small area. I would like a national survey on this one as regions in the Netherlands are culturally completely different, someone from the south can't even understand what someone from the north is saying, that different

[Ronin]

Really unfair to deny gay couples the tax-breaks heterosexual couples get. Not so sure where I stand with adoption my views evolutionised, I used to be dead against it, now just uncomfortable, but that's nasty. Homosexual couples should get all the benefits

I should I care how gay people are gonna raise children? I don´t like children anyway, I don´t want any...let them have them.
as long as they teach them to be quiet in cinemas, and airplanes I´m cool with it.

[Fragony]

I should I care how gay people are gonna raise children? I don´t like children anyway, I don´t want any...let them have them.
as long as they teach them to be quiet in cinemas, and airplanes I´m cool with it.

Don't know where I stand, it screams in my face but I can find no reason to be against it without making a fool out of myself. Counterintuitive as it may be, I decided to agree with gay marriage and adoption as the reality allready proved me wrong as there is no problem at all. I have been somewhat stupid on this, mea culpa

[Empire*Of*Media]

Marriage is on the decline.
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

The economy is in a rut
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

Fewer people are buying houses
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

There are too many single parent households
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

There are too many uninsured Americans
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

We need more educated immigrants
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

Marriage creates a more stable tax base
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

Its too hard to get financial aid for college
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

We need more tax revenue without raising taxes
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

America is secular
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

America is free
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

indeed of course !! in past only sick people or those opposed bad cultural matters that draged them to be Gays (or lesser, lesbian)

but now, Hollywood does anything to spread Gayism and Lesbianism !! and you know, made it NATURAL Thing!! indeed that some have mind and moral problem that must be worked with him and be resolved for him (not Excommunicated!) because of enviremental and some other things influenced him, but legalizing Gayism or Lesbiansim, will hurt the cultural and human essence, specially when they leglized adopting child to two Gays i just was shocked, how they could humiliate the humankind and waiver the moral & spiritual and emotions of a innocent child, like a love and devote oneself of a mother for the child or both father and mother!!

i know some of you will disagree me, because you think its a natural right, but this is not right, this is an insult and humiliate the essence and origin of humankind !

[johnhughthom]

Care to explain why?

[Fragony]

Used to think that as well, but in reality there isn't any problem. I'll admit the thought still makes me somewhat uncomfortable but I totally moved to the other side of the argument. Gays who adopt a child are really devoted and always highly educated and financially well off, rules are strict. These kids come from broken family's who can't provide for them, better off with a homosexual couple. Heterosexual couple I'd prefer but what's the problem really as long as it has loving caretakers.

[Empire*Of*Media]

no i repeat again, this was first an strange problem, but now its a natural problem, im not speaking from religion (i dont have religion) or my culture, it just needs to deeply think and go to your conscience. and raising child doesnt need education, needs love, even if father does not exist, but love and kindness of a mother (female) is strongly vital, man con not, i repeat can not be like women, the natural creations says this, man CAN NOT have the woman's love and patience and tolerance self-devotion &........ as it was for millions of years. this things you say it is what that been told you to believe, i said thats a problem, but it should not be excommunicated or rejected by the community, it should be resolved mentaly and moraly.

this "Horrible" issue that its naturality came in late 20th century is because that life got easier, and of course spreading Atheistism that deletes a Good Human frame, so gradualy the people instead of lovley and have a normal human based life, someو, or in future most maybe, seeks and follows what only brings for them pleasure and and out of normal things !!
and of course Hollywood and those that are helping and supporting the Atheistism and Prostitutionism and PORN industry, make you slowly and gradualy for generations to believe what they wish.

i really can not believe how this false and evil belief is spreaded in their so called civilized nations! even Barbarians and beasts do not do this !!
oh of course Barbarians were better !

if you read OSHO's Great Book, From Sex to Samadhi (From sex to Ultra-knowledge) i'll swear your false beliefs will be changed (Fixed).

[johnhughthom]

You mentioned gay and lesbians above, your argument only touches upon two men bringing up a child. What about two women, surely that would lead to some sort of super baby, going by your post?


indeed of course !! in past only sick people or those opposed bad cultural matters that draged them to be Gays (or lesser, lesbian)

Just out of curiosity, what does the 'lesser' part of that statement mean?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Erm, Go Facism! I suppose.

Personally, I've become apathetic - heterosexual marriage has become completely meaningless - you get the same from spending a couple of hours with a Solicitor and getting him to draw up a legal contract - and it'll be a tenth of the price.

With that in mind, why should I care if homosexuals demand we pretend they're exactly like heterosexuals.

The bit that bother me is the double-speak and the way "homophobe" gets bandied around.

[a completely inoffensive name]

im not speaking from religion (i dont have religion) or my culture,.

If you are not speaking from religion, where do you get your morals from which you are making these arguments?

[Papewaio]

Morals are an emergent phenomena. You can call it magic if you don't understand it, but morals is essentially TCP/IP for humans. It's a bunch of different reactions and rules we have for situations involving other humans and other social network sharers.

Morals determine how we address, communicate, approach, share, talk, listen, back off, avoid, default to another moral gateway such as a parent, priest or book.

Our morals are partly informed by our understanding of ourselves and others. Awareness of self and that others are individuals with feelings to helps inform us on how we should treat each other in a group setting.

=][= As for the idea that men are destructive and not capable of proper parental love, and woman are doves of love. This is confusing ones sex with ones socially assigned gender role.

Nature is quite capable of showing how loving and caring a mother animal is when a human gets between it and its young. If you get between a cow and its newborn calf you will be attacked. Try it with a mother bear and her cubs and its a Darwin Award for you.

As a male parent with children. I look after and love my kids. I took two months off work unpaid to help raise our youngest one this year when she was born to be with her and help my wife. There are house husbands who look after their kids and have wives that work.

Gender roles are little more then traditions that are generally applicable. Not all men are bad cooks or rugged explorers. Not all woman make good mums. Gender roles suffer more from stereotypes as there is a lot of confusion over what is nature or Nuture. Also what we forget is that most people switch roles effortlessly during their day say from husband to commuter, to worker to boss to subordinate to colleague to get fit particapent, to father. Each of these roles will have a varying degree of nature whilst most will have a lot of learned experience.

Gender is not 1:1 with our biological sex.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Dissagree

Gender roles are a case of best fit to role.

Men make better hunters and fighters on average - women make better child raisers and therefore homekeepers.

Aside from the obvious, that men don't get laid up during pregnancy, men are also bigger and stronger - and women are empathetic and better at multi-tasking. There are enough studies of people taking sex hormones that demonstrate this to be basic biological fact.

