Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   First Gay marriage, then Polygamy (its happening!)
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 94 (248121)
10-02-2005 8:38 AM


After all the idiotic rightwing garbage going on in the Netherlands I finally get a chance to smile about something. I've spoken before about the fact that Netherlands has quite a flexible system for marital arrangements, well they (and belgium) have legally recognized a polygamous union...
The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name.
Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.
Heheheh.
I might note for all the so called "logic experts" on legal problems, this proves not only that I was right (you can look up the legal stuff on how contracts work in dutch articles), but we now have an example of a western society that has it in case history.
The key was simply no numerical restriction, thus the contracts work like any other contract (aka business contracts).
Intriguingly at dutch sites I found out that this was not actually the first case. It is at the very least the second case, though this may be the first case of one guy and more than one woman which is what made it "newsworthy".
Okay is this the beginning of a slippery slope that people must fear, or a liberation that people should be celebrating?
This message has been edited by holmes, 10-02-2005 08:40 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 10-02-2005 9:16 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2005 10:15 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 5 by Nuggin, posted 10-02-2005 10:51 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 8 by coffee_addict, posted 10-02-2005 2:07 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 9 by bkelly, posted 10-02-2005 2:12 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 77 by Epiphany7, posted 10-20-2005 4:23 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 6 of 94 (248192)
10-02-2005 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Nuggin
10-02-2005 10:51 AM


Re: Cause and Effect?
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.
That is in fact a premise heard from conservatives against gay marriage, or even gay sexual rights. I see the point you are trying to make with Utah, but it doesn't really work in this case.
They are not claiming that first a person is gay and then polygamous, but rather there are gays and there are polygamists, and once you have legal backing for gay marriage there will be no logical reason to block polygamy... and so that will also become legal.
It only works as an argument if someone fears polygamy. Of course some proponents of gay marriage end up trying to argue that there is no logical equivalence between the two, and twist themselves in knots using to use the same logic the antigay marriage activists used against them.
I was kind of having a laugh at both sides on that one.

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 5 by Nuggin, posted 10-02-2005 10:51 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Nuggin, posted 10-02-2005 2:21 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 7 of 94 (248193)
10-02-2005 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
10-02-2005 10:15 AM


Slippery slope? Not unless you can suddenly contract between adults and children of minor age or animals ...
Animals I get, minors I do not. As it stands right now even where gay marriage is illegal, minors are able to be married.
I think the main sticking issue (if we are discussing minors) is removal of the consent of parents. That would not be helped by this kind of case. If it is just about lowering the age of marriage below current levels in some particular state/nation, the polygamy thing could act as a sort of signpost on the slope.
The idea that children are the equivalent of animals or the insane, is a bit extreme, and not necessary to justify parental control.

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 3 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2005 10:15 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2005 2:29 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 14 of 94 (248244)
10-02-2005 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Nuggin
10-02-2005 2:21 PM


Re: Cause and Effect?
Well there frankly isn't. Gay marriage is a union of two individuals, polygamy is more than two.
??? And that shows there is no logical equivalence how? I thought this event pretty well sealed this kind of argument once and for all. What am I missing?
Polygamy has as much (or more) in common with straight marriage than gay marriage.
This is correct from a historical and multicultural perspective of marriage.
As long as we're not talking about minors,
I really didn't expect this would be brought up, and I would rather not deal with it. 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.
The fact is that minors can get married, even in the US. It is all on a state by state and nation by nation basis. Up until recently the only totally banned marriages have been gay (the world), polygamy (western nations), incest (primary, pretty much the world), and animals (all western and I believe the world).

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 10 by Nuggin, posted 10-02-2005 2:21 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Nuggin, posted 10-02-2005 10:18 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 15 of 94 (248251)
10-02-2005 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
10-02-2005 2:29 PM


I didn't necessitate equivalence, these were just other "examples" from the extremists of the slippery slope issue.
My mistake, I thought you were suggesting that minors and animals were along the same lines as (driving us toward) issues of the mentally incapacitated.
The interesting issue is that using a contract issue as the basis that kids can be better protected (but not necessarily -- parents used to sell kids into slavery, so approving a contract where the parents benefit while the child loses would not be much better).
In a way this would also touch on (but let's not here) 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.
This message has been edited by holmes, 10-02-2005 03:25 PM

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 11 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2005 2:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2005 3:44 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 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 replied

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

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 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 replied

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

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 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 replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 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 replied

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

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 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 replied

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

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 33 of 94 (248569)
10-03-2005 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Nuggin
10-03-2005 11:40 AM


Re: Cause and Effect?
Let's assume this is true
Logically it is true, but that never stopped a nation from going ahead and doing something illogical.
Do you think that polygamy is wrong? Care to give some reasons for that thought?
You couldn't tell from my OP that I am for polygamous marriage?

