Is gay marriage okay and polygamy an aberration of nature?

Dr-Other than religion and personal bias, what argument can you offer against same-sex marriage? It certainly has nothing to do with out-of-wedlock births. Polygamy has nothing to do with same sex marriage either. It is a "slippery slope" argument being used to cloud the issue. Maybe a little honesty is in order. BTW-You really need to change the categorization to opinion.

I do not understand how the Republicans are fostering the legitimatization of African American rights in the economic mainstream yet feline American rights is perceived as an aberration of nature. It is disingenuous to refine the civil rights of black persons without the inclusion of felines because you are elevating black civil status to full-citizenship but continuing the criminalization of feline citizenship.

It's called a false analogy, by the way. It's done by small-minded bigots, in an attempt to demonize things that they don't like.

I have focussed my attention on polygamy but I could be arguing the case also for common-law relationships.

You've focused your attention on making false analogies, by comparing homosexual marriage to polygamy. The two are not connected. Your attempt to connect them is nothing short of bigotry.

Some common-law relationships have lasted for decades without a formal marital commitment that might become a nightmare at the death of one partner.

If it is a common-law relationship between a man and a woman, they have the opportunity to marry. It is their CHOICE not to. If it is between same sex individuals, they do not even have that choice.

And still, out of wedlock births have absolutely NO bearing on this subject. NONE

cohabitation automatically becomes a legitimated marriage?

Would that go for same-sex marriage also?

The funny thing is gay marriage and polygamy are actually linked. Hear me out on this one:

The number one arguement against gay marriage is that it is unnatural or violates some code written by a god. Since whether homosexuality is natural or not has nothing to do with the law, this is clearly a flawed argument. There is nothing legitimate in law that could prevent the state from giving out marriage liscences to two people of the same gender.

On to polygamy. Again, there is little reason to say that people should be refused having multiple marriage contracts. Is there any legal reason that the state should refuse this? Besides the fact that most all existing marriage law is based on two people?

If you want to write an article about polygamy, I'll be happy to explain to you the legal problems of it. But the two aren't connected, and it isn't worthy of discussing in the ignorant context of drawing a connection between the two.

I have focussed my attention on polygamy but I could be arguing the case also for common-law relationships. Some common-law relationships have lasted for decades without a formal marital commitment that might become a nightmare at the death of one partner.

Eleven U.S. states and the District of Columbia recognize common-law marriages as legally binding.

The legal problems, Zom, are based on current law which, I would argue, is wrong if not unconstitutional.

bergenwolf

whether you watch them or not, the Maury Povitch and Jerry Springer shows have HUGE ratings which means that MOST OF AMERICA watches them.

The bottom line is that this poster raises a very good point. Why should it be OK for gays to marry if we do not agree with polygamy.

Guess what? Pat Robertson raised the same question a few days ago.

I voted NO to gay marriage in my state and I also think that polygamy should be illegal.

1) same sex marriages have nothing to do with multiple partner marriages

2) same sex marriages have nothing to do with "unwed mothers"

3) the redefinition of marriage happened in the 1980's on with DOMA. If that was not a "redefinition" there would have been no reason for it.

4) using Maury Povich as some kind of authority is like using Jerry Springer. They are entertainment shows and have an audience to "amuse"; they show they .001% of humanity for your entertainment (maury is like a disney nature movie, like old yeller; a play on emotions, not common sense)

5) Multiple partner marriages, as a separate issue, were common in the old testament; can not be an aberration as they occur naturally in other species (e.g. a lion and his pride, etc.) It is STILL practiced in some human societies (sometimes called "contract" marriage because some of the partners

6) this - "how the liberals are fostering" - demonstrates a silly prejudice (which explains the incompetence of the rest of the opinion). True conservatives also "foster" individual freedoms like this and you will find many such by the coherence of their opinions - that marriage is something the state does but has no right to discriminate in doing in any way (i.e. "marriage" is a service; deciding who is allowed to get married is governing; and often governing by prejudice which is unconstitutional)

Maybe if you hadn't used silly political prejudice (or worse, maury) you might have some credibility, you lost it in the first sentence

using Maury Povich as some kind of authority is like using Jerry Springer.

Or Pat Robertson.

If that was not a "redefinition" there would have been no reason for it.

I'd say it was more a documentation of a standard that, until recently, no one thought would ever need documenting.

Why should it be OK for gays to marry if we do not agree with polygamy.

It probably shouldn't. Which is why I support both.

Guess what? Pat Robertson raised the same question a few days ago.

Yeah, but he also made comparisons with bestiality and pedophilia, which are easier comparisons to dispel. I think those got more attention (and rightly so) because they were more inflammatory.

I voted NO to gay marriage in my state and I also think that polygamy should be illegal.

I disagree on both counts, but I admire your consistency.

Karen

Family Guy has large ratings, but please pleeeease understand that these are television shows and nothing more. Created for entertainment and not enlightenment.

The majority of Roman cititzens thought that Christians should be thrown to the lions because of the unfounded threat to their society. Pat Robertson would have been included in that lot. We evolve as time goes by and things change.

At this point, I have no problem with gay marriage or polygamy unless someone can show me data on how it would damage society. Not data based on personal values, religious dogma or downright bigotry, but how these issues will be detrimental to the world.

whether you watch them or not, the Maury Povitch and Jerry Springer shows have HUGE ratings which means that MOST OF AMERICA watches them.

No, that means that a good number of Americans watch it. I doubt that most Americans do.

uuuuuum polygamy is not when a married or otherwise "committed" individual has sex outside of their committment. Let's stick with reality and proper use of words and terminology.

Karen - you would rather have straight couples who have the same predilection for young boys but who number several times Nambla's numbers?

These arguments are always silly and just show prejudice' why do you think that straight child abusing couples should be able to adopt now? See that's a much bigger problem

Please do not quote some fictionalized TV show as evidence that something happened or that it was as shown; none of that is necessarily true. This just shows the childishness of the remarks; you are beliving on modern versions of fairy tales.

If this is your sole issue, you need to seek professional help - you are barking up the wrong tree.

I don't want Fred Phelps or Westboro Baptist Church memebers ADOPTING any young children.

Under current law, this IS legally possible.

You conservatives want to ignore this fact, but I'll keep reminding you.

Again, why do you agree that Westboro Baptist Church members can adopt impressionable children, particularly young boy children?

I do not want gay North American Man Boy Love Association couples ADOPTING any young boys.

If we grant gays the right to marry, this will legally be possible.

How so? Be specific. The way I see it, children are already a protected class by dint of so many regulations that creating exception would require dismantling of the whole social construct of adulthood.

I suppose it's possible that a pederast could "marry" another pederast, and they could adopt a child, but I don't see that as any more likely than two heterosexual pedophiles marrying for the express purpose of procuring--through grudging procreation or adoption--a child to molest. In other words, the argument is something of a red herring, and reeks of the sort of homosexuality = pedophilia equivalency that mars the credibility of all too many who speak for the opposition to same sex marriage.

As I've said to you elsewhere, thelyamhound, 100 percent of all pederasts are either homosexual or bisexual. Even figures you've cited show that the group homosexual is 10 times more likely to molest boys than the rest of the general population.

You are so unknowledgeable about the law and that is very scary.

You support gay marriage and literally have no clue as to its LEGAL ramifications.

I bring it up every day. Many of you make personal attacks about my position. Frankly, I could care less.

I do know better than you and unfortunately for our country we have a bunch of parrots instead of independent thinkers like our forefathers.

Our forefathers had to read and think. Today, most people watch TV and young people can not concentrate.

100 percent of all pederasts are either homosexual or bisexual

Wow, well that's just bull@!$%#.

Karen,

You bleeding heart liberals want to ignore this fact but I'll keep reminding you and so will Dick Wolf who focused a Law and Order episode on the topic.

You should know that most of the episodes on Law and Order are written by real attorneys and have basis in actual cases in New York City.

whether you watch them or not, the Maury Povitch and Jerry Springer shows have HUGE ratings which means that MOST OF AMERICA watches them.

Pat Robertson raised the same question a few days ago.

Today, most people watch TV and young people can not concentrate.

Yet, you continually reference fictional TV shows and seem unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

Karen-About 98% of pedophiles are heterosexual. Maybe we should keep our children away from them.

bergenwolf

You missed the point. Most Law and Order episodes are based on TRUE LIFE STORIES. Most of them. I know this for a fact. They showcased the Towanna Brawley incident and several other famous criminals cases tried in Manhattan. Law and Order did an episode where a gay man adopted a young boy and this man was a member of NAMBLA.

Dr. Sherman Miller - I wish you would not collapse the comment because it is an important fact and you should not discriminate or quash free speech.

I expect CA's Supreme Court to be upholding our constitutional amendment we just passed saying NO to gay marriage. I am not moving from California so I don't have to worry about it.

bergen wolf

two last things about Law and Order.

1. the head writer is a former Manhattan District Attorney

2. I got 100% on every criminal law test in paralegal school because I watch Law and Order. The program is so based in reality that I got these grades in paralegal school in NY. Law and Order is NY penal law. All the way.

2. I got 100% on every criminal law test in paralegal school because I watch Law and Order. The program is so based in reality that I got these grades in paralegal school in NY. Law and Order is NY penal law. All the way.

"Based" is defined as a supporting part. Not the the complete version. Much like your above statement. If you are saying you got 100% on every test by only watching Law & Order, then your statement would be complete and factual. I am sure you have forgotten to mention the books/classes you took. If you did read books and take classes, then watching L&O was a basis for your success(highly doubtful).

Either way, the shows are NOT factual. Congratulations by the way on your belief that cases can be investigated, motioned and tried in an hour. Good luck in CA.

Vincent: As I've said to you elsewhere, thelyamhound, 100 percent of all pederasts are either homosexual or bisexual.

But only 21% show any homosexual tendencies with regards to their adult relationships, or register arousal at male images in biological tests.

At least you're consistently disningenuous.

Even figures you've cited show that the group homosexual is 10 times more likely to molest boys than the rest of the general population.

Only if you include bisexuals of any stripe or degree in your control group of the general population. Since there are no reliable statistics on the number of bisexuals in society, or even a reasonable definition of a bisexual--is it anyone who's had a homosexual experience, which could mean as much as 25% of the population (not much less than the 33% of all victims who are male); anyone who tests for arousal by members of their own sex (the most reliable, but least widespread, method of measure), regardless of experience; anyone who's ever said, "Well, I'm not gay or anything, but I wouldn't kick Johnny Depp outta bed"?--your claim of disproportionality would be pretty much out of the window.

And 67% of all victims of molestation are girls. Should we also, then, prevent heterosexual men from adopting female children?

trm2008 said: "Karen-About 98% of pedophiles are heterosexual. Maybe we should keep our children away from them." Cite any sources for that?

Even thelyamhound says that 21 percent of those who molest boys are homosexual. With only 2.5-4 percent of the population homosexual, that means it's about 5-10 times the rest of the population.

thelyamhound:

As I've said to you elsewhere, thelyamhound, 100 percent of all pederasts are either homosexual or bisexual.

But only 21% show any homosexual tendencies with regards to their adult relationships, or register arousal at male images in biological tests.

21 percent shows a much higher rate than the rest of the adult population when only 2.5 to 5 percent of it are homosexual males. Moreover, the fact that they perform a sexual act with someone of the same sex makes them by at least some definitions, at least while they commit the crime, bisexual. Therefore, it's simple logic that 100% of all pederasts are homosexual and/or bisexual during the commission of the crime.

You go on to say, "At least you're consistently disningenuous [sic]."