[Empire*Of*Media]

You mentioned gay and lesbians above, your argument only touches upon two men bringing up a child. What about two women, surely that would lead to some sort of super baby, going by your post?

i dont mean super child, just normal child, and you know, women are more smooth and have a natural strong feel to her child, i dont say for lesbians is good, but very better for a child that born with two gays !! i thank god i did not born in those un-natural & un-normal sick and so called Families !!


Just out of curiosity, what does the 'lesser' part of that statement mean?[/QUOTE]

i meant lesser, because in those times women did not have unlimited power and and they were more obedient, so we had very few lesbians in history, only limited to kings & emperors private palaces!

Dear Papewaio
your post was a very good & reasonable & logical !! thank you !

[Montmorency]

Gender roles are a case of best fit to role.

Yet you don't think that there remains room for optimization?

Whatever variation has existed along a certain continuum before the 20th century - that's the be-all end-all?

As it turns out, traditions do not persist because they tend to promote maximum possible efficiency, just as mega-corporations do not survive by their ability to deliver the best product at the fairest price.

[Beskar]

Urgh... the House of Lords are trying to pass an amendment to stop the Same Sex marriage bill.

I think the arguments for the positives of having unelected nincompoops past their prime just disappears.

Link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22749728)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yet you don't think that there remains room for optimization?

Whatever variation has existed along a certain continuum before the 20th century - that's the be-all end-all?

As it turns out, traditions do not persist because they tend to promote maximum possible efficiency, just as mega-corporations do not survive by their ability to deliver the best product at the fairest price.

You're talking about nuance - I'm talking broad strokes. There's a reason the latter stage of pregnancy is traditionally called "confinement".

People like to bring up cases like American Frontierswomen, who dropped the bairn one day and were back in the fields the next - they neglect the fact that these women were within sight of the house for most if not all of the pregnancy.

Why do female bodybuilders take testosterone?

Because it makes them more like men and therefore more able to build muscle.


Urgh... the House of Lords are trying to pass an amendment to stop the Same Sex marriage bill.

I think the arguments for the positives of having unelected nincompoops past their prime just disappears.

Link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22749728)

The Bill is badly framed and shouldn't become Law - it's a fudge that basically changes "Civil Partnership" to "Marriage" without acknowledging problem like consummation and adultery.

A marriage isn't legal until its consummated, but there is no legal way for a same-sex couple to consummate.

That's a legal problem that has been blithely ignored, because the only solution is to abolish the practice of consummation and the right to annulment, but that won't happen because it requires a fundamental change to heterosexual marriage that would require actual recognition of the issues at hand.

[Beskar]

A marriage isn't legal until its consummated, but there is no legal way for a same-sex couple to consummate.

Usually involves one man on the bottom and the other behind him. However, there is some issue with lesbian couples in similar context without the aid of artificial means. Also depends on whether or not foreplay is classed as "sexual intercourse" or not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Usually involves one man on the bottom and the other behind him. However, there is some issue with lesbian couples in similar context without the aid of artificial means. Also depends on whether or not foreplay is classed as "sexual intercourse" or not.

That's not consummation, legally speaking. Consummation is a specific legally act, not a merely sexual one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consummation

"Consummation or consummation of a marriage, in many traditions and statutes of civil or religious law, is the first (or first officially credited) act of sexual intercourse between two people, either following their marriage to each other or after a prolonged sexual attraction. Its legal significance arises from theories of marriage as having the purpose of producing legally recognized descendants of the partners, or of providing sanction to their sexual acts together, or both, and amounts to treating a marriage ceremony as falling short of completing the creation of the state of being married. Thus in some Western traditions, a marriage is not considered a binding contract until and unless it has been consummated."

Edit: The article even notes the discrepancy in the Bill - that same-sex marriage does not admit consummation.

Ergo, my understanding of the Law as it stands is accepted by parliament, yours is not.

[Papewaio]

The bit between the bolds is important:

", or of providing sanction to their sexual acts together,"

[Montmorency]

Thus in some Western traditions, a marriage is not considered a binding contract until and unless it has been consummated."

Remove this stricture immediately.

LEGALIZE ASEXUALITY

[Empire*Of*Media]

Remove this stricture immediately.



why you'd like to remove the truth ?!

[Fragony]

why you'd like to remove the truth ?!

It's simply not the truth. Gay-marriage is mostly a tax construction that gives gay-couples the same legal rights. If a homosexual couple can't benefit from tax breaks while they are both bringing in the same money is that fair. For marriage purists there also shouldn't be a problem as it's called 'gay marriage', not 'marriage'. Discrminating gay couples is a flaw in the law that needs fixing. How you think about it is up to you, I kinda agree with you actually somewhat on gender roles, but you don't have to to fully agree with things to aprove them imho

[Ironside]

You're talking about nuance - I'm talking broad strokes. There's a reason the latter stage of pregnancy is traditionally called "confinement".

People like to bring up cases like American Frontierswomen, who dropped the bairn one day and were back in the fields the next - they neglect the fact that these women were within sight of the house for most if not all of the pregnancy.

Why do female bodybuilders take testosterone?

Because it makes them more like men and therefore more able to build muscle.


The problem with broad strokes are that they are just that, broad strokes. My dad and I got a index-ringfinger length ratio assossiated with females and used to identify gender on children in archeology for example, yet any archeologist draving full conclusions on that wouldn't be worthy his title, since the ratio is about 70-30 at 1:1 fingerlength ratio.

Are such ratios common? Yes. Upper body strength difference is commonly refered to when it comes to gender differences and while it's much larger it's also the largest gender difference tested. That means that exceptions to the roles are quite common, rather than exceptional, meaning that it's much better to focus on the induvidual, rather than the gender average.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The bit between the bolds is important:

", or of providing sanction to their sexual acts together,"

But that's secondary as far as the Law is concerned.

If you disagree with that, then you need to admit the Law needs changing - not just re-labeling.

[PanzerJaeger]

That's not consummation, legally speaking. Consummation is a specific legally act, not a merely sexual one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consummation

"Consummation or consummation of a marriage, in many traditions and statutes of civil or religious law, is the first (or first officially credited) act of sexual intercourse between two people, either following their marriage to each other or after a prolonged sexual attraction. Its legal significance arises from theories of marriage as having the purpose of producing legally recognized descendants of the partners, or of providing sanction to their sexual acts together, or both, and amounts to treating a marriage ceremony as falling short of completing the creation of the state of being married. Thus in some Western traditions, a marriage is not considered a binding contract until and unless it has been consummated."

Edit: The article even notes the discrepancy in the Bill - that same-sex marriage does not admit consummation.

Ergo, my understanding of the Law as it stands is accepted by parliament, yours is not.

Interesting. Can you link to the definition of sexual intercourse in English common law? I cannot find it on my phone.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think all this talk about consummating the marriage and other legal technicalities is a bit silly. Ultimately this debate is about whether we view homosexual relationships as being just as natural, moral, and socially valuable as heterosexual ones - in other words, deserving to be brought under the title of 'marriage'. People can take their sides accordingly but this was never about what particular act is needed to consummate things.

