6 ms·

Right now by defining it as "one man, one woman" the opposition is pissing off 10+% of the population. Claiming that gay marriage will lead to polygamy or besti

by aristus 17y ago

Right now by defining it as "one man, one woman" the opposition is pissing off 10+% of the population. Claiming that gay marriage will lead to polygamy or bestiality is inflammatory. It's like saying that being religious is a dangerous choice because everyone knows it leads you to kill unbelievers. Redefinition depends on how far you want to go to deconstruct the term "spouse". In addition to making decisions when you are ill, how about "adopting my children", "inheriting my property (and debts)", or "becoming my common-law spouse after 6 month's co-habitation", or "perhaps not in my church but ok in another one", etc? After a certain point you either have to draw a line, ie "sorry, you can have this much dignity and no more", or you eventually accept the strong form of gay marriage. Anything else would be politically unstable. You can, politically, rule out polygamy and define marriage as "two people". It doesn't have to lead to chaos and anarchy.

dmm 17y ago
Corporations are now legal people, with all the rights that come with that status.
- kevinh 17y ago
  I'm not sure if you're being serious, but they don't. They lack the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination, among some others.
btilly 17y ago
Where are you getting 10+% from? For a long time homosexuals liked to claim that at least 10% of the population is homosexual. That is what I suspect you are quoting. However that claim doesn't have good support. But figures that I have seen peg the rate of people who are primarily homosexual much lower than that. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Demographics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Demographics for some random figures. From that list the number I would quote for the USA is 4%. However if you look at it differently, much more than 10% of the population cares. According to polls almost half the electorate thinks that gays should be allowed to marry. And a lot of non-homosexuals agree that the issue is important. So supporters of gay marriage aren't limited to gays. My personal feeling is that consenting adults should be allowed to enter into any consensual arrangement that they wish. Therefore I am fully in support of allowing both gay marriage and polygamy, even though I have no desire to engage in either lifestyle. I should be clear on this. My position on polygamy doesn't come from my position gay marriage. They both come from more fundamental beliefs. But I suspect that as more people become familiar with the idea of polygamy as they have with the idea of gay marriage, that there will be a growing acceptance of it. And as an example of this I'd offer the changing opinions in Canada. First gay marriage became accepted, and now polygamy is becoming accepted. So while logically polygamy doesn't flow from gay marriage, I think that the opponents of gay marriage are correct that acceptance of gay marriage is a step towards the likely future acceptance of polygamy.
- eru 17y ago
  I am straight, but I would be pissed of at discrimination of homosexuals.
- aristus 17y ago
  10+% is my horseback guess for how many people really care, not the % of gay people. If it were larger the argument would be over already, I think. Marriage goes far beyond a contract or power of attorney; for example, spouses have Fifth amendment protection. As you said it depends on where people finally agree to move the line to. I personally suspect that a "strong formulation" of gay marriage would be the most stable. Denying one group rights because you fear what some other group might want is dishonest even if the premise is true. Giving former slaves rights made society more likely to give women those same rights, and all the same crap arguments were used then, too. All of that is academic anyway. Rights are not given, they are demanded. Once polygamists constitute a significant constituency they can fend for themselves. Otherwise, leave 'em out of the equation.
protomyth 17y ago
What is so inflammatory about a claim that it would lead to polygamy? "Traditional" marriage definition is a reproductive (baring health issues) couple. If you decide that isn't a consideration, then what difference does it make if you allow more than 2 people to be "married"? I am really struggling with trying to understand in the long term would lead to "chaos and anarchy". I just wish the State would use another term and leave the term "marriage" to the churches. If some/any church wants to "bless" your social union as a marriage, then cool. I am kinda on the conservative side, but if someone else wants to have a "triple" union - I don't really care as long as it isn't some genetic travesty (siblings / cousins).
- dhume 17y ago
  "Traditional" marriage definition is a reproductive (baring health issues) couple IOW, it's not simply about reproduction. I'll reconsider taking that claim seriously when its proponents suggest that sterility should be a diqualification for marriage licenses (for extra credit, they can call for revoking marriage in cases where sterility sets in afterwards). Until then, I can only conclude that reproduction is an excuse to distract from their real reason.
  - protomyth 17y ago
    Should I have said "historical"? I am not placing a value in that statement, I am just saying in something short of an essay how we got here. What exactly do you think the origin of marriage is or for that matter religions focus on marriage if not on reproduction (be fruitful and multiply)?
    - dhume 17y ago
      I am not placing a value in that statement, I am just saying in something short of an essay how we got here. I recognize that what you posted was not necessarily your idea on the subject, hence "its proponents," rather than "you."
    - Retric 17y ago
      Marriage in some form is probably well over 10,000 years old. Homosexual marriage is also probably just as old relatively speaking. The institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, and is part of Code of Hammurabi 1790 BC etc, so tracing its origins is basically impossible. Also, if you include animals that mate for life (some of which are homosexual bonds) it is probably millions of years old. The real issue IMO is how religious institutions portray history. When one of your sacred "Just So" stories portrays the creation of the institution of marriage it's easy to think of anything else as a perversion sacred law, even if such things are far older than your faith. EX: I once had someone defend their faith by saying “How else do you explain Adam’s missing rib?” That’s a world view so intermixed with their faith there is no way they can understand a secular viewpoint.
sp332 17y ago
>Claiming that gay marriage will lead to polygamy or bestiality is inflammatory. What argument would you use to defend gay marriage that would not also allow polygamy? Or what argument would you make against polygamy that wouldn't also apply to gay marriage?
- henrikschroder 17y ago
  Marriage confers legal and economical benefits to the parties involved such as citizenship and tax benefits. Assuming society wants to keep providing these benefits, but still control them, allowing polygamy would make that job harder. And then you could imagine that a cost-benefit analysis of that would show that it's not worth it, i.e. it's cheaper to ignore the people wanting it than having to deal with the possible fraud.
  - ahi 17y ago
    I prefer: it's cheaper to ignore marriage than have to deal with possible fraud. Legally marriage was important because it conferred rights to spouses (mainly wives) that they otherwise wouldn't have had. Now that everyone at least nominally has the same rights, what's the point?
- aristus 17y ago
  My argument would be amoral but straightforward: a politically-significant % of people want gay marriage, and make a strong case for it. You could reasonably implement it as "two persons" and go home. The % of people seriously agitating for polygamy is much lower so you can safely ignore them.
  - iron_ball 17y ago
    May I add, this is one of the most precise uses of the word "amoral" that I have ever read.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    So if there were fewer gays (say, # of gays = # of polygamous mormons - 1), you would oppose gay marriage?