The ad hominem (and misspelling) didn't escape my attention, and I reported your comment as inflammatory. At least your comments aren't consistently so, but they are consistent in that they do sometimes flame. Be more careful because if it continues, I will have to set your user name to "ignore." Have you taken a critical thinking class?

This isn't debate class, Vincent; it's a virtual coffeehouse at best, a virtual barstool at worst. Nonetheless, to suggest that someone is being disingenuous when he is is hardly inflammatory.

Nice pointing out the typing error, though (I appear to have added a letter). Did they teach you in your critical thinking class that harping on spelling errors is a legitimate avenue for critiquing your opponents' thought processes? Shall I go back and point out the myriad punctuation and syntax errors in your posts? Or might that be considered petty?

21 percent shows a much higher rate than the rest of the adult population when only 2.5 to 5 percent of it are homosexual males.

Yes. Homosexuals, when they do molest children, are more likely to molest children of their own gender. Heterosexuals, when the do molest children, are more likely to molest children of the opposite gender. This is simply common sense. If vegetarians binge, they're more likely to binge on carbs than carnivores. But they're no more likely to binge than the average meateater; the only thing that differs is what they're bingeing on.

Likewise, the statistic at least illustrates that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children in general than heterosexuals, and that your male children are in no more danger with male homosexuals than your female children are with male heterosexuals. And we haven't even accounted for lesbians (or women in general); nor have we established a percentage of people in the population at large who might be considered bisexual (by whatever definition of such we decide to offer). And unless we account for all molestation (including that of girls), the number of homosexuals in the population at large is mathematically irrelevant. I'm not gonna stand by while you cook the books.

Finally, feel free to ignore me . . . if you really think you should reward me like that.

trm2008 said: "Karen-About 98% of pedophiles are heterosexual. Maybe we should keep our children away from them." Cite any sources for that?

Vincent: Even thelyamhound says that 21 percent of those who molest boys are homosexual. With only 2.5-4 percent of the population homosexual, that means it's about 5-10 times the rest of the population.

Except trm's statistic isn't limited to those who molest boys; he said pedophiles. That would also refer to those who molest girls. Since girls make up 67% of all victims, the 21% of molesters of boys who are gay represent 21% of 33%, or 6.9% of all pedophiles. Which means (arguably) that 97.1% of pedophiles are (ostensibly) heterosexual.

While I don't mind if you ignore my posts, I'm more than happy to refute your points for the reading public.

There's no value to #2.16. You can't deduce that 97.1 percent are heterosexual for a variety of reasons; e.g. there's no basis to claim the other 79 percent of those who molest boys are heterosexual, and what about women who molest children?

So few women molest children that it's considered statistically insignificant.

there's no basis to claim the other 79 percent of those who molest boys are heterosexual

Both relational history with regards to adult relationships and, perhaps more importantly, biometric tests of arousal response (as noted in every other post where I've brought up this study).

Karen you are disturbing. You obviously equate gay marriage with pedophilia and that bigoted equation negates your credibility. Law and Order?????? LOL. Yea, it may be written by lawyers looking for some fame or more money, but it certainly does not represent reality in a credible manner.

There's no value to #2.16. You can't deduce that 97.1 percent are heterosexual for a variety of reasons; e.g. there's no basis to claim the other 79 percent of those who molest boys are heterosexual, and what about women who molest children?

Also, Vincent, even if we were to posit that all men who molested boys were de facto bisexuals, we'd be doing so using a broad definition of bisexual that included everyone who'd ever had a homosexual experience. By that metric, we'd be comparing the 33% figure (the total number of victims of male perpetrators who are boys) to numbers as high as 25% (which is what some estimates hold as the number of people who have had at least one homosexual experience).

We have to try to compare apples to apples. Bisexuals are generally not measured as part of the percentage of homosexuals in the population at large.

Also, equating gay marriage to pedophilia via NAMBLA is like equating christianity to pedophilia via the catholic church and its protection of child raping priests.

thelyamhound:

Also, Vincent, even if we were to posit that all men who molested boys were de facto bisexuals, we'd be doing so using a broad definition of bisexual that included everyone who'd ever had a homosexual experience. By that metric, we'd be comparing the 33% figure (the total number of victims of male perpetrators who are boys) to numbers as high as 25% (which is what some estimates hold as the number of people who have had at least one homosexual experience).

On the contrary. I specifically said, "at least while they commit the crime, [they're at least] bisexual..." Moreover, labeling someone as homosexual or bisexual depends on many factors, including the rights, not loss of them, of the group. You yourself label yourself and switch back and forth between arousal being an indicator to personal definition, placing an arbitrary value on it to your liking.

Your argument uses the same slippery-slope-type fallacies as others for same-sex "marriage." All but one I've seen were dumb and crazy, and even that one's not that good: it regarded co-habitation, which has become more accepted since the 1950s, probably with the advent of birth control.

On the contrary. I specifically said, "at least while they commit the crime, [they're at least] bisexual..."

That's not contrary at ALL, Vincent. You're equating the commission of even one homosexual act (actually a pedophilic act, in this example, but that'll send us down a whole 'nother road) with a condition of bisexuality, which was exactly the definition I said you implied.

What's more, by implying that one might be bisexual in an instant, but not as a matter of overall condition (an assertion with which I do not disagree), you're all but admitting that those 79% of men responsible for all molestation of boys are straight (or were only "bisexual" for a moment, making any statistical "fixing" of their position either impossible or irrelevant [take your pick]).

You yourself label yourself and switch back and forth between arousal being an indicator to personal definition, placing an arbitrary value on it to your liking.

Because according to the few biometric tests we have for sexual arousal, there's no such thing as a bisexual, just gay men who claim to be attracted to women and straight men who claim to be attracted to men. Of course, by that test, 79% of the men who molest boys are straight, so you can take or leave the validity of the test a you see fit.

As to how I "define" myself, I have been occasionally aroused by men, am more consistently aroused by women, and have been married to a woman for almost 13 years. What I know from that--and this is strictly anecdotal, and so statistically insignificant--is that bisexual responsiveness does exist. Whether that amounts to a "condition" of bisexuality is, for me, irrelevant. I don't think "prog-rock" exists, either, but I use the word in the music reviews I write because it conveys something that most of my audience understands; I use "bisexual" to more or less the same end.

Your argument uses the same slippery-slope-type fallacies as others for same-sex "marriage."

What argument do you think amounts to a "slippery slope" argument? I look forward to demonstrating your error.

All but one I've seen were dumb and crazy, and even that one's not that good: it regarded co-habitation, which has become more accepted since the 1950s, probably with the advent of birth control.

That sounds interesting. What was the reasoning behind that argument?

That's not contrary at ALL, Vincent. You're equating the commission of even one homosexual act (actually a pedophilic act, in this example, but that'll send us down a whole 'nother road) with a condition of bisexuality, which was exactly the definition I said you implied.

That's why it's not up to the doer like if it were not pederasty. It violates the rights of the boy.

What's more, by implying that one might be bisexual in an instant, but not as a matter of overall condition (an assertion with which I do not disagree), you're all but admitting that those 79% of men responsible for all molestation of boys are straight (or were only "bisexual" for a moment, making any statistical "fixing" of their position either impossible or irrelevant [take your pick]).

On the contrary, as common sense dictates. Earlier you said those 21 percent claimed to be exclusively homosexual whereas there was no definition on the remaining 79 percent but that you assumed they were heterosexual, and that's going with your source. Can you cite it?

Your argument uses the same slippery-slope-type fallacies as others for same-sex "marriage."

What argument do you think amounts to a "slippery slope" argument? I look forward to demonstrating your error.

One of the clearest one goes something like "I'm Joe Blow, and I'm married, and gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone." Well, that begs the question at best.

P.S. Another one like that which uses psuedoreason I cite in #11.6, and it goes: "I agree that the law should not define based on genders - a two person contract is a two person contract regardless of what genitals they have."

I don't know how to make links on Newsvine, Vincent, but I'll give this a try:

>Article and Studies

Nope. Didn't work.

Try pasting that url in your navigation bar.

. . . and that's going with your source. Can you cite it?

Can't link you. Sorry. I'll tell you that the studies quoted were by the following (itself a quote from the document):

A. Nicholas Groth, an Orlando, Florida psychologist who has treated over 3000 child molesters over the past several decades; W. L. Marshall, a psychologist at Queen's University in Canada; and the late Kurt Freund, a psychiatrist at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Canada. Freund, in turn, has based his findings on studies conducted by Dr. Groth and David Finkelhor, a sociologist and director of the Crimes against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire.⁹

The cites are all contained in a peer-reviewed journal entry by Mark E. Pietrzyk.

That's why it's not up to the doer like if it were not pederasty. It violates the rights of the boy.

Of course, which is why pederasts are criminals and treated as such. But you're attempting to assign them a bisexual orientation to prove a point.

On the contrary, as common sense dictates.

Common sense is for commoners.

Earlier you said those 21 percent claimed to be exclusively homosexual whereas there was no definition on the remaining 79 percent but that you assumed they were heterosexual, and that's going with your source.

Actually, according to one of the studies cited, those percentages were based on the relational histories the offenders had with adults. But in another of the studies cited--Marshall's--those percentages were determined by way of measurement of blood flow in relation to images and erotic depictions of men and women.

One of the clearest one goes something like "I'm Joe Blow, and I'm married, and gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone." Well, that begs the question at best.

Indeed. I haven't--and wouldn't--make such an argument. Your sentence lead me to believe that I was being accused of making slippery-slope arguments. I may have misunderstood.

Mind you, I don't think it DOES hurt anyone. But the argument isn't particularly useful, rhetorically. Too strictly subjective.

P.S. Another one like that which uses psuedoreason I cite in #11.6, and it goes: "I agree that the law should not define based on genders - a two person contract is a two person contract regardless of what genitals they have."

Again, not one I made. I agree with you as to its low quality (though, as a viewpoint, I hold it valid).

Actually, one of the other studies cited was by Gene Abel (if that helps you find more).

Thelyamhound,

Not sure why “Karen in Los Angels” repugnant post got so much play and how the conversation got off of different types of marriage and on to who are the most dangerous to children Hetro or Homosexual men but I think I found the report that you were referencing. What I got out of a quick run through of it was that these men that attack children don’t fall into either grouping. Ie: they’re not overly drawn to either men or women but rather to children.

Here’s the link I found, (thelyamhound let me know if this isn’t the report you were referring to)

Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse: Science, Religion, and the Slippery Slope
by Mark E. Pietrzyk* http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html

This one excerpt kind of sums up what I came away with.

“Homosexuality and homosexual pedophile are not synonymous. In fact, it may be that these two orientations are mutually exclusive, the reason being that the homosexual male is sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the sexually immature child’s qualities are more feminine than masculine. . . . The child offender who is attracted to and engaged in adult sexual relationships is heterosexual. It appears, therefore, that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male”

Thanks, Hermit. That's a worthy and sensible extrapolation from the data, and that does appear to be the report I was referencing.

Frankly, I think it's outright offensive that anyone is worrying about the social identity labels of people who molest children, or the normative standards by which we assign such labels. If someone is molesting children, it's of little concern to me whom he's fondling when he's fondling adults. Once he's fondling children, he's committing a crime, and the crime is no greater for his victim being a boy or being a girl.

There's some shame in allowing an obvious troglodyte to get my goat like this. A close friend with whom I've done theater over the last 12 years just passed away last night, and I have a big audition on Monday after some performances tonight and tomorrow, and . . . well, I'm stressed and sad and, perhaps, not as tolerant as I should be. After all, even Vincent deserves compassion, n'est-ce pas?

Anyway, good catch and good call, Hermit. Hope this weekend finds you well.