TBH I just wish this issue would get resolved because all it is doing is fuelling hate on both sides. Plus, there's hundreds of way in which traditional marriage really is coming under attack, and gay marriage isn't really one of them. It's more an acknowledgement of existing trends, rather than a cause in and of itself.

Which doesn't mean I'm lax about it, I'm still dead against it, but I'm fed up with it, and I know what direction the march of history is heading in anyway.

[Beskar]

if you want "Traditional" Marriage. Separate it from the State. It is the only way you will win. Once it is separated from the state, it will fragment down to the individual religious institutions having their own rules for governing its use, restoring their various versions to the 'Proper way' with Ecclesiastical courts. (Don't forget they could prosecute you for Fornication before marriage as well!)

It is only getting destroyed because people want the state to enforce marriage and the people don't want those rules in regards to marriage.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

if you want "Traditional" Marriage. Separate it from the State. It is the only way you will win. Once it is separated from the state, it will fragment down to the individual religious institutions having their own rules for governing its use, restoring their various versions to the 'Proper way' with Ecclesiastical courts. (Don't forget they could prosecute you for Fornication before marriage as well!)

It is only getting destroyed because people want the state to enforce marriage and the people don't want those rules in regards to marriage.

Separating marriage (religious connect of persons) from legal union (civil contract) would be the ideal. But....that horse left the barn a few millennia ago.

The religious connection between persons and the state's right to tax and regulate it have always been conflated. Thus marriage is, in function, an aspect of a person's legal rights. With it connected to personal rights, it is inevitable that any person whose rights are denied or limited on some arbitrary basis (sex, race, sexual preference, etc.) that cannot be directly related to public safety will have been discriminated against. Courts and the Law must notice this...however slowly.

Same sex marriage will be a legally codified right in all 50 states within a decade or so -- as no other legal result is possible within the framework of our Constitution as written and amended (a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage by sex would change this, but I cannot conceive of such an amendment passing Congress, being signed by the President, AND acquiring the support of 35 state legislatures).

Unlike Lemur, I do construe that, having established the case for same-sex marriage on a "rights" level, the corollaries will include -- in time at least -- the legalization of any other form of "marriage" between consenting adults as well, be it same-sex, polyamorous, or communal. Once marriage is an individual's right, and therefore not to be restricted save where the individual is not competent to enter into such a contract (mental inability, legal minority) or where there exists a clear and present danger to other's rights or the safety of the public, no other result is truly tenable.

Lemur notes that, unlike same-sex marriage wherein the changes would be minimal aside from gender-neutralizing the language, significant practical hurdles would exist in establishing probate rules, tax code, and the like. However, given the byzantine complexity of probate rules and the tax code as is, I actually suspect that the lawyers and accountants would probably just enjoy adding more rules to the party. I do not foresee this practicality concern as something that will trump a "rights" argument under our Constitution.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Unlike Lemur, I do construe that, having established the case for same-sex marriage on a "rights" level, the corollaries will include -- in time at least -- the legalization of any other form of "marriage" between consenting adults as well, be it same-sex, polyamorous, or communal. Once marriage is an individual's right, and therefore not to be restricted save where the individual is not competent to enter into such a contract (mental inability, legal minority) or where there exists a clear and present danger to other's rights or the safety of the public, no other result is truly tenable.


Well it makes sense to consider it a right if you believe that individuals have the right to freely enter into mutually agreed upon contracts. That is what a marriage essentially is according to the government.

I disagree though that this expansion will open the flood gates for everything and everyone. The notion of marriage as being between two individuals is still holding strong because that was never challenged in the first place, only the notion that each of the sexes has to be represented among the two. I personally support same-sex marriage but would oppose marriages for greater than two people.

I think you can make the case that it is arbitrary to demand that a marriage contract must be between members of the opposite sex, but it is not arbitrary to demand that the contract can only have two signatures on it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well it makes sense to consider it a right if you believe that individuals have the right to freely enter into mutually agreed upon contracts. That is what a marriage essentially is according to the government.

I disagree though that this expansion will open the flood gates for everything and everyone. The notion of marriage as being between two individuals is still holding strong because that was never challenged in the first place, only the notion that each of the sexes has to be represented among the two. I personally support same-sex marriage but would oppose marriages for greater than two people.

I think you can make the case that it is arbitrary to demand that a marriage contract must be between members of the opposite sex, but it is not arbitrary to demand that the contract can only have two signatures on it.

I didn't say that such marriages would be common, or even have a lot of social acceptance, just that on a rights level they couldn't be denied. US culture actually sneers a bit at polygamous marriages, polyandrous marriages were cultural rarities world-wide, and communes (to the USA mindset) are free-love etc.

Again, I was making a rights argument here, not denying the comparative lack of popularity.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I didn't say that such marriages would be common, or even have a lot of social acceptance, just that on a rights level they couldn't be denied. US culture actually sneers a bit at polygamous marriages, polyandrous marriages were cultural rarities world-wide, and communes (to the USA mindset) are free-love etc.

Again, I was making a rights argument here, not denying the comparative lack of popularity.

I understand, which is why I stated I think you could make the case that holding the marriage contract to two individuals is not arbitrary. I should clarify what I am saying, I do not think "marriage rights" is going to be treated as a broad "individual rights" kind of thing but specifically relating to the rights and laws regarding contracts. There are many exceptions that can invalidate a contract and I don't see why it would be impossible for the government to conclude that marriage contracts are invalid if there is more than two individuals agreeing to it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think all this talk about consummating the marriage and other legal technicalities is a bit silly. Ultimately this debate is about whether we view homosexual relationships as being just as natural, moral, and socially valuable as heterosexual ones - in other words, deserving to be brought under the title of 'marriage'. People can take their sides accordingly but this was never about what particular act is needed to consummate things.

TBH I just wish this issue would get resolved because all it is doing is fuelling hate on both sides. Plus, there's hundreds of way in which traditional marriage really is coming under attack, and gay marriage isn't really one of them. It's more an acknowledgement of existing trends, rather than a cause in and of itself.

Which doesn't mean I'm lax about it, I'm still dead against it, but I'm fed up with it, and I know what direction the march of history is heading in anyway.

By allowing the other side to define the boundaries of the argument, you pain yourself into a corner - essentially labeling yourself a rabid bigot.

It's been unambiguously demonstrated that various Christian churches recognized same-sex unions which included a sexual element - but they also defined these unions separately from marriage.

I don't for a second believe that this is a rights issue - homosexuals demanding the right to enter into a marriage contract is the same as Reg demanding the right to be pregnant.

Whether you can slew definitions to make it true or not is beside the point - you're asking society to pretend.


Well it makes sense to consider it a right if you believe that individuals have the right to freely enter into mutually agreed upon contracts. That is what a marriage essentially is according to the government.