by aristus 17y ago

dmm 17y ago

Corporations are now legal people, with all the rights that come with that status.

kevinh 17y ago
I'm not sure if you're being serious, but they don't. They lack the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination, among some others.

btilly 17y ago

Where are you getting 10+% from? For a long time homosexuals liked to claim that at least 10% of the population is homosexual. That is what I suspect you are quoting. However that claim doesn't have good support. But figures that I have seen peg the rate of people who are primarily homosexual much lower than that. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Demographics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Demographics for some random figures. From that list the number I would quote for the USA is 4%. However if you look at it differently, much more than 10% of the population cares. According to polls almost half the electorate thinks that gays should be allowed to marry. And a lot of non-homosexuals agree that the issue is important. So supporters of gay marriage aren't limited to gays. My personal feeling is that consenting adults should be allowed to enter into any consensual arrangement that they wish. Therefore I am fully in support of allowing both gay marriage and polygamy, even though I have no desire to engage in either lifestyle. I should be clear on this. My position on polygamy doesn't come from my position gay marriage. They both come from more fundamental beliefs. But I suspect that as more people become familiar with the idea of polygamy as they have with the idea of gay marriage, that there will be a growing acceptance of it. And as an example of this I'd offer the changing opinions in Canada. First gay marriage became accepted, and now polygamy is becoming accepted. So while logically polygamy doesn't flow from gay marriage, I think that the opponents of gay marriage are correct that acceptance of gay marriage is a step towards the likely future acceptance of polygamy.