Thlyamhound,

Of course your right, (n'est-ce pas? ), respect for all until their actions show it's no longer deserved. In times past, before I became a hermit, I would have enjoyed a beer with both you and Vincent as this kind of discussion played out but I’d go cold and leave the bar if a Karen type personality was there.

My condolence for the loss of your friend. Good luck Monday, “Break a Leg!”

You could just cut and paste a URL, thylyamhound. Moreover, we were talking about bisexuals. No matter how you slice it, 100% of all pederasts are homosexual and/or bisexual. You haven't demonstrated otherwise.

There may be a sanctity of marriage, but statistics don't have sanctity, unless it's another twisted agenda right now.

No, while you have used pederast as a replacement for pedophile; (pederast is defined as male on male anal sex, especially man on younger male - by the greeks who invented the term; pedophile is any older on any younger); the vast majorityof mankind is bisexual to some degree and you can define those who aren't as bisexual simply because they did have contact. This is a very extremely silly and misleading statement

No one above mentioned pederasts; the discussion is pedophiles; and the vast majority of pedophiles are straight men and young women - though I agree that sometimes the "lolita's" will seduce the men (or lie about their age)

You are trying to hijack the discussion with hate and that is dead wrong.

There is no sanctity of "marriage"; there is a sanctity of matrimony, betrothal, etc. Marriage IS a civil union.

I tried cutting and pasting the URL; it didn't print. Thankfully, The Hermit found the link, and pasted it himself. Feel free to read it.

No matter how you slice it, 100% of all pederasts are homosexual and/or bisexual.

Yes, if you define a "bisexual" as anyone who has had both homosexual and heterosexual experiences, even if the only homosexual experiences have been with children. But using that metric, the number of bisexual men who molest children is not disproportionate to the number of men who could be so defined in the population at large (so far as we can tell, given the lack of statistics as to the number of bisexuals in the population at large).

Either way, the studies don't support your view without tremendous rhetorical and mathematical chicanery on your part.

Is gay marriage okay and polygamy an aberration of nature?

Yes and no

I wouldn't put a whole lot on the ruling you are thinking of. This was a WASP court ruling, basically, that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." - in other words, somehow, bigamy (the law cited) was a violation of "social duties" or was "subversive of good order".

This is obviously silly, what are social duties that a multiple partner marriage would tear asunder, how would it be subversive to good order?

This ruling came at the heigfht of anti-mormon feelings (Utah as a territory had eliminated multiple partner marriages to appease the non-mormons; in other parts of the country just being a mormon in a 1 man 1 woman marriage could still get you tarred and feathered, rode out of town on a rail; bagged and dumped out of town; and in some areas - lynched.

This was religious persecution as much as anti-bigamy

You expressed what I believe. Some of you judgemental people should study history of the United States. Not what the polically correct is telling you. Dig deep. When was the law against poligamy passed? It wasn't illegal to practice poligamy until that time. Gay marriage is not something I agree with. Why are they insisting on this "right" when so many heterosexuals are living together and having children without marriage?

the first law was 1862, it wasn't through the SCOTUS until 1878 and there are a bunch of questions about that decision

Marriage is a state creaion and there are many hundreds of laws conferring benefits, etc. based on this status - "married" Perhaps you are getting confused about what "marriage" is

Cipher 0

I did not Loving v Virginia on Wikipedia. I read the first paragraph of the case on Findlaw and know why inter-racial marriage was ruled unconstitutional.

Race and religions are protected classes under scrict scrutiny of judicial review for equal protection of the law. Gays are not a protected class.

Do you understand? If not, I suggest you check into these search terms: "strict scrutiny" and "judicial review" and "protected class."

Before any gay people gripe too much - women ARE NOT a protected class either.

I had to correct my post 3.5 - sorry for confusion.

Cipher 0

I did not read Loving v Virginia on Wikipedia. I read the first paragraph of the case on Findlaw and know why VA's law prohibiting inter-racial marriage was ruled unconstitutional.

Race and religions are protected classes under scrict scrutiny of judicial review for equal protection of the law. Gays are not a protected class.

Do you understand? If not, I suggest you check into these search terms: "strict scrutiny" and "judicial review" and "protected class."

Before any gay people gripe too much - women ARE NOT a protected class either.

actually under current law both are. I have no idea where you are getting this

She's an idiot Eriq and she just pulls stuff out of her @ss, but expects everyone to buy it because she supposedly works in the field of law. Kind of like those doctors in the 18th and 19th century who claimed that they had proven that blacks were inferior and therefore less deserving of the same civil rights as whites.

Gay marriage is not something I agree with. Why are they insisting on this "right" when so many heterosexuals are living together and having children without marriage?

Legal marriage contracts enumerate somewhere around 1138 rights to the parties involved in the contract.

You're naive if you think that a legal marriage contract somehow only dictates guidelines regarding cohabitation and child-rearing.

Eriq and Abolish Taxes -

Excuse me, but just because you say so Eriq, you are correct? This link says you are wrong Eriq and at least I present evidence. If you work in the law, you could have fooled me.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/266387/CON-LAW-OUTLINE-PUSHAW-v3

And Abolish Taxes is just a blowhard.

Karen - lose the vitriol. The article you linked does not support your thesis - In this case you are violating the free religious aspects of all churches that DO perform same sex marriages (it is a freedom of religion issue as well as an equal protection issue as well as a gender issue)

Simply because you do not care to recognize this does not make it so

Karen you are just an ignorant bigot. Again, your attempts to link all homosexuals with pedophilia via NAMBLA is like linking all christians to child rape via the Catholic church and its protection of child rapists. You are a sad representation of the individuals that make up our legal system today. Your use of Pat Robertson, Jerry Springer and Maury Povich to bolster your pathetic ideas demonstrates an individual seriously lacking any integrity.

Gays are not a protected class.

Not yet.

Before any gay people gripe too much - women ARE NOT a protected class either.

Gender is a protected class.

If you work in the law, you could have fooled me.

Or if we starred in a hit TV show, apparently.

Again, your attempts to link all homosexuals with pedophilia via NAMBLA is like linking all christians to child rape via the Catholic church and its protection of child rapists.

Wait, wait, wait... Jesus didn't encourage us to go forth and touch little boys?! *mind blown*

#3.12 reported. What can we do about the ad hominems and violations of the COH that NV condones? It's false advertising at least, so a complaint to the BBB?

Another partisan lie. There is nothing ad hominem about it. From wiki:

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.

The origin of the word bigot and bigoterie in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite" Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.

This is a good definition of the comments (although I will agree that ignorant is unnecessary and redundant - bigots are ignorant by definition. The use of the term bigot as a description is done all over JNewsvine.

Your comment, on the other hand, IS an ad hominem attack and should be deleted and reported; it is a violation of the COH and a threat..

I don't believe for a moment that any of that is not made-for-tv fiction.

I prefer to watch Jerry Springer.

forget about povich and springer. I prefer olberman for idiocy.

I prefer olberman for idiocy

I find Beck better suited for that. I love it when he cries. LOL Such a drama queen!

Such a drama queen! i thought the Mormons were against homosexuality.

Literally, you would be wrong. If the marriage is between a man/woman = 2 people, same man/different woman = 2 people etc.

As long as the marriage was not worded so that all three were partners, then nothing could be construed as illegal. Just a loophole in the two people idea.

If both polygamy and gay marriage were legal, the two women could also be married to each other. Could lead to some very messy, difficult divorce cases.

as I understand it from watching "big love" the women in plural marriages do consider themselves married to each other

The problem with polygamy as I see it, is it is used as a bogus argument against granting equal rights to a minority. I'll bet there are still people that think inter-racial marriages are unnatural.

And to go the "natural" route, one has to look at the gamut...from the pride of lions to the mate-for-life ducks. You got your gay and lesbian couples. Then there's the mate-for-the season types, your once-and-run types, and, of course, hermaphrodites and simple cell division. "Natural law" seems to be kind of complex.

IMHO, the underlying point is that that Christians don't agree with homosexuality so they are trying to find some secular argument against it. It is total BS. The government should not legislate according to religion.

the underlying point is that that Christians don't agree with homosexuality so they are trying to find some secular argument against it.

Which also fails upon scrutiny because a plural marriage creates a whole lot of complicated problems.

In both Straight and Gay marriage there are only two people getting married and the right to make medical decisions or to receive custody in case of death are quite clear.

In a plural marriage If the husband (or wife) dies who gets what? do they split it evenly or can one get more? what if the husband (or wife) dies and so does one of their spouse do the other spouse get the property? what about if they had children does one of the other spouses claim custody? do they go to other relatives. what about when the husband (or wife) is sick the the wives (or husbands) put medical decision to a vote??

I'm getting a headache just thinking of all the possible problems plural marriages would raised.

It's actually quite simple. All parties involved adhere to the will. It is a binding contract after all.

It's actually quite simple. All parties involved adhere to the will. It is a binding contract after all.

Not always, but anyway, they are already doing that in places like Utah, the man marries one wife legally and the others he marries in a religious ceremony, so they are not really being deny their marriages.

So, the first marriage is a legal civil contract sanctioned by the government and the others are merely a religious ceremony with no legal status? Or let's try this analogy, there is one couple and a man with several girlfriends who can be a baby daddy to whichever woman gets pregnant.

Our society professes this, however, and creates the conventional wisdom that religion is a critical part of marriage.

I think that's the point. Marriage is a societal contract, so society defines what marriage is. If society says that religion is a critical part of marriage, then that's the way it is until society decides differently.

Our society specifically prohibits religion from being part of state policy.

Our society specifically prohibits religion from being part of state policy.

I didn't say anything about the state. If we want the state to be part of the deal, let's go to civil unions.

Society should not determine marriage. Individuals in society should determine what relationship to enter into. There should be no "norm" that prohibits any person from entering into any relationship with another adult. By asserting "society", I took that to imply that there is a standard that all should follow.

By asserting "society", I took that to imply that there is a standard that all should follow.

That's what society is. A set of rules that everybody agrees to. Why do you think I'm wearing pants right now? Our society agreed, a long time ago, that you had to wear pants in public, just like it agreed, a long time ago, that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Rigbee - that's the point that too many do not understand - "Marriage" IS a civil union and nothing more.

There are religious ceremonies, like matrimony, betrothal, wedlock, etc. but marriage requires neither participant to have religion nor any specific religion. Churches already refuse matrimonies to some; for example the Catholic church has a lot of conditions that require you to raise children as Catholic, not be a divorce', etc.. Churches also refuse to recognize matrimonies performed by other churches sometimes.

Our society decided long long ago to ban religion from government and government from religion. It never decided that marriage was solely between 1 man and 1 woman until very very recently when DOMA redefined marriage

As far as pants; no they are not required (some wear kilts, etc. and there ARE clothing optional areas), this follows another questionable area of law as these are all local statutes and no one has ever challenged their constitutionality.

Eriq -

"Marriage" IS a civil union and nothing more.

this is your belief and nothing more.

As far as pants; no they are not required (some wear kilts, etc. and there ARE clothing optional areas), this follows another questionable area of law as these are all local statutes and no one has ever challenged their constitutionality.

I'm at work, and trust me, the societal conventions here require me to wear pants if I want to keep my job. ;-)

And I would be perfectly happy to see civil unions performed by the government and marriages performed by the church, each with equally recognozed state and federal rights.

I'm at work, and trust me, the societal conventions here require me to wear pants if I want to keep my job. ;-)

I frequently wear a kilt, here. Societal convention is malleable to some degree.

I think that's the point. Marriage is a societal contract, so society defines what marriage is. If society says that religion is a critical part of marriage, then that's the way it is until society decides differently.