I disagree though that this expansion will open the flood gates for everything and everyone. The notion of marriage as being between two individuals is still holding strong because that was never challenged in the first place, only the notion that each of the sexes has to be represented among the two. I personally support same-sex marriage but would oppose marriages for greater than two people.

I think you can make the case that it is arbitrary to demand that a marriage contract must be between members of the opposite sex, but it is not arbitrary to demand that the contract can only have two signatures on it.

The State regulates contracts on behalf of society - it regulates who you can and can't marry.

You can't marry family members, or minors, or (until recently) people of the same sex. Preference had nothing to do with it. As soon as you extend marriage beyond the biologically reproductive unit, the limitations become entirely arbitrary.

If two men can enter into a marriage contract, why not two men and one woman, or one man and four women?

Given that we've apparently moved from practical to "moral" arguments, you'll need to provide a moral argument against polyamory.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Given that we've apparently moved from practical to "moral" arguments, you'll need to provide a moral argument against polyamory.

God doesn't like it.

It would reduce the total amount of pleasure/utility in society if people switched to this type of social organization.

The virtuous man would not pledge himself in such a way to multiple persons.

It violates the categorical imperative because polyamory relationships necessarily have you treating individuals as means to an end instead of an end in and of themselves.

I'm in the sciences, not the humanities. I can't really give a solid moral argument beyond my basic understanding of the different ethics systems shown above.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

God doesn't like it.

It would reduce the total amount of pleasure/utility in society if people switched to this type of social organization.

The virtuous man would not pledge himself in such a way to multiple persons.

It violates the categorical imperative because polyamory relationships necessarily have you treating individuals as means to an end instead of an end in and of themselves.

I'm in the sciences, not the humanities. I can't really give a solid moral argument beyond my basic understanding of the different ethics systems shown above.

Variants of all of these have been applied to homosexuality.

Given that we have rejected them in that instance you cannot appeal to them in other instances without being a hypocrite.

Ergo, rejection of polyamory and acceptance of homosexuality is a matter of personal squicks and not personal morals.

The only possible argument you can make is that if more than two people enter into a contract a breakdown between only two of the parties would potentially render the entire contract void. The solution to that, though, is just to allow bigamy.

Then you say, ah but we can't have bigamists!

Of course, we can have queers, so long as they're respectable and have only one partner. That's what this is about, making homosexuality respectable, which is important because lots of classical actors and musicians are homosexual and it's important for them to be allowed to bring their "partners" to the Oscars and mingle with the other respectable people.

Heaven for-fend anyone bring more than one partner though, that would be so vulgar and base - rutting like peasants.

[Rhyfelwyr]

By allowing the other side to define the boundaries of the argument, you pain yourself into a corner - essentially labeling yourself a rabid bigot.

I think both sides of the argument agree on the boundaries here. For both sides this issue is about different morals and different visions of society - not legal technicalities.

As for being a bigot I just embrace it these days. I have no desire to engage with civil society or the political system over debates like this. Don't vote, don't campaign - don't legitimise it.

As for ACIN's rights argument, I think it must allow polygamy by extension since I don't see how limiting the contract to a certain number of people is any less arbitrary than limiting it to certain combinations of the sexes. Polygamous marriage also has a much stronger historical tradition than homosexual marriage, which probably doesn't have any at all.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think both sides of the argument agree on the boundaries here. For both sides this issue is about different morals and different visions of society - not legal technicalities.

Well, here we have a fundamental disagreement.

Were I a priest I would happily perform a binding ceremony for a homosexual couple based on historical liturgy - I would euphemise it by calling it a "blessing" and I wouldn't call it a "marriage" either - but nor would I pretend the couple were in an asexual relationship.

[Beskar]

Sorry for losing so much faith in the system!

Go House of Lords! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22764954)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Old news.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Variants of all of these have been applied to homosexuality.

Just out of curiosity, I want you to point me to the anti-gay Kantians.

[HoreTore]

Why on earth would anyone want to limit polygamy...?

[Papewaio]

Think of the children!

http://m.smh.com.au/national/children-of-samesex-couples-thriving-study-20130605-2nqjy.html

"An interim report found there was no statistical difference between children of same-sex couples and the rest of the population on indicators including self-esteem, emotional behaviour and the amount of time spent with parents.

However, children of same-sex couples scored higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion, measuring how well a family gets along.
Researchers said the difference between the two groups on these measures was so strong it would only occur by chance less than one in 10,000 times."

Dataset was 500 children up to the age of 17. 315 parents of which 80% are woman.

[The Stranger]

Just out of curiosity, I want you to point me to the anti-gay Kantians.

they no exist.

[Beskar]

However, children of same-sex couples scored higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion, measuring how well a family gets along.

That actually doesn't surprise me. Though I would hypothesise that lesbian couples score higher than gay couples, based on stereotypical nesting behaviour.

[Papewaio]

I think there are a few things creating a positive bias. Most obvious of which is that the dataset would probably include a lot of IVF pregnancies. That is the very definition of a planned pregnancy and requires committed and generally well off couple to do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think there are a few things creating a positive bias. Most obvious of which is that the dataset would probably include a lot of IVF pregnancies. That is the very definition of a planned pregnancy and requires committed and generally well off couple to do.

Discounting couples where one partner has a child from a previous relationship, we are talking about 100% planned pregnancies, which means older couples who are more financially stable.

You would need to control for that.

Anyway - problems are more likely to arise when the child is in their twenties and trying to negotiate a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. How does a girl with "two mums" cope with men and their need to be useful providers? How does a boy with two mums cope with being introduced to his girlfriend's father?

In some cases there will be other role models outside the family unit - but if you needed that in a heterosexual couple you'd think that one or both of the actual parents was failing in some way.

Speaking as someone with a loving but emotionally unavailable father - it's not fun to have to go looking for role models.

The other issue is that those of us in heterosexual families are highly gendered - even enlightened men like Beskar tend to find that certain things, like being told she wants you to take her name, will get under their skin. Thats another issue children from homosexual couples will not have encountered.

[Papewaio]

Well I have loving caring Mum and Dad. Still didn't prepare me for the father in law, let alone the mother in law.

I personally think that civil marriages should be allowed. That religious ones should be allowed. That no religion should be forced to marry non believers according to the religions definitions not the individuals getting married.

I also think that no civil law, benefits or penalties should be given to a status or group that is exclusively determined by religious appointment. In other words either allow all forms of marriage to get tax and other government benefits or none. Also priests should not be above the law anymore then teachers. Any group be they teachers or priests who actively hide crimes should be treated equally by the law.

So let gay and lesbians marry. Don't make any religion have to perform the ceremony if they don't want to. Or get rid of all be fits of marriage conferred by the state if it is limited to a religious grouping.

