Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 12:51 AM
18 online now:
edge (1 member, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,783 Year: 8,819/19,786 Month: 1,241/2,119 Week: 1/576 Day: 1/50 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Author Topic:   First Gay marriage, then Polygamy (its happening!)
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3982 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 16 of 94 (248252)
10-02-2005 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Chiroptera
10-02-2005 2:51 PM


polygamy would require some more drastic rewriting of the laws

No, no it wouldn't. Most case law isn't written (as in passed by legislature) anyway, but comes out of decisions.

The model is the same as for a business contract.

It is as if we had said regarding media companies that they were always restricted to only one other business partner (thus eliminating large networks which we find reprehensible). Then one day we said no actually lets deregulate and let them have as many contracts with as many other partners as they want. It would not require rewriting or inventing any new laws, as you'd have case law regarding multipartnership rights from other businesses outside of media.

Okay so far marriage contracts have been limited to two people. Now it is more, and so we take precedent from contracts involving more than one partner outside of marriage.

You will note that the article does not discuss people having to rewrite laws to get this done.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 10-02-2005 2:51 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Chiroptera, posted 10-02-2005 4:01 PM Silent H has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 17 of 94 (248254)
10-02-2005 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Nuggin
10-02-2005 2:21 PM


Re: Cause and Effect?
Polygamy has as much (or more) in common with straight marriage than gay marriage.

Your assumptions are showing. They could be {bisexual-in-the middle\group-sexual}, just because a minimum of (one) het coupling is required doesn't mean that it is the rule.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Nuggin, posted 10-02-2005 2:21 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Nuggin, posted 10-02-2005 10:22 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 18 of 94 (248255)
10-02-2005 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Silent H
10-02-2005 3:25 PM


the fact that liberals are generally against child rights for sex or marriage, yet feel they are competent and should have sole discretion with regard to birth control and abortion. So sex and relationships no, but consequences of such things... yes.

heh

That's because we want them to complete a liberal education before settling down to a job :D


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Silent H, posted 10-02-2005 3:25 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1985 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 19 of 94 (248262)
10-02-2005 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Nuggin
10-02-2005 10:51 AM


Re: Cause and Effect?
quote:
I'm a little confused here. Is the premise that gay marriage leads to polygamy, because as I understand it gay marriage is not legal in Utah.

First of all, cause and effect does not necessarily mean that a relationship works both ways or that an effect can only have one cause.

Wet streets do not necessarily cause rain.

Second of all, polygamy is not legal in Utah.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/05/19/utah.polygamy/

This message has been edited by gene90, 10-02-2005 03:54 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Nuggin, posted 10-02-2005 10:51 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Nuggin, posted 10-02-2005 10:25 PM gene90 has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6616
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 20 of 94 (248266)
10-02-2005 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Silent H
10-02-2005 3:34 PM


quote:
Most case law isn't written (as in passed by legislature) anyway, but comes out of decisions.

It sounds as if we are going to let the courts decide these issues in the cases where our written monogamy-base laws don't apply we run the danger of clogging the courts with a lot of litigation.

But then, since we probably would not see too many people suddenly rush into polygamous relationships, this may be an unnecessary concern on my part. Certainly, when a lot of "publishing" and down-loads became popular on the internet, our courts did not collapse under the weight of new copyright issues, so you may be right. (If this is what you are saying.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 10-02-2005 3:34 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Silent H, posted 10-03-2005 3:53 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 4858 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 21 of 94 (248333)
10-02-2005 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by bkelly
10-02-2005 2:12 PM


Re: what's the problem
If two men and one woman, or two women and one man wish to live their lives as a social unit, why is that bad? Just one for example, in our moden society, two can work while one stays home to take care of the children. There are many other reasons and possibilities. There is no crime and there is no victim. What is the problem

It seems to me that in order for polygomy to work best, say in the one man and multiple woman arrangement, you need as a minimum 4 women.

If you have just 2 women, they will fight.