But the fact that one can be married outside the bounds of organized religion and have that marriage recognized by the state does indicate, Rigbee, that our society recognizes that marriage is not wholly or strictly a religious matter.

Moreover, it's clear that, at least at some point in our history, our society wanted the state in on that union, or the civil contract we call marriage wouldn't exist, wouldn't grant spousal 5th Amendment privilege, immigration rights, power of attorney, hospital visitation, etc.

Now, I'm inclined to agree that a suitable compromise might well be to get the government out of the business of marriage, and let them offer civil unions. As it stands, though, marriage is what the state offers, and so long as it does so, I, for one, will insist they do so equally.

If my own marriage got downgraded to a "civil union" in the eyes of the state, I lose nothing. To my family, my friends, my fellow theatricians and fellow Buddhists, my wife and I will remain married. Likewise, we and anyone who's for our company in the least would recognize our gay friends who chose to form such unions as married whatever the state called their union. But the only way to be certain that the contract my wife and I have and the contract that Chip and Steve down the street will offer the same benefits is if a) the contract offered by the state is the same one in both cases (which is to say that it's NOT a separate-but-equal construct), and b) the contracts are given full faith & credit by other states.

Civil unions are not a "separate but equal" institution. Seniors also benefit by them, as many have pensions they would lose if they got married. My own grandparents used to complain about the problem.

Gramps, Rigbee - NO! Legally a marriage IS a civil union and nothing more.

Understand that if it had any religious meaning, it would require the participants to have a religion - it does not

Understand that if it had any religious meaning it would require some religious authority to preside - it does not! (In fact they may only preside at a "matrimony, wedlock, betrothal, etc. IF that state has a statute providing it OR they are licensed by that state to do so. - hence "by the power vested in me by the state of ...")

Marriage is the province of the State. This is why people have been trying to redefine it a la DOMA type laws since the 1980's - it is the state, not the religions that determines marriage

This redefinition effort is caused by a particular psychologically issued group of people, who seem to think that they are superior to others and should be able to tell others how to live. This violates most major religions (including Christianity) and major political philosophies, it is "BIG" government and "Fascism" - telling others how to live; this they are at once anti-liberal, anti-conservative, and anti-christ, etc. - the soc-cons are completely schizophrenic.

This is the bigger problem, that they arfe removed from logic, common sense, and reality

eriq #10.12 is a nice post to explain why you believe the way you do, but is still all your belief of how thing should be. I believe different.

No, Gramps; you are giving an opinion, I am giving facts. Marriage has nothing to do with religion (Legally); although some religions have mistranslated their partnering term to use "marriage" rather than the original terms.

Marriage, legally, is a civil union. There is no religion involved -- which would be unconstitutional in any event. One would have thought the fact that they were changing laws and not religions would have been a big clue, fundamentally obvious

Of course mine is an opinion, just like yours, I look at history and understand it one way, you look at the same history and understand it your way, a lot of things that effected history where never recorded, that is why there is room to disagree.

...but if the facts prove you wrong, your opinion is flawed. The right to be heard does not necessarily mean the right to be taken seriously.

but if the facts prove you wrong, your opinion is flawed

Yes your opinion of what the facts mean prove me wrong, is your opinion of what the facts mean a fact?

Vincent: Civil unions are not a "separate but equal" institution. Seniors also benefit by them, as many have pensions they would lose if they got married. My own grandparents used to complain about the problem.

As noted before, seniors are not forbidden from marrying. And if they're willing to forego the rights afforded by marriage that civil unions don't offer, more power to 'em. What's most interesting about your assertion is that it clearly illustrates what most people fear about "separate-but-equal"--that it will be separate-but-decidedly-lopsided.

My primary assertion is that ALL of the rights, from full faith & credit to spousal privilege in court to immigration, that are available to my wife and I should be available to homosexual couples and, yes, plural households. My secondary assertion is that offering these under a separate name essentially makes it a separate contract, which means that one can be changed while the other is left the same (leaving it separate but UNequal).

I'm not concerned with names. If the law wants to call ALL such unions civil unions, domestic partnerships, if Johnny-frickin-law wants to call them Groucho-frickin-Marx, I'm not really concerned. Aside from conferring benefits and privileges, the state has little to do with my own marriage or that of my gay brethren.

Yes your opinion of what the facts mean prove me wrong, is your opinion of what the facts mean a fact?

Could you put that into an empirical context?

As noted before, seniors are not forbidden from marrying. And if they're willing to forego the rights afforded by marriage that civil unions don't offer, more power to 'em. What's most interesting about your assertion is that it clearly illustrates what most people fear about "separate-but-equal"--that it will be separate-but-decidedly-lopsided.

Homosexuals have the same rights as seniors to marry. You're asking for more than special rights because they don't even have pensions they can lose. What about homosexuals that benefit from the fact that they won't lose their pensions if they marry. However, the federal government does not recognize same-sex "marriage" either.

My primary assertion is that ALL of the rights, from full faith & credit to spousal privilege in court to immigration, that are available to my wife and I should be available to homosexual couples and, yes, plural households. My secondary assertion is that offering these under a separate name essentially makes it a separate contract, which means that one can be changed while the other is left the same (leaving it separate but UNequal).

Family, country, and other organizations are also a different contract than marriage, as I've explained, and they're just as strong or stronger. Haven't you ever heard that blood is thicker than water?!? You keep going back to the same old, bad arguments and claims.

Yes your opinion of what the facts mean prove me wrong, is your opinion of what the facts mean a fact?

Wow. You almost caught us up with that tricky tangle of words.

Psyche.

The point is: a marriage is a legal institution, when it is recognized by the government. That institution has nothing to do with religion. Religion does not play any part in the laws.

I'm curious, do you actually believe that religion has something to do with those laws? I'm happy to go grab a source for the governing laws, and we can all take a look and notice that religion and gods aren't mentioned anywhere in them, just to prove you wrong.

Homosexuals have the same rights as seniors to marry. You're asking for more than special rights because they don't even have pensions they can lose.

Don't they? What about elderly homosexuals?

What about homosexuals that benefit from the fact that they won't lose their pensions if they marry.

I'm glad that worked out for them! Did you have a point?

However, the federal government does not recognize same-sex "marriage" either.

No . . . but I believe they should, precisely because they acknowledge heterosexual marriage.

My primary assertion is that ALL of the rights, from full faith & credit to spousal privilege in court to immigration, that are available to my wife and I should be available to homosexual couples and, yes, plural households. My secondary assertion is that offering these under a separate name essentially makes it a separate contract, which means that one can be changed while the other is left the same (leaving it separate but UNequal).

Family, country, and other organizations are also a different contract than marriage, as I've explained, and they're just as strong or stronger.

As a married Buddhist working in theater, I tend to agree. What, exactly does that have to do with the passage to which you claim to be responding?

Haven't you ever heard that blood is thicker than water?!?

Um . . . Yes. And the relevance . . . ?

You keep going back to the same old, bad arguments and claims.

Thankfully, you've yet to demonstrate the ostensible poverty of those arguments and claims.

Homosexuals have the same rights as seniors to marry. You're asking for more than special rights because they don't even have pensions they can lose.

Don't they? What about elderly homosexuals?

What about homosexuals that benefit from the fact that they won't lose their pensions if they marry.

I'm glad that worked out for them! Did you have a point?

The issue regarded whether elderly homosexuals who would lose their pensions if they "married" lose their rights. Civil unions help them besides.

However, the federal government does not recognize same-sex "marriage" either.

No . . . but I believe they should, precisely because they acknowledge heterosexual marriage.

Calling it "heterosexual marriage" is a misnomer. Moreover, I believe otherwise than the federal government should recognize them. Next we'll make schools allow animals as students, and families can legally also include friends and neighbors. Countries won't have borders, and you can shirk your civic duty or just benefit by it all you want, though the latter happens somewhat already to say the least.

Family, country, and other organizations are also a different contract than marriage, as I've explained, and they're just as strong or stronger.

As a married Buddhist working in theater, I tend to agree. What, exactly does that have to do with the passage to which you claim to be responding?

It demonstrates that civil unions aren't "separate but equal" but different relationships, as I said, though your unethical comments continue to refuse to acknowledge. Either that or you're being thick headed.

Haven't you ever heard that blood is thicker than water?!?

Um . . . Yes. And the relevance . . . ?

Again, it shows that marriage isn't the only institution, and same-sex "marriage" attacks the fundamentals of more than one institution: the church, state, family, marriage, and probably others. I was against civil unions because I thought it would lead down a slippery-slope to "marriage," and it's one reason to be against them, a barrier against insanity. However, I also think they'd be a good option for many, not just homosexuals who could have an institution which provides some, if not all, of the rights of marriage.

Like we don't call the Internet the real world, another option without destroying the old one could help. However, relationships are not so simple as "married and faithful." Civil unions also provide more legal benefits than faithfulness though, e.g. more rights and obligations to the partners like a marriage does.

One reason I see nowadays for civil unions is AIDS. However, whether providing a civil union, or even a "marriage" to a homosexual couple could reduce AIDS could become mute and may be anyway. After all, as I said, faithfulness depends on more than a name and legal standing on a relationship.

The issue regarded whether elderly homosexuals who would lose their pensions if they "married" lose their rights. Civil unions help them besides.

This speaks not a whit to the matter of the rights that marriage bestows that civil unions do not. Moreover, even if we have two separate notions of marriage and civil unions, the fact remains that your elderly couple may choose one or the other; gay couples, in most states, only have the option of obtaining one.

Calling it "heterosexual marriage" is a misnomer.

Traditional marriage, then. Marriage between a man and a woman. Ideally, I'd like to be able to call them all marriage, and not keep messing around with arbitrary identity labels.

Moreover, I believe otherwise than the federal government should recognize them.

In the incoherent sludge that is your writing, rest assured that THIS, if nothing else, is abundantly clear. We can agree to disagree on this one.

Next we'll make schools allow animals as students, and families can legally also include friends and neighbors.

As to the latter, why not? In the community which I belong, family is a pretty malleable concept, especially to Buddhists who are estranged from their Christian parents, homosexuals estranged to their not-so-gay-friendly kin, and actors whose families have never approved of their career choice.

As to the former, it's absurd. If nothing else, most schools have some baseline aptitude tests that have to met before they can allow a student in. If a sheep could pass one of those, well, hell, I say educate the damn thing.

Family, country, and other organizations are also a different contract than marriage, as I've explained, and they're just as strong or stronger.

As a married Buddhist working in theater, I tend to agree. What, exactly does that have to do with the passage to which you claim to be responding?

It demonstrates that civil unions aren't "separate but equal" but different relationships, as I said, though your unethical comments continue to refuse to acknowledge. Either that or you're being thick headed.

But family, country, and other organizations don't even purport to fill the same function as marriage. The comparison makes no sense.

That said, the notion that civil unions are something separate from marriage is an interesting one. But there's no reason for heterosexual couples to have access to both and homosexual couples to have access to only one. As long as the rights that go with MARRIAGE are available to heterosexual couples, the same rights, and I mean every single one, should be available to homosexual couples as well.

As to my "unethical" comments, what exactly is the ethical failure thereof?

Again, it shows that marriage isn't the only institution, and same-sex "marriage" attacks the fundamentals of more than one institution: the church, state, family, marriage, and probably others.

How does it "attack" the fundamentals of church and family when such institutions can continue to describe marriage as they see fit? The presence of a civic marriage option for homosexuals says nothing about whether a church has to recognize them.

Your lazy responses to these comments is ridiculous, and on top of it you've claimed you win the argument?!? Go figure! You haven't provided any links, claim you have too much work, and pass your garbage off as work!