[Fragony]

Well I have loving caring Mum and Dad. Still didn't prepare me for the father in law, let alone the mother in law.

I personally think that civil marriages should be allowed. That religious ones should be allowed. That no religion should be forced to marry non believers according to the religions definitions not the individuals getting married.

I also think that no civil law, benefits or penalties should be given to a status or group that is exclusively determined by religious appointment. In other words either allow all forms of marriage to get tax and other government benefits or none. Also priests should not be above the law anymore then teachers. Any group be they teachers or priests who actively hide crimes should be treated equally by the law.

So let gay and lesbians marry. Don't make any religion have to perform the ceremony if they don't want to. Or get rid of all be fits of marriage conferred by the state if it is limited to a religious grouping.

Sounds like perfection to me.

Edit, I tend to get suspious with studies like this as gays have a point to prove that might just be activist, but sharing it anyway http://www.smh.com.au/national/children-of-samesex-couples-thriving-study-20130605-2nqjy.html

[Papewaio]

I think the welfare Snow White mums ... The single parents with seven kids from seven "princes" would skew the stats for heterosexual numbers down.

So there would need to be careful comparison of equivalent social economic bands.

[a completely inoffensive name]

they no exist.

So then PVC is just blowing smoke up my butt. Which is what I suspected when he simply dismissed me with saying that people have made similar argument without caring if those arguments were any good or constructed properly or not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As you have insulted me, I must respond - I'm not glib because I dismiss your intellect, I'm glib because I don't like typing - so the arguments against homosexuality:


God doesn't like it.

God hates it (in fact, only the Christian God doesn't like polyamory, but almost all Gods hate homosexuality).


It would reduce the total amount of pleasure/utility in society if people switched to this type of social organization.

The relationship has no utility beyond pleasure - it weakens society because successful/useful individuals do not breed. Additionally, the relationship generates pleasure only for the participants, because no children are produced.


The virtuous man would not pledge himself in such a way to multiple persons.

The virtuous man seeks virtue and finds pleasure in it - but a homosexual seeks pleasure and declares it virtue of itself.


It violates the categorical imperative because polyamory relationships necessarily have you treating individuals as means to an end instead of an end in and of themselves.

I'm sorry - I can't immediately come up with an analogue - there may not be one, or we may come back to the only end being pleasure - there is not real purpose to the relationship.

[Papewaio]

Sparta & world being over populated & chance of homosexuality rising with the number of previous brothers.

1) A very successful warrior society that had a homosexual component in ancient times. Yet still had children.

2) Current overpopulation. Maybe everyone doesn't need twelve kids now that 40% don't die by the age of twelve.

3). Mother Nature seems to have some sort of reason. Perhaps after having a core of breeders a hunter gatherer society did better with more warriors. Makes sense when looking at animals in small groups, they typically have a breeding pier and everyone else serves the group. Perhaps homosexuality helps reaffirm a group role.

[Sigurd]

(in fact, only the Christian God doesn't like polyamory...).

Depends on whether Abraham was a Christian or not (Abraham's bosom etc.). :sneaky:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think all this talk about consummating the marriage and other legal technicalities is a bit silly. Ultimately this debate is about whether we view homosexual relationships as being just as natural, moral, and socially valuable as heterosexual ones - in other words, deserving to be brought under the title of 'marriage'.

I think it's essentially liberty vs community. People who are very concerned about the state of marriage are looking at people who they feel haven't been shown what marriage should be about, and are suffering as the result, and they want our society to affirm a certain moral vision. The pro-gay marriage side is concerned strictly with the people who can't visit their loved one in the hospital, or who have been abused for who they are and feel like the refusal to call their relationship a marriage is more abuse.

You get the same thing with arguments about drugs and pornography.




I disagree though that this expansion will open the flood gates for everything and everyone. The notion of marriage as being between two individuals is still holding strong because that was never challenged in the first place, only the notion that each of the sexes has to be represented among the two. I personally support same-sex marriage but would oppose marriages for greater than two people.


People imagine polygamy as three people getting married, but there's no reason to just think of it that way.

Today, wealthy and successful men sometimes divorce their wives and marry a younger women. They could very easily just stay married, and get a second wife, if that was accepted. What would your argument against that be?



3). Mother Nature seems to have some sort of reason. Perhaps after having a core of breeders a hunter gatherer society did better with more warriors. Makes sense when looking at animals in small groups, they typically have a breeding pier and everyone else serves the group. Perhaps homosexuality helps reaffirm a group role.

Possibly the non-breeders helped the group in the short term. But they wouldn't pass on their genes, and so they would eventually die out. Ants and such are all related.

Last time I looked it up, sheep were the only other species they had found with homosexuality (and also asexuality). Tons of species engage in sexual behavior with members of the same sex, but they almost always still breed. A male being completely uninterested in a female is rare for obvious evolutionary reasons. That's why they study sheep especially.

[Lemur]

Last time I looked it up, sheep were the only other species they had found with homosexuality (and also asexuality). Tons of species engage in sexual behavior with members of the same sex, but they almost always still breed.
Hmm, plenty of humans who prefer same-sex romance also breed at some point or another. I think your definition is idiosyncratic.

Linkage, with discussion of what it means to call something "homosexual." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)

Animal preference and motivation is always inferred from behavior. In wild animals, researchers will as a rule not be able to map the entire life of an individual, and must infer from frequency of single observations of behavior. The correct usage of the term homosexual is that an animal exhibits homosexual behavior or even same-sex sexual behavior; however, this article conforms to the usage by modern research, applying the term homosexuality to all sexual behavior (copulation, genital stimulation, mating games and sexual display behavior) between animals of the same sex. In most instances, it is presumed that the homosexual behavior is but part of the animal's overall sexual behavioral repertoire, making the animal "bisexual" rather than "homosexual" as the terms are commonly understood in humans,[16] but cases of homosexual preference and exclusive homosexual pairs are known.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"In wild animals, researchers will as a rule not be able to map the entire life of an individual, and must infer from frequency of single observations of behavior. "

It doesn't make much sense to observe one same sex incident and then say that you observed bisexual behavior. So they say they observed homosexual behavior. Makes sense. But usually when someone is attracted to both sexes we say they are bisexual, if they are only attracted to the opposite sex then we say homosexual.


Hmm, plenty of humans who prefer same-sex romance also breed at some point or another.
Animals generally act on instinct, so if they breed it is because they have an instinctive attraction. Humans aren't quite as limited, they can rationally decide to have kids even if they feel no attraction.

You could potentially learn a lot about human homosexuality from sheep, not so much from other animals. It's something of a mystery, because clearly the male sheep should pass on their genes much less often, and yet they are a sizable percent of the population. So I think they are investigating sheep to see if they can find out what the cause is.