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 32 by Nuggin, posted 10-03-2005 11:40 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 34 of 94 (248584)
10-03-2005 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Nuggin
10-03-2005 11:38 AM


Re: Cause and Effect?
I am dealing specifically with the US... Yes, minors do marry in the US - with parental consent.
That's what I said, and why the question of minors marrying is vastly different than animals... or gays or polygamists. It can't be on the slippery slope, beyond lowering still further the age at which people can marry.
original question from your original theory - Does Gay Marriage lead to Polygamy?
That wasn't my theory and I hope we've straightened it out by this point.
But this homophobic retoric you are spewing doesn't come close to fact.
Your a troll right? I don't understand what you are talking about. I am for gay marriage and for polygamous marriage. Although I am not gay, I do have sex with guys from time to time (meaning I'm bi). Where was the homophobia?
Do very young children get married in different cultures around the world? Sure. Do we care? Not for this discussion.
Given that this is my thread and my OP, I have no idea what "we" is dictating what is part of this discussion.
As it stands we DO care what goes in the world as US citizens. Or do gay rights advocates not point to what is allowed outside the US in order to suggest what we can have in the US?
But lets say it doesn't matter at all, the minor thing is within the US as well and I said so. I am saying that is NOT a part of the slippery slope because we already have it.
where you are trying to show that allowing gays to marry will allow cats to marry parrots.
Troll. You gotta be a troll. You honestly can't figure out that I am in support of gay marriage as well as polygamy? And while I do believe logically one should lead to the other as far as rights go, it will not lead to "cats marry parrots"?
Unimpressive comprehension skills.

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 31 by Nuggin, posted 10-03-2005 11:38 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Nuggin, posted 10-03-2005 7:00 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 37 of 94 (248786)
10-04-2005 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Nuggin
10-03-2005 7:00 PM


Re: Cause and Effect?
What are we arguing about?
Heheheh... you tell me. My guess would be your misreading of my position, though I guess that has been settled.

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 36 by Nuggin, posted 10-03-2005 7:00 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 54 of 94 (250652)
10-11-2005 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
10-10-2005 10:36 PM


Re: what's the problem
As hilariously ridiculous as LB's posts have been, and everyone has already hit the relevant points, I should make some corrections...
This is nonsense; it's certainly directly contradicted by the science. I'm certain that you wish this was not so, but the majority, if not all, of homosexual persons are born that way. It's incontrovertable.
This is not true at all. This was discussed in another thread. There is currently no knowledge on where and when people "become" homosexual and so whether people are born homosexual.
Indeed there is some suggestion that you cannot make such an ascription of predestiny for everyone. Real life events can condition people to be, or at least to conduct and enjoy, homosexual acts.
The real point would be that there is evidence that our sexual preference is beyond our direct control, we can't simply choose to have some other preference on a whim, and it can form very early within our development.
Weaker is lesser.
Weaker is not lesser, unless the only attribute you judge quality of people is physical. There is no sexism in noting that the female gender is in general weaker than males. That's reality. Of course Xianity is sexist, but that's another story.

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 50 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2005 10:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 10-11-2005 6:13 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 55 of 94 (250656)
10-11-2005 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Lizard Breath
10-10-2005 8:35 PM


Re: what's the problem
you'ld better hope that we win this war over there because muslims will not take the time to establish a dialog with you on homosexuality as they are cutting your arms off.
Because why exactly? So that we can have enough time to establish dialogue with a Xian before they bash our brains out with a baseball bat? Or throw you in a prison to be murdered? Or is it just that they need to have their brains rewired?
Really, I love fundie Xians and Jews. Like I said to CS in his Islam bashing thread, its like having a Klansman trying to convince you that Nazis are bad guys we must fight together.
Hey, check a mirror, you are both a threat.
This message has been edited by holmes, 10-11-2005 05:12 AM

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 47 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-10-2005 8:35 PM Lizard Breath has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Lizard Breath, posted 10-11-2005 3:35 PM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024