I've got a lot going on here myself: finals, preparation for graduation, which includes what to do after it occurs, Memorial Day coming up, corporation taxes due today, deliveries for our nonprofit's store, probable surgery, pets.

I'll try to respond further to this one, but the work's been one sided!

I don't know how to make links on the Vine (it's clearly a different process than on other sites; it's possible I'm still too new). I tell you above where my studies come from.

And I DO have a lot of work. I'm working two jobs today, I have performances all weekend, work and an audition on Monday, and then work all next week before I start rehearsals for another project the next weekend.

Your lazy responses to these comments is ridiculous, and on top of it you've claimed you win the argument?!?s

Why don't you demonstrate their laziness? Or, if you can't, won't, or don't care to, why don't you just leave me the hell alone? Or would you rather take a bloody POLL as to which of us is the ignoramus?

I'll try to respond further to this one, but the work's been one sided!

What work have you done? You've provided a link or two; I directly quoted a number of scientific studies AND attributed them in our original conversation. You write like a first generation Bavarian immigrant, so that it take three readings to figure out what the hell you're saying, but read and re-read I do; if I can handle Finnegan's Wake, I can deal with Vincent Bartning.

I've truly never encountered a troll of your magnitude. The further we go on, the more a blessing I imagine it that you might put me on ignore.

I reported another of your COH violations, and I'm adding you to my "ignore" list. Take a critical-thinking class!

If you're the product of a critical thinking class, Vincent, consider me proud that I've not had the privilege of taking one. I welcome anyone here to show me where I've relied on any rhetorical fallacies, or where you've offered anything but. I also welcome any administrator who wishes to show me what COH violations I've committed, and/or demonstrate that I wasn't more than patient with you for longer than your manner warranted.

As for adding me to your ignore list (which, to be fair, guarantees that you won't be reading this--consider this an addendum for anyone following along), my rather difficult weekend just got considerably better. Thanks!

That's a red-herring. The legal aspects should follow the tenets of the marriage, not the other way around. The law should not prescribe to individuals the basis for their marriage.

The legal aspects to marriage are written and assigned already - any new marriage is done under the prescription of legal benefits that alraedy exist.

The law is the only thing that can prescribe a legal basis for a marriage.

The law is wrong; it prohibits individuals from making free choices about the relationship that they choose to enter. That is precisely the issue. Gays cannot marry only because the law defines marriage. It should not.

I think "thelopes" was responding to what effects the laws would have on plural marriages; however I disagree with him - we have had plural marriages, there is room for them within the legal framework. This is a red herring argument; you do not prevent people from exercising rights because other laws aren't ready for them. This idea would have banned cellphones, for instance, because the technology of tapping them had not been perfected (now they are the easiest to tap!)

The law is wrong; it prohibits individuals from making free choices about the relationship that they choose to enter. That is precisely the issue. Gays cannot marry only because the law defines marriage. It should not.

I think you missed my first post, Mike.

I see marriage between people of the same sex as fine because the law shouldn't care of the gender of the individuals, especially in licensure. Nothing in the legal implications cares if person A is male and person B is female, or if it is reversed, or if they both are male, or if they both are female.

I agree that the law should not define based on genders - a two person contract is a two person contract regardless of what genitals they have.

I think "thelopes" was responding to what effects the laws would have on plural marriages; however I disagree with him - we have had plural marriages, there is room for them within the legal framework.

I didn't mean that I see a lack of room for them within the legal framework - I was mostly meaning to disconnect a 2+ person marriage from the 2 person marriage issue regarding gender. The original poster wanted to connect them as 'moral issues' so I first distanced myself from 'nature' and 'morality' and addressed them as legal issues.

Personally, if the legal situation for a 2+ person marriage was decided, where next-of-kin, taxes, inheritance, and everything could be settled, I wouldn't care at all. Setting all of that to pen, paper, and lawbook is the only thing I see truly standing in the way.

"I agree that the law should not define based on genders - a two person contract is a two person contract regardless of what genitals they have."

Besides the absurdity of the claim that the law should not define marriage based on genders, parents and children can have a two-person contract with their children, but they can't marry, so your logic doesn't pan out. The same holds true for siblings, and both groups, siblings and direct descendants, often get inheritance and run businesses together, have contracts, not to mention the non-marriage, family one besides. Go figure!

Besides the absurdity of the claim that the law should not define marriage based on genders,

So, your argument is that "The claim is absurd, but I'm not going to say anything more."

parents and children can have a two-person contract with their children, but they can't marry, so your logic doesn't pan out. The same holds true for siblings, and both groups, siblings and direct descendants, often get inheritance and run businesses together, have contracts, not to mention the non-marriage, family one besides. Go figure!

What does any of the rest of what you said have to do with anything I've said exactly?

I was talking about an existing contractual situation - the legal side of marriage - and how it relates to the genders of two parties (that the genders don't matter in the legal relationship).

Does a legal contract between a parent/guardian and child care if the parent/guardian is male or female or if the child is male or female? Inheritance by 'family blood' and falling on a descendent is a legal decision independent of contractual marriages. Do the contracts between siblings running a business care if the siblings are male/female or male/male or female/female?

Personally, if the legal situation for a 2+ person marriage was decided, where next-of-kin, taxes, inheritance, and everything could be settled, I wouldn't care at all. Setting all of that to pen, paper, and lawbook is the only thing I see truly standing in the way.

All of these things can be settled in a will.

I see a bit of a difference in 'end-of-life' situations and ongoing living arrangements. Otherwise one could just say everything involved in a marriage could just be written in a will.

By taxes, I meant something along the lines of 'joint-tax-filing.' And it was mostly an example of things that I see as standing in the way. Decide how employer insurance may apply to more than one spouse, and other similar things, and who am I to stand in the way.

lopes - There is a lot more than can be handled in a will. If nothing else the second class status - do you know why "black pride", "gay pride", etc. exist?

When you treat someone as less than you, as second class, it is just so much easier to justify others killing them or even getting involved yourself. For a true christian, denying any people their rights is denying their humanity - this is against everything Christ taught.

there are some things that can be settled in a will but not equal rights

lopes - There is a lot more than can be handled in a will. If nothing else the second class status

When you treat someone as less than you, as second class, it is just so much easier to justify others killing them or even getting involved yourself.

I'm confused - what are you responding to with this? What do you think I'm saying or implying for which you're pulling out 'equal rights' issues as a response?

I'm basically saying I think stopping gay marriages is silly because the genders of the individuals shouldn't matter.

I'm also saying I don't care about polygamy should the finer details of how the legal situations in a marriage are handled for more than 2 people.

I'm basically saying the framework for a legal marriage between people of the same-sex already exists in the current idea of marriage, but the 2+ people situations haven't no legal solution yet.

Gender is to marriage as air is to fire. Without air, you don't get fire.

Gender is to marriage as air is to fire. Without air, you don't get fire.

Strange, I would think it was 'people' that were required for a legal contract like marriage. What is there specifically about "marriage" that is determined by the genders of the individuals? A fire uses air in a chemical reaction that is easily understood and explained - but what does 'gender' do for marriage precisely?

Let me ask - is there a difference in the marriage of 'Adam and Eve' and the marriage of 'Eve and Adam'?

Eve and Adam are still different genders. Moreover, gender is the basis of marriage, a union to begin a family, what sex is. Are you saying that we're asexual beings, or something else?

Eve and Adam are still different genders.

Funny, that doesn't actually answer anything I asked. I first asked what gender does for a marriage, which you ignore, and then I asked if there were a difference between those two situations, which you ignore.

The truth being that there is no difference between a marriage of 'Adam and Eve' and a marriage of 'Eve and Adam' because the gender of Person A and the gender assigned Person B in the situation has no play on the marriage.

Moreover, gender is the basis of marriage, a union to begin a family, what sex is.

Two interesting things with that...

Sex/procreation aren't required of a marriage. Also, marriage isn't required for sex/procreation.

Hell, sex/procreation and marriage aren't required for a "family." And the genders of the people involved in a family don't even matter - they're still a 'family.'

Are you saying that we're asexual beings, or something else?

Gender doesn't matter to our legal standing as individuals.

You tried to imply reversing the position of Adam and Eve somehow made their genders irrelevant. On the contrary, oranges and apples are still different fruits, and it just changed the position of their names. Steve and Adam still mean two people of the same sex.

You tried to imply reversing the position of Adam and Eve somehow made their genders irrelevant. On the contrary, oranges and apples are still different fruits, and it just changed the position of their names. Steve and Adam still mean two people of the same sex.

Again, it is rather funny that you still haven't shown how gender means anything to the concept of marriage.

But thanks for the apples and oranges idea. Say you have a fruit bowl. The placement of the fruits in the bowl doesn't matter, which fruits are involved don't matter, but just that there are fruits. Adam and Eve and Steve are all different people - in a legal union, it doesn't matter which two you pick, nothing changes about the that legal union of marriage between them.

thelopes:

What does that have to do with my comment? It's crazy!

thelopes:

What does that have to do with my comment? It's crazy!

You made the statement that gender was to marriage as air was to fire.

I said.

Strange, I would think it was 'people' that were required for a legal contract like marriage. What is there specifically about "marriage" that is determined by the genders of the individuals? A fire uses air in a chemical reaction that is easily understood and explained - but what does 'gender' do for marriage precisely?

So, in 11.17, I again asked what gender does for the concept of marriage.

I've put forth that the genders of the individuals are irrelevant. Legal personhood, citizenship, taxpayer status, etc, ignores gender. You declare it on your driver's licence and it is on your birth certificate, but it means nothing as per what you can or cannot do, or how the law applies to you. The law cares about your genital arrangements as much as it cares about your hair color or what you choose to do with your fingernails.

lopes - way, way over vince's head. Notice he just keeps repeating the same GIGO, over and over. He is either unable to understand or unwilling; in either case do not waste your time; nothing to be gained here.

thelopes:

I asked what #11.17 had to do with my comment, not for B.S. However, you give me B.S. about it. It's as if someone asked you to explain why it's a crime to drink and drive, you'd go and say that it's not, it's a matter of driving and drinking. Go figure!

I asked what #11.17 had to do with my comment, not for B.S. However, you give me B.S. about it.

In 11.13 I asked what gender does for marriage. In 11.15 I asked the same thing again. In one 11.17 I asked the question a third time.

Are you under the impression that if you ignore it it will go away?

But let's look at the rest of 11.16

You tried to imply reversing the position of Adam and Eve somehow made their genders irrelevant. On the contrary, oranges and apples are still different fruits, and it just changed the position of their names. Steve and Adam still mean two people of the same sex.

and 11.17 - the part after my repeated qustion.

But thanks for the apples and oranges idea. Say you have a fruit bowl. The placement of the fruits in the bowl doesn't matter, which fruits are involved don't matter, but just that there are fruits. Adam and Eve and Steve are all different people - in a legal union, it doesn't matter which two you pick, nothing changes about the that legal union of marriage between them.

Now, you first seem to think that I'm implying something by reversing the order, but I'm not. I'm asking why the gender of the person who signs on the first line and the gender of the person that signs on the second line would matter. Again, back to that darn 'why does gender matter to marriage' question you really don't want to answer.

In the light of your introduction of the 'apples v. oranges' concept, I was going to try to use your approach to try and help you understand.

A marriage is a legal union of two consenting adults (different states have different 'relationship' levels, different age limits, etc, but I'm simplifying it down to the core 'legal' idea.)

A bowl of fruit is ... a bowl that contains fruit.

Consenting adults can have whatever genitals they have, it doesn't effect their standing as legal adults in our society.

Fruit can have whatever method of growing, location of harvest, coloration, juice, taste, but it is still fruit.