[Beskar]

It doesn't make much sense to observe one same sex incident and then say that you observed bisexual behavior. So they say they observed homosexual behavior. Makes sense. But usually when someone is attracted to both sexes we say they are bisexual, if they are only attracted to the opposite sex then we say homosexual.

Being honest, I think we are more inherently pansexual. Just evolutionary mechanisms have generally decided which direction works best and thus skewed in that direction. You mention about wild animal observations, there are cases of animals humping anything and everything, including your leg. I think we are generally are just all randy gits.

What shapes it the most is society we live in. However, not even that can really stop you preferring mars bar over snickers.

I think the issue is also has ties to gender identity conflicting with society to some degree.
(Here is a good link (http://transpectrum.tumblr.com/image/21506155356) on what gender identity is.)

[a completely inoffensive name]

People imagine polygamy as three people getting married, but there's no reason to just think of it that way.

Today, wealthy and successful men sometimes divorce their wives and marry a younger women. They could very easily just stay married, and get a second wife, if that was accepted. What would your argument against that be?

The same type of argument that everyone else brings up, which is basically an attempt to define marriage on favorable terms. The argument for people like PVC is "it's all about the procreation" for pro gay marriage its "it's all about love/rights/freedom".

I personally would say that marrying a second wife while still being married to wife #1 is the same as a company signing an exclusivity contract with distributor #1 and then signing the exact same contract with distributor #2. Obviously the latter contract is simply invalid and nonsensical. You can't commit yourself in such a way (that marriage entails) to more than one person at the same time.

[Lemur]

DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57591089/supreme-court-strikes-down-doma/)

The gay rights movement saw a significant victory at the Supreme Court Wednesday, where the justices struck down part of a law that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court struck down Section 3 of the 17-year-old Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a provision of the law that denies federal benefits -- like Social Security benefits or the ability to file joint tax returns -- to same-sex couples legally married.

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

The impact of the DOMA case, United States v. Windsor, is clear for the nation's approximately 130,000 legally married same-sex couples who were previously denied federal benefits under Section 3. That provision impacts around 1,100 federal laws, including veterans' benefits, family medical leave and tax laws.

DOMA, passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996, was challenged by Edith Windsor, who lived with her partner Thea Spyer in New York for more than four decades. They finally married in 2007, and when Spyer died in 2009, she left Windsor her estate. Because DOMA didn't recognize their marriage -- even though the state of New York did -- the IRS hit Windsor with $363,053 in estate taxes.

[Xiahou]

I think the prop8 decision is a bit unsettling. If a state's populace, by referendum, legitimately pass a amendment that the state's executive branch does not like, they need only decline to enforce/defend it. The people then have no recourse according to this decision.

[HoreTore]

the IRS hit Windsor with $363,053 in estate taxes.

I honestly cannot understand how people can be against gay marriage when this is an example of the consequence of not recognizing it.

It's just the fundamentalists way of bringing misery and pain to people who are different from the fundies, nothing more.

[TinCow]

I think the prop8 decision is a bit unsettling. If a state's populace, by referendum, legitimately pass a amendment that the state's executive branch does not like, they need only decline to enforce/defend it. The people then have no recourse according to this decision.

Of course they do, vote out the executive.

[Xiahou]

Of course they do, vote out the executive.So if they decline to uphold their oath of office, the voters only recourse is to throw them out of office. Ok, then what? The ammendment, passed via referendum was already overturned due in no small part to the executive's lack of interest in defending it. Isn't this creating an artificially high barrier? What if it was a measure you actually supported that your AG shrugged off- still fine?

People spent vast time and resources to get the proposition passed- and they succeeded. Your response is, now you have to organize to get a new regime in place. Then, you get to do it all over again and attempt to get another proposition on the ballot and passed. Meanwhile, opponents of the measure need not do any of that- all they need is a sympathetic AG. That sounds like pretty dysfunctional government to me....

[TinCow]

So if they decline to uphold their oath of office, the voters only recourse is to throw them out of office. Ok, then what? The ammendment, passed via referendum was already overturned due in no small part to the executive's lack of interest in defending it. Isn't this creating an artificially high barrier? What if it was a measure you actually supported that your AG shrugged off- still fine?

Since when does their oath of office require them to continue policies they don't believe in? Isn't the whole point of electing officials to have them govern the state the way they see fit? As for an artificially high barrier, it generally takes a simple majority to elect an official. I think that's an entirely acceptable hurdle; would you prefer 40%? 30%? In ay case, I think your protestations are particularly weak in this case, when there was an election in the middle of this court process and the citizens of California elected new executives who promised not to defend the law in court. If the majority really still wanted that law upheld they would have elected people who would have fought for it instead of those who promised not to.

[Lemur]

I am enjoying the theoconservative reaction (http://wonkette.com/520855) to all this.

https://i.imgur.com/YQ6iqie.jpg

[drone]

1. Where does the "American Patriarchy Association" fall on the crazy scale under the rule of groups with "Family" in their name? Is there a special corollary for this?

2. That profile picture... Put me down for $5 on "child-toucher".

[a completely inoffensive name]

I thought the role swap was interesting between the 5-4 decision on DOMA and the 5-4 decision on Prop 8. http://projects.nytimes.com/live-dashboard/2013-06-26-supreme-court-gay-marriage

As always the SCOTUS prove themselves to be either the tyrannical 9 or the last bastion of objectivity depending on whether you won or not.

[Xiahou]

Since when does their oath of office require them to continue policies they don't believe in?The executive takes an oath to uphold the constitution. Prop8 was a properly passed constitutional amendment. No one was challenging the legitimacy of the referendum's passage. Yet they declined to defend it in court.

As for an artificially high barrier, it generally takes a simple majority to elect an official.It also takes a simple majority to pass an amendment- or at least it's supposed to....

[Xiahou]

I thought the role swap was interesting between the 5-4 decision on DOMA and the 5-4 decision on Prop 8. http://projects.nytimes.com/live-dashboard/2013-06-26-supreme-court-gay-marriage

As always the SCOTUS prove themselves to be either the tyrannical 9 or the last bastion of objectivity depending on whether you won or not.
I think most people had to see the DOMA decision coming. Everyone knew the law had some Constitutionality issues.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The executive takes an oath to uphold the constitution. Prop8 was a properly passed constitutional amendment. No one was challenging the legitimacy of the referendum's passage. Yet they declined to defend it in court.
If the politician in question feels that the State Constitution is in violation of the higher, Federal Constitution that they swore to uphold, why should they defend the law in question?



It also takes a simple majority to pass an amendment- or at least it's supposed to....
Takes 50%+1 to pass a Proposition in CA, but that is not what it should take.

[Greyblades]

I particularly like this tweet:
http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/huckDOMA.jpg

If he said this about the gutting of the voting rights act he would be right on the money, but no, Senatorial hubris is only worth getting up in arms about when it's helping the gays.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If he said this about the gutting of the voting rights act he would be right on the money, but no, Senatorial hubris is only worth getting up in arms about when it's helping the gays.

