9th Circus Court to rule on Calif prop 8 - change fundamental definition of marriage

[ConHog]

No, actually you can't list two things.

Here lets start with this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...y-and-pay.html

Dude, what do you do sit around googling "queers get it on" all day long?

Seriously, bad parents are gad parents regardless of gender or sexual preference, in fact I would argue that a man who is quietly gay is a better parent than a dude who runs around screaming that he loves the pussy could ever be.

[OCA]

Dude, what do you do sit around googling "queers get it on" all day long?

Seriously, bad parents are gad parents regardless of gender or sexual preference, in fact I would argue that a man who is quietly gay is a better parent than a dude who runs around screaming that he loves the pussy could ever be.

If a child is missing a mom or a father the child is going to have an unbalanced upbringing, thats just an unargueable fact Connie.

Two dudes do not make mom and dad and vice/versa.

[ConHog]

If a child is missing a mom or a father the child is going to have an unbalanced upbringing, thats just an unargueable fact Connie.

Two dudes do not make mom and dad and vice/versa.

Literally billions of kids have grown up in unbalanced homes without irreparable harm. Are we going to outlaw ANYTHING that might make a child's home unbalanced?

Guess divorce is illegal now, b/c studies have conclusively shown that divorce is hard on kids.

Guess if you knock a girl up you have to marry her and she can't say no either, b/c single parent nope that's illegal.

And also while you're married and a parent you're not allowed to partake in any activities that the OCA behavior board has determine is unbalanced for a child.
Good grief.

[jimnyc]

i don't skirt the issue, I find it to be hyperbole. Since marriage is only between two people, no standing exists for those wishing to engage in legal polygamy. Now, if a law was passed which allowed for polygamy, I must then argue I have standing (as a proponent for the People) to revoke their ability to marry multiple people. But since you asked, specifically, I shall do my best.

Marriage enjoins two people as a legal entity which enjoy special protections and legal consideration. Though other legal contracts may enjoin more than two people into obligations similar to those of marriage (eg. child rearing and shared financial interest); there are, however, certain marital privileges which would be compromised in a polygamous marriage. For example, married persons' private discussions enjoy a time-honored privilege to privacy, being deemed necessary to the inherent intimacy of the relationship. However, if a third person is present, no such privilege exists. Similarly, we see this privilege between and a person and their attorney and/or doctor-- coined privileged communication, it is one which can only exist between between two people. Though this isn't the only benefit enjoyed by married couples, taken in whole, the functional reasoning for two is necessary for a myriad of marital privileges.

In the broader context of society, we are engaged in a social contract; where certain individual freedoms are forsaken for the greater good. Indeed systems of government are derived to provide a balance between social and private interests. Balance itself connotes two. In Our system of government, we see the structured power balance of two routinely: sovereign states, balanced by a federal system; bicameral legislatures, where representatives of the populus are balanced by the Senate; we even have two Senators from each state. What is the power of two, and what conditions make it preferable to three?

Again, its providing for a balance in the simplest and most narrow construct. Where there is three or more, you have the conditions necessary for a majority to impose its will upon a minority, causing harm. To combat mob rule/ protect the minority, it becomes necessary to involve third party consideration, who, under a veil of ignorance, presumably operate without a personal interest in the outcome. To explore practices which exclude personal interests would effectively negate the very nature of that which marriage seeks to promote-- rendering it little more than a common contract.

As to the bold: there was also a time when society thought marriage was meant only for a man and a woman. This is exactly why MtnBiker asked for a definition. Where does it get limited? Why can one argue that 2 people who love one another, who aren't harming others, should be free to get married so long as it doesn't infringe on others - but someone who loves multiple people doesn't deserve the same level of "freedom"? Quite frankly, your post didn't convince me that one group of people deserve inclusion, but another group remains excluded. It's simply a matter of the definition at this point. If the original definition is gone, and it's already been altered, then altering it a bit more to include others shouldn't be a reach. The root of the word marriage is to join/merger, in the literal sense, and that's exactly what polygamists would be doing.

Obviously I don't go for either gay marriage or polygamy, but I think the reasoning behind allowing gays to marry then makes a solid argument for polygamy. In the end, it boils down to benefits and rights from the state. And if the state can alter it to include one group, don't think another group can't ask and someday achieve the same.