If you have only 3 women, 2 will gang up on the other.

But with 4 women to 1 man, there is little room for jealosy or fueds because of the additional dynamics that 4 female personalities bring to the union.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by bkelly, posted 10-02-2005 2:12 PM bkelly has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Lammy, posted 10-02-2005 8:39 PM Lizard Breath has responded
 Message 27 by Silent H, posted 10-03-2005 4:01 AM Lizard Breath has not yet responded

  
Lammy
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 3607
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 22 of 94 (248345)
10-02-2005 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Lizard Breath
10-02-2005 7:52 PM


Re: what's the problem
Hey yo, LB, welcome back. You haven't answered the question I asked you a while back.

According to you, psychological experiments have shown that it is more natural for men to not be in physical contacts with each other but it is natural for women to be close to each other. Even though you didn't say it out loud, your past comments have indicated that you thought homosexuality was unnatural and, perhaps, even wrong.

If that was the case, would you, then, say that it is perfectly natural for women to be lesbians, since it is already natural for them to show compassion with one another?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-02-2005 7:52 PM Lizard Breath has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-10-2005 5:25 PM Lammy has responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 655 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 23 of 94 (248370)
10-02-2005 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Silent H
10-02-2005 3:19 PM


Re: Cause and Effect?
And that shows there is no logical equivalence how?

Are you asking me to prove the negative? Show me the logical equivalence of two adults entering into a contract and more than two adults entering into a contract, then'll I'll take steps to disprove.

But I have to point out that marrying "minors" may be a slippery slope issue in some quarters, but not the same way as gays and polygamy and marrying animals. That's the usual line.

Marriage is a legal issue. It's about contracts. You don't need a priest to get married. You do need a licence and a witness. As such, the whole gay / polygamy thing isn't really a problem. However, minors can't willingly enter into contracts. And neither can animals.

Seems a pretty well defined line to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 10-02-2005 3:19 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Silent H, posted 10-03-2005 4:13 AM Nuggin has responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 655 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 24 of 94 (248372)
10-02-2005 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
10-02-2005 3:43 PM


Re: Cause and Effect?
Your assumptions are showing.

Perhaps, but polygamy has historically been one man, multiple women in a heterosexual relationship. As such, it's not such a huge step from normal marriage.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2005 3:43 PM RAZD has not yet responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 655 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 25 of 94 (248373)
10-02-2005 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by gene90
10-02-2005 3:53 PM


Re: Cause and Effect?
Second of all, polygamy is not legal in Utah.

Well, it was. And it's still going on there with a much higher frequency than anywhere else in the US.

First of all, cause and effect does not necessarily mean that a relationship works both ways or that an effect can only have one cause.

Ummm, okay. But my question was how does gay marriage cause polygamy? Polygamy exists in places where gay marriage does not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by gene90, posted 10-02-2005 3:53 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Silent H, posted 10-03-2005 4:17 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 35 by gene90, posted 10-03-2005 6:27 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3982 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 26 of 94 (248414)
10-03-2005 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Chiroptera
10-02-2005 4:01 PM


It sounds as if we are going to let the courts decide these issues in the cases where our written monogamy-base laws don't apply we run the danger of clogging the courts with a lot of litigation.

More so than having the multiple marriage-divorces and the resulting ex spouse and children from different marriage rights issues? Also, I still do not see how more than one partner is ever going to naturally increase the number of cases anyway.

Unless polygamous people will get married and then divorced all at once, yet demand different procedures for each partner? That's about the only way you'd see an increase. Otherwise it would just be a single judge in a single case dealing with more than one partner, as might be seen in a business dispute. Net result is no change in filings.

But then, since we probably would not see too many people suddenly rush into polygamous relationships, this may be an unnecessary concern on my part. Certainly, when a lot of "publishing" and down-loads became popular on the internet, our courts did not collapse under the weight of new copyright issues, so you may be right.