I disagree that the voting rights act has been gutted.

[HoreTore]

A comment on the claims of the process being "undemocratic":

A democratic decision(the liberal(competitive) democracy, not a deliberative(dialogue) democracy) is usually defined as a majority decision. Thus, if a minority overrules a majority, it's seen as undemocratic. However, there are at least three situations where this is not true:

1. The consequences of a particular decision are more severe for one group than another.
2. The different alternatives themselves are not equal, one alternative is more severe than another.
3. The idea that a "good society" includes the minority voice in its decisions.

You could argue that at least the first applies to the question of gay marriage, and probably the second point as well. Thus, a majority decision is meaningless when it comes to this. They gay community cannot be given a voice on the "one man - one vote"-basis for the decision to be deemed democratic - the opinion of the gays must be given additional weight.

[Montmorency]

1. The consequences of a particular decision are more severe for one group than another.

I can not imagine a situation in which this would not be the case, unless the precision of evaluation is uselessly low.


You could argue that at least the first applies to the question of gay marriage, and probably the second point as well. Thus, a majority decision is meaningless when it comes to this. They gay community cannot be given a voice on the "one man - one vote"-basis for the decision to be deemed democratic - the opinion of the gays must be given additional weight.

How much weight, exactly?

[TinCow]

The executive takes an oath to uphold the constitution. Prop8 was a properly passed constitutional amendment. No one was challenging the legitimacy of the referendum's passage. Yet they declined to defend it in court.

The same oath also makes them swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. In this case, they believed that the state constitutional amendment violated the US Constitution. In such a situation, no matter which constitution they chose to defend, they would not be defending the other one. As such, they are basically free to choose support whichever one they think is correct. In this case, the Federal District agreed with the CA executive branch that the state amendment violated the US Constitution, thus validating the governor's decision not to defend it.

By your reasoning, the executive branch should defend absolutely every referendum that the people pass, even when it violates the US Constitution. Thus, by your argument, the State of California should also spend their time and money defending a referendum that re-instituted slavery and repealed freedom of speech.

[PanzerJaeger]

I think the prop8 decision is a bit unsettling. If a state's populace, by referendum, legitimately pass a amendment that the state's executive branch does not like, they need only decline to enforce/defend it. The people then have no recourse according to this decision.

Agreed. California voters banned gay marriage and California voters should be the ones to undo that ban. A new amendment repealing Prop 8 was planned for 2014 and surely would have passed based on current polling. The extra year of injustice would have been more than worth the legitimacy that can only be afforded by popular referendum, in my opinion.

[Xiahou]

By your reasoning, the executive branch should defend absolutely every referendum that the people pass, even when it violates the US Constitution. Thus, by your argument, the State of California should also spend their time and money defending a referendum that re-instituted slavery and repealed freedom of speech.Of course they should. If a constitutional referendum was duly approved by the electorate- it is their responsibility to enforce it.

Basically, this guts the referendum process. I get that you're fine with it.


Agreed. California voters banned gay marriage and California voters should be the ones to undo that ban. A new amendment repealing Prop 8 was planned for 2014 and surely would have passed based on current polling. The extra year of injustice would have been more than worth the legitimacy that can only be afforded by popular referendum, in my opinion.That would have been the correct avenue to take. The Californians amended the constitution to ban gay marriage, they can amend it again to allow it. :yes:

[Montmorency]

Basically, this guts the referendum process.

It guts the referendum process for a majority of a single state's active voters to be unable to flout the highest federal authority as they please?

Just like it guts my rights as a free citizen to not be permitted to kill whomever I desire to at any moment?

[a completely inoffensive name]

To be fair, that's what the Supreme Court does. It guts the referendum process when there is a moral imperative to do so. Now if you want to oppress them, you have to pass an amendment to the constitution. I have a lot of problems with the Supremes, but they got this one right.

....when there is a legal imperative to do so. They don't care about morals.

[a completely inoffensive name]

One and the same from their perspective.

That is the opposite of truth.

[Xiahou]

To be fair, that's what the Supreme Court does. It guts the referendum process when there is a moral imperative to do so. Now if you want to oppress them, you have to pass an amendment to the constitution. I have a lot of problems with the Supremes, but they got this one right.
No, you're missing the point. The SCOTUS said they didn't have standing to bring the case to the courts since the state's government itself was declining to pursue the matter. I think that's a load of hogwash. Why don't the people who voted in favor of any referendum have standing to see it upheld in court? Congress was granted standing in the DOMA case weren't they?

[TinCow]

Basically, this guts the referendum process. I get that you're fine with it.

To put this into proper perspective though requires some acknowledgement that California has a bizarre and somewhat nonsensical referendum system. In most places, a referendum actually has to be proposed and supported by some portion of the state's governance. California for some reasons decided that it was wise to let anyone try their hand at re-writing the Constitution. As a result, they get a lot of absurd propositions, some of which directly violate the US Constitution. In pretty much every other state this would not have happened because in every other state the amendment would have been backed by major players in the governing party or it never would have passed in the first place. I shall not weep for the failure of the initiative process; it does little for California except cause problems.


No, you're missing the point. The SCOTUS said they didn't have standing to bring the case to the courts since the state's government itself was declining to pursue the matter. I think that's a load of hogwash. Why don't the people who voted in favor of any referendum have standing to see it upheld in court? Congress was granted standing in the DOMA case weren't they?

You seem to misunderstand what happened. SCOTUS ruled that way specifically because they did not want to tackle the issue of constitutionality of same-sex marriage by the states. Had they wanted to tackle it, they would have found standing. Should a similar situation arise in the future, they could perfectly well find standing if they wanted to rule on the underlying issue.

[Papewaio]

If California's economy, clean air, and technology leadership is anything to go on they must be doing something right.

Just because their referendum process doesn't require the established players and special interests groups to have crafted referendums to their liking might be a big part of California's success.

If they really want it, they punish the branch of government that didn't support it at the next election.

[TinCow]

If California's economy, clean air, and technology leadership is anything to go on they must be doing something right.

Those changes were accomplished with government-sponsored legislation, not the initiative referendum process.

I'm honestly quite astonished at the response to this situation. I thought it was widely agreed upon that allowing a simple majority to do whatever they wanted without any checks or balances was a bad idea. Surely the term tyranny of the masses rings a bell? This is one of the reasons why 'pure' democracy is a very bad idea in modern societies.

[Fisherking]

But the initiative and referendum process was put in place is several states because legislators were not representing the people or the issues they found important.

I can’t say I agree with a ban on same sex marriage but I can condemn the government of California for not listening to the people.

Prop. 8 was not set aside, it only said that supporters had no standing. It should have been the government of the state and not the people defending it.