Yes, if you want to 'compare' fruit, apples and oranges have quite a few differences - just as if you want to compare a male and a female whatever. But we're not dealing with a comparative look at the items themselves - we're dealing with a legal situation involving them.

I keep going back to this idea, and I wonder when you might address it - gender doesn't matter.

It's as if someone asked you to explain why it's a crime to drink and drive, you'd go and say that it's not, it's a matter of driving and drinking. Go figure!

Actually, it isn't. I'm effectively saying that "drinking and driving" is the exact same as "driving and drinking." As in, the order doesn't matter. It is the result.

So, it doesn't matter if it is Person A and Person B or Person B and Person A. The end result is a legal contract binding two consenting adults in a legal union called 'marriage.'

thelopes:

Using the analogy of apples and oranges is a common way to say you're talking about different matters. Moreover, subtle differences make the difference between many important things. Take one planet that has an atmosphere with 30 percent oxygen, 50 percent nitrogen, and 20 percent carbon dioxide, and then take another with 25 percent oxygen, 45 percent nitrogen, 20 percent carbon dioxide, and 10 percent carbon monoxide, and you're gonna have a lot of differences on what the planets are like.

I keep going back to this idea, and I wonder when you might address it - gender doesn't matter.

That's like saying it doesn't matter if you have only fire engines, but no one to man them, in a fire department, and it begs the question.

P.S. One could also say that gender is to marriage as love is to marriage, as a horse is to a carriage, as butter is to bread. Take away the carriage, and you just have two horses, and two carriages can't even move.

P.P.S. Gender is to marriage like husband is to wife besides.

Moreover, subtle differences make the difference between many important things. Take one planet that has an atmosphere with 30 percent oxygen, 50 percent nitrogen, and 20 percent carbon dioxide, and then take another with 25 percent oxygen, 45 percent nitrogen, 20 percent carbon dioxide, and 10 percent carbon monoxide, and you're gonna have a lot of differences on what the planets are like.

And in many cases, differences don't matter to the larger picture. The differences between those two planets are like the differences between the marriage of my parents and the marriage of my grandparents. They have many differences but they were both marriages, just as you presented two planets - the differences are superficial to the fact of what they 'are.'

Hell, there's many differences between a man and a woman, in how they operate, the shape of their body, etc. But they can both be citizens, people, adults, individuals. Adulthood, citizenship, personhood, ignores their hair color, their genitals, their fingernails, their teeth or lack thereof. Planethood ignores the specifics of their atmosphere, the shading of the light, the amount or lack of craters from collisions.

That's like saying it doesn't matter if you have only fire engines, but no one to man them, in a fire department, and it begs the question.

You still haven't answered why gender matters to marriage. You've mrely assumed it.

What am I, up to a 6th time asking you the same question?

P.S. One could also say that gender is to marriage as a horse is to a carriage, as butter is to bread. Take away the carriage, and you just have two horses, and two carriages can't even move.

You can try to wax poetic until the cows come home, but it doesn't support the claim that gender is required for marriage.

You've made several metaphorical comparisons. Air and fire - now air is a fuel for fire - so is gender a fuel for marriage? Love isn't required for marriage and marriage isn't always the result of love, so that one doesn't really work.

A carriage is still a carriage, regardless of whether the person has the horse or not. However, a carriage can be pulled by other animals and sources - oxen, donkeys, people - it is something of a nice comparison for marriage, which takes all types.

A bread is still bread without butter - and buttered bread is just how some people prefer it. I like that comparison. You like your bread buttered, others will like it toasted, or with jam, or a combination, or in a sandwich. It is a good comparison for something like love or the inclusion of gay marriage, where everybody experiences it differently.

You've made several metaphorical comparisons. Air and fire - now air is a fuel for fire - so is gender a fuel for marriage? Love isn't required for marriage and marriage isn't always the result of love, so that one doesn't really work.

Fire makes fire. Sexual beings reproduce likewise.

Moreover, subtle differences make the difference between many important things. Take one planet that has an atmosphere with 30 percent oxygen, 50 percent nitrogen, and 20 percent carbon dioxide, and then take another with 25 percent oxygen, 45 percent nitrogen, 20 percent carbon dioxide, and 10 percent carbon monoxide, and you're gonna have a lot of differences on what the planets are like.

And in many cases, differences don't matter to the larger picture. The differences between those two planets are like the differences between the marriage of my parents and the marriage of my grandparents. They have many differences but they were both marriages, just as you presented two planets - the differences are superficial to the fact of what they 'are.'

On the contrary, I doubt humans would do well on either planet. Plants might do well on the one without carbon monoxide, but no earth life would exist on the one with it. Moreover, with your analogy that gender's not important, plants couldn't reproduce even. They need sex and environment too. So I guess that leaves single-celled organisms that live in water.

Hell, there's many differences between a man and a woman, in how they operate, the shape of their body, etc. But they can both be citizens, people, adults, individuals. Adulthood, citizenship, personhood, ignores their hair color, their genitals, their fingernails, their teeth or lack thereof. Planethood ignores the specifics of their atmosphere, the shading of the light, the amount or lack of craters from collisions.

This has nothing to do with what gender is to marriage.

That's like saying it doesn't matter if you have only fire engines, but no one to man them, in a fire department, and it begs the question.

You still haven't answered why gender matters to marriage. You've mrely assumed it.

What am I, up to a 6th time asking you the same question?

On the contrary, I've provided reasons why. Your comments simply continue to lack ethics. They're inconsiderate, cruel, frustrating, and dumb.

Rights don't just belong to homosexuals. If a homosexual person threatens someone physically, it's still assault, perverted, and same-sex "marriage" will take away chances for innocence. At least with marriage, and they do even have quick, Nevada-like ones in California, you're protected in that your partner has to be of the opposite sex. It's a much-needed protection, especially where your comments at least do not clearly flame with impunity, are some of the best one can get from same-sex "marriage" snobs. However, still, as I said, they're inconsiderate, cruel, frustrating, and dumb, not to mention unethical.

Fire makes fire. Sexual beings reproduce likewise.

Sexual reproduction is neither a requirement of or a necessary product of marriage.

On the contrary, I doubt humans would do well on either planet. Plants might do well on the one without carbon monoxide, but no earth life would exist on the one with it. Moreover, with your analogy that gender's not important, plants couldn't reproduce even. They need sex and environment too. So I guess that leaves single-celled organisms that live in water.

As I've already answered your inclusion of 'sexual reproduction' - let me point out that I'm not discussing the viability of life on the planets. You referenced that planets are different.

you're gonna have a lot of differences on what the planets are like.

You're also going to have a lot of differences between one heterosexual couple and any given other one. Those differences are superficial. Those differences do not matter to the legal situation of marriage.

This has nothing to do with what gender is to marriage.

Then let me ask again - what is gender to marriage?

On the contrary, I've provided reasons why.

Vague metaphorical comparisons aren't "reasons why."

and same-sex "marriage" will take away chances for innocence.

What?

you're protected in that your partner has to be of the opposite sex. It's a much-needed protection,

Protected from what?

However, still, as I said, they're inconsiderate, cruel, frustrating, and dumb, not to mention unethical.

What is inconsiderate? I've given you the chance to explain your stance.

Cruel?

Frustrating in that I won't let you leave without explaining how "gender is to marriage as air is to fire" ?

Dumb? I've made plenty of statements about how gender doesn't matter to a person's legal situation. You've never answered this. You've ignored it. If it were "dumb" - why not call it out as much?

Unethical?

P.S.

Here's a bit of a rework to an original question I posed. If you have a real answer to how gender works in relation to marriage, the answer should be easy for you.

Given a hypothetical 'marriage' relationship between a man John and a woman Juliet.

Given a second hypothetical 'marriage' relationship between a man Rob and a man Chris.

To avoid any confusion or offshoot discussions - assume everybody is a citizen of the U.S. who was of consenting age when the events happened. They entered into the situation willingly.

What is the legal difference between those two situations? What changes about the legal benefits, economic situation (as in the way the IRS would see filed joint-income)? Why would one, to you, be a valid 'marriage' and one be an invalid 'marriage?'

I'll give my answer - the only difference I see is superficial. I personally find no more different between John and Juliet and Rob and Chris than I would between John and Juliet and a third marriage of Tiffany and William.

All I'm suggesting is that one pair has a marriage licence that says John and Juliet, and the other has a licence that says Rob and Chris.

What is the difference?

"Sexual reproduction is neither a requirement of or a necessary product of marriage. "

On the contrary, your statement begs the question. Where did you demonstrate that sexual reproduction is neither a requirement of or a necessary product of marriage? It takes a man and a woman to procreate.

As I've already answered your inclusion of 'sexual reproduction' - let me point out that I'm not discussing the viability of life on the planets. You referenced that planets are different

you're gonna have a lot of differences on what the planets are like.

You're also going to have a lot of differences between one heterosexual couple and any given other one. Those differences are superficial. Those differences do not matter to the legal situation of marriage.

This has nothing to do with what gender is to marriage.

Then let me ask again - what is gender to marriage?

Again, the analogy from #11.23 involved how subtle differences can make all the difference in the world. In #11.22, your arguments had slip-slided down to that there was no difference between apples and oranges, that they were "just a bowl of fruit," whereas I was explaining to you that they're different, like the two planets I mentioned with similar, but different, atmospheres. Quit the attack!

I've provided many explanations as to what gender is to marriage. It's the cornerstone of it because marriage continues the cycle, allows for the institution of family in society. Your comments continue to lack ethics, as I've said.

and same-sex "marriage" will take away chances for innocence.

What?

you're protected in that your partner has to be of the opposite sex. It's a much-needed protection,

Protected from what?

I responded to you already here. People can't be culled just because someone wants to argue that the Third Reich will last a thousand years. It's the same nonsense.

John and Juliet are different genders whereas Rob and Chris are not. Don't you remember we were discussing what gender had to do with marriage? Why write such comments?

On the contrary, your statement begs the question. Where did you demonstrate that sexual reproduction is neither a requirement of or a necessary product of marriage? It takes a man and a woman to procreate.

You require an answer to that question? Really?

A) Can and Do people have children out of 'wedlock?'

The answer is yes.

B) Do all marriages create children? Are they required to create children?

The answer to both is no.

Again, the analogy from #11.23 involved how subtle differences can make all the difference in the world.

But the differences you bring up are superficial differences. The differences in the makeup of the gasses in a planets atmosphere versus another planet's atmosphere may as well be the difference of how the Robinson's like to go snowboarding and the Johnsons would rather play tennis. It changes how one would do something with that family, or how one would interact in landing on that planet. It doesn't change anything about the planethood any more than what genders a couple are would change anything about a marriage.

In #11.22, your arguments had slip-slided down to that there was no difference between apples and oranges, that they were "just a bowl of fruit," whereas I was explaining to you that they're different, like the two planets I mentioned with similar, but different, atmospheres.

The differences between an apple and an orange, in the context we're talking about, is like discussing the physical differences between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom Cruise. They're both legal, adult, citizens. The differences are in where they came from, their lives, their physical appearance and stature. It changes nothing about their marriages to their wives.

Quit the attack!

It isn't an attack to call one out on the weaknesses of their argument.

I've provided many explanations as to what gender is to marriage. It's the cornerstone of it because marriage continues the cycle, allows for the institution of family in society.

The idea of "family" is bigger than 'marriage.' I would say that a "Family" existed before, and continues without, any institution like marriage.

I responded to you already here. People can't be culled just because someone wants to argue that the Third Reich will last a thousand years. It's the same nonsense.

What?

I still have no idea where you're coming from with this "will take away chances for innocence." That's extremely left field compared to anything else we're discussing.