eru 17y ago
I am straight, but I would be pissed of at discrimination of homosexuals.
aristus 17y ago
10+% is my horseback guess for how many people really care, not the % of gay people. If it were larger the argument would be over already, I think. Marriage goes far beyond a contract or power of attorney; for example, spouses have Fifth amendment protection. As you said it depends on where people finally agree to move the line to. I personally suspect that a "strong formulation" of gay marriage would be the most stable. Denying one group rights because you fear what some other group might want is dishonest even if the premise is true. Giving former slaves rights made society more likely to give women those same rights, and all the same crap arguments were used then, too. All of that is academic anyway. Rights are not given, they are demanded. Once polygamists constitute a significant constituency they can fend for themselves. Otherwise, leave 'em out of the equation.

protomyth 17y ago

What is so inflammatory about a claim that it would lead to polygamy? "Traditional" marriage definition is a reproductive (baring health issues) couple. If you decide that isn't a consideration, then what difference does it make if you allow more than 2 people to be "married"? I am really struggling with trying to understand in the long term would lead to "chaos and anarchy". I just wish the State would use another term and leave the term "marriage" to the churches. If some/any church wants to "bless" your social union as a marriage, then cool. I am kinda on the conservative side, but if someone else wants to have a "triple" union - I don't really care as long as it isn't some genetic travesty (siblings / cousins).

dhume 17y ago
"Traditional" marriage definition is a reproductive (baring health issues) couple IOW, it's not simply about reproduction. I'll reconsider taking that claim seriously when its proponents suggest that sterility should be a diqualification for marriage licenses (for extra credit, they can call for revoking marriage in cases where sterility sets in afterwards). Until then, I can only conclude that reproduction is an excuse to distract from their real reason.
- protomyth 17y ago
  Should I have said "historical"? I am not placing a value in that statement, I am just saying in something short of an essay how we got here. What exactly do you think the origin of marriage is or for that matter religions focus on marriage if not on reproduction (be fruitful and multiply)?
  - dhume 17y ago
    I am not placing a value in that statement, I am just saying in something short of an essay how we got here. I recognize that what you posted was not necessarily your idea on the subject, hence "its proponents," rather than "you."
  - Retric 17y ago
    Marriage in some form is probably well over 10,000 years old. Homosexual marriage is also probably just as old relatively speaking. The institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, and is part of Code of Hammurabi 1790 BC etc, so tracing its origins is basically impossible. Also, if you include animals that mate for life (some of which are homosexual bonds) it is probably millions of years old. The real issue IMO is how religious institutions portray history. When one of your sacred "Just So" stories portrays the creation of the institution of marriage it's easy to think of anything else as a perversion sacred law, even if such things are far older than your faith. EX: I once had someone defend their faith by saying “How else do you explain Adam’s missing rib?” That’s a world view so intermixed with their faith there is no way they can understand a secular viewpoint.

sp332 17y ago

>Claiming that gay marriage will lead to polygamy or bestiality is inflammatory. What argument would you use to defend gay marriage that would not also allow polygamy? Or what argument would you make against polygamy that wouldn't also apply to gay marriage?

henrikschroder 17y ago
Marriage confers legal and economical benefits to the parties involved such as citizenship and tax benefits. Assuming society wants to keep providing these benefits, but still control them, allowing polygamy would make that job harder. And then you could imagine that a cost-benefit analysis of that would show that it's not worth it, i.e. it's cheaper to ignore the people wanting it than having to deal with the possible fraud.
- ahi 17y ago
  I prefer: it's cheaper to ignore marriage than have to deal with possible fraud. Legally marriage was important because it conferred rights to spouses (mainly wives) that they otherwise wouldn't have had. Now that everyone at least nominally has the same rights, what's the point?
aristus 17y ago
My argument would be amoral but straightforward: a politically-significant % of people want gay marriage, and make a strong case for it. You could reasonably implement it as "two persons" and go home. The % of people seriously agitating for polygamy is much lower so you can safely ignore them.
- iron_ball 17y ago
  May I add, this is one of the most precise uses of the word "amoral" that I have ever read.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  So if there were fewer gays (say, # of gays = # of polygamous mormons - 1), you would oppose gay marriage?