[TinCow]

But the initiative and referendum process was put in place is several states because legislators were not representing the people or the issues they found important.

Sure, but that doesn't make it a good solution. It may have solved that problem*, but in the process it created more.

*A determination which is itself highly debatable.

[Fisherking]

Sure, but that doesn't make it a good solution. It may have solved that problem*, but in the process it created more.

*A determination which is itself highly debatable.

That is how the Pot issues got on the ballot in two states and passed.

There have been many productive ballot issues passed but usually they are too controversial to be acted upon in legislatures.

Often it is the only solution left to the voters. Politicians have a habit of saying one thing and doing another.

I would agree that direct democracy is generally a bad idea but what is better about unresponsive government or those who openly ignore the public will?

They are supposed to be representatives, not leaders or lords.

[TinCow]

I would agree that direct democracy is generally a bad idea but what is better about unresponsive government or those who openly ignore the public will?

They are supposed to be representatives, not leaders or lords.

It's not better, but two wrongs don't make a right. The US Constitution was constructed based on the principle that direct democracy was a very bad thing because it resulted in oppression. We are now talking about an event of direct democracy in which a majority used their pure numerical advantage to deprive a minority of a right they were already freely allowed to exercise, a right which the majority simultaneously kept for themselves. That is exactly the kind of scenario that made our founding fathers choose representative democracy in the first place.

At the very least, if direct democracy is going to be used to fix a broken representative system, the direct democracy should be used specifically for the purpose of repairing the problems with the representative government. For example, use it to pass laws which enhance representatives' accountability to their people and which reduce their vulnerability to influence by lobbyists and other interests groups who wield power out of proportion to their representative body. That's not what California does, at least not recently. California is using direct democracy to actively govern, and that is where it is going wrong.

[Fisherking]

It would seem there is a serious disconnect between the government and the governed.

This was a measure that passed with over 52% of the vote so how could such a conservative minded electorate, at least on this issue, have a government so opposed to the ideas, and will it remain so?

How popular is Jerry Brown?

[TinCow]

It would seem there is a serious disconnect between the government and the governed.

This was a measure that passed with over 52% of the vote so how could such a conservative minded electorate, at least on this issue, have a government so opposed to the ideas, and will it remain so?

It's certainly an odd scenario. It's made all the more odd that, at the time it passed, the Governor of California was a Republican. That Governor refused to defend the proposition in Court, as did his attorney general, a Democrat. When Arnold's term was up, a new election was held between a Republican who actively supported Proposition 8 and said she would defend it, and a Democrat, the same attorney general who refused to defend it under Schwarzenegger, and who actively promised not to defend it if he were elected. California elected the Democrat by a significant majority. To make matters even stranger, the Republican candidate who lost subsequently changed her position and opposed Prop 8 (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/meg-whitman-signs-legal-brief-supporting-gay-marriage-in-prop-8-case.html).

IMHO, the explanation for all of this is that the 2008 election came at a time when the electorate in California were basically evenly split on the issue. When an issue is subject to a 50/50 split, the randomness of voter turnout can make the vote go either way. It's entirely possible to hold the same exact vote on two consecutive days and get different results each time. 2008 was just perfect timing. When the same issue was voted on in 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_%282000%29), the population was very clearly on the conservative side. Today (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/poll-finds-record-support-for-same-sex-marriage-in-california/), the population is even more clearly on the liberal side. So, oddly, we're currently in a situation where, if Proposition 8 were upheld, it would actively have gone against popular opinion in California.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This was a measure that passed with over 52% of the vote so how could such a conservative minded electorate, at least on this issue, have a government so opposed to the ideas, and will it remain so?

How popular is Jerry Brown?

Ok, let's get a few things straight ofr anyone who does not live in California. Prop 8 never would have passed if it wasn't for two things. First, it being 2008 where California liberals became super confident of themselves because California is a "blue state" and Obama was obviously on a roll the entire time for not being bush. Secondly, the massive amount of money that the Mormon Church over in Utah spent in California absolutely dominated the airwaves and rallied rural conservatives that otherwise would have just gone about their day. Prop 8 was massively bankrolled by an outside religious organization that deliberately made advertisements lying to your face directly and unapologetically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4

Despite both those factors, Prop 8 still won by only 2%. Most California propositions never deviate more than 55-45 or 45-55 (win and loss respectively) except for Propositions that give Californians more money. But 90% of California propositions are just generally ignored by the public until they walk into the voting booth and make a judgement call. Prop 8 was the lightning rod for that particular ballot and it was still a tough fight just to get it to win despite their advantages. If the vote was held in 2009 it would have failed, if the vote was held in 2007 it would have failed.

As for Jerry Brown, lots of Californians love him because he did a good job as Governor back in 1975-1983 where he served two terms. Since an individual can only serve 3 terms in office, he essentially came back for a one term stint, after so many years in order to make the California more fiscally responsible, with a proven track record from his first two terms.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Not at all. For a Supreme Court justice, appointed for life to rule in judgement of constitutional issues, morality is often nothing more than the method by which they choose to interpret. The justices who rule in favor of quashing a state law have to believe that there is a moral imperative to do so, because there is a legal imperative to do so.

I think listening to an interview with a Justice or just reading their opinions would prove you wrong. They do not tie morality and legality together at all. That defeats the purpose of the SCOTUS. Their interpretations are highly thought out rational approaches to determining the significance of various factors surrounding the text of the law itself. The judges will in fact frequently cite cases where they went against their own personal morality and decided in favor of what they thought was morally wrong precisely because they operate based off of legal arguments not moral ones.

[Strike For The South]

That commercial is great.

[Xiahou]

Ok, let's get a few things straight ofr anyone who does not live in California. Prop 8 never would have passed if it wasn't for two things. First, it being 2008 where California liberals became super confident of themselves because California is a "blue state" and Obama was obviously on a roll the entire time for not being bush. Secondly, the massive amount of money that the Mormon Church over in Utah spent in California absolutely dominated the airwaves and rallied rural conservatives that otherwise would have just gone about their day. Prop 8 was massively bankrolled by an outside religious organization that deliberately made advertisements lying to your face directly and unapologeticallyThe high minority turnout to support Obama also factored in too. They turned out to vote for Obama but, statistically, they're socially more conservative than Democrats overall.

[Tuuvi]

Secondly, the massive amount of money that the Mormon Church over in Utah spent in California absolutely dominated the airwaves and rallied rural conservatives that otherwise would have just gone about their day. Prop 8 was massively bankrolled by an outside religious organization that deliberately made advertisements lying to your face directly and unapologetically.

I don't know very much about the Mormon church's involvement with Prop 8 (I will try to learn more) and I don't necessarily agree with the church's support of it, but the Mormon church does have membership in California (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-statistics/country/united-states/state/california), characterizing it as an outside organization isn't correct.