John and Juliet are different genders whereas Rob and Chris are not. Don't you remember we were discussing what gender had to do with marriage? Why write such comments?

You haven't discussed anything on what gender does for marriage. You've drawn loose associations between it and air and fire, and horses and carriages, but not explained what it 'does' for marriage.

I've repeatedly said it has nothing to do with it - drawn comparisons, given reasonings why gender doesn't matter. You seem to want to dance around the subject instead of answer.

John and Juliet are different genders whereas Rob and Chris are not.

I asked what the legal difference was. There is none. Your gender doesn't legally matter, at all, for anything, ever. Your legal interactions in society are based on things like citizenship, adulthood, mental coherence, not your genital arrangement.

On the contrary, your statement begs the question. Where did you demonstrate that sexual reproduction is neither a requirement of or a necessary product of marriage? It takes a man and a woman to procreate.

You require an answer to that question? Really?

A) Can and Do people have children out of 'wedlock?'

The answer is yes.

What does that have to do with it takes a man and a woman to procreate. It simply proves it.

B) Do all marriages create children? Are they required to create children?

The answer to both is no.

Again, you're confusing apples and oranges. I said you hadn't demonstrated that sexual reproduction is neither a requirement of or necessary product of marriage. You still haven't. Most marriages are to begin families. Moreover, marriage continues the cycle of birth and death from a legal standpoint. If marriages did not have sexual reproduction, how would we have children? How would we have brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, and know who they are even? On the contrary, with marriage between a man and a woman, the structure is there to meet our requirement of sexual reproduction. Some institution has to meet it, and mariage is it for us. You ask us to gut it and start all over for no good reason, ask us to violate its sanctity for stupidity or worse.

Again, the analogy from #11.23 involved how subtle differences can make all the difference in the world.

But the differences you bring up are superficial differences. The differences in the makeup of the gasses in a planets atmosphere versus another planet's atmosphere may as well be the difference of how the Robinson's like to go snowboarding and the Johnsons would rather play tennis. It changes how one would do something with that family, or how one would interact in landing on that planet. It doesn't change anything about the planethood any more than what genders a couple are would change anything about a marriage.

On the contrary, and this is the kind of bothersome logic that all same-sex arguments I see contain: both planets could not support human life, and one could not support any life. That's not a "superficial" difference no matter how an argument slips and slides down it's inconsiderate path.

As far as innocence, some people still wait to have sex till after they're married. I hate to break it to you. Same-sex "marriage" threatens them physically because it does not matter which gender someone's partner is.

John and Juliet are different genders whereas Rob and Chris are not. Don't you remember we were discussing what gender had to do with marriage? Why write such comments?

You haven't discussed anything on what gender does for marriage. You've drawn loose associations between it and air and fire, and horses and carriages, but not explained what it 'does' for marriage.

What did I just say? Can't you read the part where I said, "John and Juliet are different genders whereas Rob and Chris are not." That's how you described them. Your response about it's ridiculous.

I've repeatedly said it has nothing to do with it - drawn comparisons, given reasonings why gender doesn't matter. You seem to want to dance around the subject instead of answer.

Are you saying that gender doesn't matter to a homosexual either? How could there be homosexuals then? How could there be gay "marriage"?

John and Juliet are different genders whereas Rob and Chris are not.

I asked what the legal difference was.

On the contrary, only men register for the draft. Men and women don't often share bathrooms in the USA. Men often get the short end of the stick in divorce cases, in crime statistics in general really. The list goes on and on, and moreover, you contradict yourself from in the last time you quoted me on the same thing. Quit using overly critical arguments and those that beg the question.

What does that have to do with it takes a man and a woman to procreate. It simply proves it.

This wasn't the topic of discussion. Don't you remember your question - the one I quoted and bolded? "Where did you demonstrate that sexual reproduction is neither a requirement of or a necessary product of marriage?"

This was me showing that sexual reproduction is neither a requirement nor necessary product of marriage, not a discussion of procreation.

Again, you're confusing apples and oranges. I said you hadn't demonstrated that sexual reproduction is neither a requirement of or necessary product of marriage. You still haven't. Most marriages are to begin families.

You betray yourself Vincent, notice your choice of wording. "Most."

Most is not 'all.' "Most" concedes that there is something beyond the 'most' called the 'rest.' The rest are the marriages that don't begin families. The rest are the exception that proves the rule that sexual reproduction is not a necessary product of marriage.

Moreover, marriage continues the cycle of birth and death from a legal standpoint.

No, childbirth is what legally continues the cycle of birth.

If marriages did not have sexual reproduction, how would we have children?

A) I didn't say marriage didn't have sexual reproduction. I said a marriage 'can exist' without sexual reproduction.

B) Children come about by sex. Sex happens without and independently of marriage. (And I seriously cannot believe I feel a need to have actually typed that out for you)

How would we have brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, and know who they are even?

All sorts of animals have children, litters, and sex. And they can find out who is related to them without an institution like marriage, funnily enough.

On the contrary, with marriage between a man and a woman, the structure is there to meet our requirement of sexual reproduction. Some institution has to meet it, and mariage is it for us. You ask us to gut it and start all over for no good reason, ask us to violate its sanctity for stupidity or worse.

Funny again - I never suggested 'removing' marriage between a man and a woman - and I don't know how you've reached that conclusion.

On the contrary, and this is the kind of bothersome logic that all same-sex arguments I see contain: both planets could not support human life, and one could not support any life. That's not a "superficial" difference no matter how an argument slips and slides down it's inconsiderate path.

Whether or not a planet can support human life is only important if that is what you are seeking. Just as whether or not the Robinson's have a guest room you can use while on your road trip only matters if you need it.

Objectively - independent of that particular need - the habitability of a planet is superficial. Objectively, from the legal standpoint, nothing changes about a marriage if Person A and Person B are different sexes or the same sex.

As far as innocence, some people still wait to have sex till after they're married. I hate to break it to you. Same-sex "marrige" threatens them physically because it does not matter which gender someone's partner is

... What?

How does same-sex marriage affect someone who may or may not choose to wait to have sex until after they are married?

What did I just say? Can't you read the part where I said, "John and Juliet are different genders whereas Rob and Chris are not." That's how you described them. Your response about it's ridiculous.

I described the situations and asked what the legal difference is in the marriage. You fell back onto the superficial differences in their genders, though you've yet to describe what gender has to do with marriage. Here - I'll help you.

"Gender is essential to marriage because..."

Now fill in the area after the ellipses.

Are you saying that gender doesn't matter to a homosexual either? How could there be homosexuals then? How could there be gay "marriage"?

We're talking about marriage, and legal matters, not about personal preferences. It should be obvious after post and post and post that we're talking about gender in relation to marriage. Are you trying to be obtuse?

On the contrary, only men register for the draft.

Actually, women can choose to register for the draft.

Men and women don't often share bathrooms in the USA.

This matters legally... how?

Men often get the short end of the stick in divorce cases, in crime statistics in general really.

Is anything regarding a man's situation in a divorce case actually writen into law, or is it decided on a case by case basis?

What do statistics have to do with the legal standing of a person?

The list goes on and on,

And is the rest of it as irrelevant?

you contradict yourself from in the last time you quoted me on the same thing.

Where exactly?

Quit using overly critical arguments and those that beg the question.

Or what, you're going to keep ignoring the point?

After looking into it, I gladly admit myself corrected on one point - I remembered at some point way back in high school being told that while women weren't required to register, they could willfully register themselves for a draft - apparently my history teacher was mistaken.

Though, I do find it more interesting that the reasoning behind the Supreme Court holding up the gender inequality is based on the general military approach to men compared to women in the active branches. While they don't actively send women into combat, they therefore see no reason to need to have women ready for drafting for combat.

So, the only piece of legislation that truly treats men and women differently is oen in relation to the conscription of individuals specifically because of combat rules.

That would be true if you use that situation as the model for polygamous relationships.

they are entirely different in terms of their characteristics, and the arguments used to support or object to one cannot just be reworded in support of or objection to the other.

Um...why's that?

because they're not the same.

are you asking me to explain how they arent the same or are you challenging my conclusion?

they are entirely different in terms of their characteristics, and the arguments used to support or object to one cannot just be reworded in support of or objection to the other.

The are the same thing in the context of civil liberties. By denying these by state-enforced law, society restricts the liberties of individuals who might make these forms of marriage a lifestyle choice.

The are the same thing in the context of civil liberties. By denying these by state-enforced law, society restricts the liberties of individuals who might make these forms of marriage a lifestyle choice.

i do agree. from a civil liberties standpoint, both should be legal.

but polygamy isnt quite as clear-cut. there is absolutely no civic, legal or social reason that two gay people should be prevented from marrying. there may be civic or social reasons for some people to find it "objectionable," but not illegal. of course, those people are biased and confused.

on the other hand, polygamy has ramifications beyond a single social/religious contract between two adults. for example, how are property rights defined, by default, in the context of plural marriage? if the husband holds more rights than any single wife, then there is the problem of gender bias, and if rights are divided equally among all partners, that might be fair in the eyes of the law, but not in the practical operation of the family or families. in the event of divorce, how are custody/support orders issued? to all spouses in the family or just the working ones or just the ones young enough to actually care for the children?

i'm not saying that there arent answers to those questions. but it is a more complicated situation than gay marriage, which is ONLY different from straight marriage by virtue of the sex/gender orientation of the people involved, neither of which have anything to do with the marriage contract itself.

Civil unions give everyone another option, not just homosexuals.

All of the issues you bring up in a polygamous relationship can be addressed in a will. Marriage is a social contract that the state should uphold.

Civil unions give everyone another option, not just homosexuals.

if only civil unions were recognized by the state, then civil unions are a fine solution. but that means that the state shouldnt be recognizing marriages at all.

if the state is going to recognize any marriage performed in a church or by some clergy member, then it needs to recognize all of them. if the state is going to perform any such ceremonies, then it needs to perform them for everyone. it's fine for a church to turn down a couple's request for a marriage (not fine, really, but just as fine as anything else a church does), but not for the state to do the same.

there seem to be two positions that support civil unions. first are the people who wish to keep marriage the way they want it, and to provide civil unions for people who are kept away from the "marriage" word. the second are the people who feel that the state shouldnt be in the business of marriage at all, people who recognize that marriage contracts were introduced in the US in the early 20th century as a way to prevent interracial marriages, and that building upon that flawed, unconstitutional and prejudiced system does not correct the original problem.

the idea that the state is going to stop recognizing marriages entirely is pretty far-fetched, i think. at least in the foreseeable future. if the state continues to recognize marriages of any kind, it needs to be fair about it. it cant just throw out civil unions as a catch-all for the people marginalized by the way the state irrationally and unconstitutionally deals with marriage.

All of the issues you bring up in a polygamous relationship can be addressed in a will. Marriage is a social contract that the state should uphold.

i agree, but not everyone has a will, and divorced couples dont need a will in order to have the courts be able to follow precedent and law in determining the separation of assets. the way it stands now, marriage is a business contract that carries ramifications beyond any legal document signed at the time of the marriage. i think it should be a social contract, at most. really, it's just a religious document. a religious sacrament. the only reason for non-religious people to get married at all (other than emotional reasons) is so they are able to participate as a single entity in the systems that the marriage contract implies - business decisions, legal decisions, medical decisions, tax benefits (or penalties, whichever), education, etc.

marriages as religious ceremonies shouldnt even be recognized by the state. the state doesnt care if someone is confirmed, or baptized, or receives last rites. but at the present time, because of a series of bad decisions, the state does recognize marriages. worse, it performs them. so it is more than a matter of recognizing and upholding marriages, it is a matter of establishing marriages.

again, i'm not saying that i disagree with you, mike_p. i am just saying that the legalization of plural marriage would involve more than just the act of legalizing it. for gay marriage, that is all it takes — that is all that is required. it is a matter of equal access, period. all of those things that can be handled in a will would need to be established as marital law for plural marriages, just as the law already knows how to deal with single marriages. it would make things even worse in the long run if we were to allow plural marriage but then require that those engaged in it set up their own wills to handle the details. in fact, it would make things worse in the short term, too, because the state would be insisting on a contract (the will) that would in all likelihood establish the existing inequities and abusive situations that already exist, but now they would exist in a state-mandated contract, which, as long as people sign it, the state could not easily correct.

i do agree with dr miller that this is the best time for advocates of plural marriage (and advocates of fairness in general) to promote their cause. unfortunately, the mormons are a huge opponent of gay marriage, so it would take some doing to connect the two causes.