And this of course are the two other issues. Even if we take an "increase" in filings just because there are more partners, these next two points come into play. In order to start clogging up our courts polygamy would have to become pretty damn popular, and then if it is popular so who would be complaining if we need a court to handle the cases? New things (as you point out) come into being all the time and so create new case law. Only in moral issues do people argue creating more chances for litigation means we must outlaw something.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Chiroptera, posted 10-02-2005 4:01 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by bkelly, posted 10-04-2005 8:18 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3982 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 27 of 94 (248416)
10-03-2005 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Lizard Breath
10-02-2005 7:52 PM


Re: what's the problem
you need as a minimum 4 women.

Heheheh... that's something to shoot for! But you forgot to say what happens when a polygamist only has 1 wife.

(Side Note: You disappeared from the Kat thread. I will note that Bush and Co have since admitted in large part to the errors that I was pointing out, and did many of the things I had suggested could have been done, when Rita appeared. Do you admit now that I was right?

Also, being part of the military, I would be interested in your take on the internet posting of war dead and injured by US soldiers, it is in my Coffee House thread titled "US War crimes as free speech issue". I am looking for diverse points of view on the subject and a soldier's view in particular would be handy.)


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-02-2005 7:52 PM Lizard Breath has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3982 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 28 of 94 (248417)
10-03-2005 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Nuggin
10-02-2005 10:18 PM


Re: Cause and Effect?
Show me the logical equivalence of two adults entering into a contract and more than two adults entering into a contract, then'll I'll take steps to disprove.

Perhaps you missed the OP. I just showed that more than two adults entering a contract is the same as two adults entering a contract. This is not to mention that we have many examples of this outside of marriage, for example a business can have many partners or just two, or you can have contracts with many credit card companies, or just one.

Disprove.

However, minors can't willingly enter into contracts.

I don't know what to say. I give you evidence of a polygamous union being the equal of a monogamous one, and you insist I still need to prove they can be the same.

And I explain to you that minors can and do get married all over the place (including the US) and you repeat your original assertion that minors can't willingly enter into contracts without ever dealing with my explanation.

If willful ignorance is your thing, then I guess I simply won't bother replying to you. If you want me to have an interest in your posts, deal with what is being shown to you.

You have the article on the marriage above and can find more info if you search for it.

On minors getting married, do you need a breakdown of the various ages of marriage throughout the US and the world? Within the US the lowest age (IIRC) is 13 which is clearly a minor, and it is not uncommon to see them below 18, which is usually considered minor. Within the world the lowest age of marriage (IIRC) is 9, and I trust we agree that that is a minor? What they cannot do is get married without consent of the parents. That is different than animals which simply cannot give legal consent at all, regardless of whether their owner or parent agrees.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Nuggin, posted 10-02-2005 10:18 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Nuggin, posted 10-03-2005 11:38 AM Silent H has responded

    
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2272 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 29 of 94 (248418)
10-03-2005 4:15 AM


other countries
Polygamy happens in other countries still, I read that many arab countries still practice it, now they only are able to do it if they can take care of the wives they have. as we live in america, I would wonder if anyone would want more than one considering the prices for things

if the husband can't take care of his wives he loses the right to it, just my thoughs at 3am :P


    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3982 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 30 of 94 (248419)
10-03-2005 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Nuggin
10-02-2005 10:25 PM


Re: Cause and Effect?
But my question was how does gay marriage cause polygamy?

Again, no one ever said it did. The point is that if gay marriage is allowed, legal reasons for preventing polygamy are undercut and it would have to be allowed as well.

If polygamists were in larger number and had a viable national movement to get them marriage rights, and gays were the equivalent of the polygamous community right now, then the reverse argument would be used by conservatives. They'd say if we allowed polygamy then soon gays would be have to be accepted too.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Nuggin, posted 10-02-2005 10:25 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Nuggin, posted 10-03-2005 11:40 AM Silent H has responded

    
Prev1
2
34567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019