[fj1200]

But can those opposed to polygamy prove that it harms others? That it harms those involved? Does it harm anyone in the public?

I don't think many of the women married to a polygamist are truly entering into the arrangement of their own free will. See the Warren Jeff's cult for examples. I believe that was the point of the quote.

Oh, I'm not suggesting that one party wouldn't have remedy in civil court if one party tried screw the other party over in the event of a breakup or whatever. But the notion of having to hire a lawyer and go through the process of asking the government for a divorce is asinine. Do away with that bullshit and you save the court system millions every year. Of course child support is another matter entirely and is due the child whether the parents have ever been married or not, so I'm not suggesting that shouldn't be a government matter .

If you marry someone and you're worried about losing half your shit if s/he decided to leave the church marriage, then I suggest you get a legal contract stipulating the exact dispersion of said items should that happen. If you don't have that contract, too bad for you. It's not any different than if you go into business with someone and give them $100K as working capital to start out but fail to get any kind of legal document stating this, if at some point in the future they decide to screw you over, you're screwed. should have drawn up a legal document.

I don't think the government should step in where the separation is amicable but there's no reason to believe that the precedents regarding divorce currently would be changed. Splitting half of the marital assets would seem reasonable in the absence of a contract.

[ConHog]

I don't think many of the women married to a polygamist are truly entering into the arrangement of their own free will. See the Warren Jeff's cult for examples. I believe that was the point of the quote.



I don't think the government should step in where the separation is amicable but there's no reason to believe that the precedents regarding divorce currently would be changed. Splitting half of the marital assets would seem reasonable in the absence of a contract.

I agree. and couldn't that be accomplished sans government involvement? I mean yes of course if one party won't abide then the government might need to get involved. But despite all the horror stories, there are SOME couples who split amicably and having the government perform the divorce circus is a waste of government resources on something that has nothing to do with their responsibilities.

[Missileman]

Ok, so now that we know you support polygamy in addition to gay marriage, what's next?

If it's limited to arrangements of adult human beings, what else might there be?

[Missileman]

I see the issue as a minority group(gay) seeking special rights.

It's not a special right, but an identical one.

[jimnyc]

It's not a special right, but an identical one.

They had identical rights all along, just not rights that supported their chosen lifestyle.

[Missileman]

They had identical rights all along, just not rights that supported their chosen lifestyle.

And if the right is extended to include gay marriage, they'll continue to have an identical right. And I think we've seen enough evidence recently to say the bolded part is at the very least, suspect.

[jimnyc]

And if the right is extended to include gay marriage, they'll continue to have an identical right. And I think we've seen enough evidence recently to say the bolded part is at the very least, suspect.

Evidence? LOL I've yet to see a single thing that could serve as evidence of otherwise. Lots od observations, deductions and analyzing - but not a shred of absolute proof.

As to my other point, I don't think we should be in the habit of extending rights to people simply because of their lifestyles.

[ConHog]

Evidence? LOL I've yet to see a single thing that could serve as evidence of otherwise. Lots od observations, deductions and analyzing - but not a shred of absolute proof.

As to my other point, I don't think we should be in the habit of extending rights to people simply because of their lifestyles.

A) the proof is at best questionable either way
B) We the people don't extend right, we can infringe on those rights, but we don't give them to anyone.

[MtnBiker]

It's not a special right, but an identical one.

True, gay people do have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. The state I live in, I do not have the right to marry another man, so a gay man does have the identical right as my self. It would take a special right for me to marry another man.

[Missileman]

Evidence? LOL I've yet to see a single thing that could serve as evidence of otherwise. Lots od observations, deductions and analyzing - but not a shred of absolute proof.

There have been several links posted...remember the one about pheremones? I didn't say "absolute proof", and IMO, reasonable doubt has been established against it being "choice".

[ConHog]

True, gay people do have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. The state I live in, I do not have the right to marry another man, so a gay man does have the identical right as my self. It would take a special right for me to marry another man.

No, it would just require a change in the law. Suppose they did make it legal for a man to marry a man, you could marry a man even if straight, if you chose to. That's not giving anyone a special right.