Civil unions give everyone another option, not just homosexuals.

if only civil unions were recognized by the state, then civil unions are a fine solution. but that means that the state shouldnt be recognizing marriages at all.

if the state is going to recognize any marriage performed in a church or by some clergy member, then it needs to recognize all of them. if the state is going to perform any such ceremonies, then it needs to perform them for everyone. it's fine for a church to turn down a couple's request for a marriage (not fine, really, but just as fine as anything else a church does), but not for the state to do the same.

there seem to be two positions that support civil unions. first are the people who wish to keep marriage the way they want it, and to provide civil unions for people who are kept away from the "marriage" word. the second are the people who feel that the state shouldnt be in the business of marriage at all, people who recognize that marriage contracts were introduced in the US in the early 20th century as a way to prevent interracial marriages, and that building upon that flawed, unconstitutional and prejudiced system does not correct the original problem.

the idea that the state is going to stop recognizing marriages entirely is pretty far-fetched, i think. at least in the foreseeable future. if the state continues to recognize marriages of any kind, it needs to be fair about it. it cant just throw out civil unions as a catch-all for the people marginalized by the way the state irrationally and unconstitutionally deals with marriage.

All of the issues you bring up in a polygamous relationship can be addressed in a will. Marriage is a social contract that the state should uphold.

i agree, but not everyone has a will, and divorced couples dont need a will in order to have the courts be able to follow precedent and law in determining the separation of assets. the way it stands now, marriage is a business contract that carries ramifications beyond any legal document signed at the time of the marriage. i think it should be a social contract, at most. really, it's just a religious document. a religious sacrament. the only reason for non-religious people to get married at all (other than emotional reasons) is so they are able to participate as a single entity in the systems that the marriage contract implies - business decisions, legal decisions, medical decisions, tax benefits (or penalties, whichever), education, etc.

marriages as religious ceremonies shouldnt even be recognized by the state. the state doesnt care if someone is confirmed, or baptized, or receives last rites. but at the present time, because of a series of bad decisions, the state does recognize marriages. worse, it performs them. so it is more than a matter of recognizing and upholding marriages, it is a matter of establishing marriages.

again, i'm not saying that i disagree with you, mike_p. i am just saying that the legalization of plural marriage would involve more than just the act of legalizing it. for gay marriage, that is all it takes — that is all that is required. it is a matter of equal access, period. all of those things that can be handled in a will would need to be established as marital law for plural marriages, just as the law already knows how to deal with single marriages. it would make things even worse in the long run if we were to allow plural marriage but then require that those engaged in it set up their own wills to handle the details. in fact, it would make things worse in the short term, too, because the state would be insisting on a contract (the will) that would in all likelihood establish the existing inequities and abusive situations that already exist, but now they would exist in a state-mandated contract, which, as long as people sign it, the state could not easily correct.

i do agree with dr miller that this is the best time for advocates of plural marriage (and advocates of fairness in general) to promote their cause. unfortunately, the mormons are a huge opponent of gay marriage, so it would take some doing to connect the two causes.

Would you say the same for incestuous marriage between consenting adults? Siblings, parents and children, that sort of thing?

There are actually no real religious objection, since there are several examples of polygamy in the Bible.

Would you say the same for incestuous marriage between consenting adults? Siblings, parents and children, that sort of thing?

In those situations you run into issues of consent, imbalance of power and possible genetic problems. Those are non-religious/moral reasons for prohibiting incestuous marriage.

There are actually no real religious objection, since there are several examples of polygamy in the Bible.

Not only are there many examples in the Bible, I can't think of a single prohibition of polygamy there. In fact some of the laws in the Old Testament would seem to require polygamy in certain cases.

In those situations you run into issues of consent, imbalance of power and possible genetic problems.

'Consent' in traditional marriage comes from laws that could be adapted to the new situation.

'Imbalance of power' can apply to any relationship.

'Genetic problems' come from having children, not from being married.

What's your real reason?

I don't know why you think those aren't my real reasons.

I'm sorry, I thought I explained why they weren't real reasons.

The first requires only a change in existing laws, the second is not restricted to any particular relationship, and the third is a non sequitur.

No. You asked what MY real reasons were. I said I don't know why you think they aren't MY real reasons.

The fact that they aren't reasons means, by definition, they aren't real reasons. But since you don't have a real response to my question, we probably don't need to continue this verbal ping-pong.

Personally, Rigbee, I find the notion of blood relatives marrying each other repugnant. But I'm not sure I DO fundamentally object to their being able to enter into marriage contracts. If two siblings who don't anticipate marrying anyone else wish to consolidate their resources in a way that mirrors the civil contract of marriage, well . . . I'm not sure that's a problem, in my mind, however "icky" I find incest as a practice.

In a sense, this illustrates why I'm starting to think that government should get out of the marriage biz altogether, and stick to something like a civil union for everyone. Heck, even civil union has a connotation to it that limits it to some notion of romantic partnership. If a group of people want to form a permanent co-op, why shouldn't that co-op have the options of hospital visitation, power-of-attorney, inheritance?

That said, this is all theoretical exercise for me, while the matter of marrying a member of one's own sex has direct impact on people in my life. And polygamy IS, admittedly, an easier construct to defend, because it (like same sex marriage, in my opinion) so closely resembles marriage as we understand it (and, in the case of polygamy, precisely mirrors marital practices in some cultures).

The fact that they aren't reasons means, by definition, they aren't real reasons.

You have stated that they aren't real reasons, but you have done nothing to prove that.

But since you don't have a real response to my question,

To ask what MY real reasons are, implies that I am lying about the reasons that I think something. I chose to respond to that part of your comment because I didn't think the rest of it deserved a response.

we probably don't need to continue this verbal ping-pong.

You've got that right.

I find the notion of blood relatives marrying each other repugnant.

I would argue that most of society does as well, and to the extent that it need not be legislated. I think Cannibalism is not against the law; that falls under the purview of murder, assault, etc...

A more interesting question, Doc--If you're not against gay marriage, do you mean to imply, by your article, that you support polygamy? Because it seems to me that the article is making one assertion or the other (and I should probably commend you for constructing such an interesting ideological Rorschach test).

All adult Americans having the right to marry the consenting adult they love has nothing to do with the polygamy issue at all. Apples and oranges.

What if the consenting adult they want to marry is already married? Isn't it all about the issue of consenting adults?

ST,

While my opinion on marriage differs from yours, I appreciate your integrity. Thank you.

You are quite welcome.

This forum is for open, respectful debate; a problem I have seen is that too many times a topic that begins as just that - a respectful debate - derails into actual anger and ad hominem attacks, for which there is no reason. I am always open to listen to coherent arguments even if we are in disagreement.

In what way do you disagree?

Heh, heh . . . I like the cut of your jib, as they say.

Heeheee ...I like yours too...Uuuhh? whats a jib?

lol!

You know, I've never been sure!!

I think it might be short for "jibberish," which is a fair enough description of what I spout. Immaculate jibberish, on my best days, but jibberish nonetheless. :)

thelyamhound:

You claimed only a couple of days ago you identified yourself as bisexual. Are you changing your orientation? In a comment on May 12 on a related topic, you claim you and your wife "both CALL" yourselves bisexual.

A jib is a type of sail.

Thanks, Perry! I wonder, though, if the phrase "cut of your jib," which usually refers to liking one's style, makes references to both the sail and to jibberish.

Ah, the etymology of colloquialisms.

Did you miss the parenthetical "more or less," Vincent? Yes, I'm bisexual in that I'm attracted to men on rare occasions and have had some homosexual experiences, just as my wife is bisexual in that she's attracted to women on somewhat less rare occasions and has engaged in somewhat more homosexual activity. But she'll note with chagrin (not particularly great chagrin, since we've been faithfully together for 15 years, married for 13) that I'm far more often attracted to women; likewise, she's ultimately more attracted to men.

As I noted in that other post, we both use the term bisexual differently, which is why it's still not out of bounds to suggest that we're "functionally" heterosexual. Indeed, many biological tests of arousal indicate that bisexuality doesn't clinically exist (I take exception to the findings of the studies that conclude this, but I still find them interesting); as measured by . . . erm, strategic blood flow, a slight majority of self-identified bisexuals are solely aroused by members of their own sex, and a significant minority are, to use the term again, functionally heterosexual.

Identity labels are little more than shorthand. My existentialist forbears would probably disdain attempts to label ourselves according to aptitudes, interests, orientations, behaviors, actions. We're defined by our actions, in a way (which is why I think "love the sinner/hate the sin" is bogus--I AM what I do), social identities, to my mind, are measured more in where the totality of any one person's causes and effects thus far fit into the bigger picture of social phenomena--history, community, family, culture.

So I'm bisexual in a sense; I'm also heterosexual in a sense. When I use either term, it's for the sake of convenience, and says little about me other than as a marker of a relatively small aspect of my life. Like Walt Whitman, I contain multitudes.

Your comment switches back and forth between claiming that clinical bisexuality does not exist but that it can be subjective to the individual. It's unclear.

Your comment switches back and forth between claiming that clinical bisexuality does not exist but that it can be subjective to the individual. It's unclear.

I'm saying that because it doesn't appear to exist clinically, according to studies, any definition we DO offer will be subjective. Clearly, either inadequate study has been done, or the biometric study of desire is incomplete in pinpointing exactly what desire is. For instance, the statistics I offer as the percentage of men who molest boys who are homosexual are based on such biometrics, but you insist that ALL men who molest boys are, at least, bisexual. That is, in itself, a pretty loose definition of a bisexual (someone who registers no biometric homosexual response and is solely heterosexual in his adult relationships, but who finds sexual stimulation with young boys), and probably not one which most self-proclaimed bisexuals would appreciate.

If that's still not clear, well, too bad. I'm afraid I can't possibly speak any slower. :)

It's not that subjective in this case because your position attacks many institutions for no good reason, including civil unions. In this case, the definition goes to the realistic, which would mean bisexual includes those who commit the crime and those who classify themselves as bisexual because that respects people's rights.

It's not that subjective in this case because your position attacks many institutions for no good reason, including civil unions.

I've not yet an institution worthy of my reverence, but for the ones to which I willingly submit (and in those cases, it's my practice thereof, not the institutions themselves, which I hold sacred). In the end, all construct is pretense; we have only organisms, choices, actions, consequences, and social contracts that allow us to voluntarily mitigate those for other people.

In this case, the definition goes to the realistic, which would mean bisexual includes those who commit the crime and those who classify themselves as bisexual because that respects people's rights.

So your definition is as mush-headed as anyone's including mine. Moreover, if you include both such groups, my guess is that you'd be covering a percentage of people that FAR exceeds the number of men who molest boys; your definition undermines your own point more effectively than mine ever could.

How about we are Just "Sexual" beings?

Of course there are those who claim asexuality. No desire what so ever.

Fair enough, Teodoro. :)